Reply With Quoteif you don't have a brand new arena and you aren't a destination city, you aren't getting the all-star weekend very often if ever. charlotte is definitely not a destination city and the arena is not nearly new enough.Originally Posted by skratch
How can the all star weekend to come to Charlotte?
Just curious who decides on where its located every year? it hasnt been to charlotte since 91, and in 2013 in its in Houston again. It would be nice to come here
if you don't have a brand new arena and you aren't a destination city, you aren't getting the all-star weekend very often if ever. charlotte is definitely not a destination city and the arena is not nearly new enough.
I see the destination city point but i dont believe the "new enough theory" because the arena is new, its newer the the Toyota center, New orleans arena, staples center etc, if it can come to Denver & Phoenix it should be able to come here.
Kemba Walker Texas Ranger. Coming soon on FOX.
I could see it happen. If MJ and company go out and peruse it.
Get at me on twitter @dcarnys
I already said it on RGM but I'll say it here as well:
Should the Minnesota Timberwolves fans be petitioning to get the Lakers name and history back as well? The Hornets franchise is completely different from the Bobcats, with a completely different history, records, players, etc. If you want the FRANCHISE back then whatever, but the name is attached to that team.
That's a huge difference. If you compare something like the Browns/Ravens/Colts to our situation sure. But the Wolves and Lakers? Don't you think that's a little different?
Why should it be different? Because the Lakers are more successful than the Hornets? Because they have a longer history? The Bobcats and Hornets franchises are two completely different entities. Just because they play(ed) in the same city doesn't mean you can "go back" to the Hornets. You can't "go back" to something that never existed in the Bobcats history.
Last edited by SWedd523; 02-26-2012 at 11:30 PM.
For one, the gap between the two is massive. The populace in Minnesota moved on fine too.
The situation is much more similar to the Browns/Ravens/Colts than the Minnesota/LA thing. I'm not even hung up on the whole matter, but those two situations don't have much in common other than a team moving.
"The gap between the two is massive."
That's a bit vague, no?
It's vague, because it covers a lot of issues. The Lakers left Minnesota in the 60s. Minnesota wasn't even at a point where they could sustain a new team in the growing NBA until the 80s, and they didn't get their team until 1990. Before that, you could say that the Lakers should've stayed in Detroit - where they originally came from with that same logic. The argument isn't so much "the team moved, everyone should move on" but it should at encompass the circumstances and plausibility that linger. In this case, the most similar instance is the mess (that was resolved beautifully) between Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Baltimore.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks