Customer Rating :

List Price : Price : $18.99

Product Description

Cheer on the Blue Devils in this Beat Carolina tee from New Agenda!

• 100% Cotton
• Screen Printed
• Officially Licensed

Read more »

Customer Rating :

List Price : $20.00 Price : $19.99

Product Description

Rock a sporty look and cheer your team on to victory in this Duke Blue Devils vs. North Carolina Tar Heels Royal Rivalry T-Shirt. Brought to you by New Agenda, this classic and stylish piece of college apparel features vibrant screen print graphics, making it a must-have for fans!

• Lightweight rib knit t-shirt
• Rib knit collar for added comfort
• Durable screen print graphics
• 100% Cotton
• Officially licensed

Read more »

Customer Rating :

List Price : $17.00 Price : $16.95

Product Description

North Carolina Tar Heels (UNC) Beat Duke Slogan T-Shirt - Navy Blue

• Screen print graphics
• Lightweight ribbed T-Shirt
• 100% Cotton
• Imported
• Reinforced taped collar seam
• Officially licensed collegiate product
• Rib-knit collar

• 100% Cotton
• Lightweight ribbed T-Shirt
• Screen print graphics
• Rib-knit collar
• Reinforced taped collar seam
• Imported
• Officially licensed collegiate product

• Lightweight ribbed T-Shirt
• Screen print graphics
• Rib-knit collar
• Reinforced taped collar seam
• Imported

Read more »

Tar Heel Fans: Just Enjoy This Tournament!

This isn't your typical Tar Heels tournament team.  Maybe
we should embrace this ... for once.

I am a North Carolina Tar Heels fan and have been one my entire life.  So this post is to my fellow Heels lovers:

Please just enjoy this tournament.  Enjoy one for once.

North Carolina is seeded 8th and face Villanova in the first second round.  After that, they'd most likely get top seeded Kansas in Kansas City ... the 2nd straight year they'd play the Jayhawks in Missouri.  While every Carolina fan will be rooting the Heels on for a victory, we all know that's probably not going to happen. 

Still, let's enjoy that feeling for once.  That nothing-is-expected-from-us feeling.  That "house money" everyone talks about.  No pressure.  For once.  No pressure.

See, the Heels aren't used to being an 8th seed (more on that later).  The last 7 NCAA tournaments the Heels have participated in, they've been a #1 seed five times, a #2 once and a #3 once.  Only the #3 seeded Heels (the 2006 edition) didn't have Championship pressure on them ... but that Heels surprised many and were a trendy pick to get to the Final Four after Tyler Hansbrough's magical freshman season. 

The year was 2004 -- that's the last time a Heels team came into the NCAA tournament with little fanfare.  That was the first Roy Williams helmed team and came after a woeful 8-20 season in 2002 and an NIT appearance in 2003.  Anything was great.  But even that team had some pressure on it since that high ranked recruiting class (Sean May, Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants) were supposed to turn around the Heels' misfortunes.  Carolina was a 6th seed and lost in the Round of 32 to Texas that year.

One year later, they were National Champs.

That year began all the expectations.  The 2005 team was highly ranked all season long and ran to a title game with Illinois.  The Heels won, giving Ol' Roy his first title.  2006 was supposed to be a down season, but Tyler Hansbrough caught UNC's fans by storm and the Heels captured that 3-seed and those aforementioned buzz. 

From there, Carolina has been a "title or bust" program.  The 2007 team added a killer recruiting class (Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Brandan Wright) to that overacheiving 2006 team and got a #1 seed.  The Heels got to the Elite 8 and lost, in overtime, to Georgetown (the Heels let a late lead slip away and were blitzed in overtime).  Same deal in 2008, except the Heels made it to the Final Four before getting blitzed by Kansas.  In 2009, the Heels were a #1 seed for the third straight year and 4th out of 5 seasons.  That one, they cashed in for another championship.

The 2010 season was a major hiccup that saw the Heels miss the tournament and go to the N.I.T.  As far as tournament pressure, there was really none because they weren't in it.  The 2011 team got back into the dance and a #2 seed and a loss to Kentucky in the Elite 8.  Last year, aka 2012, the Heels were the favorite to win another title.  But injuries to John Henson and Kendall Marshall derailed the #1 seeded Heels in another Elite 8 defeat. 

This year, the Heels weren't the N.I.T. disappointment of 2010 ... nor are they the buzz-worthy team of 2006.  This is a team deserving of their 8th seed.  They haven't been able to beat the teams better than them but do fairly well against the teams they are supposed to beat.  No Heels fan has delusions of a sixth championship ... though we will cheer for one and be upset when we get eliminated ... so we really are playing with house money for the first time in years.

And I mean YEARS.  In the 1990s, North Carolina was a #1 seed five times, a #2 seed once, a #3 seed once and a #4 once.  They were a #8 in 1990 (see below) and a #6 in 1996 ... also known as the freshman seasons of Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter. 

No, I don't like it.  I rather be one of those teams who has that kind of pressure on it.  The kind where you feel like the regular season is holding you back because you want the tournament to start immediately.  But it is what it is.  The 2013 North Carolina Tar Heels are an average tournament team ... so let's just enjoy that for once and see if we can get a few upsets. 

*The Heels are an 8th seed for just the third time.  The other two times saw the Heels upset the top seeded team in their region in their second game.  In 1990, it was Rick Fox's shot that brought down a strong Oklahoma squad.  In 2000, it was Stanford that saw Carolina's wrath.  That 2000 Heels team continued that magic by riding Joseph Forte, Brandan Haywood and Julius Peppers to a Final Four appearance. 

*The last two times the Heels have played Villanova in the tournament, they went on to win the National Championship (2005, 2009). 

*The Heels have won their last 3 tournament games against Big East schools.  Villanova is from the Big East.

Sportz Assassin's Bubble Watch 2013 - SUCCESS!

Well, I did get all 68 schools right for the NCAA Tournament.  I don't do the seeds because (a) I don't have the time, (b) I'm not smart enough to figure that all out and there are many others who would do a better job and (c) it is damn near impossible.

But I did get all 68 picked correctly, which is something for me.  I usually miss on at least one or two.  This year, though, was actually pretty simple so I cannot take too much credit.  After all, I haven't heard much complaining about snubs from the main stream media.  Sure, there are discussions, but nothing like the shouting matches that we've grown to know over the past few years.  That fact means it wasn't that hard to get this right.

After all, the schools I honestly kept moving around in the last few days were Boise State, La Salle and Middle Tennessee State.  I thought Saint Mary's was looking good for the tournament, but I never had them as locks.  All of those four schools will be in those "first round games"  ... aka the play-in games.

Breaking it down a bit more, I was surprised by a few things.

OREGON:  I've had the Ducks as a lock for over a week ... but they received a No. 12 seed by the committee.  That would suggest that they were very much on the bubble before winning the Pac-12 tournament.
WICHITA STATE:  They come in as a No. 9 seed ... which I didn't think they were.  Again, I'm not as big into the seeding as much as how firm I believed they were in the tournament.  I didn't waver with them, but I didn't think they'd get that high a seed.

ILLINOIS:  They got a No. 7 seed, meaning they were easily in the tournament.  While I agree with that, I didn't have them as absolute locks until about a week left in the season.  According to their seed, they were easily in.

THE ACC:  The Atlantic Coast Conference could have some beefs about this arrangement.  Miami became the only ACC school in history to not get a No. 1 seed despite winning both the ACC regular season and tournament.  Duke feels that it not only got shafted by not getting a No. 1 seed, but it got shipped out of the Washington region (in favor of Miami) and placed in Louisville's bracket.  North Carolina can feel they were underseeded as a No. 8 since 6 of their 10 losses this year were to Miami, Duke and Indiana.  They both Virginia and Maryland can feel a bit snubbed by not getting in at all.

UNLV/CALIFORNIA:  First off, California wasn't as big a lock as I thought they were since they gained a No. 12 seed.  But they got lucky.  They get UNLV (well that's tough), but they get them in San Jose ... essentially a home game for the Bears.  Doesn't seem fair.

IT ISN'T THE ONLY ONES:  Here are a few other games where the better seeded team has sort of a home team disadvantage:  Oklahoma State vs Oregon in San Jose, Colorado State vs Missouri in Lexington and VCU vs Akron in Detroit.

UNC/KANSAS:  This may not happen, but we could see a 2nd round mathcup between North Carolina and Kansas.  Kansas knocked out UNC in last year's Elite 8 matchup.  That game was played in St. Louis, Missouri. If they meet up in the 2nd round, that game will be played in Kansas City, Missouri.  Roy Williams has gotta love that.

POD SEEDING:  Aside from Gonzaga, the other No. 1 seeds barely have to travel to get to their games.  Louisville plays in Lexington, Indiana plays in Dayton and Kansas plays in Kansas City (Gonzaga isn't too far in Salt Lake City).  The No. 2s aside from Miami have favorable home court advantages as well. 

Looking At The NEW Big East

Can Georgetown ... or the Big East as a whole
... recapture the glory of the 1980s

It has been said.  It has been settled.

The new Big East will be a 10-member league for the upcoming 2013-2014 season and the old Big East as we knew it is dead.  The "Catholic 7" will add Xavier, Butler and Creighton to their newly formed league and will begin play this July 1.

So let's look at this new league:

Butler, Creighton, DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova and Xavier.  A nice league that has schools in New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Providence and Omaha.  Seton Hall is across the river from New York City in New Jersey.  Major cities, major markets.  A nice pull for a new league.

There are some nice arenas in this league.  NBA arenas like Madison Square Garden, Verizon Center (G'town), Bradley Center (Marquette) and the Wells Fargo Center (Nova) are used.  Nice sized arenas are in each other school ... including Butler's historic Hinkel Fieldhouse. 

But let's talk basketball.  This conference is awesome.  It has history as well as good programs today.  However, this Big East will have the gift and the curse of the 1980s.  Georgetown and Villanova won titles in the 80s (Marquette won theirs in 1977) with Providence, Seton Hall and St. John's reaching the Final Four in that decade.  The Big East schools that have done damage since then won't be in this league.  No UConn or Syracuse (the two Big East schools to win National Championships since Villanova did in 1985).  No Louisville or West Virginia, teams who've held the Big East flag when making Final Four appearances of late.

In fact, since the 1980s the only times these member schools even reached the Final Four was 2003 (Marquette), 2007 (G'town), 2009 (Nova), 2010 (Butler) and 2011 (Butler).  Only Butler reached the NCAA Championship game (in both 2010 and 2011).  Marquette was in the Conference USA and Butler in the Horizon League when they made their appearances.  So while the names and cities are big in this league, ultimate success has eluded them all. 

Heck, those teams have struggled to win the Big East tournament.  Georgetown (2007) is the last new Big East school to win that tournament.  The last time before that?  St. John's in 2000.  Yes, since 1995 only two of these NEW Big East members have won the OLD Big East tournment.  The rest were won by schools leaving or have already left for the ACC or Big 12 or UConn, who will be left behind in the American 12/Metropolitan League/Whatever. 

 Butler won the Horizon tournament three times since 2008 and seven times in the last 16 years (a runner-up five more times) and are doing well in their first Atlantic 10 tournment.  Speaking of the A-10, Xavier has won that four times but none since 2006.  Creighton won 12 Missouri Valley titles -- most in conference history -- including the last two and 8 since 1999.  Those teams have tasted success, but not Big East success and not at MSG against those schools.

Still, this will be a quality league and hopefully will have that feel of the 1980s ... when football wasn't part of the picture.  It isn't anymore, either, which should help these programs have the same tight knit feel and brotherhood they had when their original incarnation started in 1979. 

My Take On NHL's Realignment

Detroit takes its place in the Eastern Confernce
alongside four other Original Six members

The NHL has ... finally ... approved the realignment plan they've been talking about for over a year.  The plan harkens back to the old days of just four divisions instead of six and forces three teams to switch conferences.

Here is the final set-up.  The division names are finalized, so here is the projected names in parenthesis:

DIVISION A (Pacific):  Anaheim, Calgary, Edmonton, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Jose, Vancouver

DIVISION B (Mid-west):  Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Minnesota, Nashville, St Louis, Winnipeg

DIVISION C (Northeast):  Boston, Buffalo, Detroit, Florida, Montreal, Ottawa, Tampa Bay, Toronto

DIVISION D (Atlantic):  Carolina, Columbus, New Jersey, NY Islanders, NY Rangers, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington
Three teams switched conferences.  Winnipeg moves to the Western Conference, while Detroit and Columbus move to the East.  The East has 16 teams; the West has 14.  The top three teams in each division makes the playoffs, with two "wildcard" teams in each conference finishing the postseason lineup. 

Really, this goes back to the old days of the Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe Divisions ... sorta.  The "Atlantic" is essentially the old Patrick Division plus Carolina and Columbus.  The "Northeast" (poor name by me, I know) is the Adams Division, minus the Hartford Whalers (now Carolina) and adding Ottawa, Detroit and the two Florida teams.  The Pacific is the old Smythe, with some movement, and the Mid-west is the Norris.

But who gains and loses by this new format?

WINNER - DALLAS STARS:  Since the six-division format went into effect at the turn of the century, the Stars have been the big losers.  They were a Central Time Zone team playing in a the Pacific Division.  Remember, the NHL has a bit of a weighted scheduling format where you play divisional foes more than anyone else so this was a sticking point.  I mean, many road games that Dallas were playing started at 9:30pm local time.  Now they play in a division where five other teams are also in the Central Time Zone and one in the Mountain Time Zone.

LOSER - FLORIDA TEAMS:  Not huge losers, but with everyone else loving the less travel time, Florida and Tampa Bay actually increase theirs.  They both are in the (yes, horribly named by me) Northeast Division and will have to play Boston, Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Detroit instead of enjoying their Southeast Division with Carolina, Atlanta and Washington. 

WINNER - COLUMBUS BLUE JACKETS:  The big news was the Red Wings moving to the Eastern Conference, but Columbus is the huge winner.  Columbus, like Detroit, was a Eastern Time Zone team playing in the West.  Now they get to play in the East with other teams in the same time zone.  Also, Detroit goes with them ... albeit in a different division ... meaning that that will continue to be a big draw during the season. 

WINNER - WINNIPEG JETS:  Not as blantant as Dallas in the Pacific Division, but the Jets have been completely out of place since the league came back to the city a couple of years ago.  Now they get to go back and play in their normal environment.

LOSER - EASTERN CONFERENCE:  Really, there was no geographic disadvantage to any of the Eastern Conference teams (other than Winnipeg).  Now not only do they expand their divisional footprints, the conference also gains the powerful Detroit Red Wings in their path.  Plus, since they have two more teams than the Western Conference, 10 teams will fight for those two wildcard spots as opposed to just 8 fighting for the final two in the West. 

WINNER - WESTERN CONFERENCE:  Good-bye, Red Wings!

LOSER - CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS:  Well, there is one team sad to see Detroit go.  Chicago will be the lone member of the Original Six in the Western Conference.  They lose their rivalry with the Red Wings and gain nothing more than the Jets.  The only blessing for the Blackhawks is now they are the only high-profile franchise in the Western Conference ... but that won't help them at the United Center.

WINNER - NON NHL WESTERN CITIES:  With two less teams in the Western Conference, people are thinking that the NHL may look at expansion.  Maybe, maybe not.  However, if you are in a western city that wants an NHL franchise, it looks better for you now.  There's no way after all this time would they move the Red Wings back west ... and probably not the Blue Jackets (unless they relocate).  So if you are Seattle, Houston, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City or Saskatoon you may have a little more hope in your heart.  Of course, most of the expansion talk has been about Quebec City, Hamilton or even a second Toronto franchise so nothing is guaranteed. 

LOSERS - FORMER SOUTHEAST CONFERNCE TEAMS:  I've already talked about the Panthers and Lightning, but the Hurricanes, Capitals and Jets will struggle to get into the postseason.  See, the Southeast Division has typically been among the worst in the NHL for years.  But the division champion not only got into the playoffs, but also got a No. 3 seed (at least) and home ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.  Now they'll have a tougher time getting in and an even tougher time getting that coveted home ice.

Notre Dame WILL Be In The ACC Next Year

Will Notre Dame be an ACC member in 2013-2014?

No, I haven't heard that as a definite or anything, but Notre Dame will be a member of the ACC next year in all sports but football ... with the football side of things coming in 2014.

A quick update: 

*Notre Dame announced they will join the ACC in 2015 in all sports but football.  However, everyone assumes that the Irish will get out of their Big East membership in time for the 2014-2015 season.

*The "Catholic 7" announced they were breaking off and forming their own league on July 1, 2013.

*Notre Dame, stuck in a bad Big East lineup, wants out.  They state that they will go join the Catholic 7 schools for one season if they have to and then join the ACC.

*The ACC says they are ready for Notre Dame to join this summer if they can get out of their Big East membership.

Well, since Notre Dame said, essentially, they are leaving the Big East no matter what this summer, it is pretty much a shoo-in that they will be a member of the ACC next season since the league says they are ready.  And they should be.  Since Notre Dame football isn't coming right now anyway, it really only impacts the winter and spring sports and those non-revenue fall sports.  Either way, the ACC says they have the flexibility to work the Irish into those schedules.

The ACC already has planned for their expanded league in 2014-2015.  That was the season that Louisville and Notre Dame join (Syracuse and Pittsburgh are joining this fall) and Maryland is leaving.  The scheduling rotations and all of that were planned out ... so the ACC can move it up a year and just replace Maryland for Louisville in that matrix for one season. 

(Louisville will have to wait until 2014 to join since it will be bringing its football team along.  The ACC and its members already have their football schedules done for the fall and adding Louisville would make for uneven divisions)

Notre Dame will still need to negotiate a buy out with the Big East, but all things considered, that should be a formality.  As I said, the Irish were going to chill with the Catholic 7 anyway, so the Big East really doesn't have much of a strangle hold on the school.

So, this fall we will see the ACC look like this:

Boston College
Clemson
Duke
Florida State
Georgia Tech
Maryland
Miami
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

In 2014, Maryland leaves and Louisville comes in.  They will play an 18-game schedule with everyone playing at least once against each other.  Everyone will have TWO rivals that they play twice each season.  Then you play TWO other opponents a second time on a rotating basis (likely a six year rotation).

Indiana Shouldn't Have Celebrated BigTen Title Like That

Only UCLA and Kentucky have won more NCAA tournaments
than Indiana, so is a Big Ten title celebration necessary?

For those who missed it last night, Indiana held off on their senior night festivities until after their game with Ohio State in Bloomington.  They also decided to hold a Big Ten Championship celebration ... complete with cutting down the nets ... even though they've only clinched a share of the crown.

I don't like it.

First off, I don't like having the senior night festivities after the game at all.  To me, they belong prior to the game as those kids are emotionally preparing their final game in their college gym.  Furthermore, waiting until after the game also has a chance to do what it did last night -- be an emotional letdown of sorts. 

See, Indiana lost to Ohio State ... so not only did those seniors get emotional over their final game at Assembly Hall, they also know that they have ALREADY PLAYED that final game and that it was a loss.  To me, that final moment you walk off your college gym floor for the final time is a personal one.  Personal reflections and personal memories.  Not one where you look around and know that your last effort at home was a loss with everyone a bit melancholy and bitter.

Second off, I'm not big on those post game celebrations unless you just achieved the goal.  Say Indiana needed to beat Ohio State and they were Big Ten champions.  Indiana wins and then they celebrate.  That's cool.  But when you already had (and, really, all they did was clinched a co-champion spot), I don't think that kind of celebration is necessary.  Do what many schools do and just hold a pep-rally or student assembly to mark the occassion.  Don't schedule a celebration like that after a game ... especially when you lost it.

Sure, Indiana probably figured they would win the game and it all would be golden.  Probably right.  If Indiana had won, a post-game senior night would've been glowing and the celebration would've been more meaningful since the Hoosiers would have been outright Big Ten champs.  But that didn't happen.

Third ... you are freakin' Indiana!  I know that's confusing since this program was near death several years ago.  After the Kelvin Sampson era, Hoosier Nation has watched this team come from a squad of walk-ons and outsiders to one with two possible Player Of The Year candidates and the favorite to win the 2013 NCAA Tournament.  I get that.

But still you are Indiana.  You are in that exclusive club with Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas and UCLA.  Schools that were good for a long, long time.  All of them had their down moments and all of them have had recent highs.  Since 1991, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas and UCLA have won 12 NCAA titles ... yet each one has missed the tournament at some point.  I know Indiana hasn't won since 1987, but they were a finalist just over a decade ago. 

You are Indiana ... not Northwestern.  If Northwestern or Nebraska won the Big Ten title then I'd expect them to go nuts.  That doesn't happen so that one moment in their history would be worth the love.  I know that these 18-22 year olds are in the moment now, but they also came to Indiana to be in a situation like this and be in a place where success is expected. 

I'm not too angry about all of this and it isn't that big of a deal that Indiana had this celebration, it was just a bit shocking to me.  Crean is doing a fantastic job getting Indiana back on the map and instilling pride of the program to the community ... but doing so also means knowing where your place is at the big table even if you hadn't been there in a while.

Hornets, Sonics, Pelicans and Kings: NBA's Looming Identity Crisis





Durant may be gone, but what about
the Sonics history?

The NBA will soon have an identity crisis.  No, not the position of who will replace Michael Jordan as Da Man (LeBron has taken that torch as of now) or even in less than one year when Adam Silver replaces David Stern after 30 years of heading up the NBA (though that will be quite an interesting change).

No, we could see the 2013-2014 NBA season open up with several new teams ... that were old teams ... that were older teams ... that may still be around or not ... or something.

(Hopefully) soon, the NBA will decide where the Sacramento Kings will be playing next season.  They were sold to a group that wants to move them to Seattle but Sacto mayor Kevin Johnson has glued together a last ditch proposal to keep them in the capital.  Meanwhile, down in the bayou, the New Orleans Hornets will be changing their name to the New Orleans Pelicans because, well, they seem to think it sounds better.  Due to that, the Charlotte Bobcats are thinking about taking back the Hornets name they had when the city entered the NBA in 1988 and their team robbed by evil owner George Shinn.  Somewhere in the middle, the Oklahoma City Thunder is involved in this mess as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah..  All that will get sorted out at some point and we'll see what we'll see.  However, it will the backstory behind each of these franchises that will be a murky mess.  A disgusting mess.  The NBA, the record books and even Wikipedia will have to try to explain this complicated web of shared and unshared histories.

SEATTLE:  Let's start here.  Back when the SuperSonics left to become the Oklahoma City Thunder, the NBA kept the Sonics name, logo and colors back in the Emerald City so if a new team arrived then we go back to the way things were.  It is similar to what the NFL did with the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens in 1995.  Well, except for one thing.  The NBA even stated that the Thunder and a new Sonics team will "share" the Sonics history.  The NFL made the Ravens, essentially, an expansion franchise even though the players, front office and all that moved with the franchise.  The Ravens record books begin in 1996.  The Browns started as a true expansion team in the way most begin, though they keep all the history.  The Jim Brown era, the Dawg Pound.  Everything. 

So the with the Sonics back in Seattle, that means the Thunder and Sonics share a history ... good and bad (we'll get back into this scenario in the "Oklahoma City" section).

Here is where it gets a bit weird.  If, as expected, the NBA approves the Kings move to Seattle, what happens to the Kings history?  The Kings have been around nearly as long as the NBA has and has history in Rochester, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Omaha and Sacramento.  Does this history go with the franchise and merge with the Sonics?  Does the history die out in Sacramento?  Does it lay in limbo until maybe another franchise (say if Kansas City gets one) sprouts up?  What happens?

For Seattle's sake, they'll get to hang a banner of their 1979 championship along with all those players like Gus Williams, Nate McMillian, Gary Payton, Lenny Wilkens and others who have their jerseys retired as Sonics.  Guys who never set foot in Oklahoma City to play a basketball game.  But would they also get to hang a jersey for Oscar Robertson ... most likely the best Kings franchise player to suit up?  How does that work?  It is a sticky situation to say the least.

Sportz' Suggestion:  Forget the Kings history and just keep your Sonics one.  It is a nice history and those guys like Williams, Payton, Jack Sikma and Shawn Kemp were Seattle Sonics that should be celebrated.  Keep like the Browns and just have that hiccup in your history books. 

SACRAMENTO:  Or as I said, does the history die here.  Look, there is no way Sacramento will get another NBA franchise if the Kings leave for Seattle.  It won't happen for a variety of reasons.  So keeping the Kings name and history here is just dumb.  The NBA could suspend it like the NFL did the Browns ... yet instead of waiting for a team back in Sacramento, they could hold the history for a new franchise.  Kansas City sits with Las Vegas as cities that are frontrunners to get an NBA team, and the Kings franchise used to play in KC.  However, when would that be?  How big of a gap could this history take?  Would Kansas City even want that history back?  And what if it is Vegas or San Antonio or Boise or St Louis or Nashville that got a new franchise?  They would want to start fresh with everything. 

To me, let the Kings franchise die.  It hasn't really done much in 60 years anyway.  The Rochester Royals won an NBL title in 1946 and an NBA title in 1951.  That's been about it as far as great times.  Yes, you had those Robertson era of the 1960 and the Webber-Divac-Bibby era of the 2000s but this isn't a history of shimmering  higlights. 

Sportz' Suggestion:  Have a thing at the Basketball Hall Of Fame to bury the franchise and all its history.  End of story.

OKLAHOMA CITY:  I think the NBA erred with its handling of this.  If you wanted to keep the Sonics history with Seattle, I think you should've just made the Thunder a franchise with a fresh start.  Sure, Seattle had Kevin Durant for his rookie year (and Seattle can boast that), but he will be forever be known as a member of the Thunder.

No one in Oklahoma City cares about the old Seattle days.  That 1979 title wasn't theirs.  Lenny Wilkens never played for them.  I doubt the fans would even care if that Sonics time was lopped off and forgotten.  They are building something new there. 

Sportz' Suggestion:  The OKC should just tell the NBA that they are building their own thing and to just keep all that Sonics stuff back in Washington.  Other than Durant's rookie season and a couple of role guys, there is really nothing that links these two franchises together at all.  Not even the ownership.  When the Hornets left Charlotte and the Grizzlies left Vancouver, the name stayed the same in the new places.  That didn't happen here and if there ever was a time for a clean break, just make it. 



If the Hornets name goes back to Charlotte, should the history join in as well?

NEW ORLEANS:  A quick aside.  Remember that during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Hornets played in Oklahoma City for a bit.  Does OKC get any of that history?  Of course not.  So lop the Sonics off too.

Now to this mess.  On the surface ... and for the last decade ... this has been easy.  The Hornets left Charlotte for New Orleans in 2002.  The NBA promised Charlotte a new franchise that started up in 2004.  Now, the NBA didn't do to Charlotte what the promised to Seattle by leaving the name and history ... even though the NBA did promise the Queen City a team and never did Seattle.  That was mainly due to the fact that the Hornets owner, George Shinn, still owned the team he was moving (in Seattle and now in Sacramento, it was new ownership that was doing it and the NBA could place those stipulations with the sale).  Still, it was easy.  The New Orleans Hornets kept the Hornets history since they remained the Hornets and the new Charlotte Bobcats started as brand spanking new.

But now things have changed.  The New Orleans Hornets are becoming the New Orleans Pelicans after this season.  Now they have new ownership and they want the name to reflect the city.  That's fine.  Teams have changed their names before (see: Washington Bullets errrrr Wizards) and keep that history.  The difference here is that Charlotte is looking into getting the Hornets name back. 

So then what happens?  I'll give my New Orleans suggestion after ...

CHARLOTTE:  Charlotte should do what they can to get the Hornets name back.  It means something there.  The city was deemed a "hornet's nest" during the Revolutionary War and there are many references to the hornets moniker still around the city (the police department has a hornets nest incorporated in their logo). 

The Bobcats have been a dud in Charlotte.  Not only have they fielded bad teams (only one playoff appearance in 11 seasons, zero postseason wins and last year yielded the worst record in the history of the NBA).  No one liked the name when it was presented.  "Bobcats" was created by the original owner, Robert Johnson, who named the team after himself.  The orange and blue colors the team originally used were hated.  Even Rufus the mascot is no Hugo the Hornet.  While there are people who are all in on the Bobcats, the community at large hasn't bought in.

If the Hornets name came back ... along with the teal and the pinstripes and Hugo ... the city would be electric again.  Sure, the team would still blow, but at least there would be more civic pride.  I can go into Charlotte right now and see people wearing old Hornets gear.  You can still buy a lot of Charlotte Hornets stuff online.  It is one of the more popular retro teams in the NBA.  I think it would be wise to bring the Hornets name back.

But what would that really mean for Charlotte and New Orleans? 

Sportz' Suggestion:  Maybe a sorta shared history in a way.  The way the NBA truly envisioned the Seattle/Oklahoma City deal.

The Charlotte Hornets should celebrate the city's entire NBA history.  They should be able to claim the 1988-2002 history and be able to incorporate that into their franchise.  They can also keep (even if they really don't want to) the Bobcats history of 2004-2013.  That is Charlotte's NBA life:  1988-2002, 2004-present.  All that history gets jumbled together.  They can hang that Bobby Phills banner back in Charlotte where fans there remember the sad day he died.  They can claim the Alonzo Mourning jumper to eliminate the Celtics in 1993 again ... like Charlotteans have done anyway.  Many of the old school Charlotte Hornets like Muggsy Bogues, Dell Curry and even broadcaster Steve Martin have stayed on with the Bobcats.  Let Charlotte be able to reclaim that Hornets era. 

And let New Orleans do that too.  They get to keep all of that Hornets history no matter where they were playing.  This was a Hornets franchise from 1988-2013 and there are fans who still will love their N'Awlins Hornets.  Sure, not many claim Larry Johnson or Alonzo Mourning or even Glen Rice, but I believe that New Orleans gets this better than anyone.  While they celebrate the entire Hornets history, they've never really leaned on the Charlotte days.  That doesn't mean they get to lop it off like I want to do with the Thunder.  Let's say that they share the 1988-2002 history in their record books and histories.  It works.  Then, in 2002, those histories separate. 

The Charlotte Hornets:  1988-2002, 2004-present.
The New Orleans Pelicans: 1988-present.

To me, that is the best way.

AROUND THE LEAGUE:  I know this sounds a bit weird ... and it is ... but it isn't unprecedented.  While histories aren't technically shared, there have been franchises that have sort of claimed the same eras.  The Los Angeles Lakers own the history to the old Minneapolis Lakers days and honor those players and coaches in the Staples Center with their Minnesota banner.  While the Timberwolves (who were born nearly 30 years after the Lakers left Minnesota) haven't really honored the old Lakers like George Mikan, I think the NBA should encourage them to be able to.

New Orleans has done so with Pistol Pete Maravich.  Though he was a member of the New Orleans Jazz and subsequently has his number retired by the Utah Jazz (the franchise moved to Salt Lake City in 1979), the Hornets/Pelicans have also retired his number.  I like stuff like that and think the Timberwolves should do the same with their old Laker stars like Mikan. 

To me, the city owns those memories more than the franchise does.  I love the Lakers move of having the Minnesota Lakers banner with all their jerseys honored -- though numbers not technically retired -- and feel that should be thought about elsewhere. 

Oh, and if they wanted to, I wouldn't hate if Utah and Memphis switched names and we had the Utah Grizzlies and the Memphis Jazz ... or even a morph into the Memphis Blues.  That's another post entirely. 

Ranking The NBA's No. 1 Overall Picks Of the 2000s (RESET)

 

Back in 2009, I ranked the top players picked with the No. 1 overall pick in the 2000s NBA drafts.  Yep, 2009.  That was when Blake Griffin was just drafted ... but didn't play because of a knee injury.

You can check out the list here.

Now, four years later, we get some perspective.  The guys who were recently picked then have now four more years of their career.  One of them has retired.  Another may as well be.  Others we saw full of promise that just hasn't blossomed.  So let's reset our list.

#10-Greg Oden, Trail Blazers 2007 (2009 rank: #6):  Oden is the cautionary tale of many books.  A high school phenom that got caught in the One-And-Done culture and suffered an injury.  Selecting size above everything (Kevin Durant was picked with the second pick that year).  Oden has played just 82 games in his five-year career.  Currently he is unemployed but still thinks he can play in the NBA again.  Oden is at the bottom of this list because his virtual one-season of play and the fact that Durant has made Oden's selection look Sam Bowie-esque.

#9-Kwame Brown, Wizards 2001 (#10):  I had Brown at the bottom of this list back in 2009 because he was the biggest natural bust on this list.  Oden takes the spot just because he couldn't get on the court.  Brown just sucked.  Still, he is still in the League (with Philly right now) and does have a small value as a big man who can block a few shots.  Seven teams and a less than 7 ppg scoring average for his career isn't top pick worthy and won't make anyone forget that Tyson Chandler and Pau Gasol were picked directly after him.

#8-Andrea Bargnani, Raptors 2006 (#8):  His rank holds.  He hasn't been a bad player at all.  He has averaged 15.3 ppg for his career.  But as a 7-footer, he doesn't block shots, doesn't rebound the ball, can't pass and isn't a good defender.  He hasn't lifted his team to the playoffs since his first two years in the League.  The 2006 draft may be the worst one ever, so Toronto's misfortune may have been timing instead of selection.

#7-Andrew Bogut, Bucks 2005 (#9):  This may be a bit controversial for me, but I moved Bogut ahead of Bargnani.  No, he doesn't average more points nor has he led his teams deep into the postseason.  He can't even stay on the floor.  But when Bogut does play, he is a difference maker.  He is a very good rebounder, blocks shots and shoots a high percentage.  He was also made the All-NBA third team.  Sure, he is no Deron Williams or Chris Paul (who were picked #3 and #4, respectively, in the 2005 draft) he isn't a bum.  Now, if I redo this list in a few years ...

#6-Kenyon Martin, Nets 2000 (#5):  K-Mart's stats will never wow you nor is his leadership praised, but dude was a stud when he was right.  He helped lead the New Jersey Nets ... the Nets ... to two straight NBA Finals.  He was the toughness for the Denver Nuggets late in the decade.  Now he is a end-of-the-bench guy who just signed with the Knicks and chasing a title.  It may be above him, but I get it.  K-Mart was a very solid pro which is better than anyone behind him on this list.

#5-Yao Ming, Rockets 2002 (#2):  Yao is the toughest to rank.  Do you rank his skill only?  Do you factor in his global appeal?  Let me say that Yao was a great selection for the Rockets -- not only averaging over 19 ppg and 9 boards -- but the fact that he got the Rockets name into China and blew up the League there.  Yao is the most important international player the NBA has had.  However, during Yao's career, injuries seem to always derail his and the Rockets seasons.  He is the only player on this list who is retired.

#4-Blake Griffin, Clippers 2009 (#7):  Now, when I ranked these cats in 2009, Griffin hadn't even been officially selected as the Clips top pick ... though it was a given.  Not to mention that I underestimated him ... and that he would miss his would-be rookie season.  I'm not on Griffin as much as the masses are, but he is a star.  His dunks are video game legendary and his game is starting to be a bit more rounded out.  He still isn't a consistent shooter or defender, but there is no one more scary or exciting in the open floor.  Remember this: He has made the Clippers COOL!

#3-Derrick Rose, Bulls 2008 (#4):  He is one of only two guys on this list who has won an MVP award.  He has had the Bulls among the best in the NBA over the last couple of seasons.  His knee injury has kept him out this year and it will be interesting to see how this affects his play, but Rose leads the next generation of great point guards.  Before, he was one of only a few players in this league that can truly carry a team on his own.

#2-Dwight Howard, Magic 2004 (#3):  He eeks by Rose just because his overall impact on a game.  I mean, Howard was pretty much the lone wolf in Orlando and got them to the NBA Finals.  Sure, his stint as a Laker hasn't been all that great, but it isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.  Howard is a 7-time All Star, a 3-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year, 4-time rebounding champion and a 2-time blocks leader.  He has made the All-NBA first team five times.  He's legit.  18-points and 13-boards a game for his career is nothing to sneeze at. 

#1-LeBron James, Cavaliers 2003 (#1):  Duh.  You know all his accolades so I won't even get into it.  What I will say is this: LeBron is the ONLY top pick in the 2000s who has won an NBA title.  Hmmmm.