Are they teasing us again? Or are we to believe that this Charlotte Hornets team is different from the one last year? That one, of course, was basketball's equivalent of "Temptation Island" last April. It roared into the playoffs, having won 14 of its last 16 games, and a lot of us liked the Hornets as the dark horse in the East. They had size, balance, toughness and, well, they proceeded to do the Hindenburg thing at the first sight of Allen Iverson and the boys.

	Elden Campbell and the Hornets are playing great ball recently.

Well, for starters, this is most definitely a different Hornets team. Only five players on the present active roster remain from last year's team -- and a couple of those are fringe guys. But, once again, the Hornets are putting on a late-season surge, to the point where first-place Milwaukee can't feel all that secure. Can we take them seriously this time or will they do the Lucy with the football thing to us once again?

Regardless of which Hornets team we're talking about, however, one standard remains: you can go to the bank that something is going to happen in Charlotte which has nothing to do with picks and rolls -- and everything to do with the perception and appeal of the team.

Think about it. If this team were in New York, there'd be three more tabloids. In the last 18 months alone, the team's universally despised owner was involved in a lurid sex trial and five players were arrested for various crimes and misdemeanors. We're not even counting the ultimate tragedy: the death of Bobby Phills.

Somehow, the Hornets persevered on the floor. But, once again, as the 2000-2001 season kicks into its final quarter, the franchise is again facing several questions, not the least of which concerns its own viability. The issues can roughly be divided into three main areas: (1) the arena question; (2) the D.C. question, and (3) the scoring question. A "yes" to two of those (questions 1 & 3) is enough for now and forever. In this case, two out of three ain't bad, it's nirvana.

The arena question: The Hornets were close to becoming the Memphis Sounds II until this past week. Then, they got a terrific make-up call from the city council which sure looks like it eventually will lead to what the team wants and needs: a new downtown arena with the obligatory bells and whistles.

What happened was this: instead of asking voters to approve an arena with some of their tax money -- a probable no given that the team's reputation and popularity are at an all-time low -- the council lumped the arena together with other civic enhancements that will bring out a lot of disparate voters. In other words, you want the cultchah, you also gotta have the arena. There still are some roadblocks, but a stand-alone arena vote had about as much chance as a Ben Wallace free throw. Folks in Charlotte fervently detest owner George Shinn, who a decade ago was so popular he was actually thinking of running for governor. Now, he'd lose to Rae Carruth in a popularity contest. There is a vote on June 5 to determine if the projects will get the go ahead and, with all the various interests involved, it probably will pass. But it's not a lock and, with politicians involved, anything can still happen. It's more like a Baron Davis free throw now (70 percent).

Assuming the issue passes, then the Hornets will play two more seasons in the Charlotte Coliseum and move into their new building in the fall of 2003. That can't come soon enough; the team is hemorrhaging money, losing around $1 million a month. The Coliseum was built with the ACC and NCAA in mind, not for the NBA. It is a 13-year-old white elephant, economically obsolete by NBA standards. The Hornets will move if they don't get a new building. It's that simple. Their attendance is so bad that it has long passed the level at which they can get out of the lease.

The D.C. question: You vote yes on this one, you lose your yearly subscription to Hive Magazine. Derrick Coleman is currently on the injured list, which is exactly where he belongs, whether or not he's injured. What the Ebola virus does to humans, Coleman does to the Hornets. The problem is that he has two more years on his contract at very generous compensation and Charlotte management, which brought in Coleman, thinks it's a good idea to play him. Coach Paul Silas looks at the record with and without Coleman and thinks it's a bad idea. A real bad idea.

It's an open and shut case. The Hornets are a much better team when Coleman does not play. This year, Charlotte is 26-8 in games that Coleman has missed and 8-19 in games in which he has played. And two of those wins are tainted because he played sparingly in each one.

It's not hard to see which way to go, but Silas is under pressure to play Coleman and it's not a pleasant situation. Now, however, Coleman is out with a calf injury and, given his level of physical maintenance, he might not be healed until 2004. That's fine with Silas and the rest of the boys.

The Hornets have a reputation of not being big spenders. Coleman is the only player on the injured list. Many teams -- more than half -- carry a 15-man roster with three people always on the injured list, real or feigned. Charlotte does not do that.

The offense question: On the surface, you look at a team with Elden Campbell, Jamal Mashburn, David Wesley and Baron Davis and you say, what's the big deal? The Hornets appear to have their inside game covered with Campbell and the occasionally useful PJ Brown. (His defense, of course, is another story.) Wesley, Davis and Mashburn all have serviceable perimeter/slashing games. But here's Silas on whether the Hornets will be a decent team.

"If we can put the ball in the bucket, we have a chance. But that has been our biggest problem," Silas said. "We defend well. We rebound well. We don't turn it over. But we have trouble scoring."

Indeed they do. Only four teams score fewer points than Charlotte. Only five teams shoot a lower percentage from the field. Last year, Charlotte averaged 98.4 points a game shot 45 percent from the field. This year, they are averaging 90.6 points a game and shooting 42.6 percent from the field.

When they shoot well, they are almost unbeatable because they are among the league leaders in rebounding and are among the best defensive teams in points allowed and opposition field goal percentage. They vaporized the Celtics last weekend with 52.8 percent shooting and a season high 116 points. They looked like the 1985 Lakers. Two nights later, they shot 43 percent and scored 89 points in a six-point loss at home to Minnesota before an announced gathering of 12,630.

That loss snapped a seven-game winning streak, but the Hornets still like their position. They are still within striking distance of Milwaukee, who they host Saturday, and have 12 of their remaining 21 games at home. As long as the suits get their wish for a new building (the players are, to a man, indifferent to the arena debate) and Coleman's calf/leg/back/knee/whatever can remain sore, these guys just might have something to say when the postseason comes around.

Look at it this way: they owe us one.

Peter May, who covers the NBA for the Boston Globe, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.