If your NFL team left town, what would you do?

[Bruins]

32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Interesting.  But what about in a few years when they are gone and the Pats are 8-8?

 

Which will happen, I know. I'll still stick with them, but will unconsciously cling to the past for longer than I should.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

In my case, if the Lions left town, the identity and history would probably be left with it and we'd get an expansion team within 5 years, ala Cleveland Browns.  

 

So in the meantime, I'd just take a break from watching football and free up a lot of Sundays. Far less remotes thrown at TVs, cursing, etc. 

 

The new team would probably win a Superbowl before Lions 1.0 win a playoff game anyways.

[JerseyJimmy]

I don't have an NFL team anymore. For the longest time, my team was Washington because my dad's a fan of them, but as the years went by, I realized how disgusting both their name and owner are and gave up on them. With that said, if they moved and changed their name, I'd laugh my guts out.

 

I've kinda adopted Houston as my team since then, since they have a promising young roster and great visual identity (oh, and JJ Watt), and if they moved, I... really wouldn't care? Sure, it'd suck for the city to have lost two NFL teams, but I've never even been to Texas, so...

[JayMac]

7 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Interesting.  But what about in a few years when they are gone and the Pats are 8-8?

Uninterested and gone like half of the Pats fanbases. 

[2001mark]

8 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Interesting.  But what about in a few years when they are gone and the Pats are 8-8?

Back to rooting for them without either having to defend why &/or that I'm not on some bandwagon.

 

Parcells-Bledsoe era was fun, just so long as they're trying after BB & Brady leave, that's what I want.  Also, spoiling the fates of the Bills, Jets, & Dolphins would be good.

If they keep winning divisions with 9-10 wins instead of 12-14, there's still fun to be had.

 

 

[JayMac]

Sad thing for us non-Patriots fans, i think that the Patriots will still be successful after Brady retires. As long as Belichick stays around, they will win.

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

Sad thing for us non-Patriots fans, i think that the Patriots will still be successful after Brady retires. As long as Belichick stays around, they will win.

I don't think Belichick is nearly as successful as he's made out to be. It's more personnel decisions, and it starts with the most important position, Starting QB.

 

When Brady retires, I think Belichick retires. He's not going to have the time to rebuild/reload and if he flames without Brady, people will greatly question his coaching ability.

[Red Wolf]

44 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

I don't think Belichick is nearly as successful as he's made out to be. It's more personnel decisions, and it starts with the most important position, Starting QB.

 

When Brady retires, I think Belichick retires. He's not going to have the time to rebuild/reload and if he flames without Brady, people will greatly question his coaching ability.

Though they didn't make the playoffs, the Pats did win 11 games with Matt Cassel at QB. For whatever that's worth. 

 

Having grown up nowhere close to an NFL team (the Cowboys were the closest at about 5 hours away), I kind of just picked whichever teams I liked as a kid and stuck with them. For the NFL I went with the Denver Broncos in the early-to-mid 90s. I don't know how I'd personally react if they moved. I mean, they've always been really far away from Arkansas, but it'd still feel like a betrayal of the fans in Denver if they moved for whatever reason. 

 

Obviously, a Denver move isn't exactly on the table right now, but you never know. I guess it would just depend on where they moved. Like, as an obnoxious American, I wouldn't feel right rooting for a team that moved to Mexico City, Toronto, or London, or some other place. But if they hypothetically moved to Salt Lake City, or San Antonio, I'd maybe root for them still. Or maybe I'd just watch the NFL as a casual observer, rather than hardcore fan, and mainly stick to college ball. 

 

I have always thought that if I moved to a major city with pro teams I'd just abandon my old teams, and adopt the teams of my new home. But that may never happen, so it's kind of a moot point. 

[JayMac]

6 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

I don't think Belichick is nearly as successful as he's made out to be. It's more personnel decisions, and it starts with the most important position, Starting QB.

 

When Brady retires, I think Belichick retires. He's not going to have the time to rebuild/reload and if he flames without Brady, people will greatly question his coaching ability.

It's funny but I think that Belichick makes Brady more successful. I guess we won't find out until Brady retires!

[Sport]

18 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

In my case, if the Lions left town, the identity and history would probably be left with it and we'd get an expansion team within 5 years, ala Cleveland Browns.  

 

So in the meantime, I'd just take a break from watching football and free up a lot of Sundays. Far less remotes thrown at TVs, cursing, etc. 

 

I don't know how true this is, but I've heard from several places that during the Browns' "hiatus" in the 90's Cleveland's reports of domestic violence, drunken incidents, property damage, etc all dropped during the fall when compared to years when the Browns were playing. 

[maz]

I wouldn't have to do anything, the whole damn town would be burned down. People would leap from our many bridges. It'd be chaos.

 

Comedic hyperbole, but still, Pittsburgh would lose its collective :censored:.

 

Me, personally, I'd be really, really, really disappointed, but there are occasions where even I'm annoyed by them. They rule this damn city almost to a fault, but that's also what would upset me the most - this city would lose so much of its identity. The Steelers and Pittsburgh have become so intertwined and part of one another in the past almost half-century that it wouldn't even be Pittsburgh anymore without them.

[infrared41]

My team did leave. I was a diehard fan of the original Cleveland Browns. The Browns were easily my most favorite of my favorite teams. I lived and died with the original Browns. Those that know me around here now know me as a big fan of Ohio State football. To give you an idea of how big a Browns fan I was before the team moved, Ohio State was almost a distant second on my list of favorite teams - and I'm an Ohio State alum. Like my podcast partner, Still MIGHTY and a few others already mentioned, when the Browns left, I turned my attention to Saturdays. That's when I realized that I actually like College Football better than NFL football.  Ohio State took the top spot on my team list and has remained there ever since. 

 

So what happened with my NFL allegiances after the Browns left? Well, this is where the so-called "second team" comes into play. I'd liked the Packers since I was a kid (the uniforms played a big role) so they were the easy choice as my new NFL team. Better yet, there was virtually* no chance the Packers would ever leave Green Bay. Long story short, the Browns came back, but it never felt the same to me. The Packers had a stock offering a few years back, I bought some shares, and now I'm a full-fledged Green Bay Packers fan and owner. That being said, even with a literal vested interest in the Packers, my allegiance to the NFL was never the same after the Browns left and I think that's a good thing. 

 

 

*I wanted to say "literally no chance" but this is the NFL we're talking about. I'm not ruling out anything. 

[Gothamite]

13 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I don't know how true this is, but I've heard from several places that during the Browns' "hiatus" in the 90's Cleveland's reports of domestic violence, drunken incidents, property damage, etc all dropped during the fall when compared to years when the Browns were playing. 

 

That sounds like a an urban legend, like the debunked "domestic violence skyrockets on Super Bowl Sunday" rumor.

[IceCap]

On 2017-04-18 at 1:03 PM, OnWis97 said:

However, our three recent NFL relocations all kept the name and essential brand.  So I'm curious about what "off-site" fans are thinking. @Ice_Cap? @rams80? (though you are from Illinois, so maybe you were more of an "on-site" fan?)  Anyone else?

Well first off I do acknowledge that San Diego was a wonderful home for the Chargers. And it's a damn shame that they lost them. That being said? I don't have any real connection to the city of San Diego. I just don't. I readily admit that the move to LA was a mistake and that the team ought to have stayed in San Diego. And I put 100% of the blame for the lack of a stadium in San Diego on Dean Spanos.

I thought about ditching them when they moved, but it just felt weird. It felt weird to say I was dropping a team for leaving a city I have no real connection with. It felt artificial for me to say "the Chargers left San Diego. That's it, I'm out."

I still think it was a very stupid decision to move, but this is a Dean Spanos-run team. It's just one more for the pile.

 

Interestingly? My dad's sworn off the team now that they've moved. He's from Montreal, but his family would winter in San Diego when he was growing up. So the Chargers were the closest thing he had to a "home" team in the NFL. I asked him about how he felt now that the team has moved. I was interested because he hadn't actually been back to San Diego since I was very little (my only time there).

I'm paraphrasing but he essentially said "all the players I used to cheer for are gone, this isn't the same team that played when I was a kid. Now they left San Diego. There's nothing left for me to care about."

 

Can't say I blame him, but I never had the connection to the city he did.

[MiK]

On 3/28/2017 at 3:07 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

I'd cheer for a team with no owner so that there's no risk of moving.

 

Oh wait....

 

If the Packers move away from GB, it means that society itself has collapsed and there would be bigger problems on all our plates.

[Sykotyk]

14 hours ago, maz said:

I wouldn't have to do anything, the whole damn town would be burned down. People would leap from our many bridges. It'd be chaos.

 

Comedic hyperbole, but still, Pittsburgh would lose its collective :censored:.

 

Me, personally, I'd be really, really, really disappointed, but there are occasions where even I'm annoyed by them. They rule this damn city almost to a fault, but that's also what would upset me the most - this city would lose so much of its identity. The Steelers and Pittsburgh have become so intertwined and part of one another in the past almost half-century that it wouldn't even be Pittsburgh anymore without them.

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but everyone said the same thing about the Browns in the early 90s. Cleveland was much more a Browns town than Pittsburgh was a Steelers town. The Pirates were good (Bonds and Bonilla), and the Penguins were (with Lemieux, Francis, Jagr, etc) that the fan base was much more stratified. Throw in the fact that Pittsburgh, Allegheny County AND Pennsylvania did not want to spend money on new stadiums. The aging Mellon Arena (formerly Civic Arena), and Three Rivers to go with the Spectrum and Veterans Stadium, they were all prime candidates for being sold and moved. Eagles almost wound up in Arizona before the Cardinals, and it was a combination of revenue sharing and salary cap that helped save the Steelers. And, honestly, the Browns being moved was the giant wake up call for Pittsburghers to get behind the push to build new stadiums. The Rooneys only had money from Football. These weren't wealthy people that were big business types that owned the team as a toy. It was their lives. If their baby started losing them money competing with teams with modern stadiums and the countless luxury boxes and amenities, they'd have to give up the ghost at some point. And, unlike Cleveland, the Steelers were a shared-tenant at a multi-use stadium rather than the $1/year essentially-the-owner of Municipal Stadium collecting rent from the baseball team.

 

But, the NFL basically operated as the mafia during the 90s. You can 'offer protection' to a laundry for the small fee. But the only way to get them to pay that is eventually a laundry is going to burn down. In that aspect, Cleveland was the market that the NFL decided was fair game to get toasted. Look at the building boom that happened AFTER the Browns left. St. Louis taking the Rams (to a stadium the NFL never really liked, was too small for Super Bowls and not team-friendly like the newer venues) or Oakland getting back the Raiders (back to the same stadium they left, which was woeful fiscally) wasn't going to move the needle on the stadium boom. They weren't important.  But, having a big name move. A beloved team that was successful both on and off the field. A team that was 'too big to fail' had to fail to get the new stadiums the NFL wanted. Their version of Camden Yards.

 

Cleveland never thought it would happen. Pittsburgh never thought it would happen. Buffalo never thought it would happen. And on and on. Look at the vote. 28-2. The two no-votes? Rooney and Ralph Wilson. They both saw the NFL for what it was, a bully and they could be next. Luckily, they weren't. Because once the Browns moved the other cities fell in check and started ponying up new stadiums to satisfy the beast.

 

LA didn't, Houston didn't. St. Louis didn't. But, Cleveland did. And we basically have 32 modern or heavily renovated stadiums because of it. And THEN, they let a team move back to Los Angeles after using it as the leverage to move any other team after caving into giving Cleveland their team back after using it as an example to others.

 

12 hours ago, infrared41 said:

My team did leave. I was a diehard fan of the original Cleveland Browns. The Browns were easily my most favorite of my favorite teams. I lived and died with the original Browns. Those that know me around here now know me as a big fan of Ohio State football. To give you an idea of how big a Browns fan I was before the team moved, Ohio State was almost a distant second on my list of favorite teams - and I'm an Ohio State alum. Like my podcast partner, Still MIGHTY and a few others already mentioned, when the Browns left, I turned my attention to Saturdays. That's when I realized that I actually like College Football better than NFL football.  Ohio State took the top spot on my team list and has remained there ever since. 

 

So what happened with my NFL allegiances after the Browns left? Well, this is where the so-called "second team" comes into play. I'd liked the Packers since I was a kid (the uniforms played a big role) so they were the easy choice as my new NFL team. Better yet, there was virtually* no chance the Packers would ever leave Green Bay. Long story short, the Browns came back, but it never felt the same to me. The Packers had a stock offering a few years back, I bought some shares, and now I'm a full-fledged Green Bay Packers fan and owner. That being said, even with a literal vested interest in the Packers, my allegiance to the NFL was never the same after the Browns left and I think that's a good thing. 

 

 

*I wanted to say "literally no chance" but this is the NFL we're talking about. I'm not ruling out anything. 

I was a kid when the Browns left, but once they came back and I had some money, I bought season tickets. Held them for about 10 years before giving them up before last year. I saw that 0-16/1-15 season coming and I honestly became disenfranchised with the team via the NFL and some of the things the team was forced to do.

 

And yes, I'm much more a college fan now, especially after giving up my tickets. But, Sunday is still Sunday. If the Browns are on TV, I'll still watch them. But, it's almost out of habit.

 

And I also jumped to the Packers, but instead went with the Panthers during the hiatus. No previous history was my selling point.

 

22 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

Though they didn't make the playoffs, the Pats did win 11 games with Matt Cassel at QB. For whatever that's worth. 

(...)

That's why I think it's much more the Patriots 'way' with personnel is much more important. And Belichick hasn't had much say in it. And I know they've gone through several GMs, but the Patriots also benefit from one unintended consequence of the salary cap: Once you win, good players want to go there if the money isn't that much different, AND if you're an aging player that never went to the playoffs, you're much more likely to take a big pay cut to go there. They also figured out how to 'groom' a young QB and the assumption 'they know what they're doing' for teams to snap them up via trade or the open market, only to watch them crash and burn when they're outside that protective bubble.

 

The problem with the salary cap is exactly what happens with the Patriots and why they continue to have success. A true 'salary cap' system should require the players go to the highest contract. Without it, a salary cap is pointless.

[infrared41]

33 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

 

I'm not sure how old you are, but everyone said the same thing about the Browns in the early 90s. Cleveland was much more a Browns town than Pittsburgh was a Steelers town. The Pirates were good (Bonds and Bonilla), and the Penguins were (with Lemieux, Francis, Jagr, etc) that the fan base was much more stratified. 

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The Steelers have been the undisputed top team in Pittsburgh since at least 1972. If memory serves, the Pirates couldn't get sell outs for the Bonds/Bonilla playoff games and yeah, the Pens won a couple Cups with Mario in the early 90's, but none of that even came close to threatening the Steelers spot at the top of the Pittsburgh sports hierarchy. 

 

Yes, Cleveland was definitely a Browns town before the move, but even I'll admit that we weren't as fanatical about our Browns as Pittsburgh fans were about their Steelers. The Pens and Pirates were winning so of course people came out. The same thing happened here in 1994 and 95 when the Indians got good. 

[burgundy]

There are plenty of reasons for me to stop being a fan of Washington, and relocation isn't one of them.

 

If I were to give up on them, the Packers would be my team because that's my dad's team. Either way, I'm not nearly as invested as a fan as I used to be.

[OnWis97]

11 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. The Steelers have been the undisputed top team in Pittsburgh since at least 1972. If memory serves, the Pirates couldn't get sell outs for the Bonds/Bonilla playoff games and yeah, the Pens won a couple Cups with Mario in the early 90's, but none of that even came close to threatening the Steelers spot at the top of the Pittsburgh sports hierarchy. 

 

Yes, Cleveland was definitely a Browns town before the move, but even I'll admit that we weren't as fanatical about our Browns as Pittsburgh fans were about their Steelers. The Pens and Pirates were winning so of course people came out. The same thing happened here in 1994 and 95 when the Indians got good. 

Very few cities with NFL teams are not "(NFL Team) towns."

 

Pittsburgh?  Not even close.  Yeah, a Steelers town can embrace the Pirates and Penguins.  But most cities have one that matters most and, if the NFL is in town, that's usually it.

 

Hmmm.  What NFL teams are second fiddle? And I mean this in the long haul.  Right now the Cubs and Blackhawks may take center-stage in Chicago, but my gut says that the Bears are the team that really matters most there over time and not over-considering who's doing well "right now."  Of my head:

• Ironically, maybe the Patriots?  They were probably fourth fiddle before Bledsoe went down.  They were kind of a moribund franchise, they played in the exurbs, and New England is the part of America that probably is least "FOOTBALL!!!!"  Right now are they #1? I don't know, but when they move back to the NFL pack, they'll clearly be behind, the Red Sox and Celtics.
• New York?  Again, kind of a baseball town.  Yankees #1?
• Los Angeles?  It seemed to be getting along sans NFL and I don't know that the Rams have surpassed the Dodgers, Lakers, etc.
• St. Louis, when it had a team.  Baseball town; Cardinal town.

[Sport]

4 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Very few cities with NFL teams are not "(NFL Team) towns."

 

Pittsburgh?  Not even close.  Yeah, a Steelers town can embrace the Pirates and Penguins.  But most cities have one that matters most and, if the NFL is in town, that's usually it.

 

Hmmm.  What NFL teams are second fiddle? And I mean this in the long haul.  Right now the Cubs and Blackhawks may take center-stage in Chicago, but my gut says that the Bears are the team that really matters most there over time and not over-considering who's doing well "right now."  Of my head:

• Ironically, maybe the Patriots?  They were probably fourth fiddle before Bledsoe went down.  They were kind of a moribund franchise, they played in the exurbs, and New England is the part of America that probably is least "FOOTBALL!!!!"  Right now are they #1? I don't know, but when they move back to the NFL pack, they'll clearly be behind, the Red Sox and Celtics.
• New York?  Again, kind of a baseball town.  Yankees #1?
• Los Angeles?  It seemed to be getting along sans NFL and I don't know that the Rams have surpassed the Dodgers, Lakers, etc.
• St. Louis, when it had a team.  Baseball town; Cardinal town.

Cincinnati is definitely a baseball city that has a football team. The city just feels more like itself when the baseball season is happening and the Bengals have never been competent long enough to establish themselves as the definitive #1 team in town.