More revisionist history

[Cosmic]

On 6/1/2017 at 7:10 AM, McCarthy said:

 

Not the same thing as the Broncos at all and here's why I answered your question with a question - The AAFC Colts folded in the NFL after the 1950 season. That franchise line ends there. The current iteration of the Colts began In 1953 when the NFL awarded Baltimore another expansion franchise who adopted the name Colts. They have nothing to do with the AAFC Colts. They're also interesting because despite being an expansion franchise never held an expansion draft. Where have I seen that before? That second Colts franchise filled out their roster by using the players from the previous season's Dallas Texans. The NFL record books don't recognize the Colts and NFL Dallas Texans as the same franchise. 

 

So to give you the courtesy of answering your question, an expansion draft has never been a prerequisite for expansion into the NFL and there is in fact precedent for a team of players moving from one franchise to another and the league treating them as separate and distinct franchise lines. An expansion draft didn't happen in the NFL until the Cowboys in 1960.

 

 

 

Did the Texans go out of business because their owner founded the Colts?

[Sykotyk]

5 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Did the Texans go out of business because their owner founded the Colts?

 

The Texans actually 'folded' midseason the previous year. Their only win came in a game moved to Akron, Ohio's Rubber Bowl against the Chicago Bears. When the team 'folded', the league set them up in Baltimore as the recreated Colts.

 

The reason the current Indianapolis Colts wear blue/white is because that was the colors of the old Texans whose uniforms the second Baltimore Colts still had. The original Baltimore Colts wore gray/green.

[chrispw12]

Probably a good thing the move didn't happen a year later and have Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden play their rookie years in Cleveland as most of the  guys from the 1995 Browns weren't Ravens for much more than a few years, kind of like Kevin Currant playing his rookie year in Seattle and Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka holding up Sonics jerseys on draft night. Also, with the Oliers/Titans probably the main reason they let the history move to Tennessee and the Oliers name was that that was a rare instance where the guy who moved the team was the guy who created the team.

[Sykotyk]

For someone that argued about revisionist history. They don't seem to ever consider the Super Bowl. The first four were not the NFL Championships, and yet you rarely ever hear anyone talking about the Baltimore Colts or Minnesota Vikings winning the NFL Championship. Or that the Packers had won three consecutive titles, not two, at the start of the 'Super Bowl era'. That 1965 championship is basically overlooked now by the NFL.

 

When the NHL doubled the number of teams, they didn't suddenly declare the early origins of the Stanley Cup 'second class' and start anew. And you can't even argue for the NFL that it's because they changed the name, because the first few Super Bowls were not officially Super Bowls until after the fact.

 

Yet if you look at official NFL statistics, the former NFL Championship games and NFC Championship games are listed in order on the same list (as does AFL/AFC Championships). They essentially discounted every title that ever came before. Some the NBA and NHL never did with the mergers of the ABA and WHA. And, the NFL deciding the AFL history is 'their history' but the AAFC history wasn't.

 

So, to say that the NFL's 'rewriting history' is wrong, because they've been doing it for decades. How many "Vince Lombardi Trophies" did the Green Bay Packers win. It might surprise you. And it's nowhere close to how many times they were champions of the NFL.

[IceCap]

The NFL's historical revisionism regarding the pre-merger era/pre-Super Bowl era is well tread ground. 

 

As someone who's a bit of a Cardinals fan? It always bugs me when they roll out Cardinals merch with "est. 1920" on it. As if the pre-NFL history doesn't count.

 

The NHL did the same stuff with merch too. My dad's a Canadiens fan, and has a banner he bough in the early 2000s listing all of their Stanley Cups. Except it only have 23 titles listed, not 24.

Why? The Canadiens' first Cup victory came in 1916, two seasons before the NHL was founded. So NHL licenced merch would always leave off the pre-NHL title whenever doing commemorative stuff for the Habs. Newer mech tends to count the pre-NHL title though, which is nice.

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The NFL's historical revisionism regarding the pre-merger era/pre-Super Bowl era is well tread ground. 

 

As someone who's a bit of a Cardinals fan? It always bugs me when they roll out Cardinals merch with "est. 1920" on it. As if the pre-NFL history doesn't count.

 

The NHL did the same stuff with merch too. My dad's a Canadiens fan, and has a banner he bough in the early 2000s listing all of their Stanley Cups. Except it only have 23 titles listed, not 24.

Why? The Canadiens' first Cup victory came in 1916, two seasons before the NHL was founded. So NHL licenced merch would always leave off the pre-NHL title whenever doing commemorative stuff for the Habs. Newer mech tends to count the pre-NHL title though, which is nice.

 

I maintain the perception that the Original Six shouldn't be called that. A term like "Oldest Surviving Six" or the "Heritage Six" might be more appropriate, given how only the Canadiens and maybe the Leafs were around at the founding of the NHL. 

 

 

Of course, that's being really nitpicky and ignores that the "Original Six" were the only teams in the league for about a quarter of a century before organized expansion began.

[IceCap]

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I maintain the perception that the Original Six shouldn't be called that. A term like "Oldest Surviving Six" or the "Heritage Six" might be more appropriate, given how only the Canadiens and maybe the Leafs were around at the founding of the NHL. 

 

 

Of course, that's being really nitpicky and ignores that the "Original Six" were the only teams in the league for about a quarter of a century before organized expansion began.

I still maintain Toronto counts. You can map the legacy of players and coaches from the Arenas to the present day Leafs. 

 

Leafs merch used to say "est. 1927" up until the early 2000s, with legacy banners only referencing eleven of their thirteen Cups (excluding the one Arenas Cup and the one St. Pats Cup). Meaning that all of that merch worked under the assumption that the team was founded when it was re-named the Maple Leafs. 

That never made sense because regardless of what you think about the Arenas-to-St. Pats continuity the St. Pats-to-Leafs continuity is pretty cut and dry. 

 

Since then the Arenas connection has been embraced with "est. 1917" dates and full thirteen Cups. Which is what the Leafs have recognized with their banners for as long as I can remember.

I can't recall a single piece of merch that ever had "est. 1919"/twelve Cups, which would have lined up with the St. Pats start date. 

 

As far the "Original Six" goes, you're right. It should be "Heritage Six" or something like that, but it's an uphill battle.

"Original Six" is so engrained in collective hockey fandom that it's not going anywhere. 

 

[Cosmic]

I haven't been bothered to do any research whatsoever, but I feel like "Original 6" was first used to distinguish from the "Expansion 6". Even if I just made that up, O6 doesn't really bother me. It could be misleading, but the O6 teams did play, alone and unchanged, in the league together for a full 25 years. 25 years ago from now, the NHL hadn't had any work stoppages, Gary Bettman was a promising young basketball executive, and Jaromir Jagr... well, he was still in the NHL. Anyway, it's practically a lifetime in sports.

[OnWis97]

O6 can definitely mislead the casual fan.  I think it could be about brevity.  It is a catchy phrase compared to some other options.

 

The NFL is not really revising history with its minimizing of pre-1967 history.  They change nothing; they just don't promote it equally.  It certainly does a disservice to a lot of fans.

[Sykotyk]

Just now, OnWis97 said:

O6 can definitely mislead the casual fan.  I think it could be about brevity.  It is a catchy phrase compared to some other options.

 

The NFL is not really revising history with its minimizing of pre-1967 history.  They change nothing; they just don't promote it equally.  It certainly does a disservice to a lot of fans.

I know to Browns and Lions fans, it's a disservice to not seem to enshrine previous championships just because there were fewer teams in the league. I mean, should we go back to when Houston was added and only count from there?

 

I know the Steelers fans love counting from 1970. That's since they were good. The first 37 years of their existence were woefully inept. Even original AFL teams that won titles prior to the merger or (first Super Bowl*) bristle a little when their titles aren't even widely known, let alone even promoted. Do you think Bills fans would much rather say they're 2-4 in championship games instead of 0-4? But the NFL just flatly resists acknowledging their own history of their teams. This may be sleek marketing, but it does dismay fans, especially those who were older and a part of it prior.

 

A case for MLB and the World Series does have a place that it is something better/bigger because it was two rival leagues squaring off for bragging than it was one league doubling in size. But, after the 'original 16', would fans of the Yankees be okay with all the 'pre-expansion' seasons basically being cast off as 'minor' compared to everything since? Sure, they have won, but what makes the Yankees the Yankees is what happened from 1918 through the end of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, etc. Yet, the NFL quite happily ignores almost everything before 1967 and sometimes even 1970. And even more startling, you hear "free agency era" or "modern era" as if even the 70s and 80s are no longer relevant to the discussion.

[smzimbabwe]

Back when the Steelers won 4 super bowls (at the time). I used to taunt my dad (Steelers fan) by pointing out that the Super Bowl was the NFL championship and several teams had won more NFL titles than the Steelers.

 

 

 

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

O6 can definitely mislead the casual fan.  I think it could be about brevity.  It is a catchy phrase compared to some other options.

 

The NFL is not really revising history with its minimizing of pre-1967 history.  They change nothing; they just don't promote it equally.  It certainly does a disservice to a lot of fans.

Exactly If you look up NFC Championships, it will show you the entire NFL Championship game history from 1933 through 1969 seasons, and then the NFC Championship as if they were one and the same. Without realizing it (or just not caring), they ruined the records from 1966-1969 seasons to try and shoehorn the Super Bowl (which wasn't that officially until #4, but used for #2 and #3 predominantly), as somehow 'better'. But once the Super Bowl was just once again the NFL Championship game, they decided better to elevate #1-#4 as in line with NFL Championships, and the only way to discount the Packers two, and Vikings and Colts single NFL titles during those four years, was to lump them into the future NFC Championship Games. But, they went overboard by making ALL NFC Championship Games part of that new 'history'.

 

Really, it was part of the problem with the NFL's 'merger' with the AFL. They knew they were merging, and instead of working out the logistics in one season to combine them as they eventually did, they dragged it out over four seasons when it was still basically the "NFL" controlling how things progressed. It was highly improable that the AFL would back out of the deal as expansion teams, etc were contingent on the merger happening. The real stumbling block was evening the two leagues into 13-team conferences, and deciding which of the three NFL teams would make the jump. The Colts (the bane of the Redskins) were an automatic choice to jump. Considering how they were constantly aligned into divisions away from the Redskins. Including playing in what was the precursor to the NFC West: the NFL "Coastal" division with the San Francisco 49ers, Los Angeles Rams, Atlanta Falcons, and Baltimore Colts somehow making sense as a single division. This is what led the Falcons to being part of the NFC West for years (and with Baltimore gone, the New Orleans Saints to be members of the NFC West).

 

The other options though were much more entrenched. The Browns were a favored candidate to move with Baltimore to give some more 'star power' to the AFC side of the alignment, primarily because with the NFC Central being firmly established (MIN-DET-GB-CHI), it made sense for the western 'Eastern' teams to play in what would be the AFC Central: Houston, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. This led to the Steelers agreeing to move as well to keep the rivalry going. Despite their desire to get hooked into more games with Washington or Philadelphia. They went, as well.

 

That could have been resolved earlier than four years. So, two separate leagues, but the NFL was running the show for the most part. But they insisted on including the old AFL history, so something had to give.

[Luigi74]

The AFL-NFL merger was dragged out due to both leagues tv contracts which they were locked into until the end of the 1969 season. There was also a lot of logistics that needed to be worked out and having four years to do it in was a good idea, but they sorta waited until the last minute to figure out who was moving to the new AFC and what the NFC divisions would be. 

 

On the Colts history you can really fall down a rabbit hole looking into the journey from Dayton to Indianapolis and that's without going into the Rams-Colts franchise swap.

 

Another fun fact, the Steelers and Eagles also had a franchise swap with the current Steelers original NFL entry paperwork lists the team as the Philadelphia Football Club and the current Eagles paperwork listing them as the Pittsburgh Football Club.

[Sykotyk]

14 hours ago, ltp74 said:

The AFL-NFL merger was dragged out due to both leagues tv contracts which they were locked into until the end of the 1969 season. There was also a lot of logistics that needed to be worked out and having four years to do it in was a good idea, but they sorta waited until the last minute to figure out who was moving to the new AFC and what the NFC divisions would be. 

 

On the Colts history you can really fall down a rabbit hole looking into the journey from Dayton to Indianapolis and that's without going into the Rams-Colts franchise swap.

 

Another fun fact, the Steelers and Eagles also had a franchise swap with the current Steelers original NFL entry paperwork lists the team as the Philadelphia Football Club and the current Eagles paperwork listing them as the Pittsburgh Football Club.

 

Yep, forgot to mention that. Happened during the "Steagles" days during WWII. Basically swapped everything but the names and colors.

[Luigi74]

8 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

 

Yep, forgot to mention that. Happened during the "Steagles" days during WWII. Basically swapped everything but the names and colors.

The Eagles - Steelers franchise swap happened in the spring of 1941 before the US entered the war, the Steagles played in the 1943 season.

[Sport]

On 6/2/2017 at 7:34 PM, Cosmic said:

Did the Texans go out of business because their owner founded the Colts?

What difference does it make? Carol Rosenbloom bought a team full of players, moved them to another city (also, Baltimore interestingly enough) and the records treat them as different franchises. 

 

The title of this thread is "more revisionist history" and the Cleveland deal was brought up. I still fail to see where the revisionism falls in that agreement. 

[FlyEaglesFly76]

I agree with other peoples' thoughts on the ignoring of pre-Superbowl stuff. Vikings, Eagles, Browns and Lions were all champions at one point, and no amount of NFL stupidity can change that.. Just acknowledge it.

 

 

 

 

[AnPheitseog]

Ive heard schools of thought that all baseball records prior to integration should be considered invalid

[OnWis97]

42 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

I agree with other peoples' thoughts on the ignoring of pre-Superbowl stuff. Vikings, Eagles, Browns and Lions were all champions at one point, and no amount of NFL stupidity can change that.. Just acknowledge it.

 

 

 

 

As a Vikings fan, I am not sure whether I agree.  Yeah, they technically won the last league title pre-merger, but they lost the Super Bowl, which by then was a defacto "Pro Football Championship."  So I am actually on board with the idea that the Colts and Vikings NFL titles are the two that don't count.  (If they did count, the Vikings would have found a way to lose that NFL Championship Game).  

 

I was on a tour of Lambeau Field, sitting on the bleachers while the guide told us how many championships the Packers have (I don't actually know the number* but it included pre-Super Bowl). He than gave the paltry lower numbers of the division rivals: The Bears (number*), Lions (number*) and the Vikings...I held up one finger, wondering what he'd actually say...zero.  If I wanted to cling to a technicality, I could say "wait, you counted NFL titles pre-merger for those other teams, then the Vikings have one!"  But, who cares?  They should have won that game against the supposedly inferior AFL team.  

 

So, I went to look at the history of NFL Championships on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League_championship

 

And I was kind of surprised to see Kansas City with 1 and Minnesota with zero (but really, how petty would it sound for a Vikings fan to say "uh, uh...we have one NFL title and Kansas City has zero?").  On the flip side, the history of the NFC Championship game shows the Vikings with three NFC titles (despite four Super Bowl appearances).  Assuming Wikipedia is reflecting actual "official" history (which I acknowledge is not a given and some of you probably know what's official better than do I), the Vikings appear to have won nothing in 1969; or, I suppose, a defacto NFC Championship Game that's about as important as the pre-Super Bowl semi-final rounds.

 

Anyhow, while I don't get bent out of shape over the "taking away" of that one NFL title, I could argue that this is a bit of revisionist history.  The NFL seems to be retroactively pretending that the merger occurred right along with the Super Bowl, which is sort of a dance to make the history "seem" like something that most people would prefer.  It's not the same as the franchise history shell game.  It's not quite as dishonest and it is easier to trace.

 

*And part of the reason I don't know these numbers could be the fact that the NFL ignores its pre-Super Bowl history.

[RichO]

2 hours ago, DiePerske said:

Ive heard schools of thought that all baseball records prior to integration should be considered invalid

 

They're undeniably different, that's for sure. Speaking only of player records.

 

I think the shear passage of time will render those numbers, and probably all pre-expansion records more a matter of curiosity and just their own thing akin to deadball era records.