More revisionist history

[Sykotyk]

13 hours ago, ltp74 said:

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

Without looking it up, I thought the swap was after the Steagles, not before.

 

 

9 hours ago, McCarthy said:

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. 

Well, they folded in the sense that the NFL had to take over their operations mid-season as the owner bailed. That's why they played their remaining home games elsewhere. Two games, in fact. The first was the Chicago game was moved to Akron's Rubber Bowl. The second was the season finale, the game was played at Briggs Stadium (better known as Tiger Stadium) in Detroit against the Lions. So, Lions hosted two games against them.

 

For this reason, the NFL refuses to consider them the same franchise. That one failed. The group that was trying to 'bring back' the Colts after the first team failed, got rights to a team, and just went about buying the players, equipment, uniforms, etc from the failed Texans team because it paid off their debts to the league running them the last few weeks.

 

It wasn't that the NFL wanted them to 'survive', they just were happy to find someone who covered their losses.

 

 

8 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

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.

 

 

Two points bolded. I consider 'what was considered' at the time it was done. The Vikings won the NFL championship. They were NFL champions. Ergo, they should be recorded, even today, as NFL champions. Not the Chiefs. It gets murky, obviously, because the NFL created this cross-league championship and then ensconced it as their championship game after the merger. But, at the time, that is what it was.

 

Just like the first Super Bowl was never called a "Super Bowl" at any point leading up to it. Retroactively, it's considered Super Bowl I, but it is disingenuous to call it "Super Bowl I", it simply is the placeholder in the list of this set of NFL title games. Just as there were NFL champions every year PRIOR to championship games. They still get listed. And even the 1932 Bears-Spartans "Championship Game" is, though called, still just a regular season game agreed to be played to settle a dead heat in the standings. The NFL didn't retroactively call it a championship game. Even though they started their own regularly scheduled championship games the very next season.

 

Why? Because it wasn't that year. So it isn't regarded that today.*

 

The NFL has had several adjustments over time. But, to me, it would be like Ohio State only recognizing one championship in football because the "College Football Playoff" supercedes the BCS/BCA and the former poll titles.

 

 

 

*-Fun fact about the 1932 'Championship Game", since it was played indoors on an 80 yard field that was considerably narrower, this was the first game with hash marks. When a player ended at the sideline, the next play would be moved the appropriate number of feet IN from the sideline to mimic how far it was from the 'true' sideline. Hence the new rule of setting the ball inside the hashmarks was born. Also, they moved the ball back to accommodate the missing yardage on possessions after crossing the 10 yard line.

[OnWis97]

Too bad there are no recordings of that game.  I'd love to see it.

[Sykotyk]

On 6/6/2017 at 9:58 PM, OnWis97 said:

Too bad there are no recordings of that game.  I'd love to see it.

The dirt floor was from a circus. As some players said, it wasn't all dirt they were playing on.

[Sport]

11 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

 

Well, they folded in the sense that the NFL had to take over their operations mid-season as the owner bailed. That's why they played their remaining home games elsewhere. Two games, in fact. The first was the Chicago game was moved to Akron's Rubber Bowl. The second was the season finale, the game was played at Briggs Stadium (better known as Tiger Stadium) in Detroit against the Lions. So, Lions hosted two games against them.

 

For this reason, the NFL refuses to consider them the same franchise. That one failed. The group that was trying to 'bring back' the Colts after the first team failed, got rights to a team, and just went about buying the players, equipment, uniforms, etc from the failed Texans team because it paid off their debts to the league running them the last few weeks.

 

It wasn't that the NFL wanted them to 'survive', they just were happy to find someone who covered their losses.

 

 

I brought up the Dallas Texans -> Baltimore Colts because a previous post rhetorically asked who the Ravens drafted in the expansion draft. I used the Colts as an example of a team who expanded into the NFL while using the players from a previous franchise without an expansion draft. 

 

Either origin story, though, to me is just as valid since all interested parties agreed to it. The Colts agreed with the NFL that it was a new franchise when it kicked off in 1953 with mostly the same team from a previous season because that previous team's franchise was so inept it folded. The Ravens agreed with the NFL that they were a new franchise when they kicked off for the 1996 season because the previous franchise's lineage was deemed worthy of preserving. What difference does it make when everyone settled on one way of keeping records before the next game was played? 

[Cosmic]

I would like to know more about the Texans > Colts switch, honestly. There's tons of conflicting and vague info. The Colts' own history page says that Rosenbloom bought the Texans "franchise", which simply isn't true as I understand it. Some say "many" or "most" players were bought by the Colts; I don't really know how to qualitatively assess that. The Colts did even take over the Texans' draft spot; there's that similarity to the Browns/Ravens. At the very least, though, there's the ownership problems and the league control where you can see a natural barrier between the two teams. Also, I believe the Baltimore expansion discussions began before the Texans folded. I would like to know more about the difference between Baltimore getting a new franchise versus buying the Texans franchise, though.

 

The Browns' move checks pretty much every single box you could come up with to measure the continuity of a team. Owner, players, management. Belichick wasn't even fired until after the team officially announced it was moving. There was no hiccup on the way to Baltimore; it was the same team. Despite the surface similarities to the Colts, the Ravens acquired the Browns' players in the era of modern free agency; that seems like a different animal to me.

 

What does it matter? It really doesn't. The NFL could disappear tomorrow, and the world might be better off. Almost all of the stuff we discuss here is the superfluous fluff of the world's problems. But I don't see why we can't call this what it is.

[goalieboy82]

On 6/6/2017 at 1:01 PM, OnWis97 said:

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.

if you want to also be technical about it, the Browns have 8 championships (4 AAFC* and 4 NFL).  

*NFL wont count it.  

also some post back.  the Cardinals did wear a patch in 1998 for there 100th Anniversary.   

[goalieboy82]

16 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

I would like to know more about the Texans > Colts switch, honestly. There's tons of conflicting and vague info. The Colts' own history page says that Rosenbloom bought the Texans "franchise", which simply isn't true as I understand it. Some say "many" or "most" players were bought by the Colts; I don't really know how to qualitatively assess that. The Colts did even take over the Texans' draft spot; there's that similarity to the Browns/Ravens. At the very least, though, there's the ownership problems and the league control where you can see a natural barrier between the two teams. Also, I believe the Baltimore expansion discussions began before the Texans folded. I would like to know more about the difference between Baltimore getting a new franchise versus buying the Texans franchise, though.

 

The Browns' move checks pretty much every single box you could come up with to measure the continuity of a team. Owner, players, management. Belichick wasn't even fired until after the team officially announced it was moving. There was no hiccup on the way to Baltimore; it was the same team. Despite the surface similarities to the Colts, the Ravens acquired the Browns' players in the era of modern free agency; that seems like a different animal to me.

 

What does it matter? It really doesn't. The NFL could disappear tomorrow, and the world might be better off. Almost all of the stuff we discuss here is the superfluous fluff of the world's problems. But I don't see why we can't call this what it is.

http://www.daytontriangles.com/toindianapolis.htm

[Sport]

15 hours ago, Cosmic said:

The Browns' move checks pretty much every single box you could come up with to measure the continuity of a team. Owner, players, management. Belichick wasn't even fired until after the team officially announced it was moving. There was no hiccup on the way to Baltimore; it was the same team. Despite the surface similarities to the Colts, the Ravens acquired the Browns' players in the era of modern free agency; that seems like a different animal to me.

 

I'm going to argue these two points - the team legally agreed to leave their records behind for a restarted Browns franchise to take over. So that was one more hiccup and one fewer box checked that a franchise like the Oilers didn't have when moving from Houston to Tennessee. If the city of Houston had fought for their records and team like Cleveland did and Bud Adams had moved to Tennessee as a new franchise that would've been fine with me. 

 

I think the legally binding agreement in the terms of the move is important because it was actually put into writing, not just like a handshake and a kick on the butt. Right there it put the line on pause. I also think the date when that was settled is important in that it happened before the Ravens ever played a game because no historical records were ever rewritten. Ray Lewis as an example never played for the Browns franchise. 

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

I'm going to argue these two points - the team legally agreed to leave their records behind for a restarted Browns franchise to take over. So that was one more hiccup and one fewer box checked that a franchise like the Oilers didn't have when moving from Houston to Tennessee. If the city of Houston had fought for their records and team like Cleveland did and Bud Adams had moved to Tennessee as a new franchise that would've been fine with me. 

 

I think the legally binding agreement in the terms of the move is important because it was actually put into writing, not just like a handshake and a kick on the butt. Right there it put the line on pause. I also think the date when that was settled is important in that it happened before the Ravens ever played a game because no historical records were ever rewritten. Ray Lewis as an example never played for the Browns franchise. 

I don't quite see how the fact that this was pre-determined makes this all that much better for the history-minded fan.  It's still breaking a franchise lineage and suggesting (well, more than suggesting) that current Cleveland running backs are trying to break franchise records held by Jim Brown.  And that this franchise has won NFL Championships.

 

As @Cosmic points out, everything about this is identical to when the Colts, Rams, Raiders, and Oilers moved (except the name change; so the Twins, Thunder, etc., too).  Everything was going to Baltimore.  The first year Ravens have a pretty strong resemblance to the previous year's Browns.

 

I know you are against the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans/Hornets mess, but honestly, I don't see them as much different.  Your term, "legally" still occurred.  It just occurred later on.  The NBA and those two franchises all agreed to this nonsense. And now the team of Zo and LJ is in Charlotte.  The only thing that makes the Cleveland thing less egregious is that it was "cleaner" and a bit less confusing.  But the result is essentially the same.

 

Now, drawing the line where you do, I suppose the can of worms would not spread so fast.  After all, when a team moves, there's usually no certainty that the spurned city will get a team, so a history like the Sonics would be stuck going to OKC, since the league cannot say "leave it behind for a new team to pick up in four years."  So, I guess it would be less of a problem.  The Charlotte/NOLA mess would not have happened.  It would probably make the Browns situation unique for the time being.  The only other similar thing I can think of is when the Senators moved to Minnesota in 1961 and DC had an expansion team the same year.  If someone had thought of it, maybe that would have been the original Cleveland Deal.  And now the Rangers would be the franchise connected to the original Senators, which would be odd.

 

Could I live in a world where the Cleveland Deal was the only instance?  Sure.  But I just don't find the NBA Deal to be any more "wrong" (Well they're both wrong).  And, something you'll have a hard time disagreeing with, it opened up some disastrous floodgates.  Without Cleveland's Deal, I highly doubt the Charlotte/NOLA deal happens (maybe team names, but Winnipeg Jets style).  And, according to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy) If the Twins ever move (a probability when they start asking for a new ballpark in five to ten years), MLB will be part of the mess.  And if I am reading it correctly, any new Quebec team will give the Avs the amazing distinction of having won the Cup in their first year of existence.  That second NBA bullet is a joy to read, though...

[Sport]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't quite see how the fact that this was pre-determined makes this all that much better for the history-minded fan.  

 

History is history as long as it's recorded in real time and the truth is told. The birth of the Ravens came from the Browns, which is as true as the birth of the Jaguars coming out of the NFL deciding to start another franchise, but everything unfolded just as it was written. Nothing was ever revised. We knew at the time that the 96 Ravens were operating as a new franchise and the Browns would be back in 99 either as an expansion or relocated team*. If you weren't aware at the time of this lineage pause and the Ravens new records that's not their fault.  

 

*if another franchise had relocated to Cleveland and then assumed the records of the original Browns then that would've been a serious problem. 

 

Quote

It's still breaking a franchise lineage and suggesting (well, more than suggesting) that current Cleveland running backs are trying to break franchise records held by Jim Brown.  And that this franchise has won NFL Championships.

 

What's a franchise? It's an entity that a larger business allows independent owners to operate within as part of one mass conglomerate. The league never shut down the Browns franchise per the agreement with the Ravens, they just held it dormant for 3 years and allowed the Ravens to take all of their players. I don't see it as "breaking franchise lineage" when the league was holding the space for someone to get the franchise's affairs in order to start playing again. So when Isaiah Crowell carries the ball for the Browns I have zero issue with him chasing Jim Brown's records. 

 

Quote

As @Cosmic points out, everything about this is identical to when the Colts, Rams, Raiders, and Oilers moved (except the name change; so the Twins, Thunder, etc., too).  Everything was going to Baltimore.  The first year Ravens have a pretty strong resemblance to the previous year's Browns.

 

I don't care where the 96 Ravens players came from because players change franchises all the time. The Nets and Mavericks once traded half their teams to each other. If the Rams and Dolphins hypothetically trade entire rosters the Rams aren't now the Dolphins and the Dolphins now the Rams. 

 

Everything is identical to those other relocations except none of them agreed in principle to start over as a new franchise when they got to their new city. The Ravens differ in that regard. 

 

 

Quote

I know you are against the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans/Hornets mess, but honestly, I don't see them as much different.  Your term, "legally" still occurred.  It just occurred later on.  The NBA and those two franchises all agreed to this nonsense. And now the team of Zo and LJ is in Charlotte.  The only thing that makes the Cleveland thing less egregious is that it was "cleaner" and a bit less confusing.  But the result is essentially the same.

Here's how they're different - New Orleans Pelican Anthony Davis played his rookie year for the Hornets as part of the same franchise as Alonzo Mourning, Mugsy Bogues, Larry Johnson and Kelly Tripucka, but after the fact his points and records were attributed to a different franchise that didn't exist at the time he scored those points. On the other hand, Ray Lewis played his rookie year for the Ravens, never made a tackle that was originally given to the Browns lineage and then later assigned to the Ravens after 1999. I think that's a pretty clear cut difference between the two. I'm against the Hornets thing because it's literal revisionism (see thread title) whereas the Ravens/Browns thing is simply another manner in which a franchise executed history and it was all recorded properly at the time. 

 

Quote

Now, drawing the line where you do, I suppose the can of worms would not spread so fast.  After all, when a team moves, there's usually no certainty that the spurned city will get a team, so a history like the Sonics would be stuck going to OKC, since the league cannot say "leave it behind for a new team to pick up in four years."  So, I guess it would be less of a problem.  The Charlotte/NOLA mess would not have happened.  It would probably make the Browns situation unique for the time being.  The only other similar thing I can think of is when the Senators moved to Minnesota in 1961 and DC had an expansion team the same year.  If someone had thought of it, maybe that would have been the original Cleveland Deal.  And now the Rangers would be the franchise connected to the original Senators, which would be odd.

 

Could I live in a world where the Cleveland Deal was the only instance?  Sure.  But I just don't find the NBA Deal to be any more "wrong" (Well they're both wrong).  And, something you'll have a hard time disagreeing with, it opened up some disastrous floodgates.  Without Cleveland's Deal, I highly doubt the Charlotte/NOLA deal happens (maybe team names, but Winnipeg Jets style).  And, according to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy) If the Twins ever move (a probability when they start asking for a new ballpark in five to ten years), MLB will be part of the mess.  And if I am reading it correctly, any new Quebec team will give the Avs the amazing distinction of having won the Cup in their first year of existence.  That second NBA bullet is a joy to read, though...

 

The Hornets/Pelicans thing sucks and probably wouldn't have happened without the Browns/Ravens deal, but it's not their fault the NBA decided to rewrite their own records books that way. The gateway drug thing may be true, but the NFL has stuck to clean lines in their own books. Credit to the NHL for not going Hornets/Pelicans with the Jets/Thrashers/Coyotes. 

[The_Admiral]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, did we already talk about how the old Boston Celtics are actually the Los Angeles Clippers? (They're not.)

 

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".

That's exactly what it was, but never get in the way of Sun Belt fans diaping out over everything. That the NHL only had six teams until 1967 isn't even a point of pride, it's a failure.

[goalieboy82]

On 6/6/2017 at 10:04 PM, Sykotyk said:

The dirt floor was from a circus. As some players said, it wasn't all dirt they were playing on.

in he words of Wanda from Fairly Odd Parents,

Please be mud..