SFGiants58 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: No new name can alter the reality that the original Browns' franchise is in Baltimore now, and that the current team is a newly-created entity that dates to 1999. It's why I don't mind the modern Browns having a different look from the old Browns, as it makes it clear that this perpetual failure of a franchise is an expansion team that only borrows from the old Browns' visual history without owning any of it. While I admit that I like the name being around, I wouldn't mind if the team started off with a new name (for both the now-Ravens and the 1999 expansion team). The Brown family's ownership of the Bengals should have a made a new name a must-have. No matter the history, it's awkward naming your team after the founder of a divisional rival. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Unalloyed nonsense. That "certificate" business was pure theatre, a sleight-of-hand designed to combat the threat of litigation. The original intent had been to operate as the Baltimore Browns, in keeping with the practice of the Cardinals, Rams, Colts, Raiders, Dodgers, baseball Giants, Braves, A's; in other words: the way the vast majority of moves had been handled. This was the plan until the Clevelanders pulled their Special Snowflake act, which led to the NFL's contriving a new approach so as to appease the braying horde (thereby defiling the record books and establish a toxic precedent). No new name can alter the reality that the original Browns' franchise is in Baltimore now, and that the current team is a newly-created entity that dates to 1999. The NFL gets to count its statistics any way it likes. But it does not get to alter the objective facts of history. ya but "baltimore ravens" is way too cool an identity for me to care about this one concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, DeFrank said: ya but "baltimore ravens" is way too cool an identity for me to care about this one That's a separate question. The relocated team could have taken the name "Ravens" without screwing with the records, just as the L.A. Clippers' records include the time spent under the name "Buffalo Braves". What's more, the 1999 expansion team could even have been called the Browns without the record-book-altering shenanigans, as shown by the two Washington Senators teams, by the recent case of the new Winnipeg Jets, and by the NFL's own example of two separate Baltimore Colts franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 20 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: That's a separate question. The relocated team could have taken the name "Ravens" without screwing with the records, just as the L.A. Clippers' records include the time spent under the name "Buffalo Braves". What's more, the 1999 expansion team could even have been called the Browns without the record-book-altering shenanigans, as shown by the two Washington Senators teams, by the recent case of the new Winnipeg Jets, and by the NFL's own example of two separate Baltimore Colts franchises. right but i like baltimore ravens more than baltimore browns concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The NFL gets to count its statistics any way it likes. But it does not get to alter the objective facts of history. Yes, and the objective fact of history is that the franchise itself stayed in Cleveland. Modell intended to take it with him but didn’t. The new Browns are the old Browns franchise just as surely as the Rams were founded in 1936. i don’t disagree that it has led to distasteful shenanigans elsewhere. But that does not change the objective facts of this particular case. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Baltimore Ravens is a football identity from an alternate universe where people like us are given control over sports branding. Well, a Baltimore Ravens that wears purple jerseys, black pants, and purple socks all at once. concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Gothamite said: Yes, and the objective fact of history is that the franchise itself stayed in Cleveland. Modell intended to take it with him but didn’t. The new Browns are the old Browns franchise just as surely as the Rams were founded in 1936. i don’t disagree that it has led to distasteful shenanigans elsewhere. But that does not change the objective facts of this particular case. Well the objective fact really is that the Browns franchise entity was moved to Baltimore and surrendered its IP related to the Cleveland Browns brand to the NFL in exchange for relocating the franchise. The league then sold an expansion franchise to Al Lerner along with the Browns IP to relaunch the Browns brand and market it as a historical franchise. To me the the objective fact is that the new browns are not the old browns. They are an expansion team doing business as the Cleveland Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeFrank Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, guest23 said: To me the the objective fact is lol concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes potd 10/20/12 origin story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Yeah, but that’s really it, isn’t it? People arguing that they’re the same claim that the other side is letting emotions trump facts, but there’s plenty of emotionalism on both sides. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. You can argue that the organization moved, you can even argue that the team moved. But a franchise is by definition a right to operate a team in the NFL, originally represented by a physical certificate. And that objectively stayed in Cleveland. Words mean things, after all. Historical fact that I’ve brought up before when this subject is raised; as late as the 1950s, the right to field a team was tied to actual physical possession of the certificate. When the Packers fired Curly Lambeau, there was a moment of panic when they briefly couldn’t find their franchise certificate and worried that he had taken it with him out of spite. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ark Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I wish the team in Baltimore was called the Baltimore Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 44 minutes ago, Gothamite said: Historical fact that I’ve brought up before when this subject is raised; as late as the 1950s, the right to field a team was tied to actual physical possession of the certificate. Did the Browns move in the 1950s? I can't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Cosmic said: Did the Browns move in the 1950s? I can't remember. To be honest, I don’t know when the piece of paper was no longer physically required. But the principle remains the same - “franchise” has a very specific meaning, that being the right to field a team. The Cleveland Browns franchise was left behind and Modell was granted a new franchise for his Baltimore team. You can can make an argument that the organization moved. Or that the team moved. But the franchise? It is an objective fact that it’s the same franchise, and that franchise always remained in Cleveland. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Gothamite said: To be honest, I don’t know when the piece of paper was no longer physically required. But the principle remains the same - “franchise” has a very specific meaning, that being the right to field a team. The Cleveland Browns franchise was left behind and Modell was granted a new franchise for his Baltimore team. You can can make an argument that the organization moved. Or that the team moved. But the franchise? It is an objective fact that it’s the same franchise, and that franchise always remained in Cleveland. I'm being a bit of a jerk, but fans don't give a rat's behind about franchise certificates. If a "franchise" is ever brought up, it's as an identifier that means the same team in multiple cities. You can put your faith in the certificate, but I'd rather count the owner, players, coaches, and staff as the "franchise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 13 minutes ago, Cosmic said: You can put your faith in the certificate, but I'd rather count the owner, players, coaches, and staff as the "franchise". Owners change. Players change. Coaches and staff change. Franchises endure. And just the like the Rams were still the same Rams after their hiatus as they were before it, so too the Browns. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, Cosmic said: I'm being a bit of a jerk, but fans don't give a rat's behind about franchise certificates. If a "franchise" is ever brought up, it's as an identifier that means the same team in multiple cities. You can put your faith in the certificate, but I'd rather count the owner, players, coaches, and staff as the "franchise". Understood. But in this case, the word "franchise" does have a specific meaning -- one that isn't exactly your definition, but it is Gothamite's. I get that this is a semantics exercise, and I bet I would fall on different sides at different times. Reasonable disagreement. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr3g3 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 For any of you out there doubting the Jaguars changes this offseason, here is yet another tweet from a Jaguars beat reporter with the associated press about the coming changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primzahl Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 It's interesting to me that in the playoffs, the Patriots played the two teams that will undergo major uniform changes the following season. Has that ever happened before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditka Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Primzahl said: It's interesting to me that in the playoffs, the Patriots played the two teams that will undergo major uniform changes the following season. Has that ever happened before? I don't think this has happened before. I only researched for about 30 minutes, but the closest example I found was the 95 Cowboys who beat the last Kelly Eagles in the Divisional. They then played the Packers in the NFC championship the next week who had beaten the last Cherry Red 49ers the week before. It's indirect and not exactly what you were looking for, but that's as close as I could get. Teams that made the playoffs a season before major uniform changes: 2016 Lions 2006 Chargers 2002 Falcons 1999 Rams 1996 Broncos 1995 49ers 1995 Eagles 1971 Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezus_Ghoti Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Sounds like we are in for a thrill ride of an NFL offseason as far as uniform changes go. Titans and Jags both seem ripe for very radical changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr3g3 Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 5 hours ago, Jezus_Ghoti said: Sounds like we are in for a thrill ride of an NFL offseason as far as uniform changes go. Titans and Jags both seem ripe for very radical changes. Don't forget the Browns geting white helmets! /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.