Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

It's no different than if a team were to completely overhaul their roster in an off-season. If, hypothetically, the Bengals and Cardinals were to trade entire rosters the 2018 Bengals would have more in common with the 2017 Cardinals than the 2017 Bengals. 

And what did the Browns receive in exchange for trading the Ravens their entire roster? Just one big transaction, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

And what did the Browns receive in exchange for trading the Ravens their entire roster? Just one big transaction, right?

 

Yes. They received the right to keep their team, franchise rights and all, instead of not having a team or getting a new franchise. All things considered, in the situation they were in with a scumbag moving the team through no fault of the fans, it could've been a lot worse. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Yes. They received the right to keep their team, franchise rights and all, instead of not having a team or getting a new franchise. All things considered, in the situation they were in with a scumbag moving the team through no fault of the fans, it could've been a lot worse. 

 

 

I think the pending lawsuit that would have forced the Browns to play out the remaining three years of their lease probably had more to do with that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

I think the pending lawsuit that would have forced the Browns to play out the remaining three years of their lease probably had more to do with that...

 

So? Either way they got to keep their franchise, which is more than list of cities who didn't can say. 

 

8 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I love the classics.  Is there any way to add some gray facemask discussion into this?  Also, maybe a bit of "why isn't Notre Dame's name an insult to Irish people?"

 

"The Ravens are the Browns, but the Browns aren't the Ravens" is as old as these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

So? Either way they got to keep their franchise, which is more than list of cities who didn't can say. 

 

 

"The Ravens are the Browns, but the Browns aren't the Ravens" is as old as these boards.

I think it was a great deal for Cleveland, but I don't see why people would go along with the fabrication that the Browns just went to sleep for three years. They moved to Baltimore, the colors and name stayed, and eventually an expansion team came in 1999. Because the NFL defines it that way? History out in the real world is not in their purview to control. They can literally do anything they want to the rules of their game, but how many among us say something like, "I don't give a ---- what they say, that's a catch!", but we grant the league the power to tell us which teams did or did not actually move? Aside from the name and colors staying, there's no indicator that this was anything other than a standard team move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

It's no different than if a team were to completely overhaul their roster in an off-season. If, hypothetically, the Bengals and Cardinals were to trade entire rosters the 2018 Bengals would have more in common with the 2017 Cardinals than the 2017 Bengals. 

I mean that's true, but that would never happen. So I can't buy that the Ravens just so happened to acquire the Browns' roster. I know tha's how you want me to view it, but it's not normal. It's an aberration cooked up to further the fiction that the old Browns didn't move.

 

53 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

What is counter-factual is ascribing how you think it should've gone down as the correct reality.

You keep claiming that's what I'm doing, but you're wrong. I'm not forcing my version of how it should have gone down at all. I'm looking at the facts as they happened. The roster, management, and ownership moved from Cleveland to Baltimore. The player changeover was no more drastic than another team experiences during a single off-season.

 

Sorry. I know I'm not going to convince you, but that works both ways. I just look at basically the entire team moving from one city to another and go "yep, that team moved. The new team isn't the old one." I've heard the NFL's official story on the matter for my entire time as a football fan, and I'm sorry. I'm just not convinced.

 

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

The Browns' crappy play since 99 is immaterial to the discussion.

Meh. I think here and now, in 2018? We can say that the decision to grant the Browns' identity and lineage to the new team hasn't been the best thing for the overall Browns brand. Like I said earlier. More people think of the endless QB jersey and the Factory of Sadness then they do the NFL Championships and Jim Brown.

Of course no one knew the new Browns would be dog :censored: in 1997 when the new team was granted, but we can look back and evaluate it all after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

giphy.webp

 

So, what do we think the Jaguars and Titans will do with their uniforms?

 

I'm betting that 50% of us will think the Jags upgraded, 30% will believe they went lateral, 10% will say it was a downgrade, and 10% will just say that they want the 1990s uniforms back. As for the Titans, I'm guessing that 40% will like the look, another 40% will dislike it, and 20% will wish that they were still the Oilers. Sometimes, we're pretty predictable.

 

 

my predictions:

Jags are going to actually look pretty respectable for the first time in a long time. I'd guess a lot of teal/gold finally, and less black. Hopefully less military-themed silliness, but I doubt it.

Titans are going to be like the Oregon Ducks of the NFL. It's gonna make the Seahawks look like the Raiders, but probably less clownish than the Browns. I don't expect a ton of TITANS wordmarks covering their pant stripes or anything.

 

As a Titans fan, I'm a excited but nervous. I'm also expecting a shift of the color balance, and I fear a demotion of columbia blue. As a former Oilers fan, I don't want the columbia to get buried. A ton of columbia blue, chrome, actual Athenian style cues, and a million mix-and-match options is my best-realistic-case scenario... Navy, grey, and red, flame patterns, and design cues taken more from the Tennessee state flag than anything Titan related is my worst-realistic-case scenario.

 

I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of chrome and a lot of college-football futuristic madness going on... but hey, we aren't the Packers. We can be a little goofy, because it's not like anyone really cares about our team anyway. Sell two-tone blue Oregon Ducks jerseys with Mariota on the back, and just be happy people remember we're a franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're hung up here on the differences between the NFL's party line story vs. what is plain as day if you use your eyes.

 

Yes, the piece of paper and history books were left in Cleveland.  At the same time, you could clearly witness a bunch of players and front office guys load up moving vans and drive 400 miles.  You could also clearly see that an expansion draft was held and that a new owner popped up and the new team moved into a new stadium that the current Baltimore Ravens had no role in.

 

Plus, this logo certainly doesn't read "franchise reactivation draft."

G8m6zdE.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

I mean that's true, but that would never happen. So I can't buy that the Ravens just so happened to acquire the Browns' roster. I know tha's how you want me to view it, but it's not normal. It's an aberration cooked up to further the fiction that the old Browns didn't move.

 

Nobody's claiming the Browns players didn't move to Baltimore and I'm not claiming the Ravens just so happened to acquire the Browns' roster. I'm saying if you look at it as a large scale transaction it's no less valid an origin story as an expansion draft or a typical relocation. The argument is basically can you separate a franchise from its employees? I say definitely yes, you can. You have to. The franchise didn't move to Baltimore because that was the agreement that the franchise didn't move. The former Browns employees moved to Baltimore.

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

You keep claiming that's what I'm doing, but you're wrong. I'm not forcing my version of how it should have gone down at all. I'm looking at the facts as they happened. The roster, management, and ownership moved from Cleveland to Baltimore.

 

I am looking at the facts as they happened. The roster, management, and ownership moved from Cleveland to Baltimore...with a deal in place that they were going to be a new franchise when play started in 1996. Nobody else has ever relocated under those terms. It's the most important distinction in this whole thing.

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

Sorry. I know I'm not going to convince you, but that works both ways. I just look at basically the entire team moving from one city to another and go "yep, that team moved. The new team isn't the old one." I've heard the NFL's official story on the matter for my entire time as a football fan, and I'm sorry. I'm just not convinced.

 

There's no convincing to be done. The story of what went down is the story. There's no like "objective reality" or any of that. There's just the reality which is the Cleveland franchise stayed where it was and rebooted with new players 3 years later. The old players went to play for a new franchise in Baltimore. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

Meh. I think here and now, in 2018? We can say that the decision to grant the Browns' identity and lineage to the new team hasn't been the best thing for the overall Browns brand. Like I said earlier. More people think of the endless QB jersey and the Factor of Sadness then they do the NFL Championships and Jim Brown.

Of course no one knew the new Browns would be dog :censored: in 1997 when the new team was granted, but we can look back and evaluate it all after the fact.

 

It's really unfair to ascribe full hindsight to this situation from over 20 years ago when nobody knew they'd be such a sh!!!how. The deal has never been the Browns' problem. The Browns' problem is they suck. 

 

52 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

I think it was a great deal for Cleveland, but I don't see why people would go along with the fabrication that the Browns just went to sleep for three years. They moved to Baltimore, the colors and name stayed, and eventually an expansion team came in 1999. Because the NFL defines it that way?

 

YES. The NFL is a business with 32 franchises. They can define how those franchises operate and track records any way they want. 

 

52 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

History out in the real world is not in their purview to control.

 

History in the NFL, though, is in their purview to control and the Browns-Ravens history is pretty tidy. 

 

52 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

They can literally do anything they want to the rules of their game, but how many among us say something like, "I don't give a ---- what they say, that's a catch!", but we grant the league the power to tell us which teams did or did not actually move? Aside from the name and colors staying, there's no indicator that this was anything other than a standard team move.

 

Those are the only indicators you need. The team moved. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

There's no convincing to be done. The story of what went down is the story. There's no like "objective reality" or any of that.

The history of the matter is that the team up and moved to Baltimore.

Whether you accept that the "team moved but franchise didn't" depends on whether you see it as a legitimate thing that happened or a bit of theatre.

 

I will concede that it was better than what the NBA did though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


"Lighten up", my hairy ass.

Anyone who doesn't understand the problem in altering the records so that they no longer represent what actually happened is simply not grasping the gravity of the issue. 

 

 


The parties being informed of the league's decision before the team began play in Baltimore is of no relevance whatsoever.  The only important thing is that, when the record book shows the Ravens as having begun in 1996 rather than being part of the Browns' franchise history, the record book is showing a willful misstatement of the events of history.  The fact that everyone involved gave their consent to this lie does not mitigate its seriousness.

 

The issue is not the Browns or the NFL; the issue is people's attitudes towards objective reality.  Unfortunately, we no longer have to resort to hypotheticals in order to understand the consequences for society, as this current historical crisis clearly illustrates what happens when a respect for facts goes away.

The NFL didn't create the current disaster; it surely only reflected disturbing trends that were already present.  Still, this ugly Browns situation is emblematic of a serious problem that goes far beyond sports and has tragic implications for society as a whole.

 

Thats a little dramatic.

 

Good luck finding a sane person on this Earth who would prefer to see Jim Brown’s name on top of the Ravens’ all-time rushing list rather than the Browns.’ :rolleyes:

 

They did it right, and it was simply because the fanbase and the city refused to give up its history. In my opinion, that history belongs to the city and fans that witnessed and supported it, not to Art Modell. I’d say the same thing if, say, the Flyers or Chiefs (or another similarly tenured team with good fan support) moved away and adopted a new identity.

 

Here’s a hypothetical (well, semi-hypothetical; I have an old boss who actually did this). Let’s say I own a Papa John’s franchise, and one day, I decide I can make better pizza with my own recipe. I relinquish my franchise rights and a month later have a new name, new signage, and a new business across the street, and I hire all the same employees to do the same jobs. Meanwhile, a new person takes over the lease and buys franchise rights for my old Papa John’s. Using the traditional logic of sports franchising, I’m still a Papa John’s franchisee because I’m employing the same people to make a similar product in a new location?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm not sure associating the Browns' brand/legacy/records with the current expansion team was the best thing for said brand in the long run. No one thinks of the undefeated AAFC run, the pre-SB NFL Championships, Jim Brown, or the 80s contenders when they think of the Cleveland Browns anymore. 

 

Cleveland Browns fans do. 

 

Packer fans never stopped associating the team with Lombardi.  Even during the dark days of the 1970s and 80s. Nor did the terrible 1950s teams make them stop thinking about Curly Lambeau’s powerhouse 1930s clubs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current Browns/Ravens discussion:

 

200w.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Here’s a hypothetical (well, semi-hypothetical; I have an old boss who actually did this). Let’s say I own a Papa John’s franchise, and one day, I decide I can make better pizza with my own recipe. I relinquish my franchise rights and a month later have a new name, new signage, and a new business across the street, and I hire all the same employees to do the same jobs. Meanwhile, a new person takes over the lease and buys franchise rights for my old Papa John’s. Using the traditional logic of sports franchising, I’m still the Papa John’s franchisee because I’m employing the same people to make a similar product in a new location?

 

Oooooh... that's a good one!

 

tenor.gif?itemid=3579864

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old-School Clevejacking going on in here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see there are a bunch of new posts in this thread I get excited that something has leaked or there is a trustworthy report about what the new NFL uniforms will look like.

 

Then I check the thread and it's all just arguing over the Browns' origins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ColeJ said:

 

 

my predictions:

Jags are going to actually look pretty respectable for the first time in a long time. I'd guess a lot of teal/gold finally, and less black. Hopefully less military-themed silliness, but I doubt it.

Titans are going to be like the Oregon Ducks of the NFL. It's gonna make the Seahawks look like the Raiders, but probably less clownish than the Browns. I don't expect a ton of TITANS wordmarks covering their pant stripes or anything.

 

As a Titans fan, I'm a excited but nervous. I'm also expecting a shift of the color balance, and I fear a demotion of columbia blue. As a former Oilers fan, I don't want the columbia to get buried. A ton of columbia blue, chrome, actual Athenian style cues, and a million mix-and-match options is my best-realistic-case scenario... Navy, grey, and red, flame patterns, and design cues taken more from the Tennessee state flag than anything Titan related is my worst-realistic-case scenario.

 

I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of chrome and a lot of college-football futuristic madness going on... but hey, we aren't the Packers. We can be a little goofy, because it's not like anyone really cares about our team anyway. Sell two-tone blue Oregon Ducks jerseys with Mariota on the back, and just be happy people remember we're a franchise.

 

These flame helmets have been circulating for years, but if they're going drastic, I could see something like this one. Probably with a leotard with flames from head to toe.

 

Strunk has done a good job of staying tight lipped.

 

2ldj21j.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Here’s a hypothetical (well, semi-hypothetical; I have an old boss who actually did this). Let’s say I own a Papa John’s franchise, and one day, I decide I can make better pizza with my own recipe. I relinquish my franchise rights and a month later have a new name, new signage, and a new business across the street, and I hire all the same employees to do the same jobs. Meanwhile, a new person takes over the lease and buys franchise rights for my old Papa John’s. Using the traditional logic of sports franchising, I’m still a Papa John’s franchisee because I’m employing the same people to make a similar product in a new location?

 

I've been trying to think of how to frame the restaurant chain analogy this entire time. If Papa John's chooses to track the history of the first franchise it doesn't matter who's operating it or who works there or how long it sat closed while they tried to restaff and get operations back up - It was always the same franchise #123459 or whatever as long as that's the story they stick with. 

 

 

9 hours ago, LMU said:

We're hung up here on the differences between the NFL's party line story vs. what is plain as day if you use your eyes.

 

Yes, the piece of paper and history books were left in Cleveland.  At the same time, you could clearly witness a bunch of players and front office guys load up moving vans and drive 400 miles. You could also clearly see that an expansion draft was held and that a new owner popped up and the new team moved into a new stadium that the current Baltimore Ravens had no role in.

 

None of that has anything to do with how the league chooses to define the franchise lineage and when the Ravens kicked off in 1996 everyone knew they were operating a new franchise. Yeah I go with the NFL's party line because that's what actually happened. What's plain as day is an owner moved a team of players to a new city to start a new franchise. 

 

9 hours ago, LMU said:

Plus, this logo certainly doesn't read "franchise reactivation draft."

G8m6zdE.gif


Let's say, heaven forbid, an entire roster is wiped out in a plane crash. They'd have an expansion draft to restaff their team. It would still be the same franchise. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The history of the matter is that the team up and moved to Baltimore.

 

The history of the matter is that the team up and moved to Baltimore with an agreement in place that they'd be operating a new franchise in Baltimore and the Cleveland franchise would stay behind in Cleveland. Dishonesty by omission to leave the second part of the story off. 

 

8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Whether you accept that the "team moved but franchise didn't" depends on whether you see it as a legitimate thing that happened or a bit of theatre.

 

It was probably both, honestly. The league had a PR nightmare on their hands and they came up with a solution to appease angry customers. But I also don't care if it was legitimate or not because that was the agreement everyone signed before the Ravens ever played a snap. It could've been for the silliest reason imaginable and it wouldn't change my stance. I think whether you accept the "team moved but the franchise didn't" depends entirely on how you view "franchise" and I see it the way the business operating it chooses to define it. 

 

 

Sorry, everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now