Relocation and Branding

[ScubaSteve]

If we look at it very generally, team history in regards to relocation really falls into two buckets:

• the fans generally want  history to remain city-based. If a new team comes to town, they still want to celebrate the players and achievements of the past. To them, although the players and brand might have changed, they probably don't think too much about all the other staffers that a franchise can employ.
• the ownership probably wants the history to remain franchise-based. If they move a team to a brand new city, they can still tout and promote past championships, players, throwback jerseys, retired numbers, etc. The franchise itself hasn't really changed other than location.

 

I can see both sides. It's not clear cut and I don't really envy the people that have to make that decision. But I'm sure they have good reason to choose what they choose

[2001mark]

I wish the current Winnipeg Jets would be able to have the same lineage as afforded the current Cleveland Browns.  

I'm fairly certain that Manitobans don't care much either way about Atlanta Thrasher lineage, even as the Coyotes do for the original Jets.

[-Akronite-]

36 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

If we look at it very generally, team history in regards to relocation really falls into two buckets:

• the fans generally want  history to remain city-based. If a new team comes to town, they still want to celebrate the players and achievements of the past. To them, although the players and brand might have changed, they probably don't think too much about all the other staffers that a franchise can employ.
• the ownership probably wants the history to remain franchise-based. If they move a team to a brand new city, they can still tout and promote past championships, players, throwback jerseys, retired numbers, etc. The franchise itself hasn't really changed other than location.

 

I can see both sides. It's not clear cut and I don't really envy the people that have to make that decision. But I'm sure they have good reason to choose what they choose

 

I can see both sides, but I land 100% on the side of the city. A fanbase is generally built up based on geography. You're based in a city and have that city in the team name for a reason, it connects an area together to root for the common goal of winning a title. The experience of sports and the marketability of athletes is so strongly tied to this that it makes it the highest priority IMO. When you talk about sports history, it's intertwined with the history of that region. As much as it is the same franchise and perhaps there is a large carry-over of personnel, there isn't really a connection to the past for the fans. Certainly the team is made up of players and front office personnel, who may all move with the franchise, but the only reason sports exist as a cultural phenomenon is that there are fans that come to games.

 

Do the LA Rams fans give a :censored: about the accomplishments of the St. Louis team? They didn't get to have that team or enjoy those wins because they weren't in LA anymore. The OKC Thunder technically have the Sonics title right? How much pride does that give ANYONE in OKC besides maybe the owner?

 

If an owner decides to break ties with a town, that's a tough choice. But part of that tough choice, to me, is leaving behind the history you had there. You can take away a lot of things from fans, but they will always retain that history as their own. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, -Akronite- said:

 

I can see both sides, but I land 100% on the side of the city. A fanbase is generally built up based on geography. You're based in a city and have that city in the team name for a reason, it connects an area together to root for the common goal of winning a title. The experience of sports and the marketability of athletes is so strongly tied to this that it makes it the highest priority IMO. When you talk about sports history, it's intertwined with the history of that region. As much as it is the same franchise and perhaps there is a large carry-over of personnel, there isn't really a connection to the past for the fans. Certainly the team is made up of players and front office personnel, who may all move with the franchise, but the only reason sports exist as a cultural phenomenon is that there are fans that come to games.

 

Do the LA Rams fans give a about the accomplishments of the St. Louis team? They didn't get to have that team or enjoy those wins because they weren't in LA anymore. The OKC Thunder technically have the Sonics title right? How much pride does that give ANYONE in OKC besides maybe the owner?

 

If an owner decides to break ties with a town, that's a tough choice. But part of that tough choice, to me, is leaving behind the history you had there. You can take away a lot of things from fans, but they will always retain that history as their own. 

 

You're making an argument on a point that is not the main issue.  The dispute is not about fans' feelings.  The dispute is entirely about the record books.

Fans in a given city will tend to care only about what happenened in their city.  Fine.  But reality is reality.  And we need to have records that reflect the actual facts of history.

When the expansion Washington Senators came into the American League in 1961, they surely inherited all the local fans of the original Washington Senators.  Yet the record books show that the original Senators moved to become the Twins after the 1960 season, and that the expansion Senators started in 1961 (and later moved to become the Texas Rangers in 1972).  The record books show this because this is what actually happened in the world of objective reality.

 

This is the correct model.  In all cases.    

The Winnipeg Jets have followed this model.  Their fans mentally connect the current Jets and the old Jets.  Bully for them.  But the record books show what actually happened in terms of the move of the original team to Phoenix and the move of the Atlanta team to Winnipeg.

The Cleveland deal is so offensive because it shattered this norm, and led to a breakdown of even the expectation that record books should reflect the events of history as those events actually took place.  This latter-day disregard of historical reality is infantile and fundamentally dishonest; it amounts to an epistimological crisis in the sociology of sport. 

[OnWis97]

11 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You're making an argument on a point that is not the main issue.  The dispute is not about fans' feelings.  The dispute is entirely about the record books.

Fans in a given city will tend to care only about what happenened in their city.  Fine.  But reality is reality.  And we need to have records that reflect the actual facts of history.

When the expansion Washington Senators came into the American League in 1961, they surely inherited all the local fans of the original Washington Senators.  Yet the record books show that the original Senators moved to become the Twins after the 1960 season, and that the expansion Senators started in 1961 (and later moved to become the Texas Rangers in 1972).  The record books show this because this is what actually happened in the world of objective reality.

 

This is the correct model.  In all cases.    

The Winnipeg Jets have followed this model.  Their fans mentally connect the current Jets and the old Jets.  Bully for them.  But the record books show what actually happened in terms of the move of the original team to Phoenix and the move of the Atlanta team to Winnipeg.

The Cleveland deal is so offensive because it shattered this norm, and led to a breakdown of even the expectation that record books should reflect the events of history as those events actually took place.  This latter-day disregard of historical reality is infantile and fundamentally dishonest; it amounts to an epistimological crisis in the sociology of sport. 

Unfortunately, it now is.  This board probably slightly favors the "whatever" model over the "franchise" model.  What you think the average casual fan that doesn't even know the Dodgers were ever in Brooklyn is going to prefer?  We are now pasting the history together in ways we wish it had happened instead of how it actually did happen.  I was really struck when the Hornets won a playoff game last year and ESPN reported it as the Hornets' first playoff win since 2002 with no mention whatsoever about the fact that the team that won that game moved to New Orleans the next year.  There is not a bit of lineage between the 2002 team and last year's team; but, officially, there is.  And that history "arrangement" wasn't even "clean" like the Cleveland Deal.  Histories were moved around like dominoes well after the Bobcats expanded.  And do you know who is upset?  Almost nobody.

 

(and I agree with every word of your post after the first paragraph)

[smzimbabwe]

I have the same name as my father. Can I claim all his accomplishments and list them on my resume (I look pretty young for a Vietnam vet) if I buy the rights from him? That's basically what 'leaving the history' behind people say.

[bosrs1]

16 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Fans in a given city will tend to care only about what happenened in their city.  Fine.  But reality is reality.  And we need to have records that reflect the actual facts of history.
 

 

Not that I disagree with you in many cases, but my question to this would be, why? Why do we need records to stay with the teams? If no one in the new city really cares about records in old cities, which they overwhelmingly don't, why does it matter that the history go with them? I mean if the records/history are left behind for another team, or even permanently inactive, that doesn't negate those records existing on a league level or anything like that. No different then when a team folds completely like say most recently the MLS Fusion and Mutiny.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

53 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Fans in a given city will tend to care only about what happenened in their city.  Fine.  But reality is reality.  And we need to have records that reflect the actual facts of history.

 

Not that I disagree with you in many cases, but my question to this would be, why?

 

 

Let us realise that we have kiddies running around right now who don't know that the Cleveland Browns ever moved.  When these young people consult an authoritative source, such as Pro Football Reference, they see a list of Cleveland Browns seasons going back to 1946, albeit with no entries for the seasons of 1996, 1997, and 1998.

To assert that someone consulting an historical reference be given information that tells them that the original Browns moved to become the Baltimore Ravens and that a new expansion Browns were later created, this is not a radical position, considering that this is precisely what happened.  But to assert that these historical facts should not be in any way reflected in the official records, this is a radical position.  For this radical position to have become mainstream says something deeply unsettling about a society that lets this happen.

We should realise also that keeping the records honest would have had no downside.  It would have in no way prevented the fans in Cleveland from enjoying the pleasure of rooting for the Browns again.  It would not have prevented anyone from having emotions that link the current expansion team and the team that moved, just as honest record-keeping surely didn't prevent any Washington Senators fans from emotionally adopting the expansion Senators as the continuation of the original Senators.  Furthermore, keeping the records honest would not have prevented the expansion Browns from retiring no. 32 in honour of Jim Brown, or from inviting former players of the original Browns as honoured guests, or from doing anything else that would unofficially tie the two teams together.

 

But what the correct handling of the records would have done would be to have provided a true and reliable account of the history of those teams, of the Browns/Ravens franchise and of the expansion Browns, such that when one of those kiddies who doesn't know any better consults a history book, he or she will not be misled.

 

I really cannot give a better answer than that; and I admit that I am a bit flummoxed by the very question "why should history books reflect the facts of history?"

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I really cannot give a better answer than that; and I admit that I am a bit flummoxed by the very question "why should history books reflect the facts of history?"

 

 

You're not going to like this, but one answer is "because sports."

 

Jim Irsay's not writing the Magna Carta. Fundamentally, it's all pretty silly.

[hawk36]

Beyond sports, take the recent closure of the landmark Carnegie Deli in New York as an example.

 

If the owners of the Carnegie Deli decided to move to St. Louis it could be the same name and same exact menu but a completely different thing. Then if they later sell the menu and name to someone who opens in the old Carnegie Deli location with the same name/menu, which is the "real" Carnegie Deli?

 

Arguments could be made for both but I, for one, would choose going to the original location over the original family. But both could claim history since both have history.

[-Akronite-]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You're making an argument on a point that is not the main issue.  The dispute is not about fans' feelings.  The dispute is entirely about the record books.

Fans in a given city will tend to care only about what happenened in their city.  Fine.  But reality is reality.  And we need to have records that reflect the actual facts of history.

When the expansion Washington Senators came into the American League in 1961, they surely inherited all the local fans of the original Washington Senators.  Yet the record books show that the original Senators moved to become the Twins after the 1960 season, and that the expansion Senators started in 1961 (and later moved to become the Texas Rangers in 1972).  The record books show this because this is what actually happened in the world of objective reality.

 

This is the correct model.  In all cases.    

The Winnipeg Jets have followed this model.  Their fans mentally connect the current Jets and the old Jets.  Bully for them.  But the record books show what actually happened in terms of the move of the original team to Phoenix and the move of the Atlanta team to Winnipeg.

The Cleveland deal is so offensive because it shattered this norm, and led to a breakdown of even the expectation that record books should reflect the events of history as those events actually took place.  This latter-day disregard of historical reality is infantile and fundamentally dishonest; it amounts to an epistimological crisis in the sociology of sport. 

 

This is a whole lot of poppycock IMO.

 

In terms of record-keeping, it still makes more sense to me to keep the history with the city. To move a franchise out of a city completely changes the context of that team. It's practically a new entity. We still have record that the Browns moved in 1996 and that an expansion franchise started in 1999. We can still keep record of pre- and post- move stats. It's really isn't that complicated and never really confuses me. This idea that "kids today" will not understand is crazy. We have this information before us on the internet, it's very readily available and well documented.

 

If a team changes identity but remains in the same spot, nobody is arguing that it is a new franchise or needs to shift records. But location matters.

 

Time is also a factor. Johnny Unitas was a Baltimore Colt. Do we tie him more to Baltimore or the Colts? Well, since Indy kept the name and uniforms, and since it was a long time ago, people think of him as part of Colts history. So even though he did it in Baltimore in front of fans from Baltimore for a franchise in Baltimore, people in Indianapolis claim his records because someone wanted to make some money. I know I'm tying sentiment up into things but I don't see what's wrong with that. Why would I give a :censored: about sports if sentiment wasn't involved? 

 

The Browns are tied to Cleveland. Jim Brown is tied to Cleveland. Art Modell and the Browns took an existing front office and roster, moved to Baltimore, and rebranded the team completely. You're saying it makes more sense for this moved franchise that has cut ties with the past to keep that past. I'm saying they leave it behind. Yes, we can look at continuity and see what happened and that the old Browns franchise is the current Ravens franchise. But when I hear about all-time records, and again this is my perspective, I give a :censored: about CLEVELAND football. Why would anyone involved with the Ravens care about how well their numbers stack up against the Cleveland Browns? A Baltimore Raven record makes more sense only including Ravens going forward.

 

Quote

 For this radical position to have become mainstream says something deeply unsettling about a society that lets this happen.

 

Oh lordy. You're treating this as if it's nuclear proliferation or something, it's sports records. Sports are tied to cities, that's a part of it. Children aren't being misled, hopefully their being taught to root for the HOME team, and that means sticking with a city and not running off when a billionaire owner tells them to.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

33 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

Quote

 For this radical position to have become mainstream says something deeply unsettling about a society that lets this happen.

 

Oh lordy. You're treating this as if it's nuclear proliferation or something, it's sports records. 

 

I am treating sport as though it's part of a society's culture, which it is.

There is no way to deny that the latter-day disregard for historical reality is an expresson of the trends which have brought us the lamentable phenomena of the "post-fact society" and the "post-truth era".
 

[-Akronite-]

Let me just add that I understand where you're coming from and get your logic, but I think it basically comes down to this:

 

Let's say during a broadcast, someone breaks a rushing record for the Browns. The announcers could say this is the best rushing performance in Cleveland Browns history. Now is it more appropriate if they only acknowledge members of the expansion franchise? Or is it more appropriate to acknowledge greats from the previous franchise?

 

In my opinion, especially given that both franchises/teams/players were called Cleveland Browns, it makes more sense to acknowledge all of them. You disagree because of the confusion created by alternate timelines, essentially, which I comprehend but disagree with. You see it as a lie to pretend that they are part of the same history when the franchise moved whereas I find it dishonest to claim history when a team moves (like the Dodgers can claim Jackie Robsinon all they want but that's Brooklyn history). Both are true in their own ways.

 

I hate the idea of cities losing teams and I especially hate the idea of cities losing an identity along with that team. Sentiment is absolutely part of my thought process, but that's how I think about all of sports. 

 

Quote

There is no way to deny that the latter day disregard for historical reality is an expresson of the trends which have brought us the lamentable phenomena of the "post-fact society" and the "post-truth era".

 

This is bonkers. You are reading too much into this IMO.

[OnWis97]

27 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

This is a whole lot of poppycock IMO.

 

In terms of record-keeping, it still makes more sense to me to keep the history with the city. To move a franchise out of a city completely changes the context of that team. It's practically a new entity. We still have record that the Browns moved in 1996 and that an expansion franchise started in 1999. We can still keep record of pre- and post- move stats. It's really isn't that complicated and never really confuses me. This idea that "kids today" will not understand is crazy. We have this information before us on the internet, it's very readily available and well documented.

 

If a team changes identity but remains in the same spot, nobody is arguing that it is a new franchise or needs to shift records. But location matters.

 

Time is also a factor. Johnny Unitas was a Baltimore Colt. Do we tie him more to Baltimore or the Colts? Well, since Indy kept the name and uniforms, and since it was a long time ago, people think of him as part of Colts history. So even though he did it in Baltimore in front of fans from Baltimore for a franchise in Baltimore, people in Indianapolis claim his records because someone wanted to make some money. I know I'm tying sentiment up into things but I don't see what's wrong with that. Why would I give a about sports if sentiment wasn't involved? 

 

The Browns are tied to Cleveland. Jim Brown is tied to Cleveland. Art Modell and the Browns took an existing front office and roster, moved to Baltimore, and rebranded the team completely. You're saying it makes more sense for this moved franchise that has cut ties with the past to keep that past. I'm saying they leave it behind. Yes, we can look at continuity and see what happened and that the old Browns franchise is the current Ravens franchise. But when I hear about all-time records, and again this is my perspective, I give a about CLEVELAND football. Why would anyone involved with the Ravens care about how well their numbers stack up against the Cleveland Browns? A Baltimore Raven record makes more sense only including Ravens going forward.

 

 

Oh lordy. You're treating this as if it's nuclear proliferation or something, it's sports records. Sports are tied to cities, that's a part of it. Children aren't being misled, hopefully their being taught to root for the HOME team, and that means sticking with a city and not running off when a billionaire owner tells them to.

No we don't.  The 1999 team was not an expansion franchise.  It is the team that moved in 1996.  The Ravens are the expansion team.

[OnWis97]

16 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

Let me just add that I understand where you're coming from and get your logic, but I think it basically comes down to this:

 

Let's say during a broadcast, someone breaks a rushing record for the Browns. The announcers could say this is the best rushing performance in Cleveland Browns history. Now is it more appropriate if they only acknowledge members of the expansion franchise? Or is it more appropriate to acknowledge greats from the previous franchise?

 

In my opinion, especially given that both franchises/teams/players were called Cleveland Browns, it makes more sense to acknowledge all of them. You disagree because of the confusion created by alternate timelines, essentially, which I comprehend but disagree with. You see it as a lie to pretend that they are part of the same history when the franchise moved whereas I find it dishonest to claim history when a team moves (like the Dodgers can claim Jackie Robsinon all they want but that's Brooklyn history). Both are true in their own ways.

 

I hate the idea of cities losing teams and I especially hate the idea of cities losing an identity along with that team. Sentiment is absolutely part of my thought process, but that's how I think about all of sports. 

 

 

This is bonkers. You are reading too much into this IMO.

Absolutely the former.  There is no continuity between the new and old franchises.  There is no lineage from Jim Brown to (whoever this rusher would be).  There is to Jamal Lewis.

 

Who do you want the Mets to claim?  The Dodgers?  Giants?  Both?  What do you want to happen to St. Louis Cardinals/Rams history?  Consider the teams defunct?  What about Cleveland Rams and Chicago Cardinals?  Are these four separate now defunct teams?  

 

The leagues have stories that are told through time.  By appeasing fans that happen to be disinterested in what actually happened, the story becomes fragmented and difficult to follow.  MLB actually has really solid stability, as judged by the 16 franchises that have been around since 1901 or earlier.  But your story would have people assuming that two New York NL teams went belly up, two brand new California teams popped up, the 1961 Twins had all the players from the 1961 Senators (who still existed with a bunch of new players) and Jackie Robinson, Kevin Durant, etc. played for multiple franchises (ungrateful athletes).

[-Akronite-]

21 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

No we don't.  The 1999 team was not an expansion franchise.  It is the team that moved in 1996.  The Ravens are the expansion team.

 

We all know the Browns moved and that an entirely new team started with an expansion draft. Given that Cleveland was not new to the NFL and was keeping its name/colors/history, it makes sense that treated it as they did. The Ravens came from the Browns but that doesn't make them the Browns anymore.

 

12 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Absolutely the former.  There is no continuity between the new and old franchises.  There is no lineage from Jim Brown to (whoever this rusher would be).  There is to Jamal Lewis.

 

Who do you want the Mets to claim?  The Dodgers?  Giants?  Both?  What do you want to happen to St. Louis Cardinals/Rams history?  Consider the teams defunct?  What about Cleveland Rams and Chicago Cardinals.  Are these four separate now defunct teams?  

 

The leagues have stories that are told through time.  By appeasing fans that happen to be disinterested in what actually happened, the story becomes fragmented and difficult to follow.  MLB actually has really solid stability, as judged by the few moves that have occured.  But your story would have people assuming that two New York NL teams went belly up, two brand new California teams popped up, the 1961 Twins had all the players from the 1961 Senators (who still existed with a bunch of new players) and Jackie Robinson, Kevin Durant, etc. played for multiple franchises (ungrateful athletes).

 

What I think is that we should acknowledge all of it. I'm not sure why it has to completely be one or the other. We can acknowledge pre- and post-move Browns. We can acknowledge that the Hornets moved and the Sonics moved. But if you're talking about the greatest Browns in history it seems stupid to limit that to the post-1999 players because then you're ignoring the history of sports in that city (and the literal words of the question posed).

 

The Browns are one of very few cases. It was a long standing franchise that had a city make a deal, when moved, to be re-instated later. That's part of the team's history too, that's part of the continuity. That's why it's different from the Mets trying to claim the Dodgers (Why would that be a thing? Queens is not Brooklyn ).

 

You're acting like it's anarchy when really I am advocating for full acknowledgement of history with focus on the continuity of location. It's a unique set of issues to pro sports, so glad we don't have to have this debate with universities, where the institution and location are synonymous. 

[hawk36]

Other than the owner of a franchise, who in the new city of a relocated franchise want to have anything to do with the old city's team/history? If say the Grizzlies relocate to Seattle will anyone in Seattle care one bit what the team did before or who played for them before? No, they'll still celebrate Gary Payton, Sean Kemp, and Tom Chambers. In fact Gary Payton has been quoted as saying he wouldn't accept his jersey being retired in Oklahoma City. He obviously doesn't care about the franchise not that it's not in Seattle.    

[hawk36]

Just now, hawk36 said:

Other than the owner of a franchise, who in the new city of a relocated franchise wants to have anything to do with the old city's team/history? If say the Grizzlies relocate to Seattle will anyone in Seattle care one bit what the team did before or who played for them before? No, they'll still celebrate Gary Payton, Sean Kemp, and Tom Chambers. In fact Gary Payton has been quoted as saying he wouldn't accept his jersey being retired in Oklahoma City. He obviously doesn't care about the franchise now that it's not in Seattle.    

 

[AgentColon2]

I recall Johnny Unitas wearing a Ravens jersey in the ceremony at the first game.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Depending on your point of view, a franchise can effectively 'end' when the team leaves town. Eg- Seattle moving to OKC. When you talk about and watch the Thunder, you don't view them as a continuation of the Sonics. It's as though the Sonics ceased to exist and the Thunder were birthed. Obviously much easier when the team completely changes identities, ala Colorado Avalanche, Phoenix Coyotes, Tennessee Titans (yes I know they were the Oilers for a year), Washington Nationals, etc.