Jump to content

More revisionist history


smzimbabwe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I watched the Portland-Seattle MLS game on TV today, and the announcers referred to records from the late 70's/early 80's. I know that teams called the Timbers and Sounders existed back then, but they were part of a different league. I was unaware the old NASL records still counted in MLS, which I thought was a separate entity.

 

Do the Jacksonville Jaguars talk about and keep track of records of the old Jacksonville Bulls?

 

Sorry for the rant, revisionist history really bugs me. People acting like today's Cleveland Browns are the Browns of Jim Brown, Brian Sipe, etc. really irks me. I'm not looking forward to a future Seattle NHL team calling themselves the Metropolitans, or a future Seattle NBA team calling themselves the SuperSonics and claiming the old records and stats, as that will undoubtedly lead to more revisionist history.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

I watched the Portland-Seattle MLS game on TV today, and the announcers referred to records from the late 70's/early 80's. I know that teams called the Timbers and Sounders existed back then, but they were part of a different league. I was unaware the old NASL records still counted in MLS, which I thought was a separate entity.

 

Do the Jacksonville Jaguars talk about and keep track of records of the old Jacksonville Bulls?

 

Sorry for the rant, revisionist history really bugs me. People acting like today's Cleveland Browns are the Browns of Jim Brown, Brian Sipe, etc. really irks me. I'm not looking forward to a future Seattle NHL team calling themselves the Metropolitans, or a future Seattle NBA team calling themselves the SuperSonics and claiming the old records and stats, as that will undoubtedly lead to more revisionist history.

The NFL actually identifies this Cleveland team as the original Browns. The agreement that allowed the original team to go to Baltimore states this. We all know it's a new team by definition but if a player breaks a record from 1953, he's broken his current teams record. 

 

The Cascadia teams all claim that they share the history of the original teams, but realistically they are the continuation of a name across multiple leagues and multiple timelines. They can be as confusing as the history of Batman and Superman. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the agreement the NBA has with Seattle that the hypothetical future Supersonics and the Thunder will share the history of the original Sonics? So then we'll have two different teams claiming an NBA Championship in the same year like it's old school college football, right? What a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Isn't the agreement the NBA has with Seattle that the hypothetical future Supersonics and the Thunder will share the history of the original Sonics? So then we'll have two different teams claiming an NBA Championship in the same year like it's old school college football, right? What a mess. 

Well since the Thunder don't honor that championship at all, might as well have the new Sonics honor it since it means so much to the city of Seattle.

 

The new Sonics can honor it, but if they claim that title as their own, then at that point it will be stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Which is why the Browns thing is an entirely different animal.  They actually are the same Browns, unlike the modern Charlotte Hornets or Milwaukee Brewers. 

No they aren't, the browns team that Jim brown played on is currently playing in Baltimore as the Ravens. No amount of revisionist history changes that. The current team is an expansion franchise in 1999

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dont care said:

No they aren't, the browns team that Jim brown played on is currently playing in Baltimore as the Ravens. No amount of revisionist history changes that. The current team is an expansion franchise in 1999

 

The NFL has a precedent of putting its franchises on temporary hiatus and bringing them back with continuity intact. Which they did contemporaneously, not decided after the fact as required for revisionist history.  The franchise certificate stayed in Cleveland the whole time. 

 

What year would you say the LA Rams were founded?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

The NFL has a precedent of putting its franchises on temporary hiatus and bringing them back with continuity intact. Which they did contemporaneously, not decided after the fact as required for revisionist history.  The franchise certificate stayed in Cleveland the whole time. 

 

What year would you say the LA Rams were founded?

 

The Russians call the Admiral Kuznetsov a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser when it is nothing of the sort.

 

The NFL's game of sophism is similar.

 

Also 1937.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

The NFL has a precedent of putting its franchises on temporary hiatus and bringing them back with continuity intact. Which they did contemporaneously, not decided after the fact as required for revisionist history.  The franchise certificate stayed in Cleveland the whole time. 

 

What year would you say the LA Rams were founded?

1936, I have no idea how that matters. But no when the browns moved to Baltimore everything went over except the name. Just because clevlandera got mad about their team moving they decided to keep the "history" and name in Cleveland to save some face and for PR

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there was an agreement before the move was official. The Browns are the Browns. The Ravens are the Ravens. It's not an alternate fact. You can feel free to say it's not fair, but it's the truth. That's why now, anytime there's a move, everyone waits to see if the franchise history will stay or not. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dont care said:

1936, I have no idea how that matters. 

 

Because it set a precedent of an NFL franchise going dormant, not fielding a team, and picking up again with an unbroken historical line.  The NFL does that.  Not often, but they do it.  And there's nothing "revisionist" about it when they're quite clear at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ravens got the Browns' owner, players, management, and draft position. And Baltimore had a team in 1996, while Cleveland all of a sudden didn't. Forgive me if I consider those things to be more important than a piece of paper.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Because it set a precedent of an NFL franchise going dormant, not fielding a team, and picking up again with an unbroken historical line.  The NFL does that.  Not often, but they do it.  And there's nothing "revisionist" about it when they're quite clear at the time. 

I'm not aware of that ever happening and went to look to see if that did and can't find anything so show me where this happened and I may agree with you. But when the rams became dormant did all players, owners and management move to a new location where a team wasn't before and then another team randomnly started?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dont care said:

I'm not aware of that ever happening and went to look to see if that did and can't find anything so show me where this happened and I may agree with you. But when the rams became dormant did all players, owners and management move to a new location where a team wasn't before and then another team randomnly started?

 

He's got a point... if the Bills moved to Jacksonville in '92? Let's live in the real world, it would still be the Bills in four straight Super Bowls, strictest application of semantics aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to how the league views it. MLS views Seattle and Portland's histories beginning from when they joined the league, the NFL considers Baltimore an expansion team and the Browns as a team that exists from 1946 to now. They also say that the Houston Oilers history belongs to Tennessee since the owner refused to give up the identity and actually moved with it in his possesion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

The Ravens got the Browns' owner, players, management, and draft position. And Baltimore had a team in 1996, while Cleveland all of a sudden didn't. Forgive me if I consider those things to be more important than a piece of paper.

 

Word. And while I think only there were only like 2 players who played for both the '95 Browns and the Super Bowl Champ '00 Ravens, the decisions made after relocation by the same management, particularly in the '96 draft, led the Ravens to that championship. No reason that could not have occurred in Cleveland.

 

If revisionist is all the rage, maybe Cleveland can claim future history too and finally get themselves a couple trophies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys got it all wrong... The Browns owner fired everyone... Including himself, all players, and coaching staff. Then EVERYONE was rehired by an expansion team in Baltimore. The Browns then took 3 years off before hiring a bunch of new people and signing a bunch of new players...

 

The Browns also graciously gave up their pick to that new team, because they were on vacation for that technically... :P

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.