Sign in to follow this  
smzimbabwe

More revisionist history

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, rickyISking said:

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.

 

What exactly does it mean to the city of Seattle in 2017?  Serious question - what do past professional sports championships really mean to a city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Then you don't have a problem with a franchise going dormant and picking up again while retaining an unbroken history. 

 

World War Two is a slightly different cause.  Also management didn't change.

Share this post


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

 

What exactly does it mean to the city of Seattle in 2017?  Serious question - what do past professional sports championships really mean to a city?

 

Why care about anything?

 

This strikes me as a silly question with an obvious answer. It's great when your local team wins a championship. It feels good. Why is that surprising?

Share this post


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

 

Why care about anything?

 

This strikes me as a silly question with an obvious answer. It's great when your local team wins a championship. It feels good. Why is that surprising?

It does! 

History's history though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the NFL handled Cleveland seems like a farce to me. One of the only teams I follow with anything more than a passing interest is the Rowdies, who have a similar history of "coming back" after an absence. There is no way they are not Rowdies 2.0. Not even close. To argue that these teams that have a clearly defined trail leading to another city or the grave are one and the same as their current iteration seems historically dishonest to me. 

 

That said, the history should be celebrated by the city. I like that the Rowdies have the old retired number up. I like seeing the recognition of the old NASL title. I think it's cool that Ottawa hangs the old banners. But just don't tell me that if the Senators won this year it would have been anything but their first Cup. 

 

 

Edited by twi
Missed an important 'not'!

Share this post


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

It does! 

History's history though.

 

But the question was "why would Seattle care about a championship won in 1978?"

 

Well, why would someone care about the War of 1812? Stuff happens that's worth remembering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

But the question was "why would Seattle care about a championship won in 1978?"

 

Well, why would someone care about the War of 1812? Stuff happens that's worth remembering?

Certainly, but Canada didn't move to South America only for Minnesota to claim the War of 1812 because they too like hockey. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with a Seattle expansion team celebrating the Sonics' NBA Championship. I just take issue with them claiming to be the team that won it. 

If you think that's splitting hairs, so be it, but there ya go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

If you think that's splitting hairs, so be it, but there ya go. 

 

 

If we want to get into super splitting hairs territory, try discussing the "unmerger" that created the Sharks.

 

The basic idea is that the Gund's Cleveland Barons and the Minnesota North Stars merged in the 1970's, only to "unmerge" when the Gunds sold the North Stars and founded the Sharks. The North Stars' participation in the expansion draft, along with the Gunds selecting many ex-North Stars in the draft, supports this idea.

 

However, I'm not sure how much of the Sharks' fandom believes in the "unmerger" or even cares whether or not they "own" the Seals and Barons' records (given how both teams were mediocre to terrible in their short existence). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very interesting how, for most, the concept of team and franchise are intertwined. 

Share this post


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

It's very interesting how, for most, the concept of team and franchise are intertwined. 

Well they are, a team is a franchise of the respective league they play in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the way NFL handle the Browns was good. I wonder if people who dislike it would like it better had the NFL made Modell release all the players and had an expansion draft for the Ravens and given them the 1st overall pick in 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smith03 said:

I think the way NFL handle the Browns was good. I wonder if people who dislike it would like it better had the NFL made Modell release all the players and had an expansion draft for the Ravens and given them the 1st overall pick in 1996.

That would have been more true to the way the NFL decided to recognize it.  Of course it would have been stupid and a giant pain in the ass.  And, of course, in any real way (i.e., discounting the NFL's gymnastics), Model was simply moving his team...players, coaches, draft picks, etc...to Baltimore.  It would be asinine to treat them as an expansion team...which the NFL did, in terms of the historic record.

 

I actually learned on this board (which I joined in 2004) that the "history" changed.  When the Cleveland Deal happened, I understood that Cleveland was to get a team and it was to be called the Browns.  I did not know that the history was staying behind...why?  Because it never occurred to me that such a thing would or could happen.  I remember arguing here that the Ravens were the continuation of the Browns (and ultimately being wrong).

 

For those that are interested in sports history, imagine if this had always been the norm.  The history of big-league sports franchises would be fractured and very difficult to follow.  The Giants and Dodgers would be 1950s expansion teams with different names while the Mets would be called the Giants and the Dodgers would be considered defunct (or vice versa?).  We'd have defunct franchises all over the NBA. The Raiders history(ies) would be a mess (and a national team brand would be lost).  The lineage of Harmon Killebrew (WASH-MIN), Jackie Robinson (BKN-LA), Willie Mays (NY-SF), etc. would be fractured as those players will have played for two different franchises (prior to Killebrew and Mays playing each for a third late in their career; actually Mays would be considered to being going back to his original team).  


Franchises have lineages...and the Browns "official" franchise lineage is manufactured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Franchises have lineages...and the Browns "official" franchise lineage is manufactured.

But it's not.  It's abnormal and the city did everything that the NFL wanted them to do,  but Modell still pulled out of Cleveland and the league had to do something. If Modell would've been a man of his word, the Ravens would have never existed. How the league would look now might've been altered as well. No Texans, maybe only 30 teams and three divisions each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, walkerws said:

But it's not.  It's abnormal and the city did everything that the NFL wanted them to do,  but Modell still pulled out of Cleveland and the league had to do something. If Modell would've been a man of his word, the Ravens would have never existed. How the league would look now might've been altered as well. No Texans, maybe only 30 teams and three divisions each. 

None of what I am saying disputes what you say (after "But it's not.").  I'm no Modell fan and I wish the Browns had stayed put.  But whether a city is indifferent or an owner moves a team against all rationality does not impact what the franchise did.  The 1997 Ravens still consisted primarily of 1996 Browns...that's the lineage and the connection to franchise records held by people like Jim Brown.  The NFL solution, even if it made more people happy and even if Modell did the wrong thing, fudged that just as sure as the retroactive Hornets mess did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-28 at 6:28 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Then you don't have a problem with a franchise going dormant and picking up again while retaining an unbroken history. 

 

I just want to chime in here but the Browns didn't go dormant. They relocated to another city and became another team. They just left behind their history to be claimed by an expansion team. (Whatever the Hell that truly means).

 

This wouldn't be the same as lets say the Ottawa Senators (original) going dormant in 1931 and then being revived in 1932 or the Quebec Bulldogs going dormant in 1917 and being revived in 1919. Those teams truly went dormant and were simply reactivated with the players all coming back to the fold. That really wasn't the case for the Browns.

 

What they could have done is that the Browns go dormant and the players all go to Baltimore to play for the expansion Ravens. Then when the Browns are reactivated the players all come back to Cleveland and the Ravens are stocked through an expansion draft. (seems unlikely I know but that would truly separate the two entities rather than this whole leaving name. logo, colors and history behind mumbo jumbo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with the Browns deal because nothing was rewritten. The Ravens never played a single game as the same franchise as the Browns. When they took the field for the 1996 season it was well defined and understood by everyone that they were playing/watching a brand new franchise. They had a first touchdown, first field goal, first interception, etc etc. To me that's not lying about history, that is the history. If you think about it as a roster transaction it was transactional in the same way that a trade or a free agent signing is transactional the only difference is the scale of the transaction was much much larger and one of the teams involved didn't play for the next 3 seasons. The only thing that was fuzzy in 1996 was when the Browns would be coming back, but I don't see how that matters for how the Ravens are treated in the history books. 

 

The retroactivity of the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans thing bothers me, but that wasn't the case with the Ravens. They knew from day one that they were starting with a clean slate and it wasn't rewritten after the fact. Because it was laid out in such simple terms and the breaks were clean then I don't have a problem with it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

I'm okay with the Browns deal because nothing was rewritten. The Ravens never played a single game as the same franchise as the Browns. When they took the field for the 1996 season it was well defined and understood by everyone that they were playing/watching a brand new franchise. They had a first touchdown, first field goal, first interception, etc etc. To me that's not lying about history, that is the history. If you think about it as a roster transaction it was transactional in the same way that a trade or a free agent signing is transactional the only difference is the scale of the transaction was much much larger and one of the teams involved didn't play for the next 3 seasons. The only thing that was fuzzy in 1996 was when the Browns would be coming back, but I don't see how that matters for how the Ravens are treated in the history books. 

 

The retroactivity of the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans thing bothers me, but that wasn't the case with the Ravens. They knew from day one that they were starting with a clean slate and it wasn't rewritten after the fact. Because it was laid out in such simple terms and the breaks were clean then I don't have a problem with it. 

 

 

That's all we'll and good if the cities owned the teams but they don't. The Browns were owned by Modell and he moved the team with them with no transfer of ownership during that period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dont care said:

That's all we'll and good if the cities owned the teams but they don't. The Browns were owned by Modell and he moved the team with them with no transfer of ownership during that period. 


Art Modell had to agree to allow the Browns' records to stay in Cleveland in the terms in the move. When he signed the papers he willfully took ownership of a different franchise. Again, nothing was ever rewritten after the fact and nobody who mattered was unclear about what was happening. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2017 at 4:14 PM, dont care said:

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

 

On 5/28/2017 at 6:28 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Then you don't have a problem with a franchise going dormant and picking up again while retaining an unbroken history. 

 

On 5/28/2017 at 3:52 PM, rams80 said:

 

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.

 

 

http://iqfb.com/league-facts/colts-and-rams-biggest-trade-in-nfl-history/

 

Question: What is a 'team'?

 

If you join some rec league 'team', it's for as long as they're playing that season. You would think. When the season is over, that's the end of the team. When the new team starts next year, it's a new 'team'. Yet, if you have obligations from one year to the next and maintain the same name, is it the same team? Would you feel wrong to call them the "Joe's Auto Body Bears" any more than you would the new 'team'?

 

Why is that? A franchise is simply an instrument from the league under a conditional basis. They can be revoked, bought, sold, relocated, abandoned, or combined. They are simply an allocation of availability of one league to one team. Violate the rules, your franchise may be jeopardized. Sure, in the big money of major leagues today, it's doubtful any team would run afoul of their league nor would the league want to have a team in abstentia.

 

But the truth is, a 'franchise' isn't the team. The team isn't the franchise. It just depends how you feel history abides.  If someone starts talking about Washington Senators records, will you step in and say, "Oh, no, those aren't Washington Senators records. They're Washington Senators records. Completely different team."

 

Part of that is the former belief that though teams come and go, the monikers they played under tended to stay the same. Giants, Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Badgers, Pirates, Senators, Orioles, Rockies, etc stayed and transcended sports. And multiple 'teams' of the same sport over many different years.

 

Are the Los Angeles Rams anymore or any less the same Los Angeles Rams than the Portland Timbers are? They didn't play for 20 years in Los Angeles (and it's surrounding areas). They're not owned by the same man. Don't play in the same stadium. No players of recognition.

 

How is that really any different than the Timbers or Sounders or Whitecaps? Because the NFL 'says' they're the same team? If so, why not the Browns? The NFL 'says' they're the same franchise. So they are. Regardless the rules and procedures at the time instituted, they are, according to the one source that seems to matter to most.

 

After all, if taking a year off 'mattered', the Pittsburgh Penguins' Stanley Cups of the early 90s have little to do with the Pittsburgh Penguins of today. But then, taking a year off 'doesn't matter'. You feel they're the same team, yet twice they simply 'chose' not to play a season. For entirely monetary reasons.

 

Is that really much different than the Portland Timbers choosing not to play because there wasn't a financially viable option between the end of the NASL and the eventual USL league structure that propelled them to MLS?

 

If the NFL folded tomorrow and the 32 owners combined together to create "Super World Football", would those teams suddenly all reset to zero just because it 'matters' to you that they didn't exist previously in that league? No history. No records. No famous players. Nothing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this