Jump to content

Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms


jimsimo

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, ⋔ 4 ℞ ℞ $ said:

Why are two teams — the Tampa Bay Buccaneers & Baltimore Ravens — excluded? I mean rows & columns cannot possibly be a valid excuse either, since 4x8 would work just as well as 5x6 IMHO!

 

4 X 8 is a travesty and an assualt to all common decency, and I think that's something we can all agree with.

 

 

Or, you know, I just got lazy towards the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

So the the Celtics were founded in 1978 🤷‍♂️

 

And I don't place much of an emphasis on the "franchise certificate" side of things when they are used to tell me the things that I can easily confirm happened didn't happen. 

 

What didn't happen though? The Browns moved to Baltimore to start the new Ravens franchise. The Browns franchise stayed in Cleveland as agreed upon by everybody before the Ravens ever played a game. The Browns franchise came back with new players in 1999. That's the real history, there are no lies anywhere in there. 

 

How's it different from other relocations? Because nobody else had an agreement in place before the team played their next game. I don't know why this is dismissed as if it doesn't matter. It's the only thing that matters. If the 1999 Browns came back as a fully fledged new expansion franchise and then in like 2004 the league went back and altered the records I'd have a problem with it, but that's not what happened at all. 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

The Ravens were the old Browns.

 

Yes. Nobody disputes this or pretends it didn't happen. People think the Ravens pretend like they weren't born out of the Browns. That's not what's actually happening. Their origins are clear. 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

There was no expansion draft.

 

Irrelevant. You don't need an expansion draft to draw a new franchise line. 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

The new Browns that began play three years later were born of nothing and even participated in an expansion draft.

 

 

Also irrelevant. They needed an expansion draft to stock the franchise with players. They didn't have any players because the team moved to Baltimore where they started a new franchise.

 

if a team was wiped out in a plane crash they'd probably have an expansion draft to restock the team. I don't think you'd have people here arguing that they're not the same franchise. 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

That Modell left a symbolic piece of paper in Cleveland doesn't negate the above easily verified historical facts. 

 

 

But Modell did leave that symbolic piece of paper in Cleveland. Everyone agreed to it. That happened! That's a historical fact! You can't unring that bell or change the mindsets of the people who worked for the 1996 Baltimore Ravens. When the team kicked off in Baltimore it was as part of a separate franchise understood by everyone that mattered, as if the entire team had been traded, like the Braves and Celtics, which was always my hypothetical example about how players don't make a franchise, but to learn it actually happened is great. Saying "Baltimore is a new franchise, the Cleveland franchise will remain dormant until they can get back on to the field" is not an affront to history, it's not "lying" about what happened, and there's no pretending the Ravens weren't born out of the Browns. If anything it's a downright elegant telling of what actually took place. It merely broke precedence from the usual procedure, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. If your hang up is that the Ravens had the same players as the 1995 Browns, a franchise definition all your own, then that's on you. 

 

If your hang up is that Browns fans still complain about the move despite getting their team back then that's also on you. If your hang up is that the NBA took this clean cut and dry, rolled out in real time, no revisions plan and then perverted it, then that's on you. 

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

The reason I see it as not entirely analogous to the Browns/Ravens situation is that, at the very least, there was a continuity of there being a Boston Celtics team around. The Browns ceased to exist as a NFL franchise for three years, and were an entirely new franchise upon "returning." 

 

 

That's not entirely true. The stewards of the Browns franchise weren't doing nothing in the three years they didn't play. They had employees and fan club meetings and were working on building the new stadium in the intervening years. They didn't "cease to exist" except for not participating on the field in the 1996-1998 seasons/drafts. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 11:13 AM, sealbrownandorange said:

Good Lord! How about the City going into default in 1978? The Cleveland Torso Murderer? Red Right 88? The Drive? The Fumble? The Shot? There's plenty of dreadful things that could be dredged up from my childhood and formative years...

I'm going to focus on the future, however, and keep my fingers crossed that the Haslems start to get things right (with both Coach and Uniform) and the franchise moves in a positive direction.

To swing this conversation back in the direction of the uniform - I still say that this franchise needs a stronger identifying brand other than the Helmet logo. I'm not saying that they should put a logo on the helmet.  However, when you try and explain the Browns' tradition of a logo-less helmet and the plain aesthetic  (ala Penn State) to a 12 or 13 year-old, they look at you like you have a third-eye.  This generation has grown up in a time when sports teams are highly marketable, and the Browns pre-1999 are just ancient history to them.  If you read back through the recent posts in this thread, for many the ties to the old Browns were broken - at least in their minds - when the team moved to Baltimore.  So, who says you can't make a few minor tweaks to tradition?  Incorporating a modernized Elf as a primary, for instance, perhaps might help to make the ties to the old franchise a little stronger.  I don't know - I just think that there has to exist an intelligent compromise as far as the Browns are concerned - and smarter people than me exist who can figure it out...

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faxion said:

After doing some digging, this’s is the original design concept from ‘Hey Now’.

 

https://info.heynowmedia.com/bring-brownie-back-a-hey-now-media-redesign

 

spacer.png

Not a fan of the pants with the wordmark instead of striping, nor the lack of either brown or orange on the too away prototype jerseys. Adding an outline of orange to the brown sleeve stripes would work better. 

28 minutes ago, sisdog said:

The logo needs to be flipped. looks odd facing that way. Even on his logo sheet comparison, it is facing the opposite of all other logos.

Unless it's on the helmet, there's no reason to flip the brownie logo.

 

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

What didn't happen though? The Browns moved to Baltimore to start the new Ravens franchise. The Browns franchise stayed in Cleveland as agreed upon by everybody before the Ravens ever played a game. The Browns franchise came back with new players in 1999. That's the real history, there are no lies anywhere in there. 

 

How's it different from other relocations? Because nobody else had an agreement in place before the team played their next game. I don't know why this is dismissed as if it doesn't matter. It's the only thing that matters. If the 1999 Browns came back as a fully fledged new expansion franchise and then in like 2004 the league went back and altered the records I'd have a problem with it, but that's not what happened at all. 

 

 

Yes. Nobody disputes this or pretends it didn't happen. People think the Ravens pretend like they weren't born out of the Browns. That's not what's actually happening. Their origins are clear. 

 

 

Irrelevant. You don't need an expansion draft to draw a new franchise line. 

 

 

Also irrelevant. They needed an expansion draft to stock the franchise with players. They didn't have any players because the team moved to Baltimore where they started a new franchise.

 

if a team was wiped out in a plane crash they'd probably have an expansion draft to restock the team. I don't think you'd have people here arguing that they're not the same franchise. 

 

 

But Modell did leave that symbolic piece of paper in Cleveland. Everyone agreed to it. That happened! That's a historical fact! You can't unring that bell or change the mindsets of the people who worked for the 1996 Baltimore Ravens. When the team kicked off in Baltimore it was as part of a separate franchise understood by everyone that mattered, as if the entire team had been traded, like the Braves and Celtics, which was always my hypothetical example about how players don't make a franchise, but to learn it actually happened is great. Saying "Baltimore is a new franchise, the Cleveland franchise will remain dormant until they can get back on to the field" is not an affront to history, it's not "lying" about what happened, and there's no pretending the Ravens weren't born out of the Browns. If anything it's a downright elegant telling of what actually took place. It merely broke precedence from the usual procedure, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. If your hang up is that the Ravens had the same players as the 1995 Browns, a franchise definition all your own, then that's on you. 

 

If your hang up is that Browns fans still complain about the move despite getting their team back then that's also on you. If your hang up is that the NBA took this clean cut and dry, rolled out in real time, no revisions plan and then perverted it, then that's on you. 

 

 

That's not entirely true. The stewards of the Browns franchise weren't doing nothing in the three years they didn't play. They had employees and fan club meetings and were working on building the new stadium in the intervening years. They didn't "cease to exist" except for not participating on the field in the 1996-1998 seasons/drafts. 

I think the key word here is "symbolic." I've been on this board for more than 15 years and have genuinely enjoyed this debate, even when it gets silly. I can't recall, but has anybody considered looking at each organization's incorporation documents?

 

We keep referring to these as franchises, which they are, but they're also companies, typically LLC's registered with a state corporations division. Thinking of it in those terms, did Art Modell simply relocate his corporation to Maryland? If that's the case, then you have a direct continuation of the organization only with a different "dba" -- doing business as -- title. 

 

I'm not suggesting it would end the debate — What fun is that? — but it might advance the discussion beyond symbolic gestures to real, meaningful documentation. 

 

That whole Celtics/Braves thing, though, is a different can of worms. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't love it, but I think it's the new normal.  For however "clean" the Cleveland Deal was, does anyone that supports it turn around and not support the Charlotte/New Orleans Deal?  It's definitely not as clean but it's essentially the same result.

 

I think the "franchise model" is just kinda going away.  That doesn't mean we're going to go back and say that the Nationals now did what's attached to the Twins and Rangers or that the Mets are going to have two concurrent NY/Brooklyn franchises, but  for the most part, we're probably done having identities and histories move along with teams; at least if we believe the city being left behind is likely to get another.  And there will be exceptions...obviously the Raiders are going to continue to be the Raiders because they're the Raiders, a brand that kind transcends the city in which they are located (and because Oakland is unlikely to get another franchise).

 

It puts us in the unfortunate position of seeing some non-defunct teams become effectively defunct.  For example, if the T-Wolves move to Seattle, I think it's a pretty safe bet they get the Sonics old history and while the MIN/OKC/SEA situation kinda only involves two franchises, it results in three teams: 1 defunct, one 2008 expansion, and one defunct.  That kinda clouds the story but I also think it's what most fans prefer.

I found it interesting a couple of years ago when the Hornets won their first playoff series since (2003, or so)...I opened up franchise wikipedia pages and discovered that this was the last year before this franchise, the Hornets, moved to New Orleans.  Therefore, there's no continuity.  But this is where we are, now.  Fans that remember will get it.  Younger fans probably won't, with the exception of those that are really into sports history.

 

I've fallen pretty firmly on the side of moving history along with franchises.  And I prefer the Indianapolis Colts situation to the Browns/Ravens one.  (In other words, I wish they were the Baltimore Browns)  But I lose.  I'm glad that the team-moving that used to occur did it the way I prefer before I was following and that I didn't grow up in the 1980s seeing the Kingdome occupied by the Seattle Pilots, est. 1969 or the Mets claiming to be an original NL team.

 

So, if I'm going to support the franchise model, I have to either 1) defend the Celtics/Braves deal as unique or 2) suggest that the glory years of the Celtics belong to the Clippers.  I'm going to go with #1...it's like a super-trade...they traded players, etc. but some elements moved with the "old" and other stayed with the "new." For example, under the theory that the Celtics history would go with the Clippers, Larry Bird would have been a Clipper...but he was kept a Celtic.  This odd story, which I admittedly just skimmed, ended up being a strange, one-day partial-movement and partial non-movement for both (well, total movement for the team that ended up in San Diego). The other key element, in hindsight, is that this set no precedent. It was a strange move that ended up with a strange solution.  After that?  Teams like the Colts, Rams, Oilers, North Stars, KC Kings, etc. moved with no thought about "leaving the history behind."  The Celtics/Braves deal was not meant to do quite the same thing (and is not rooted in the "history belongs to the city" narrative).  And, if anyone convinces me that I'm wrong and this is no different than the Cleveland Deal, I'll simply shift to #2...the Celtics old titles are with the Clippers...congrats Lakers on having the most titles.  

 

The Cleveland Deal was precedent-setting. Unlike the Celtics Deal, it changed how we think of teams and franchises.  It was the gateway drug to the OKC/Charlotte mess. I lose...but I am glad it took a so long for a Cleveland Deal to open the gates.  That way, I don't think of the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants as "defunct" while the Los Angeles Movie Stars and San Francisco Seals were 1957 (???) expansion teams, which would conflict with the (true) narrative that MLB didn't expand until 1961.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 7:18 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 I never heard of that.  This is crazy:

 

 

I'd slap anyone that didn't consider the Celtics the same Celtics as always, just with a new owner.  I'm still not sure what happened here - they couldn't change the name of the owner of the franchise, so the Braves moved to Boston, and the Celtics moved to SD, and they just traded all the players and coaches, and the league changed the names of the teams?  Unnecessarily complicated.

 

http://www.alejandrogaitan.com/celtics-braves-trade/

 

 

And as you can read in the story, it was similar to what the Rams/Colts did in the 70s when they traded franchises. So the Rams are actually the Colts and the Colts actually the Rams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, McCarthy said:

*snipped for space*

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:45 AM, Ice_Cap said:

@infrared41 @Gothamite @oldschoolvikings

 

To be clear- I don't think the NFL ought to revise the records again. Suddenly admitting the 1999 expansion Browns aren't the historic Browns would do more to distort the record books at this point. The Browns are staying the Browns. I know that, I accept that. 

 

I still find it remarkably silly and a bit dishonest though 😛

Anyway I'm getting to the point where I'm repeating myself so I'll bow out of this for the time being. I was asked why I care, I answered. I hope I was able to explain myself in a satisfactory way. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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