jimsimo

Report: Browns New Unis Taking a Traditional Turn

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

 

 

 

This is what I'm saying about the Mandela Effect. People thought the Browns were a fresh new team in 1999, then when they heard they were granted their history when they started again in 1999 they thought it was a stupid rewriting of history without realizing that's not what happened. How it actually played out was known to everyone that mattered. Then when people learned it was actually pretty cut and dry they couldn't adjust their stance so now we have people here arguing that Bill Russell played for the LA Clippers so their argument is consistent. 

 

I think people just need to admit the Cleveland deal wasn't the perverted violation of historical record keeping they so want it to be. 

 

 

 

 

The bold was in response to me...and I kinda walked into it. My point was that I didn't "get" it for years because it was so contrary to how things had been done.  Therefore, it did take me a while to understand what hat happened.  That said, I do understand it now, and there's no Mandela effect for me. And, thanks to this discussion, I'm better able to distinguish Charlotte/NBA (revisionist history) from Cleveland (a different way to determine franchise movement). So, believe it or not I've come around some.

 

That said, I still think the Cleveland Deal is a perversion; not of history, but of the way events (i.e., to become history) are recorded.  A perversion of franchise, if you will.  A conscious decision was made to say the Browns are moving to Baltimore, but we're going to say "they're new" and then we're going to say "this brand new team, furnished by an expansion draft, is the team dating back to the 1940s."  I don't think many of us don't understand that.  It's just that a few of us don't believe that's the way it should be done.  With no continuity it seems weird that any Browns RB would be behind Jim Brown on a rushing list...I firmly believe that it ought to be Ravens RBs on that list.

 

And while the NBA did revise history, whereas the NFL did not...I'd still argue the effect is the same, albeit messier for the former.  The records, etc. stay in the city...Like Baltimore, New Orleans is recognized as having been an expansion team, despite being established.  Like Cleveland, Charlotte is recognized as having taken a hiatus.  Years later, does it really matter whether that path was pre-determined or if the history was revised?  (Kinda...but I'd still argue the impact is similar).

 

And while your point seems more detached than (The Baltimore fans don't care about Jim Brown!), which is to say, I don't think you are really making the "history belongs to the City!" argument...I believe that the Cleveland Deal is the key turning point in that philosophy taking over...even if it's not their fault that the NBA made a mess (and almost certainly will again, should Seattle get a team).

 

Even suggesting that the Cleveland Deal was done correctly, I'd say that it ought to be very, very rare...i.e., only when the deal is made upon the move (i.e., no history ever has to be changed) AND an expansion (not relocation) is a done deal. That way no franchise is defunct and no musical-history can be made.

Now, the NHL did it correctly, in my opinion.  Winnipeg has their Jets.  Historic lineage has been maintained.  I know Charlotte needed the Bobcats to be the Hornets...but I think it would have worked with or without the revisionist history.  After all, fans don't really care about or understand history anyway.

 

MLB, of course, has always done it correctly* but in ten years, when the Twins start hinting at a new ballpark, that will be jeopardized. And my team is the culprit...part of the Target Field deal (according to the "Cleveland Deal" wikipedia page) is that if the Twins leave the State, they do without the history.  According to this, wikipedia page, this has actually happened in the NHL....as I read this, the Avs are an expansion team.  Though the Avs Wiki page (yeah, that's all the research I'm doing) says they were established in 1972.  And according to this page the new Sonics and Thunder will "share" the history.  Good; that's not silly.

 

*Yeah, I'm sure someone will find some place it wasn't done correctly, like the dispute as to whether the Yankees are the 1904 Orioles...but essentially, we know who everyone is without doing any forensics like you'd need to under the "City owns it" model.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Senators ( II )

replaced the previous club of the same name and colors but still considered a new franchise with separate records from the twins.

That or a shared history is ideally the way to do it. The Cleveland deal doesn't really bother me but it did open pandora's box, with the CHA/NO deal is a cluster:censored:

 

Something my teenage self (and even a bit now) couldn't understand at the time was why the league did not just give Modell the expansion team ( the actual one that requires an expansion draft.) or even let him take so many players with him and find new ownership for the Browns for building a new stadium and moving forward instead of playing with the history books.

 

That being said i've come across some people in their 20/30's in recent years that were not aware of the browns being 2.0 and not the OG's

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Claystation360 said:

Washington Senators ( II )

replaced the previous club of the same name and colors but still considered a new franchise with separate records from the twins.

That or a shared history is ideally the way to do it. The Cleveland deal doesn't really bother me but it did open pandora's box, with the CHA/NO deal is a cluster:censored:

 

Something my teenage self (and even a bit now) couldn't understand at the time was why the league did not just give Modell the expansion team ( the actual one that requires an expansion draft.) or even let him take so many players with him and find new ownership for the Browns for building a new stadium and moving forward instead of playing with the history books.

 

That being said i've come across some people in their 20/30's in recent years that were not aware of the browns being 2.0 and not the OG's

 


how can you have an expansion draft when the number of teams in the league isn’t changing? There’s no way by the time it was announced that there could be a new owner in place for the next season, and no indication that the league even wanted 31 teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what he's thinking is Modell keeps running the team, or owns the team in a blind trust while other people operate it, until a Baltimore expansion team is ready to come on line, at which time he starts owning the Ravens and the Browns get spun off to the Lerners or whoever else. I don't know.

 

But you're right that there was no guarantee that the Browns would come back through an expansion draft. If I remember correctly, there was talk that the Buccaneers would move to Cleveland without a new stadium in Tampa, in which case you've really got messy record books, and probably a Browns team as star-crossed as the one we wound up with.

 

Bottom line, NFL teams never should have been allowed to move after the merger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 2:03 PM, Faxion said:

So they do. Backwards facing logo can be seen as negatively symbolic.

 

The Eagle faces to the left because the right side (the back of the head) is the letter "E" for "Eagles"

 

And while we're talking about odd franchise histories, remember there's also the Winnipeg Jets that have the Thrashers history but not the original Jets history because that's still with the Coyotes.  But yeah, the way I understood the Browns move back in 1996, the Browns team members were allowed to leave and form a new team in Baltimore but the name, unis and all the history, etc. had to stay in Cleveland as part of the agreement, so technically the Ravens are not the Browns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BigEd76 said:

The Eagle faces to the left because the right side (the back of the head) is the letter "E" for "Eagles"


I think you’re seeing something that was never intended to be there.  If they wanted to deliberately create an E, they could have done a much better job of it.  Even leaving off that bottom “feather” would have made the E more reasonable. 


Philadelphia-Eagles-e1562947605277.jpg?fit=599%2C399&ssl=1

 

Quote

And while we're talking about odd franchise histories, remember there's also the Winnipeg Jets that have the Thrashers history but not the original Jets history because that's still with the Coyotes.  But yeah, the way I understood the Browns move back in 1996, the Browns team members were allowed to leave and form a new team in Baltimore but the name, unis and all the history, etc. had to stay in Cleveland as part of the agreement, so technically the Ravens are not the Browns.


You are correct.  Decided and announced ahead of time, so the history and legacy remain intact. 

Share this post


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

Just because other people want to keep talking about the topic, that doesn’t mean you have to participate. ;) 

You'd have a case if someone didn't make a lengthy post in response to one of mine, AFTER I'd already said I was bowing out.

And what am I supposed to do? They're clearly not convinced by my arguments. Nor am I convinced by theirs. So I could post in length, repeating points they've already rejected so they can respond with points I've already rejected, or I could move on and save myself the trouble of being called "absurd" for ultimately explaining a position I was asked to explain in the first place.

 

Ultimately? The Cleveland Deal was something no other fanbase had ever gotten before (and few have actually gotten since, the old Earthquakes moving to Houston in MLS is the only other notable case to come to mind) where a pledge was made beforehand to preserve the old teams' identity and record books for a new expansion club, along with a pledge of said new team as soon as possible.

I find it dishonest, silly, and groupthink-y to the extreme, but beyond the specifics of it? I brought it up only to say that, you know what? Maybe Cleveland Browns fans should get over themselves and stop acting like the most hard-done-by fans in sports. Quebec Nordiques fans lost their team through no fault of their own and only because there was literally no money around to pay for a new arena at the time. They're still getting dicked around by the NHL. And if/when they do get a new team? I promise you the actual Nordiques' records and history will stay with the Colorado Avalanche.

So all in all? Cleveland can let go of their victim complex and enjoy the fact that they go a pretty sweet deal as far as "spurned" fanbases go.

 

The new team (and it very much is a new team) being run like a clown show is an entirely different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 12:45 PM, 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

 

On 1/13/2020 at 1:33 PM, 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.


It’s not uncommon on soccer shirts for the badge to point inwards, towards the heart. 
 

spacer.pngspacer.pngharry-kane-tottenham-2018-19_1l9wemhesjusaido-berahino-west-bromwich-albion-brombrighton-liverpool-120119k.jpg201810162094875162.jpeg929701.jpg


Many Arsenal fans were upset when the new crest flipped it, so the cannon was pointing out. 
 

spacer.png


You’d figure that pointing the gun away from the heart would be a good thing, but the symbolism is important. 


spacer.png

 

I’ve wondered if that’s why the Cardinals do what they do; whenever the logo is worn on the breast they flip it, use the reversed version, so it points inwards towards the wearer’s heart. 
 

spacer.pngr106104_1296x729_16-9.jpgspacer.png

 

I mean, this has gotta be a deliberate choice, right?

 

spacer.pngsteve-wilks-2-e1521038400736.jpg

 

Everywhere else, it faces right.  But over the heart, it faces left.

 

So in this concept, the left-facing brownie head looks just perfect to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacing the Browns' logo, which is just a helmet, with a logo that includes a Browns helmet seems like...not taking advantage of the opportunity. I think everyone's in agreement that the Browns don't need to put a proper primary on the helmet itself, which frees them up a bit.

Come up with something classic-looking, something that's befitting a classic team. If it's a C monogram, a bulldog, an elf...whatever. There are options. Just don't make a new Browns logo that's literally wearing the old Browns logo 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think it’s inspired!
 

Fans love the Brownie logo, and they also love the helmet logo. So why not combine them?

 

 

Two great tastes that taste great together. 😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke's on you, I hate Reese's Peanut Butter Cups 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but how can you hate those sweet, sweet late-70s outfits?  Western shirts and hiphuggers for everybody!  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, but how can you hate those sweet, sweet late-70s outfits?  Western shirts and hiphuggers for everybody!  :D 

I usually hate "I was born in the wrong decade" sorts, but damn. That's hard to resist!

Share this post


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

Joke's on you, I hate Reese's Peanut Butter Cups 😉

The fix was clearly in then against the replenishing drawer full in the GToV.

Share this post


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

I dunno, I think it’s inspired!
 

Fans love the Brownie logo, and they also love the helmet logo. So why not combine them?

 

 

Two great tastes that taste great together. 😛 

 

I agree, I think combining the two (Elf & Helmet) is pretty inspired, as well (though I think "love" for the helmet logo is a strong word).  

Share this post


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

 


It’s not uncommon on soccer shirts for the badge to point inwards, towards the heart. 
 

spacer.pngspacer.pngharry-kane-tottenham-2018-19_1l9wemhesjusaido-berahino-west-bromwich-albion-brombrighton-liverpool-120119k.jpg201810162094875162.jpeg929701.jpg


Many Arsenal fans were upset when the new crest flipped it, so the cannon was pointing out. 
 

spacer.png


You’d figure that pointing the gun away from the heart would be a good thing, but the symbolism is important. 


spacer.png

 

I’ve wondered if that’s why the Cardinals do what they do; whenever the logo is worn on the breast they flip it, use the reversed version, so it points inwards towards the wearer’s heart. 
 

spacer.pngr106104_1296x729_16-9.jpgspacer.png

 

I mean, this has gotta be a deliberate choice, right?

 

spacer.pngsteve-wilks-2-e1521038400736.jpg

 

Everywhere else, it faces right.  But over the heart, it faces left.

 

So in this concept, the left-facing brownie head looks just perfect to me. 

 

Not sure if there is a correlation or even how similar this is, but in the tattoo community, it is believed - and almost mandated - that all faces point in towards the center of the body/heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, the admiral said:

I guess what he's thinking is Modell keeps running the team, or owns the team in a blind trust while other people operate it, until a Baltimore expansion team is ready to come on line, at which time he starts owning the Ravens and the Browns get spun off to the Lerners or whoever else. I don't know.

 

But you're right that there was no guarantee that the Browns would come back through an expansion draft. If I remember correctly, there was talk that the Buccaneers would move to Cleveland without a new stadium in Tampa, in which case you've really got messy record books, and probably a Browns team as star-crossed as the one we wound up with.

 

Bottom line, NFL teams never should have been allowed to move after the merger. 

 

If memory serves me, Cleveland was guaranteed team by 1999 (in addition to being given assistance for stadium funding).  The only unknown was whether it would be a relocated team or an expansion team.


EDIT:

 

The Washington Post backs me up on this (from February 10, 1996)..

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1996/02/10/owners-approve-move-of-nfl-team-to-baltimore/62005513-0215-46f0-9236-2eefbaae9583/

 

Quote

National Football League owners today voted to allow Art Modell to move his football team from Cleveland to Baltimore for the 1996 season, affirming a settlement reached by league and Cleveland negotiators Thursday night that guarantees that city an existing or expansion franchise by 1999.

 

The vote was 25 to 2, with three abstentions, to return the NFL to Baltimore for the first time since the Colts abandoned the city for Indianapolis in March 1984. Baltimore has been trying to lure a team since, and Modell has been promised a new rent-free $200 million stadium in the Camden Yards area in time for the 1998 season, although some Maryland legislators have balked at the state-supported deal.

 

Cleveland will retain the name Browns, the team's colors, logo and records, and has a financial commitment from the league to help in the construction of a stadium by 1999 for an expansion or existing team.

 

"This is a historic agreement in professional sports that solves an emotional, difficult problem for the NFL, Cleveland and Baltimore," NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said moments after he and Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White signed the document. "To the fans of the Browns I can say very simply you can count on us, the Browns will be there by 1999. . . . The NFL is committed to this. There are no ifs, ands or buts."

 

 

11 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Joke's on you, I hate Reese's Peanut Butter Cups 😉

 

Blasphemy!

Share this post


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

I guess what he's thinking is Modell keeps running the team, or owns the team in a blind trust while other people operate it, until a Baltimore expansion team is ready to come on line, at which time he starts owning the Ravens and the Browns get spun off to the Lerners or whoever else. I don't know.

 

But you're right that there was no guarantee that the Browns would come back through an expansion draft. If I remember correctly, there was talk that the Buccaneers would move to Cleveland without a new stadium in Tampa, in which case you've really got messy record books, and probably a Browns team as star-crossed as the one we wound up with.

 

Bottom line, NFL teams never should have been allowed to move after the merger. 

 

1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

 

If memory serves me, Cleveland was guaranteed team by 1999 (in addition to being given assistance for stadium funding).  The only unknown was whether it would be a relocated team or an expansion team.


EDIT:

 

The Washington Post backs me up on this (from February 10, 1996)..

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1996/02/10/owners-approve-move-of-nfl-team-to-baltimore/62005513-0215-46f0-9236-2eefbaae9583/

 

 

 

 

Blasphemy!

Hence why i said teenage self.😉 I guess the naive 14 year old was thinking if you've guaranteed Cleveland a team by 1999 be it relocated or expansion why not just give an expansion team to the city without a team (Baltimore) with Modell as owner, he gets everything he wanted and Cleveland gets to keep their original club with a new owner and I think i figured the league would own the Browns til new ownership was found. Which wasn't gonna happen overnight because plenty of folks want/wanted into the NFL club. I guess seen it as almost the Ravens being spun off I.E. San Jose Sharks/Northstars.

 

Fast forward talking to people that were in the league at the time and with more knowledge about it then myself, The NFL had zero interest in expanding at the time since they had just added Charlotte and Jacksonville. They were worried of it "diluting the talent pool."  Relocation was their first choice but ultimately they had to settle for expansion since their options had new stadiums deal or relocated to cities not named cleveland.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.