"Beat Indy" T-Shirts

[Beantown77]

go Pats?

Word.

[BawlmerOreos]

Hey Baltiwhore,

When you steal another cities team you're a bigger scumbag then the city that stole your team.

That being said, GO COLTS!!!

Are you friggin' serious?

[ars427x]

Art Modell is a scumbag. Ozzie Newsome is a traitor. Go Colts!

[leopard88]

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Those who do the same action should complain about others doing the same thing.

I assume you meant to say "shouldn't complain."

That being said, I've noted several times on this board that most Baltimoreans would have strongly preferred to get a team through the expansion process. Once that didn't happen (and, as the St. Louis fans can attest, it was fairly apparent that the NFL wanted Charlotte and Jacksonville all along), the only option left was to have a team move to Baltimore. Rather than stay on the moral high ground, the leadership decided having a team was better than remaining above reproach. So be it.

I completely understand Cleveland fans being bitter and I would never tell them to "get over it" because I still remember how I felt in 1984 when the trucks snuck out during the night (I was 16 then). At the same time, I think fans who haven't had a team move on them need to try to put themselves in the shoes of those of us who have. In some respects, it is like a divorce because fans put the same sort of love and passion into their teams that many people do with their spouses (sometimes more), so the anger and resentment is genuine.

I used the word "catharsis" in an earlier post. I really think that is an accurate word, because a playoff win over the Colts would do a lot to help a lot of people move on (just as a loss might send a few sports talk callers off the deep end). I, for one, would love to see a win, but I'm pretty sure I will survive if the Ravens (heaven forbid) lose on Saturday.

[southernyankee]

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Those who do the same action should complain about others doing the same thing.

I assume you meant to say "shouldn't complain."

That being said, I've noted several times on this board that most Baltimoreans would have strongly preferred to get a team through the expansion process. Once that didn't happen (and, as the St. Louis fans can attest, it was fairly apparent that the NFL wanted Charlotte and Jacksonville all along), the only option left was to have a team move to Baltimore. Rather than stay on the moral high ground, the leadership decided having a team was better than remaining above reproach. So be it.

I completely understand Cleveland fans being bitter and I would never tell them to "get over it" because I still remember how I felt in 1984 when the trucks snuck out during the night (I was 16 then). At the same time, I think fans who haven't had a team move on them need to try to put themselves in the shoes of those of us who have. In some respects, it is like a divorce because fans put the same sort of love and passion into their teams that many people do with their spouses (sometimes more), so the anger and resentment is genuine.

I used the word "catharsis" in an earlier post. I really think that is an accurate word, because a playoff win over the Colts would do a lot to help a lot of people move on (just as a loss might send a few sports talk callers off the deep end). I, for one, would love to see a win, but I'm pretty sure I will survive if the Ravens (heaven forbid) lose on Saturday.

Well said Leopord. I was also 16 in March of '84 when the Colts left. I grew up listening to Chuck Thomspon do the Colts games on the radio as a kid when the games in Baltimore used to start at 2pm as opposed to Ipm due to a city ordinance around 33rd St. These memories will be with me forever and were a big part of my childhood and becoming a sports fan. While I miss the Uni's - the team is dead to me as the Raven's are now Baltimore's team and an entire generation here has grown up not even knowing that the Colts used to play here. I hold no bitterness anymore to the Colts - esp now that Bob Irsay is dead - but it would be final closure if we could beat them on Saturday and completely put an end to that chapter.

[Guest]

as the St. Louis fans can attest, it was fairly apparent that the NFL wanted Charlotte and Jacksonville all along

On the contrary, I think Jacksonville was sort of a last resort when the St. Louis leadership fell through. Why on Earth would the NFL say "yeah, St. Louis, Baltimore, okay okay yeah whatever, but WE GOTTA GET OUR HANDS ON JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA!"?

[leopard88]

as the St. Louis fans can attest, it was fairly apparent that the NFL wanted Charlotte and Jacksonville all along

On the contrary, I think Jacksonville was sort of a last resort when the St. Louis leadership fell through. Why on Earth would the NFL say "yeah, St. Louis, Baltimore, okay okay yeah whatever, but WE GOTTA GET OUR HANDS ON JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA!"?

Why? I think the NFL was convinced that new Sunbelt markets were the place to be and that the national TV product was so strong that local market size was not as critical. In hindsight, they may have erred.

If you remember, both cities were to be announced together. At the last minute, they only announced Carolina and scheduled another meeting to vote on the other team. In the interim, Wayne Weaver essentially announced that Jacksonville was pulling out of the bid process, only to see the NFL beg and plead for him to stay in. That told me that the die had been cast and that the NFL was going to Jacksonville come hell or high water.

[Gothamite]

Exactly - the Sun Belt was very hot. All the leagues were eager to get into the "emerging" markets.

In retrospect, it was nothing less than a disaster. For MLB as well. But at the time, it looked like a certain thing.

[BaltimoreFan]

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Those who do the same action should complain about others doing the same thing.

I understand why Cleveland fans are mad that they "lost" the Browns. It happened here. But the two situations are really different. Cleveland got a new team within three years and got to keep all of their history. For the most part I think their fans should just let it go. They got a pretty good deal (obviously not ideal, but not horrible). Now before you call me a hypocrite here's what happened to Baltimore. The Colts moved and kept the same name and all of the team's history. When we go to the Hall of Fame we have to see all of Baltimore great football players listed as Indianapolis Colts. I watched a playoff game a couple years ago and saw Tony Dungy wearing a jacket saying "Indianapolis Colts EST. 1953". The team still wears the old logos that were worn here in Baltimore. You have to here that Peyton Manning is breaking Unitas's records. You sometimes see fans in Indy holding signs saying "Asylum", which may be the biggest slap in the face because that was used to describe the people of Baltimore (Memorial Stadium was called The World's Largest Insane Asylum, which people are saying may come back on Saturday). That's the biggest thing that bothers people in Baltimore. If Indianapolis had changed its name and left the history here in Baltimore I don't think it would be such a big deal.

As for the whole stealing of a team. I know most people here in Baltimore probably would have perfered to have had an expansion team. However after we were snubbed for Jacksonville it appeared that the NFL didn't want to put a team here. Getting Cleveland to move here was probably the best way to get a team here (it's debatable, but if we didn't get Modell to move here we still might be without a team).

[leopard88]

From Wikipedia --

However, on July 21, 1993, the Council failed to approve the financing package, dooming the bid. Deposits on season tickets were refunded, and Touchdown Jacksonville!'s offices were shuttered.

Largely due to being underwhelmed by the remaining suitors, the NFL and others encouraged Jacksonville interests to revisit the issue and resurrect their bid.

. . . and, lo and behold, Jacksonville wound up with the second expansion team.

[Guest]

Okay, that makes it sound like it was St. Louis or Baltimore's to lose, which they did, so they had to settle for Jacksonville. It wasn't like the Expos move where Portland, Norfolk, and Las Vegas were propped up as destinations when everyone with half a brain knew they were headed for Washington.

So yeah, can the Jaguars hurry up and move to Los Angeles already? Jacksonville has been a failure as an NFL town, and a bonus failure as a Super Bowl host.

[mania]

Heck, to me, I think raping the team's rightful heritage for a pathetic "new Browns" team that has been the joke of the league since it's inception and would've been better off just coming up with a new identity makes it so that Cleveland fans really can't complain at Baltimore people.

However, all that being said... Go Pats.

[IceCap]

Heck, to me, I think raping the team's rightful heritage for a pathetic "new Browns" team that has been the joke of the league since it's inception and would've been better off just coming up with a new identity makes it so that Cleveland fans really can't complain at Baltimore people.

However, all that being said... Go Pats.

A team's "heritage" belongs to the team, not the city. The Cleveland deal was idiotic, and lets be honest, unfair to Modell. He wasn't allowed to take the history and heritage of his team with him.

The Colts moved the right way. Honestly, it sucks when a team moves, but if they must, the Colts did it the right way. They got to keep their history and identity.

So to the Ravens fan who talked about how hard it is to see Indianapolis Colts sweatshirts that say "est 1953" and to see Colts HoFers listed as "Indianapolis Colts", I understand where you're coming from. At the same time, however, you have to realize that the Baltimore Colts and the Indianapolis Colts are the same team. The success the Colts had in Baltimore belongs to the Colts, not the city.

As for Baltimore-Cleveland, the '99 Cleveland expansion team should have been forced to come up with a new identity. The Ravens should either 1) be known as the Baltimore Browns, or 2) be allowed to recognize the old Browns' history as their own.

All in all, I think both Cleveland and Baltimore got sweat deals when their respective teams left.

-Cleveland got to steal the team's history & identity and give it to an expansion team. On top of that the NFL payed for a new stadium.

-Baltimore lost one team, but gained an other, one that won a Super Bowl after only four years in the city, while all the Indianapolis Colts have is Super Bowl V, a game neither they or the Cowboys deserved to win. Baltimore only got screwed in that they couldn't keep their new team's rightful heritage.

Oh, Go Bolts!

[leopard88]

All in all, I think both Cleveland and Baltimore got sweat deals when their respective teams left.

-Cleveland got to steal the team's history & identity and give it to an expansion team. On top of that the NFL payed for a new stadium.

-Baltimore lost one team, but gained an other, one that won a Super Bowl after only four years in the city, while all the Indianapolis Colts have is Super Bowl V, a game neither they or the Cowboys deserved to win. Baltimore only got screwed in that they couldn't keep their new team's rightful heritage.

We could spend all day going back and forth about the first part of your thread, so I won't address it. However, I feel the need to respond to this part because I disagree with the second half of it.

I think Cleveland was treated as well as possible under difficult circumstances because they received:

1. A guarantee of a new team within 3 years.

2. The return of the Browns name, colors and history.

3. NFL assistance in building a stadium.

Again, I am not saying I don't have any sympathy with the fans in Cleveland, because I do. However, within 6 months after the announcement of the move, Cleveland knew a new Browns team would on the field by 1999, so they never experienced the 10+ years of uncertainty.

On the other hand, saying Baltimore got a "sweet deal" because it now has another team (and a Super Bowl winning team at that) wrongly presupposes that it was a given that Baltimore would get another team. That was never the case. To the contrary, the NFL essentially threw up its hands when the Colts left, then rejected Baltimore during the 1993 expansion, leaving the city to raid another city if it wanted a new team. That is hardly a "sweet deal."

[IceCap]

All in all, I think both Cleveland and Baltimore got sweat deals when their respective teams left.

-Cleveland got to steal the team's history & identity and give it to an expansion team. On top of that the NFL payed for a new stadium.

-Baltimore lost one team, but gained an other, one that won a Super Bowl after only four years in the city, while all the Indianapolis Colts have is Super Bowl V, a game neither they or the Cowboys deserved to win. Baltimore only got screwed in that they couldn't keep their new team's rightful heritage.

We could spend all day going back and forth about the first part of your thread, so I won't address it. However, I feel the need to respond to this part because I disagree with the second half of it.

I think Cleveland was treated as well as possible under difficult circumstances because they received:

1. A guarantee of a new team within 3 years.

2. The return of the Browns name, colors and history.

3. NFL assistance in building a stadium.

Again, I am not saying I don't have any sympathy with the fans in Cleveland, because I do. However, within 6 months after the announcement of the move, Cleveland knew a new Browns team would on the field by 1999, so they never experienced the 10+ years of uncertainty.

On the other hand, saying Baltimore got a "sweet deal" because it now has another team (and a Super Bowl winning team at that) wrongly presupposes that it was a given that Baltimore would get another team. That was never the case. To the contrary, the NFL essentially threw up its hands when the Colts left, then rejected Baltimore during the 1993 expansion, leaving the city to raid another city if it wanted a new team. That is hardly a "sweet deal."

Yes, their may have been 10 years of uncertainty, but it all worked out in the end. And the end result is what matters.

[leopard88]

All in all, I think both Cleveland and Baltimore got sweat deals when their respective teams left.

-Cleveland got to steal the team's history & identity and give it to an expansion team. On top of that the NFL payed for a new stadium.

-Baltimore lost one team, but gained an other, one that won a Super Bowl after only four years in the city, while all the Indianapolis Colts have is Super Bowl V, a game neither they or the Cowboys deserved to win. Baltimore only got screwed in that they couldn't keep their new team's rightful heritage.

We could spend all day going back and forth about the first part of your thread, so I won't address it. However, I feel the need to respond to this part because I disagree with the second half of it.

I think Cleveland was treated as well as possible under difficult circumstances because they received:

1. A guarantee of a new team within 3 years.

2. The return of the Browns name, colors and history.

3. NFL assistance in building a stadium.

Again, I am not saying I don't have any sympathy with the fans in Cleveland, because I do. However, within 6 months after the announcement of the move, Cleveland knew a new Browns team would on the field by 1999, so they never experienced the 10+ years of uncertainty.

On the other hand, saying Baltimore got a "sweet deal" because it now has another team (and a Super Bowl winning team at that) wrongly presupposes that it was a given that Baltimore would get another team. That was never the case. To the contrary, the NFL essentially threw up its hands when the Colts left, then rejected Baltimore during the 1993 expansion, leaving the city to raid another city if it wanted a new team. That is hardly a "sweet deal."

Yes, their may have been 10 years of uncertainty, but it all worked out in the end. And the end result is what matters.

If you look at it from that perspective (though I don't think it is nearly that simple), it mostly worked out in the end. It still annoys me that Indiana tried to sell Johnny Unitas license plates and that the blue horseshoes are playing in another city, but Baltimore does have another team and the organization has been very successful for the most part (Thank God we didn't get the Cardinals (though I still have the t-shirt)). However, that result doesn't make up for the years in the wilderness and never completely will, because those years can't be made up.

[T-man3]

Hey Baltiwhore,

When you steal another cities team you're a bigger scumbag then the city that stole your team.

That being said, GO COLTS!!!

Go Colts. Take back Baltimore and flatten the Ravens in this, the Battle Of Stolen Teams.

Art Modell is a scumbag. Ozzie Newsome is a traitor. Go Colts!

All of you should die in your Indy loving hole with that said

GO RAVENS

GO BALTIMORE

GO RAVENS

GO BALTIMORE

GO RAVENS

GO BALTIMORE

AND FINALLY WIN ONE FOR UNITAS AND F--K THE COLTS LET THEM BURN IN HELL

[gueman]

as the St. Louis fans can attest, it was fairly apparent that the NFL wanted Charlotte and Jacksonville all along

On the contrary, I think Jacksonville was sort of a last resort when the St. Louis leadership fell through. Why on Earth would the NFL say "yeah, St. Louis, Baltimore, okay okay yeah whatever, but WE GOTTA GET OUR HANDS ON JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA!"?

Why? I think the NFL was convinced that new Sunbelt markets were the place to be and that the national TV product was so strong that local market size was not as critical. In hindsight, they may have erred.

If you remember, both cities were to be announced together. At the last minute, they only announced Carolina and scheduled another meeting to vote on the other team. In the interim, Wayne Weaver essentially announced that Jacksonville was pulling out of the bid process, only to see the NFL beg and plead for him to stay in. That told me that the die had been cast and that the NFL was going to Jacksonville come hell or high water.

I agree and believe and will always believe that the decision for franchises to move to St. Louis and Baltimore was decided in those meetings. The existing franchises were shown what sweet deals the "new kids" were getting and were envious. They new there were existing teams that might need to move, and wanted to keep the best packages for themselves. I don't think that the Browns and the Rams were singled out at those meetings but the owners wanted a safe harbor. Both Charlotte and Jacksonville were still relatively unproven sports markets and no existing owner wanted to move to a risky situation. So they voted to give it to the "new kids". I think the fact that Al Lerner was involved in the Baltimore expansion bid and owned the plane that the deal to move the Browns to Baltimore was inked on, and later became the owner of the Browns. Gives a little strength to my opinion.

I also feel that from a marketing standpoint the NFL made a huge blunder by not asking/forcing the Rams, Colts, and Cardinals to change their names, and retire the franchises.They could have had a heritage line of merchandise, that would have been very profitable. When the team moved it should have been treated as an expansion team. That is one of the issues the fans of Baltimore have with the way the NFL handled the Browns move. Perhaps they learned from the past.

You Clevelanders hate Art and the Ravens now. Just imagine how you would feel if the Baltimore Browns played the Cleveland Lakers, and Jim Brown's records in the HoF were listed as a Baltimore Brown. OK now you understand, you got a sweet deal and should be happy with it.

Oh and to Icecap 79 as you can see I disagree with you. Would you feel the same if the Maple Leafs move to Quebec City.

[Broken Record]

It's like the old train wreck saying... I know it's terrible and grotesque, but I can't look away.

[IceCap]

All in all, I think both Cleveland and Baltimore got sweat deals when their respective teams left.

-Cleveland got to steal the team's history & identity and give it to an expansion team. On top of that the NFL payed for a new stadium.

-Baltimore lost one team, but gained an other, one that won a Super Bowl after only four years in the city, while all the Indianapolis Colts have is Super Bowl V, a game neither they or the Cowboys deserved to win. Baltimore only got screwed in that they couldn't keep their new team's rightful heritage.

We could spend all day going back and forth about the first part of your thread, so I won't address it. However, I feel the need to respond to this part because I disagree with the second half of it.

I think Cleveland was treated as well as possible under difficult circumstances because they received:

1. A guarantee of a new team within 3 years.

2. The return of the Browns name, colors and history.

3. NFL assistance in building a stadium.

Again, I am not saying I don't have any sympathy with the fans in Cleveland, because I do. However, within 6 months after the announcement of the move, Cleveland knew a new Browns team would on the field by 1999, so they never experienced the 10+ years of uncertainty.

On the other hand, saying Baltimore got a "sweet deal" because it now has another team (and a Super Bowl winning team at that) wrongly presupposes that it was a given that Baltimore would get another team. That was never the case. To the contrary, the NFL essentially threw up its hands when the Colts left, then rejected Baltimore during the 1993 expansion, leaving the city to raid another city if it wanted a new team. That is hardly a "sweet deal."

Yes, their may have been 10 years of uncertainty, but it all worked out in the end. And the end result is what matters.

If you look at it from that perspective (though I don't think it is nearly that simple), it mostly worked out in the end. It still annoys me that Indiana tried to sell Johnny Unitas license plates and that the blue horseshoes are playing in another city, but Baltimore does have another team and the organization has been very successful for the most part (Thank God we didn't get the Cardinals (though I still have the t-shirt)). However, that result doesn't make up for the years in the wilderness and never completely will, because those years can't be made up.

I understand the 10 year period between the Colts leaving and the Browns/Ravens arriving must have been hard, especially after the '93 bid fell through.

I'm just asking you to take a look back, and try to remove the emotional factor of the Colts leaving. Looking back, I'd say Baltimore did very well for itself. They lost one team, but gained an other. And it's the new team, not the old one that left town, that's been more successful. So yes, Baltimore has been through relocation hell, but they got out of it by getting a new team, a championship one at that.

That's more then you can say for Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec City who lost teams like Baltimore did in '84, but didn't get anything back in return.

So in the end, Baltimore, tune down the hate for the Colts for just a bit, because in the end you were treated much better then any other city that's lost a team.