Cleveland Browns

[scraw28]

sonebody get back to the real topic before it goes to the yard

[Gothamite]

Maybe it's time....

[powersurge]

The real issue is whether or not you believe that the dog identity is appropriate because it identifies with the fans. Obviously you don't think it is, I do. I really don't see it as a huge stretch to have a dog logo identifying a team called the "Browns". Is it that odd and out of place? I think a huge point that you are missing here is the history of football in the area. Maybe then you'd understand that the dog identity might not necessarily originate from the fans, but maybe from a previous franchise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_Bulldogs

I can't confirm that this is the origin of the dog nickname but atleast it helps refute some of the comparisons to some other football fan groups that people( including yourself) keep making about the dog reference. I don't believe the dog reference is that much of a stretch either way....it depends of course on which side of this argument you are on.

OK, the Canton Bulldogs have absolutely nothing to do with the "Dawg Pound". Let's get that straight right now.

Hanford Dixon has explicitly explained (and I think I have it on video, from a pre-game show in the mid 80s) that he would actually "bark" at the receiver he was covering, before the snap. Frank Minnifield caught on to this and started doing this as well. Hanford started calling the defense "The Dawgs". Once the fans caught wind of it, the rest is history.

I'm not trying to sound condescending. I just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks for the info. Again, I didn't say that I was CONFIRMING it. But I knew there was a specific origin of the "Dawgs" name OTHER than the fans. Call it digging I guess.

After reading this story I'm pretty much convinced that having a dog for a Brown's logo is more than acceptable IMO.

[powersurge]

sonebody get back to the real topic before it goes to the yard

Well whats the REAL topic then?

Haven't we steered it back to the Dog logo that this thread orginally was debating?

[powersurge]

That's the first time I've heard the name "Dawg Pound" was intended to hearken back to the Cleveland Bulldogs.

That's a pretty big stretch.

Actually I was refering more to the 'dog' imagery/identity than the 'Dawg Pound' ...but I think thats what you were referring to.

And I was already proven incorrect, so doesn't matter much anyways.

[02Rover]

Look, guys, back to the stadium issue for one last comment. There isnt hard evidence to support that other teams used the Cleveland opening to get new places out of thier cities. There doesnt have to be. Just the fact that the opening sat there for 2 1/2 years and the experience that everyone saw, that was incentive enough. Tampa, Cincy or Seattle, or whoever, didnt have to threaten to leave. All they had to to was say that they wanted a new place. Haivng seen what happened to Cleveland was incentive enough for those cities. None of the new stadiums that were built during that time period was built for a team that was more entrenched to a community or meant more to a community than the Browns did for Cleveland. The cities saw that it happened to Clevleand and they jumped to make sure it didnt happen to them.

All this asking for hard evidence makes you all sound like a bunch of pansie lawyers. Who knows, maybe you are lawyers, I dont know.

But neither of us is convincing the other that he's right. Cleveland fans will always beleive that we got a raw deal and we have good reason to. Non-Cleveland fans will look at the surface and think that we got a great deal. Im not convincing you of my side and your not convincing me, it appears.

I guess we just let it go....

ps. I never, ever heard that the Dawg Pound had anything to do with the Canton Bulldogs. This may have been already stated, but that all started with Hanford Dixon and Frank Minifield, two shut-down corners from the 80's, who used to bark and woof at recievers in practice. The media got a hold of it and they started it in games and the fans and media jsut ran with it. It was very organic, not at at all like the sterile marketing plyy that it has become today.

[quantum]

All this asking for hard evidence makes you all sound like a bunch of pansie lawyers. Who knows, maybe you are lawyers, I dont know.

Most teachers ask for proof. I'd blame our education system.

Not directed to your comments directly, but I find it interesting that the argument "you weren't living through it" as if the national media didn't report on any of this beforehand. I remember the reports and predicted something dramatic would go down. Cleveland was screwed by their own city government. Art Modell may suck as a businessman, but that doesn't change the fact that like every other city, they would need to deliver on a new stadium. I know it's fun to pin everything on Modell, but everyone played a part in messing up that deal.

Finally, the most annoying thing is how Al Lerner is somewhat regarded as a savior. I see him as the guy that manipulated the situation for his own gain. It was a bit of a gamble, but it paid off for him. I'm not saying AL was the villain, but he certainly gained the most by helping the team leave town.

[patsox]

Leave the Browns alone. Their uniforms are damn near perfect.

[02Rover]

All this asking for hard evidence makes you all sound like a bunch of pansie lawyers. Who knows, maybe you are lawyers, I dont know.

Most teachers ask for proof. I'd blame our education system.

Not directed to your comments directly, but I find it interesting that the argument "you weren't living through it" as if the national media didn't report on any of this beforehand. I remember the reports and predicted something dramatic would go down. Cleveland was screwed by their own city government. Art Modell may suck as a businessman, but that doesn't change the fact that like every other city, they would need to deliver on a new stadium. I know it's fun to pin everything on Modell, but everyone played a part in messing up that deal.

Finally, the most annoying thing is how Al Lerner is somewhat regarded as a savior. I see him as the guy that manipulated the situation for his own gain. It was a bit of a gamble, but it paid off for him. I'm not saying AL was the villain, but he certainly gained the most by helping the team leave town.

Agreed on the city leaders contributing to the mess. No doubt about it.

Agreed on Al Lerner. This is more evidence that the "national media" doesnt depict what is really happening in town. He isnt a hero in Clevelnad. Never was. The public knows what happened, how he was a part of it and what he did. Ive never seen him depicted as a her or savior, nationally, but if he has been, that is certainly not what his image is/was locally.

As for the "AL" patch on the jerseys, its out of place and is only on there because his son, the current owner, is still trying to pay tribute to his father. I dont believe anyone in town is in favor or this "tribute" or thinks its nececcary.

[johnnysama]

I agree with all of you, with getting rid of the 'AL' on the sleeves. But one other thing I want to see the Browns have again: White face masks. Grey masks are soo 1968!

Other than that, their uniforms are among the best in the league. Classic.

[Buckeyepete]

Agreed the city shares the blame with Modell and AL is certainly not thought of as a savior around here. Everyone knows he had the jet fueled and waiting for Modell to go to Baltimore to make the deal. He just came in with the biggest offer for the franchise when they were auctioning it off. Most people I know wish they would remove the AL patch.

Maybe a DP (dawg pound) patch?

[Gothamite]

Most people I know wish they would remove the AL patch.

If so, I would love to see Browns fans make that push public, as Mets fans have done with the black.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Sorry to bump this tread from a few weeks ago. But the jerks here at my office insist on giving me work, and they have been getting out of hand lately. Sadly, this can divert my attention from the things that are really important in life.

Now, were were we? Ah, yes...

Otherwise known as one "franchise", in ordinary English.

...snip...

In ordinary parlance, "franchise" is understood to mean something along the lines of "the entire history of a team, including any other names it has played under".

...snip...

in the most common meaning of that word among ordinary English speakers.

"Ordinary parlance" has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Far from it.

...The League established that the franchise remained in Cleveland when Modell's organization left (and it is important to catch the distinction between the two - they are not necessarily one and the same), and so the new Browns are the continuation of the prior club, even though they did not actually field a team in those three years (as other franchises in the League's history have done).

I'd imagine that every franchise move possesses, from a legalistic standpoint, this same franchise/organisation distinction that you illustrate from the Browns example. Yet, most other moved clubs continue to be recognised as one "franchise" in their and the league's official records. (Such as when Payton Manning breaks a franchise record held by Johnny Unitas, etc.) So, clearly the legalistic reading of the league's bylaws (and the meaning of "franchise" within) does not dictate the form of the official records (and the meaning of "franchise" within).

It's not about "altering history" at all. Nobody's done that - that would require the "official" story to have been changed, whereas the NFL has been consistent on this point. You're trying to apply colloquial English to the bylaws of a corporate entity. That those NFL rules should seem at a disconnect with casual parlance should not be surprising, but neither is it convincing.

When the Dodgers moved to LA, didn't the press release state that the team had "drafted the Los Angeles territory"? So, by a strict reading of the NL bylaws, it is probably true that the franchise (in one sense) called Brooklyn Dodgers ceased to exist, that the NL granted a new franchise to the Brooklyn organisation. Yet, baseball continues to officially recognise the fact of the continuitiy of the franchise (in another sense) of the Dodgers.

You could call it "legalese splitting hairs", but it is not "altered" or "denied history".

Unfortunately, I did a disservice to my own argument by citing "common parlance", a weakness you illustrated with your response.

The point I should have made is that, in all other cases that were legally indentical to the Browns' move, the creation of new "franchise" (with respect to the league's bylaws) did NOT mean that a new "franchise" (with respect to team history) was also created.

The Balt/Indy Colts and the Chicago/StL/Phoe/AZ Cardinals are recognised -- by the league itself, not merely by common parlance -- as continuous "franchises" in the record books, depite their both having presumably undergone the same "organisation/franchise" split at the time of their moves that the Browns/Ravens did. If the NFL had kept to its own standards (as exemplified in those precedents), the league's record books would have treated the Browns/Ravens as one franchise and would have recognised the "new" Cleveland Browns as a distinct entity.

So, this is why I say that league's denial of the Browns/Ravens' continuity was not merely some inevitable upshot of the "new franchise" awarded to Modell at an NFL owners' meeting. Rather, it was purely a pragmatic policy decision made in order to win good press and to stave off any litigation, historical accuracy be damned.

[Gothamite]

I agree that it was done for PR as much as anything else. But it is still "historically accurate."

Nobody's denying that the Browns situation is unusual. Most franchises are allowed to be tranferred to another territory. Some, like the Browns and the San Jose Earthquakes of MLS, are not. Those franchises are made inactive until a new team can be fielded, and the owner is granted a new franchise for his new territory.

Sometimes, as noted above in the Cleveland Rams example, a franchise goes inactive for other reasons and can re-activate later. Or, in the case of the Providence Steam Rollers, the franchise never re-activates and officially withdraws from the league, as the Steam Rollers did in 1933 (two years after they actually fielded a team).

Regardless, the NFL has the right to define its franchises any way it likes.

Bottom line, I'm only really arguing with your use of the terms "historical accuracy" and "playing 'let's pretend' with the facts of history," neither of which is inapplicable.

[Elfman]

I agree that it was done for PR as much as anything else. But it is still "historically accurate."

Nobody's denying that the Browns situation is unusual. Most franchises are allowed to be tranferred to another territory. Some, like the Browns and the San Jose Earthquakes of MLS, are not. Those franchises are made inactive until a new team can be fielded, and the owner is granted a new franchise for his new territory.

Sometimes, as noted above in the Cleveland Rams example, a franchise goes inactive for other reasons and can re-activate later. Or, in the case of the Providence Steam Rollers, the franchise never re-activates and officially withdraws from the league, as the Steam Rollers did in 1933 (two years after they actually fielded a team).

Regardless, the NFL has the right to define its franchises any way it likes.

Bottom line, I'm only really arguing with your use of the terms "historical accuracy" and "playing 'let's pretend' with the facts of history," neither of which is inapplicable.

The truth is modell wasn't getting a new stadium, He knew and we all knew ..was he a jerk . YES. but he did what he had to do for his Family, People can say he should've sold .but 40% of the franchise was owned by gries and if Modell would have sold to him he would've have just had enough money to pay all his debts.. I'm from C-Town and love the Brownies, But The whole Modell thing is over and the ONLY reason The NFL put a team in Cleveland is because they knew its a Cash Cow with fans that will fill the new Palace on the Lake.. Anyway White Helmet =B= logo brown Facemask

[Gothamite]

the ONLY reason The NFL put a team in Cleveland is because they knew its a Cash Cow with fans that will fill the new Palace on the Lake..

That much is, I think, indisputable.

That's why the NFL bent over backwards for Cleveland, giving them the best deal a city's ever seen come out of relocation.

[powersurge]

Has a case like this officially occured in any other major sports leagues?

I'm thinking it happend in Washington with the baseball Senators....or does that not exactly match this situation?

[Gothamite]

I think it was a first. Since then, MLS has done the same thing with the San Jose Earthquakes.

The Senators thing is close, but they didn't leave their championship behind in Washington for the new team, only the name.

[powersurge]

Point taken.

On a related note, did the Browns' case make it official that a city can file a claim for a franchise's identity/name if they threaten to move? If so, then it would be interesting what plays out if a team like the Rams or the Chargers try to bolt town (no pun intended) to Los Angeles as we previously discussed in another thread.

[Gothamite]

I don't recall the specifics of the legal case the city was trying to make, but off the top of my head I'd have to say that the Rams or Chargers returning to a previous market hurts the notion that St. Louis or San Diego might have some claim on the team's name or history.