Cleveland Browns

[Gothamite]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that.

If the owner wants to leave, he'll leave. You can't force him to keep the team in town. No matter how many homer judges you have sitting on the bench in your locality.

Bottom line: Browns fans got to keep their team, with a blip in their history that means less every year. They got to keep their records, got to keep their legacy. Browns fans got treatment that Brooklyn Dodger fans, or Milwaukee Braves fans, would have killed for.

[rams80]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

First off...with the bad blood between Modell and Cleveland, I don't consider him a valid source in this particular case, if you know what I mean. I was hoping for something along the line of newspaper/journal articles from actual teams that were threatening to move.

Second...so what would have been wrong with pushing everything back to 2000 if it meant your franchise would have another year to prepare? It might be a minor PR fiasco, but from what you and other Cleveland fans are saying, the long-term benefits would have been immense.

[Gothamite]

First off...with the bad blood between Modell and Cleveland, I don't consider him a valid source in this particular case, if you know what I mean.

Agreed.

I'm surprised that any Browns fan would consider Modell a valid source under any circumstances.

[powersurge]

Jesus. It's clearly not a ripoff of the Red Dog logo. It's a bulldog, so naturally it looks like a bulldog. So is the Red Dog logo; thus, it looks like a bulldog as well. Two visual translation of the same object are going to bear some resemblance to each other no matter how it's said and done. Todd Radom based his rendering on his own pet. The dude who designed the Red Dog logo sucks at designing logos. Enough said. The dawg logo is a well-rendered piece of graphic art, but it really shouldn't represent the team as it does not in fact, represent the team.

Tempest- I prefaced my statement by saying that was my problem with it. I understand it is a bulldog. But it is not a football playing bulldog, or a bulldog with a helmet on, or a full body bulldog. It is too similar, in my opinion, to the Red Dog logo. They are both just the heads of the bulldog. My point is that it is very, very similar to the Red Dog logo when they could have made it unique by adding a helmet... or a body.... To me the bulldog logo is as uninspiring or as unoriginal as if they would have gone with a paw print.

That would be gimmicky and cheesy. If they are going to have a bulldog as their logo then it should just be a bulldog.

I guess the actual rendering is a matter of taste, and I see no point in arguing about that. I do see some merit in discussing the actual use of a bulldog logo. My take is that is works and should be used way before any orange helmet or 'B' logo anyday.

[powersurge]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

I understand your loyalty and obvious passion for the team....but since most if not all of the matters and moves the team and city discuss/make are usually public knowledge thanks to television, radio, newspaper and most importantly the internet...it is pretty easy for someone in Denver or Miami to be just as informed about what happened as a Browns fan living in Cleveland....unless of course you were behind the scenes and in on the private meetings. In THAT case tell us more

[powersurge]

Look at college teams such as Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Boston College, Army, Navy, etc. - these teams have blank helmets, and yet some form of logo, not just a blank helmet as a logo. Notre Dame has the leprechaun, BC has the eagle, the Browns need something identifiable.

I completely agree.

They should use the Brownie more. Problem solved.

I agree with both of these posts. Astrobull hit the nail on the head.

I don't see the problem with the "Dawg" logo quite honestly. Its a nice idea for a logo that represents the diehard fans of the team. I really like the idea of teams trying to identify somewhat with their fanbase, especially one as diehard as Cleveland. Not to mention the logo looks pretty good IMO.

Grrrr... I'll do the Cliff's Notes version.

1. A symbol of a subsegment of the fan base rooting for the team should not represent the team itself, as it does not even represent the totality of the fan abse supporting the team.

2. The stadium where said subsegment was named no longer exists.

3. It's a rip off of a :censored:ty beer logo.

4. It's gimmicky, and it'd be like the Packers dumping the "G" for a chunk of cheese, the Raiders for large black holes, or the Eagles scribbling "700 Level RULEZZZZ!" over their wings. Commemorate the fan base (as a whole or otherwise) elsewhere, don't put that garbage on the team's uniform.

5. Without the team, the fan base doesn't exist.

6. The Browns have a perfectly good logo (Brownie the Elf). As mentioned above, Astrobull's spot-on.

All good points, mostly just opinions though...I guess I'll just give you my opinions and we can see where this one goes

1. Why can't the symbol of the fans represent the team itself? Who wrote that rule? Haven't there been many instances in the past where an official team name was eventually changed because fans were calling the team something else? How about the current Arizona D-Backs identity change? They listened to the fans who lovingly call the team the 'D-Backs' and put it on the uniforms. Opposing fans and newspapers used to call the Oakland A's the "Big White Elephants" and they eventually adopted the elephant logo. So why can't some of the most die hard fans in sport have an influence on the team logo? If there was a team that could and SHOULD do it, it would be the Browns. The fans are the reason the NFL gave the city a team again.

2. Doesn't matter if the old stadium doesn't exist, the memory/tradition still lives on. This argument makes no sense to me because its not like the Dawg Pound was so unique in the old stadium that it can't be transfered into the new one. I can see if a team like the Red Sox had the "Green Monster Boys" or something like that, and the team moved to a ballpark without a green monster (will never happen) and tried to carry on that tradition. THAT would not work.

3. Again, as someone said in a previous post, how different can a rendering of the front view of a bulldog face get? So whats next? They replace it with the full body of a bulldog and people begin commenting that its a ripoff of the Mack Truck logo? Its a moot point in my opinion.

4. No one is saying that they are going to put the logo on the team uniform...atleast not me. Hey the team name itself can be construde as 'Gimmicky'. Naming the team after the owner sounds as bad to me as when Donald Trump was reportedly looking to buy a football team in New Jersey and calling them the "Trumpers". The name "Browns" sounds normal because you grew up hearing it. You make a decent point about some of the other fanbases, but I will say that if the Packers decided to come up with somekind of secondary cheese logo to commemorate the fanbase it wouldn't be that odd IMO.

I will say this, the fact that the fanbase is identified by an animal that is used by many other sports teams in the country as a mascot for makes it a more accepted than having the "700 level whatever the hecks" or the "Cheeseheads". Thats is another reason why I don't have as much of a problem with the dawg logo.

5. This is a chicken and egg argument. I won't spend too much time on this, but I will say that the team orginally left and the fans remained. The NFL gave the fans back a team so I don't see much point arguing further about this point. Los Angeles lost TWO teams and many years later there still is no football in LA...so what does that say about Cleveland Football Fans?

6. This is where I tear my hair out....An ELF??!! C'mon guys are you serious? You'd rather have an elf logo that has just as much relevance to the team as a Model T Ford logo has to the Ford company right now. Talk about a huge disconnect with your fan base. Not a good idea. The logo might be cute...but it makes no sense...atleast not in this millenium.

[leopard88]

They got to keep their records, got to keep their legacy. Browns fans got treatment that Brooklyn Dodger fans, or Milwaukee Braves fans, would have killed for.

. . . or Baltimore Colts fans . . .

[Gothamite]

You know, I thought about adding them, but have been led to understand that the pain of losing the Colts has been diminished by the Super Bowl.

Put it this way: I believe that a majority of baseball fans in Wisconsin would still trade the Brewers for the Milwaukee Braves. Would anyone in Baltimore make a straight-up swap, Colts for Ravens?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I tell you, there's not a day goes by here that people don't look wistfully upon the great days of the Seattle Pilots. You want to talk about a city that got its heart ripped out of its chest, it's most definitely Seattle.

In all seriousness, if the Sonics move, I hope that the city is able to broker a deal to keep the franchises' history. Prior to the OKC fiasco, my sense as a transplant is that the Sonics were by far the most-loved (perhaps because they've won) pro franchise in the city.

[Gothamite]

That one seems odd to me, since the Pilots had such a short tenure.

[pukearrhea]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

Yeah, right. My Winnipeg Jets are likely never coming back. Three years? That's a breeze.

Plus you still had the Indians and Cavaliers. We've got nothing in the major leagues. Nobody outside of the CFL even knows the city exists anymore!

[leedsunited]

That one seems odd to me, since the Pilots had such a short tenure.

Methinks he's being tongue-in-cheek with the Pilots.

[powersurge]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

Yeah, right. My Winnipeg Jets are likely never coming back. Three years? That's a breeze.

Plus you still had the Indians and Cavaliers. We've got nothing in the major leagues. Nobody outside of the CFL even knows the city exists anymore!

Where the hell is Winnipeg?

[Buckeyepete]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

First off...with the bad blood between Modell and Cleveland, I don't consider him a valid source in this particular case, if you know what I mean. I was hoping for something along the line of newspaper/journal articles from actual teams that were threatening to move.

Second...so what would have been wrong with pushing everything back to 2000 if it meant your franchise would have another year to prepare? It might be a minor PR fiasco, but from what you and other Cleveland fans are saying, the long-term benefits would have been immense.

Once again it's all in Terry Pluto's book "False Start".

[leopard88]

You know, I thought about adding them, but have been led to understand that the pain of losing the Colts has been diminished by the Super Bowl.

Put it this way: I believe that a majority of baseball fans in Wisconsin would still trade the Brewers for the Milwaukee Braves. Would anyone in Baltimore make a straight-up swap, Colts for Ravens?

The pain has diminished over the years, particularly with the Super Bowl win. I think most people are more than content with the present situation, but there are probably more than a few who would love to swap names and histories even if the teams stayed put. I was really offering it as another example of a team that moved and took its history and identity, with its fans being given no guarantee of a replacement within any timeframe.

The more I think of the Cleveland complaint, the more I am reminded of the testimony given by Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men". I'm not going to look up the exact language, but he impugns the character of people who enjoy the freedom that he provides by being "on that wall" but question the manner in which he provides it instead of just saying thank you.

Instead of being thankful that they were not treated like every other group of fans after a team moved, Cleveland fans have decided to question the manner in which the team was provided. At some point there should be some acknowledgment that they were treated pretty well under the circumstances. (i.e., not treated well, but treated better than everybody else).

That one seems odd to me, since the Pilots had such a short tenure.

Methinks he's being tongue-in-cheek with the Pilots.

Ya think?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

To remove all doubt, yes, tongue in cheek. I'm not a fan of smilies or Gothamite's bizarre obsession with sarcasm tags (kidding, kidding). Plus, I think I accomplished what I was going for when I began the next sentence with "In all seriousness."

[rams80]

1) You...got...an...expansion...team... That was both an unprecedented move in speed and being decided. In fact, because you had to have a team so gosh darn fast, the NFL wasn't able to give Cleveland the needed start up time. In addition, you got to keep the old team's history....which has NEVER happened elsewhere in major league sports. Again...Cleveland fans got a better deal than any other fanbase has gotten before or since after losing a team. It's hypocritical, and somewhat offensive, to be mad at the NFL because you got your franchise TOO FAST.

Too fast? They were gone three years. They waited as long as they could on what to do with Cleveland because they used it as a threat to other cities that their team would leave and go to Cleveland to be the Browns. They could have decided well before they did so the new Browns would be able to put together their staff, and scout for the expansion and college drafts along with everthing else that goes into putting an organization together.

Could you provide a link on other teams threatening to move there? I know the NFL did have a couple of threatened and actual moves during that time period, but I don't think a team threatened to go to Cleveland. I thought it was pretty much a given that the new Cleveland team would be an expansion team, and then it turned into a "hurry up" franchise because Browns fans were impatient. Face it...the NFL coddled you. It is ungrateful of you to complain about the state of the franchise, when it is in a large part your doing.

That is flat out not true. The NFL promised a new team to be titled the Browns with the history in 96 when the city dropped its lawsuit against Modell and the league. Theu used the opening in Cleveland to leverage other cities into new stadiums. Modell has bragged about this. Tampa and Cincy are two cities that I know for a fact that used the opening in Cleveland to leverage their cities into giving them a new building. The official expansion announcement didnt come until early 98, with the awarding of the franchise until September 98. That was over 2 1/2 years of wasted time between the official droppign of the lawsuit and the awarding of the expansion team.

Please, dont debate this topic with Browns fans. We know how it went down. We were here, we lived it. Yes, the city demanded its team back in 3 years. If we didnt get that, we would have forced Modell into court and not a single court in this city/county/ state would have ruled in favor of Modell and the league. We/they could have forced him to stay here and play in an empty staduim with little or no advertising thsu forcing him to sell locally. The deal spared the NFL that embarassment, but the city and the fans were used and abused by the league. We are still feeling the effects of not starting off correctly.

It was a bad deal for Browns fans.

First off...with the bad blood between Modell and Cleveland, I don't consider him a valid source in this particular case, if you know what I mean. I was hoping for something along the line of newspaper/journal articles from actual teams that were threatening to move.

Second...so what would have been wrong with pushing everything back to 2000 if it meant your franchise would have another year to prepare? It might be a minor PR fiasco, but from what you and other Cleveland fans are saying, the long-term benefits would have been immense.

Once again it's all in Terry Pluto's book "False Start".

Anything that doesn't involve me dealing with a balky ILLIAD system or spending money at B&N.com/amazon.com?

[leedsunited]

You know, I thought about adding them, but have been led to understand that the pain of losing the Colts has been diminished by the Super Bowl.

Put it this way: I believe that a majority of baseball fans in Wisconsin would still trade the Brewers for the Milwaukee Braves. Would anyone in Baltimore make a straight-up swap, Colts for Ravens?

The pain has diminished over the years, particularly with the Super Bowl win. I think most people are more than content with the present situation, but there are probably more than a few who would love to swap names and histories even if the teams stayed put. I was really offering it as another example of a team that moved and took its history and identity, with its fans being given no guarantee of a replacement within any timeframe.

The more I think of the Cleveland complaint, the more I am reminded of the testimony given by Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men". I'm not going to look up the exact language, but he impugns the character of people who enjoy the freedom that he provides by being "on that wall" but question the manner in which he provides it instead of just saying thank you.

Instead of being thankful that they were not treated like every other group of fans after a team moved, Cleveland fans have decided to question the manner in which the team was provided. At some point there should be some acknowledgment that they were treated pretty well under the circumstances. (i.e., not treated well, but treated better than everybody else).

That one seems odd to me, since the Pilots had such a short tenure.

Methinks he's being tongue-in-cheek with the Pilots.

Ya think?

Dunno, i'm still confused by the "In all seriousness" he began his next paragraph with...

[Gothamite]

You guys just don't understand the Pacific Northwest - they're not serious about anything.

In all seriousness, I actually know a baseball fan in Seattle that mourns for the Pilots. He keeps giving me about "stealing" his team.

[andrewharrington]

Just think of all the trouble the Browns could have saved us on this board had they opted for a 'real' nickname from their inception in 1946, rather than naming the team for the egomaniacal coach and then later trying to say a 'brown' is a 'dog.'

Had they done so, surely this thread would not have bulged into six pages of name-calling and outrage about the team's "lack of identity" or "identity."

And yes, I'll stop calling you Shirley.

Hey, nobody ever tried to say a 'brown' is a 'dog.' Never. The dog simply became a little motif of the team and its fans in the 80s. And iowahoo, i wasn't slamming your comment before. I was slamming Vitamin D's. You said Radom's bulldog bears a resemblance, which is true. He said it was a ripoff, which is not true.