Unless I'm seeing things...

[54Chevy]

im thinking either he lost his jersey, someone stole it, or some idiot gave him the wrong jersey to wear tonight

No one in Cleveland stole that jersey, trust me.

[Gothamite]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute...

There you go - you said it.

Any jersey without the "AL" patch provides its own perfect excuse to wear it.

[oldschoolvikings]

He's not down with the whole "franchise stayed in Cleveland, team moved to Baltimore" deal. Best, I think, to let that one drop.

Oh, good Lord. He's got nothing better to worry about?

[Cujo]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

And on the topic of alternates, this uniform blows away the alt that Cleveland uses now:

[PittsburghSucks]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

And on the topic of alternates, this uniform blows away the alt that Cleveland uses now:

I agree on the orange jersey. I loved it!!!

Now on to your hate for the Cleveland Browns. I don't get it? Browns & Jets aren't division rivals. The only reason I can think of is the Browns 12-7 all time record against the Jets (including that 10 point playoff melt down in 1986).

[Glover]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

And on the topic of alternates, this uniform blows away the alt that Cleveland uses now:

And any fool knows that Modell couldn't move his team to Baltimore unless he agreed to leave all of the Browns history, colors, name, etc in Cleveland. So based on that agreement he made, then Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar are still related to the current Browns franchise.

[FiddySicks]

You know, the whole Anderson doesn't pay attention to detail thing may not be too far of a stretch. I remember at the Pro Bowl two seasons ago his jersey had the Browns helmet logos stitched on upside down the whole game and he says he never even noticed it.

[BBTV]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

And on the topic of alternates, this uniform blows away the alt that Cleveland uses now:

And any fool knows that Modell couldn't move his team to Baltimore unless he agreed to leave all of the Browns history, colors, name, etc in Cleveland. So based on that agreement he made, then Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar are still related to the current Browns franchise.

History can be left behind on "paper", but not in reality. The bottom line is that the lineage extends from the Ravens back to Jim Brown. The guys on the '09 Ravens played with guys who played with guys who ... who played with Bernie Kosar who ... who played with Jim Brown.

Seriously - could Honduras fight a war with France, and as part of terms of the treaty, just acquire their history? History is history - it can't be signed over with a pen. Regardless of any deal that was cut, everyone knows the truth... and don't think for a second that he couldn't have moved his team without agreeing to this ridiculous deal.

[PittsburghSucks]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

And on the topic of alternates, this uniform blows away the alt that Cleveland uses now:

And any fool knows that Modell couldn't move his team to Baltimore unless he agreed to leave all of the Browns history, colors, name, etc in Cleveland. So based on that agreement he made, then Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar are still related to the current Browns franchise.

History can be left behind on "paper", but not in reality. The bottom line is that the lineage extends from the Ravens back to Jim Brown. The guys on the '09 Ravens played with guys who played with guys who ... who played with Bernie Kosar who ... who played with Jim Brown.

Seriously - could Honduras fight a war with France, and as part of terms of the treaty, just acquire their history? History is history - it can't be signed over with a pen. Regardless of any deal that was cut, everyone knows the truth... and don't think for a second that he couldn't have moved his team without agreeing to this ridiculous deal.

Any link the Raven had to Cleveland died with the release of Matt Stover.

If you don't like that the name, colors, and records were left in Cleveland that too bad.

Cleveland could have forced Modell to play out the last 3 years on his lease. It would have put Modell in bankruptcy. Even with that sweet deal he got to move to Baltimore he still couldn't afford to own an NFL team. Had to sell it, didn't he?

[BBTV]

Wow, what is it with Cleveland fans that they take everything so personally?

As has been proven countless times on this board, this argument isn't worth having. Unfortunately, the only people in the entire country that fail to understand how lineage and history work are those from Cleveland.

[-kj]

I think they have a point.

Cleveland franchise suspends operations. Baltimore gets new franchise. In agreement with league, player contracts are transferred to the new Baltimore franchise. Seems pretty easy to me.

[Gothamite]

Me, too.

I'm far from a Cleveland homer - no particular love for any of the teams, and I have a general mad-on for the whole state of Ohio (bad family history).

But it seems clear enough to me that Modell was allowed to move his team if he left the franchise behind in Cleveland for another to run. The lineage which starts with Arthur McBride and Paul Brown lives on under the not-so-graceful care of Randy Lerner.

[BBTV]

I'm not disputing the logistics or "official record" of what happened. We could talk all day about "team" vs. "franchise", and I understand the point... really. If we're making that distinction, then I'll argue that records and history belong with the team, since the team is what's on the field setting the records. The franchise is more of an administrative entity.

All player contracts may have been officially "transferred", but really, it's just a contrived compromise created for the league to appease the Cleveland fans (not that I blame those fans, I'm sure Eagles fans would want the same, even though most of us are smart enough to know that the fact that it's not really the same team.)

[John in KY]

..

[Gothamite]

Not the same team, but the same franchise. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but a very important one.

The Browns are and have always been the Browns, the Ravens started life in the 1990s as the Ravens. That's the reality. Sure, the Ravens were formed from the organizational structure and contracts held by the former Browns ownership, but there is precedent for this in history.

After all, the Atlanta Braves weren't the first professional baseball club, were they?

[tajmccall]

Which brings up the point: Why do the Browns feel the need to have alternate throwback uniforms when their primary uniforms are already throwbacks?? (Well, except for the AL tribute. Another reason why Cleveland sucks.)

So Cleveland sucks because the Browns throwbacks have two or three differences than their regular uniform? Please explain that logic for me.

Correction: Another reason why the Cleveland Browns suck. For starters, there's the the 'AL' tribure.... The excessive amount of boring throwbacks.... No logo on the helmet.... Ripping off the Ravens' team history.... The list goes on.

And FTR, I've got nothing against the city of Cleveland if that's what you were trying to call me out on, chief.

How are they ripping off the Ravens history? The Ravens were founded in 1996?

C'mon now. Any fool knows that Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore and renamed them to the Ravens in '96, and that Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar have absolutely nothing to do with the current Browns franchise.

Really? You really believe that?

A sports franchise belongs to a city in most ways. Without the city's support, nothing is ventured, nothing is gained. What Cleveland was able to do with the Browns should be the benchmark, not the exception.

It appeases everyone. Baltimore doesn't care about getting the history before, they want a team. Cleveland does. Its a good deal for both.

[BBTV]

But history isn't something that can be given or taken. Of course the history will always be with the city of Cleveland, but it just doesn't belong to the Tim Couch Browns. Just like that same history doesn't really apply to the city of Baltimore, but was forged in part by the same guys who suited up for the Ravens in '97. You cannot arbitrarily decide where history goes or who owns it. It's OK that the league "recognizes" it one way, and as a private business they can market however they want, but that doesn't make it what actually happened.

[Gothamite]

I'm still not seeing how history is being "taken or given."

Franchises are a piece of paper giving an organization the right to field a team in a specific league. Modell wanted to move his business out of Cleveland, and was allowed to do so if he left the franchise behind. He was then granted an additional franchise to operate in Baltimore.

The history wasn't taken or given. It was held in trust until a new ownership group could take it (and promptly drop it on the ground, but that's not relevant).

[BBTV]

I'm still not seeing how history is being "taken or given."

Franchises are a piece of paper giving an organization the right to field a team in a specific league. Modell wanted to move his business out of Cleveland, and was allowed to do so if he left the franchise behind. He was then granted an additional franchise to operate in Baltimore.

The history wasn't taken or given. It was held in trust until a new ownership group could take it (and promptly drop it on the ground, but that's not relevant).

That's exactly my point though - history can't be "held in trust". The members of the '97 Ravens are the next in the line of the '96 Browns. I totally understand the whole franchise and paper deal, I just think that the actual players involved are more of a piece of the history than a piece of paper.

On the back of Matt Stover's football card, how does it say he was acquired? Drafted by the team way back when, or "assigned" to the team in '97?

Can history just be bought and sold? Could the Seahawks' owner just buy the franchise paper from the Steelers, say that his players are being transfered to that franchise, then give his franchise paper to the Rooney's, who just transfer his players to the former Seattle franchise? Now the Seahawks can claim 5 Super Bowls to their history, without the team even moving.

[PittsburghSucks]

I'm still not seeing how history is being "taken or given."

Franchises are a piece of paper giving an organization the right to field a team in a specific league. Modell wanted to move his business out of Cleveland, and was allowed to do so if he left the franchise behind. He was then granted an additional franchise to operate in Baltimore.

The history wasn't taken or given. It was held in trust until a new ownership group could take it (and promptly drop it on the ground, but that's not relevant).

That's exactly my point though - history can't be "held in trust". The members of the '97 Ravens are the next in the line of the '96 Browns. I totally understand the whole franchise and paper deal, I just think that the actual players involved are more of a piece of the history than a piece of paper.

On the back of Matt Stover's football card, how does it say he was acquired? Drafted by the team way back when, or "assigned" to the team in '97?

Can history just be bought and sold? Could the Seahawks' owner just buy the franchise paper from the Steelers, say that his players are being transfered to that franchise, then give his franchise paper to the Rooney's, who just transfer his players to the former Seattle franchise? Now the Seahawks can claim 5 Super Bowls to their history, without the team even moving.

There was no 96 Browns. Their last season in Cleveland was 95.

Matt Stover was drafted by the New York Giants, not the Cleveland Browns.