NFL Concept Jerseys - 1995

[rams80]

Emotionally, when my Dad sees those horseshoes on the helmets he is reminded of his heros who played on 33rd. Legally or not, the NFL should make teams who decide to move leave their names and colors behind. What does Indy know about horse racing?

A decent amount actually. Southern Indiana is very good horse country.

/Don't people only go to Pimlico to get drunk rather than watch horses anyway?

Well played

Besides, the name Colts is a trademark that belongs to the private entity that is the team. They had the right to take it with them when they moved to Indy.

I understand your dad being upset at the fact that the Colts bolted town in the middle of the night, but given the Ravens' success, I think he can get over it. Especially when compared to fans of cities that haven't faired as well as Baltimore in terms of teams relocating.

Obviously you don't interact with many Baltimoreans, they don't forgive and they don't forget. My Dad has never accepted the Ravens as his team. Baltimore has a statue of Unitas in front of our stadium, has retired Baltimore Colt numbers and has the SB trophy in our Museum. I am fine with the Ravens but the old timers are a little harder to convince.

Technically its not the Super Bowl Trophy. It's a replica they got because the original is in the hands of the Rosenblooms.

[The_Admiral]

Davis was lengendary for dressing up as a reporter and interrogating opposing players about their team's gameplan at press conferences, and bugging opposing locker rooms when the Raiders were winning in the '70s and '80s.

Haha, this worked? Simpler times.

[Panthers]

The way I was brought up a team and a city have a symbiotic relationship. The Colts were nothing without their fans. Indy should have left the name behind. As for the Browns, the city of CLeveland (taxpayers) built the Browns' facility. So in part the Browns name and franchise does partially belong to the city.

Having said that, here are more Bombers pictures.

[Panthers]

Looking forward, these would have been interesting (yes it is part of my collection):

[BlueSky]

So the teams own their names and colors? Fine, my intent wasn't to argue law. But in this case there's a difference between what's legal and what's right.

[IceCap]

So the teams own their names and colors? Fine, my intent wasn't to argue law. But in this case there's a difference between what's legal and what's right.

One could argue that what's right is to allow a private entity to continue to hold onto their legally acquired identity.

And because you seem to have missed out on my bigger point....

I understand that, I really do. And I get that it's frustrating. My problem with the Cleveland Deal is just that it tries to hide what is actually happening in reality. The NFL says the Browns never moved, they just took a three year break, and that the Ravens were an expansion team. Sorry, that's just not what happened. The players, coaching staff, and ownership of the 1995 Cleveland Browns were playing, coaching, and owning the 1996 Baltimore Ravens. Other then the name and uniforms, the 1999 Cleveland Browns were not connected to the team of 1995. That's really my problem with the whole thing. The current Browns aren't the historic team that played from 1946-1995, official NFL story or not. Combine that with the issues of brand ownership, and I find myself having to forgo the emotional argument and side with the teams.

I understand this point. It would have been a bigger mess had Art Modell bought the Colts name from the Irsays. I think the best thing to do is keep the names in the cities, but keep the history with the team. Kinda like what the Baltimore Orioles have done with the St. Louis Browns. The St. Louis Browns history is attached to the Orioles, but its not really recognized (as I wouldn't want it to be, as no one in Baltimore rooted for the Browns or their players). Then the proper history of the league is kept, but old cities don't have to see their "team" playing somewhere else.

Interesting idea. The thing is though, even if a city keeps the name, will the move be any less painful? Last I checked Browns fans, despite getting the sweetest deal of any fanbase to lose a team, still isn't over the original team skipping town. You still have to deal with the fact that players you used to root for are playing in a different location. And unlike Cleveland not every team that got the Cleveland Deal is guaranteed a new team. Hartford technically still has the Whalers identity and history, the Carolina Hurricanes are considered a new team. Likewise with Seattle, the Sonics, and the Oklahoma City Thunder. Seattle still has the Sonics name and legacy, and the Thunder are a new team. Neither Seattle or Hartford are on the fast track to getting new teams.

I guess my point is that when you lose a team, it sucks. Trying to make it sting less isn't really going to work. Most cities aren't even guaranteed a second team, and I'm sure the right to keep the departing team's old identity with no prospects to get a new team doesn't soften the blow.

In the end I would rather leagues keep things simple and straightforward. The NHL's history reads so much more straightforward and truthful with the Calgary Flames moving from Atlanta, and then Atlanta getting a fresh team then some reality defying explanation whereas the Flames "took a break" and that Calgary got an "expansion team" that just so happened to have the same players and coaching staff as the Atlanta team that "just took a break."

[BBTV]

Right, Icecap. It's about lineage. The guys on the 2009 Ravens team played with guys who were on the 2008 team who... ... played with guys who were on the 1998 team who played with guys who were on the 1997 Browns team who played with guys... ... who played with Jim Brown.

[IceCap]

This is probably an issue with internet communication in general, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Either way I'll just say that yes, I do agree with what you're saying. If you trace the linage back the current Browns team isn't the historic one. That lineage is, whether anyone is happy about it or not, with the Baltimore Ravens.

[OnWis97]

I understand that, I really do. And I get that it's frustrating. My problem with the Cleveland Deal is just that it tries to hide what is actually happening in reality. The NFL says the Browns never moved, they just took a three year break, and that the Ravens were an expansion team. Sorry, that's just not what happened. The players, coaching staff, and ownership of the 1995 Cleveland Browns were playing, coaching, and owning the 1996 Baltimore Ravens. Other then the name and uniforms, the 1999 Cleveland Browns were not connected to the team of 1995. That's really my problem with the whole thing. The current Browns aren't the historic team that played from 1946-1995, official NFL story or not. Combine that with the issues of brand ownership, and I find myself having to forgo the emotional argument and side with the teams.

This is how I feel. I am actually OK with there being two different "Cleveland Browns" franchises, both with essentially the same identity and uniforms. But they are (or should be) different franchises. The current Browns "faux history" drives me nuts. It's intellectually dishonest. That history belongs with the Ravens franchise. Suggesting that everything involving the "old" Browns happened to the current Browns franchise is just false. I like the deal at first, but that's because I was not paying attention and thought it was just for the identity. We've had two franchises named the Washington Nationals (with the histories correctly reflected), so why not two named Cleveland Browns? But let the history reflect the truth. The true history matches the franchise, not the uniforms.

EDIT: I should have just used BBVT's "lineage" post. Brevity.

As a North Stars fan, I'd have taken a Cleveland deal for identity/uniforms, but not history. That would just not be accurate.

As for fans' rights to complain, I lost the Minnesota North Stars, and for me, the Wild will never be the same (so people in Baltimore still can complain if they want). I remember when the Twins were going to be contracted, there was talk of expansion one day or maybe the A's moving over. It's not the same. I'd put my whole life in as a Twins fan. By the time an expansion team rolled in, I'd have been well into my 30s...starting over...not the same.

I'd say for the most part, Minnesota has "gotten over it". The Wild are very popular, they play in a great arena, and a lot of time has passed. I personally will never be able to cheer for Dallas, but I think overall here, they are just becoming another team.

[IceCap]

Well I would say you, as a North Stars fan, can still complain. Once the Wild win a Cup though, time to move on.

[BBTV]

This is probably an issue with internet communication in general, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Either way I'll just say that yes, I do agree with what you're saying. If you trace the linage back the current Browns team isn't the historic one. That lineage is, whether anyone is happy about it or not, with the Baltimore Ravens.

No sarcasm. I make essentially the same post everytime this subject comes up. IMO it's pretty black and white.

[Panthers]

folks, let's keep on point.

This is about 1995 uniforms for proposed NFL expansion teams, not a referendum about moving teams, names and identities.

[IceCap]

This is probably an issue with internet communication in general, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Either way I'll just say that yes, I do agree with what you're saying. If you trace the linage back the current Browns team isn't the historic one. That lineage is, whether anyone is happy about it or not, with the Baltimore Ravens.

No sarcasm. I make essentially the same post everytime this subject comes up. IMO it's pretty black and white.

Agreed.

folks, let's keep on point.

This is about 1995 uniforms for proposed NFL expansion teams, not a referendum about moving teams, names and identities.

I think I may be the only person alive who likes those Jaguars prototypes. I know I should hate them, but I don't.

The Panthers prototype set is nice, but I like what they eventually went with better. Though I do think they need to go with silver pants full time.

The Stallions set is interesting. I think they would have remained largely unchanged had they taken the field, save for those sleeve stripes. They don't tie into anything else in the identity. The Stallions set is pretty "meh" to me. On the whole I could take it or leave it.

That Bombers set you posted is nice. It's the first time I've seen that B/wing patch in colour, and it looks pretty cool. The uniforms have the same positives the Titans uniforms have. They're modern, but they aren't over the top like we see in Buffalo, Arizona, Atlanta, and Minnesota. Of all the '95 prototypes we've seen the Bombers set is, in my opinion, the greatest loss. Especially when you consider that they probably should have been given a team ahead of Jacksonville once the St. Louis bid fell through.

[pagan696]

I actually have a Panthers jersey that was given to me by a friend, that was a giveaway at the Panthers very first game, a #14, with "Panthers" NOB, and an Inaugural Season shield on the shoulder, manufactured by "Apex"...

Until Reebok took over exclusive rights for the NFL, all manufacturers made jerseys for retail sale for every team. For example, just because Nike made uniforms for Denver, it didn't mean Reebok couldn't make and sell Broncos jerseys. In fact I remember it being almost impossible for me to find a Wilson/Staff Broncos jersey in '94 or '95 when they were the official supplier.

Not only that, but each manufacturer would make each jersey a little different. For example, Wilson Eagles jerseys were a much tighter mesh than the normal Russell ones, and seemed to be a brighter green, and looked kind of shiny. IMO they looked way better than what they wore on the field. IIRC, the manufacturers could all market their jerseys as "proline" too.

correct. i have 1st year auth sideline gear all with Reebok Pro Line. the jerseys and fashion jerseys were made by Apex One, Champion, and Wilson with NFL's Pro Line tags. i think Capers last season (97-98) was when Panthers went w Nike on field jerseys. then like all teams went Reebok in 02.

btw, as an old Balt Colts fan and Charlotte Hornet, it's hard to feel loyalty either the Indy team or the Ravens. having your team tear out your heart is hard to forget/forgive.

[BawlmerOreos]

Ice_Cap...no one is arguing that in the sense of law, team owners do own the brand assets of their clubs exactly like they legally own all the physical elements of the team. Right down to equipment.

BUT...names/logos/history are viewed much differently by fans than physical elements. FANS feel as though they own those things...not the owners. And smart owners realize that they can "sell" their products much better when that illusion is furthered.

So all that being said...it is terrible when anyone is asked to fell as though a team is theirs, then years later have to watch something that looks exact the same, but it's NOT yours.

No one in Baltimore wanted to get the Browns the way it happened...but after being snubbed in the expansion round, if you wanted a football team, you had no other choice. I've very glad the Browns are still the Browns. The fans deserve that history. No one in Baltimore wants to see Ray Rice break Jim Brown's "franchise records." Just like Nick Markakis has NO LINK to any St. Louis Browns.

You have to look at this differently than the pure legal sense. Like it or not...emotion is the main element here. And there's NOTHING wrong with that.

Now...back on point...as ravens fan, I'm glad the Bombers never happened. I wish we were blue (to link to the Colts) but those uniforms look like they belonged in NFL Europe. NOT blue-collar Bawlmer.

[IceCap]

Ice_Cap...no one is arguing that in the sense of law, team owners do own the brand assets of their clubs exactly like they legally own all the physical elements of the team. Right down to equipment.

BUT...names/logos/history are viewed much differently by fans than physical elements. FANS feel as though they own those things...not the owners. And smart owners realize that they can "sell" their products much better when that illusion is furthered.

So all that being said...it is terrible when anyone is asked to fell as though a team is theirs, then years later have to watch something that looks exact the same, but it's NOT yours.

No one in Baltimore wanted to get the Browns the way it happened...but after being snubbed in the expansion round, if you wanted a football team, you had no other choice. I've very glad the Browns are still the Browns. The fans deserve that history. No one in Baltimore wants to see Ray Rice break Jim Brown's "franchise records." Just like Nick Markakis has NO LINK to any St. Louis Browns.

You have to look at this differently than the pure legal sense. Like it or not...emotion is the main element here. And there's NOTHING wrong with that.

See, I try to drop the subject, but people keep trying to assert that I'm some inhuman monster for dissing "the fans."

Look, fans may think they own a team identity, but that doesn't make it so. Me being a Leafs fan and a member of "Leafs Nation" doesn't give any stake in the ownership of the name or identity of the team. I can't produce my own Maple Leafs merchandise without the permission of the rightful owners, MLSE. If I did they could rightfully sue me and my defence that the name and logo of the team "belongs to the fans" would have no standing in a court of law. So yeah, if a team wants to move, let them take their name with them. It belongs to them, if they want to continue using it they're completely within their right to do that. Now if the owner, of his own free will, decides to leave the name in the old location, ok, fine. He shouldn't be required to do that though.

Furthermore, two other points that the "name belongs to the fans" crowd always seem to ignore. First of all, the cities we're discussing, Cleveland and Baltimore, made off much better then most fans who lose teams. Can you not see how inane Baltimore fans sound when they complain about the Colts leaving when NHL fans in Winnipeg, Hartford, and Quebec City are much worse off?

Secondly, what I feel is the strongest argument, is the legacy issue, and I have yet to hear any counter argument to this one. Simply put the Cleveland Deal/let the city keep the name idea ignores the reality of the situation. The NFL pretending the current Browns are the same Browns doesn't make it so. The new Browns have no real tie to the historic franchise. That history, that legacy, belongs to the Baltimore Ravens. As BBTV said, the current Browns players play on the same team as players who played on a 1999 expansion team. The current Ravens players played on the same team as the players who played that first season in Baltimore who played on the same team as player who a year earlier played in Cleveland. No amount of the NFL's "official story" will bend reality enough to connect the current Browns to the historic Browns of 1946-1995. That's the primary reason why I don't like the city keeping the name, identity, and history of a departed team. It's dishonest. It's dishonest to claim that the team that just left, with the same players and coaches, is suddenly a new expansion team in a new city, and that in five years the old city will get an expansion team that can claim the historic lineage of the classic team. That's not the way that it happens, and anyone looking at the situation with clarity can see that.

Now I'm done with this team relocation business. Panther's right, it's taken up to much of this thread. I'll just agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise. If anyone really feels the need to continue discussing this, start a new thread.

Now...back on point...as ravens fan, I'm glad the Bombers never happened. I wish we were blue (to link to the Colts) but those uniforms look like they belonged in NFL Europe. NOT blue-collar Bawlmer.

I think almost every city's claiming to be blue collar now.

[The_Admiral]

Cartoonish purple numbers and mildly annoyed cartoonish birds aren't blue-collar either. Besides, the NFL wants to be white-collar, because those people spend money on silly pursuits like pro football.

[Matito]

I find it rather odd that every city now is a "blue collar town," yet nobody who would be considered "blue collar" can afford to go to a game.

[tBBP]

I find it rather odd that every city now is a "blue collar town," yet nobody who would be considered "blue collar" can afford to go to a game.

They price the tickets out of range of the common fan, then turn around threaten to black out the game on local TV if the team's fans don't spend their hard-earned paychecks to buy the tickets. "And oh by the way, the stadium's old/deteriorating/not as nice as that team's stadium over there, so ya broke azz city citizens also better fund us a new stadium or else we'll move your precious lil' team someplace else where they WILL build us a shiny new stadium."

It's a conspiracy I tell ya...a GAWD DERN CONSPIRACY!!!

[The_Admiral]

Jacksonville has the cheapest seats in the league and still can't get 50,000 people in a 68,000-seat stadium.