(01-13-2017, 08:27 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: A few years back the NFL discussed combining the Browns and the Bengals into one team and moving them to Columbus. Now once again due to the ineptness,
(definition: Lacking or showing a lack of skill or competence; bungling or clumsy), of both pathetic, unsuccessful franchises, there is talk of doing this again. They feel Ohio doesn't deserve Two teams. If this would take place would all you Cintuckian's follow the Bungals to Columbus and continue living your lives around this franchise?
Thanks!

 Columbus already has a Pro Team....Ohio State Buckeyes

(01-14-2017, 10:17 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: No one...and i mean no one, other than you, is talking/thinking/pondering/planning/musing about that. 

That is good to know! I would hate for anything to happen to you my friend.

(01-15-2017, 08:28 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: That is good to know! I would hate for anything to happen to you my friend.

Don't worry about me, holmes. If the Bengals decide to move, i'll go help them pack. :)

I think if a franchise moves, it should be required to leave the team name and colors behind in the city it moved from. The team should have to come up with a new name and colors like the ravens did. The colts name and unis should have been there when they returned. Indy should have had to come up with their own name and colors. The rams should have been the cardinals when they moved to st. luois...and the rams again when they moved back to LA. There are no cardinals in Phoenix. The chargers should have to leave the name and colors in SD and become something else in LA. The raiders should have to leave the name and colors in Oakland, etc.

(01-16-2017, 12:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: I think if a franchise moves, it should be required to leave the team name and colors behind in the city it moved from. The team should have to come up with a new name and colors like the ravens did. The colts name and unis should have been there when they returned. Indy should have had to come up with their own name and colors. The rams should have been the cardinals when they moved to st. luois...and the rams again when they moved back to LA. There are no cardinals in Phoenix. The chargers should have to leave the name and colors in SD and become something else in LA. The raiders should have to leave the name and colors in Oakland, etc.

Exactly

(01-13-2017, 08:27 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: A few years back the NFL discussed combining the Browns and the Bengals into one team and moving them to Columbus. Now once again due to the ineptness,
(definition: Lacking or showing a lack of skill or competence; bungling or clumsy), of both pathetic, unsuccessful franchises, there is talk of doing this again. They feel Ohio doesn't deserve Two teams. If this would take place would all you Cintuckian's follow the Bungals to Columbus and continue living your lives around this franchise?
Thanks!

Show me where this is being talked about in the leagues ranks? Both teams individually still generate considerable amount of revenue for the league despite their lack of post season success, why would the league honestly consider doing away with one of the two teams? And you do realize that Columbus is only like a 90 minute drive from Cincinnati, so I don't think you're going to find a lot of people bothered by a move in state.

(01-24-2017, 10:05 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Show me where this is being talked about in the leagues ranks? Both teams individually still generate considerable amount of revenue for the league despite their lack of post season success, why would the league honestly consider doing away with one of the two teams? And you do realize that Columbus is only like a 90 minute drive from Cincinnati, so I don't think you're going to find a lot of people bothered by a move in state.

You don't remember? There was this breaking news report a few years ago. It was all over the TV news in both cities: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ

(01-24-2017, 04:27 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: You don't remember?  There was this breaking news report a few years ago.  It was all over the TV news in both cities: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ

I knew, but I clicked anyway... Because I fancy a good ginger Brit.

(01-24-2017, 10:05 AM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Show me where this is being talked about in the leagues ranks? Both teams individually still generate considerable amount of revenue for the league despite their lack of post season success, why would the league honestly consider doing away with one of the two teams? And you do realize that Columbus is only like a 90 minute drive from Cincinnati, so I don't think you're going to find a lot of people bothered by a move in state.

How can I show you this if I made it up?

(01-25-2017, 07:30 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: How can I show you this if I made it up?

I'll bet he doesn't know that the word 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary, either.

(01-16-2017, 12:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: I think if a franchise moves, it should be required to leave the team name and colors behind in the city it moved from. The team should have to come up with a new name and colors like the ravens did. The colts name and unis should have been there when they returned. Indy should have had to come up with their own name and colors. The rams should have been the cardinals when they moved to st. luois...and the rams again when they moved back to LA. There are no cardinals in Phoenix. The chargers should have to leave the name and colors in SD and become something else in LA. The raiders should have to leave the name and colors in Oakland, etc.

I can understand this to an extent, but if you started or inherited an NFL team you shouldn't be required to leave your brand and imagery in a city if you move.  Like it or lump it, Mike Brown owns the Bengals, which were founded by his father and he should have the right to keep that brand even if he decides to move.  Then again, taxpayers and the cities now sink a lot of money into building and maintaining these teams/brands, so I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

(01-16-2017, 12:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: I think if a franchise moves, it should be required to leave the team name and colors behind in the city it moved from. The team should have to come up with a new name and colors like the ravens did. The colts name and unis should have been there when they returned. Indy should have had to come up with their own name and colors. The rams should have been the cardinals when they moved to st. luois...and the rams again when they moved back to LA. There are no cardinals in Phoenix. The chargers should have to leave the name and colors in SD and become something else in LA. The raiders should have to leave the name and colors in Oakland, etc.

Here's the problem with that.  One of the reasons it worked out for Cleveland was that they were able to get the team history to go along with the name and unis.  But while Modell was willing to relinquish that in order to avoid fighting legal challenges to his move, it was in fact his to give up.  Other team owners are under no obligation to do so.  It would create too much confusion to have to divide up histories like that.  In the case of your Baltimore example, people would have to constantly clarify which era they were talking about as it related to "Colts" team history, and then you'd have the problem that the "modern" Colts era would be part and parcel with early Browns history ... it'd be a real mess.  

(01-31-2017, 06:52 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Here's the problem with that.  One of the reasons it worked out for Cleveland was that they were able to get the team history to go along with the name and unis.  But while Modell was willing to relinquish that in order to avoid fighting legal challenges to his move, it was in fact his to give up.  Other team owners are under no obligation to do so.  It would create too much confusion to have to divide up histories like that.  In the case of your Baltimore example, people would have to constantly clarify which era they were talking about as it related to "Colts" team history, and then you'd have the problem that the "modern" Colts era would be part and parcel with early Browns history ... it'd be a real mess.    

I don't see that as a very big problem. Whenever you talk about a team's history, you always attach a year to it anyway...the 2015 Bengals, the 1957 colts, etc.

(01-31-2017, 06:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can understand this to an extent, but if you started or inherited an NFL team you shouldn't be required to leave your brand and imagery in a city if you move.  Like it or lump it, Mike Brown owns the Bengals, which were founded by his father and he should have the right to keep that brand even if he decides to move.  Then again, taxpayers and the cities now sink a lot of money into building and maintaining these teams/brands, so I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's their team, but it's the city's image. Cities are intimately linked with their teams names and insignias. Do you think that if the Yankees moves to Las Vegas for instance that the Las Vegas Yankees makes any sense or carries any cachet? Do you think art modell really cared that he had to call his team something else. He didnt care if it was the browns or the ravens...all he cared about was that the team he owned won to SBs.

(02-01-2017, 06:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: It's their team, but it's the city's image. Cities are intimately linked with their teams names and insignias. Do you think that if the Yankees moves to Las Vegas for instance that the Las Vegas Yankees makes any sense or carries any cachet? Do you think art modell really cared that he had to call his team something else. He didnt care if it was the browns or the ravens...all he cared about was that the team he owned won to SBs.

I don't disagree, but I bet most people don't care/know why the LA basketball team is called the Lakers.  Actually, the NBA is the biggest offender because NOTHING can top the absurdity of the Utah Jazz.

(02-01-2017, 06:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: I don't see that as a very big problem. Whenever you talk about a team's history, you always attach a year to it anyway...the 2015 Bengals, the 1957 colts, etc.

Yeah, but you'd still talking about the same TEAM in those cases. In your scenario, different years could mean two totally different teams, each one sharing a history with a totally different team and uniform. It'd be a nightmare.

(02-01-2017, 09:02 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Yeah, but you'd still talking about the same TEAM in those cases.  In your scenario, different years could mean two totally different teams, each one sharing a history with a totally different team and uniform.  It'd be a nightmare.

It's not really that hard to follow....for most people.

(02-01-2017, 06:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't disagree, but I bet most people don't care/know why the LA basketball team is called the Lakers.  Actually, the NBA is the biggest offender because NOTHING can top the absurdity of the Utah Jazz.

Exactly my point. The Lakers name should have stayed in Minneapolis, New Orleans should still be the Jazz, there are no Cardinals in Phoenix. The names should stay with the original cities. Team moves, team gets new name. The best example I can think of is when the Dallas Texans moved to KC and became the Chiefs. Texans was left behind. The new franchise had the option to pick it up, but chose Cowboys instead. Houston should have been able to resurrect the Oilers....but ended up the Texans instead because the Oilers name was in Tennessee before they changed it to the Titans.

(02-02-2017, 12:13 AM)Beaker Wrote: It's not really that hard to follow....for most people.

Some people are smart enough to avoid unnecessary complications over emotional ties to something as frivolous as a sports team. That's why owners are rich enough to be owners and we aren't.

Besides, it's a moot point. The team name, colors, and history are all owned by the owner, who may relinquish them as Modell did, but who are under no obligation to do so.

(02-02-2017, 12:18 AM)Beaker Wrote: Exactly my point. The Lakers name should have stayed in Minneapolis, New Orleans should still be the Jazz, there are no Cardinals in Phoenix. The names should stay with the original cities. Team moves, team gets new name. The best example I can think of is when the Dallas Texans moved to KC and became the Chiefs. Texans was left behind. The new franchise had the option to pick it up, but chose Cowboys instead. Houston should have been able to resurrect the Oilers....but ended up the Texans instead because the Oilers name was in Tennessee before they changed it to the Titans.

I bet it's a good feeling that your team is named after an animal that holds great significance for YOUR city, eh?  

I agree that keeping the Lakers name didn't make much sense.  But that's the owner's call to make, not one that can be legislated.  

As for the Texans, your history is wrong.  The Texans and Cowboys coexisted in Dallas for a few years before the move to K.C.  Besides, why would an NFL franchise want to take on the identity of a team from a rival league?  That would just be dumb.  

And in Houston's case, it had nothing to do with the Oilers name moving to Tennessee first. The name (just like the team history) belonged to Bud Adams. He could have relinquished it of his own accord, but why would he want his team history to be associated with a franchise he has never had anything to do with? What would be his motivation?

That's what it mostly boils down to: motivation. Modell was uniquely motivated to essentially leave everything in Cleveland and start fresh with the Ravens. Most owners are not.