Why your team sucks

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-13-2015, 05:23 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: For a couple of years, Deadspin has a writer who writes these pieces about why each team sucks. They're pretty funny and the replies from fans are usually pretty good. The Browns were the first AFCN team covered.

http://deadspin.com/why-your-team-sucks-2015-cleveland-browns-1723346122

(08-13-2015, 05:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Pretty good 

Makes me realize that, even in our bad times or down years, things could always be worse 

(08-14-2015, 10:13 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I don't know...The Browns have Championships. 

So given the fact that we all now understand that the Cleveland Browns have Championships.  I'd like to bring this thread back to where it began just to remind all you Bengal fans that you are still the doormats of the AFCN.  Win something and stop embarrassing us all. 

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2015, 07:49 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: I have already refuted it.  Several times.  

Again, you fail to grasp the difference between the team of people and the franchise.  They are not the same thing.  Let's try one more illustration to see if you can grasp it.  

If the McDonald's Corporation did not like the way that a particular owner was running one of their stores, it would be within their power to revoke that franchise from the owner,  fire the staff, and replace everybody.   The new staff and owner would now be a McDonald's, while the old staff and owner would cease to be McDonald's.   The new owner could take his old staff and create a new franchise - let's say Wendy's.  So the old group, while once McDonald's, is now Wendy's.  That is because - and this is the point you fail to grasp -  the franchise and the group of people who run it (even the owner!) are not synonymous.  The people (again, even the owners)  are granted the franchise by a larger corporate entity.  They are not the franchise itself, and the larger corporate entity always has the right to take the franchise back.  That's the way franchise works.  

So in this illustration, the NFL is the McDonald's  Corporation, Modell is the owner, the players and coaches are the staff, and the Browns are the store/franchise.  The circumstances behind the switch are different (mutual agreement rather than dissatisfaction), but the dynamic is the same.  One group of people are removed from the franchise and eventually replaced by another.  

Perhaps saying it out loud might help.  Repeat after me: the franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.   The franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.  The franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.

Got it?  

So, here's the deal: Modell agreed to start a new franchise.  He didn't just agree to change the name.  He agreed to stop being the owner of the Browns (McDonald's) and start being the owner of the Ravens (Wendy's), and he took his 'staff' with him.  They had negotiations.  Signed contracts.  The whole works.  You can't just say 'Well, he only agreed to change the name', because that's not what happened!  He willfully surrendered McDonald's and took on Wendy's.  

The group of people he took with him did, at one time, work for the franchise that won those championships.  That is the only connection they had because none of them had any personal role in that history - it happened before most of them were born!!   And when they became the Ravens, they stopped working for the organization that had won those championships.  Simple as that. That's because (let's say it together again one more time): the franchise and the people who run it are not the same thing.

No, he only surrendered McDonald's and took on Wendy's (Ravens) because of the lawsuit, without which they'd still be the McDonald's (Browns) and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That analogy is a bad one because Modell owned the entire corporation (franchise), not just one store.

It's like this:  the original Browns won those championships, and every season and move that they made resulted in the Ravens franchise, so you can't just say "oh, we had nothing to do with them and no connection at all, but we won them."

If those belong to the Browns, in what way did they shape the current Browns?  If it's part of the Browns' history, than it had to have some sort of trickle effect, right?  History shapes who you currently are.  

Explain to me how the former Browns shaped the new franchise and I'll admit being wrong.  

(08-18-2015, 08:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the NFL declared that the Browns organization would be deactivated in 1996 for three years. It was reactivated in 1999 as an expansion team that would continue the franchise.

Before you argue something about teams, please see JS's very great post in which he distinguished between the two for you.

I read it four times over and skimmed parts a few more times.

It's not as simple as "they were just deactivated and then reactivated" because the franchise left and, no, in this case, that's not different from just the team leaving because, as I've pointed out many times, the only thing that Cleveland kept was the name.  If not for a lawsuit and a technicality, we're not even having this discussion.

If those championships belong to the Browns, then explain how those championships, and the entire former Browns, shaped who the Browns are today.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-18-2015, 11:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: If those championships belong to the Browns

The NFL recognizes the Browns as the owner of all Browns history.  Your opinion does nothing at all to undermine those facts.  Your just awfully butthurt about your Bengals still being the historical basement of the division.  The "Redheaded" Stepchild if you will.  The "Black Sheep" of the family.  Win something will ya!!!

Redheaded Stepchild is apropos for obvious reasons.

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2015, 11:55 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: The NFL recognizes the Browns as the owner of all Browns history.  Your opinion does nothing at all to undermine those facts.  Your just awfully butthurt about your Bengals still being the historical basement of the division.  The "Redheaded" Stepchild if you will.  The "Black Sheep" of the family.  Win something will ya!!!

Redheaded Stepchild is apropos for obvious reasons.

Like I said, it's a technicality.  

If those championships belong to the Browns, then explain how those championships, and the entire former Browns, shaped who the Browns are today.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-18-2015, 12:00 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, it's a technicality.  

If those championships belong to the Browns

Like I said, it does not matter.  They belong to the Browns according to the NFL.  Your opinion does nothing to change that one iota.  

[SteelCitySouth]

We should really get back to the original issue at hand. How far behind the rest of the AFCN, the Bengals are in winning, and why it makes the article the OP posted suuuuuper silly.

[djs7685]

(08-18-2015, 12:18 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Like I said, it does not matter.  They belong to the Browns according to the NFL.  Your opinion does nothing to change that one iota.  

This is the entire issue with Brad. He can't admit this.

Opinion - The championships from the 50's shouldn't belong to the current Browns.

Fact - The championships from the 50's DO belong to the current Browns. It is recognized by the NFL as such, which makes it a factual statement that isn't changed by anyone's personal opinion.

You can argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 all day, but it's still going to by the way it's defined.

[BFritz21]

(08-18-2015, 12:18 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Like I said, it does not matter.  They belong to the Browns according to the NFL.  Your opinion does nothing to change that one iota.  

(08-18-2015, 12:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: We should really get back to the original issue at hand.  How far behind the rest of the AFCN, the Bengals are in winning, and why it makes the article the OP posted suuuuuper silly.

(08-18-2015, 12:23 PM)djs7685 Wrote: This is the entire issue with Brad. He can't admit this.

Opinion - The championships from the 50's shouldn't belong to the current Browns.

Fact - The championships from the 50's DO belong to the current Browns. It is recognized by the NFL as such, which makes it a factual statement that isn't changed by anyone's personal opinion.

You can argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 all day, but it's still going to by the way it's defined.

So you're agreeing that it's a technicality and they were won by the franchise that is currently the Ravens, not the Browns.

And everyone keeps saying there's a difference between franchise and team, but the entire franchise left, except for the name.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-18-2015, 12:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you're agreeing that it's a technicality and they were won by the franchise that is currently the Ravens, not the Browns.

And everyone keeps saying there's a difference between franchise and team, but the entire franchise left, except for the name.

No.  That is not what the NFL states.  That is your opinion as to what happened.  The NFL states that the Franchise was suspended for 3 years, Art relinquished the Franchise and was allowed to begin a new one in Baltimore.  Your opinion that the franchise was moved rather than what is typed above changes nothing about the facts.

[djs7685]

(08-18-2015, 12:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you're agreeing that it's a technicality and they were won by the franchise that is currently the Ravens, not the Browns.

And everyone keeps saying there's a difference between franchise and team, but the entire franchise left, except for the name.

No, but I'm saying that if you want your opinion to be that they SHOULDN'T belong to the new Browns, then that's fine that it's your opinion. I don't share your opinion, so no, I'm not agreeing with that at all. How the hell did you possibly conjure up that we were agreeing with you?

You just need to admit that factually, the NFL Championships from the 1950's absolutely belong to the current Cleveland Browns organization's history. You can't change that. I can't change that. It's just the way it is regardless of our opinions.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-18-2015, 12:00 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, it's a technicality.  

When someone agrees to a legal settlement, that settlement is legally binding.  The person who entered into it can't just say 'Oh, well this doesn't count because I only did it to avoid a lawsuit.'  (Please re-read this sentence as many times as it takes, because it's true)

At some point, someone (who knows - maybe even Modell himself) proposed that he relinquish the franchise and start a new one with his current personnel.  Whoever proposed it, Modell found it acceptable.  The fact that a potential lawsuit brought about the agreement is irrelevant.  He agreed to it, and it was done.  The league then suspended the franchise until new ownership and new personnel could be brought in.  End. Of. Story.

Quote:If those championships belong to the Browns, then explain how those championships, and the entire former Browns, shaped who the Browns are today.

The new Browns were connected to the championships in the same way the old Browns were.  How does any person become a member of a pro sports team?  Are they invited by past players?  Do they get interviewed by those who won championships for that franchise in the past?  Does a soothsayer proclaim their identity as a member of that team at their birth?  Does a witch doctor confirm that they played for the championship teams in a past life?  

No.  They sign a legal contract to play for the organization.  That's their only link.  A contract, by the way, which is no less a legal technicality than Modell's compromise with the league and The city of Cleveland.  That is the one and only way they are connected to the past.  

So when Modell agreed to the technicality that separated his team from the Brown's franchise' he also nullified the technicalities that's were his players' contracts to 'The Browns' as well.  What is done with a stroke of a pen can be undone with a stroke of a pen.

So, to answer your question more directly, the new Browns were connected to the championships of the 1950s by the fact that they were employed by the legal entity known as ' The Cleveland Browns'. And that is EXACTLY the only connection that the Browns of the 1990s had.

I mean seriously, you keep talking about the Old Browns connection to the past, but what other connection did they have other than that they were employed by the franchise which owned that past?At the time Vinny Testaverde (one of the original Browns who turned Raven), first signed with the Browns, do you really think he had any more knowledge or emotional connection to the 1950s than did Tim Couch, one of the 'new' Browns?  

[*PhilHos*]

Brad, in the Hall of fame, why is Jim Brown listed as a Cleveland Brown and not a Baltimore Raven?

[*jason*]

I think the best way to solve this is to strip certain teams of their pre Super Bowl championships.  The Giants' titles pre Phil Simms no longer count.  Same for the Packers before Farve and White.  Lions and Browns?... Never happened.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-18-2015, 01:29 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Brad, in the Hall of fame, why is Jim Brown listed as a Cleveland Brown and not a Baltimore Raven?

Just a mere technicality.

[BmorePat87]

(08-18-2015, 12:39 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: So you're agreeing that it's a technicality and they were won by the franchise that is currently the Ravens, not the Browns.

And everyone keeps saying there's a difference between franchise and team, but the entire franchise left, except for the name.

No, the Ravens franchise was formed in 1996. It couldn't have won championships in the 50's.

And to add to what you said: "except for the name, colors, records, and history, so just the current roster and front office."

As many people have repeated over and over and over and over: your opinion doesn't change the fact. You can keep saying that the facts are a technicality, but they're facts nonetheless.

It's a technicality that Bush won the 2000 election, but that doesn't change the fact that the 43rd President was George W Bush. You can argue that Gore would have done things differently, but the facts are that Bush was president. Facts vs opinions.

[*michaelsean*]

I can't believe this is an argument. The franchise never moved. The people did, and called themselves the Baltimore Ravens, and started brand new. They have no history prior to 1996.

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-18-2015, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I can't believe this is an argument.  The franchise never  moved.  The people did, and called themselves the Baltimore Ravens, and started brand new.  They have no history prior to 1996.

michaelsean, this is BFritz21.  BFritz21, this is michaelsean.  Now that that's out of the way......

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-18-2015, 04:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I can't believe this is an argument.  The franchise never  moved.  The people did, and called themselves the Baltimore Ravens, and started brand new.  They have no history prior to 1996.

Yep.  In about ten seconds you comprehended what seems to continually escape Brad.

It's tough to come to a proper understanding of things when you believe that labeling facts as 'technicalities' makes them go away.  

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-18-2015, 05:18 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Yep.  In about ten seconds you comprehended what seems to continually escape Brad.  

It's tough to come to a proper understanding of things when you believe that labeling facts as 'technicalities' makes them go away.  

Actually Brad likes to present Opinions as Facts and Facts as Technicalities which are always defeated by Opinio..er Facts.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-18-2015, 05:28 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Actually Brad likes to present Opinions as Facts and Facts as Technicalities which are always defeated by Opinio..er Facts.

Sounds like a technicality to me.