Why your team sucks

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: How did this not end after the first person explained how Brad is factually incorrect and what the NFL itself acknowledges regarding the Browns/Ravens?  

Is this the first time you've observed Brad in action?  

[SteelCitySouth]

I think we need another Forum, much like the one in reddit called "Quit Your Bull Shit"

Settlement[edit]
After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns, and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns' legacy in Cleveland. On February 9, 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be 'deactivated' for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn then be granted a new franchise (the 31st NFL franchise), for Baltimore, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a reactivated team for Cleveland, where the Browns' name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives would remain in Cleveland.[18] The only other current NFL team to suspend operations without merging with another was Cleveland's previous NFL team, the Rams, during the 1943 season at the height of World War II.[19]

An additional stipulation was that in any future realignment plan, the Browns would automatically be placed in a division with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cincinnati Bengals, because of longstanding rivalries with those two teams.[20] Upon their reactivation in 1999, the Browns were placed back in the AFC Central with the Steelers and Bengals, as well as the Ravens, Titans, and Jaguars. When the NFL realigned into divisions of four teams for the 2002 season, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Baltimore remained together, but in the newly created AFC North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy

[*PhilHos*]

And allow me to add that NOTHING from the Browns teams of the '50s remained in Cleveland in 1996 (other than its history) nor was in Baltimore in 1997. None of the owners, front office personnel, middle management, players, stadium workers. etc from the 50s were still part of the team in the 90s.

Or put it this way, let's assume that the original Cincinnati Bengals franchise from the 30s was added to our current team's history. Guess what that changes for the team in this upcoming season? ABOSLUTELY NOTHING.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 11:28 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And allow me to add that NOTHING from the Browns teams of the '50s remained in Cleveland in 1996 (other than its history) nor was in Baltimore in 1997. None of the owners, front office personnel, middle management, players, stadium workers. etc from the 50s were still part of the team in the 90s.

Or put it this way, let's assume that the original Cincinnati Bengals franchise from the 30s was added to our current team's history. Guess what that changes for the team in this upcoming season? ABOSLUTELY NOTHING.

That's only because that team didn't win anything either.  

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 11:21 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think we need another Forum, much like the one in reddit called "Quit Your Bull Shit"

Settlement[edit]
After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns, and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns' legacy in Cleveland. On February 9, 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be 'deactivated' for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn then be granted a new franchise (the 31st NFL franchise), for Baltimore, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a reactivated team for Cleveland, where the Browns' name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives would remain in Cleveland.[18] The only other current NFL team to suspend operations without merging with another was Cleveland's previous NFL team, the Rams, during the 1943 season at the height of World War II.[19]

An additional stipulation was that in any future realignment plan, the Browns would automatically be placed in a division with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cincinnati Bengals, because of longstanding rivalries with those two teams.[20] Upon their reactivation in 1999, the Browns were placed back in the AFC Central with the Steelers and Bengals, as well as the Ravens, Titans, and Jaguars. When the NFL realigned into divisions of four teams for the 2002 season, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Baltimore remained together, but in the newly created AFC North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy

But it was only a technicality!!!   

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-17-2015, 01:42 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: But it was only a technicality!!!   

I mean...Technically speaking...Technicalities are facts the end someones wishful thinking.  If you want to get technical and all.  

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-17-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: How did this not end after the first person explained how Brad is factually incorrect and what the NFL itself acknowledges regarding the Browns/Ravens?  

Brad calling anybody in the universe "childish" is pretty unbelievable. I've yet to see another grown man act like a child on this consistent of a basis.

All of the facts surrounding this have been laid out throughout the thread by multiple people. JS, SCS, Patrick, and others have all gone into detail to explain all of the factual based evidence for the whole situation. There shouldn't be anything to debate here, but for some reason you can't acknowledge the facts/reality of this whole ordeal.

Did Pink Floyd produce enjoyable music? I'm not the biggest fan, but we could debate that and each have our own opinion on that matter.

Are the championships from the 1950's tied to the current Cleveland Browns franchise? Yes, and this isn't a matter of opinion.

Hell yes they did!  WTF is wrong with you?

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-17-2015, 02:16 PM)Wyche Wrote: Hell yes they did!  WTF is wrong with you?

After Roger left the band, they could only be called Pink Floyd on a Technicality...

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-17-2015, 02:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: After Roger left the band, they could only be called Pink Floyd on a Technicality...

Funny you mention that.  I read today that David Gilmour announced they are breaking up the band for good.  Probably going to just move on to a new name, but keep the old members.  So they'll never get to claim their old music.  Is that a technicality, or what?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(08-17-2015, 02:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: After Roger left the band, they could only be called Pink Floyd on a Technicality...

.......actually that holds true after Syd was "dismissed"....

.....and all sincerity, David Gilmour IS Pink Floyd to me.  The guitar, the soothing voice.....

(08-17-2015, 02:28 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Funny you mention that.  I read today that David Gilmour announced they are breaking up the band for good.  Probably going to just move on to a new name, but keep the old members.  So they'll never get to claim their old music.  Is that a technicality, or what?

Yes, he hinted it was the end after the release of The Endless River.  He says he is done with the huge stadium shows, and doesn't really want to continue on without Richard Wright......but yeah, "technicality"

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

Exactly what I explained and everyone ignored.  

Without the original Browns, there is not an original Ravens team or franchise.

However, without the original Browns, there could still be a new team and franchise, which is what happened and is currently the Browns.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

The problem is Brad disagrees with these facts.

No one is saying you can't argue the connection, but these two facts that you stated are the things Brad is trying to argue did not happen.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

If he had expressed it that way I doubt that anyone would have had a problem with it.  But he didn't.  He specifically argued that the 'connection' you speak of gives the Ravens an exclusive claim to the old Browns' history.  Do you agree with that too?  

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

So you agree then that it is Baltimore and not the Browns that have Pre-Super Bowl championships?

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 06:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem is Brad disagrees with these facts.

No one is saying you can't argue the connection, but these two facts that you stated are the things Brad is trying to argue did not happen.

You're full of shit!

I specifically stated that everything the Ravens are now came from the original Browns, but my point is that the Browns just became the Ravens, so the entire history goes WITH THE TEAM THAT FORMED THE HISTORY.


The new Browns are a completely new franchise that has nothing to do with the old one, aside from the name and location.

Everything the previous Browns did shaped and formed who the Ravens are, but the new Browns were a completely new franchise.

[*jason*]

(08-17-2015, 07:39 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So you agree then that it is Baltimore and not the Browns that have Pre-Super Bowl championships?

Yeah...  They get the ones that the Colts won.

I see both sides of this argument.  I like to call the Ravens the "real Browns" to my friends who like the Browns.  It was great in those coupla years that there was no team in Cleveland.  Pisses them off to this day.  The Ravens are (were) the Browns if you wanna be all linear about it.  Hell, Ozzie Newsome is still there.  BUT...

The NFL decided that the Ravens were to be treated as an expansion franchise.  The 99- now Browns are the pre 1995 Browns.  Period.  When the Seattle Supersonics were stolen and moved to Oklahoma City, their records and history all went with them to OKC. Only their fans stayed in Seattle.  The OKC Thunder are the Supersonics.  The Browns' history, records, colors, and fans all stayed in Cleveland.

I now claim victory...

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-17-2015, 07:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're full of shit!

I specifically stated that everything the Ravens are now came from the original Browns, but my point is that the Browns just became the Ravens, so the entire history goes WITH THE TEAM THAT FORMED THE HISTORY.


The new Browns are a completely new franchise that has nothing to do with the old one, aside from the name and location.

Everything the previous Browns did shaped and formed who the Ravens are, but the new Browns were a completely new franchise.

None of what you typed is true.  The history did not go with the "team".  The Ravens franchise is considered by the NFL to be the new team and the Browns to be the old franchise that was suspended for three years.

[*jason*]

Wait a minute...  BFritz is right.  In 1999 the Cleveland Browns (being an expansion franchise) had the first pick in the draft (Tim Couch).  In 1996 the Jets selected Keyshawn Johnson number 1.  Baltimore (who I will refer to as the Browns from now on on this board) selected in whatever spot the Browns earned the season before.  Ravens are the Browns.

[BFritz21]

(08-17-2015, 08:02 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: None of what you typed is true.  The history did not go with the "team".  The Ravens franchise is considered by the NFL to be the new team and the Browns to be the old franchise that was suspended for three years.

The history did not go with the team because of the lawsuit.  It's a technicality.

The entire franchise- players, personnel, owner, etc.- went to Baltimore, so how would an expansion team, the new Browns, have a history with championships?

Everything that the old Browns did formed who the Ravens are, but nothing the old Browns did formed the new Browns (other than the name, location, other technicalities that have nothing to do with actual football on the field).

(08-17-2015, 08:08 PM)jason Wrote: Wait a minute...  BFritz is right.  In 1999 the Cleveland Browns (being an expansion franchise) had the first pick in the draft (Tim Couch).  In 1996 the Jets selected Keyshawn Johnson number 1.  Baltimore (who I will refer to as the Browns from now on on this board) selected in whatever spot the Browns earned the season before.  Ravens are the Browns.

You would be referring to them as the Browns if there hadn't been a lawsuit.  Modell moved the entire franchise to Baltimore.

The old Browns (the new Ravens) EARNED those championships and that history, so you can't just start a new franchise and say that they get all the history just because they have the same name and location.