Reconciling the whole Browns/Ravens issue

[sheajets]

I don't know if this still bugs anybody else, but for the life of me I never warmed up to linking the old Browns to the new Browns, and all of a sudden considering the Ravens an expansion team.

The entire franchise, players, staff, trainers, office workers, scouts were uprooted to Baltimore. There is a natural continuity from Cleveland. From Paul Brown and Otto Graham that unbroken lineage now resides in Baltimore. The new Browns have the name and the uniforms, but they begin in 1999. I don't feel any sort of history with them before that.

I guess what's more irritating is that there is no uniformity with this. The Oilers history and franchise records belong to the Titans (who still use Oiler-esque colors and they actually were the Tennessee Oilers in their 1st year there) that's fine with me. And Houston got a fresh start with the Texans who share no history with the Oilers.

Part of me thinks that it's actually poor form to try and recapture something once it's gone. Once the Browns went to Baltimore they should've been given the option to keep the name. And the new Cleveland franchise should have a new name and a new identity.

[rhickok1109]

I'm in complete agreement with you. What the NFL did amounts to falsifying history.

[ChrisBabcock]

I agree. What's even worse is what recently happened in the NBA... The Charlotte Hornets (who were an expansion team in 2002 as the Bobcats) recently had the previous Charlotte Hornets franchise history deleted from another team's and added to their own.

Here's the chain of events:
2002: The original Charlotte Hornets move to New Orleans
later 2002: The NBA awards an expansion franchise to Charlotte to be known as the Bobcats.
2013: The New Orleans Hornets change their name to the New Orleans Pelicans.
2014: now that the Hornets name is available, the Bobcats decide to change their name to the Hornets. Note that the new Charlotte Hornets are NOT the same team as the old Hornets. So anyway, the NBA decides otherwise and decides that original Hornets history and lineage up to their move to New Orleans would literally be copy and pasted out of the current New Orleans team's history and into Charlotte's. The move to New Orleans is now considered a new franchise starting then. (2002) Clear as mud?

woohoo! my first post!

[Mark L. Ford]

I agree that it's NFL-approved fiction to treat the Ravens as the expansion franchise and the 1999 Browns as a revived team. Back in 1996, the league declared that "The NFL will deliver to Cleveland, no later than 1999, an expansion franchise or existing franchise from another city", and would have required a relocating team to take on the name and colors and history of the Cleveland Browns (at the time, Bengals were one of the four teams that were considering relocating, which would have been remarkable). On the other hand, there was that 1940-1941 deal where Art Rooney sold the Steelers to Alex Thompson, bought a majority interest in the Eagles, then moved the players from the Eagles team to Pittsburgh (while Thompson then moved his Steelers' players to Philadelphia). Nobody considers the Steelers to have been a relocated Philadelphia team, nor does anyone really think that the Eagles to have played their first eight seasons in Pittsburgh. Fifteen years later, I'm okay with the current Browns saying that they were simply away from the NFL for three years.

Looking at the lineups, it appears that about 26 of 1995's Browns didn't become 1996 Ravens. Five starters on offense and seven of the 11 defensive starters for the '95 Browns didn't start for the Ravens in '96, and punter Greg Montgomery and returner Jermaine Lewis didn't go to Baltimore.

[conace21]

Looking at the lineups, it appears that about 26 of 1995's Browns didn't become 1996 Ravens. Five starters on offense and seven of the 11 defensive starters for the '95 Browns didn't start for the Ravens in '96, and punter Greg Montgomery and returner Jermaine Lewis didn't go to Baltimore.

Jermaine Lewis did go to Baltimore...in the 1996 NFL draft. He never played for Cleveland.

Did you mean Keenan McCardell, who was a #3 WR and punt returner in 1995? McCardell went to Jacksonville in 1996.

[SixtiesFan]

I've read that Art Modell wanted the team to be called the Baltimore Browns, but the fans in Baltimore would not have it. So they had to come up with a new name, which became "Ravens."

[BD Sullivan]

Looking at the lineups, it appears that about 26 of 1995's Browns didn't become 1996 Ravens. Five starters on offense and seven of the 11 defensive starters for the '95 Browns didn't start for the Ravens in '96, and punter Greg Montgomery and returner Jermaine Lewis didn't go to Baltimore.

Not to mention their head coach from '95, Mr. Belichick himself, was Ravens coach--for about a week until Modell fired him. Naturally, Modell had said before that he would coach the team in '96, but then Modell and the truth rarely were seen in the same sentence.

[Rupert Patrick]

I've read that Art Modell wanted the team to be called the Baltimore Browns, but the fans in Baltimore would not have it. So they had to come up with a new name, which became "Ravens."

When the Browns announced they were leaving, Paul Tagliabue met with some of the Dawg Pound fans, who voiced their concerns. It wasn't an issue where attendance was a problem, the main problem was that the city of Cleveland was cash-strapped and just financed a baseball only stadium and there wasn't enough dough to throw together a football stadium. The Browns fans got some concessions in the deal, that the city of Cleveland would keep the Browns name, history and colors that would be held in a trust until they got a new or relocated team in 1999. Also, the new stadium would contain a Dawg Pound, and I think it was agreed was that the new stadium had to be built on the same site as Municipal Stadium. In exchange, Modell was free to take the assets of the team to Baltimore but would have to rename them and change the color scheme and they would essentially become an expansion team in terms of team history.

[Citizen]

The clearest precedent to follow in the Browns/Ravens case would have been when the Washington Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins and a "new" Senators franchise began play immediately afterward. The team legacy went to Minnesota along with the franchise and players, and the rebooted Senators (now the Texas Rangers, of course) started their roster and record book from scratch.

The same thing happened with the Browns, except with a few years passing before the "new" Browns came along. Common sense would dictate that the records and history belong to the franchise, not the city.

[Mark L. Ford]

I've read that Art Modell wanted the team to be called the Baltimore Browns, but the fans in Baltimore would not have it. So they had to come up with a new name, which became "Ravens."

Modell certainly wanted to keep the Browns name, but back in 1995, Baltimore was in its 12th consecutive year without an NFL team. The residents were looking forward to having Modell's team, whether he called it the "Baltimore Browns" or something else. Baltimore's Mayor and Maryland's Governor were telling reporters about their enthusiasm for the Baltimore Browns, and the Pro Football HOF announced that its team exhibit would be relabeled in 1996 with the Baltimore Browns name. I'd say that it was more likely that the fans in Cleveland would not have it, and that became one of the negotiating points in the suit by the city and the stadium authority against Modell and the NFL. The settlement of that and other lawsuits led to the arrangement of leaving the nickname and colors behind. Modell did contact the Irsay family about buying the rights to the name "Colts".