Talk:Dawg Pound: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Busta Baxta (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::Agreed; they are the same franchise, but to not explain the circumstances of their return is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the issue. As cited above, the NFL calls the 1999 Browns an expansion team. The Browns themselves referred to the 1999 draft as an "expansion draft." The previous edit specifically stated that the franchise was the same, and explained that the franchise's return was facilitated by expansion. The reality is that 1999 Browns were a new team of players selected in an expansion draft, and inhabited the Cleveland Browns franchise. Because of the Browns, there is a subtle distinction between an expansion franchise (i.e. the [[Jacksonville Jaguars]]) and an expansion team. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Matches10|Matches10]] ([[User talk:Matches10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matches10|contribs]]) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::Agreed; they are the same franchise, but to not explain the circumstances of their return is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the issue. As cited above, the NFL calls the 1999 Browns an expansion team. The Browns themselves referred to the 1999 draft as an "expansion draft." The previous edit specifically stated that the franchise was the same, and explained that the franchise's return was facilitated by expansion. The reality is that 1999 Browns were a new team of players selected in an expansion draft, and inhabited the Cleveland Browns franchise. Because of the Browns, there is a subtle distinction between an expansion franchise (i.e. the [[Jacksonville Jaguars]]) and an expansion team. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Matches10|Matches10]] ([[User talk:Matches10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matches10|contribs]]) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::Frank, we have clearly presented evidence that the NFL and the rest of the world consider the 1999 Browns to be an expansion team. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary. You are obviously confused about what the NFL's policy on the ''history'' of the Cleveland Browns means. I'm going to go back to Matches10's version with a footnote to the NFL's own description of the 1999 team as an expansion team. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::Frank, we have clearly presented evidence that the NFL and the rest of the world consider the 1999 Browns to be an expansion team. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary. You are obviously confused about what the NFL's policy on the ''history'' of the Cleveland Browns means. I'm going to go back to Matches10's version with a footnote to the NFL's own description of the 1999 team as an expansion team. -- [[User:Mwalcoff|Mwalcoff]] ([[User talk:Mwalcoff|talk]]) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
Frank, you are confusing "expansion ''team''" with "expansion ''franchise''." The Browns are an expansion ''team'' because they had an expansion draft, got new players/owners, started fresh. They are not an expansion franchise, as they are a continuation of the franchise that started in 1946 and suspended operations for three seasons. An expansion franchise (such as the 1995 Panthers) is a franchise that has no history associated with it whatsoever, and nobody is disputing the great history of the Browns. [[User:Busta Baxta|Busta Baxta]] ([[User talk:Busta Baxta|talk]]) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:33, 21 January 2008
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Cleveland may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Pictures
- Would be great to have some good photos of the fans, and maybe a shot of the Big Dawg. Pimlottc 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have some pics of the fans that I'll get here eventually, but I don't think I got any of Big Dawng... Minkus 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Logo Being Used
The dog logo appearing on this article is not the Dawg Pound logo, but rather a secondary logo the team uses. The official NFL Dawg Pound logo appears here: Official Dawg Pound Logo --216.253.95.34 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Expansion team
You are really splitting hairs if you say the Browns were not an expansion team in 1999. A new franchise was granted to the Lerner group and the roster populated through an expansion draft. A Google search for /Browns expansion site:nfl.com/ indicates the league has no problem calling the 1999 Browns an "expansion team." Saying the team simply "returned to the league" is confusing and misleading. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The NFL officially views the Browns as a team that joined the NFL in 1950, suspended operations in 1996 and rejoined the league in 1999, and the article should reflect that. There is a much larger discussion of this in Talk:Cleveland Browns Frank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence you have written, "In 1995, owner Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore, and the Browns rejoined the league in 1999," would make no sense to someone not familiar with the NFL. What do you mean they "rejoined the league?" Where did they go? If they moved to Baltimore, how could they rejoin the league? The fact that the NFL considers the Browns a single team for records purposes does not distract from the fact that they were an expansion team by every definition of the term. The discussion at Talk:Cleveland Browns is not really relevant because it addresses a proposal to split the article Cleveland Browns into two pages. It's not a similar dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your changes made the section even harder to understand. I'm going to
revert andget a third opinion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your changes made the section even harder to understand. I'm going to
- The sentence you have written, "In 1995, owner Art Modell moved the original Browns to Baltimore, and the Browns rejoined the league in 1999," would make no sense to someone not familiar with the NFL. What do you mean they "rejoined the league?" Where did they go? If they moved to Baltimore, how could they rejoin the league? The fact that the NFL considers the Browns a single team for records purposes does not distract from the fact that they were an expansion team by every definition of the term. The discussion at Talk:Cleveland Browns is not really relevant because it addresses a proposal to split the article Cleveland Browns into two pages. It's not a similar dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
If the NFL and reliable sources indicate the current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team, this is what the article should state. We must report verifiable information from reliable sources. We should not use our own feelings or interpretations. Vassyana (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware of the confusing and controversial nature of the expansion vs. one-franchise issue with the Cleveland Browns. However on a page about the Dawg Pound we should be clear and avoid getting too far into the issue, which is what the Browns History article should be about. The previous version of this article seemed to assume too much knowledge about Browns history. There was no mention of the move, and the article just said the Browns rejoined the league. IMO we need to tell the reader that the team was moved, otherwise there is no context for them to "rejoin". I hope this version is an improvement and can be agreeable. --Matches10 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think your version is an improvement but still confusing to a newbie. I imagine a person saying, "What do you mean, 'set to return in 1999?'" Did they move back from Baltimore?" The fact is, the NFL has no problem calling the 1999 Browns an expansion team, as a Google search of /browns expansion site:nfl.com/ proves. For example, the NFL's online history says "The NFL clubs unanimously approved an expansion team for Cleveland to fulfill the commitment to return the Browns to the field in 1999." The "new" Browns inherited the "old" Browns' records and history. But there's no question that the 1999 team was, in every sense of the word, an expansion team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully this last edit will take that into account and acknowledges both aspects of the return: same-franchise, expansion team.--Matches10 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK to me -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- But what remains is that the 1999 Browns are not an expansion team. They are the same franchise that did not play for three seasons. The way the article is now, that says the team has new owners and players is an appropriate way of showing how they returned to the leagueFrank Anchor, U. S. American (talk, contribs) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed; they are the same franchise, but to not explain the circumstances of their return is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the issue. As cited above, the NFL calls the 1999 Browns an expansion team. The Browns themselves referred to the 1999 draft as an "expansion draft." The previous edit specifically stated that the franchise was the same, and explained that the franchise's return was facilitated by expansion. The reality is that 1999 Browns were a new team of players selected in an expansion draft, and inhabited the Cleveland Browns franchise. Because of the Browns, there is a subtle distinction between an expansion franchise (i.e. the Jacksonville Jaguars) and an expansion team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Frank, we have clearly presented evidence that the NFL and the rest of the world consider the 1999 Browns to be an expansion team. You have not presented any evidence to the contrary. You are obviously confused about what the NFL's policy on the history of the Cleveland Browns means. I'm going to go back to Matches10's version with a footnote to the NFL's own description of the 1999 team as an expansion team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed; they are the same franchise, but to not explain the circumstances of their return is confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the issue. As cited above, the NFL calls the 1999 Browns an expansion team. The Browns themselves referred to the 1999 draft as an "expansion draft." The previous edit specifically stated that the franchise was the same, and explained that the franchise's return was facilitated by expansion. The reality is that 1999 Browns were a new team of players selected in an expansion draft, and inhabited the Cleveland Browns franchise. Because of the Browns, there is a subtle distinction between an expansion franchise (i.e. the Jacksonville Jaguars) and an expansion team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Frank, you are confusing "expansion team" with "expansion franchise." The Browns are an expansion team because they had an expansion draft, got new players/owners, started fresh. They are not an expansion franchise, as they are a continuation of the franchise that started in 1946 and suspended operations for three seasons. An expansion franchise (such as the 1995 Panthers) is a franchise that has no history associated with it whatsoever, and nobody is disputing the great history of the Browns. Busta Baxta (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)