PDA

View Full Version : It hurts to love football yet live in Ohio



Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 04:14 PM
Well, it's the off-season. Arguably, for us Browns fans, it's been the off season for the past two months.

Anyway, I was glad to see Romio go. Was hoping for Cowher, but figured he'd be smart enough to not come out of retirement to inherit a team like Cleveland.

Well, looks like they're going with axed Jet's coach, Mangini (http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20090108/UPDATES01/90108002/0/UPDATES02). Apparently, the best way to fix a flailing franchise is hire the guy who's team took an 8-4 season, then dumped the last four games to miss the playoffs. Apparently, a coach of a team that fell appart is just the man to bring some disiplin and cohesion to the Browns. Blah.

And it's statements like these that really make me want to cry:

Despite the Jets' meltdown, Lerner, who is also looking for a new general manager, was enamored with Mangini's potential and believed he would bring discipline to the underachieving Browns, who went 4-12 during a disastrous season marked by injuries, ugly losses and a 1-7 home record. Lerner believed Mangini, who will be 38 on Jan. 19, learned from his mistakes in New York.
(my bold and underline)

*sigh* color me unconvinced.

Swift
2009-Jan-08, 05:36 PM
Well, it's the off-season. Arguably, for us Browns fans, it's been the off season for the past two months.

Two months? I thought it was the past eight years.

Actually, the "learned from his mistakes" bit sounds reasonable to me, but I guess only time will tell.

He is supposely sort of the opposite of Romeo - tough on players, very long and hard practices. Might help to get some of the big, overpayed babies to really play some football.

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 05:39 PM
We'll see. I just don't get this insistance on gambling with someone who "had problems, but we think he's changed." rather than pursue someone with a bit more proven background.

Of course, a lot of it is just dissapointment that they weren't able to convince Cowher to take up an offer. That would have been awsome. :)

Swift
2009-Jan-08, 05:43 PM
We'll see. I just don't get this insistance on gambling with someone who "had problems, but we think he's changed." rather than pursue someone with a bit more proven background.

$$$$$

Its like starting pitching for the Indians; unless one wants to shell out big bucks, you have to gamble that the guy is over his reconstructive surgery or has figured out how to run a football team. Proven winners either want more money and/or want to go to a team where they know they can continue their winning ways.

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 05:48 PM
I understand that, but every time I hear the phrases "It'll be different next year." or "This guy won't make that mistake again." or "We're in a rebuilding year." I cannot help but cringe. As my comment on the webpage for that local article linked in the OP says, I remain optimistic... but mostly because as a life-long Browns fan, hope for the future is kinda built into our DNA. I just wish they'd be realistic and instead just say, "Hell, we figured it can't get much worse, right? So why not."

:)

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 05:51 PM
Proven winners either want more money and/or want to go to a team where they know they can continue their winning ways.

Oops, forgot to comment on this above. I'm guessing that's exactly what happened with Cowher. I don't blame him in the least. When you leave coaching as one of the NFL's most respected modern coaches, and a very sucessful one, why risk that reputation by coming back to a team that you think is just going to tank? As much as I had been saying Romeo needed to go over the last three years, the coach is just a part of the overall team. The world's greatest coach is still going to lose if the team itself is horrible. (I'm not saying I think the Browns cannot possibly be good, just that I see enough problems where someone like Bill may be reluctant to take the reigns. Besides, I think the other teams looking for a coach are able to bring him better offers.)

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-08, 06:18 PM
At this point, any change might be in order. Even if it's the Browns ball boy.
Oh...wait a minute... :doh:

redshifter
2009-Jan-08, 07:09 PM
If you think it hurts in Ohio, try being a football fan (heck, ANY sport) here in the Seattle area: UW Huskies 0-12 and haven't even sniffed a bowl in years, Seahawks lousy as well.

Wait a sec, the UW womens X country team won the NCAA championship, so I guess all is not lost.

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 07:15 PM
Seattle was a major playoff threat in recent history though. Cleveland... eh. At least we got the Indians (who are playoff and end-of year choke artists themselves) but they give us hope.

And apparently the Cavs are "pretty good" (solong as they're still kick'n, I don't follow NBA).

LotusExcelle
2009-Jan-08, 07:20 PM
I'm in Rochester - which pretty much spitting (one hour) distance from Buffalo. I can hear the heartache from my poor Buffalo neighbors.

Swift
2009-Jan-08, 08:01 PM
And apparently the Cavs are "pretty good" (solong as they're still kick'n, I don't follow NBA).
Uh... "pretty good". They currently have the best record in the NBA and are probably Cleveland's best hope for a champion. But you are right, Ohio ranks sports with Football number one, baseball number 2, and basketball a distant third.

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 08:13 PM
That's why I put the "pretty good" in quotes. :)

(Plus, I wasn't sure if their dominance had continued over the recent past though, as last weeks Sports Illustraited mysteriously didn't come and this weeks doesn't come until this afternoon).

redshifter
2009-Jan-08, 09:24 PM
Seattle was a major playoff threat in recent history though. Cleveland... eh. At least we got the Indians (who are playoff and end-of year choke artists themselves) but they give us hope.

And apparently the Cavs are "pretty good" (solong as they're still kick'n, I don't follow NBA).

At least you have an NBA team...though I much prefer college basketball myself. Much more team oriented.

True, the Seahawks had a few good seasons in the past (don't get me started on Super Bowl 40...). Now that Holmgren is leaving, I'm hoping we haven't seen the last of postseason appearances.

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 09:36 PM
Seattle has an NBA team...

...they're just playing in Utah. :)

redshifter
2009-Jan-08, 09:38 PM
Seattle has an NBA team...

...they're just playing in Utah. :)

Don't you mean Oklahoma?

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 09:40 PM
err, yeah.

(I'm sure the Jazz players would love that slip up ;))

Joe Boy
2009-Jan-08, 09:42 PM
You don't know what saddness is until you have lived your life in Minnesota Vikings Land--a lifetime of disappointments--jb

Fazor
2009-Jan-08, 09:49 PM
You don't know what saddness is until you have lived your life in Minnesota Vikings Land--a lifetime of disappointments--jb

Well, in the 70's Minn went to the big show 4 times in 7 years... though they never did win.

You know how many times Cleveland's even made it to the Super Bowl? Hint: An amputee with no arms could count the number on his fingers.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-09, 12:58 PM
No matter how depressing the numbers sound, when you combine all the stats from those 3 sports, I can understand why Detroit loves Hockey. That usually makes me feel better.

mfumbesi
2009-Jan-09, 01:18 PM
I thought you were talking about real football (i.e soccer in your parts).

Click Ticker
2009-Jan-09, 02:05 PM
No matter how depressing the numbers sound, when you combine all the stats from those 3 sports, I can understand why Detroit loves Hockey. That usually makes me feel better.

Tigers were in the World Series in 2006. Pistons have been in the Eastern Conference Finals the past six years and the Finals twice, winning it all in 2004. Michigan State is always a contender in college basketball and the football program is showing signs of life. U of M basketball appears to be making a turn for the better. U of M football beat Florida just last year in a bowl game (although they are in full rebuilding mode now). Red Wings are NHL champions.

It's really only the Lions that are rotten. But even they seem to provide a bit of comic relief. Hey, if you're going to be bad, do it right! Don't mess around with just being average.

NEOWatcher
2009-Jan-09, 05:33 PM
Tigers were in the World Series in 2006.
And not since 1984 before that... Although that pales in comparison to our 41 year haitus.
Yep; we all get our highlights and it depends on how big of a window you want to go historically, which is why I was trying to get a combined stat idea going. I do remember some bad years for both the Tigers and the Pistons.
I don't know the numbers or when, but I do know a lot of people in Detroit, and sports conversations seem to always be diverted to Redwings.

Swift
2009-Jan-09, 06:26 PM
Not to whine too much, but such stuff is why I'm somewhat unsympathetic of Cubs fans that complain about their World Series drought - they had all those years that the Bulls owned the NBA. Similarly, even when Boston fans had the right to complain about the lack of championships for the Red Sox or the Pats, they had the Celtics. Cleveland has had squat since the 1964, pre-NFL Browns, or the 1948 Indians.

Fazor
2009-Jan-09, 06:31 PM
which is why I was trying to get a combined stat idea going.
Over the past two years, I've read/heard two or three different "Hardest cities to be a sports fan in" lists by various media (Local radio, ESPN, etc).

Cleveland is always up at like 8-10th worst, which floors me since not a single Cleveland team has won a championship since the Indians won the series in 1948? (Not sure about the Cavs). There's been 4 championship appearences by the tribe, one or two by the Cavs (that I can find) and none by the Browns since the introduction of the Super Bowl.

Swift
2009-Jan-09, 07:16 PM
None by the Cavs. They have made several appearances in the playoffs.

farmerjumperdon
2009-Jan-09, 07:29 PM
I'm always amused by the comments about not winning a championship for say . . . 15 years. With the number of teams around, if you win one every other decade you are at least on average, probably slightly better.

I mean, everybody can't win every year. More specifically, only one team can win each year. So unless a team has gone something like 25 years without one, no big deal.

Fazor
2009-Jan-09, 07:35 PM
I mean, everybody can't win every year. More specifically, only one team can win each year. So unless a team has gone something like 25 years without one, no big deal.
Last year made 60 years without a Champion in Cleveland out of three major sports. So yeah. :)

redshifter
2009-Jan-09, 07:47 PM
We've got a single pro sports championship: the 78-79 Sonics (who aren't here any more). None in football or baseball. :(

Guess it could be worse, 30 years is a lot less than 60... :)

NEOWatcher
2009-Feb-12, 07:32 PM
I wasn't sure where I was going to categorize this one...

Eight successful people grateful they got canned (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/02/12/mf.fired.people.did.better/index.html)
All sorts of things went through my mind, most notably is... "Sure! That's great if you have the talent or the money"

But; 8 examples in the nation and #8 just threw it in this thread.


After five years in Cleveland, Belichick ... Not bad for a guy even the Cleveland Browns didn't want

That just hurts.

Fazor
2009-Feb-12, 07:42 PM
Ouch. Yes. But since he was part of the deserters, I'm still glad he's gone. There were some interesting signs at that last home game (the only Browns game I've ever been to). The best was an anti-Modell, a guy with a sign saying "Modell is a ->" with the arrow pointing to himself; wearing a giant foam costume shaped like a ... well, you get to use your imagination here, as it's not BAUT appropriate. :)

The sentiment towards Bill wasn't much different.

JustAFriend
2009-Feb-13, 03:33 AM
No, it hurts to NOT love football and live in Ohio.

Grew up in Columbus back in the days of Woody Hayes and where the Buckeyes are demi-gods and they each Michigan for lunch.

Can't begin to tell you how many times I was shunned as being an inhuman Communist for not bowing to the Temple of Bucks.....

mike alexander
2009-Feb-13, 05:52 AM
I remember times it just hurt to live in Ohio.

NEOWatcher
2009-Feb-13, 05:29 PM
I remember times it just hurt to live in Ohio.
Remember? Why don't you come on back for a visit, and a reminder. :lol:

Fazor
2009-Nov-17, 08:51 PM
Well, last night's "game" (if you can even call it that) was bad enough to elicit a revival of the thread.

Ugh. The Brown's offense moved the ball past the fifty yard line twice. They never crossed the opponent's 45.

I quit watching with about 8:00 minutes left in the fourth, but up to that point, the Browns had attempted one pass greater than 15 yards. And no, it wasn't completed.

I'm sure people will be down on Quinn. And no, he hasn't be brilliant. But can you really blame him? He's never had a chance to develop, and sadly, will probably never get that chance.

Oh well. How long 'til Baseball season? :)

Chuck
2009-Nov-17, 11:07 PM
Coming up next, Browns at Detroit!

SolusLupus
2009-Nov-18, 12:06 AM
It hurts to love Fußball, and live in the United States. . .

Not that I actuallz do love Fußball!

Fazor
2009-Nov-18, 12:48 AM
Coming up next, Browns at Detroit!

Yes. I can hardly wait to watch that amazing display of athletisism.

jfribrg
2009-Nov-18, 11:54 AM
Yes. I can hardly wait to watch that amazing display of athletisism.

I was about to comment that there are worse things than being a Browns fan. I saw part of the Lions/Vikings game on Sunday. The Vikings didn't play great, but the Lions simply embarrased themselves with one aweful mistake after another.

Good luck to all you Browns fans on Sunday. This is your golden opportunity to establish a lower limit on your teams' capabilities. Of course the same can be said for all you Lion's fans.

megrfl
2009-Nov-18, 01:38 PM
It's easy to love football in Florida when you've got Tim Tebow and Urban Myer! Next Seasaon, who knows (no Tim), but for now we are enjoying the success of the Gators. :)

Swift
2009-Nov-18, 03:46 PM
Oh well. How long 'til Baseball season? :)
Go CAVs ;)

Fazor
2009-Nov-18, 04:06 PM
Go CAVs ;)
I can't watch the NBA. I'll keep my fingers crossed for 'em, but that's about the extent of my fan'dom on that front.

publiusr
2009-Nov-20, 07:06 PM
It's easy to love football in Florida when you've got Tim Tebow and Urban Myer! Next Seasaon, who knows (no Tim), but for now we are enjoying the success of the Gators. :)

For two more weeks you mean. Roll Tide.

Chuck
2009-Nov-22, 06:47 PM
The Browns lead The Lions 24 to 3 in the first quarter. They're playing in Detroit, of course.

Chuck
2009-Nov-22, 07:41 PM
Browns 27, Lions 24, halftime. It would be an exciting game if they hadn't both been 1 and 8.

Chuck
2009-Nov-22, 08:32 PM
Lions 31, Browns 29, end of the third quarter.

Veeger
2009-Nov-22, 08:38 PM
Go Bucks!

Chuck
2009-Nov-22, 09:06 PM
If you mean The Buccaneers, they lost 38 to 7.

Otherworldly
2009-Nov-22, 09:35 PM
What's the matter, is the Crew not doing well?

Chuck
2009-Nov-22, 10:10 PM
The Buccaneers were playing The Saints so it would violate board rules to discuss that game.

The Lions beat The Browns 38 to 37.

Fazor
2009-Nov-22, 10:13 PM
What's the matter, is the Crew not doing well?

MLS season is over. Crew ended the season with like 4 straight losses, but were still able to win the Supporter's Shield.

Crew moved on to the next round of the CONCACAF champion's league, but they don't play again for a while.

And . . . freak'n Browns. Win the game!---nope, penalty on the last play after time expired, giving Detriot the chance for the win, which of course, they did.

Otherworldly
2009-Nov-22, 10:16 PM
Ah, sorry. I was thinking the wrong kind of football.

Veeger
2009-Nov-22, 11:10 PM
If you mean The Buccaneers, they lost 38 to 7.

I am talking about an Ohio football team that won the Big 10. A reason to feel good about football while living in Ohio. Browns fans like me would be totally despondent were it not for teams like OSU to brighten our autumn weekends.

Fazor
2009-Nov-22, 11:11 PM
Ah, sorry. I was thinking the wrong kind of football.

I watch both. Crew had a great year, but just kinda fizzled at the end. I think the CONCACAF league just took too much out of them.

At least OSU beat Michigan, but there was really no reason they shouldn't have this year.

jfribrg
2009-Nov-25, 02:39 PM
I'm curious if the Browns fans wish for the return of 1996-1998 when the Browns did not lose a single game.

chaboyax
2009-Nov-25, 03:03 PM
I thought you were talking about real football (i.e soccer in your parts).

i second that real footy is best except for liverpool fans at the min :lol::lol::lol:

Fazor
2009-Nov-25, 03:16 PM
I'm curious if the Browns fans wish for the return of 1996-1998 when the Browns did not lose a single game.

It certainly wouldn't make things any worse. We don't have a team now, either. :)

Now that the college season is over here in the Big 10 (minus bowl games, but those are a month+ away), there's not much to watch sports-wise in these parts. I'll stop and watch parts of the Blue Jackets' games, but only if there's nothing else on television.

Fazor
2009-Dec-03, 07:59 PM
Some good news for Browns fans: They've managed to evade this list (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/pgStory?contentId=10464456&GT1=39002) of 10-Worst Sports Teams of All Time* (Fox Sports)

So, they have a ways to go before they hit rock bottom. Problem is, with the season-ending injury to Rodgers last week, they're likely to fall quite a bit further into the hole. I'll also note that the top 10 list includes a 1-15 New England Pats team (1990); and the Browns are likely to end up with the same record, but in an even uglier fashion. Oh well.

*As usual with these type of "list articles", the list is hardly comprehensive, limited to American sports, and mostly professional but with the inclusion of a college football team. In other words, the writer just picked out 10 bad teams, but can't make a solid claim that these bad teams were the *worst*

Swift
2009-Dec-03, 08:48 PM
Some good news for Browns fans: They've managed to evade this list (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/pgStory?contentId=10464456&GT1=39002) of 10-Worst Sports Teams of All Time* (Fox Sports)

Nice to see my 1962 Mets make the #1 on that list. They were so horrible they were glorious. I note also that Cleveland did get mentioned there, the Cleveland Spiders baseball team (pre-Indians).

Otherworldly
2009-Dec-03, 09:21 PM
No, it hurts to NOT love football and live in Ohio.

Grew up in Columbus back in the days of Woody Hayes and where the Buckeyes are demi-gods and they each Michigan for lunch.

Can't begin to tell you how many times I was shunned as being an inhuman Communist for not bowing to the Temple of Bucks.....

Hi JustAFriend, always a pleasure to meet a fellow inhuman Communist.

jfribrg
2009-Dec-11, 02:13 PM
Browns 13 Steelers 6

Congrats to the myriad of long suffering Browns fans.

Swift
2009-Dec-11, 02:25 PM
I'm not going out to buy my 2011 Superbowl tickets yet, but it was SWEET!

Fazor
2009-Dec-11, 02:34 PM
I'm not going out to buy my 2011 Superbowl tickets yet, but it was SWEET!

They only won because the game was on the NFL network; my provider doesn't even carry it as an option.

(The story is that Time Warner wants to add it as part of a 'subscription' service so that those who don't care about the channel don't have to pay for it. NFL network wants them to add it as part of one of their basic packages. Both sides are feigning that the're acting in the interest of the customer, but it's such a thinly veiled argument that the greed at the heart of the issue shines clearly through. Make it a part of a 'premium' package, and you get to charge the 10% who carry it 500% of the cost it would have been, profit for cable company. Make it basic package, then you have a much higher viewer base and hence make more on advertising. Profit for NFL network. Consumer takes it where the sun don't shine either way.)

((Can you tell I'm annoyed? It doesn't help that we had to go through the exact same thing two years ago with the Big 10 Network))

Swift
2009-Dec-11, 02:38 PM
I don't get NFL network either, but Channel 3, the Cleveland NBC station, rebroadcasted it.

Fazor
2009-Dec-11, 02:41 PM
I don't get NFL network either, but Channel 3, the Cleveland NBC station, rebroadcasted it.

I don't live close enough to Cleveland, or Cleveland is just that awful (they are) that the Columbus market decided not to preempt the other "awesome" programming they usually run.

I did catch some highlights though. How bout that Cribbs? Thank the football-gods for him! Electrifying.

NEOWatcher
2009-Dec-11, 03:53 PM
It's just the weather. The Steelers have never beat Cleveland when the temperature was below 25F.

Actually; I thought they looked pretty good yesterday.

Fazor
2009-Dec-11, 04:07 PM
I thought they looked okay last Sunday too, despite the loss. I know it's grasping at straws to say, "Man, they played well!" when you still lose, but compared to some of their other (MANY!) losses, it was a much better-played game.

It's either signs that they are actually improving, or that a bunch of non-worn third stringers filling in for injuries are better rested than everyone else's tired and worn first stringers. :) Besides, what have they got to lose?

Swift
2009-Dec-11, 04:46 PM
I thought they looked okay last Sunday too, despite the loss. I know it's grasping at straws to say, "Man, they played well!" when you still lose, but compared to some of their other (MANY!) losses, it was a much better-played game.

It's either signs that they are actually improving, or that a bunch of non-worn third stringers filling in for injuries are better rested than everyone else's tired and worn first stringers. :) Besides, what have they got to lose?
Or all of the above. ;) I think part of it is those third stringers have been told that they are fighting for a job (or at least an invitation to camp) for next year. Prove yourself and you might have a spot on this team. The question is, how many of them will work out, and not just for the next couple of games. But there also could be some good players there.

I do agree that they've looked better the last 3 or 4 games. At least they were competitive (not an embarrassment) in the last couple of loses.

And yes, what's wrong with grasping at straws, when that's all you got.

redshifter
2009-Dec-12, 07:22 AM
I am talking about an Ohio football team that won the Big 10. A reason to feel good about football while living in Ohio. Browns fans like me would be totally despondent were it not for teams like OSU to brighten our autumn weekends.

Are you OSU fans looking forward to the Rose Bowl? I'm a UW Huskies fan, so I'm not a big Oregon fan; but that Oregon offense is going to be really tough to defend.

Fazor
2009-Dec-12, 02:52 PM
I feel like I'm giving away 'state secrets' (though it's not really a secret). I hope the Ohio-equivilant of the KGB doesn't force me into a non-descript sedan and make me dissapear...

But . . . Our weakness is our secondary. It seems that's been our weakness for the last few years. We have a great O-Line (doesn't get much credit outside of the B10 but it IS great) and we generally can shut down any teams running game, but we depend 100% on getting pressure to the QB. *IF* they can fling their passes out there, they'll [Oregon] have a great chance.

I know QB pressure is always a huge part of stopping the passing game; I just wish we could sure up our secondary a little bit too. It's always trouble to depend on a single strategy.

redshifter
2009-Dec-13, 01:58 AM
Oregon runs the ball extremely well out of their spread option offense. They use misdirection quite well. When it's firing on all cylinders, it's very difficult to stop.

Oregon's D is a bit undersized, but fast. If I were OSU's offensive coordinator, I'd put in a game plan with lots of power running, and try to keep the ball as long as I could. This is what Stanford did when they beat the ducks--lots of power running, and just enough passing to keep Oregon's D from stacking the line against the run. OSU's D might have a tough time stopping the Ducks. Should be a great game!

Click Ticker
2009-Dec-14, 03:14 PM
The thread title should be edited to just Cleveland.

The Bengals look good and like they'll make the playoffs.
The Bearcats are undefeated and in a BCS game finishing 3rd in the country and were just outside the national championship game.
Ohio State won the Big 10 and is in the Rose Bowl.

Ohio has it pretty good in the football world.

Michigan, on the other hand, has the Lions (nothing more to be said about that). U of M stinks, which being a Michigan State fan isn't all bad - but it looks bad for the state. MSU just barely made a bowl game with six wins and the guy we should have hired took our coaches former team to an undefeated season (yes, the same undefeated team in Ohio mentioned above). MSU now has eight players suspended for their lowly bowl game and two more kicked off the team for behavior issues.

The only consolation is that our mid-major college teams played pretty well. Yippee.

pghnative
2009-Dec-14, 03:34 PM
Browns 13 Steelers 6

Congrats to the myriad of long suffering Browns fans.
Ooofff ---- even four days later, that still hurts deep.


It's just the weather. The Steelers have never beat Cleveland when the temperature was below 25F.

Actually; I thought they looked pretty good yesterday.
Sadly (for me), Pittsburgh has been making a lot of teams (Chiefs / Raiders, etc) look pretty good recently.

Fazor
2009-Dec-14, 03:37 PM
Ohio has it pretty good in the football world.


Keep in mind that when the thread was started, Cleveland had finished the season 3-13, Cinci was 3-12-1, and OSU had just lost their third straight bowl game.

Swift
2009-Dec-14, 03:58 PM
The Bengals look good and like they'll make the playoffs.
The Bearcats are undefeated and in a BCS game finishing 3rd in the country and were just outside the national championship game.
Ohio State won the Big 10 and is in the Rose Bowl.

I wish the Bengals the best of luck. If the Browns can't do anything, I hope they can.

My wife is a Bearcat (no, she didn't play football), so our household has a soft spot for them. The couple of their games I watched, they looked pretty good.

Fazor
2009-Dec-14, 04:15 PM
I wish the Bengals the best of luck. If the Browns can't do anything, I hope they can.

My wife is a Bearcat (no, she didn't play football), so our household has a soft spot for them. The couple of their games I watched, they looked pretty good.

Eh, I stop short of becoming a Bengals fans even with Cleveland not having a team (Denial is better than acknowledging the truth, in this situation). But I don't not want Cinci to do well, if that makes sense.

As for the Bearcats, that was the only non-underdog team that I was rooting for last week. They're an Ohio team with a good story, and they were never really in direct competition with the Buckeyes this year, so no conflict of interest.

mike alexander
2009-Dec-14, 09:08 PM
Born and raised in Ohio, lived last ten years in Oregon. What to do, what to do.

Remember Woody Hayes.

GO DUCKS!


Two teams, one mascot is a waterfowl and the other mascot is a poisonous nut.

publiusr
2009-Dec-14, 09:39 PM
I am very glad that Mark Ingram finally brought a Heisman to the U of A.

NEOWatcher
2012-Aug-02, 07:17 PM
BUMP:


Congrats to the myriad of long suffering Browns fans.Ooofff ---- even four days later, that still hurts deep.
Sadly (for me), Pittsburgh has been making a lot of teams (Chiefs / Raiders, etc) look pretty good recently.
And now one of the Pittsburgh's partial owners gets to do the same to their arch-rivals.

Browns deal one of the most lucrative in history (http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/254553/396/Browns-deal-one-of-the-most-lucrative-in-history-)

Let's see, Model said he won't move the team, and Haslam is saying the same thing. I wonder.

primummobile
2012-Aug-02, 09:00 PM
I've lived in or around Pittsburgh my entire life, but I've been a rabid Browns fan since I was old enough to understand a little about football, which was in the Brian Sipe days. It's heartbreaking to watch them lose every year, and even worse when I'm surrounded by thousands of Steelers fans.

primummobile
2012-Aug-02, 09:01 PM
BUMP:

And now one of the Pittsburgh's partial owners gets to do the same to their arch-rivals.

Browns deal one of the most lucrative in history (http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/254553/396/Browns-deal-one-of-the-most-lucrative-in-history-)

Let's see, Model said he won't move the team, and Haslam is saying the same thing. I wonder.

When is the lease up on the stadium? He'd be responsible for that if he decided to move them. But after the last time, I don't think the NFL is going to let anyone move the Browns anywhere.

Swift
2012-Aug-02, 09:10 PM
When is the lease up on the stadium? He'd be responsible for that if he decided to move them. But after the last time, I don't think the NFL is going to let anyone move the Browns anywhere.
I don't recall the exact year, but the lease goes out to something like 2025. I am not particularly worried about him moving the team. We'll see how much he likes to spend money or shake-up the coaching staff.

primummobile
2012-Aug-02, 09:15 PM
I don't recall the exact year, but the lease goes out to something like 2025. I am not particularly worried about him moving the team. We'll see how much he likes to spend money or shake-up the coaching staff.

Well, if he's anything like what the Browns have had for the last 25 years, you can expect this to be Shurmur's last year (unless he wins at least 8 games) and I'd be willing to bet Holmgren is gone before the season starts. But hopefully he'll spend a little money. He may do that if what he paid for the team is any indication.

Solfe
2012-Aug-03, 01:35 AM
I'm in Rochester - which pretty much spitting (one hour) distance from Buffalo. I can hear the heartache from my poor Buffalo neighbors.

Sorry, I will try to keep it down to a sob this season. : )

Fazor
2012-Aug-03, 01:20 PM
When is the lease up on the stadium? He'd be responsible for that if he decided to move them. But after the last time, I don't think the NFL is going to let anyone move the Browns anywhere.

Our unproven, drafted three rounds higher than projected rookie QB will take us to the Super Bowl this year, so it'll be lucrative enough to just stay put.


. . . Okay, so probably not how I would have handled the draft and the key position for my struggling-to-rebuild franchise. But what do I know? I'm just some guy with a little common sense.

primummobile
2012-Aug-03, 01:40 PM
Our unproven, drafted three rounds higher than projected rookie QB will take us to the Super Bowl this year, so it'll be lucrative enough to just stay put.


. . . Okay, so probably not how I would have handled the draft and the key position for my struggling-to-rebuild franchise. But what do I know? I'm just some guy with a little common sense.

As I see it, the whole problem with the Browns is the lack of consistency when it comes to any kind of direction or purpose. We've completely changed direction every two years and we've never given anything any longer than two years to work. I think that pure dumb luck could have produced better results by now.

Trebuchet
2012-Aug-03, 02:36 PM
As I see it, the whole problem with the Browns is the lack of consistency when it comes to any kind of direction or purpose. We've completely changed direction every two years and we've never given anything any longer than two years to work. I think that pure dumb luck could have produced better results by now.

You've pretty much just described EVERY major sports team in Seattle, as well. There seems to be a commitment to mediocrity. At least when there's not a commitment to moving to another city.

Swift
2012-Aug-03, 03:36 PM
As I see it, the whole problem with the Browns is the lack of consistency when it comes to any kind of direction or purpose. We've completely changed direction every two years and we've never given anything any longer than two years to work. I think that pure dumb luck could have produced better results by now.
Yes.

But that worries me about the new owner. I had a faint hope for at least a better year because it will now be the second year (IIRC) with the same coach, same offensive scheme, etc. And last year that had all that new, plus the lock-out, so a shortened pre-season to learn the new stuff.

Sure, it is the right of the new owner to put in a new coaching staff, with their own offensive and defensive schemes, but we'll be back to square one.

primummobile
2012-Aug-03, 06:40 PM
Yes.

But that worries me about the new owner. I had a faint hope for at least a better year because it will now be the second year (IIRC) with the same coach, same offensive scheme, etc. And last year that had all that new, plus the lock-out, so a shortened pre-season to learn the new stuff.

Sure, it is the right of the new owner to put in a new coaching staff, with their own offensive and defensive schemes, but we'll be back to square one.

Yep, that's pretty much the same thoughts I have about it.

primummobile
2012-Aug-03, 06:45 PM
You've pretty much just described EVERY major sports team in Seattle, as well. There seems to be a commitment to mediocrity. At least when there's not a commitment to moving to another city.

That's an interesting point. It doesn't make sense when the entire league is pulling from the same talent pool, from players to front office and everywhere between. I know that getting a good crop of players puts you in a good position to trade and so on, but dynasties that seem to last forever don't make sense to me.

NEOWatcher
2012-Aug-03, 07:01 PM
As I see it, the whole problem with the Browns is the lack of consistency when it comes to any kind of direction or purpose. We've completely changed direction every two years and we've never given anything any longer than two years to work. I think that pure dumb luck could have produced better results by now.
Oh come now, it's not that bad. We've only had 16 quarterbacks since the "new" Browns started in 1999.

On second thought...

Fazor
2012-Aug-03, 07:42 PM
Oh come now, it's not that bad. We've only had 16 quarterbacks since the "new" Browns started in 1999.

On second thought...

You sure it's 16? I think it's more than that. I kinda thought McCoy was 18 or 19. And with Mr New Guy (I can't ever remember his name) sounding like he's supposed to get the start, that'd be another +1.

Sadly, the number of head coaches isn't far behind. It feels like we've had more starting QBs and Head Coaches than we've had wins since they've come back to Cleveland. I know that's not true, but has to be a ratio that beats any other team by miles.

Swift
2012-Aug-03, 07:59 PM
Does 16 quarterbacks equal four backs? <big stupid grin>

NEOWatcher
2012-Aug-03, 08:16 PM
You sure it's 16? I think it's more than that.
Could be, I don't have that many fingers.


Does 16 quarterbacks equal four backs? <big stupid grin>
Or 32 bits.

Trebuchet
2012-Aug-03, 11:31 PM
That's an interesting point. It doesn't make sense when the entire league is pulling from the same talent pool, from players to front office and everywhere between. I know that getting a good crop of players puts you in a good position to trade and so on, but dynasties that seem to last forever don't make sense to me.

In the case of baseball, at least, it's money. There's no sharing on TV revenue so teams in major markets, such as the Yankees, pull in a lot more bucks and can buy the best players.

primummobile
2012-Aug-04, 12:33 AM
In the case of baseball, at least, it's money. There's no sharing on TV revenue so teams in major markets, such as the Yankees, pull in a lot more bucks and can buy the best players.

Yep. That's why I've always argued that baseball should have revenue sharing just like they do in the NFL.

Swift
2012-Aug-04, 02:59 AM
Yep. That's why I've always argued that baseball should have revenue sharing just like they do in the NFL.
Yes.

I think the way that is structured in the NFL is excellent. It really has done a good job of leveling the field, so that at least from a financial standpoint, no team will dominant for a long period, and bad teams can rebuild within a few years to be playoff caliber.

primummobile
2012-Aug-04, 12:19 PM
Yes.

I think the way that is structured in the NFL is excellent. It really has done a good job of leveling the field, so that at least from a financial standpoint, no team will dominant for a long period, and bad teams can rebuild within a few years to be playoff caliber.

The Yankees would never make the money they do if other teams didn't play them.

Swift
2012-Aug-04, 02:18 PM
The Yankees would never make the money they do if other teams didn't play them.
LoL

Maybe we should just stop doing that. Are the Indians and the Mariners "enablers"? <wink>

Trebuchet
2012-Aug-04, 02:27 PM
The Yankees would never make the money they do if other teams didn't play them.

But then who would we give all our best players to?

primummobile
2012-Aug-04, 07:58 PM
But then who would we give all our best players to?

I don't know, and I know this sounds crazy... but we could keep them instead of just giving them the experience they need to play for a better team.

Swift
2012-Aug-04, 09:09 PM
I don't know, and I know this sounds crazy... but we could keep them instead of just giving them the experience they need to play for a better team.
Except that we can't. The way the labor agreement is with the Baseball Players Association, at some point in time a player becomes a free agent, and can go to whatever team he likes, for whatever that team is willing to pay. And that usually seems to happen just as they are reaching the prime of their careers. And so the teams with the money can get these guys, and the small market teams just can't outbid them.

The better small market teams can sometime manage to get it done (into the playoffs), with combinations of young, relatively inexpensive, and relatively cheap talent (usually signed to long term contracts at an early point in their careers), and past their prime veterans, who may be good for one last stand. But if you guess wrong on the value-benefit curve, a lot of your salary may be tied up with someone who can't perform, and you don't have the money to go find a substitute. At best you do this for a few years, till your young talent graduates to free agency, and you start all over again with rebuilding.

Teams like the Yankees, with deep pockets, if they guess wrong, or have some critical injuries, just write a check for another free agent. And do it year after year.

mike alexander
2012-Aug-04, 10:08 PM
There is a reason the musical wasn't named "Damn Indians".

Fazor
2012-Aug-05, 12:33 AM
There is a reason the musical wasn't named "Damn Indians".

Because they never listened to the sweet melody of swears that leave my lips anytime I watch a Cleveland game? (Baseball or football.)

primummobile
2012-Aug-05, 12:50 AM
Except that we can't. The way the labor agreement is with the Baseball Players Association, at some point in time a player becomes a free agent, and can go to whatever team he likes, for whatever that team is willing to pay. And that usually seems to happen just as they are reaching the prime of their careers. And so the teams with the money can get these guys, and the small market teams just can't outbid them.

The better small market teams can sometime manage to get it done (into the playoffs), with combinations of young, relatively inexpensive, and relatively cheap talent (usually signed to long term contracts at an early point in their careers), and past their prime veterans, who may be good for one last stand. But if you guess wrong on the value-benefit curve, a lot of your salary may be tied up with someone who can't perform, and you don't have the money to go find a substitute. At best you do this for a few years, till your young talent graduates to free agency, and you start all over again with rebuilding.

Teams like the Yankees, with deep pockets, if they guess wrong, or have some critical injuries, just write a check for another free agent. And do it year after year.

I understand that. I just think the majority of professional athletes now are more in love with the money than they are the game so the revenues that rely on every team should be shared among every team. I know you know this, but no one is going to tune in to watch the Yankees play a college team.