rockpile Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Yes...it's called eminent domain and the city of Baltimore was threatening to impose it. So you would be willing to be a Raven's fan (had you been a Colts) fan earlier, but does that differ from if you were a Brown's fan before Modell shipped them down to Baltimore? Granted not under a Mayflower scenario, but still an injustice in many people's mind? Doesn't make sense to me you would support being a Raven's fan when the Browns were shipped to Baltimore. If I was a Colts fan when they were in Baltimore, it would be next to impossible for me to "embrace" the Ravens, especially since they had formerly been the Browns, but I would still HATE Irsay's Colts. This is a hard one to really get a good reading on isn't it? As a Baltimore Colts fan, having NFL championship team records residing in Indianapolis would be impossible for me to accept. Tombstone, I do not see it as revisionist history. I said nothing that was not factual. Yes it is true that the city had been jerking the team around. The two biggest cesspool stadiums in the NFL at the time were Buffalo and Baltimore, no argument. Buffalo luckily got Rich Stadium, and Baltimore got cloak and daggered. I think (but of course I do not know) that once the city realized Irsay was really leaving, their first step was to try and take the team away from him, and I believe the second step would have been a new stadium. It is all speculation now. Baltimore city officials waited too long to get their sh*t together and paid for it!
5 Wide Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 The heck they are! They have no association whatsoever with the Browns! Except for the fact that from 1946 - 1995 that franchise called Cleveland home...
BuffaloWings Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 If there's any justice....Manning will get hit and lose a fumble, but the Colts will retain possession after the ref calls the tuck rule. Wait.....didn't they throw that rule out AFTER the Patsies got the benefit of it (probably the only team in NFL history to do so)?
fairweather fan Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 You might want to consider the T shirt chick from New Orleans instead. At least she will be in a good mood and probably more agreeable. She certainly has exhibited (and advertised) a proclivity for the activity you are suggesting. I'm sorry. What are you trying to say? I was suprized that the blue noses in the FCC didn't fine Fox for dwelling on the chick wearing the t shirt with "F(deleted)k the Eagles" emblazoned on it.
rockpile Posted January 18, 2007 Author Posted January 18, 2007 I was suprized that the blue noses in the FCC didn't fine Fox for dwelling on the chick wearing the t shirt with "F(deleted)k the Eagles" emblazoned on it. I guess that will teach me to just listen to the game! Thanks for the explanation. I did notice in one Fox game that they kept showing a fan who seemed to be having lots of conversation with someone, and was wearing a FOX hat!
ESPeculatioN Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I guess that will teach me to just listen to the game! Thanks for the explanation. I did notice in one Fox game that they kept showing a fan who seemed to be having lots of conversation with someone, and was wearing a FOX hat! Its called a dunce cap. Anything Fox is dumb.
Recommended Posts