@mjp28 said:

Well, the former only affected the "expansion draft". I would say that the latter is like 99.4% purely the reason for this team's failures. Multiple poor front offices.

@wargograw said:

I wouldn't want to follow the Columbus Browns, it would just suck to not have a team, and/or have to find a new team. It just doesn't "feel" right.

Plus the "new BROWNS" here kind of like "new Coke" never really made it...but our Brownies are still on life support if only in name only.

Why?

1. The NFL slightly changed the new franchise draft rules after the super immediate success of CAR and JAX.

2. The BROWNS never had a real good FO, ever since returning from the dead.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

If the Browns had in fact moved to Baltimore (They never moved people), A. they would have changed there name likely/appropriately and B. they could have all died in a plane crash as far as I am concerned.

C. We would have had the Cleveland Bulldogs expansion team here. Probably not doing any better than the Browns have since.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

It strikes me as odd when your definition of "true fan" is to turn away from the game. I take it that you are first and foremost a fan of the City of Cleveland. Cavs must have suffered the loss of your support when they moved to Richfield.

Columbus would phase me less than an out of state move and the last I checked Baltimore is not in Ohio... so there's that, but addressing your "Baltimore Browns" question... while my initial reaction was to flatly say, "No," honestly... I'm not sure.

I certainly could not see myself either road-tripping to attend games in Baltimore or spend hours each week on the "BaltimoreBrownsBoard". Most likely I'd have followed the Oilers, who I'd also lose, then the Texans. I am sure I'd have looked in on "the BLT Browns" out of curiosity... especially in their first SB year. Their 2000 win was already bitter enough as "the Ravens", but had they been the Browns???

Ever heard of the five stages of grief? All I am saying is once the initial hurt of an intrastate move is over, and it will/would hurt, there will be some fans who attend games and wish they had their burned memorabilia back.

@tour2ma said:

Spoken like a true fan (not). I suppose if they had stayed the 'Baltimore Browns' you would have followed them also?

@the-gipper said:

Oh, I've been following it Gip. Yeah it's happening, no it's not, yes it is. Here's the latest as of the end of December- NO IT'S NOT.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/12/28/Browns-staying-home.html#

They'll still in all likelihood have the full scrimmage at Ohio State though.

@unsympathetic said:

That article is 18 months old and the proposal that was put out was for a "tourism tax". Essentially an extra tax on all hotel rooms in the city of San Diego that would've paid a large portion of the stadium.

@tour2ma said:

People in San Diego won't support the LA Chargers, SD hates LA and everything about LA so there's no chance of any support going up the freeway. The fact that it looks like the Chargers are going to switch to the classic powder blue color scheme now as well is just one more slap in the face to SD and their fans who have been begging for that for years.

As for the hypothetical Columbus move.....if it don't say Cleveland in front of the Browns, I'm out and I'd be donating every piece of Cleveland Browns clothing to the local homeless shelter. Just like I wouldn't have supported the Baltimore Browns if that is how things had turned out 22 years ago.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/12/20/raiders-poised-to-move-to-las-vegas-with-or-without-sheldon-adelsons-involvement/

Edit: Actually, this is even more recent, only 2 days old:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/nfl-vegas/steelers-owner-raiders-might-move-las-vegas-without-adelson-investment

2018 Browns schedule

• Away
• Baltimore
• Cincinnati
• Pittsburgh
• Denver (fall in the Rockies?)
• Oakland (or Vegas?)
• New Orleans (could be a sweet trip)
• Tampa Bay (Z-land)
• AFC South

@hoorta said:

They apparently will be moving there training camp down there soon, so you will have a short trip for that.

@tour2ma said:

The Cleveland parallel is an interesting take. Not hard to see a possible return to SD three years down the road following a stadium deal. Especially if the Chargers draw less than expected as LA's "other team".

Understandable, short-term reaction... let's see what July brings.

As for a Browns hypothetical move to Columbus? As long as they are still the Browns, then I'd follow them. After all from Texas, what difference would it make other than "The Columbus Browns" sounding weird as hell for a couple years.

For every truly disenfranchised, invested fan in the greater Cleveland area, there'd probably be at least one in mid-Ohio to take their place. Hell... IIRC... it'd make hoota's travel much shorter.

First Tour we'll see how playing in a 20k stadium works out.

Regarding a possible Browns move, can't happen anytime soon. Part of the deal to let Modell out of town, the best lawyers in Cleveland drew up an ironclad 30 year lease that's essentially impossible to break.

As to the Columbus Browns, no thanks, though it would knock 4 hours off the round trip.

If 85% of economists -- even Greg Mankiw -- agree on something... they're probably right. Public subsidies for stadiums are generally a BAD idea for the taxpayer.

The Chargers put out a horrible, obviously flawed "plan" with assumptions that never had a chance of being true - and just expected everyone to dumbly buy it.

@mark-o said:

The diehards are telling the team to go fuck themselves and dumping boxes full of Chargers gear in front of the team offices.

Understandable, short-term reaction... let's see what July brings.

As for a Browns hypothetical move to Columbus? As long as they are still the Browns, then I'd follow them. After all from Texas, what difference would it make other than "The Columbus Browns" sounding weird as hell for a couple years.

For every truly disenfranchised, invested fan in the greater Cleveland area, there'd probably be at least one in mid-Ohio to take their place. Hell... IIRC... it'd make hoota's travel much shorter.

@mjp28 said:

This might be a BIG financial mistake with the NFL showing cracks in the shield, viewership is actually dropping particularly on the Thursday and even less interest in Sunday Night and Monday Night games.

A good chunk of the ratings decline has been explained by a rise in mobile viewing on line.

Except, of course the difference was that "we"....the City of Cleveland at least, had a 100% chance of stopping it from happening. Cleveland had the ironclad lease.

The only way that our situation would have been parallel would have been if Modell had stayed here until the lease ran out (which he didn't but I believe the Chargers did) and if Cuyahoga County had rejected the ballot measure, (which they didn't).

So, no, the parallel is not there.

@hoorta said:

I think they knew. There's too many issues with why the vote failed to type here. Essentially though, they had one vote in 15 years and it was a half assed effort at best for a new stadium that was thrown together a couple of months after the team tried to move to LA after last season. The vote had zero chance of passing this past november and the team knew that and talked about the fact that it was a "starting point" to see what they could get accomplished. The fact that the team has been talking about needing a new stadium (and rightfully so, Qualcomm is a dump and has been for years) for 15 years and between the team and the city they've only managed to get one half assed plan on a ballot is a pretty poor effort. From my outside looking in perspective, the city officials don't really care if the team is there or not and the team ownership doesn't have the leader or the front man to get something done because I believe the team owner always wanted to move the team to LA.

I feel bad for the fans of the Chargers, they deserve better than this and much like what all of us went through 22 years ago, they didn't have much of a chance to stop it from happening.

@texasag1969 said:

When is that move supposed to happen? Rams/Chargers get to LA before Raiders get to Vegas.

@hoorta said:

It was $75 mill. Larry, not 42. And that still didn't help.

@wargograw said:

Of course, they are the only ones that have ever made sense out of the economy. Ready for another round of trickle down Voodoo?

@stinkhole said:

The difference is that the people of Cleveland vote FOR the tax measure for the stadium when it was put on the ballot. Modell wanted to leave anyway because he was desperate and inept and wanted the cash bribe he was being offered.

It didn't help him. He was kicked out of the league for his financial incompetence anyway.

The same fate will unlikely affect Spanos.

@mark-o said:

Yea, I think the Raiders in Vegas have a better chance of success than the now two LA teams. You are right, in addition to Bay area fans still supporting the Raiders after their move, the Raiders have always had a greater national following (and they may actually still have as big a following in LA as the Rams or Chargers would have). Plus, add their renegade image to the sin city image of Vegas and you have a potential match made in heaven......or would that be hell?

In addition, Vegas would attract a lot of out of town fans of the visiting team. I could see going there for a weekend for a Browns/Raiders game.

What does LA have? Blase fans (they got what? about 25K for a few Rams games this year).

But, I guess they will be able to kiss up to the Hollywood stars that will come to the games merely at the direction of their agents for the exposure. I mean, that really seems to be what it all about.

I heard on the radio that the TV ratings for NFL football in the LA market were actually much better last year when LA had no team than they were this year with the Rams there.