@gunz41 said:

I have no clue what you are talking about, and nope its just hard to find a post where you didn't put your 2 cents in, and about just as hard to find a thread where you weren't rude or pissed someone off.

The love of God seek for help for your obsession Disorder 

@dutch-oven said:

Gunz is proof that not all heroes wear capes. ?

How do you know I don't wear a Cape haha

@the-gipper said:

You can spend an off a lot of time alone in my posts and my simple responses. Do I have a stalker 

I have no clue what you are talking about, and nope its just hard to find a post where you didn't put your 2 cents in, and about just as hard to find a thread where you weren't rude or pissed someone off.

@the-gipper said:

You at least put in a little bit of time in responding this time, let's give you credit there.

1. Answered later

2. It doesn't have anything to do with expecting you (or anyone else) to know the X's and O's. You missed the point. I have seen you tell people on the board that when they didn't do your trivia that it was because they weren't smart enough, or when they answer more than you expected that they cheated. When the facts are that they could have not done it because they didn't see it, didn't want to do it, or other reasons. 

The point is, what makes you the authority to tell anyone they didn't do it because they weren't smart enough?

3. Not the point, and I think you know that. The point of bringing up whoever that player is and you not knowing who they were, is that you have gone out of your way to be rude to posters who disagreed with you on a number of topics. And that doesn't matter one iota if you are right or wrong. There is no reason to be nasty because someone doesn't agree with you. That is what I take issue with. In that Luck thread, when people disagreed with your opinion, you were quick to point out that your opinion means just as much as anyone elses. But you APPEAR to not afford others the same respect. 

Do you disagree?

4. Your responses came off as if you were disagreeing with that. As from my 1st response to you was that I was viewing franchise by city, and you kept saying by nickname. Again, I said that ME, MYSELF, I could have misinterpreted your meaning of the question, yet you didn't want to take that response. So you came off that I (and anyone else) should interpret your question the exact way it was meant. 

I'll give you a broad example. I know you would make a snide comment about it, so I will just say I know you aren't religious. But me and 5 other people could read something in the Bible and interpret it slightly differently.

5. With the Clemson thing, you actually didn't initially say you were wrong, and that was my point in bringing it up. I don't remember you saying you were wrong ever, but let's just say you did. You said that (not going to type it again), and when questioned about it you spun it like your comment was misunderstood or that you weren't wrong. And even in this very response you had to give yourself credit (out of 1000 factoids I was wrong once). You may not realize this, but someone else did this, and he also would resort to calling people insults when they had a differing opinion.

6. I obviously answered this above, I misinterpreted your question, and apparently misinterpreted your comments that you were using nicknames and I was using city FOR WHATEVER REASON. Again, it came off like YOU were saying that nicknames were what you and the NFL used as a franchise, and MYSELF was saying that I/NFL use the city/location. And NEITHER were incorrect. 

Now, since those have all been answered now, I will say this. I don't dislike you, I don't even know you. And quite often I like reading your posts and even trivia. But I don't like or agree how you appear to come off with a double standard and talking down to others. And obviously since I have seen it mentioned I am not the only one who sees it. 

So IF you don't know it, and would like to be better understood, you come off as arrogant, someone who acts as if they know more than others, as someone who thinks that their opinion is fact, and if others disagree the response is to be rude, and of someone who will exhaust all options (including spinning) to not admit that they could be wrong.

Now if it doesn't bother you how any of that comes off then by all means continue what you are doing. But if you didn't realize that then just letting you know 

@gunz41 said:

I'm completely done with this. You are absolutely so set in your ways that you refuse to see any other perspective on anything.

All I am doing is reciting the facts that the NFL provided.

And you are so freaking smug with it that you actually think it means that you have this vast knowledge of the game. When in fact you really don't, and if faced with your own quiz you wouldn't get nearly as many as others. And that is just about the history of the game. We won't even get into if there was trivia on the actual game. 

Maybe...who knows.  Let's do it this way....YOU can take over doing the weekly trivia quizzes. And I will do my best to answer them without cheating.  I would be glad to participate.  (and I am not sure what you mean by "trivia on the actual game.....you mean like  Xs and Os?   Sure, I have never coached...many/most would likely know more Xs and Os than I do.)

And I have facts on this forum to back that up. When a player has been brought up, you are so out of it that you don't even know what position they play

Well...I guess you have found out that I don't know everything about every single thing out there.  Hell...I admitted that I made a mistake here...with the number of teams that did have a change of nickname.  I am not perfect.  My name only rhymes with Jesus...it is not Jesus.

I'll explain it reallllllyyyyy slow for you. I will abso-fuc*ing-lutely guarantee that if in the next few years a team or 2 is added that the news will come out...""insert city name" has been awarded a franchise." Which has been my ENTIRE point. A franchise is NOT just identified as their nickname, but their city. If you are too stubborn, thick headed, or blinded by your own self righteousness to admit that then by all means.

Well....this is never anything that I have ever disagreed with.  Franchises are identified by their city and by their nickname.   I have only pointed out that a number of those franchises have changed cities, and have changed nicknames.  Do you disagree with that?

In fact, you are the type that thinks that your typed words are supposed to be interpreted the exact way you meant them, and if not it cant possibly be your fault. Perfect example is after the NC game. You claim that you meant one thing, yet your words asked how was it that Clemson played an extra REGULAR SEASON GAME over anyone else.

Maybe I got that wrong...in fact, I seem to recall...whenever that was....that I said I got it wrong.  Not sure why you get your panties in bunch over the fact that I may have gotten one of the many thousands of factoids I have stated on here wrong.  I mean, its like Tour...he went ape shit crazy over the fact that I got it wrong that Brandon Weeden started the very first game of his rookie season against the Eagles. I had thought that he did not start until the second game of that year.  I was wrong...admittedly...he went bonkers.  No need to go bonkers there sport.

In the other instances I have seen you get into arguments on here you seem to think that it is caused because of your OPINION, and in none of those cases was it because of that. But you didn't like being questioned so you try to make yourself the victim. 

I don't really mean to worry you so much over it, though I appreciate your concern for my well being.

So, I will ONCE AGAIN tell you how THIS POST comes off. AGAIN, it may not be your intent, but how you are being perceived.

Cleveland has the NFL FRANCHISE (MY VIEW)

Browns have the NFL FRANCHISE (YOUR VIEW)

And guess what? You AREN'T WRONG, BUT... NEITHER AM I 

No, neither of us are wrong...per se....except that I say....or actually, the NFL says....that the "franchise"  combines both.  Instead of the Browns, let's use the Rams.  They were both....the Cleveland/ Rams.  They moved to LA....and then they moved to St. Louis, and then they moved back to LA.  But the NFL stills considers that a single franchise...through all of the moves. THEY did not create a new separate franchise because they moved.  They say it is a single continuous operation: 

Active Franchises

At least one other franchise had a change of nickname...without ever changing cities...again...one single continuous operation

And, as noted, others have undergone both....a city move and a nickname change...but, again, considered one single continuous operation.

@the-gipper said:

I'm completely done with this. You are absolutely so set in your ways that you refuse to see any other perspective on anything.

And you are so freaking smug with it that you actually think it means that you have this vast knowledge of the game. When in fact you really don't, and if faced with your own quiz you wouldn't get nearly as many as others. And that is just about the history of the game. We won't even get into if there was trivia on the actual game. 

And I have facts on this forum to back that up. When a player has been brought up, you are so out of it that you don't even know what position they play

I'll explain it reallllllyyyyy slow for you. I will abso-fuc*ing-lutely guarantee that if in the next few years a team or 2 is added that the news will come out...""insert city name" has been awarded a franchise." Which has been my ENTIRE point. A franchise is NOT just identified as their nickname, but their city. If you are too stubborn, thick headed, or blinded by your own self righteousness to admit that then by all means.

In fact, you are the type that thinks that your typed words are supposed to be interpreted the exact way you meant them, and if not it cant possibly be your fault. Perfect example is after the NC game. You claim that you meant one thing, yet your words asked how was it that Clemson played an extra REGULAR SEASON GAME over anyone else.

In the other instances I have seen you get into arguments on here you seem to think that it is caused because of your OPINION, and in none of those cases was it because of that. But you didn't like being questioned so you try to make yourself the victim. 

So, I will ONCE AGAIN tell you how THIS POST comes off. AGAIN, it may not be your intent, but how you are being perceived.

Cleveland has the NFL FRANCHISE (MY VIEW)

Browns have the NFL FRANCHISE (YOUR VIEW)

And guess what? You AREN'T WRONG, BUT... NEITHER AM I 

@gunz41 said:

You are still not seeing the point, even when you use my point.

1. I didn't say YOU created the exception, only that you used the exception.

You absolutely are interpreting in which manner a Franchise is considered a franchise. That is the ENTIRE POINT. 

NO...I am not....I am only going by what the League says.  All I can tell you is to take it up with the league.  See the link above.  I am just going by that.

Aside from the confusion about what you wanted for the question, which I acknowledged in my 1st response that I could be interpreting incorrectly, this has been my point. So maybe go back and read what I have written and maybe you will see how I have said that, you are telling me I am incorrect and then you referencing the SAME THING I AM SAYING. 

And the celebrity question wasn't to say that the question was based on any fact, quite the opposite. It was to show that 2 or more people can read a question and interpret what the question is asking differently.

Except I did not read the question, I wrote the question.   The ONLY thing that was wrong with the question is that I originally implied that there were 6 teams that changed nicknames.....where there were actually 7 (having overlooked the Redskins/Braves).    Maybe that is where you are confused...I was ONLY talking about the nickname.....not the city/region name.   Teams that have move from one city to another certainly do change their full name.  And some of them even stood still...yet still changed their "city/region" name:  Boston/New England Patriots, Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals.

2. You saying that those cities were awarded franchises is MY EXACT POINT. Maybe within your disagreeing you actually forgot what it is that you were disagreeing about.

The only thing I disagreed about is that you seem to be implying that the facts...again..determined by a 3rd party...can somehow be subject to interpretation. The facts are the facts. 

So I will go back and write what I said: 

13. Can't say I was right or wrong there, as those had other names as those cities. I said Jets because of 2 NY teams. But, I will try and acquiesce 

Dallas- was the Texans, which is now KC

Houston- Oilers

Pittsburgh- Pirates

Baltimore- Colts

New York- Titans

Cleveland- Rams, which is now LA Rams

Now if you meant something different, that is not how I read it. So that could either be my fault for not reading it correctly, or the structure of your question made it unclear of what you wanted.

I can only surmise that you are conflating  the city name with the franchise nickname.  My question dealt ONLY with the nickname....not the city/region name that came before it.

As I have said numerous times, based on what you wanted your answer to be my answers were incorrect. But, and the part you seem to be ignoring is that your question wasn't exactly clear. But I am not concerned about that issue. I said I would chalk that up as an L.

The bigger issue, which you simply cannot defend is a stance that FRANCHISE can be viewed by either your premise as "Browns, Cowboys, Chiefs, etc" or from mine "Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, etc).

I only say that a FRANCHISE....can only be viewed by what the NFL  considers to be a franchise.  There is no either/or  about that.  They control that...it is by no means a "premise" of mine.  Yes, each franchise carries a city/region name...and a nickname.    That franchises city name can change...if it moves...or they decide to do some marketing BS (Boston/NE or Phoenix/Arizona)....and/or a team can change its nickname....for whatever reason....a move, marketing, whatever.  

From what I can surmise from the webite, it seems that the ONLY franchises that changed their team nickname, where it was not associated with a move were....that Jets/Titans change,   and the Braves/Redskins change....though the Redskins did move 4 years later.   The Oilers kept that name for one year while in Tenn....before making the change to Titans,  and the Staleys kept that name for one year after moving to Chicago before changing to Bears. 

Answers:

Pre 1970 Merger/Super Bowl Era:

1. What are the only 2 franchises still in existence that have played every year since the inaugural  1920 season?

The Cardinals (Chic./St.L./Ariz)....and the Bears (fka Staleys)...... GB Packers came in a year later.

2. What team won the very first  NFL championship...1920 season?

The Akron Pros

3. Which team won the most Pre-Super Bowl (pre 1966)  Championships:  The Bears, the Browns, or the Packers?

It was the Packers.   They won 9 titles.  The Bears and Browns each won 8.  The Packers have since won 4 SBs...for a total of 13 titles. Bears won one, for 9 total.  Browns have stood still at 8.

4. What team won an NFL Championship....with  6 ties on its record?

The 1932 Bears, with a record of 7-1-6.  they were awarded the title....because apparently back then ties did not count in determining win pct.  That year, the Packers had a 10-3-1 record...but the Bears were handed the title.  That was the last year that there was no NFL Championship game....those started in 1933.  Maybe handing a title to a team with all those ties finally made the league decide there should be a better way of determining  a champion.

5. What team went undefeated 2 years in a row,  winning NFL titles....but with only ties on its record?

Canton Bulldogs:  1922   10-0-2   1923 11-0-1

Post 1970 Merger/Super Bowl era:

6. Who are the only 3 teams to win a Super Bowl....the year after losing the Super Bowl? (note: corrected from original question that said "2".

1971  Cowboys,  1972 Dolphins,  2018 Patriots

7. Name the only teams to have appeared in 3 or more consecutive  Super Bowl games.  Hint:  3 names

Dolphins...71/72/73.   Bills  90/91/92/93.   Patriots   2016/2017/2018

8. Name those franchises to have made Super Bowl appearances playing in two different cities.

Raiders....in Oakland and LA.....won a SB  and lost in both;   Rams....in St. Louis and LA...won only in St. Louis.  Colts....Baltimore and Indy...won and lost in both.

9. What is the ONLY team to have represented both the AFC...and the NFC in the Super Bowl?

The Colts.   Pre-merger represented NFC....in SBIII....then later had a few as AFC member.    (Seattle could have had that distinction....made an AFC title game before moving over to NFL...but never did make it as an AFC member)

10. What is the ONLY team to have both won consecutive Super Bowl games...and to have lost consecutive Super Bowl games?

Denver Broncos.....lost  86/87   won in 97/98.

Combined:

11. Which decade...from the 1920s to the 2010s have seen more different teams win  an NFL Championship?   For purposes of this question, we will not include titles won by teams in the AFL or the AAFC.

The 1920s....which had either 8, or 9 different teams win titles.   Pros, Bears, Cardinals, Steamroller, Packers, Giants, Yellowjackents....and the Canton Bulldogs(who won 2)  and the Cleveland Bulldogs who won 1.  The NFL considers the Canton, and Cleveland Bulldogs to be separate franchises. (even though they had the same coach and most of the same players........here you go Gunz....one of those dilemmas...but which we have to go by what the NFL says about these franchises).   

Both the 2000s...and the 2010s have had 7 different franchise win championships.    So...IF a different team than the ones that have already won this decade can win this coming year....it would tie the 1920s for most different teams winning titles.  (so...no Packers, Giants, Ravens, Seahawks, Patriots, Broncos, Eagles. So...go Browns. 

12. Of the currrent 32 teams, which teams have never won a title in any league, NFL/AFL/AAFC?   Hint:  6 names

Vikings,  Bengals, Falcons, Jaguars, Panthers, Texans

13. Which current NFL franchises were actually at one time known by a different "nickname".  Hint:  7 names (corrected from original question)

Chicago Staleys/Bears;  Chiefs/Texans;  Titans/Oilers; Jets/Titans; Lions/Spartans; Steelers/Pirates;  Redskins/Braves.   (for purpose of this, I am ignoring the WWII combinations that occurred between the Steelers/Eagles/Cardinals

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/index.htm

14. Which current long time NFL franchises...in existence since the 1940s,  never won a Pre Super Bowl title...but has won  only Super Bowls?  (so eliminate any franchise in existence since only the 60s) Hint: 2 names

The Steelers and the 49ers

15. Which current long time NFL franchises...in existence since the 1940s....never won a Super Bowl....but only pre Super Bowl titles?

LIons,  Browns,  Cardinals.

@the-gipper said:

You are still not seeing the point, even when you use my point.

1. I didn't say YOU created the exception, only that you used the exception.

You absolutely are interpreting in which manner a Franchise is considered a franchise. That is the ENTIRE POINT. 

Aside from the confusion about what you wanted for the question, which I acknowledged in my 1st response that I could be interpreting incorrectly, this has been my point. So maybe go back and read what I have written and maybe you will see how I have said that, you are telling me I am incorrect and then you referencing the SAME THING I AM SAYING. 

And the celebrity question wasn't to say that the question was based on any fact, quite the opposite. It was to show that 2 or more people can read a question and interpret what the question is asking differently.

2. You saying that those cities were awarded franchises is MY EXACT POINT. Maybe within your disagreeing you actually forgot what it is that you were disagreeing about.

So I will go back and write what I said: 

13. Can't say I was right or wrong there, as those had other names as those cities. I said Jets because of 2 NY teams. But, I will try and acquiesce 

Dallas- was the Texans, which is now KC

Houston- Oilers

Pittsburgh- Pirates

Baltimore- Colts

New York- Titans

Cleveland- Rams, which is now LA Rams

Now if you meant something different, that is not how I read it. So that could either be my fault for not reading it correctly, or the structure of your question made it unclear of what you wanted.

As I have said numerous times, based on what you wanted your answer to be my answers were incorrect. But, and the part you seem to be ignoring is that your question wasn't exactly clear. But I am not concerned about that issue. I said I would chalk that up as an L.

The bigger issue, which you simply cannot defend is a stance that FRANCHISE can be viewed by either your premise as "Browns, Cowboys, Chiefs, etc" or from mine "Cleveland, Dallas, Kansas City, etc).

@gunz41 said:

But the problem with that is with the example is you already had an exception.

I didn't have an exception....the league created the exception (I assume you are talking about the Browns?)

And yes it is semantics. Because just like the Rams can pick up and move (with approval from the board/league), a city could change their nickname (i.e. the talk about the Redskins).

Yes...they could, and it HAS happened.  Jets/Titans.  (also....see Bullets/Wizard in DC)

So this back and forth is ALL about semantics, or how 2 individuals read/interpret something.

I don't think so...not in this case.   I am not interpreting anything....I am only going by the facts as given, as they are.  

But just look back in your brain some years ago. Forget Baltimore for a second, in 1995 and 2002 was Carolina, Jacksonville, and Houston awarded expansion franchises or were the Panthers, Jaguars, and Texans awarded franchises?

The cities, as far as I recall, were awarded  expansion franchises. The nicknames came later.  And FYI, if I recall....Houston I believe wanted to have the name Oilers returned....Bud Adams would have none of it.

See the difference between you and I, is I actually understand your reasoning, yet I don't think you care to understand mine. The franchises ARE awarded to cities, in fact in a number of circumstances the team is given its nickname by fans in a contest type thing. 

I understand your reasoning....I just can't help you. Again, I am only relating the facts here as they stand. As they exist as dictated by the league. Reasoning doesn't change facts that are determined by a third, controlling party.

Again it is semantics. You view/read/accept a franchise as the nickname largely based upon the ability of a team like the Rams, Raiders, etc to move to a new city while staying as the same franchise. I view/read/accept a franchise as the city/location because that is where it is awarded, and that with the same procedure that a team moves to a new city can change its nicknames. 

Again, I admitted in my answer to the questions, and afterwards that I could have gotten the question incorrect by what you wanted the answer to be.

Well, again...why is it that you think that I want these answers to be anything in particular.  While I may be the one asking the questions, I am not the one controlling what the answers to them are.

Try this one on for size, and only thing I could come up with quickly (that could be interpreted differently)

Name the hottest actress within 30 years?

That could be read as 30 or younger, so let's say Jennifer Lawrence or could be in last 30 years so we can use your favorite Kaley Cuoco. Or the answer could be the same either way, use Kate Upton.

Or even just a broader view question like name the hottest celebrity. There could be multiple ways to answer that (not just people having different tastes). Hottest could mean appearance or most buzz/work/news etc.

OK....those are whole opinions...who is the hottest chick.   I am only going by fact, not opinion. Facts I did not create....only report. I mean, I asked 15 questions as a part of this...is each and every answer subject to your personal interpretation, or to be considered "semantics"?  When I asked  "name the franchises that played in a Super Bowl in 2 different cities....and you answered the Colts/Raiders/Rams  Are you wanting to apply your same theories about these  SB appearing franchises as you are to this  "name change" question?  It has a similar issue to it, no?  But...that does not change the answer, which, factually, is still the Colts/Raiders/Rams.

@the-gipper said:

But the problem with that is with the example is you already had an exception.

And yes it is semantics. Because just like the Rams can pick up and move (with approval from the board/league), a city could change their nickname (i.e. the talk about the Redskins).

So this back and forth is ALL about semantics, or how 2 individuals read/interpret something.

But just look back in your brain some years ago. Forget Baltimore for a second, in 1995 and 2002 was Carolina, Jacksonville, and Houston awarded expansion franchises or were the Panthers, Jaguars, and Texans awarded franchises?

See the difference between you and I, is I actually understand your reasoning, yet I don't think you care to understand mine. The franchises ARE awarded to cities, in fact in a number of circumstances the team is given its nickname by fans in a contest type thing. 

Again it is semantics. You view/read/accept a franchise as the nickname largely based upon the ability of a team like the Rams, Raiders, etc to move to a new city while staying as the same franchise. I view/read/accept a franchise as the city/location because that is where it is awarded, and that with the same procedure that a team moves to a new city can change its nicknames. 

Again, I admitted in my answer to the questions, and afterwards that I could have gotten the question incorrect by what you wanted the answer to be.

Try this one on for size, and only thing I could come up with quickly (that could be interpreted differently)

Name the hottest actress within 30 years?

That could be read as 30 or younger, so let's say Jennifer Lawrence or could be in last 30 years so we can use your favorite Kaley Cuoco. Or the answer could be the same either way, use Kate Upton.

Or even just a broader view question like name the hottest celebrity. There could be multiple ways to answer that (not just people having different tastes). Hottest could mean appearance or most buzz/work/news etc.

@gunz41 said:

And you are so set in your ways that you refuse to see something any other way.

It is NOT my way...It is the NFL's way. My trivia question merely follows their prescribed way of looking at it. 

A franchise can be viewed from a city perspective or by the nickname. Again, a good example is Seattle losing their NBA franchise.

It is semantics. I couldn't care less how you view it, but your refusal to see anyone's opposite POV is nobodies fault but your own. And the fact that with my initial response I said that it COULD be me reading it wrong or you having a different meaning is obviously in NO way me telling you that you are wrong. It's just a different perspective.

But don't believe me, one I don't care, two, if I did, just look at Seattle Sonics. If the SAME name came back, they LOST their franchise, whereas Cleveland Browns didn't. So exactly how can you say that 2 things cant be true? 

If you can actually explain how those 2 things are different yet should be views the same I will proclaim you right, and if you cant then you should acquiesce the same

Well, I think what you are implying is that things should be done the way it was done with the Browns.....that the franchise should follow and stay with the city....and the history etc. should stay with the city.  And I have absolutely no problem if things were done that way.  The NBA DID also do something similar ....when the Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans...initially they said that all the Hornets records/history, etc. moved wit they.   When they changed their name to the Pelicans....and when they created the Charlotte Bobcats...who then got the name Hornets back....and they also combined the records/history etc. of the original Charlotte Hornets with that of the  Bobcats and the new Hornets...declaring it to be one continuing franchise.  See the following link:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHA/

At the same time....the combined the "Hornets"  when they had moved to New Orleans with the Pelicans....and declared that to be a single franchise.   See this link:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NOH/

And as for the Seattle Supersonics, I know that for many years the NBA was contemplating declaring the OK City Thunder to be a new franchise...and to return the franchise records...etc. to Seattle, the way they have done with Charlotte.   But that has not taken place, and now they just include the Seattle Supersonics and the OK City Thunder records together, as a single franchise (as has the NFL with the likes of the Titans/Oilers, and others that have moved and changed names)

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/

Also...if you recall,  after the settlement of the "move" lawsuit" and the decision that the Cleveland Browns franchise would remain here.....and that Art Modell would be granted a new franchise in Baltimore.....he approached Robert Irsay (I believe it was Robert...not Jim)....about doing the same basic thing there.   He asked Irsay to give the name and the history of the Colts back to Baltimore.   But Irsay said he wanted 25 million dollars to do so, and Modell refused/failed to meet that demand (and likely could never have afforded to do so).

So...like I said...in the NFL...with the exception of the Browns...the "franchise" does move.   See these:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/

No name changes on the above 2 franchises, despite several moves.   But here was both a city and a name change:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/oti/

Bottom line is....I am not claiming "right" or "wrong"    I am just relating what the NFL has done, factually. 

@the-gipper said:

I don't know why your are not getting this.   A franchise is a legal entity...designated by the NFL.  A single franchise can have a change of name, or a change of cities....but it would still be considered the same legal entity. 

Just a few examples:   A. The Cleveland Browns franchise is the same franchise that has existed beginning from 1946 to today.  It has remained the same franchise despite an attempt to have it moved to a new city....and despite it taking a 3 year hiatus.

B. The Baltimore Ravens franchise was created...by the NFL in 1996.  They created a new separate legal entity.  Baltimore used to have another franchise called the Colts....that franchise has since moved to Indy....but that Indy franchise is the same as the one that was in Baltimore all those years.  

C. Many single franchises have existed even though they may have undergone a team name change....and/or a location change.  Oilers/Titans, Texans/Chiefs,  and others.

D. Lots of cities have had franchises pick up and move away....and be replace by a new franchise.  see the Baltimore example.  Cleveland has had various franchises located here:   The Cleveland Bulldogs, a Cleveland Indians franchise, The Rams, the Browns (also Akron and Canton have had teams)

I did not make any of this up...it is all done by the NFL.   (but...I MAY have missed some in my question..in fact, I see that I have:   the Redskins fka Braves.
 

Here is a link to all current and former franchises:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/

And you are so set in your ways that you refuse to see something any other way.

A franchise can be viewed from a city perspective or by the nickname. Again, a good example is Seattle losing their NBA franchise.

It is semantics. I couldn't care less how you view it, but your refusal to see anyone's opposite POV is nobodies fault but your own. And the fact that with my initial response I said that it COULD be me reading it wrong or you having a different meaning is obviously in NO way me telling you that you are wrong. It's just a different perspective.

But don't believe me, one I don't care, two, if I did, just look at Seattle Sonics. If the SAME name came back, they LOST their franchise, whereas Cleveland Browns didn't. So exactly how can you say that 2 things cant be true? 

If you can actually explain how those 2 things are different yet should be views the same I will proclaim you right, and if you cant then you should acquiesce the same

@gunz41 said:

Simply not true my friend. I can't remember the last time that a sport has added someone (except maybe soccer), but I have certainly heard as an example "Seattle has been awarded an NBA franchise"

It's all just semantics, but either way that is how I read it.

But to go by your rules, Chicago Bears were at 1st the Staleys and Washington Braves. And if you want one more obscure, the original name of the Raiders was Senors

I don't know why your are not getting this.   A franchise is a legal entity...designated by the NFL.  A single franchise can have a change of name, or a change of cities....but it would still be considered the same legal entity. 

Just a few examples:   A. The Cleveland Browns franchise is the same franchise that has existed beginning from 1946 to today.  It has remained the same franchise despite an attempt to have it moved to a new city....and despite it taking a 3 year hiatus.

B. The Baltimore Ravens franchise was created...by the NFL in 1996.  They created a new separate legal entity.  Baltimore used to have another franchise called the Colts....that franchise has since moved to Indy....but that Indy franchise is the same as the one that was in Baltimore all those years.  

C. Many single franchises have existed even though they may have undergone a team name change....and/or a location change.  Oilers/Titans, Texans/Chiefs,  and others.

D. Lots of cities have had franchises pick up and move away....and be replace by a new franchise.  see the Baltimore example.  Cleveland has had various franchises located here:   The Cleveland Bulldogs, a Cleveland Indians franchise, The Rams, the Browns (also Akron and Canton have had teams)

I did not make any of this up...it is all done by the NFL.   (but...I MAY have missed some in my question..in fact, I see that I have:   the Redskins fka Braves.
 

Here is a link to all current and former franchises:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/

@the-gipper said:

You have to read the original question  and go by it, which said:  "Which current NFL franchises were at one time known by a different nickname."  Franchise is the key word.    It has to be the same franchise, but with now a different name.  "Baltimore/Cleveland" are not franchises. Those are cities...not franchises. Those cities  just happen to have had different franchises".  Whereas, Chiefs/Texans are the same franchise...same with Oilers/Titans, same with Pirates/Steelers  and Titans/Jets. 

E.g.  obviously the Colts and Ravens are separate franchises....they just both happen to have been located in Baltimore at some time.  And, despite what some uninformed people may think...the Ravens franchise was NEVER  the Browns franchise.   The Browns never have changed their name....neither have the Ravens.   (so you can eliminate those 2 from the other 2 that have not yet been named).

Got it?   So, the 4 you had that I pointed out above were right....leaving 2 more.  (and the truth is, it is not well known that these 2 had undergone a name...and city change.  That's a hint.)

Simply not true my friend. I can't remember the last time that a sport has added someone (except maybe soccer), but I have certainly heard as an example "Seattle has been awarded an NBA franchise"

It's all just semantics, but either way that is how I read it.

But to go by your rules, Chicago Bears were at 1st the Staleys and Washington Braves. And if you want one more obscure, the original name of the Raiders was Senors

@gunz41 said:

You didn't read my comment, by your question those are correct. The comment said that the way I read it, or the way you wrote it that I went by the cities. 

Baltimore and Cleveland have NFL franchises, and they have had different names, i.e. Ravens and Rams.

If you want to reword it, or explain how you want it answered then I will change my answers 

You have to read the original question  and go by it, which said:  "Which current NFL franchises were at one time known by a different nickname."  Franchise is the key word.    It has to be the same franchise, but with now a different name.  "Baltimore/Cleveland" are not franchises. Those are cities...not franchises. Those cities  just happen to have had different franchises".  Whereas, Chiefs/Texans are the same franchise...same with Oilers/Titans, same with Pirates/Steelers  and Titans/Jets. 

E.g.  obviously the Colts and Ravens are separate franchises....they just both happen to have been located in Baltimore at some time.  And, despite what some uninformed people may think...the Ravens franchise was NEVER  the Browns franchise.   The Browns never have changed their name....neither have the Ravens.   (so you can eliminate those 2 from the other 2 that have not yet been named).

Got it?   So, the 4 you had that I pointed out above were right....leaving 2 more.  (and the truth is, it is not well known that these 2 had undergone a name...and city change.  That's a hint.)

@the-gipper said:

You didn't read my comment, by your question those are correct. The comment said that the way I read it, or the way you wrote it that I went by the cities. 

Baltimore and Cleveland have NFL franchises, and they have had different names, i.e. Ravens and Rams.

If you want to reword it, or explain how you want it answered then I will change my answers 

@gunz41 said:

11. Ahh, 9 in 20s and 8 in this decade.  Check..

8. Yep, have to admit I was wrong there. Got St. Louis Cardinals and Rams jumbled in my head.

13. Can't say I was right or wrong there, as those had other names as those cities. I said Jets because of 2 NY teams. But, I will try and acquiesce 

Dallas- was the Texans, which is now KC  You mean...which is now "Chiefs"....I understood, check.

Houston- Oilers  which are now Titans...check

Pittsburgh- Pirates  which are now Steelers....check

Baltimore- Colts   NO, the Colts franchise never changed names...just cities.

New York- Titans  which are now the Jets....check.

Cleveland- Rams, which is now LA Rams  No...same here, city changed, nickname never changed. 

There are also 2 more

Now if you meant something different, that is not how I read it. So that could either be my fault for not reading it correctly, or the structure of your question made it unclear of what you wanted.

You seemed to have gotten it....half and half. Franchise team name change is what I meant...not city name (sometimes..they came together, like Oilers/Titans, Texans/Chiefs).

3. For some reason, I have always had that in my mind. But it's not close its Green Bay. It is Green Bay...but actually..it is close.

6. Dallas  right. Check

14. SF  Check

@the-gipper said:

11. Ahh, 9 in 20s and 8 in this decade.

8. Yep, have to admit I was wrong there. Got St. Louis Cardinals and Rams jumbled in my head.

13. Can't say I was right or wrong there, as those had other names as those cities. I said Jets because of 2 NY teams. But, I will try and acquiesce 

Dallas- was the Texans, which is now KC

Houston- Oilers

Pittsburgh- Pirates

Baltimore- Colts

New York- Titans

Cleveland- Rams, which is now LA Rams

Now if you meant something different, that is not how I read it. So that could either be my fault for not reading it correctly, or the structure of your question made it unclear of what you wanted.

3. For some reason, I have always had that in my mind. But it's not close its Green Bay.

6. Dallas

14. SF

@gunz41 said:

1. Cardinals and Bears  Check

2. Akron  Check

3. Browns   NO

4. Bears  Check

5. Canton  Check

6. Patriots and Dolphins  These are right....but I messed up the question...it should have said what 3 teams, not 2. So there is another

7. Patriots, Bills, Dolphins   Check

8. Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Colts  You got them all...but you did not need Cardinals...as that would not be right. (Cards never made SB in St. Louis

9. Colts I think   Check

10. Broncos   Check

11. This decade   NO

12. Jaguars, Panthers, Vikings, Bengals, Falcons, Texans   Check on all.

13. Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, New York (Jets)???  You need to be more specific about which teams you are talking about here...which franchise...with former and current name.   The one name you gave, Jets, is right.

14. Steelers, Cowboys   Steelers, yes, not Cowboys  (question said teams around since the 40s....Cowboys only formed in 1960)

15. Browns, Cardinals, Lions  Check

2. Akron

3. Browns 

4. Bears 

5. Canton

6. Patriots and Dolphins 

7. Patriots, Bills, Dolphins 

8. Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Colts

9. Colts I think 

10. Broncos 

11. This decade 

12. Jaguars, Panthers, Vikings, Bengals, Falcons, Texans 

13. Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, New York (Jets)???

14. Steelers, Cowboys 

15. Browns, Cardinals, Lions