I JUST GOT INTO A FIGHT! HOW MANY TROPHIES DO WE HAVE?!

[The Old Crow]

 you got it wrong again. they gave it to the Colts! (while still in Baltimore!, not Baltimore!!)  The Colts (in Indy) gave the replica to Baltimore  as part of the 'moving the franchise issue'  court settlement.

 

"When the Colts complained to former commissioner Pete Rozelle, he didn't want to hassle with Rosenbloom, who had a stormy relationship with the commissioner. So Rozelle authorized a replica to be made for the Colts.

That trophy was hauled off to Indianapolis on March 28, 1984, when the Colts made their move in the middle of the night.

Although the Indianapolis team kept the Colts' name, logo and all the records, they returned the trophy to the city of Baltimore as part of a settlement of a lawsuit over the move."

 

Bob swapped histories and franchises.  You would have them change logos and players, yet keep their own prior histories?  Uhhh...... NO.

 

 

The NFL awarded it to the City of Baltimore for the defunct Baltimore Colts team.

[ColtsBlueFL]

The NFL awarded it to the City of Baltimore for the defunct Baltimore Colts team.

 

You have failed to show your proof of this most absurd assertion.  I most fully expect you to be completely unable to do so either. So now we all know what that makes of your {cough} statement...

[The Old Crow]

You have failed to show your proof of this most absurd assertion.  I most fully expect you to be completely unable to do so either. So now we all know what that makes of your {cough} statement...

 

It was part of the lawsuit litigation where the NFL awarded the replica trophy to Baltimore. It's a fact.

[Fx Stryker]

I wasn't a fan of the Miami Seahawks, but if they won a title , or had Hall of Famers, it would be fine if they flew it in Miami, or put the Hall of Famers under the Dolphins, or in a seperate section. I just don't get the fixation on Baltimore Football History, and why another city would even care about it. I get the few fans that may have followed the Colts from Baltimore to Indy, and to them it's one history, but trust me, they are in the minority. You're wrong about the city of Baltimore's love for the Colts. Trust me, I could tell you stories of the things Bob Irsay did, that made his son embarrassed, and caused him to cry, as a young boy. The stories are legendary about the franchise swap with the Rams, the Joe Thomas years, shopping them around from 1975 until 1983, going to the press box and calling down plays to Mike McCormick, firing Ted Marchibroda, then backing off when the whole team threatened to boycott, etc. Trust me, I could go on and on, but I won't. I've also stated that Baltimore bears heavy responsibility for the move, and I think the Oakland, Baltimore, and Cleveland moves were all wrong. I would have preferred that Baltimore and Indy got expansion teams, and I think it's long overdue for LA to get an expansion team. Al Davis started all the nonsense, and should be removed from the Hall of Fame.

 

I'm not disrespecting Indy. They now have a great football tradition since 1984. If I was an Indy fan, honestly, I would want no part of the Baltimore history anymore than as an Orioles fan, I would want the history of the St. Louis Browns. I think most people feel this way. It's almost like Bob Irsay buying Fort Mchenry, and putting in a program that the Star Spangled banner was written in Indy. That's how it is in the Hall of Fame , where they tell you Gino Marchetti played for the Indianapolis Colts because some dude from Chicago bought them in 1972.

 

I guess if you like the " Anyplace" Colts, or Joe Schmoe's Colts, you'd follow them anywhere. I just think the history of Baltimore and Indianapolis Football stands on it's own seperately, and to link it, old players and new, titles, Hall of famers, etc., only creates confusion . Like the DVD, it was two seperate, but great eras. Even though I was a Raven's fan, I always said Manning was the best quarterback since Unitas. Don't blame him for that Denver loss. Like Lee Evans dropping Flacco's pass in 2011, Manning wasn't playing safety at the end of the Baltimore playoff game this year. I think Luck will be a fine quarterback in time, but he has a long way to go to match Manning.

 

The Miami Seahwaks have nothing to do with the Dolphins. So if the Seahawks had Hall of Fame players I highly doubt the Dolphins would want them under their franchise. Nothing related at all except city.

 

It's not that Indy fans or the city are claiming the Baltimore history. It's the franchises history. Perfect example is no Indy fan claims that YA Title played for their team even though he was a Baltimore Colt except that team was different. 

 

Those who follow the Colts anywhere may be a minority, but that doesn't mean their opinions mean any less. For Baltimore to tell them Johnny and Peyton didn't play for the same team is completely disrespectful. The team has always been a constant.

 

I have nothing against either city. But I am from eastern Pennsylvania. So I do have an east coast bias, and a move yo Baltimore I would not be against in the slightest. Indianapolis is great city, and so is Baltimore. I may not have the first hand memories of getting to watch Johnny, but I idolize him as if I did. I love the man. Watching film of him play is phenomenal. I enjoy it more than watching modern football. Johnny is the greatest QB, at least to me. Johnny may not be recognized as the greatest by some, but the one thing they can't deny is Unitas is THE QB. Can't be denied. He started it all.

 

If the Colts happened to move somewhere else. Then an Indianapolis native turned around and told me Peyton didn't play for "the new" Colts I would smack them square in the mouth. Complete disrespect for them to say my childhood idol didn't play for my team.

[ColtsBlueFL]

It was part of the lawsuit litigation where the NFL awarded the replica trophy to Baltimore. It's a fact.

 

Look, it was Irsay and the Colts that petitioned the NFL for their ​trophy. not the City of Baltimore.  It was the NFL that commissioned Tiffany & Co. to make a replica for the Colts that petitioned for it, not the city of Baltimore. The replica was delivered to the Colts, not the City of Baltimore. The Colts took their Super Bowl replica trophy with them when they packed up and bolted Owings Mills Mar. 29, 1984.  The Colts had it, and still had it when in Indy. There wasn't even any court intervention yet!!

 

Once the move was complete, city voters repealed question P and Baltimore began a flurry of legal activity.  in Mar. 1986, Nearly two years after the move to Indy,  the Indy Colts gave the replica trophy to the City of Baltimore as part of a settlement, not a judgement.  And the Colts kept the logos, colors, and history.  The settlement and courts didn't make them relinquish those, either.  

 

________  <- Now here is where you place a link to the court judgement stating the NFL actually awarded that trophy to the City of Baltimore, and not the Colts Franchise that was in Baltimore.   Waiting...

 

 

 

Sometimes, I don't think you even know the point you are trying to argue...

 

Whatever.

[John Dee]

Players come players go....  that is why I customize my jerseys...

 

hehee,,.,

 

Rock On Colts....

[NewEra]

Look, it was Irsay and the Colts that petitioned the NFL for their ​trophy. not the City of Baltimore. It was the NFL that commissioned Tiffany & Co. to make a replica for the Colts that petitioned for it, not the city of Baltimore. The replica was delivered to the Colts, not the City of Baltimore. The Colts took their Super Bowl replica trophy with them when they packed up and bolted Owings Mills Mar. 29, 1984. The Colts had it, and still had it when in Indy. There wasn't even any court intervention yet!!

Once the move was complete, city voters repealed question P and Baltimore began a flurry of legal activity. in Mar. 1986, Nearly two years after the move to Indy, the Indy Colts gave the replica trophy to the City of Baltimore as part of a settlement, not a judgement. And the Colts kept the logos, colors, and history. The settlement and courts didn't make them relinquish those, either.

________ <- Now here is where you place a link to the court judgement stating the NFL actually awarded that trophy to the City of Baltimore, and not the Colts Franchise that was in Baltimore. Waiting...

Sometimes, I don't think you even know the point you are trying to argue...

Whatever.

Checkmate? ;)

[GoColts8818]

Look, it was Irsay and the Colts that petitioned the NFL for their ​trophy. not the City of Baltimore.  It was the NFL that commissioned Tiffany & Co. to make a replica for the Colts that petitioned for it, not the city of Baltimore. The replica was delivered to the Colts, not the City of Baltimore. The Colts took their Super Bowl replica trophy with them when they packed up and bolted Owings Mills Mar. 29, 1984.  The Colts had it, and still had it when in Indy. There wasn't even any court intervention yet!!

 

Once the move was complete, city voters repealed question P and Baltimore began a flurry of legal activity.  in Mar. 1986, Nearly two years after the move to Indy,  the Indy Colts gave the replica trophy to the City of Baltimore as part of a settlement, not a judgement.  And the Colts kept the logos, colors, and history.  The settlement and courts didn't make them relinquish those, either.  

 

________  <- Now here is where you place a link to the court judgement stating the NFL actually awarded that trophy to the City of Baltimore, and not the Colts Franchise that was in Baltimore.   Waiting...

 

 

 

Sometimes, I don't think you even know the point you are trying to argue...

 

Whatever.

He doesn't, he just keeps just keeps jumping around and throwing new things out as what he was complaining about gets debunked. 

[GoColts8818]

It was part of the lawsuit litigation where the NFL awarded the replica trophy to Baltimore. It's a fact.

The NFL didn't award it to Baltimore.  The award the replica to the Colts who then gave the trophy to Baltimore as part of a settlement in order to just get the legal argument over the move over with so people could move on.  The problem, the people in Baltimore refuse to move on.  Even though they accepted the legal settlement now they are trying to come back 30 years later and say that wasn't good enough.  Part of the idea behind agreeing to a settlement you don't get to keep putting someone on trial over and over for the same thing trying to get more stuff out of them.  Yet that's exactly what you are trying to do here. 

 

You came into this thread complaining that Baltimore didn't get to celebrate their sports history, that was proven false and people in Indianapolis not only said they didn't care they encouraged you do it.  Then you tried to turn it to how you couldn't celebrate your former players and that was proven false.  Then you tried to talk about how the Hall of Fame is trying to remove you from the NFL history books and that was proven false as well.  All and all you are not trying to see if it's okay for Baltimore to celebrate what they witnessed you are trying to tell Colts fans what they can and can't celebrate.  Sorry not your decision.  Time to learn to live with it. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

The NFL didn't award it to Baltimore.  The award the replica to the Colts who then gave the trophy to Baltimore as part of a settlement in order to just get the legal argument over the move over with so people could move on.  The problem, the people in Baltimore refuse to move on.  Even though they accepted the legal settlement now they are trying to come back 30 years later and say that wasn't good enough.  Part of the idea behind agreeing to a settlement you don't get to keep putting someone on trial over and over for the same thing trying to get more stuff out of them.  Yet that's exactly what you are trying to do here. 

 

You came into this thread complaining that Baltimore didn't get to celebrate their sports history, that was proven false and people in Indianapolis not only said they didn't care they encouraged you do it.  Then you tried to turn it to how you couldn't celebrate your former players and that was proven false.  Then you tried to talk about how the Hall of Fame is trying to remove you from the NFL history books and that was proven false as well.  All and all you are not trying to see if it's okay for Baltimore to celebrate what they witnessed you are trying to tell Colts fans what they can and can't celebrate.  Sorry not your decision.  Time to learn to live with it. 

QFT!  ^ ^ ^

[NewEra]

^^^^Boomstick!!

[ColtsBlueFL]

Checkmate? ;)

 

Or duck and cover...  it seems it's never ending with typical old Balt fan-

[GoColts8818]

You make some good points but:

 

1. I don't think the majority of people in Baltimore want the Colts colors and logos back. We have the Ravens, and we just view the Indy Colts as a seperate franchise. The Hall of Fame and acknowledgment of the Championships by the NFL are the issue.

Well guess what they aren't separate franchises and they are never going to be different franchises.  No other team that has moved and elected to keep the team history is viewed as separate franchises they aren't going to make a special rule for the Baltimore Colts 30 years later.  If the LA Dodgers get to claim the Brooklyn Dodgers history (which they do) you better get used to the idea that the Colts are going to get to keep their history.  It's well established rule in sports, histories belong to franchises not the cities. 

 

The Hall of Fame DOES acknowledge your Championships and players.  So again stop with that crud you are trying to spread something that just isn't true.  I've been to the Hall of Fame and the part that talks about Super Bowls clearly has Baltimore Colts written next to Super Bowl III and Super Bowl V and the ring from Super Bowl says Baltimore Colts on it. 

2. Jim Irsay got what he paid for, a team, but he doesn't own history.

Yes he does and you better learn to live with it.  You might not like it but he does or else the Colts wouldn't be breaking team records that date back to Baltimore and the league wouldn't recognize the Colts as two time Super Bowl Champions.  The Colts history belongs to the Colts if you don't look it boo hoo no one outside of Baltimore cares. 

3. The court in the CFL case ruled on the Colt's name and logo.

So if the Colts own that do you really think they are going to say oh well the history is different?  No they aren't.  Honestly after 30 years if Baltimore thought they could use the courts system to get the team history back they would have tried it by now? Well they did right after the move and they agreed to a settlement that brought Baltimore the Vince Lombardi Trophy but they also agreed that the history of the Colts belonged to the Colts who is currently owned to the Colts.  So congratulations you traded your beloved Colts history for the Super Bowl V trophy. 

Your wrong about Steve Biscotti, he was a big Colt's fan , like many of us , still is. He would welcome more ways to celebrate the old Colts, as well as old and current Ravens. What owner would put Baltimore Football history on the Raven's official web iste, if this wasn't true.

I didn't say he wasn't a big Colts fan.  I seriously doubt he would give up the Ravens history though in order to get the Colts history at this point.  You really think he would give up the two Super Bowl trophies that they have won with the Ravens and all the time Ray Lewis gave that team just to get the Colts history at this point?  I really doubt it.  He's proud of what the Ravens have accomplished the history they have established. 

Brooklyn, in a way, did get a team back, the New York Mets in 1962. Baltimore waited alot longer than Brooklyn or Cleveland.

The Mets are NOT the Brooklyn Dodgers and guess who owns the Brooklyn Dodgers history.  It's not Brooklyn or the Mets it's the Dodgers in LA.  Also the Mets were more of a replacement for the New York Giants than they are for the Dodgers.  The Dodgers have never really been replaced in Brooklyn.  Just ask the people of Brooklyn. 

I read that article from Jim Irsay about forgiveness, etc. Yes, he didn't gloat, not did Mr. Biscotti when the Ravens beat the Colts this year. I'm just suggesting ways for Mr. Irsay to improve his image further, in the NFL , and in Baltimore. Even though he wasn't involved, his name, and the family's name, is still linked to the father. No one is bitter. Two Super bowls in sixteen years can make you humble, and magnamous.

What would the Ravens have to gloat about this year?  Indianapolis fans weren't calling for Biscotti's blood like Baltimore fans were calling for Irsay's.  It's not the same thing.  Frankly a lot of people who are Colts fans like the Ravens because they tend to beat the Steelers and Pats two teams Colts fans can't stand. 

 

You are here for over a week after you team just won it's second Super Bowl complaining about something that happened 30 years ago and you really expect me to believe you aren't bitter?  Yeah right.  If you weren't bitter you wouldn't care what Colts fans celebrated and would be more interested in celebrating your Ravens success than spending over a week arguing with the Colts fans over the move.  That screams bitterness. 

 

I think it's time you realize that just because Jim Irsay is Bob Irsay's son doesn't mean they are the same person.  From someone who has seen the Colts under both men it's easy to see they are clearly not.  Jim Irsay is much more caring and more concerned about building a winner where his dad was cold, bitter, and more interested in turning a profit than he was building a winning team.  Jim Irsay is one of the best owners in sports who will do anything for his team to win.  His dad was one of the worst owners in the history of sports.  So they might have the same last name but that is really where the similarities end. 

One other thing, both Indianapolis and Baltimore built stadiums to lure these teams. I just think there should be a set of rules, if you move, you start fresh. Leave behing the records, logos, history, etc. How wierd was it at a Titan's game to see them in retro Houston Oilers uniforms ? It made about as much sense as the New orlean's Jazz becoming the Utah Jazz. I know they have alot of Jazz music history in Salt Lake City !

Well that's not the rule.  Maybe it should be one day but it's not because these owners pay a lot of money for these teams and it's that history that some teams have that make teams valuable.  So owners aren't just going to give that up.  Again, you might not like it but the way the world works is that sports franchises histories belong to the franchises not cities.  Also, some fans and players follow teams regardless of the move.  Like I said Raymond Berry has been to a handful of Indianapolis Colts game and presented the trophy at the Super Bowl last year.  When asked why he goes to Colts games he said he was a Colt not a Raven.  His loyalty was to the franchise because that was who he worked for not the city they played in.  I understand for every Raymond Berry there is a Johnny U that pretty much disowned the Colts after they moved.  I am willing to say that was well with in Johnny U's right to do what he did but it's also in Raymond Berry's right to want to be apart of the franchise he played for regardless of what city they are in.  It's not the black and white issue you want it to be there are shades of gray here.  The best compromise seems to be what people do.  Let Baltimore celebrate their history as much as they want but understand the Colts have a right to be proud of their rich franchise's history regardless of what city it happened in. 

[NewEra]

Or duck and cover... it seems it's never ending with typical old Balt fan-

Lol, so true. Can't say I blame them/him though. I'd be pretty * if Colts left. But we as fans won't let that happen. But fact remains, Colts are the Colts. No matter where they go. At least they wound up with a pretty darn good consolation prize in the Ravens. That's a darn good team and would really love rooting for them. So glad we got Pagano is our coach so he can bring some of that afc north to the Colts!

[GoColts8818]

Lol, so true. Can't say I blame them/him though. I'd be pretty * if Colts left. But we as fans won't let that happen. But fact remains, Colts are the Colts. No matter where they go. At least they wound up with a pretty darn good consolation prize in the Ravens. That's a darn good team and would really love rooting for them. So glad we got Pagano is our coach so he can bring some of that afc north to the Colts!

It's really not up to the "fans" it's up to the owner and the city government officials.  They are the ones that work out the lease agreements that keep the Colts in Indianapolis and any pro-franchise in any sports city.  With that said Jim Irsay has done a great job making the Colts a product that the people of Indianapolis would make the local government pay if the Colts left town to the point they have gone from being something to go check out on Sundays to being the most popular ticket in town.  Honestly, it's remarkable what he's done, he has not only made the Colts THE team in a basketball state he has done it to the point that people are so-so on the pro-basketball team in town. 

[NewEra]

It's really not up to the "fans" it's up to the owner and the city government officials. They are the ones that work out the lease agreements that keep the Colts in Indianapolis and any pro-franchise in any sports city. With that said Jim Irsay has done a great job making the Colts a product that the people of Indianapolis would make the local government pay if the Colts left town to the point they have gone from being something to go check out on Sundays to being the most popular ticket in town. Honestly, it's remarkable what he's done, he has not only made the Colts THE team in a basketball state he has done it to the point that people are so-so on the pro-basketball team in town.

Yeah didn't mean its just on us. But it helps if we keep our butts in the seats and support the team. Which goes hand in hand with having a good product that fans love and enjoy to get behind. Jim irsay is flat out awesome and love him as our owner! You have an awesome team, awesome fans. If the politicians did anything to try to screw us out of that I'd be right there rioting in full effect! Lol

[MAC]

W

Also the Mets were more of a replacement for the New York Giants than they are for the Dodgers.  The Dodgers have never really been replaced in Brooklyn.  Just ask the people of Brooklyn.

Minor point, but the Mets fairly replaced both teams in every respect. I'm a lifelong Mets fan (my father was born in Brooklyn and grew up a Dodger fan), and I've never heard anyone suggest the bolded part before in my life. Some people in Brooklyn apparently really want something with their name on it (a collective identity crisis with the famous borough across the river)  but I wonder how many of them were even alive in 1957. It has little to do with the Dodgers. If you get right down to it, Manhattan has lost the baseball and football Giants, and Queens has lost the Jets. Staten Island has never had anything in the first place. But it's all NY, so who cares which subway stop you have to get off at. The entire idea of naming a national franchise after a sub-section of a city is ridiculous. Should we add a basketball team in Compton because they're jealous of Inglewood?

 

In other words, the Dodgers (and Giants) were indeed replaced within 5 years. Period. However in every other respect of course I agree with your position. The Dodgers entire history is still intact in LA. Dodgers and Giants fans can celebrate the parts that took place here - both by embracing the memories (as many Dodgers, Giants and Mets fans loudly do on talk radio all the time) and by things like Citi-field's "Jackie Robinson rotunda"  (and general design for that matter.) People went nuts when Willie Mays returned to NY to play for the Mets, and the Dodgers/Giants still have loyal fan bases here. l even like both teams entirely because of the NY connection and they moved before I was born. However I have NEVER heard ANYONE EVER in my entire life express resentment for the fact that the history and records belong to teams across the country, and they CERTAINLY don't try to incorporate that history or those championships in with the Mets. That's ridiculous.

[GoColts8818]

Minor point, but the Mets fairly replaced both teams in every respect. I'm a lifelong Mets fan (my father was born in Brooklyn and grew up a Dodger fan), and I've never heard anyone suggest the bolded part before in my life. Some people in Brooklyn apparently really want something with their name on it (a collective identity crisis with the famous borough across the river)  but I wonder how many of them were even alive in 1957. It has little to do with the Dodgers. If you get right down to it, Manhattan has lost the baseball and football Giants, and Queens has lost the Jets. Staten Island has never had anything in the first place. But it's all NY, so who cares which subway stop you have to get off at. The entire idea of naming a national franchise after a sub-section of a city is ridiculous. Should we add a basketball team in Compton because they're jealous of Inglewood?

That's the thing I don't think Dodgers fans felt like the Mets were "their" team.  In a lot of ways they are still waiting for their team and I don't think they will ever get one.  The ironic thing is now Brooklyn does have a basketball team in the Nets who proudly call themselves the Brooklyn Nets.  Also people from those different burros in New York take great pride in where they are from and kinda treat them like they are different cities with in cities. 

In other words, the Dodgers (and Giants) were indeed replaced within 5 years. Period. However in every other respect of course I agree with your position. The Dodgers entire history is still intact in LA. Dodgers and Giants fans can celebrate the parts that took place here - both by embracing the memories (as many Dodgers, Giants and Mets fans loudly do on talk radio all the time) and by things like Citi-field's "Jackie Robinson rotunda"  (and general design for that matter.) People went nuts when Willie Mays returned to NY to play for the Mets, and the Dodgers/Giants still have loyal fan bases here. l even like both teams entirely because of the NY connection and they moved before I was born. However I have NEVER heard ANYONE EVER in my entire life express resentment for the fact that the history and records belong to teams across the country, and they CERTAINLY don't try to incorporate that history or those championships in with the Mets. That's ridiculous.

That would be the thing in MLB's eyes they gave them one team to replace two.  That's not going to work with two fanbases.  The most hardcore are going to feel left out and that's the impression I get from Brooklyn Dodgers fans.  With that said, this goes back to the point I have been making all along a franchise's history belongs to the team not the city.  The Dodgers and Giants are probably the best two examples of that in sports along with the Colts.  They moved and took the history with them.  Just because a new team starts to call that city home doesn't mean they get to claim the old team's history as their own and frankly if you are trying to market a new team to a city you probably don't want too.  Then they aren't going to embrace your new team they are just seeing you as some version of their old team.  With that said, just like the people in Brooklyn have every right to celebrate what the Dodgers did there or heck so do people who were fans of the Giants baseball team the city of Baltimore has every right to celebrate what the Colts did in their city.  However, the history just doesn't belong to the Ravens now because they now call Baltimore home. 

[MAC]

That's the thing I don't think Dodgers fans felt like the Mets were "their" team.  In a lot of ways they are still waiting for their team and I don't think they will ever get one.

I was trying to express the fact that I'm about as tied in to NY baseball as a human could be, and I've never gotten the impression that you describe. The Mets wear Dodger Blue with Giants orange trim. Their owner since 1982 is a guy who was born a Dodger fan in Brooklyn - best friends with Sandy Koufax who has often come to spring training to help out. Citifield was built to resemble Ebbets field, and includes the "Jackie Robinson rotunda". The biggest complaint after year one was that they didn't have enough METS stuff inside.

There are older fans who still root for the Dodgers and Giants, but that doesn't mean that they are waiting for the teams to come back, it means that they are loyal to their old team - just like I'm loyal to the Colts.

The Giants were "uptown", and very much the NL equivalent of the Yankees - whose stadium could be seen across the river from the Polo grounds. The Dodgers were always the second class team with the chip on their shoulder, playing in the bedroom community to the east, instead of Manhattan. Queens is also a bedroom community to the east, and the Mets are very much the second class team to the Yankees with the chip on their shoulder. The Dodgers nature lives on in the Mets and is embraced as such. If anything it's the Giants that kind of got lost in the shuffle - but I've never heard anyone complaining about that either. In other words, yes, some people in Brooklyn squawk about having their own identity, but it's got little to do with the Dodgers/Mets. It's the NY Mets, not the "Queens Mets", and (when they are winning) they are embraced with unbridled passion by all NY national league fans. There are plenty of Yankee fans who live in Brooklyn too by the way - my aunt was one. It's hard to draw generalities in a city of 8+ million.

[GoColts8818]

I have been to the Hall of Fame, and you are right about the busts and the other things. But what we're talking about, and what Johnny objected to, was being listed in the display under Indianapolis Colts, where he never played. He wanted to be under Baltimore.  Look, I like Indianapolis, it's part of my sales territory. I usually stay at that Comfort Inn near the stadium. Great city, fans, team, and all that.  But lets put it in terms we can all understand. The Browns came to Baltimore in 1996. Instead of being the Ravens, they are the Baltimore Browns, which thank god never happened. As a Baltimore fan, suddenly I'm a Brown's guy, who revels in the history of Paul Brown, the Otto Graham teams, the 1964 Championship team, the fumble, the drive, and all the other things Browns. Should I suddenly love the Caviliers and Indians ? I have no affinity to what happened in Cleveland, and wouldn't want any of that stuff in my record books, any more than the man in the moon. They were the Cleveland Browns, and what happened there is not part of my sport's history. I would hate to see Jim Brown under any kind of Baltimore moniker. If I watched a few old Cleveland Browns tapes on You Tube, this is going to make me a Cleveland Browns fan ? I would expect the knowledgable NFL fan to pan my views.  I would view the Baltimore Browns as seperate, and would want no part of their history. I can honestly tell you, I wouldn't want their name either, it should stay in the city. When you get a team, you want to build your own citiy's memories and identity.

What are you talking about here?  Johnny U is listed under Baltimore.

 

 

Show me where it says Indianapolis on that?  Again stop with the Hall of Fame crud it's been proven false.  They do acknowledge the Colts who played in Baltimore as playing in Baltimore not Indianapolis.  There are several things in the Hall that reflect the Baltimore Colts well.  Frankly more than there is Indianapolis Colts stuff.  Besides the 32 teams displays they have they only have the three Colts who played in Indianapolis listed as Indianapolis Colts in the Hall, the Super Bowl 41 ring, plus mention of Super Bowl 44 and a Manning and Marvin jersey.  That's all you see from Indianapolis at the Hall.  The rest of the stuff there is all Baltimore Colts stuff and they let you know it's all Baltimore Colts stuff.  They might have added one or two things (for example when I went they had a display for the Pats having the longest regular season winning streak in football history which the Colts later broke) but in no way do they try to pass off the old Baltimore Colts as doing their accomplishments in Indianapolis like you keep claiming. 

 

Had the Browns brought their history I think you would see a lot of people doing what they do with the Colts acknowledge those things happened in Cleveland but still embrace it as a Browns fan because you would become a Browns fan.  Just because you embrace it doesn't mean you try to present it as if you were there to see it in person.  No one who became a Colts fan because they moved to Indianapolis tries to present it that way either.  They are just proud of what the Colts have accomplished.  Like I said before say you were a Packers fan and you weren't around for the first two Super Bowls are you not aloud to be proud of those things just because you didn't see it? No if you become a fan of something you tend to learn the history and embrace the full history of something.  Again, Colts fans freely admit when something happened in Baltimore and don't try to pretend like it happened in Indianapolis. 

 

Again, you talk as a fan, not someone who worked and sweated and bleed with that franchise.  Some may take the Johnny U route and say I did it all in Baltimore so that's where I am.  Others like Raymond Berry take the attitude of I played for the Colts not the Ravens.  A lot took the attitude of I played for the Colts and I proud of that but I am also proud to call Baltimore my home and were accepted and embraced by both.  They can do that because they are two different things. 

It was ludicrous having that 1958 ESPN special even talk to current players. Honestly, they should have only talked to fans , coaches, and players who were part of that experience. Honestly, do we really care what some 20 something player from Indianapolis or New York, thinks about a 1958 title game ? It was a flawed program that could have been a heck of alot better. I have problems with ESPN anyway, because of their New York and Boston bias, but that's a story for another day.

They tried something different rather than just tell the story of the game that has been told over and over.  They wanted to re-enforce the impact that game had on today's NFL.  I thought it was rather neat seeing the younger guys being in aww of what some of the vets of that game had to say.  Frankly I thought the Giants players were more entertaining than the Colts players on it so it's not my Colts fan bias either.  If you didn't care for it fine you are welcomed to your opinion.

Most in Baltimore also didn't like the Raymond Berry presentation. The presentation would have been better served with an old Indianapolis Colt. Your city's football tradition is sound enough you don't need the Baltimore years anymore.

I really thought it would be Tony Dungy or Marvin Harrison but oh well.  At the end of the day they picked an Ex-Colt who has openly embraced the Colts franchise in Indianapolis so I didn't really have an issue with it.  Honestly as I have gone back and studied the old Baltimore Colts Raymond Berry has become one of my favorites.  Again, you miss the point it's not about Indianapolis or Baltimore it's about the Colts franchise.  Rather you like it or not the franchise history belongs to the team not Indianapolis or Baltimore.  So it's not about Indianapolis needing Baltimore history it's about the Colts franchise wanting to be able to celebrate their full history that rather you like it or not includes the time in Baltimore.  Again, personally if it was me I would have picked an Indianapolis Colt for the Super Bowl trophy thing because the Super Bowl to me was more about the city not the Colts.  With that said, I don't have my arms up in anger over it because I can see why they picked Berry too.  They really like to have a Hall of Famer do that and Dickerson and Faulk don't exactly embrace their Colts ties.  They would be just as happy as if you thought of them as Rams.  The only other Indianapolis Colt in the Hall of Fame is Richard Dent and him being a Colt Hall of Famer is like saying Johnny Unites is a Charger's Hall of Famer.  He's only in there with the Colts because they list all the teams you played for an he spent one year here. 

As far as fans go, they can support whoever they like, but I'm just dubious of the bandwagon fan. These are they types of fans that are from Indiana, for example, that hop on the Lakers bandwagon because they won so many titles. If your city doesn't have a team, or if it was your father's team , or something, that is more understandable. I'll just never undertsand a fan that was born and raised in an area, say baltimore, and becomes a Steelers fan. I would question if they were a true NFL fan, or an NFL partier. Just my opinion.

Just because someone doesn't live in a town where a team is doesn't make them a bandwagon fan.  For example I have a very good friend who relocated to Indianapolis from Cincinnati and is a die hard Bengals fan.  According to you since he moved cities he should become a Colts fan because he lives here now even though he still owns Bengals season tickets and drives back to watch them every weekend they are home.  Heck even with the Colts when the Colts drafted Peyton the Colts become extremely popular in Tennessee to the point that at times in his career when the Colts would go there it was like playing in Lucas Oil Stadium South.  Now that Peyton is gone several former Colts fans became Broncos fans because of Peyton.  Now that we have Luck we have had several fans become Colts fans because they like Luck that don't live in Indiana.  You never know what draws someone to a team.  Again, it's not your place to say who can be and who can't be a fan of something so stop trying.  It comes across as very arrogant to think you have the right to tell someone what they can and can't cheer for. 

[GoColts8818]

I was trying to express the fact that I'm about as tied in to NY baseball as a human could be, and I've never gotten the impression that you describe. The Mets wear Dodger Blue with Giants orange trim. Their owner since 1982 is a guy who was born a Dodger fan in Brooklyn - best friends with Sandy Koufax who has often come to spring training to help out. Citifield was built to resemble Ebbets field, and includes the "Jackie Robinson rotunda". The biggest complaint after year one was that they didn't have enough METS stuff inside.

There are older fans who still root for the Dodgers and Giants, but that doesn't mean that they are waiting for the teams to come back, it means that they are loyal to their old team - just like I'm loyal to the Colts.

The Giants were "uptown", and very much the NL equivalent of the Yankees - whose stadium could be seen across the river from the Polo grounds. The Dodgers were always the second class team with the chip on their shoulder, playing in the bedroom community to the east, instead of Manhattan. Queens is also a bedroom community to the east, and the Mets are very much the second class team to the Yankees with the chip on their shoulder. The Dodgers nature lives on in the Mets and is embraced as such. If anything it's the Giants that kind of got lost in the shuffle - but I've never heard anyone complaining about that either. In other words, yes, some people in Brooklyn squawk about having their own identity, but it's got little to do with the Dodgers/Mets. It's the NY Mets, not the "Queens Mets", and (when they are winning) they are embraced with unbridled passion by all NY national league fans. There are plenty of Yankee fans who live in Brooklyn too by the way - my aunt was one. It's hard to draw generalities in a city of 8+ million.

It's normally the older fans that are the ones that have an issue with a move.  Same thing with Baltimore fans.  The younger ones embrace the Ravens because that's all they have ever known. With that said I know some young Ravens fans and even a couple of younger Mets fans that wouldn't trade those teams histories for the Colts or Dodgers/Giants even if they could because the Colts and Dodgers/Giants were never their team the Ravens and Mets are their team. 

 

I am not saying the Mets haven't done a good job reaching out to both Dodgers and Giants fans to try to make them feel like they are "their" team.  I am just saying there are a good number of fans who went nope these guys didn't replace my Dodgers or for that matter Giants.  The Dodgers voice seems louder to me about it maybe because they were "Brooklyn" Dodgers when all the other teams have been the "New York" whatevers.  It made people from Brooklyn feel special about them because they were their team and they didn't have to share them with the rest of New York if that makes sense.

 

With that said, we are turning a minor point into a major point.  The main point I was making by bringing this up is that Dodgers in LA and the Giants in San Fran own those teams' histories not the Mets and they aren't just sitting dormant waiting for a new team to come claim it.  With that said the thing you brought up about what the Mets do for the Jackie Robinson thing is a perfect example of how the Mets have tried to reach out to the old Dodger fans (and Giants fans I am sure) and say hey I know we aren't the Dodgers or Giants but we want you to come love us too.  IMO the Ravens have done the same to old Colts fans in Baltimore.  Even though they are different franchise the Ravens want to make the old Colts fans feel welcomed and like that the Ravens haven't forgotten the city of Baltimore's rich sports history.  With that said there is a line, at some point the Ravens or the Mets for that matter want you to love them for being the Ravens or the Mets not for being a new version of the Colts or Dodgers/Giants.  They want their own legacy and they want that own legacy to stand on it's own two feet and in both case both teams have done a good job establishing their own legacy in Baltimore and New York.  I think we agree on this part of this which is the main point I am getting at.   

[T Y Goodbye]

The Old Crow, on 13 Feb 2013 - 11:42, said:

As far as fans go, they can support whoever they like, but I'm just dubious of the bandwagon fan. These are they types of fans that are from Indiana, for example, that hop on the Lakers bandwagon because they won so many titles. If your city doesn't have a team, or if it was your father's team , or something, that is more understandable. I'll just never understand a fan that was born and raised in an area, say baltimore, and becomes a Steelers fan. I would question if they were a true NFL fan, or an NFL partier. Just my opinion.

 

Well. I hate to burst your bubble..But no team from the state I originally am from (PA), nor the state I live in now..(CA) do I like the so-called "home teams". I am not a bandwagon fan of any sport, and once I like a team, I am loyal to them. I went to a lot of Eagles games as a kid, because I lived 60 miles away..but I chose the Colts as my team, (80 miles away), and have been a Colt fan ever since..I am also a Red Sox fan, an Oklahoma Sooner Football fan, a Maryland Terrapin basketball fan, a Detroit Pistons fan, and a Montreal Canadiens fan. I fell in love with the way the Sooners ran 3 basic plays from the wishbone and basically said to the other team..Stop it if you can.., that's why I started liking them..I liked the way Luis Tiant twirled around as he made his pitches.and Fred Lynn was one of my all time favorites. I'm not going to go on more, as I assume my point is taken..

 

I like teams from all over the country...I have no loyalty to any city, be it Baltimore, Indy, or anywhere. I am a fan of the team I choose to like, no matter if they move out of a town or not., not matter how well they play or not..And nor do I change loyalties if they are playing bad...I sure didn't leave my Colts loyalty when they would win 1-3 games a year...just like my Forum name states.."COLT FAN 4 LIFE...no where in that name says Baltimore Colt fan or Indy Colt fan...Also, I am a fan of the games themselves, so I appreciate greatness..ie my favorite player of all time is Earl Campbell...and I will root for players I like..Just because I live in a city, or grew up in a city, doesn't mean I , or anyone else, has to root for that team...

 

But my loyalty is to the Colts...in football...

 

As GoColts8818 has stated over and over..its the FRANCHISE...not the city...its the COLTS history..not Baltimore's and not Indy's...People who love their team will continue to love their team no matter where they hang their hat...If you are in Baltimore, and choose the Ravens, that's your choice..but you are abandoning the team you grew to love, in the city you love..If you only like the team because its in your home town..that's your choice..you are loyal to the city you live in..But, if the Colts move to Timbuktu, I'll be a Colts fan then too....and still embrace the history of the Colts in Baltimore, Indy, and wherever they end up playing..

[MAC]

I

 

With that said, we are turning a minor point into a major point.  The main point I was making by bringing this up is that Dodgers in LA and the Giants in San Fran own those teams' histories not the Mets and they aren't just sitting dormant waiting for a new team to come claim it.  With that said the thing you brought up about what the Mets do for the Jackie Robinson thing is a perfect example of how the Mets have tried to reach out to the old Dodger fans (and Giants fans I am sure) and say hey I know we aren't the Dodgers or Giants but we want you to come love us too.  IMO the Ravens have done the same to old Colts fans in Baltimore.  Even though they are different franchise the Ravens want to make the old Colts fans feel welcomed and like that the Ravens haven't forgotten the city of Baltimore's rich sports history.  With that said there is a line, at some point the Ravens or the Mets for that matter want you to love them for being the Ravens or the Mets not for being a new version of the Colts or Dodgers/Giants.  They want their own legacy and they want that own legacy to stand on it's own two feet and in both case both teams have done a good job establishing their own legacy in Baltimore and New York.  I think we agree on this part of this which is the main point I am getting at.

Absolutely.

As an aside, the Citifield setup was to satisfy the owners youthful desires, not to draw in Dodgers fans. If there was any division in the early days, the euphoria of the 69 World Series surely rendered it meaningless. I saw the Mets play the Dodgers several times in the 70s - less than 20 years after the move - and there was no hint of unpleasantness, nor did it ever occur to me that there would be. No bitterness, just joy, and no hatred for the team that left, just good crowds with some people rooting for them.

And I have no problems with their being a Johnny U. statue where the Ravens play. I think it's terrific, and wouldn't mind seeing it someday. There is a difference between embracing a town's sports history while providing a place for locals to celebrate it, and believing that the phrase "a town's sport's history" conveys any meaning other than geographic location. It doesn't infer "possession". The past didn't change because the team moved to Indy. It is something that happened IN Baltimore. However that doesn't mean that Baltimore "owns" it. The phrase isn't even relevant to the conversation. It's like talking about Thomas Edison. He had a lab in northern NJ and one in central NJ, and there are memorials to him in both. If you visited the northern memorial they would emphasize what he invented while there (and the workers who helped him), if you visited the southern memorial they would emphasize what he invented while there instead, and perhaps different workers who helped him. But another source might just list what he invented in total, not being particularly concerned with where the work was done. They aren't going to say "no, that was in NORTH jersey, that doesn't count. The geography is a part of the history of the Colts story, and it should be faithfully recorded and respected, but it doesn't define or divide the history.

[The Old Crow]

The Miami Seahwaks have nothing to do with the Dolphins. So if the Seahawks had Hall of Fame players I highly doubt the Dolphins would want them under their franchise. Nothing related at all except city.

 

It's not that Indy fans or the city are claiming the Baltimore history. It's the franchises history. Perfect example is no Indy fan claims that YA Title played for their team even though he was a Baltimore Colt except that team was different. 

 

Those who follow the Colts anywhere may be a minority, but that doesn't mean their opinions mean any less. For Baltimore to tell them Johnny and Peyton didn't play for the same team is completely disrespectful. The team has always been a constant.

 

I have nothing against either city. But I am from eastern Pennsylvania. So I do have an east coast bias, and a move yo Baltimore I would not be against in the slightest. Indianapolis is great city, and so is Baltimore. I may not have the first hand memories of getting to watch Johnny, but I idolize him as if I did. I love the man. Watching film of him play is phenomenal. I enjoy it more than watching modern football. Johnny is the greatest QB, at least to me. Johnny may not be recognized as the greatest by some, but the one thing they can't deny is Unitas is THE QB. Can't be denied. He started it all.

 

If the Colts happened to move somewhere else. Then an Indianapolis native turned around and told me Peyton didn't play for "the new" Colts I would smack them square in the mouth. Complete disrespect for them to say my childhood idol didn't play for my team.

 

 

What you have to understand is that is how Johnny Unitas, and the Hall of Famers felt. They felt they played for the Baltimore Colts, a different team than the Indianapolis Colts. That's not my opinion, it was Johnny's. John Mackey refused to have his Hall of Fame ceremony in Indy, and had it at an exhibition game between the Saints and Dolphins in Baltimore at Memeorial Stadium, instead. Johnny felt he played for the Baltimore Colts, and the Baltimore Ravens were a natural extension of that. That was why he was on the sidelines of Raven's games. If you respect Unitas, you would have respected his wishes. This is why most of his memorabilia is at Sports Legends at Camden Yards in Baltimore. Nothing against Indy, but Johnny wanted to be part of Baltimore Football History.

[The Old Crow]

Look, it was Irsay and the Colts that petitioned the NFL for their ​trophy. not the City of Baltimore.  It was the NFL that commissioned Tiffany & Co. to make a replica for the Colts that petitioned for it, not the city of Baltimore. The replica was delivered to the Colts, not the City of Baltimore. The Colts took their Super Bowl replica trophy with them when they packed up and bolted Owings Mills Mar. 29, 1984.  The Colts had it, and still had it when in Indy. There wasn't even any court intervention yet!!

 

Once the move was complete, city voters repealed question P and Baltimore began a flurry of legal activity.  in Mar. 1986, Nearly two years after the move to Indy,  the Indy Colts gave the replica trophy to the City of Baltimore as part of a settlement, not a judgement.  And the Colts kept the logos, colors, and history.  The settlement and courts didn't make them relinquish those, either.  

 

________  <- Now here is where you place a link to the court judgement stating the NFL actually awarded that trophy to the City of Baltimore, and not the Colts Franchise that was in Baltimore.   Waiting...

 

 

 

Sometimes, I don't think you even know the point you are trying to argue...

 

Whatever.

 

 

If it was so cut and dry with the franchise argument, why is this the only instance where the NFL awarded a trophy to a city, instead of a franchise , so to speak ? It also answers the question, "How many trophies do we have?" The answer is one in Indy.

[The Old Crow]

He doesn't, he just keeps just keeps jumping around and throwing new things out as what he was complaining about gets debunked. 

 

 

When Irsay and the Colts reached this settlement, they vacated this history to Baltimore, in effect. If they had that strong of a case, they never would have settled.

[The Old Crow]

The NFL didn't award it to Baltimore.  The award the replica to the Colts who then gave the trophy to Baltimore as part of a settlement in order to just get the legal argument over the move over with so people could move on.  The problem, the people in Baltimore refuse to move on.  Even though they accepted the legal settlement now they are trying to come back 30 years later and say that wasn't good enough.  Part of the idea behind agreeing to a settlement you don't get to keep putting someone on trial over and over for the same thing trying to get more stuff out of them.  Yet that's exactly what you are trying to do here. 

 

You came into this thread complaining that Baltimore didn't get to celebrate their sports history, that was proven false and people in Indianapolis not only said they didn't care they encouraged you do it.  Then you tried to turn it to how you couldn't celebrate your former players and that was proven false.  Then you tried to talk about how the Hall of Fame is trying to remove you from the NFL history books and that was proven false as well.  All and all you are not trying to see if it's okay for Baltimore to celebrate what they witnessed you are trying to tell Colts fans what they can and can't celebrate.  Sorry not your decision.  Time to learn to live with it. 

 

We've been living with it for 30 years. Look, here's the deal, you think it's just Baltimore people. The thread started over a fight with some New Yorker who challenged the Indy fan about how many Super Bowl trophies you have. I'm sure he told the Indy fan you have one, because all other was won in Baltimore. I have news for you, this is the opinion you'd get from most NFL fans, and certainly Steeler and Patriot fans. That is the bottom line.

[Fx Stryker]

What you have to understand is that is how Johnny Unitas, and the Hall of Famers felt. They felt they played for the Baltimore Colts, a different team than the Indianapolis Colts. That's not my opinion, it was Johnny's. John Mackey refused to have his Hall of Fame ceremony in Indy, and had it at an exhibition game between the Saints and Dolphins in Baltimore at Memeorial Stadium, instead. Johnny felt he played for the Baltimore Colts, and the Baltimore Ravens were a natural extension of that. That was why he was on the sidelines of Raven's games. If you respect Unitas, you would have respected his wishes. This is why most of his memorabilia is at Sports Legends at Camden Yards in Baltimore. Nothing against Indy, but Johnny wanted to be part of Baltimore Football History.

 

I know the how Johnny felt, and he has every right to feel hurt. I can respect that. He was loyal to Baltimore. I find no wrong in Johnny and John wanting to celebrate in their old stomping ground. If it was to come to it I would expect Peyton to celebrate in Indy if there no longer is a team because that is where he played. I could also guarantee he would be on the sidelines in LA or where ever they move.

 

Just a side note even though many of the hall of fame players were loyal to Baltimore I think they understood they were still Colts. There aren't stories of Mackey getting ouraged because a Raven was wearing #88, but it was known John didn't like Marvin was #88.

[The Old Crow]

It's normally the older fans that are the ones that have an issue with a move.  Same thing with Baltimore fans.  The younger ones embrace the Ravens because that's all they have ever known. With that said I know some young Ravens fans and even a couple of younger Mets fans that wouldn't trade those teams histories for the Colts or Dodgers/Giants even if they could because the Colts and Dodgers/Giants were never their team the Ravens and Mets are their team. 

 

I am not saying the Mets haven't done a good job reaching out to both Dodgers and Giants fans to try to make them feel like they are "their" team.  I am just saying there are a good number of fans who went nope these guys didn't replace my Dodgers or for that matter Giants.  The Dodgers voice seems louder to me about it maybe because they were "Brooklyn" Dodgers when all the other teams have been the "New York" whatevers.  It made people from Brooklyn feel special about them because they were their team and they didn't have to share them with the rest of New York if that makes sense.

 

With that said, we are turning a minor point into a major point.  The main point I was making by bringing this up is that Dodgers in LA and the Giants in San Fran own those teams' histories not the Mets and they aren't just sitting dormant waiting for a new team to come claim it.  With that said the thing you brought up about what the Mets do for the Jackie Robinson thing is a perfect example of how the Mets have tried to reach out to the old Dodger fans (and Giants fans I am sure) and say hey I know we aren't the Dodgers or Giants but we want you to come love us too.  IMO the Ravens have done the same to old Colts fans in Baltimore.  Even though they are different franchise the Ravens want to make the old Colts fans feel welcomed and like that the Ravens haven't forgotten the city of Baltimore's rich sports history.  With that said there is a line, at some point the Ravens or the Mets for that matter want you to love them for being the Ravens or the Mets not for being a new version of the Colts or Dodgers/Giants.  They want their own legacy and they want that own legacy to stand on it's own two feet and in both case both teams have done a good job establishing their own legacy in Baltimore and New York.  I think we agree on this part of this which is the main point I am getting at.  

 

You don't understand Baltimore. We are not New York. To us, there were two football teams, the Baltimore Colts, twelve year gap, Baltimore Ravens. Two great teams, two of the greatest football histories and eras ever. To us, it is one history in one city. If the Indy fan, or New York fan wants to come to the Sports Legends Museum, which is next to Camden Yards, you'll understand maybe what I can't put into words. The Indy years have been great, but to the Indy fan. If I'm a Brookyn Dodger fan, I'm following the Mets, and not following them out to LA. To us, it is two legacies, one city, one history.

[bayone]

Wow!

 

 

What happened to Brroklyn was a travesty. That was a golden era of baseball in New York with the Yankees, Dodgers, and Giants. The glow of that era , and history, will never be forgotten. It was just magical. I'm glad you guys got a basketball team, but I wish they had put the Mets directly in Brooklyn. Heck, you would have gotten a World Series win over my 1969 Orioles !

 

 

Know its not football, but encase u guys are curious what My old  Dodger Ticket Looked like that I was talking about , here is a description and Picture from the auction catalog  / on line bidding Company I used

 

 

Lot 19: Brooklyn Dodgers 1957 Final Game At Ebbets Field Full

Ticket PSA 7

 

Description:

This historic FULL ticket (#1413) is

from the very last game ever played at storied Ebbets Field. The Brooklyn

Dodgers would defeat the Pirates on September 24th, 1957 to please the hometown

fans. There are only 5 of these full tickets known to exist and only 1 has ever

earned a higher grade than this Near Mint PSA 7.

 

Click on pictures to enlarge , I am still amazed not 1 crease even along where stub would have been pulled off if had been used

 

 

Close up of the Certification Certificate , Description,. and grade , u can go online to PSA, ( Professional Sports Authority I think ) ,  and punch in # at lower right on site and will bring up my ticket ,

 

I have similar with many Superbowl tickets  Colts used SB 5 & Unused , a few ,. various colors pending seats SB 41 & others that have goirgous holograms

 

as a COLT fan I must Admit, My one of Brady's first win is best looking ticket as Hologram goes back & forth from the Lombardie trophy to the field with unfolding American Flag

 

[Jay Kirk]

OH NASTALGIA LOL,the Colts and I go way back

[The Old Crow]

The Old Crow, on 13 Feb 2013 - 11:42, said:

 

Well. I hate to burst your bubble..But no team from the state I originally am from (PA), nor the state I live in now..(CA) do I like the so-called "home teams". I am not a bandwagon fan of any sport, and once I like a team, I am loyal to them. I went to a lot of Eagles games as a kid, because I lived 60 miles away..but I chose the Colts as my team, (80 miles away), and have been a Colt fan ever since..I am also a Red Sox fan, an Oklahoma Sooner Football fan, a Maryland Terrapin basketball fan, a Detroit Pistons fan, and a Montreal Canadiens fan. I fell in love with the way the Sooners ran 3 basic plays from the wishbone and basically said to the other team..Stop it if you can.., that's why I started liking them..I liked the way Luis Tiant twirled around as he made his pitches.and Fred Lynn was one of my all time favorites. I'm not going to go on more, as I assume my point is taken..

 

I like teams from all over the country...I have no loyalty to any city, be it Baltimore, Indy, or anywhere. I am a fan of the team I choose to like, no matter if they move out of a town or not., not matter how well they play or not..And nor do I change loyalties if they are playing bad...I sure didn't leave my Colts loyalty when they would win 1-3 games a year...just like my Forum name states.."COLT FAN 4 LIFE...no where in that name says Baltimore Colt fan or Indy Colt fan...Also, I am a fan of the games themselves, so I appreciate greatness..ie my favorite player of all time is Earl Campbell...and I will root for players I like..Just because I live in a city, or grew up in a city, doesn't mean I , or anyone else, has to root for that team...

 

But my loyalty is to the Colts...in football...

 

As GoColts8818 has stated over and over..its the FRANCHISE...not the city...its the COLTS history..not Baltimore's and not Indy's...People who love their team will continue to love their team no matter where they hang their hat...If you are in Baltimore, and choose the Ravens, that's your choice..but you are abandoning the team you grew to love, in the city you love..If you only like the team because its in your home town..that's your choice..you are loyal to the city you live in..But, if the Colts move to Timbuktu, I'll be a Colts fan then too....and still embrace the history of the Colts in Baltimore, Indy, and wherever they end up playing..

 

That's fine, you can pull for who you want. I am glad you like the Maryland Terrapins. Coversely, I am a fan of the Baltimore Colts and the Baltimore Ravens. I like these team's because these are my region's teams. I notice the team's you are fans of, have quite a bit of storied history about them. Oaklahoma Football, Red Sox, Pistons, Canadiens, etc. I don't see Detroit Lions, Houston Astros, or Kansas Football on your list. This is why I'm dubious, and why I brought up the Lakers argument. Did you follow these teams because they were the hot team at the time ? You have every right to follow the team you want, but my point was the hard core regional fan would raise an eyebrow when you show up with a different hat when you live in that city. I actually respect the Steeler fan in at least one way, whatever city those people move to, they are always Steeler fans. Most in Baltimore are that way also. I was there at that last Colts home game in 1983, and I've sat through many a sorry Orioles game in the last 14 years. But I'll never follow some team just because I like Brady, Manning, or they are the hot team that won a couple of Super Bowl's recently. That is the kind of fan I am.

[The Old Crow]

What are you talking about here?  Johnny U is listed under Baltimore.

 

 

Show me where it says Indianapolis on that?  Again stop with the Hall of Fame crud it's been proven false.  They do acknowledge the Colts who played in Baltimore as playing in Baltimore not Indianapolis.  There are several things in the Hall that reflect the Baltimore Colts well.  Frankly more than there is Indianapolis Colts stuff.  Besides the 32 teams displays they have they only have the three Colts who played in Indianapolis listed as Indianapolis Colts in the Hall, the Super Bowl 41 ring, plus mention of Super Bowl 44 and a Manning and Marvin jersey.  That's all you see from Indianapolis at the Hall.  The rest of the stuff there is all Baltimore Colts stuff and they let you know it's all Baltimore Colts stuff.  They might have added one or two things (for example when I went they had a display for the Pats having the longest regular season winning streak in football history which the Colts later broke) but in no way do they try to pass off the old Baltimore Colts as doing their accomplishments in Indianapolis like you keep claiming. 

 

Had the Browns brought their history I think you would see a lot of people doing what they do with the Colts acknowledge those things happened in Cleveland but still embrace it as a Browns fan because you would become a Browns fan.  Just because you embrace it doesn't mean you try to present it as if you were there to see it in person.  No one who became a Colts fan because they moved to Indianapolis tries to present it that way either.  They are just proud of what the Colts have accomplished.  Like I said before say you were a Packers fan and you weren't around for the first two Super Bowls are you not aloud to be proud of those things just because you didn't see it? No if you become a fan of something you tend to learn the history and embrace the full history of something.  Again, Colts fans freely admit when something happened in Baltimore and don't try to pretend like it happened in Indianapolis. 

 

Again, you talk as a fan, not someone who worked and sweated and bleed with that franchise.  Some may take the Johnny U route and say I did it all in Baltimore so that's where I am.  Others like Raymond Berry take the attitude of I played for the Colts not the Ravens.  A lot took the attitude of I played for the Colts and I proud of that but I am also proud to call Baltimore my home and were accepted and embraced by both.  They can do that because they are two different things. 

They tried something different rather than just tell the story of the game that has been told over and over.  They wanted to re-enforce the impact that game had on today's NFL.  I thought it was rather neat seeing the younger guys being in aww of what some of the vets of that game had to say.  Frankly I thought the Giants players were more entertaining than the Colts players on it so it's not my Colts fan bias either.  If you didn't care for it fine you are welcomed to your opinion.

I really thought it would be Tony Dungy or Marvin Harrison but oh well.  At the end of the day they picked an Ex-Colt who has openly embraced the Colts franchise in Indianapolis so I didn't really have an issue with it.  Honestly as I have gone back and studied the old Baltimore Colts Raymond Berry has become one of my favorites.  Again, you miss the point it's not about Indianapolis or Baltimore it's about the Colts franchise.  Rather you like it or not the franchise history belongs to the team not Indianapolis or Baltimore.  So it's not about Indianapolis needing Baltimore history it's about the Colts franchise wanting to be able to celebrate their full history that rather you like it or not includes the time in Baltimore.  Again, personally if it was me I would have picked an Indianapolis Colt for the Super Bowl trophy thing because the Super Bowl to me was more about the city not the Colts.  With that said, I don't have my arms up in anger over it because I can see why they picked Berry too.  They really like to have a Hall of Famer do that and Dickerson and Faulk don't exactly embrace their Colts ties.  They would be just as happy as if you thought of them as Rams.  The only other Indianapolis Colt in the Hall of Fame is Richard Dent and him being a Colt Hall of Famer is like saying Johnny Unites is a Charger's Hall of Famer.  He's only in there with the Colts because they list all the teams you played for an he spent one year here. 

Just because someone doesn't live in a town where a team is doesn't make them a bandwagon fan.  For example I have a very good friend who relocated to Indianapolis from Cincinnati and is a die hard Bengals fan.  According to you since he moved cities he should become a Colts fan because he lives here now even though he still owns Bengals season tickets and drives back to watch them every weekend they are home.  Heck even with the Colts when the Colts drafted Peyton the Colts become extremely popular in Tennessee to the point that at times in his career when the Colts would go there it was like playing in Lucas Oil Stadium South.  Now that Peyton is gone several former Colts fans became Broncos fans because of Peyton.  Now that we have Luck we have had several fans become Colts fans because they like Luck that don't live in Indiana.  You never know what draws someone to a team.  Again, it's not your place to say who can be and who can't be a fan of something so stop trying.  It comes across as very arrogant to think you have the right to tell someone what they can and can't cheer for.

 

 

Please go to www.coltsheritage.com    I think it explains the Baltimore position very well, plus if you are a Colts fan, you'll get a kick out of it. By the way, the Old Baltimore Colts fight song, is the current Raven's Fight with different lyrics. If you are on there, and want to sign the petition, please feel free to do so. One other thing, this isn't my web site, beleive me, but I like it , of course .

[bayone]

Please go to www.coltsheritage.com    I think it explains the Baltimore position very well, plus if you are a Colts fan, you'll get a kick out of it. By the way, the Old Baltimore Colts fight song, is the current Raven's Fight with different lyrics. If you are on there, and want to sign the petition, please feel free to do so. One other thing, this isn't my web site, beleive me, but I like it , of course .

 

When u  go to site & click on   the links  at the left repeatedly ,.except for sign petition  , even if same one, i love how it changes these old photos  from 1 to another and in 1 I have never seen Unitas with such a happy smiling gaze

[ColtsBlueFL]

The NFL awarded it to the City of Baltimore for the defunct Baltimore Colts team.

 

I am sorry, I just do not believe you. So, if you do not cite your proof then you are just plain lying. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

If it was so cut and dry with the franchise argument, why is this the only instance where the NFL awarded a trophy to a city, instead of a franchise , so to speak ? It also answers the question, "How many trophies do we have?" The answer is one in Indy.

Lie. You continue to fail to show your proof the NFL awarded it to the city of Baltimore, not the Colts franchise while in Baltimore.

[Ufansince65]

I am originally from SE PA, about 80 miles from Baltimore, and 60 miles from Philly. I grew up with the Baltimore Colts. I would go down to 2-3 games a year, to watch Lydell Mitchell, Bert Jones, the Sack Pack..among many other beloved Colts.

A small historical fact for younger Colts fans: The D-Line for the Colts in the mid-70's ( Joe Ehrmann, John Dutton, Mike Barnes and Fred Cook ) were named the 'Sack Pack' in a contest by the fans. The players didn't really like that name; they called themselves the 'Looney Tunes'.

[The Old Crow]

I know the how Johnny felt, and he has every right to feel hurt. I can respect that. He was loyal to Baltimore. I find no wrong in Johnny and John wanting to celebrate in their old stomping ground. If it was to come to it I would expect Peyton to celebrate in Indy if there no longer is a team because that is where he played. I could also guarantee he would be on the sidelines in LA or where ever they move.

 

Just a side note even though many of the hall of fame players were loyal to Baltimore I think they understood they were still Colts. There aren't stories of Mackey getting ouraged because a Raven was wearing #88, but it was known John didn't like Marvin was #88.

 

 

Interesting about Mackey and Harrison, I didn't know that.

[Ufansince65]

This whole discussion is silly, the Colts won 2 superbowls.

 

 

Might as well throw more monkeywrenches into the gears of this 'silly' discussion:

 

As an older fan, I do not value a Super Bowl championship any different than an NFL championship from 1921 to 1966, when there

was no Super Bowl, just the Championship Game.  Either one was in reality the World Championship of professional football. Certainly the level of competition is much higher today, but the accomplishment means the same thing in history as it did in the beginning. Is the 1966 Packers NFL championship not equal to the Packers 1967 Super Bowl championship?

What we are really talking about here is how many world championships did the Colts franchise win?

Officially, they won it all in 1958, 1959, 1970 and 2006.

 

They also won the NFL Championship game in 1968, but lost the World Champiionship ( Super Bowl ) to the Jets.

Personally, I will also always know that they were cheated out of the title in 1965, when at Lambeau Field in the playoffs,

the Packers kicked a wide-right 'field goal' to put the game into overtime. In the era before instant replay and challenges,

the obvious miss was allowed to stand. The Colts should have won in regulation, and would have been heavily favored

against the Browns in the Championship game. I consider the Colts 5-time World champions.

[The Old Crow]

When u  go to site & click on   the links  at the left repeatedly ,.except for sign petition  , even if same one, i love how it changes these old photos  from 1 to another and in 1 I have never seen Unitas with such a happy smiling gaze

 

 

It is a great web site. It probably explains the Baltimore position about the Colts better than I ever could. Most cities wouldn't care about their team that left, but that is one of the things that makes Baltimore unique.