"Browns Town"

[Gimme Some Mo]

That still doesn't explain how this is a brown's town other then because people said it is.

Uhhh, so what else are you going to go by? :chuckles:

 

[MalTalm]

Cleveland takes a lot of pride in it's sports teams. However, for the past 50 some-odd years, the Cavs and Indians organizations have been atrocious. Obviously, the Indians returned to relevance in '94 and stayed competitive intermittently since, and the Cavs had a strong stretch with LeBron, but that doesn't excuse their historic ineptitude.

The Browns, however, were the greatest football team of all time before their NFL merger, and despite their lack of Super Bowl titles, managed to field a highly competitive team on an almost annual basis up until 1995. They played tough, they won more than they lost, and they gave this city nostalgia. If the Indians come out and win a world series next year, it would be amazing, but they would likely shrink back to the Indians of yore within the next few years. The Tribe being competitive is an anomaly, and that isn't likely to change any time soon. But we hold onto the Browns of old and believe that if we can rebuild our organization, the Browns can be every bit as competitive and consistent as teams like the Steelers or Patriots. Or Ravens. Unfortunately, those Browns are the Ravens, and that organization is the storied franchise who plays the game with Cleveland's blueprint for success.

I think in the end we are chasing a dream, and while we are lying to ourselves, there's no doubt that the only franchise in Cleveland which can currently be considered "Great" during any course of its existence is the Browns, and for that reason, barring a dramatic shift in Baseball politics or the acquisition of the real next MJ, Cleveland will remain a Browns town.

 

[Chardon]

First team to win a championship wins the collective heart of the city, end of story.

If the Browns happen to be the first ones to do it -- added bonus.

Cleveland Crunch.

 

[MoFlo]

Yeah and in 81 home games, comparing the two is stupid. You're spending only 440 to go to every Browns home game on average. Not to mention you tailgate before the game, so you don't even worry bout buying food. You're spending 2,106 to go to every Tribe game on average and you still gotta buy food and ect... Parking adds up too.

What's the average cavs ticket cost?

You need to compare more variables then just ticket sales. Even then, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. There's a correlation to winning and a teams popularity though. We saw it with all the fair weather fans in the 90's for the Tribe leave and now with the Cavs. If the Browns were in the playoffs every year, you'd see a spike in their popularity as well.

The Browns have filled their stadium close to or above 90% capacity each of the past 5 or 6 years at least (did the research earlier but ran into computer problems.. too tired to do it again.. couldn't find attendance figures before the past 5/6 years). And look at how shitty they've been.

Now, go back & look at the Indians & the Cavs attendance when they're shitty.

Not even the average attendance.. I'll even let you pick the top 8 attendance games in each sport during their shitty years.

There's your evidence of this being a Browns town.

Your guys' logic is that whomever is doing the best, that's who's 'town' it is.

I say, look at the attendances from where these teams were bad & go by that.

Also consider that Cleveland's economy has gotten progressively worse since the mid 90's when the Tribe had their consecutive sellouts.

Of course, more fans will go to any teams games the better they're playing to an extent, but how many of those fans stick around when that team goes down the toilet?

Just because the Cavs/Indians see a spike in attendance, does not mean they 'took over the town' for a few years, especially when the Browns were still almost selling out, despite being that much more horrible.

 

[Soda]

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=395907711504 This link shows our streak going into the 2010 season. Has us at 88.

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_browns-ravens_blacko.html This link is a more reputable source, stating that we have sold out every game going into the Monday night game against Baltimore.

Not sure about all of this non-sellout talk. If we didn't sell out, there would be a blackout. I've been at school for a while, but I do not recall a game blacking out in my recent memory.

 

[DaNewCavs]

This city, due to it's size and economic makeup, really only has enough money to support 2 sports. How we've managed to maintain 3 sports in this city is pretty amazing and suprising. The Browns are always going to be on the top of the entertainment dollar food chain. Not only because football is the most popular sport of the 3, but because of the popularity of the tailgating parties before the game. It doesn't matter how the Browns are doing, because every Sunday morning is going to be a party. Sunday's at the stadium is an event, not just for the game but what goes on before the game. People spend their whole Sunday's at the stadium, from dawn to when the game ends.

The Indians and Cavs will always fight for what remains of the pie. Because of Lebron, the entertainment dollar has been invested in the Cavs, leaving the Indians as the odd man out. Even when the Indians played well, people didn't go, because their money was invested in the Browns and/or Cavs. If the Dolan's were smart (which I don't believe they are), they would invest in the team now, because with James gone and the Cavs floundering, the Cavs will lose fans and interest. This is a window of opportunity for the Dolan's to get back some of the pie. The window won't stay open for long, because we know that Gilbert will spend the money and do what is necessary to make the Cavs relevant again.

 

[Beyond the Arc]

You have to remember the history of the sport and of the town.

Football is very much a midwestern game. Though it began in the colleges in the east, football as we know it today and especially professional football began in the industrial midwest -- primarily Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. After the athletic clubs of the late 1800s, the first professional league was the Ohio League which included teams from Massillon (the Tigers), Canton, Akron, Elyria, Shelby, and Youngstown. Football was born and raised here and in Pennsylvania and western New York, but professional football didn't explode until the '50s and '60s.

Prior to the rise of the NFL in the last 20-25 years as the pre-eminent sporting league across the country, the amount of attachment by a city to its particular sports teams is almost directly related to the popularity of the sport at the time of its rise. The cities of the East coast rose at the same time as professional baseball's profile exploded in the early 20th century and thus people from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia were primarily baseball crazies. St. Louis and Chicago were also major commercial hubs at this time. \

The industrial boom in the 20s and 30's began to build wealth in the midwest. Cleveland was the 5th largest city in the country by the 1920s and the post-war boom of the late 40s and early 50s pumped a lot of money into the city and raised its profile. The rise of football as a professional sport coincides with this post-WWII industrial boom. Baseball was around, sure... but the highest times for places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Green Bay were the late 40's through the mid-late 1960s. In Cleveland's specific case, this also coincides with the dominance of the Browns during Paul Brown's tenure in both the AAFC and the NFL. Basically we get a double shot of football hysteria; the economic rise coincidental with football's rise and the dominance and multiple championships of the Brown era. Ask your parents or grandparents who were around at that time what it was like and their answer should help clarify things.

This is why football endures in Cleveland while other sports -- though certainly loved -- don't quite match up. There's a certain aspect about football being in the DNA of the midwest. Football is, truly, our baby. Without the pioneers in the Ohio League and the Allegheny Athletic Association and others like them, football as we know it would probably not exist. Another aspect is (as others have mentioned) that football is a blue collar sport, appropriately so given it came to fruition in the blue collar towns of the industrial midwest. For us in particular, the rise of football corresponds with a kind of golden age for Cleveland economically and culturally. Added on top is a tradition of dominance that ingrained in the Northeast Ohioans of the time, whether it be us or our parents and grandparents, a love of the sport as emblematic of the greatness of the city and the region.

 

[The Voice]

The Browns have filled their stadium close to or above 90% capacity each of the past 5 or 6 years at least (did the research earlier but ran into computer problems.. too tired to do it again.. couldn't find attendance figures before the past 5/6 years). And look at how shitty they've been.

Now, go back & look at the Indians & the Cavs attendance when they're shitty.

Not even the average attendance.. I'll even let you pick the top 8 attendance games in each sport during their shitty years.

There's your evidence of this being a Browns town.

Your guys' logic is that whomever is doing the best, that's who's 'town' it is.

I say, look at the attendances from where these teams were bad & go by that.

Also consider that Cleveland's economy has gotten progressively worse since the mid 90's when the Tribe had their consecutive sellouts.

Of course, more fans will go to any teams games the better they're playing to an extent, but how many of those fans stick around when that team goes down the toilet?

Just because the Cavs/Indians see a spike in attendance, does not mean they 'took over the town' for a few years, especially when the Browns were still almost selling out, despite being that much more horrible.

Again you're comparing 8 games to 41 and 81.

They haven't been selling out for the past 2 years. I don't know about before that because I didn't know a member of the media before then. Last year the cable company had to buy tickets, this year it was the Browns themselves.

 

[Steve_424]

Ok, so most people saying this is a Browns town doesn't make this a Browns town? Wouldn't most people saying this is a Browns town make this a Browns town? Do you see where I'm going here?

Not at all. Do the same poll on a forum primarily for Indians discussion and you'll see very different numbers. This is my point though - everyone goes along with it, but nobody has any evidence that its true.

 

[Steve_424]

The Browns have filled their stadium close to or above 90% capacity each of the past 5 or 6 years at least (did the research earlier but ran into computer problems.. too tired to do it again.. couldn't find attendance figures before the past 5/6 years). And look at how shitty they've been.

Now, go back & look at the Indians & the Cavs attendance when they're shitty.

Not even the average attendance.. I'll even let you pick the top 8 attendance games in each sport during their shitty years.

There's your evidence of this being a Browns town.

Your guys' logic is that whomever is doing the best, that's who's 'town' it is.

I say, look at the attendances from where these teams were bad & go by that.

Also consider that Cleveland's economy has gotten progressively worse since the mid 90's when the Tribe had their consecutive sellouts.

Of course, more fans will go to any teams games the better they're playing to an extent, but how many of those fans stick around when that team goes down the toilet?

Just because the Cavs/Indians see a spike in attendance, does not mean they 'took over the town' for a few years, especially when the Browns were still almost selling out, despite being that much more horrible.

The attendance argument just doesn't hold water.

1) The Browns have to sell tickets to 8 games, while the Indians and Cavaliers have to sell tickets to 81 and 41 respectively. That's 585,600 (8x73,200) tickets the Browns need to sell, compared to 3,510,945 (43,345x81) for the Indians and 843,042 (20,562x41) for the Cavaliers. There's a pretty big difference there, especially when compared to the Indians.

2) All Browns games are on on Sundays, when most people are off work and all kids are off school. For the Indians and Cavaliers, the majority of games are played through the week. It's much easier for people to go to a Browns game.

3) Even with only having to sell eight homes, the Browns still can't consistently sell out. Even the 90% capacity number thrown out there is inaccurate, as many times businesses have had to buy tickets to avoid blackouts.

 

[Steve_424]

You have to remember the history of the sport and of the town.

Football is very much a midwestern game. Though it began in the colleges in the east, football as we know it today and especially professional football began in the industrial midwest -- primarily Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. After the athletic clubs of the late 1800s, the first professional league was the Ohio League which included teams from Massillon (the Tigers), Canton, Akron, Elyria, Shelby, and Youngstown. Football was born and raised here and in Pennsylvania and western New York, but professional football didn't explode until the '50s and '60s.

Prior to the rise of the NFL in the last 20-25 years as the pre-eminent sporting league across the country, the amount of attachment by a city to its particular sports teams is almost directly related to the popularity of the sport at the time of its rise. The cities of the East coast rose at the same time as professional baseball's profile exploded in the early 20th century and thus people from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia were primarily baseball crazies. St. Louis and Chicago were also major commercial hubs at this time. \

The industrial boom in the 20s and 30's began to build wealth in the midwest. Cleveland was the 5th largest city in the country by the 1920s and the post-war boom of the late 40s and early 50s pumped a lot of money into the city and raised its profile. The rise of football as a professional sport coincides with this post-WWII industrial boom. Baseball was around, sure... but the highest times for places like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Green Bay were the late 40's through the mid-late 1960s. In Cleveland's specific case, this also coincides with the dominance of the Browns during Paul Brown's tenure in both the AAFC and the NFL. Basically we get a double shot of football hysteria; the economic rise coincidental with football's rise and the dominance and multiple championships of the Brown era. Ask your parents or grandparents who were around at that time what it was like and their answer should help clarify things.

This is why football endures in Cleveland while other sports -- though certainly loved -- don't quite match up. There's a certain aspect about football being in the DNA of the midwest. Football is, truly, our baby. Without the pioneers in the Ohio League and the Allegheny Athletic Association and others like them, football as we know it would probably not exist. Another aspect is (as others have mentioned) that football is a blue collar sport, appropriately so given it came to fruition in the blue collar towns of the industrial midwest. For us in particular, the rise of football corresponds with a kind of golden age for Cleveland economically and culturally. Added on top is a tradition of dominance that ingrained in the Northeast Ohioans of the time, whether it be us or our parents and grandparents, a love of the sport as emblematic of the greatness of the city and the region.

Well written. In my humble opinion, you have made the best case by far for why people think the way they do.

With that said, I'm not arguing that this wasn't a Browns town before, or that it's not right now. My argument is based on two beliefs:

- The city belongs to whichever team is currently the closest to a championship. When they're all bad, the Browns are the default pick. The Indians owned the city from 1994-2001, and the Cavaliers owned it for the last seven years. Now that they're all bad again, it reverts to the default - the Browns.

- The generation of kids growing up right now don't care that the Browns dominated 50-70 years ago. They've seen Derek Anderson and Charlie Frye, not Bernie Kosar and Brian Sipe. This generation of kids wants a winner, which is why you don't see many young people wearing Browns gear anymore. It's usually Steelers stuff, or random star players from around the league. This generation will attach itself to the next winner - the team that finally breaks the curse.

So far, while the debate has been great, nobody has really offered evidence to change either of those beliefs.

 

[GreasySpread36]

When they're all bad, the Browns are the default pick.

There you go. Thread over.

 

[The Voice]

The attendance argument just doesn't hold water.

I agree

2) All Browns games are on on Sundays, when most people are off work and all kids are off school. For the Indians and Cavaliers, the majority of games are played through the week. It's much easier for people to go to a Browns game.

While it's true that most Browns games are during the week and on Sunday's. Part of Indians games are held when kids don't have school either (summer break). Just thought I'd point that out. The NBA doesn't really have this unless the team makes the playoffs.

3) Even with only having to sell eight homes, the Browns still can't consistently sell out. Even the 90% capacity number thrown out there is inaccurate, as many times businesses have had to buy tickets to avoid blackouts.

Yep and you aren't told when the Browns buy the remainder.

- The city belongs to whichever team is currently the closest to a championship. When they're all bad, the Browns are the default pick. The Indians owned the city from 1994-2001, and the Cavaliers owned it for the last seven years. Now that they're all bad again, it reverts to the default - the Browns.

Not sure how you can support this with evidence either. The kids now last remember the Indians if they're in their 20's or Cavs if they're in their teen's. The Cav's aren't just bad now though, they're historically bad. Someone that was born in 1990 is not going to remember Kenny, Omar, Paul Sorento, Man-Ram, Thome, Nagy, Mesa ect... and they'll probably hardly remember Justice, Kenny, Omar, Thome, Mesa ect either. They might know some from other teams, but never as a member of the tribe.

- The generation of kids growing up right now don't care that the Browns dominated 50-70 years ago. They've seen Derek Anderson and Charlie Frye, not Bernie Kosar and Brian Sipe. This generation of kids wants a winner, which is why you don't see many young people wearing Browns gear anymore. It's usually Steelers stuff, or random star players from around the league. This generation will attach itself to the next winner - the team that finally breaks the curse.

TBH, Bernie was still playing when I was growing up, but I don't really remember the guy that much as I was too young to fully understand the game. I've yet to see a good Browns team (exclude the playoff year).

 

[JayP146]

Cleveland Crunch.

You know, I actually attended the '94 championship game where we won the title.

Sure, it didn't mean shit, but it was better than watching team USA get rolled in the World Cup that summer.

 

[Bison11]

I think Cleveland will always be a Browns Town because football is by far the most popular sport. Also, teams in the NFL can go from terrible to playoff teams (Kansas City) and if you were brought up in a sports household, there is no doubt that the Browns were the best teams when your parents were having you a=or about to (well I am 23 so it is for me at least). But just the rich history of the Browns and the legacy and everything ...I dont know, I am just rambling now.