As we all know the Baltimore Colts, Los Angeles Rams and Canton Bulldogs are gone but their league championships are still left behind and recognized. My question is who gets the title? The team they transition into like Baltimore to Indy and Los Angeles to St. Louis or do they go to the city or members of the family who once owned the team? I always wondered about this and would like to know if anybody knows the answer. I don't trust google and wikipedia for these questions cause there is really never a definitive answer. Do they become neutral titles?
OT: NFL Question on Championships for No longer existing teams
It depends. I think the Baltimore Colts history became the Indy Colts history, and the orginal Browns history stayed in Cleveland with the team colors and whatnot. The OKC Thunder also had to leave the history and name and stuff in Seattle when they moved. I believe it depends on the league and the ownership and so forth.
As far as I know, Ottawa still recognizes those championships from the other franchise, along with that old "O" logo and stripes that they have used. I don't think they actually count them as championships for the current Ottawa Senators franchise, though.
Long story short: they're two different franchises but they still have banners in the arena for them
They really shouldn't. There's nothing connecting the two teams besides the fact that they both play in Ottawa
But that's a pretty big connection right there. Forget all the legalities of being a franchise and whatnot - there was a team representing the city of Ottawa then, as now, and that team won championships.
Should the Mets claim the Yankees championships? Or the Brooklyn Dodgers? I suppose you say the city Ottawa has won Stanley Cup's, but if you're a Sens fan, they've never won. And if we're going to get into cities claiming championships, it's probably very messy
Obviously, it's a little different for the multi-team cities like NYC. Ottawa will never have more than one major hockey franchise at a time.
I think most people in Indiana considered their Super Bowl win in the 2006 season as the Colt's first FWIW.
that's the crux of the issue... there's a gap between how people view something and how the NFL views it. As for the NFL is concerned, the Colts are the same Colts who Johnny Unitas played for (and Indianapolis tried to take advantage of that several times, up to issuing Indiana state licence plates with a number 19 jersey on it)
Clay Bennet paid a little bit extra for the Sonics, just so he could take the history with him. What a dick.
According to the Seattle Times:
"Additionally, he owns the Sonics' original championship trophy, banners and retired jerseys and is permitted to periodically display them in Oklahoma City. For most of the year, the items will be kept in Seattle at the Museum of History and Industry. Bennett agreed to return their ownership to Seattle should an NBA franchise emerge here."
I have a hard time believing he will just give it up that easily.
What's the point, honestly? Are people in Oklahoma City really going to get excited to see a trophy the franchise won when it was located 2,000 miles away?
Yes, I can just picture a proud OKC fan showing those items to his kid. "You see that, sonny boy? That trophy was won by our Thunder in '79. Of course, they weren't called the Thunder back then and didn't play in the state of Oklahoma. But dadgum, our city just felt a connection with Slick Watts and the rest, and we knew that someday, they'd be playing here..."
OKC and Seattle have a "shared history."
What that means is that if the Sonics come back, they'll still have all of the old Sonics records and 1979 championship, but the Thunder have them too.
Staleys = Bears. The other Chicago team was the Cardinals, the same one that's now in Arizona, with a stint in St. Louis between.
As to the OP's question, and to clear up the Chicago thing too, in almost all cases the NFL considers the history of a team to move with that team. The Rams and Colts and Cardinals and so on all get to keep their history from their old cities. Even the Tennessee Titans as well; they have kept the history of the Houston Oilers. The only case in the NFL where history stayed in the city and not with the team is in Cleveland. For the league's intents and purposes, the Ravens left the Browns' history behind and started afresh when they moved, and the current Browns, even though they technically were an expansion team, own the history of the old Browns. That's the only case; in all other moves, the history moved with the team.
Who kept the records with the city. Everyone before it just went with them. The Lakers and their Minnesota championships, etc. It was just such a bad PR move that they were leaving a city where the team was supported and selling out that they made the unprecedented move. And some have followed after.
The Pistons do not recognize their Fort Wayne records. They made the NBA Finals in Fort Wayne twice (1954 and 1955) but there are no banners commemorating this, which I think is the right now. If you relocate a franchise to a totally new city, you shouldn't pretend it's kept all its history.
But they were asking about the League. And the NBA recognizes them as the same team:
George Yardley is their first 2,000 point scorer, even though he spent the majority of his career in Fort Wayne.
They include their year by year results, and I'm guessing overall W-L and stats. So the team may make a break, but the League considers them the same franchise.
I thought the Packers have the most nfl championships
The Packers have 9 NFL championships and 4 Super Bowls
The Bears have 8 NFL championships and 1 Super Bowl
Nice Try Robmorren
In other words,
I believe Chicago might have actually had more championships in 1960, but then Vince Lombardi started winning them and it's been downhill ever since.
As of a couple years ago, the Phx Coyotes still had retired numbers from the Winnipeg Jets at their arena. And some fans, many of whom are originally from Canada, would wear old Jets jerseys to the games. But I haven't been there since the new Winnipeg Jets, who used to be the Thrashers, started playing, so I don't know if they kept the retired numbers.
The only instance I can find in which the championships did not count in the record book is with teams that still exist which were once part of the old AAFC, most notably the Cleveland Browns. Supposedly, this was a quirk of the merger of the AAFC and NFL in 1950. The Browns, in keeping with the example, have 4 AAFC championships and 4 pre-merger NFL championships. The Hall Of Fame recognizes all eight, whereas the record and fact book recognizes only the NFL championships.
All the references I found, however, still list lost-since moved (or even defunct) teams as champions in various years in the various iterations of the NFL championship (which was simply determined by overall record until 1932, I think).