We’re getting fairly far afield but I feel pretty confident in saying that history is not simply a matter of written records. Things happen even if they’re not written down and agreed upon by all relevant parties. The Ravens weren’t an expansion team. It was a continually owned franchise. They didn’t dissolve and…

I’m pretty sure that players have contracts with individual franchises and not the owner himself. If Modell had sold the Browns and been granted an expansion team those players contracts wouldn’t have carried over. 

There’s a difference between acknowledging that they all agreed to something ridiculous and deciding that their agreement dictates reality.

Records aren’t a tangible thing you can pack in a suitcase. They just are.

The “part of history” I’m ignoring is the part where the NFL decided that they get to be the arbiters of what history is or isn’t. 

They absolutely would have the power to have declared the Ravens a new franchise. They didn’t, the players all moved because they were still under contract to the same Franchise and the NFL considered those contracts binding, but they absolutely could have.

I...Jim Brown never played for that Franchise. Existing in the same city does not make it the same franchise. 

My goal initially was to poke minor fun at an error. It’s evolved into me being a little bit puzzled at the people who think that the NFL can decide unilaterally how history works and what words mean. 

No, that’s not true. Institutions do not get to personally dictate what their histories are or aren’t. Certainly not when there’s a complete continuity in the existence of a franchise. There is a Franchise, it has a history. What part of that history they choose to claim does not dictate reality. You can’t just choose…

Nah, I’m pretty good with my surprisingly controversial “The NFL doesn’t get to unilaterally decide how history works” position. 

What someone considers themselves doesn’t triumph over the fact that a franchise is a real, tangible thing with legal meanings and realities.

Still, consistent okay-ness at quarterback remains a need that a lot of teams desperately have to fill. Flacco leaves the Ravens as a Super Bowl champion and, as Harbaugh notes, the best quarterback in franchise history by literally over a dozen miles.

You, still you. If I murder someone and then strike an agreement with my neighbour that he actually did it that doesn’t alter history. I can’t point to my after the fact agreement as being more important than reality. 

No, it isn’t. That’s why there’s a difference between, say, “Hornets history” or “History of Basketball in Charlotte” and “Franchise History”. “Franchise History” is referring to something very specific that distinguishes it from local history or team history. It’s referring to the Franchise.

And I’m sure San Francisco Giants fans don’t feel any connection to John McGraw but a Franchise is a Franchise. History isn’t fungible. 

The rightful owner of that Franchise’s history is that Franchise. The team playing in Cleveland right now is not the same Franchise as the one that played there until the mid 90's.

No. If that’s the case than Manning is the best QB in Colts franchise history. Because that’s how franchises work. 

Yeah, that’s just not really how history works though. 

I’m pretty sure you can’t just erase the franchise’s history by declaring it so but sure. 

Hilarious. I am now ok with you working for a racist and sexist bunch of dipshits.