View Single Post
  #10  
Old 12-15-2018, 01:04 PM
Racehorse's Avatar
Racehorse Racehorse is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: God's green Earth
Posts: 13,751
Thanks: 20,753
Thanked 5,329 Times in 3,021 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles View Post
o


As I just stated, if they had gotten an expansion team, they would not have been named "the Colts." Also, you have no proof that Indianapolis would have gotten an expansion franchise had the Baltimore Colts not moved there. At best, they would have had a 50 percent chance in the expansions of 1994 and 2002 that eventually went to Jacksonville, Carolina, and Houston.

Also, the origins of the franchise ARE NOT in Miami. The Miami Seahawks were a team from the old AAFC that folded in 1947. Several businessmen took over the nucleus of that folded team, and moved them to Baltimore. THAT Baltimore Colts franchise folded in 1950, after only one season in the NFL. They have nothing to do with the current Colts franchise, which began in 1953, just as the expansion Washington Senators in 1961 (now the Texas Rangers) have nothing to do with the original Washington Senators (whom are now the Minnesota Twins.) 8 of the players on that original 1953 Colts team played for the defunct Dallas Texans in 1952, but that team folded (not moved from one city to another, like the Rams, the Cardinals, the Raiders, and the Colts have done.)


So you are wrong about your assertion about this franchise having its origins in Miami, just as you were wrong several weeks ago when you facetiously called the Baltimore Colts team "the Browns", when in fact the Ravens are the transplanted Browns, not the 1953-1983 Colts.


That will be the day when YOU school me on football history.

o
Either way, his premise about not giving a rat's patoot about Baltimore is spot on.
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a**
Reply With Quote