Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Sunday, February 04, 2007
More Pre-Super Bowl XLI Thoughts (or football-related marital disputes)

I offer a rooting-interest question on the eve of Super Bowl XLI that indirectly (alright, really indirectly) touches on the world of Sports Law Blog.

I am rooting for the Colts, in part because I want to see Manning win a Super Bowl (for many of the reasons I wanted to see Steve Young win one back in 1994-95). And in part because I developed a visceral distaste for the Bears during my freshman year in college. I hit a Chicago-area school the year after the Super Bowl Shuffle Bears and found Ditka too obnoxious and the media too fawning to be bearable (no pun intended). I still have not gotten over that (and I still cannot stand to listen to Ditka). But I digress.

My wife, born and raised in Baltimore, says I should not root for the Colts because of what they did to the city in sneaking away to Indianapolis in the middle of the night, tearing the heart out of a city that lived and died with its team. (Remember the movie Diner, where the woman had to pass a test of Colts knowledge in order for her boyfriend to marry her?). But whatever sympathy I had for the city (and my wife and I did not know each other back then) disappeared when Baltimore threw around a lot of money and a sweetheart stadium package to steal the Browns away from Cleveland, tearing the heart out of a city that lived and died with its team.

Her response is that what the Colts did was different, because they sneaked away in the middle of a snowy night. Baltimoreans went to sleep with a team and woke up without one. I say that is a difference in degree of obnoxiousness, but the crime is the same.

Thoughts as you enjoy the game?


I hope that the city of Baltimore can, once and for all, drop the notion that they somehow still should have the rights to the Colts. They have a new team (the Ravens) that has brought the city a Super Bowl. The Colts belong to Indianapolis now. As Eminem one said: "Let go -- it's over!"

Anonymous Lou P. -- 2/05/2007 10:14 AM  

Well, the Browns don't belong to the city of Baltimore. Thank god for that ! They are back in Cleveland where they belong.

Anonymous Dave Burkey -- 2/06/2007 6:33 PM  

The "defection" of the two teams from the two cities is not all that different. Both teams left their long-term homes and their "roots" because they were not making all that much money where they were and had a deal in place to make lots more money in the place that was to be their destination.

The Cleveland situation was really pretty simple. The city built a stadium for its baseball team and an arena for its basketball team; when its football team suggested it was the football team's turn, the city said they couldn't afford to do that. Amazingly, right after the team left, the city fathers found a way to come up with the money to build a new stadium for its "new" version of the Browns.

It's easy to blame greedy owners and they deserve plenty of blame. But don't absolve the politicians in these cities; as Ricky Ricardo would say, they got a lot of "splainin' to do".

Anonymous The Sports Curmudgeon -- 2/06/2007 9:34 PM  

Howard, I loved Diner. My wife is from the D.C. area and I have to hear her sing "Hail to the Redskins."

Blogger qtlaw24 -- 2/08/2007 3:34 PM  

Post a Comment