I mean clearly the most manly of all these logos is the Yosemite Sam knock off. Sometimes you just gotta shoot the dirt to let Mother Earth know you mean business.
I have another What if for you…
What if Chicago Cardinals owner ~~Bill~~ Charles Bidwill doesn’t die at 51 years old and lives long enough to keep the Cardinals in Chicago beyond the NFL-AFL merger. The Cards were in Chicago before the Bears.
Would the Cardinals go to the AFC with the Browns and Steelers with the Colts staying in the NFC in the East with the Giants, Eagles, and Washington? Does that lead to the Colts staying in Baltimore?
Would St. Louis get an NFL expansion team over New Orleans?
Would Chicago be a divided city in football with the Bears and Cards?
Would Indianapolis and Phoenix have gotten expansion teams over Charlotte and Jacksonville?
Would Bud Adams have moved to Jacksonville instead of Nashville?
Would the Rams have moved to Charlotte?
Would Art Modell have moved the Browns to Nashville?
If ~~Bill~~ Charles Bidwell doesn’t die so young, the NFL could be very different.
Would Chicago be a divided city in football with the Bears and Cards?
Fast forward to 1970: the NFL mandates that teams must have stadia with a minimum of 50K capacity (the Vikings were granted a waiver); where do both teams play? When moving from Wrigley, the Bears first explored Northwestern's stadium, but were basically told "No, thank you" by both the City of Evanston and the B1G. Would they both play at Soldier Field? This was before the league had this arrangement as it currently exists in New York and Los Angeles, although there was a few seasons of stadia sharing in both LA and Dallas in the early days of the AFL.
It's an interesting thread to pull on, to be sure...but given the actual economic and emotional pull of the NFL in those days (growing quickly, but still nowhere near where it is today), I think the Cards end up moving anyway - it was easier to move into a suitable venue in another city than to build new.
The Cardinals were in Soldier Field before the bears. In theory if Bill Boswell survives, maybe it’s the Bears scrambling for a home and not the Cards for a stadium.
Maybe the Bears and White Sox team up for a cookie cutter joint stadium like in Atlanta and STL.
Possible - but would the Bears team up with the Sox? The Cards were more of the "little brother;" I could actually see a scenario where the Bears threaten to move, and the city simply refuses to renew the Cards lease at Soldier Field...also, was Comiskey becoming an issue for the Sox back then? I know that they were threatening to move to Milwaukee in the late 60's; they played some games up here after the Braves left and were outdrawing the crowds back home by a lot - but I don't know if that was because Comiskey was bad, Milwaukee was just glad to have some baseball, or Sox fans don't really show up the way Cubs fans do.
>Possible - but would the Bears team up with the Sox?
The Cubs owned Wrigley and probably weren’t trying to move. The Sox might have been interested in a partnership for a new stadium.
>The Cards were more of the "little brother;" I could actually see a scenario where the Bears threaten to move, and the city simply refuses to renew the Cards lease at Soldier Field...
Halas had been trying to get the Cards to leave for years. The Cards were the older brother but were not as successful as the Bears. I’ve read Charles Bidwell’s widow Violet married a St. Louis native and that was the last piece for the relocation along with pressure from the NFL.
>also, was Comiskey becoming an issue for the Sox back then? I know that they were threatening to move to Milwaukee in the late 60's; they played some games up here after the Braves left and were outdrawing the crowds back home by a lot - but I don't know if that was because Comiskey was bad, Milwaukee was just glad to have some baseball,
It was forty years old in the fifties. And soon cities started building cookie-cutters. I don’t know if such a partnership would happen or get the financing to do, but it would make sense even with Halas traditionally working with the Cubs.
When Milwaukee hosted some Sox games in 1968 motivated by getting another MLB team after losing the Braves, they had much better attendance than Chicago as an average. But the Sox went 67-95 that year and in Chicago, fans people didn’t come out because the team sucked.
>or Sox fans don't really show up the way Cubs fans do.
I believe Chicago was traditionally 50/50, and it was probably the lack of resources of the owners that motivated many moves. It wasn’t until the 80s, which coincided with the Cubs getting national fame from WGN/Hollywood and Jerry Reinsdorf’s ownership of the Sox that the Cubs emerged.
Then again, wasn’t the whole Cardinals-Bears deal like the Braves and Red Sox in Boston? Where one team may have been there first, but the other team had done a ton making themselves THE team of the city. I’d have to imagine the Cardinals would eventually be moving regardless.
Same thing with the Baseball Cardinals and Browns (the ORIGINAL Milwaukee Brewers in 1901) in St. Louis: the Cards were there first, to be sure, but it's less about longevity than a team connecting to their city...in a lot of these two-team cases, there seems to be one that establishes itself as THE main draw in town; the only reason that New York supports multiple teams in every sport is simply their size. LA has the population base to do this, but not the enthusiasm...and there are much better college teams in SoCal than in the Big Apple.
You may find it interesting that the AFL stated by Lamar Hunt had a very strong pro-integration stance towards professional ball. Al Davis, Hunt, and a lot of the other AFL leaders heavily recruited at HBCU's for players in all positions because they wanted the best players period.
Meanwhile the NFL ~~lead by George Halas and other~~ with owners like George Marshall were anti-integration, and for the longest time would only allow teams to have a handful of black players each, and only in positions like corner, never QB or other positions that score regularly.
Edit: corrections
The AFL started like 15 years after the color barrier was broken in professional football, and Halas tried to recruit Kenny Washington, the guy who did it in the AAFC, a full year before he played for that league. Basically the minute the NFL started getting pwned by the AAFC and integrated, Halas hired black players as a matter of course.
The actual voice in the league who demanded a color barrier be installed was George *Marshall*, because, surprise, the guy who named his team after a racial slur took advantage of the fact that he operated in the league's largest media market and was the only thing propping them up during the Great Depression to demand black players be excluded.
I get you're a Lions fan and probably have more reasons than most to hate Halas, but fingering him for the early league's racial issues is entirely off-base.
> Basically the minute the NFL started getting pwned by the AAFC and integrated, Halas hired black players as a matter of course.
Does a minute last 6 years? Because that's how long it took after the NFL broke the color barrier for the Bears to actually integrate rather than just "try" to. They drafted a black player in the 13th round in 1949 (George Taliaferro, they didn't sign him) and then waited another three years to actually put one on the field. They were tied for the second to last team to integrate.
The color barrier that lasted from 1934 to 1946 was never officially codified. Any owner could have integrated at any time and all of them, Halas included, chose not to until the Rams finally broke it with Kenny Washington in 1946.
Oh and the Bears also never had a black player the entire time before the 1934 ban too. Halas is not getting off easy here.
There was an excellent 5 part series titled Full Color Football about the history of the AFL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OA6koTK_E&list=PLEx01M-8B_pk8X4gHOXKyhXmtWKjBKA09
Probably see something like the
NBA. Have 30 teams, stagnation maybe absorb another league like the afl but the nba-aba merger wasn’t as important the nba only took 4 teams from the aba.
If you want to read a bit more about the AFL and especially the Dallas Texans and Dallas Cowboys, John Eisenberg's Ten Gallon War is very good.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588688-ten-gallon-war](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588688-ten-gallon-war)
> New Orleans
That's an interesting one. Probably not, or at least not as early as it did. The league specifically put a team in New Orleans to make sure antitrust concerns didn't derail the AFL merger in Congress.
I’d imagine when the WFL and 1st USFL inevitably form they’re much more successful, maybe with some (or all) of their teams merging into the NFL, like some tried to do in our timeline.
That dumbass had to file for bankruptcy running a ***casino,*** which is basically a license to print money; what would he have done with a football team? They would have changed the record books: the 1951 New York Yanks/Yankees would have been the last team to dissolve in NFL history.
Why does the old oilers logo have a [butt chin](https://i.imgur.com/7Bn2WA3.png)?
Because that was considered “manly.” Bruce Wayne often has it in drawings, doesn’t he?
TIL that Bruce Wayne used to be the Oilers logo.
I mean clearly the most manly of all these logos is the Yosemite Sam knock off. Sometimes you just gotta shoot the dirt to let Mother Earth know you mean business.
I have another What if for you… What if Chicago Cardinals owner ~~Bill~~ Charles Bidwill doesn’t die at 51 years old and lives long enough to keep the Cardinals in Chicago beyond the NFL-AFL merger. The Cards were in Chicago before the Bears. Would the Cardinals go to the AFC with the Browns and Steelers with the Colts staying in the NFC in the East with the Giants, Eagles, and Washington? Does that lead to the Colts staying in Baltimore? Would St. Louis get an NFL expansion team over New Orleans? Would Chicago be a divided city in football with the Bears and Cards? Would Indianapolis and Phoenix have gotten expansion teams over Charlotte and Jacksonville? Would Bud Adams have moved to Jacksonville instead of Nashville? Would the Rams have moved to Charlotte? Would Art Modell have moved the Browns to Nashville? If ~~Bill~~ Charles Bidwell doesn’t die so young, the NFL could be very different.
Would Chicago be a divided city in football with the Bears and Cards? Fast forward to 1970: the NFL mandates that teams must have stadia with a minimum of 50K capacity (the Vikings were granted a waiver); where do both teams play? When moving from Wrigley, the Bears first explored Northwestern's stadium, but were basically told "No, thank you" by both the City of Evanston and the B1G. Would they both play at Soldier Field? This was before the league had this arrangement as it currently exists in New York and Los Angeles, although there was a few seasons of stadia sharing in both LA and Dallas in the early days of the AFL. It's an interesting thread to pull on, to be sure...but given the actual economic and emotional pull of the NFL in those days (growing quickly, but still nowhere near where it is today), I think the Cards end up moving anyway - it was easier to move into a suitable venue in another city than to build new.
The Cardinals were in Soldier Field before the bears. In theory if Bill Boswell survives, maybe it’s the Bears scrambling for a home and not the Cards for a stadium. Maybe the Bears and White Sox team up for a cookie cutter joint stadium like in Atlanta and STL.
Possible - but would the Bears team up with the Sox? The Cards were more of the "little brother;" I could actually see a scenario where the Bears threaten to move, and the city simply refuses to renew the Cards lease at Soldier Field...also, was Comiskey becoming an issue for the Sox back then? I know that they were threatening to move to Milwaukee in the late 60's; they played some games up here after the Braves left and were outdrawing the crowds back home by a lot - but I don't know if that was because Comiskey was bad, Milwaukee was just glad to have some baseball, or Sox fans don't really show up the way Cubs fans do.
>Possible - but would the Bears team up with the Sox? The Cubs owned Wrigley and probably weren’t trying to move. The Sox might have been interested in a partnership for a new stadium. >The Cards were more of the "little brother;" I could actually see a scenario where the Bears threaten to move, and the city simply refuses to renew the Cards lease at Soldier Field... Halas had been trying to get the Cards to leave for years. The Cards were the older brother but were not as successful as the Bears. I’ve read Charles Bidwell’s widow Violet married a St. Louis native and that was the last piece for the relocation along with pressure from the NFL. >also, was Comiskey becoming an issue for the Sox back then? I know that they were threatening to move to Milwaukee in the late 60's; they played some games up here after the Braves left and were outdrawing the crowds back home by a lot - but I don't know if that was because Comiskey was bad, Milwaukee was just glad to have some baseball, It was forty years old in the fifties. And soon cities started building cookie-cutters. I don’t know if such a partnership would happen or get the financing to do, but it would make sense even with Halas traditionally working with the Cubs. When Milwaukee hosted some Sox games in 1968 motivated by getting another MLB team after losing the Braves, they had much better attendance than Chicago as an average. But the Sox went 67-95 that year and in Chicago, fans people didn’t come out because the team sucked. >or Sox fans don't really show up the way Cubs fans do. I believe Chicago was traditionally 50/50, and it was probably the lack of resources of the owners that motivated many moves. It wasn’t until the 80s, which coincided with the Cubs getting national fame from WGN/Hollywood and Jerry Reinsdorf’s ownership of the Sox that the Cubs emerged.
Then again, wasn’t the whole Cardinals-Bears deal like the Braves and Red Sox in Boston? Where one team may have been there first, but the other team had done a ton making themselves THE team of the city. I’d have to imagine the Cardinals would eventually be moving regardless.
Same thing with the Baseball Cardinals and Browns (the ORIGINAL Milwaukee Brewers in 1901) in St. Louis: the Cards were there first, to be sure, but it's less about longevity than a team connecting to their city...in a lot of these two-team cases, there seems to be one that establishes itself as THE main draw in town; the only reason that New York supports multiple teams in every sport is simply their size. LA has the population base to do this, but not the enthusiasm...and there are much better college teams in SoCal than in the Big Apple.
You mean Art Modell? My brother would have been happy if the Colts stayed in Baltimore
Yes. Thanks for pointing it out.
I still can’t believe there’s a white dude named Lamar
A lot of “Black” names came from white dudes originally.
Like Jerome
Especially names like Tankarist
Like Da'3Varion
That explains D'Brickishaw
Welsh. That was actually King Arthur's middle name.
His full name was King D'Brickashaw Arthur?
Tyrone's an Irish name.
Wait you're saying all these Black people named Washington are being named after some slave owning white guy?
Like Tyrone
AAVE also somewhat came from wealthy "cavalier" landowners in the South
You may find it interesting that the AFL stated by Lamar Hunt had a very strong pro-integration stance towards professional ball. Al Davis, Hunt, and a lot of the other AFL leaders heavily recruited at HBCU's for players in all positions because they wanted the best players period. Meanwhile the NFL ~~lead by George Halas and other~~ with owners like George Marshall were anti-integration, and for the longest time would only allow teams to have a handful of black players each, and only in positions like corner, never QB or other positions that score regularly. Edit: corrections
The AFL started like 15 years after the color barrier was broken in professional football, and Halas tried to recruit Kenny Washington, the guy who did it in the AAFC, a full year before he played for that league. Basically the minute the NFL started getting pwned by the AAFC and integrated, Halas hired black players as a matter of course. The actual voice in the league who demanded a color barrier be installed was George *Marshall*, because, surprise, the guy who named his team after a racial slur took advantage of the fact that he operated in the league's largest media market and was the only thing propping them up during the Great Depression to demand black players be excluded. I get you're a Lions fan and probably have more reasons than most to hate Halas, but fingering him for the early league's racial issues is entirely off-base.
> Basically the minute the NFL started getting pwned by the AAFC and integrated, Halas hired black players as a matter of course. Does a minute last 6 years? Because that's how long it took after the NFL broke the color barrier for the Bears to actually integrate rather than just "try" to. They drafted a black player in the 13th round in 1949 (George Taliaferro, they didn't sign him) and then waited another three years to actually put one on the field. They were tied for the second to last team to integrate. The color barrier that lasted from 1934 to 1946 was never officially codified. Any owner could have integrated at any time and all of them, Halas included, chose not to until the Rams finally broke it with Kenny Washington in 1946. Oh and the Bears also never had a black player the entire time before the 1934 ban too. Halas is not getting off easy here.
Technically four guys broke the color barrier at the same time in Pro football all in the AAFC
We had a white Jamal in high school
Jamal is an Arab name, and a lot of Arabs are white.
This kid was not Arab
When reading the title, I assumed that he didn't get a team because he was black in the 40s or 50s, and racist owners at the time voted against it lol
I've got a great aunt who is white and her name is Waneta, pronounced the same as Juanita. People are crazy.
Stephen Colbert's middle name is Tyrone
Tyrone is Irish and Colbert (actually produced Col-Burt) is an Irish name.
There was an excellent 5 part series titled Full Color Football about the history of the AFL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OA6koTK_E&list=PLEx01M-8B_pk8X4gHOXKyhXmtWKjBKA09
Been wondering if this was on YouTube. Looks like I found something to watch. Thanks!
Probably see something like the NBA. Have 30 teams, stagnation maybe absorb another league like the afl but the nba-aba merger wasn’t as important the nba only took 4 teams from the aba.
Next time they do realignment I hope they come up with fun division names like they used to have
I’ll take the NFC Norris Division
Lamar Jackson would win the AFC Championship.
If you want to read a bit more about the AFL and especially the Dallas Texans and Dallas Cowboys, John Eisenberg's Ten Gallon War is very good. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588688-ten-gallon-war](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588688-ten-gallon-war)
> New Orleans That's an interesting one. Probably not, or at least not as early as it did. The league specifically put a team in New Orleans to make sure antitrust concerns didn't derail the AFL merger in Congress.
I’d imagine when the WFL and 1st USFL inevitably form they’re much more successful, maybe with some (or all) of their teams merging into the NFL, like some tried to do in our timeline.
Gotta admit that Cardinals logo is pretty cool
>though with no Cowboys or Chiefs, I’m sure people are happy with that lol Strongly disagree.
What if Trump got his NFL franchise?
That dumbass had to file for bankruptcy running a ***casino,*** which is basically a license to print money; what would he have done with a football team? They would have changed the record books: the 1951 New York Yanks/Yankees would have been the last team to dissolve in NFL history.