NFL Football Thread 2013

[Konowa]

I'm not normally a fan of Sally Jenkins work for the Post, however her article today on the government stepping in to change the Redskins name was interesting. I don't know if it actually borders on the whole free speech part but it was interesting to read another view point on the matter. Especially considering that the opinions being said on local sports radio here are becoming repetitive.

[shaft.ed]

the whole premise of the "government stepping in" is complete nonsense

The decision is the current state of a long legal battle that started back in the 90's. It is illegal to trademark a name/product that is derogatory to a race of people. As such a suit was brought long long ago by a group of Native Americans. The same decision was made in 1999 as the current one. However, it was overturned by an appeals court after the Redskins challenged the ruling


Also her comparison are stupid and non-related to the case in question

[AGar]

To be fair, everything I've seen illustrates that the Redskins are still free to keep the name. Just now anyone and their brother who wants to make knockoff Redskins shirts/gear/whatever can do so.

[Jake from State Farm]

studies and surveys they have done show majority of Indians don't think of it as a slur. Granted the last one was a while ago but 90% is pretty high. Not to mention their are schools that are majority Native American who's high school mascot is "Redskins".


The reason this started in the 90s was because some racist fans tormented her and she took it out on the team. She's from a state named " red people " for Christ sakes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the ... ins-2014-6

[Konowa]

To be fair, everything I've seen illustrates that the Redskins are still free to keep the name. Just now anyone and their brother who wants to make knockoff Redskins shirts/gear/whatever can do so.

Isn't merchandising split amongst all the teams? I really wouldn't see the other owners losing whatever profit they could get.

[shaft.ed]

To be fair, everything I've seen illustrates that the Redskins are still free to keep the name. Just now anyone and their brother who wants to make knockoff Redskins shirts/gear/whatever can do so.

Isn't merchandising split amongst all the teams? I really wouldn't see the other owners losing whatever profit they could get.

theyd make more money rebranding cause now everyone wants/needs no merch

[quadz08]

From a business perspective, re-branding is hugely profitable so long as you don't do it too often. It means all of your fans (who will, statistically speaking, keep watching the team, despite protestations they might make otherwise) "have" to buy new jerseys / t-shirts/ caps / scarves / whatever else. Huge influx of money from that. I'm actually fairly surprised it doesn't happen more often in professional sport.

[Konowa]

Rebranding happens quite often, if I'm not mistaken. It's more along the lines of "inventing" that next new jersey, take Oregon football with Nike or Maryland football with Under Armor for example, opposed to anything else. Granted those are two college teams, but I feel that I'm seeing at least one new jersey roll out at least once a year from one of the major US sports at least. NHL rolls out Winter Classic jerseys once a year, for another example.

[quadz08]

That's not re-branding, though the financial motivation is similar. But even with new jerseys, you can still wear the old one and have the right colors and whatnot. A totally new mascot / team name / logo / whatever means that the old uniforms are functionally useless for the purpose of showing team support.

[Zachrulez]

People can have a pretty powerful association to a brand. Re-branding can be risky in that respect. Why do it when you can simply just push out new jerseys to make your money?

[AGar]

From a business perspective, re-branding is hugely profitable so long as you don't do it too often. It means all of your fans (who will, statistically speaking, keep watching the team, despite protestations they might make otherwise) "have" to buy new jerseys / t-shirts/ caps / scarves / whatever else. Huge influx of money from that. I'm actually fairly surprised it doesn't happen more often in professional sport.

As hugely profitable as it could be, a lot of people buy into shit like "tradition", "identity" and "history" for their teams. Profits may be marginalized by fans who would potentially jump ship with frequent re-branding.

With the aforementioned profit boons like special jerseys (all star games, playoffs, championship games/series, throwbacks), consistently rotating rosters and a new game cap

every. single. year.

, there's no real reason to take the risk of losing people who feel a strong association with the team name that's been there.

[Nero Cain]

a lot of people buy into shit like "tradition", "identity" and "history" for their teams

This but Redskins just doesn't seem racist.

[Bella]

studies and surveys they have done show majority of Indians don't think of it as a slur. Granted the last one was a while ago but 90% is pretty high. Not to mention their are schools that are majority Native American who's high school mascot is "Redskins".


The reason this started in the 90s was because some racist fans tormented her and she took it out on the team. She's from a state named " red people " for Christ sakes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the ... ins-2014-6

That's based on a 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey that has so many flaws that the only value it has is that you can kinda wipe your ass with the paper it's printed on. (It's seriously terrible in terms of methodology).

Also, no. The movement against the Redskins name pre-dates this by like 20-30 years.

[shaft.ed]

a lot of people buy into shit like "tradition", "identity" and "history" for their teams

This but Redskins just doesn't seem racist.

well that's a relief

[Zachrulez]

They'll change the name. (Eventually.) It will be considered an overdue but welcome move. Most importantly it will not end there. Not when you have the Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, ect.

[Jake from State Farm]

The Indians mascot is more offensive than the redskins name.

Don't forget anything named oklahoma has to change too. We can't change offensive redskins and leave a word that means red man can we?

Flicking political correctness. See even my phone doesn't want me to say the F word anymore

[Kublai Khan]

(Although I do support the changing of the name Redskins to something else.)

[AGar]

They'll change the name. (Eventually.) It will be considered an overdue but welcome move. Most importantly it will not end there. Not when you have the Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, ect.

There have been multiple articles pointing out that all three of those (as well as the Atlanta Braves) are pretty safe in things. Cleveland is probably the most likely to have any issues, and they got out in front of things by starting to phase out Wahoo in the past however many years.

Also, similar articles pointed out that, legally, the patent office ruling simply makes it more difficult for the Redskins to go after infringement. But they still can.

All in all, Snyder isn't going to change the name. Rog isn't going to step in and force him out. The 30 other teams that share on profits for this stuff (Dallas are special little snowflakes and have their own deal) aren't going to step in and force anyone to do anything. The Redskins are going to stay the Redskins, the status quo will remain the status quo, and - quite frankly - people will continue to find seemingly pointless things to bitch about when put in the context of "These guys are out there literally destroying their brains for our live entertainment, and no one in the league seems to give a shit." Yes, Redskins is a highly offensive term for Native Americans. But that pales in comparison to the CTE issue right now.

[PokerFace]

My suggestion. The Washington Scandal (Stole from Bob and Tom show)

[Zachrulez]

They'll change the name. (Eventually.) It will be considered an overdue but welcome move. Most importantly it will not end there. Not when you have the Kansas City Chiefs, the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, ect.

There have been multiple articles pointing out that all three of those (as well as the Atlanta Braves) are pretty safe in things. Cleveland is probably the most likely to have any issues, and they got out in front of things by starting to phase out Wahoo in the past however many years.

Also, similar articles pointed out that, legally, the patent office ruling simply makes it more difficult for the Redskins to go after infringement. But they still can.

All in all, Snyder isn't going to change the name. Rog isn't going to step in and force him out. The 30 other teams that share on profits for this stuff (Dallas are special little snowflakes and have their own deal) aren't going to step in and force anyone to do anything. The Redskins are going to stay the Redskins, the status quo will remain the status quo, and - quite frankly - people will continue to find seemingly pointless things to bitch about when put in the context of "These guys are out there literally destroying their brains for our live entertainment, and no one in the league seems to give a shit." Yes, Redskins is a highly offensive term for Native Americans. But that pales in comparison to the CTE issue right now.

I don't think the NFL is going to force Snyder to, or force him out, or that Snyder himself will even do it, but he won't own the Redskins forever and the pressure to change the name will continue to pile on.

[AGar]

Snyder isn't even 50 yet, so he may not technically own it forever, but he probably will be around for a very long time.

[shaft.ed]

given how good a job he's doing, he will lose(lost) more fans on his own than the people threatening to leave if the change the name

[Jake from State Farm]

Nobody who owns the skins will ever change the name. The only way it changed is if the nfl caves and forces it or somehow he's legally forced to.

Snyder cut down federally protected trees so he could have a better view of the Potomac river. He don't give a shit bout anything.

[AGar]

Snyder cut down federally protected trees so he could have a better view of the Potomac river. He don't give a shit bout anything.

Ladies and gentlemen, the owner of the Washington Redskins!

[Jake from State Farm]

Nobody said he was a good guy lol

I hate the bastard personally. Most fans hate him but at least he's doing what the old owner did, stand his ground.