Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Joe Bryant

Using The Word "Owner" For Fantasy Sports Teams - What Do You Think?

What Do You Think Of FBG Avoiding Using "Owner"?  

176 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I accidently voted for the top choice when I meant to vote for last choice so cancel my vote out..   So it is only 6 that agree.  Landslide against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

I accidently voted for the top choice when I meant to vote for last choice so cancel my vote out..   So it is only 6 that agree.  Landslide against.

Actually two of those were accidental based on posts here... likely more :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, [icon] said:

 

Exactly. Joe I want you to change the site to footballpeople.com or I’m personally lining up a dozen or two females to start a social media campaign against your sexist business practices. 

I can’t help but notice he’s replied to every post but conveniently ignored the requests of several members to remedy the sexist URL and business name. This tendency perhaps could also have something to do with the complete lack of female staff.

Is there a culture of sexism within Footballguys? Upon first glance it certainly seems so. 

 

Should probably add a personal pronoun identifier field to everyone’s profile too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this like when "Random Shots" was supposed to change names after the CA mass shooting and then seven more emails titled "Random Shots" were sent out?

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the term football term "Offense". Let's get rid of this code word for the action of attacking someone or something  It's offensive. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rockaction said:

I kind of agree with your points, and I don't think we're finding it offensive in the least, just weird in the owning "shares" case. That said, I can see it, too -- I always thought owning "eight shares" meant he was on eight of your teams. By portfolio, I meant the sum total of all your players on all your teams. This is when someone asks you how heavily is your portfolio (the sum of your teams) invested in Player X you can say, "Oh, I own eight shares of him."

That's the way I've always interpreted it. Others' mileages may vary. 

You are correct here. If you use Draft to do Best Ball it has a feature called “ownership percentage” where it breaks down every player you have drafted on all your teams and how many times. 

 

I think if someone is offended by the use of “guys” in the website or the use of “owner” in fantasy context they probably are being overly sensitive. I think it sounds odd and try to avoid it. However, there’s an equally oversensitive backlash to the idea as well. Some of these posts here have me rolling with laughter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a mistake to ask the question in the first place. If you feel so strongly about the subject, then just quietly make the change. Don't give people the opportunity to be offended -- it's just an invitation to lose money.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with all of the domestic violence and child abuse charges I think we all need to refrain from using terms like Beat The Competition or things like that  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [icon] said:

 

Exactly. Joe I want you to change the site to footballpeople.com or I’m personally lining up a dozen or two females to start a social media campaign against your sexist business practices. 

I can’t help but notice he’s replied to every post but conveniently ignored the requests of several members to remedy the sexist URL and business name. This tendency perhaps could also have something to do with the complete lack of female staff.

Is there a culture of sexism within Footballguys? Upon first glance it certainly seems so. 

 

Unless Keith Roberts, Devin Knotts, Ryan Zamicheili, or Craig Zumsteg are females or black, J should probably focus on how he could make his site and this hobby more inclusive of those demographics rather than taking English advice from Steven A. Smith.

I find it interesting that Footballguys clings to their sexist name likely for business reasons while refraining from using the reference Redskins.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the future, polls like this should have Disagree, Neutral or Agree.  Either you do, you don’t, or you don’t care.  Too many options and only makes the landslide Disagree appear skewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Summer Wheat said:

I accidently voted for the top choice when I meant to vote for last choice so cancel my vote out..   So it is only 6 that agree.  Landslide against.

multiple people in the thread have already mentioned they made the same mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the amount of dolphins caught in nets annually I’d have a lot of reservations about keeping my product on the Internet.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Wildcat said:

...only makes the landslide Disagree appear skewed. 

Let's not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [icon] said:

 

Exactly. Joe I want you to change the site to footballpeople.com or I’m personally lining up a dozen or two females to start a social media campaign against your sexist business practices. 

I can’t help but notice he’s replied to every post but conveniently ignored the requests of several members to remedy the sexist URL and business name. This tendency perhaps could also have something to do with the complete lack of female staff.

Is there a culture of sexism within Footballguys? Upon first glance it certainly seems so. 

 

Man, Joe pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it at his feet.

Yes, I agree that this needs changed to footballpeople.com. 'footballguys' offends me as does 'general manager.'

This place shall now be referred to as FBP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gary Coal Man said:

With the amount of dolphins caught in nets annually I’d have a lot of reservations about keeping my product on the Internet.

This has a sort of unheralded brilliance to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, northern exposure said:

Wayne Simmonds, PK Subban et al would like a word with you.

The worst/funniest part of this year? When Nashville was playing some team and the announcer kept getting them confused one shift.

Utterly brutal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "totally agree" although, honestly, I really don't care all that much.

The first time I heard this issue raised was when Draymond Green brought it up maybe a year or so ago about NBA owners. Mark Cuban strongly disagreed.  Cuban mentioned most of the same points that have been brought up in the thread.  Those points are valid, of course, and my immediate reaction was to side with Cuban.

A year passed and the NBA recently decided to refer to "owners" as "governors".  By this time, my feelings are that I'm fine with it.  I must admit that it's a little weird for me to hear a mostly white group of men referred to as owning a mostly black group of players.  If you don't see this, that's fine.  But some people do.

The meaning of words change.  It's the nature of language.  I don't think we need to fight it.  In fact, life is easier when we just roll with it.  It's probably a good thing to continue to adapt to changes as we grow older.  We all know/knew people from older generations who resisted.  What good did that do them?

As far as Joe's decision, it makes sense to me.  If fantasy football is around still in 20 years, I'm sure this "owing" language won't be used.  Always nice not to be behind the curve.

 

Edited by Juxtatarot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

The meaning of words change.  It's the nature of language.  I don't think we need to fight it.  In fact, life is easier when we just roll with it.  It's probably a good thing to continue to adapt to changes as we grow older.  We all know/knew people from older generations who resisted.  What good did that do them?

The gendered already came for my singular pronouns, do I have to let the T in LBTGQ have them so totally and completely, too? What exactly are we sacrificing here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GROOT said:

Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship

Hasn't this been a running joke that depends on the absurdity of taboos about white/black designations being racially motivated?

We just had a Betsy Ross flag kiboshed by a giant corporation because that is supposedly racist; this doesn't seem too far off as to ruin the joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, GROOT said:

Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship

How about the "Freedom House"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the term "free agency" too. It is a code word for "free slave" 

Edited by GROOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And get rid of the scouting combine. Back in the day, this is how slave masters inspected human beings like Horses 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The gendered already came for my singular pronouns, do I have to let the T in LBTGQ have them so totally and completely, too? What exactly are we sacrificing here? 

I would love it to be simpler.  The he/she and "singular they" stuff is awkward.  If we had just one word for a person (like just "one"), writing would be easier.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GROOT said:

Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship

The game of pool needs to be changed too! You use a white ball to knock all of the colored balls off the table. And the black ball is the last one that can be knocked off the table!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, northern exposure said:

The game of pool needs to be changed too! You use a white ball to knock all of the colored balls off the table. And the black ball is the last one that can be knocked off the table!

Why do the white chess pieces get to go first?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we doing here? Are we moving forward? Where does all of this lead too before someone comes up with something new? It never stops.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GROOT said:

What are we doing here? Are we moving forward? Where does all of this lead too before someone comes up with something new? It never stops.

Why should it stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joe Bryant, Serious question among all the excellent jokes — Have you actually polled black people (and only black people) how they feel about this issue since not using “owner” seems to be an earnest and noble (albeit misplaced) attempt to not cause offense to that demographic? 

This strikes me as similar to some people avoiding using the team name “Redskins” when polling of the demographic that should allegedly be offended by that term shows that the majority of that demographic that others are supposedly acting on behalf of aren’t really offended themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 rather than taking English advice from Steven A. Smith.

You probably didn’t watch the video (and who could blame you) but Steven A. was actually thought it was ridiculous that the NBA was doing away with the word “owner”. He said they own their teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gary Coal Man said:

@Joe Bryant, Serious question among all the excellent jokes — Have you actually polled black people (and only black people) how they feel about this issue since not using “owner” seems to be an earnest and noble (albeit misplaced) attempt to not cause offense to that demographic? 

This strikes me as similar to some people avoiding using the team name “Redskins” when polling of the demographic that should allegedly be offended by that term shows that the majority of that demographic that others are supposedly acting on behalf of aren’t really offended themselves.

Why in the world should he poll black people on this?  They wouldn't be offended or harmed in any way by the the switch to "general manager".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Why in the world should he poll black people on this?  They wouldn't be offended or harmed in any way by the the switch to "general manager".  

The majority wouldn’t be offended or harmed in any way by maintaining “owner”.

And why wouldn’t you poll the group whose interests you believe you’re acting on behalf of?

”Hey, other white guys, what do you think about this move that I, another white guy, am doing for black people?”

That doesn’t tell you anything about what the group your acting on behalf of actually thinks or whether they actually want someone to act on their behalf in such a manner.

Edited by Gary Coal Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team Leader

Team Captain

Team Exec

I could see this terms being used and I agree the word "owner" is not the best term to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I voted "totally agree" although, honestly, I really don't care all that much.

The first time I heard this issue raised was when Draymond Green brought it up maybe a year or so ago about NBA owners. Mark Cuban strongly disagreed.  Cuban mentioned most of the same points that have been brought up in the thread.  Those points are valid, of course, and my immediate reaction was to side with Cuban.

A year passed and the NBA recently decided to refer to "owners" as "governors".  By this time, my feelings are that I'm fine with it.  I must admit that it's a little weird for me to hear a mostly white group of men referred to as owning a mostly black group of players.  If you don't see this, that's fine.  But some people do.

The meaning of words change.  It's the nature of language.  I don't think we need to fight it.  In fact, life is easier when we just roll with it.  It's probably a good thing to continue to adapt to changes as we grow older.  We all know/knew people from older generations who resisted.  What good did that do them?

As far as Joe's decision, it makes sense to me.  If fantasy football is around still in 20 years, I'm sure this "owing" language won't be used.  Always nice not to be behind the curve.

 

Why is it relegated to only the players?

You say mostly black players.

So an owner owns a team. The 12 players are what 0.5% of the actuall company?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

The majority wouldn’t be offended or harmed in any way by maintaining “owner”.

And why wouldn’t you poll the group whose interests you believe you’re acting on behalf of?

I think you should include the percentage of people (like me) who think it just sounds weird.  Not necessarily offended or harmed.  

On one hand, you have a group of people who feel harmed, offended or just think a use of a word seems weird.  On the other hand, you have a group of people who want to object to change for anti-PC reasons.  If Joe personally wants to make the change, why should he have to kowtow to the latter group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, comfortably numb said:

Why is it relegated to only the players?

You say mostly black players.

So an owner owns a team. The 12 players are what 0.5% of the actuall company?  

Sure, it doesn't have to be relegated to only players.  Sometimes, however, we talk about a "team" and that sometimes just means the players.  Or, perhaps, just the players and coaches.

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:
3 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 rather than taking English advice from Steven A. Smith.

You probably didn’t watch the video (and who could blame you) but Steven A. was actually thought it was ridiculous that the NBA was doing away with the word “owner”. He said they own their teams.

That was my assumption, also, til I watched. Had to re-watch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

You probably didn’t watch the video (and who could blame you) but Steven A. was actually thought it was ridiculous that the NBA was doing away with the word “owner”. He said they own their teams.

What's amazing is I didn't watch the video for the exact reason that you impliedly described and I'm glad I now know his position. Way to take one for the team, even if just knowing his position might even be too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

If Joe personally wants to make the change, why should he have to kowtow to the latter group?

It’s Joe’s site.  He can do what he wants.  I don’t see many people suggesting otherwise.

 

24 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

On one hand, you have a group of people who feel harmed, offended or just think a use of a word seems weird.  

Right, and we’re just telling Joe the size of that group is smaller than he may believe.  The poll results bear that out.

 

24 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

On the other hand, you have a group of people who want to object to change for anti-PC reasons. 

Or it could be for pro-rationality reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Man, Joe pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it at his feet.

Yes, I agree that this needs changed to footballpeople.com. 'footballguys' offends me as does 'general manager.'

This place shall now be referred to as FBP.

handeggpeople.com would be better. Football in most countries in the world refers to a different sport. footballpeople.com is inconsiderate of our foreign subscribers

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Right, and we’re just telling Joe the size of that group is smaller than he may believe.  The poll results bear that out.

Man, this is right up my alley to be in the majority and I still come out on the #### end.

Contraryan 4 Lief

Edited by rockaction
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Dear me. Did that one get away from me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

 

Or it could be for pro-rationality reasons.

I sense it’s more than that. It clearly is for some.  The guy that won’t subscribe to FBGs over this clearly has some deeper  concerns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

I think you should include the percentage of people (like me) who think it just sounds weird.  Not necessarily offended or harmed.  

On one hand, you have a group of people who feel harmed, offended or just think a use of a word seems weird.  On the other hand, you have a group of people who want to object to change for anti-PC reasons.  If Joe personally wants to make the change, why should he have to kowtow to the latter group?

Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants.  He OWNS the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

Sure, it doesn't have to be relegated to only players.  Sometimes, however, we talk about a "team" and that sometimes just means the players.  Or, perhaps, just the players and coaches.

And sometimes, however, we talk about "owning a player" which sometimes doesnt mean you own that person at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants.  He OWNS the business.

 

4 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

And sometimes, however, we talk about "owning a player" which sometimes doesnt mean you own that person at all.

I agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.