ghostguy123
Footballguy
How come no replies from the OP?
Weak attempt to drum up a debate, especially when there is no debate.
Weak attempt to drum up a debate, especially when there is no debate.
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 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.
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.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.
multiple people in the thread have already mentioned they made the same mistake.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.
Not much racial diversity in The Staff is there?This_Guy said:
Man, Joe pulled the pin on a grenade and dropped it at his feet.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.
This has a sort of unheralded brilliance to it.With the amount of dolphins caught in nets annually I’d have a lot of reservations about keeping my product on the Internet.
Wayne Simmonds, PK Subban et al would like a word with you.Does this apply to my Fantasy Hockey team?
The worst/funniest part of this year? When Nashville was playing some team and the announcer kept getting them confused one shift.Wayne Simmonds, PK Subban et al would like a word with you.
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?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?
Hasn't this been a running joke that depends on the absurdity of taboos about white/black designations being racially motivated?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"?Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship
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.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?
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!Let's change the name of the White House too so that players don't get offended when they win a championship
Why do the white chess pieces get to go first?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 should it stop?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.
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.rather than taking English advice from Steven A. Smith.
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".@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.
The majority wouldn’t be offended or harmed in any way by maintaining “owner”.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".
Why is it relegated to only the players?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.
I think you should include the percentage of people (like me) who think it just sounds weird. Not necessarily offended or harmed.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?
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.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?
That was my assumption, also, til I watched. Had to re-watch!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.rather than taking English advice from Steven A. Smith.
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.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.
It’s Joe’s site. He can do what he wants. I don’t see many people suggesting otherwise.If Joe personally wants to make the change, why should he have to kowtow to the latter group?
Right, and we’re just telling Joe the size of that group is smaller than he may believe. The poll results bear that out.On one hand, you have a group of people who feel harmed, offended or just think a use of a word seems weird.
Or it could be for pro-rationality reasons.On the other hand, you have a group of people who want to object to change for anti-PC reasons.
handeggpeople.com would be better. Football in most countries in the world refers to a different sport. footballpeople.com is inconsiderate of our foreign subscribersMan, 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.
Man, this is right up my alley to be in the majority and I still come out on the #### end.Right, and we’re just telling Joe the size of that group is smaller than he may believe. The poll results bear that out.
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.Or it could be for pro-rationality reasons.
Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants. He OWNS the business.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?
And sometimes, however, we talk about "owning a player" which sometimes doesnt mean you own that person at all.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.
Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants. He OWNS the business.
I agree.And sometimes, however, we talk about "owning a player" which sometimes doesnt mean you own that person at all.
Only until he hires a black staff member, then he'll GM the business.Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants. He OWNS the business.
Only until he hires a black staff member, then he'll GM the business.Joe can do whatever he wants and call things whatever he wants. He OWNS the business.
My apologies to Steven A. Now I'll have to watch/read Steven A's material before I read Joe's.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.