Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm a DC lifer. I own a wardrobe full of Nats stuff and several Caps and Wizards items. Not a single Redskins item, and the name is the primary reason. They're my favorite NFL team and always will be, but I can't bring myself to wear anything that says Redskins on it.
For years, all three of those variables have sucked. Tickets aren't cheap (but also not the most expensive in the league), the quality of the team has mostly sucked, and the gameday experience is horrible (unless they are winning). So why are tickets purchased? I think there is a huge chunk of fans who attend games because of their memories and love of the team. Yes, there are thousands and thousands of fans in the stadium for other reasons, but there is a high % of die hards. And they are die hards for the Redskins. I'm not saying they'd stop buying as a protest. I'm saying they'd stop buying because of a loss of fandom. To many, if they have a different name then they are a different team. They will no longer be the team they have loved for years.The team already struggles somewhat to sell seats, especially compared to what it used to be like. That's a league-wide issue, though. Yes, if 100 people stop buying because of a name change, they'll find 100 people to replace them. But, I think it would be much more than 100. I have no idea what the number would be, but my guess is it would be a number that wouldn't simply be replaced by the next X number of fans just waiting for tickets.
I believe he already has the #1 selling jersey.
I certainly wouldn't predict that the team would fade away and reach financial ruin. I just don't think, in the short run, that they'd experience any boom to revenue. I predict, in the short run, they'd make less revenue. In the long run, they'd be fine (assuming some level of winning success).In general, I'm actually a huge fan of change. The Redskins have changed their logo and styles over the years. Change isn't the issue.
I don't know, seems like a stupid name but they could easily do worse. Then again, if they had been the Washington Hogs since 1933, I'd probably think it was an awesome name.
You're wrong on this one.I'm a huge Redskins fan. I wouldn't stop being a huge fan. I WOULD stop buying jerseys, hats, and would have less interest in buying tickets to see the Washington Hogs. I'd actually be a little ashamed to tell people I'm a hogs fan. The entire team itself would hold less appeal in my opinion. There's an aspect about tradition and feeling like you're watching the same team you've been watching your entire life. Making a drastic name change, logo change, etc. removes a lot of that nostalgia.That estimate is so far beyond the realms of credibility that it almost doesn't even bear rebutting. Basically, a team's only source of revenue is its fan base- tickets sold to fans, tv rights to broadcast to fans, merchandise marketed to fans, etc. If we assume that the amount fans spend is based on how much the team wins (a reasonable assumption), and the amount a team wins is unrelated to what it's called (also a reasonable assumption: see Lakers), then the only way a team loses 50% of its value is if it loses 50% of its fan base. And to be perfectly honest, I'd be surprised if a team lost FIVE percent of its fan base over a name change.
Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?
Big difference between a very slight change in the Broncos color scheme and a complete change in name and logo. You have to recognize that a very slight shift from the previous Broncos to the current Broncos is 100% different than the shift from the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards. Being a fan of the Bullets brought a sense of pride. Being a fan of the Wizards...well, I don't think there are any fans of the Wizards
It's not 5% because it's less. A lot less.It's easy to talk this game now, but I find it VERY hard to believe that a name change- even a "traditional" "longstanding" name, would have a significant negative impact on a team's bottom line. Mostly because I'm not aware of a single example where it has, and plenty of examples where it hasn't (Wizards, Titans, Angels changing their geographic description without changing location, and so on). Check the attendance numbers, or the franchise valuations. You won't see any negative impact. If you can find the merch sales numbers, check those too. I couldn't find them but I bet the impact was minimal.You're wrong on this one.I'm a huge Redskins fan. I wouldn't stop being a huge fan. I WOULD stop buying jerseys, hats, and would have less interest in buying tickets to see the Washington Hogs. I'd actually be a little ashamed to tell people I'm a hogs fan. The entire team itself would hold less appeal in my opinion. There's an aspect about tradition and feeling like you're watching the same team you've been watching your entire life. Making a drastic name change, logo change, etc. removes a lot of that nostalgia.
Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?
Agreed that it's not 50%, but it's not 5% either, especially for the Yankees.
You're wrong. LinkTeam changed its name between the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons.Big difference between a very slight change in the Broncos color scheme and a complete change in name and logo. You have to recognize that a very slight shift from the previous Broncos to the current Broncos is 100% different than the shift from the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards. Being a fan of the Bullets brought a sense of pride. Being a fan of the Wizards...well, I don't think there are any fans of the Wizards
That's also the time where they moved from the Cap Center to the MCI (Verizon) Center where there are a few thousand more seats. Having larger numbers of seats sold in a larger arena doesn't necessarily mean they added more fans.You're wrong. LinkTeam changed its name between the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons.Being a fan of the Bullets brought a sense of pride. Being a fan of the Wizards...well, I don't think there are any fans of the Wizards
But they didn't lose fans, which is what was being suggested. If they lost fans it wouldn't have mattered if they were in a bigger building- it would just be emptier.I could do this with the Titans change or the Angels change too. In each case you would point to many, many other factors before pointing to the name change as impacting attendance or ratings or merchandise sales or whatever. People might think they're losing touch with "tradition" or something in theory, but the truth is that nobody really cares, at least not in a way that matters from a financial standpoint. Personally I HATE the Wizards nickname and really wish they'd switch back to Bullets. But it doesn't influence my behavior as a fan one bit, and I suspect 99% of fans are the same way.That's also the time where they moved from the Cap Center to the MCI (Verizon) Center where there are a few thousand more seats. Having larger numbers of seats sold in a larger arena doesn't necessarily mean they added more fans.You're wrong. LinkTeam changed its name between the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons.Being a fan of the Bullets brought a sense of pride. Being a fan of the Wizards...well, I don't think there are any fans of the Wizards
Exactly. Just like the number of people who said they'd move to Canada if Bush was re-elected dramatically outnumbered the number of people who moved to Canada after Bush was re-elected. And the number of companies who said they'd lay off their workforce if Obama was re-elected dramatically outnumbered the number of companies who laid off their work force when Obama was re-elected. There's two factors at play here- first, talk is cheap, and second, people are really bad at predicting their own actions. I mean, seriously, even if the Redskins changed their name to the Washington Buckets or the Washington Sponges, few fans would abandon the team. What are the other options? Root for the Ravens? Stop watching football? I have a hard time seeing Redskins fans doing either.It's not 5% because it's less. A lot less.It's easy to talk this game now, but I find it VERY hard to believe that a name change- even a "traditional" "longstanding" name, would have a significant negative impact on a team's bottom line. Mostly because I'm not aware of a single example where it has, and plenty of examples where it hasn't (Wizards, Titans, Angels changing their geographic description without changing location, and so on). Check the attendance numbers, or the franchise valuations. You won't see any negative impact. If you can find the merch sales numbers, check those too. I couldn't find them but I bet the impact was minimal.You're wrong on this one.I'm a huge Redskins fan. I wouldn't stop being a huge fan. I WOULD stop buying jerseys, hats, and would have less interest in buying tickets to see the Washington Hogs. I'd actually be a little ashamed to tell people I'm a hogs fan. The entire team itself would hold less appeal in my opinion. There's an aspect about tradition and feeling like you're watching the same team you've been watching your entire life. Making a drastic name change, logo change, etc. removes a lot of that nostalgia.
Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?
Agreed that it's not 50%, but it's not 5% either, especially for the Yankees.
And no offense, but if you think your fandom would be affected by a mascot change, I wonder about the depth of your fandom to begin with. Your mileage may vary- and I guess yours would- but to me, mascot preference is WAY down the list of reasons I'd like a team. Certainly a review of the most popular sports franchises confirms my suspicions. There's some exceedingly stupid nicknames and mascots out there if you stop and think about it. Nobody cares.
I'm pretty sure that a name change to the Washington Griffons would have enough fans chuckling with glee at the reference.
Deadspin pretty much nailed this one.Sometimes it's really embarrassing being a fan of a Snyder team.
that's ridiculous. there is no way in heck fans would stop supporting their team because of a name change. that wouldn't even be on the radar from the franchise' point of view.why do you think teams change their uniforms and logos so often? it always creates a spike in merchandise sales. if it didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
I could care less either way to be honest. But I just thought I put out some info that I found on the subject that goes against what some people are deeming as 100% fact. This "fact" is that the term "Redskins" is offensive to all nativa Americans and is the equivalent to using the N word in referring to black people. It's not that black and white, pun not intended. Now the fact that it's such an issue at this point leads me to believe that they should just give it up and change the name.
Nobody has said the bolded, to my knowledge. What has been said is that it's offensive to a significant number of Native Americans. That IS a fact. So I'm not sure how it's relevant to say that some people don't think it's offensive.
I find it very offensive. They should change it to the "Fourskins", as a tribute to the Hogs.
As I said, say the Redskins change their name to the Washington Sponges, or the Washington Buckets. What are you going to do? Root for the Ravens? Give up football? As a fan, my team would have to do something truly egregious for me to forsake my fanhood. I might rail and rage, but come game day, I'm always back on the couch cheering them on.
As I've said, I honestly can't say what I'd do until it happens. But, you left out one option: "Still watch football, but not have a favorite team."
And all I'm saying is that my prediction is there are a lot of Redskins fans who would find a name change to be egregious.
Why do you keep cheering them on?
Are the St. John's Redmen/Red Storm a better comp? While their program has been on the decline, I think it is hard to attribute that to the name change. There are also plenty of schools that have dropped Native American mascots, such as Stanford and Illinois, without much effect.Also not much effect with the name change to the Syracuse Orangemen/Orange. In the minor leagues, the Albuquerque Dukes (which had existed for 50 years) became the Albuquerque Isotopes, which turned into a merchandising coup.
LinkSo what kind of a logo are we talking about with this new name?Song still works with "Warriors." And it's alliterative! I don't think anyone would have a problem with Warriors if you got rid of the Native American imagery. People who whine about using military analogies to talk about sports, maybe, but those people are terrible, so screw them.Because it would #### up our touchdown song!
Because I'm a fan, and if I'm being perfectly honest, less than 1% of my enjoyment of rooting for the team has anything to do with their aesthetics. Denver could change their colors to puce and olive and I'd ##### about it because I like to feel like I have some sort of control over what the team does, but in the end, game day would be every bit as enjoyable to me after the color change as it was before.
Of what?
Certainly not a name or a uniform. My fanhood stems from strong regional ties and shared memories. I grew up in Colorado, and being a fan of the Broncos preserves my roots. My extended family all came from there and now that they've moved across the country, it's become a common heritage. When I meet anyone else from the community of Broncos fans, we have an immediate shared history to unite us- we can immediately grab a beer and wax nostalgic over The Drive, or the heartbreak of 1996, or This One's for John. I don't for a second think that the Broncos are really any better or meritorious than any other franchise, or that my relationship with them is somehow unique. If I'd been born in Ohio, I'd probably be a Bengals or a Browns fan right now- and a damn proud one, at that. If I'd been born somewhere without a common rooting interest, I really could have picked any team at random and invested the time and energy necessary to make myself a fan, and I'd be just as happy and well-off as I am now. But the fact is that I was NOT born in Ohio, and I did NOT pick any team at random. I am a Broncos fan, and I've invested huge amounts of time and energy into that endeavor. I've learned the history and internalized the results. I've created a lifetime of memories, a scrapbook of where I was when certain events happened, of who I shared experiences with. I've woven my Broncos fanhood tightly into the tapestry of my identity, and it would take a lot more than a name change to sever that strand and pull it free. Hell, I don't even care about the name- I think it's a pretty mediocre name, to be honest. If I were rating the names from best to worst, it'd be middle of the pack. It's not as bad as the Packers or the Bills or the Jets or the Browns, but it's also no Lions, Bengals, Chargers, or Vikings. It's just a name, not really important except that it signifies some ephemeral concept in which I have heavily invested myself. That investment doesn't magically disappear if the name changes.
that wouldn't offend fat people?
Cool. That's how I'd describe my fanhood, too.
I know. And my point in all of this discussion with you - which apparently I haven't made clear - is that some people do care about a name more than you do. I don't see why that's apparently such a crazy thing to say. It comes off as holier-than-thou to say, "My fanhood has nothing to do with a name, so yours shouldn't either." I simply predicted that they'd take a bigger financial hit than others think they would.As I've thought about it, though, I do need to alter my prediction to account for how it changes. It could range from a court-ordered change to a Snyder-trying-to-sell-more-jerseys change. The former probably wouldn't lead too many fans away. The latter would be the straw that broke the back of the thousands and thousands of people who are already pissed off at Snyder and have been close to leaving for years.
If you got 1,000 Redkins fans together (without telling them why) and had them write down their top 5 reasons for fanhood, their top 5 favorite things about the team, how often do you think "their name" would show up? Out of 5,000 possible data points, I'd venture it would show up less than 50 times. In fact, I would not be the least bit surprised if it failed to show up a single time. I would be absolutely shocked if it was #1 on even a single list. How many people are going to stop rooting for a franchise because that franchise kept their top 5 favorite things intact and changed something well down the list, instead?I also imagine if you did the same exercise and asked 1,000 Redskins fans what their 5 least favorite things were about the team, their name would show up a lot more frequently.
If I'm one of those 1,000 the name would be second on my list of least favorite things, behind only Snyder.
I'm not seeing the relevance. Are you suggesting fans only leave their teams if one of their top five favorites changes?If we could rank all the teams by fans who care most about the team name, I'd guess the Redskins would be near the top of that list. I think that's pretty obvious by many Redskins fans' reaction every time this subject comes up. Is it enough to have the impact I think it will? Maybe not. I'll fully admit that things might not go the way I'm predicting. Really, all of this started when someone suggested changing the name would cause an increase in revenue; that it would be a good business decision for Snyder. My initial argument was against that. Who knows, maybe it would be relatively revenue neutral. But, I'm really not sure why you are so adamant that Redskins fans don't care about the name.
Yes, he has said for years that he will not change it.
Or in honor of the politicians and their spending bills: Washington Pork
I promise you: if he loses the ability to trademark the name because the Patent and Trademark Office deems it offensive in the latest challenge (scheduled to be heard March 7), he'll change the name as soon as his appeals are exhausted. The bossman likes money, that's all that matters.
Yep. But, how does the previous SCOTUS ruling work with whatever PTO might rule?
IIRC SCOTUS didn't rule, it just refused to hear the appeal from the lower courts on the previous decision. And the previous decision was made on procedural grounds. I won't bore you with the legal mumbo-jumbo but you can read the Wikipedia entry here if you want. The assumption is that the plaintiffs in this new challenge won't have the same procedural issues since they're younger. Of course the defendant is incredibly wealthy and will hire the best trademark lawyers around, so I'm sure they'll come up with a spectacular new defense strategy. We'll see what happens.
Makes sense. Thanks.
You seem to suggest that it only became offensive after it was trademarked. It was trademarked long after it was used in an offensive manner. It has been used as a racial slur for hundreds of years. If someone were to trademark and of the other racial slurs, would it be OK to use them as the name of an NFL team?BTW, that's what the current challenge is because the name is offensive. Read the posts above.
