If I was in Dan's (small) shoes I'd be very tempted - once it became clear that the name had to go (i.e When Goodell says so) - to say "It's the Redskins or nothing!" and have the team simply referred to as: Washington from that point on.
I know just about every team in the US has a nickname no matter what sport they play, but that's not the case in Europe and South America where teams are simply named after their locations for the most part (Chelsea, Liverpool, Barcelona, Napoli, etc) and usually only have additional names if there is more than one team from the same place (United, City, Rovers, Atletico, etc).
The main reasons this would be good are;
(1) Firstly I think it would be quite a defiant gesture and would silence those that are hung up on the term 'Redskins'.
(2) It would mean that we would keep our identity as all our logos and colors would remain the same - they have no issue with that after all.
(3) Most importantly, we wouldn't have to stomach a crap name like Warriors with a new and no doubt stupid logo that will mean nothing to us fans.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but what do you think..? Is there a reason that can't happen..?? Does the NFL insist on teams having nicknames legally or is it just a presumption that a team would have one...???
I know that in the US the teams are franchises and have the ability to potentially move to a different city if the owner desires (which is just shocking to us in Europe by the way) but there's no chance the team would ever leave Washington - and this is a special case obviously.
