The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I have a quick question: Does the team have to have a nickname...?

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.

I like what a local writer recommened, "The Washington Football Club". To the OP's initial statement of, "does the team need a nickname?". I'd say no. By running with The Washington Football Club, you're not replacing the Redskin nickname. While you can't advertise or sell that nickname anymore, the legacy of it doesn't die because it hasn't been replaced. The team would still unofficially be known as the Redskins.

The Washington Football Club or Team would be about the only thing that keeps me from leaving this team as a fan if the name changes. See, fans outside of Washington DC are why the name isn't changing sooner. I live in Chicago and have ties to the Redskins of old. I grew up in DC and that's what keeps me a fan. I can still relate to them because of the name. Players change, coaches change but the name stays the same. If the name changed, it would be similar to if the team moved cities and changed the name for those that live in DC. There would be zero reason to continue rooting for them. I would probably start rooting for the Steelers as my wife is from Pittsburgh. Couldn't even bring myself to root for the Bears.

But the Washington Football Club, the Braves, The Redhawks, or Sons of Washington would be all names that would keep us on the outside cheering. Lose the logo, lose the fan base

Funny I just posted Washington FC in another thread. Seems very unlikely, but I like it for the same reasons you stated.

I seriously can't believe these comments about "I can't support the team if they're not named the Redskins" though. That blows my mind to hear grown men say stuff like that. Its like my four year old who will eat bowtie pasta but not penne. lol.

I love football. Love watching football. Love our football team in Washington and all of its history good and bad. And if the team has to change its name, I'll love remembering the controversy and how strongly people felt about it, and I will still love our football team.

riggofan wrote:Funny I just posted Washington FC in another thread. Seems very unlikely, but I like it for the same reasons you stated.

I seriously can't believe these comments about "I can't support the team if they're not named the Redskins" though. That blows my mind to hear grown men say stuff like that. Its like my four year old who will eat bowtie pasta but not penne. lol.

I love football. Love watching football. Love our football team in Washington and all of its history good and bad. And if the team has to change its name, I'll love remembering the controversy and how strongly people felt about it, and I will still love our football team.

And that's my point. Fans in the DMV don't know any different. The team is still right in front of them. But for us (and maybe just childish me), if you no longer have a name, what's the connection any longer? Especially when that name changes to something like the Warriors and every Bear fan you know is ribbing you because of it, it's not worth it. You think people outside of DC actually held on as fans when the Bullets changed their name to the Wizards? hahaha. What a joke name. Embarrassing

Yeah I see what you are saying. Your situation of being outside DC is a little different from just fans living here.

And I get your point about the Wizards/Bullets too. I think the big difference with that team is that the Redskins will ALWAYS have the long history and those Joe Gibbs/super bowl years in particular. Not like changing the name just erases all that. This team hasn't been good in the past 24 years - most of us are STILL hanging on to the Gibbs years. hah.

I'm not a huge basketball fan, but it seems like the Bullets went from being an average NBA team to being an average NBA team with a terrible name and awful uniforms.

Cheers to Chicago btw! Fun city.

If forced to change I do like the idea of no nickname. My other thought would be to announce that we will NEVER change the name of the Washington Redskins and if forced to do so it will be in a new city. That way the Washington Redskins will forever remain, The Washington Redskins. A total backfire in the face of harry and barrack. They want credit, give it to them. And the icing on the cake is that the NFL team in Washington will always be remembered as it should be. Call up the city of Los Angeles, I'm sure they will do backflips to have an NFL team. Dan Snyder should call up Roger Goodell and inform him of his intentions, then proceed to place an ad in the Washington Post so that harry and barrack will get the credit they deserve.

Is there a forum (not in the online message board sense) that we can start a petition AGAINST the name change? Redskins nation will rise iPhone and even football fans in general. In a democracy, shouldn't the majority have a voice? If there is a current petition a done knows about I'd like to get my support in so post up!

Pro sports team allegiance is based on tradition. Unlike collegiate teams where you attend the school or family attends it, a pro team is something passed-down or something of that nature. The tradition is a lot of the appeal. Tradition can be manifested immensely in the NAME. If they change the name, it will have a substantial effect. I'm not sure how much, or to what extent, or for how long, but it will be felt. If the controversy has been going on since I was born, I can endure it as long as they can push it. It is not intended to offend and one has to literally choose to be offended by it. So, this is one thing I am glad Snyder has remained rigid about. The name is tradition and the tradition is good. We're not celebrating beheadings here! One thing I abhor is politically-correct ideology. It's a method to produce weakness. Keep the name!

AND ... as long as we keep singing the same fight song ... all day long ...

it's called freedom of speech and I would venture to suggest it would even be louder than before

I'm starting to warm up to just dropping "Redskins" as the official name and going simply by Washington or the Washington Football Club. No need to try to replace "Redskins" with something inferior, and the unofficial team nickname would remain The Redskins. The fight song would be unchanged.

I also like that it's a big F-U to everyone who wants the name dropped. Just drop it and let everyone in the country continue calling the team The Redskins on their own.

hanburgerheel wrote:Pro sports team allegiance is based on tradition. Unlike collegiate teams where you attend the school or family attends it, a pro team is something passed-down or something of that nature. The tradition is a lot of the appeal. Tradition can be manifested immensely in the NAME. If they change the name, it will have a substantial effect. I'm not sure how much, or to what extent, or for how long, but it will be felt. If the controversy has been going on since I was born, I can endure it as long as they can push it. It is not intended to offend and one has to literally choose to be offended by it. So, this is one thing I am glad Snyder has remained rigid about. The name is tradition and the tradition is good. We're not celebrating beheadings here! One thing I abhor is politically-correct ideology. It's a method to produce weakness. Keep the name!

Perfectly stated, I agree completely. I am for saying no as long as possible. Hopefully at some point the stick up their butt crowd will get lives or society will grow out of listening to their thin skinned, want to be offended whining and stop listening to them.

I agree with your point as well that changing the name changes everything, as you said, we aren't alumni, we are just connected to the team by tradition. I would think Skins fans still in the DC would mostly get used to the new name eventually. For those of us who left the DC area, it's going to be tricker. I don't know what my reaction would be. Right now, I feel if they changed the name, they just wouldn't be the team I rooted for anymore. Sort of like when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, if you were a Browns fan, the Ravens just are not the Browns, it's a different team.

I suppose how it comes about and what they do about the name would make a difference, but right now I just can't predict how I would react. Ironically as much as Snyder has sucked as an owner so far, I would probably be more likely to stay a Skins fan under a new name under Snyder because I know he's going to fight it to the bitter end. If a new owner came in and said we need to change this travesty and changed the name, I doubt I would remain a fan. But I can't say anything for certain unless it happens.

The name I would accept most easily is the Braves because that was our historical name.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

hanburgerheel wrote:Pro sports team allegiance is based on tradition. Unlike collegiate teams where you attend the school or family attends it, a pro team is something passed-down or something of that nature. The tradition is a lot of the appeal. Tradition can be manifested immensely in the NAME. If they change the name, it will have a substantial effect. I'm not sure how much, or to what extent, or for how long, but it will be felt. If the controversy has been going on since I was born, I can endure it as long as they can push it. It is not intended to offend and one has to literally choose to be offended by it. So, this is one thing I am glad Snyder has remained rigid about. The name is tradition and the tradition is good. We're not celebrating beheadings here! One thing I abhor is politically-correct ideology. It's a method to produce weakness. Keep the name!

Perfectly stated, I agree completely. I am for saying no as long as possible. Hopefully at some point the stick up their butt crowd will get lives or society will grow out of listening to their thin skinned, want to be offended whining and stop listening to them.

I agree with your point as well that changing the name changes everything, as you said, we aren't alumni, we are just connected to the team by tradition. I would think Skins fans still in the DC would mostly get used to the new name eventually. For those of us who left the DC area, it's going to be tricker. I don't know what my reaction would be. Right now, I feel if they changed the name, they just wouldn't be the team I rooted for anymore. Sort of like when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, if you were a Browns fan, the Ravens just are not the Browns, it's a different team.

I suppose how it comes about and what they do about the name would make a difference, but right now I just can't predict how I would react. Ironically as much as Snyder has sucked as an owner so far, I would probably be more likely to stay a Skins fan under a new name under Snyder because I know he's going to fight it to the bitter end. If a new owner came in and said we need to change this travesty and changed the name, I doubt I would remain a fan. But I can't say anything for certain unless it happens.

The name I would accept most easily is the Braves because that was our historical name.

I'll go with Braves because they WERE, originally, the Boston Braves. I could handle that quite well.

The funny thing is, there will be at the very least, one generation that always refers to them as The Redskins. It's the word that identifies the team... it's like having to change your own first name if you found out that your name offended some group (maybe in another language of you moved to a country that your name was also a reference to something derogatory).

I like just dropping the Redskins and referring to it as Washington. It would be funny to see sportscasters try to figure out how to refer to a team without first saying "the...."

I have become resigned to the name being changed. I object most to the way this issue has become yet another Red v. Blue argument. I have frustrations with Allen and The Danny for making me side with the Red side of an argument. I hate that.

Washington or Washington Football Club would be ok with me. Just about anything else would sound stupid.

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Is there a forum (not in the online message board sense) that we can start a petition AGAINST the name change? Redskins nation will rise iPhone and even football fans in general. In a democracy, shouldn't the majority have a voice? If there is a current petition a done knows about I'd like to get my support in so post up!

There is no such thing as majority rules anymore...in fact, in today's PC world, it's the majority that's expected to make concessions...

grampi wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Is there a forum (not in the online message board sense) that we can start a petition AGAINST the name change? Redskins nation will rise iPhone and even football fans in general. In a democracy, shouldn't the majority have a voice? If there is a current petition a done knows about I'd like to get my support in so post up!

There is no such thing as majority rules anymore...in fact, in today's PC world, it's the majority that's expected to make concessions...

You mean like when the majority of people in Alabama wanted to keep black kids from attending white high schools? When the majority of people in the south wanted to maintain segregation? Do I dare bring up that a majority of Germans wanted to rid themselves of Jewish people?

I'm not defending the name complaint, but this comment about "majority rules" is brainless. There is nothing about being in the majority that makes a person right. Its a lame thing to cry about.

PC, PC, PC, boo hoo. Half of what people complain about as being PC just strikes me as good manners and common decency.

Um... I was just saying there should be vote.

riggofan wrote:

grampi wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Is there a forum (not in the online message board sense) that we can start a petition AGAINST the name change? Redskins nation will rise iPhone and even football fans in general. In a democracy, shouldn't the majority have a voice? If there is a current petition a done knows about I'd like to get my support in so post up!

There is no such thing as majority rules anymore...in fact, in today's PC world, it's the majority that's expected to make concessions...

You mean like when the majority of people in Alabama wanted to keep black kids from attending white high schools? When the majority of people in the south wanted to maintain segregation? Do I dare bring up that a majority of Germans wanted to rid themselves of Jewish people?

I'm not defending the name complaint, but this comment about "majority rules" is brainless. There is nothing about being in the majority that makes a person right. Its a lame thing to cry about.

PC, PC, PC, boo hoo. Half of what people complain about as being PC just strikes me as good manners and common decency.

What do any of your examples have to do with a small group of crybabies forcing a team to change their name? There's no common decency in that...talk about a bunch of crybabies...boo hoo...

the point is that there are some Native Americans that feel the name should be changed and they are trying to make a bigger issue of it by pulling the 'discriminatory' card - there are more Native Americans that do not feel it is a derogatory term but their opinions don't seem to matter to those that feel it is

all these other 'examples' have no bearing on this at all - all that matters is that the term Redskins when used in context is not a derogatory word at all

riggofan wrote:

grampi wrote:

cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Is there a forum (not in the online message board sense) that we can start a petition AGAINST the name change? Redskins nation will rise iPhone and even football fans in general. In a democracy, shouldn't the majority have a voice? If there is a current petition a done knows about I'd like to get my support in so post up!

There is no such thing as majority rules anymore...in fact, in today's PC world, it's the majority that's expected to make concessions...

You mean like when the majority of people in Alabama wanted to keep black kids from attending white high schools? When the majority of people in the south wanted to maintain segregation? Do I dare bring up that a majority of Germans wanted to rid themselves of Jewish people?

I'm not defending the name complaint, but this comment about "majority rules" is brainless. There is nothing about being in the majority that makes a person right. Its a lame thing to cry about.

PC, PC, PC, boo hoo. Half of what people complain about as being PC just strikes me as good manners and common decency.

Those are pretty ridiculous comparisons to the majority not being offended by a sports team nickname.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Those are pretty ridiculous comparisons to the majority not being offended by a sports team nickname.

Sure, I completely agree with you. I'm just responding to the post above about "majority rules". We do a lot of things in this country to protect a minority of people that the majority may not agree with. Being a majority does not always == being correct. Do you disagree with that?

If you want to support the Redskins name then make your case and tell the world why its not offensive. Crying that you should get your way because you're "in the majority" is a b.s. argument.

SkinsJock wrote:the point is that there are some Native Americans that feel the name should be changed and they are trying to make a bigger issue of it by pulling the 'discriminatory' card - there are more Native Americans that do not feel it is a derogatory term but their opinions don't seem to matter to those that feel it is

Glad to know you have your finger so firmly on the pulse of Native Americans. lol.

That liberal lion John McCain seems to disagree with your assessment btw:

“We have many local tribes in my state of Arizona, and they come to me and tell me its offensive,” McCain said, via USA Today. “So if its offensive, then why don’t we take that into consideration? One of the most darkest chapters in American history is our relations with the Native Americans. When an advanced civilization collides with a less advanced one, really terrible things happen. And it’s probably the worst chapter in American history, as we went west and became the nation that we are, we really did some terrible things. And many of our Native Americans are very sensitive because of our history.

“So my view, if I were the owner of the team, I’d call them together and have a dialogue with them and I would probably change the name.”

Apparently he actually speaks to Native Americans btw. I'm curious to know how many you have spoken with.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... gton-name/

grampi wrote:What do any of your examples have to do with a small group of crybabies forcing a team to change their name? There's no common decency in that...talk about a bunch of crybabies...boo hoo...

Its hilarious to read your crybaby posts complaining about other crybabies. Aggrieved old white guys are the best.

I'll tell you why I think the Redskins name issue is more a matter of common decency than of racism. So your people have driven the natives from their land, slaughtered and massacred them at times and corralled them on to "reservations". Maybe its not the coolest thing to "honor" those people by making them the mascots of your professional football teams. Not the biggest deal in the world either, but its still pretty ignorant.

Feel free to get your panties twisted up about what I wrote. I don't personally care whether the Redskins change their name or not. I'm just not so blinded by the fact that I'm a Redskins fan that I can't consider it objectively. And I don't feel like I'm personally being called a racist just because some people (with nothing better to do apparently) are taking issue with our team name. It is what it is.

riggofan wrote:That liberal lion John McCain seems to disagree with your assessment btw:

“We have many local tribes in my state of Arizona, and they come to me and tell me its offensive,” McCain said, via USA Today. “So if its offensive, then why don’t we take that into consideration? One of the most darkest chapters in American history is our relations with the Native Americans. When an advanced civilization collides with a less advanced one, really terrible things happen. And it’s probably the worst chapter in American history, as we went west and became the nation that we are, we really did some terrible things. And many of our Native Americans are very sensitive because of our history.

“So my view, if I were the owner of the team, I’d call them together and have a dialogue with them and I would probably change the name.”

So, is JM saying that changing the name will right the wrongs done to American Indians? How about some legislation that actually does something to help them, rather than paying lip service. How about the US government actually living up to the terms of their treaties?

Deadskins wrote:So, is JM saying that changing the name will right the wrongs done to American Indians? How about some legislation that actually does something to help them, rather than paying lip service. How about the US government actually living up to the terms of their treaties?

Why not both?

I always like this argument btw. Its like saying we can't stop using the word "colored" unless we also agree to reparations.