rjrrzube

Washington NFL Franchise Retires Name and Logo

Recommended Posts

anyway, wouldn't surprise me if they had something in the pipeline already to go in case they needed to change there name at a moment's notice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why anybody would welcome the Washington Generals name, to be shared with the losingest franchise in sports. I heard a suggestion for Washington Warthogs the other day its starting to grow on me.

 

My top 5

 

1. Redtails

2. Warthogs

3. Red Wolves

4. Pigskins

5. Whips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, coggs said:

Didn't they city (or a group of fans) sue to keep the history in Cleveland or something like that?

 

The Redskins won 3 Super Bowls and played in 2 others and won 2 Championships in the pre-Super Bowl era.  I do not think they want to abandon that.  Secondly, keeping the colors, a name with "red" in it, using the same wordmark is a way to keep the current fans.  If they started over as a new franchise with a complete re-brand to say the Washington Generals with a Red-White-Blue theme, it may not go over as well.  I do think we will continue to see Redskins gear at games for a long time.  Not sure the majority of their fans are going to run out to buy the new stuff in bulk, especially with the prices for licensned merchandise.

 

On that point, I know that the University of Utah will not allow you to wear anything with feathers, or a head dress, or anything Native American related or you will be kicked out of the stadium. Would't Washington need a similar policy? Because it seems to me that if you keep the colors and history, only remove Redskins, and allow fans to keep wearing Redskins gear... then what are we talking about? I'm defiantly on the side that Redskins needs to go, but it would seem that there are a lot of opportunities for "fans" to protest the name change and continue to wear Redskins gear and I would think there needs to be a policy to prevent that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sportsfan7 said:

I can't understand why anybody would welcome the Washington Generals name, to be shared with the losingest franchise in sports. I heard a suggestion for Washington Warthogs the other day its starting to grow on me.

 

My top 5

 

1. Redtails

2. Warthogs

3. Red Wolves

4. Pigskins

5. Whips

i remember the Warthogs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Warthogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I can't imagine, knowing Dan Snyder, that he won't go for Warriors. He'll want to spite everyone by picking the most basic name possible for the team as a final shot at the people asking him to change it. "You don't like Reds*ins? Fine! Have a super-generic name instead! Maybe that'll shut you all up."

 

I like Redtails, honestly; you could make it an homage to the Tuskegee Airmen while using an actual red-tailed hawk as a logo.

I would not be shocked if Snyder is being strong-armed by the league here.  I have said for 20 years, name will not change until it hurts their profits.  Nike and FedEx were going to hit them in the pocket and merchandise sales are shared by the league.  They have already said they will not have any Native American imagery and even though they could get rid of the spear, feathers, and go with Warriors, I think it is too close to fly here.  They are keeping the colors, think it will be something with "red" in it, will keep the same wordmark font and the "R" logo (like Gibbs wore on his hat for years) to appease as many of the current fans as possible.  Keep the change as simple as possible, but get rid of the Native American stuff.  This is not the same scenario as the Blackhawks or Chiefs.  Yes, I know the origin of their Blackhawk name.  But, if the pressure became enough, they could easily change the logo and keep the name in honor of Chief Black Hawk. Same for Chiefs.  Could keep the name, drop the arrowhead logo and just go with a basic "KC".  Not the case here.  Simply going "warriors" for them is re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

On that point, I know that the University of Utah will not allow you to wear anything with feathers, or a head dress, or anything Native American related or you will be kicked out of the stadium. Would't Washington need a similar policy? Because it seems to me that if you keep the colors and history, only remove Redskins, and allow fans to keep wearing Redskins gear... then what are we talking about? I'm defiantly on the side that Redskins needs to go, but it would seem that there are a lot of opportunities for "fans" to protest the name change and continue to wear Redskins gear and I would think there needs to be a policy to prevent that. 

I think there's a big distinction between preventing people from dressing in Native American garb (feathers, headdress, etc.) and asking them to not wear a sweatshirt, jacket or hat bearing a retired logo. The first one is easy to police, and reasonable to do so. There aren't THAT many people showing up to a Redskins game wearing headdresses.  It's a much more difficult, and impractical, thing to turn away everybody wearing a Redskins logo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

On that point, I know that the University of Utah will not allow you to wear anything with feathers, or a head dress, or anything Native American related or you will be kicked out of the stadium. Would't Washington need a similar policy? Because it seems to me that if you keep the colors and history, only remove Redskins, and allow fans to keep wearing Redskins gear... then what are we talking about? I'm defiantly on the side that Redskins needs to go, but it would seem that there are a lot of opportunities for "fans" to protest the name change and continue to wear Redskins gear and I would think there needs to be a policy to prevent that. 

1: can Native Americans wear all that or do they also get kicked out (just asking)  

2: if they had a policy like that, that could end up banning fans from wearing Redskins gear, that could end up in the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I think there's a big distinction between preventing people from dressing in Native American garb (feathers, headdress, etc.) and asking them to not wear a sweatshirt, jacket or hat bearing a retired logo. The first one is easy to police, and reasonable to do so. There aren't THAT many people showing up to a Redskins game wearing headdresses.  It's a much more difficult, and impractical, thing to turn away everybody wearing a Redskins logo. 

I understand your point and the difference in the two. But if this is to be a meaningful change, should't banning people wearing the Redskins logo be one of the needed steps? I don't think FedEx and Pepsi will still give their money if the name is changed, the colors remain the same, and everyone in the stadium is still wearing Redskins gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I can't imagine, knowing Dan Snyder, that he won't go for Warriors. He'll want to spite everyone by picking the most basic name possible for the team as a final shot at the people asking him to change it. "You don't like Reds*ins? Fine! Have a super-generic name instead! Maybe that'll shut you all up."

 

I like Redtails, honestly; you could make it an homage to the Tuskegee Airmen while using an actual red-tailed hawk as a logo.


If this were Minor League Baseball, you know it’d be a red-tailed hawk wearing a helmet and pilot goggles with contrail lines coming off the wings. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, goalieboy82 said:

1: can Native Americans wear all that or do they also get kicked out (just asking)  

2: if they had a policy like that, that could end up banning fans from wearing Redskins gear, that could end up in the courts.

1. I honestly don't know, but I could't imagine there has been a case of that happening.

2. I think that if the policy is made clear, say a point of purchase, and the fact that it's on private property (its a business and all), then they have every right to turn away their business if they don't follow policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

I understand your point and the difference in the two. But if this is to be a meaningful change, should't wearing the Redskins logo be one of the needed steps? I don't think FedEx and Pepsi will still give their money if the name is changed, the colors remain the same, and everyone in the stadium is still wearing Redskins gear.

 

FedEx and Pepsi never asked fans to stop wearing the gear. The goalposts seem to be moving if they have this new request of stopping fans from wearing old gear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

I understand your point and the difference in the two. But if this is to be a meaningful change, should't wearing the Redskins logo be one of the needed steps? I don't think FedEx and Pepsi will still give their money if the name is changed, the colors remain the same, and everyone in the stadium is still wearing Redskins gear.

That’s expecting people buy new gear, and that’s just not feasible. The old logo will go away in time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

I understand your point and the difference in the two. But if this is to be a meaningful change, should't wearing the Redskins logo be one of the needed steps? I don't think FedEx and Pepsi will still give their money if the name is changed, the colors remain the same, and everyone in the stadium is still wearing Redskins gear.

Sure. I think that's a laudable goal. But it seems to me an unnecessary complication to force your supporters to invest in new apparel or come to the games in neutral dress. 

 

Certainly, it's within Snyder's right to do so,  just like it's OK for any private enterprise to tell someone not wearing a mask to go pound sand. I just can't imagine they would take it to that level. They'd be turning away half of their fanbase at the turnstiles. 

 

Just like @dont care said: It'll take a while, but the old gear will phase itself out of the rotation as time passes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WSU151 said:

 

FedEx and Pepsi never asked fans to stop wearing the gear. 

 

True, but I still think that the name change is pointless if not enforced on some level.

1 minute ago, dont care said:

That’s expecting people buy new gear, and that’s just not feasible. The old logo will go away in time

No reason they could't give away some gear. Like a guns for toys deal. Give a Redskins shirt and get a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

On that point, I know that the University of Utah will not allow you to wear anything with feathers, or a head dress, or anything Native American related or you will be kicked out of the stadium. Would't Washington need a similar policy? Because it seems to me that if you keep the colors and history, only remove Redskins, and allow fans to keep wearing Redskins gear... then what are we talking about? I'm defiantly on the side that Redskins needs to go, but it would seem that there are a lot of opportunities for "fans" to protest the name change and continue to wear Redskins gear and I would think there needs to be a policy to prevent that. 

I could see them cracking down on fans wearing headdresses or other Native American costumes.  I do remember them having a well-known fan who I believe was African-American who wore a headdress.  But no idea if he is still going to games or if he is still alive.  However, not sure they can or want to try to police people wearing Redskins t-shirts, jerseys, hats, jackets, etc.  I think that would be very difficult to enforce. Fans  enter the game with no Redskins gear showing.  Once inside, they de-layer or they pull a redsksins t-shirt out of their pocket and change.  One benefit they have is I think it is likely fans are not attending games this season.  So, it gives STH over a year to start buying gear with the new team name.  Those who choose to do so. But, it will definitely be interesting to see.  I think if they completely try to ban the stuff, that is going to cause more of an uproar.

 

Edit: I think this is who I am talking about and it seems he has passed away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Zee 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

True, but I still think that the name change is pointless if not enforced on some level.

No reason they could't give away some gear. Like a guns for toys deal. Give a Redskins shirt and get a replacement.

I was thinking that, but let's be honest this is the NFL we are talking about.  They do not give anything away for free.  Every owner right now is not thinking, "FInally, we are doing the right thing...".  They are thinking, "How much stuff is the new team going to sell and what will my cut be?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dont care said:

That’s expecting people buy new gear, and that’s just not feasible. The old logo will go away in time

and forcing people to buy new gear in order to get into games would not be a good PR move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.