Recommended Posts

Washington Pigskins.

This could work.

Maybe...

...but then all of those dudes who dress up like lady-hogs would be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or Washington Daleks could work. It's a unique name not used professional sports and it doesn't piss off any ethnic crowds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a huge supporter of one of two names that could provide a compromise between a rightfully mad public and an owner with sole control of his team's decision...

A name that honors Native Americans and has express permission from the necessary parties involved.

Two options.

Washington Red Clouds or Washington Potomacs.

The Red Clouds article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-washington-red-clouds-a-team-name-to-honor-a-great-warrior-and-leader/2013/11/01/292f20c4-40e3-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Pigskins.

This could work.

Maybe...

...but then all of those dudes who dress up like lady-hogs would be offended.

They stopped doing that a few years ago, it was always weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Snyder, and was forced to change the name, I'd simply have no name. Keep uni, helmet, etc but just be Washington. Or could take a page from soccer and simply be Washington FC. To change to any other nickname I think would hurt the brand too much.

What about Indians? Except make both endzones say Washington. "Redskins" could still be an unofficial nickname used by fans if they so choose. -Hey how are the Redskins gonna do this year? Pretty bad dude...

Hell, you could still even sell shirts with "Redskins" on it probably. Teams sell shirts with unofficial "nicknames" right?? War Eagle, Wahoos, etc, all that.

If you check them out in a football preview magazine or on a box score it'll say Washington Indians tho. But around the stadium, they could avoid using Indians altogether much like how the Wizards avoid using their little wizard logo.

That's the point of Washington FC.

The local nickname would still be "Redskins".

Such a devious plan it just might work...

Exactly. And I think the NFL may balk but then Synder could say, "hey, we offered to remove the name and they wouldn't let us". I actually got the idea from all the people refusing to use the Redskins name in print and on tv. They keep referring to the team of the Washington Football Club. I think that could be the answer here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I believe there is ZERO chance the market-conscious NFL would let any team try to skate by without a nickname. Especially when it would be painfully transparent that all they were doing was trying to keep the old name alive as some sort unspoken agreement among the fans. I think its significantly more likely the NFL would rather they keep Redskins than allow the league to be embarrassed by that kind of childish ploy.

My solution? Washington Americans. And change no visuals what-so-ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Snyder, and was forced to change the name, I'd simply have no name. Keep uni, helmet, etc but just be Washington. Or could take a page from soccer and simply be Washington FC. To change to any other nickname I think would hurt the brand too much.

What about Indians? Except make both endzones say Washington. "Redskins" could still be an unofficial nickname used by fans if they so choose. -Hey how are the Redskins gonna do this year? Pretty bad dude...

Hell, you could still even sell shirts with "Redskins" on it probably. Teams sell shirts with unofficial "nicknames" right?? War Eagle, Wahoos, etc, all that.

If you check them out in a football preview magazine or on a box score it'll say Washington Indians tho. But around the stadium, they could avoid using Indians altogether much like how the Wizards avoid using their little wizard logo.

That's the point of Washington FC.

The local nickname would still be "Redskins".

Such a devious plan it just might work...

Exactly. And I think the NFL may balk but then Synder could say, "hey, we offered to remove the name and they wouldn't let us". I actually got the idea from all the people refusing to use the Redskins name in print and on tv. They keep referring to the team of the Washington Football Club. I think that could be the answer here.

Maybe it is the soccer fan in me, but I actually like the sound of Washington FC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Redskins fan, if they change the name then for crying out loud don't change the color scheme!!! One of my favorites in all of sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Natives, Washington Tribe, all good names if Redskins had to be replaced. Tribe would be interesting, as it'd be the only singular team name in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of mascots are named after an animal representing the area, so maybe the:


  • Washington Thrushes (Official bird of D.C - Wood Thrush)
  • Washington Bats (Official mammal of Virginia - Big Eared Bat, also home to the Redskins headquarters located in Ashburn, VA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My solution? Washington Americans. And change no visuals what-so-ever.

Might as well go all the way and rebrand as the Washington 'Muricans. :)

Washington Natives, Washington Tribe, all good names if Redskins had to be replaced. Tribe would be interesting, as it'd be the only singular team name in the NFL.

I like Tribe, but when people say "The Tribe won", it's almost universally recognized as a reference to the Cleveland Indians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its significantly more likely the NFL would rather they keep Redskins than allow the league to be embarrassed by that kind of childish ploy.

Then proposing the change makes even more sense for Synder who wants to keep the Redskin name. It could be his Trump card that puts the league in an unwinnable situation which I think would be fun to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its significantly more likely the NFL would rather they keep Redskins than allow the league to be embarrassed by that kind of childish ploy.

Then proposing the change makes even more sense for Synder who wants to keep the Redskin name. It could be his Trump card that puts the league in an unwinnable situation which I think would be fun to follow.

Wait. In a face-off between Daniel Snyder and the whole National F'n Football League, you actually think that he's in a position to put them in an "unwinnable" situation? I think you're confusing the power differential at play. If we actually got to the point where this issue became Snyder vs. the NFL, here's how I see your scenario going... they tell him he has to change the name, he changes it to something non-existent so the fans can keep using Redskin, the NFL says, no, try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its significantly more likely the NFL would rather they keep Redskins than allow the league to be embarrassed by that kind of childish ploy.

Then proposing the change makes even more sense for Synder who wants to keep the Redskin name. It could be his Trump card that puts the league in an unwinnable situation which I think would be fun to follow.

Wait. In a face-off between Daniel Snyder and the whole National F'n Football League, you actually think that he's in a position to put them in an "unwinnable" situation? I think you're confusing the power differential at play. If we actually got to the point where this issue became Snyder vs. the NFL, here's how I see your scenario going... they tell him he has to change the name, he changes it to something non-existent so the fans can keep using Redskin, the NFL says, no, try again.

actually sines the nfl has to approve all changes if he simply proposes to the to change the name to nothing the nfl will just simply say no not allowed, try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its significantly more likely the NFL would rather they keep Redskins than allow the league to be embarrassed by that kind of childish ploy.

Then proposing the change makes even more sense for Synder who wants to keep the Redskin name. It could be his Trump card that puts the league in an unwinnable situation which I think would be fun to follow.

Wait. In a face-off between Daniel Snyder and the whole National F'n Football League, you actually think that he's in a position to put them in an "unwinnable" situation? I think you're confusing the power differential at play. If we actually got to the point where this issue became Snyder vs. the NFL, here's how I see your scenario going... they tell him he has to change the name, he changes it to something non-existent so the fans can keep using Redskin, the NFL says, no, try again.

Do owners vote on name changes? Part of me thinks they do, as it is a matter of "the best interest of the league", but I can't remember the owners voting on the Tennessee Oilers changing to Tennessee Titans. Something tells me that the owners have the autonomy to choose the name without a vote. I don't think the Commissioner has the power to say no to Snyder if Snyder changes it from Redskins to "Washington F.C.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners don't have to vote if the commissioner has the power to approve or deny. That's the point of a commissioner. We know the baseball commissioner has veto power over proposed names - this was discussed when an expansion group started talking up "Virginia Fury." Why shouldn't the NFL commissioner?

Plus we know the NFL has veto power over all new uniforms, and won't even let teams contract with an outside designer for their logos (not even Nike). Seems like a stretch to believe they would exercise such tough control over unis and logos and not names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the commissioner has the ability to veto names, then the Redskins name would have changed by now. Snyder's not exactly saying "We'll keep the name...if Roger Goodell lets us.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the commissioner has the ability to veto names, then the Redskins name would have changed by now. Snyder's not exactly saying "We'll keep the name...if Roger Goodell lets us.".

He's trying hard to get them to do it voluntarily, probably to avoid a situation where Snyder is looked at as a victim of a power-mad dictator. Also, if Snyder gives it up on his own, it ingratiates him to the complainants, as opposed to him never giving in and being forced out of it.

Also he's probably trying to avoid setting that precedent.

Or... he doesn't really care, and any statements he makes regarding changing the name are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the commissioner has the ability to veto names, then the Redskins name would have changed by now. Snyder's not exactly saying "We'll keep the name...if Roger Goodell lets us.".

He's trying hard to get them to do it voluntarily, probably to avoid a situation where Snyder is looked at as a victim of a power-mad dictator. Also, if Snyder gives it up on his own, it ingratiates him to the complainants, as opposed to him never giving in and being forced out of it.

Also he's probably trying to avoid setting that precedent.

Or... he doesn't really care, and any statements he makes regarding changing the name are meaningless.

The Commissioner may have the ability to veto name changes, but not the ability to force teams to change their existing names. I have nothing to back that up, just speculation on my end.

Anyway we know that Goodell has met with Snyder to discuss the name, and that Synder has walked away saying that it won't be changed. Goodell may be trying to avoid being heavy handed in this, but I think we see him act on behalf of the rest of the NFL if the Redskins' appeal regarding their trademarks fails. If it does then the Redskins will be without trademark protection and Goodell would have a leg to stand on regarding "the best interests of the league."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.