NFL Changes 2014+

[rams80]

Ok - so here is the question. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the word "redskins" in and of itself is a racial slur. And that means no one is using it. But an NFL team happens to own the rights. And it's only relevant during football season and on football talk shows. I have to believe this makes it relevant to what, maybe 2-3% of a football fan's daily life? If so, why is everyone so up in arms?

Everyone is crying out for a change of the name but not the logo or colors. So I hereby propose they change to the "Maroonskins" or maybe the "Burgundyskins". Now everyone is happy. No racial slurs. Same great colors. Same logos, etc.

But the real crux of the matter has nothing to do with the actual name redskins, or else the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians would have ALSO had their trademarks cancelled, which they did not. This was clearly an attack on Daniel Snyder and his property rights (in this case, the trademarked "Washington Redskins"). All the cancellation does is make it possible for the entire public to use it, not just Synder and the team. It's just that Synder can't sue for $$. So this was about taking away his ability to make money? What is the possible motivation for that? It is to attempt to cripple the man, monetarily speaking. This will fail of course, as he has gobs of money. So why attack the man's property without cause? My theory (which happens to be somewhat supported by the facts) is that he didn't contribute to some pet cause of some senator somewhere, and so they wanted to know how to get him back, and one of his friends said - look, just get a few token native Americans to go sue for damages and we'll get the Obama lawyers to back them, and we'll make him suffer. But why - what in the stink does that even accomplish? If Synder says to the NFL - hey guys, how about I change the name to the Washington Whoopie Pies. The NFL says why? And he says cause I feel like it. And he changes the name and the NFL votes on it and it passes and then all those folks suing him have egg on their faces. You see how stupid that sounds? So it not about the tribes or their peoples being harmed. The name is rarely used. It's only relevant during the football season and the few mentions outside the season. No one in their right minds is confusing the football team with a direct attack on a nation of people (in this case, the relevant native american indian tribe/s). This is about the theft of property rights (in this case, to the name of the team) without cause. And if they can do that to Snyder, they can do it to you too. So look at the deeper purpose. Follow the money. That will tell you what's really going on here.

Nice manifesto. To address a few of your points....

1) The USPTO ruling came as a result of a suit brought by Native Americans, not by the Obama Administration

1a) The three presiding judges in the suit were appointed by George W. Bush, BTW.

2) The ruling merely states that Dan Snyder can no longer exclusively profit from using a racial slur for a team nickname. It never said anything about him not being able to use it at all. Indeed, he can still make money from it. He's just going to have trouble with bootleggers undercutting his prices in the team store.

3) While the ruling damages the value of his property, let me remind you that all purchases and acquisitions in this country are made under one governing assumption: Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware-and that includes the loss of value subsequent to your purchase.

3a) Snyder's not an idiot, and he knew that he was purchasing a trademark that was receiving a similar legal challenge already when he bought the team in 1999.

3b) Quite frankly, Snyder's actions in alienating fans and putting a bad team out on the field have probably done as much to damage the value of his brand as this trademark ruling.

4) Much like the N-word, the R-word and its usage should probably be in the hands of the people it was used to describe.

If it was so doggonned offensive - why have they NOT come against the South Carolina Gamecocks (or the Jacksonville State Gamecocks, for that matter)?

Setting aside the giant animal cruelty issue that is cockfighting, surely you are not equating naming a school's athletic teams after a type of chicken with using a racial slur to name your football team.

Why have they not gone after the Florida State Seminoles?

Because the Seminole Nation approves of the name.

Why have they not gone after the Chicago Blackhawks?

1. The team is directly named after the original owner's WW1 military unit

2. Which is named after a specific Indian, not a group.

3. None of the Sac and Fox tribes, who are the descendants of Chief Black Hawk's tribe, have complained.

I think they don't want to admit it is not offensive to refer to a sports team who is honoring the heritage of a group of whatever.

The Washington football team's nickname is more about honoring the heritage of WASPy settlers on the frontier line (whose heritage can and is honored in many ways besides using a racial slur for a team nickname) than it is Native Americans. As well as George Preston Marshall's open racism.

[Gothamite]

I was just going to ignore the rant, but your response is so much better. Thanks.

[illwauk]

Once again, my theory that the only people who are upset about the R*dskins name controversy are those who clearly do not understand what the problem is with the name holds true.

[IceCap]

Ok. As you can all see there's still a ban in place regarding the Washington Redskins naming controversy. I was going to edit edge1's post on the matter but rams80's response managed to address everything in a reasonable, straightforward manner. I'm going to opt to leave everything as is for now, but I'm going to ask that the discussion stay clear of the Redskins' naming controversy from this point onward. That goes for everyone on both sides of the issue.

Thank you.

[Midway]

Got it Cap

[mafiaman]

Fact clarification here - this "agreement" Florida State has involves the Florida Seminole Tribal Council, NOT the "Seminole Nation."

[TheRicSlick]

mod edit

[canzman]

The Jags initially were not going for a two-tone helmet, but a black to gold gradient to represent some sort of shadow (I forget the BS reason they gave). And the rumors were that the two-tone finished product was not exactly what the team was trying to achieve. Whether it was sloppy production or whatever, it wasn't what they intended.

So would it count as an actual 'change' if the Jags release a slightly improved helmet this year, that ahieved the initial effect they wanted?

Well, the official helmet graphics show it like this:

...which IMO, looks a heck of a lot better than what is actually worn.

If memory serves I think they stated that they were attempting to emulate a hunting jaguar emerging from the shadows to strike. However, if that is the case they really screwed up on the design as if it is emerging from shadow shouldn't the black be on the back on the gold in the front.

Their design actually shows a jaguar retreating back into the shadow which is much more accurate for how this team plays.

[mad43dog]

How much longer are the Jaguars under league rules to keep the current muli-colored helmet?

Some believe 4 more seasons but as others have noted the 5 year rule is not set in stone nor is it legally binding. A waiver could easily be granted any offseason depending on how willing the league is to accept a change request. Also paying a waiver-expedite fee of some sorts could likely enact change much faster.

Big business makes these types of exceptions all the time .

The Jags only spent 4 years ('09 to '12) in their previous uniform, so who knows the status of this "rule" anyway.

I can think of quite a few other minor uniform changes that happened with teams within a five year window, also. (Off the top of my head, the Rams fiddled with their current look a few times... number font, side panels... in the first couple years they wore it.) So if "minor adjustments" are OK, you just have to define what is or isn't minor.

But what makes you think they feel any need to change it? Don't get me wrong, I hate it, too, but is there any indication that the Jags are feeling pressure from their fanbase to dump it? They aren't going to do it out of a sense of good taste. Obviously, if they had good taste they wouldn't have done it to begin with.

1992

1993

1994

This was the first thing I thought of. Was that rule around in the 1990s?

[BBTV]

You're missing a version in between the red-numbered one and the giant-elvis one.

IMO the version you're missing was their best look ever. I did like big-elvis though.

[guest23]

How much longer are the Jaguars under league rules to keep the current muli-colored helmet?

Some believe 4 more seasons but as others have noted the 5 year rule is not set in stone nor is it legally binding. A waiver could easily be granted any offseason depending on how willing the league is to accept a change request. Also paying a waiver-expedite fee of some sorts could likely enact change much faster.

Big business makes these types of exceptions all the time .

The Jags only spent 4 years ('09 to '12) in their previous uniform, so who knows the status of this "rule" anyway.

I can think of quite a few other minor uniform changes that happened with teams within a five year window, also. (Off the top of my head, the Rams fiddled with their current look a few times... number font, side panels... in the first couple years they wore it.) So if "minor adjustments" are OK, you just have to define what is or isn't minor.

But what makes you think they feel any need to change it? Don't get me wrong, I hate it, too, but is there any indication that the Jags are feeling pressure from their fanbase to dump it? They aren't going to do it out of a sense of good taste. Obviously, if they had good taste they wouldn't have done it to begin with.

1992

1993

1994

This was the first thing I thought of. Was that rule around in the 1990s?

I don't even think nfl properties existed back then and if they did they did not have the full control that they do now...teams had much more autonomy...you also had the cowboys do the double star midseason unveil...things were just very different back then.

I don't think it was until jerry jones signed his own deal with nike & pepsi which directly conflicted with the official league approved sponsors did the league finally start to lock all the franchises down.

[bosrs1]

So any ideas what the 2015 San Antonio Raiders uniforms and logos would look like?

[Gothamite]

So any ideas what the 2015 San Antonio Raiders uniforms and logos would look like?

We don't need to worry about fantasies.

[FSUViking]

How much longer are the Jaguars under league rules to keep the current muli-colored helmet?

Some believe 4 more seasons but as others have noted the 5 year rule is not set in stone nor is it legally binding. A waiver could easily be granted any offseason depending on how willing the league is to accept a change request. Also paying a waiver-expedite fee of some sorts could likely enact change much faster.

Big business makes these types of exceptions all the time .

The Jags only spent 4 years ('09 to '12) in their previous uniform, so who knows the status of this "rule" anyway.

I can think of quite a few other minor uniform changes that happened with teams within a five year window, also. (Off the top of my head, the Rams fiddled with their current look a few times... number font, side panels... in the first couple years they wore it.) So if "minor adjustments" are OK, you just have to define what is or isn't minor.

But what makes you think they feel any need to change it? Don't get me wrong, I hate it, too, but is there any indication that the Jags are feeling pressure from their fanbase to dump it? They aren't going to do it out of a sense of good taste. Obviously, if they had good taste they wouldn't have done it to begin with.

1992

I love these uniforms so damn much.

[Bill0813]

So any ideas what the 2015 San Antonio Raiders uniforms and logos would look like?

Maybe they'd adopt the Spurs' black and silver colors.

[TheRicSlick]

So any ideas what the 2015 San Antonio Raiders uniforms and logos would look like?

Maybe they'd adopt the Spurs' black and silver colors.

Doubt it. Fans would riot.

[Old School Fool]

San Antonio Raiders

As a Raiders fan, I might just give up on the NFL entirely.

[WSU151]

You're missing a version in between the red-numbered one and the giant-elvis one.

IMO the version you're missing was their best look ever. I did like big-elvis though.

Yep. This was 1994 (my favorite jersey of the royal blue era too).

The Big Elvis with the italic, drop-shadowed numbers was 1995-1999.

[Gothamite]

You're missing a version in between the red-numbered one and the giant-elvis one.

IMO the version you're missing was their best look ever. I did like big-elvis though.

Yep. This was 1994 (my favorite jersey of the royal blue era too).

I like that one. So much better than what they're wearing now.

What pants did they wear with that?

[nuordr]

This was the best picture I could find: