Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[Ruhskins]

Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer has passed away:
Malcolm Glazer, Buccaneers owner, dies at age 85 - NFL.com

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Bucs owner Malcolm Glazer has passed away:
Malcolm Glazer, Buccaneers owner, dies at age 85 - NFL.com

Very sorry to hear that, though now I find myself shamelessly curious to see the reaction from Man U hooligans.

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Richard Sherman of Seattle Seahawks thinks NFL-proposed N-word ban is 'atrocious idea' - ESPN

What a f*cking idiot.

With that said he does seem to do a hell of a job trolling our franchise.

[punch it in]

It would cost a boatload of money to change the name. A boatload.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by punch it in

It would cost a boatload of money to change the name. A boatload.

Yeah but they'd probably make 2 boatloads if they changed the name.

[MTK]

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.

Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.

Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

You certainly have a point there. I would imagine that the level of backlash would depend on the perceived level of effort from ownership in protecting the name.

IE if Snyder and company simply rolled over and just went...

Then I would imagine the backlash would be pretty substantial. Another factor would be how fans would view the aesthetic changes to the name, logo, uniforms, etc should a name change come to pass.

Dirtbag definition discount double check sponsored by

aes·thet·ic
esˈTHetik/Submit
adjective
1.
concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty

#Winning

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.

Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

Wants Politicians get involved I'm always against it since I consider most of them corrupt IMO.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Wants Politicians get involved I'm always against it since I consider most of them corrupt IMO.

Well its not that most of the them are corrupt rather its more.....

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.

Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

I agree, it really wouldn't be the same. Our franchise has been around for 81 years. Many of us including (Dan S) have childhood memories tied to the franchise and when/if the name ever changes a piece of my fandom will die with it. I don't believe, for me, it would be the same. I would still be a Washington fan, but my level of fandom would be eroded.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.

Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

Snyder ultimately has to do right by his fanbase, which is what he's trying to do here. But I think you and I both know that the fans of this organization would absolutely get behind the new name of the team the second they change the name. If 20 years of struggling on the field hasn't weakened the fanbase, what the heck is a name change going to do?

[irish]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Snyder ultimately has to do right by his fanbase, which is what he's trying to do here. But I think you and I both know that the fans of this organization would absolutely get behind the new name of the team the second they change the name. If 20 years of struggling on the field hasn't weakened the fanbase, what the heck is a name change going to do?

Exactly. If anything a name change might help as it would provide a clean slate after all the years of front office dysfunction and lack of on-field performance.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure how changing a major brand would result in some sort of financial windfall. A lot of alienated fans wouldn't exactly be lining up to spend their hard earned $$ out of protest.



Think about it with another team. If the Steelers were to change their name and logo does anyone think that would be a good thing for them? A hardcore passionate fan base isn't going to forgive and forget overnight.

Yup. Imagine the friggin Yankees changing? Not only would the facilitation of the change cost money, but like Matty says it isnt even guaranteed that the new brand would be a success.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Wants Politicians get involved I'm always against it since I consider most of them corrupt IMO.

Exactly. Dirtbag references Snyders effort in protecting the team name. I would be less apt to buy new brand merch because of the jackasses who rule the world. Not to mention its already past the point of Snyder rolling over.

[scowan]

I want to ask you guys a question about the offensive name Redskins which some find offensive and others do not. First, I know its the NFL and they are big and I know its the Washington Redskins and they are big, BUT if any of you were personally offended by a business's name, what would you personally do? My first response would be that I just wouldn't do business with them, support them, or shop in their store if that was the case. End of story. So now to bring it to the Redskins, if you don't like their name or find it offensive, don't go to their games, buy their merchandise or otherwise support their business. If other suppliers (other NFL teams) want to play them and are OK with it, if other people want to watch their games, buy their mechandise or otherwise keep them in business, why does Congress care, or anyone else care? If you want to support or buy let's say Hell's Angels merchandise or maybe Gay and Lesbian merchandise or pornographic merchandise and it offends me, in America where we have the right to choose what and where we buy and support private business, why should others who are offended FORCE their ideas and beliefs on you for those businesses to change?

What am I missing here? This whole politically correct additude in this country has gotten crazy.

[over the mountain]

scowan - this is not an apples to apples comparison bc a strong argument could be made that the redskins and the NFL are private and not businesses open to the public (like a 7-11 or a bakery) and that the redskins, by their name alone, are not refusing service to anyone but ...

back in the 60's the Civil Rights Act was passed which basically said that you cannot discriminate against a person because of their race, joining other protected categories such as gender, religion, age, handicap.

Shortly thereafter, a Motel refused to allow black people to stay at the motel. The SCOTUS ruled that a business open to the public cannot discriminate against business invitees based upon race. The Federal Civil Rights Act extended to businesses only doing business in a particular state under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That laid the ground work that a business open to the public cannot refuse service based upon a protected class/category.

In '05 or '06, conservatives tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to federally define marriage as between a man and woman. The SCOTUS ruled against DOMA and added "sexual preference" to the list of protected categories you cannot discriminate against.

last year a baker refused service to a lesbian couple bc of their sexual preference. The Court ruled that the bakery, as a business open to the public, could not discriminate against the couple and had to bake the cake. The bakery decided to close shop.

if you are a private organization, you can deny membership for any reason you want (see Augusta nat'l)

Short answer - while the Redskins are not refusing a service to the native americans like the baker did the lesbian couple .... eventually the Fed Govt may be able pull any and all federal benefits, incentives etc

im not a fan of telling offended people to just close their eyes or cover their ears when offensive conduct is being conducted in the public arena