2020 NFL Draft/Offseason thread

[MrNubbz]

Cleveland Browns are doomed.

Of course, "nobody" knows that Paul Brown started the team. Cancel that history.

Browns fans would be first in line to cancel their team

I'm certain Paul Brown has a link to racism somewhere along the line

Bastages - the lot of you,we have them right were we want!!!

[MrNubbz]

I'm confused, which name are they changing, Redskins or Washington, or is it both? 

Still, the funniest joke I've ever heard about that name change came from Tony Kornheiser.  Paraphrasing: "So, the Washington Bullets are changing their team name so as not be associated with crime.  They will now just be called The Bullets."

[CWSooner]

"Redskins" has always been an epithet.

It doesn't get less epithetical because it's been a team name for almost 90 years.

I don't understand why anyone who is not a Washington fan would be angry about the name-change.

Would people be angry if the Carolina Panthers changed their name?  Were people angry when the New York Titans became the New York Jets?

There's a Tulsa suburban school district called "Union," because it originated as an amalgamation of 2 or 3 small rural districts.  The team name is "Redskins."  The issue of changing the name has come up before and has been rejected.  The district is reconsidering the issue, and I suspect the name will be changed.  That's a good thing, I think.  The name shouldn't have been adopted in the first place.

The same football program also rips off the U of Miami.  They wear the "U" on their helmets.  Miami sued them at one point for trademark (copyright?) infringement and won, but they still use it.  Maybe they are paying a license fee.  Their official colors are red and white.  But their uniforms are maroon, silver, and black.  They win the biggest-schools state football championship about every 3 years or so.  They have an enrollment of 3,500 or so, which seems obscene to me.  Of course, so do the other high schools that win state championships in the biggest-schools category.

Northeastern (Oklahoma) State University in Tahlequah (capital of the Cherokee Nation) is by some claims the oldest college west of the Mississippi.  It was started by the Cherokees after they were brutally moved from the Southeast on the Trail of Tears.  The team name used to be "Redmen."  You'd think the colors might have been red and white, but they weren't, and aren't.  They have been green and white for at least 50 years.  They changed from "Redmen" to "Redhawks" 10-15 years ago.  I think a lot of alums got upset by that.  Oddly (to me) the colors are still green and white.

There are a lot of Native Americans in Oklahoma.  Everybody whose ancestors were here around back around 1900 (that would include me) seems to claim about 1/16 or 1/32 Native American ancestry.  By a SCOTUS decision the other day, about half the state seems to have become (or reverted to being) tribal land.

[Riffraft]

Browns fans would be first in line to cancel their team

Sorry, I am a diehard, been one for 53 years when I discovered football. Never cancelling my team

[Riffraft]

"Redskins" has always been an epithet.

It doesn't get less epithetical because it's been a team name for almost 90 years.

I don't understand why anyone who is not a Washington fan would be angry about the name-change.

Would people be angry if the Carolina Panthers changed their name?  Were people angry when the New York Titans became the New York Jets?

I think the difference and why the anger on some people's part, is they are being forced to change their name where the other name changes were a choice by the organizations.

Personally I couldn't care less whether they change the name or not. Not the hill I am going to die on. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think the difference and why the anger on some people's part, is they are being forced to change their name where the other name changes were a choice by the organizations.

Well, "force" is a bit of a strong word. The federal government isn't forcing them to change their name. As far as I'm aware, the NFL isn't telling them "change your name or we're kicking you out of the league." It's more along the lines that public opinion is so dramatically against them that their choices are change it to mollify the public or don't change it and continue to endure constant criticism, berating, and probably protests. 

But... The problem with your argument is that in many cases, absent this "force" as you call it, people WON'T ever change. Slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow ended because it was forced to end. It's not like Mississippi was 100% behind the idea of admitting James Meredith and was just upset that they were being forced to. They wouldn't have desegregated without force of law. 

The Redskins ownership/organization has been criticized for decades now and have done nothing. If they were going to have changed their name, they've had numerous opportunities and have refused. Now they're mad because they're being "forced" to do something, not claiming they were never going to voluntarily do it. 

Seems to me like a hollow argument. 

[847badgerfan]

I think it's forced when your sponsors make threats.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think it's forced when your sponsors make threats.

We have freedom of speech and freedom of association in this country. If you are the type of organization that nobody wants to associate with, that's not forcing you to change. It's exerting significant pressure, of course, but it's not force. 

[Riffraft]

Well, "force" is a bit of a strong word. The federal government isn't forcing them to change their name. As far as I'm aware, the NFL isn't telling them "change your name or we're kicking you out of the league." It's more along the lines that public opinion is so dramatically against them that their choices are change it to mollify the public or don't change it and continue to endure constant criticism, berating, and probably protests.

But... The problem with your argument is that in many cases, absent this "force" as you call it, people WON'T ever change. Slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow ended because it was forced to end. It's not like Mississippi was 100% behind the idea of admitting James Meredith and was just upset that they were being forced to. They wouldn't have desegregated without force of law.

The Redskins ownership/organization has been criticized for decades now and have done nothing. If they were going to have changed their name, they've had numerous opportunities and have refused. Now they're mad because they're being "forced" to do something, not claiming they were never going to voluntarily do it.

Seems to me like a hollow argument.

 Public opinion was not the force, they could and have been weathering that. It was sponsors threatening to pull out that was the "force" 

Of course absent force many things and/or people will not change and that had nothing to do with what I said. I was merely explaining what I see as the anger of some with the change of the Redskins name while people were not upset with the Jets, etc. name changes. 

[Riffraft]

We have freedom of speech and freedom of association in this country. If you are the type of organization that nobody wants to associate with, that's not forcing you to change. It's exerting significant pressure, of course, but it's not force.

I think scientifically pressure is a type of force.  

[bayareabadger]

All this is PR and marketing driven, nothing else, in reality.

They are running the calculus of which will alienate fewer fans.

I mean, aren’t pro sports teams (College too), especially with names and mascots, just a large exercise in marketing?

[bayareabadger]

Lol. What? It's not fans that are bitching on twitter about the Redskins name. I'm sure if you asked most actual football fans about the name change, they'd say it's stupid. And I'm sure if you asked all Redskins fans who grew up loving that team- they are probably a little pissed off about the name change right now.

Has nothing to do with alienating fans. The actual fans are against a name change.

Has everything to do with NFL virtue signaling, and throwing out an empty, hollow meaningless gesture- and them caving to a bunch of dickwad "woke" pussies on twitter who probably don't even watch football or even knew there was a Washington Redskins team until one of their twitter friends told them there was an NFL team called the Washington Redskins and that it's racist.

The term virtue signaling is fascinating because of how it takes on a kind of specific politicized sense despite the wording or even the idea behind it seeming to be more neutral. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The term virtue signaling is fascinating because of how it takes on a kind of specific politicized sense despite the wording or even the idea behind it seeming to be more neutral. 

I do think it has taken on a very politicized tone. That said, I think it's a term that makes sense. 

It's voicing a political opinion [often unwarranted] that probably has no meaningful impact on your daily life, and that--deep down--you really don't give a crap about, because it shows that you're part of the correct tribe. 

For example--I think the Washington Redskins should change their name. I believe this despite the fact that I am not a Native American and to have no Native American ancestry. I think this despite the fact that I don't live in Washington DC nor am I actually a fan of the team. I think this despite the fact that honestly, I'm not "offended" by the name. The Washington Redskins are, to me, absolutely inconsequential unless I choose one of their players for a fantasy football team or if I'm facing someone who has chosen one of their players. 

So I have no vested interest in the team nor their name, I just think it's ridiculous that in 2020 it's still a thing.  

Does that mean that this argument, for me, is no more than virtue signaling? 

[bayareabadger]

I do think it has taken on a very politicized tone. That said, I think it's a term that makes sense.

It's voicing a political opinion [often unwarranted] that probably has no meaningful impact on your daily life, and that--deep down--you really don't give a crap about, because it shows that you're part of the correct tribe.

For example--I think the Washington Redskins should change their name. I believe this despite the fact that I am not a Native American and to have no Native American ancestry. I think this despite the fact that I don't live in Washington DC nor am I actually a fan of the team. I think this despite the fact that honestly, I'm not "offended" by the name. The Washington Redskins are, to me, absolutely inconsequential unless I choose one of their players for a fantasy football team or if I'm facing someone who has chosen one of their players.

So I have no vested interest in the team nor their name, I just think it's ridiculous that in 2020 it's still a thing. 

Does that mean that this argument, for me, is no more than virtue signaling?

So the definition I’ve read doesn’t touch on the idea of the belief being insincere. That would imply sincerity makes it not virtue signaling.

I mean, lots of people do lots of showy things To give off the image of virtue. But in some cases it’s a bad thing, and in others less so.