Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Time for Ash to go 8 Mile)

[skihorn]

Originally posted by JBR2009:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
JBR,

Absolutely it would hurt. The Redskins are worth over 1.5 billion dollars. This isn't a minor deal. They're one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports.

To put it in perspective, can you imagine the Cowboys overnight changing their name and waking up tomorrow a Dallas Outlaws fan?

How much would it hurt? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Maybe hardly at all. But undoubtedly it would have a at least some negative impact on Redskin fans and franchise value. I don't think the owner and fans should be bullied by a vocal minority on such a subjective matter into taking the risk.


This post was edited on 5/6 2:18 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

I am not suggesting they get bullied into it. What I am saying is that if the decision were mine (it very clearly is not) I would change the name and stem the tide before it becomes a forced issue and frame it as a PR success. An unforced correction that is sensitive to but not mandated by a "vocal minority".

Like MLK said it is "Almost always the creative deidicated minority that make the world a better place."

It is my belief that the value of the redskins has little or nothing to with the redskins name. I would disagree that it would have a negative impact at all. The opportunity to rebrand creates a terrific opportunity to connect to the community. It would also undoubtedly create a bump in jersey/memorabilia sales of both the new stuff and the old. I would imagine that this would more than make up for the cost of any design changes.

This is all my opinion though. I understand your point I think we just differ which is fine. I appreciate the debate over it. Very interesting stuff to see both sides.

JBR: If your last post is indicative of your opinion that is well reasoned. However, it puts you on the side of myself and others completely against Ketch and the other liberals who like to tell people what they can do. Ketch and others are precisely suggesting that they should be bulllied into it. On the other side, no one is suggesting that if it makes economic sense to change the name that he should not. That is the owner's decision and analysis.

That said, while you make some good points about economic advantages to changing the name, you do not address some HUGE disadvantages that are hard to quantify. There is a LOT to a name. Just ask the Houston Oiler fans who so desperately wanted to keep the Oiler name. I can tell you that I was a huge Oiler fan. I have watched exactly two Texans games! If they still had the Oiler name/logo etc I would probably still be a big fan. You will say that is completely irrational and you will be right. Guess what? All following of professional sports is irrational. Why do any of us spend any money to follow a bunch of millionaires play a game to profit billionaires?

If the Redskins owner just had a 1% drop (I am sure he fears more like a 10% drop or much more) in value that is $15 million. I suggest those who think they can dictate the name start donating to such a cause to offset the value.

I suggest Ketch jumpstart this cause by donating $50k. Ketch, if you do it, then you will show your sincerity. I will consider matching it. (Check your e-mail lest you think I am not serious.)

 

[djw314]

No 6 is laughable. The NBA game today is a watered down Euro version when compared to the 80s or even 90's. It is nothing more than an isolation game played against teams that have no concept of defense.

 

[JBR2009]

skihorn. I think to water this down to a liberal vs. conservative debate is a little unfair. I do think that the democratic politicians tend to be a bit more vocal because they pander to their voter base which I agree is a bit ridiculous. The issue in and of itself is not a political one though and I think to throw Ketch in with that crowd is off base. He's a sports writer. His job is to generate discussion about sports and he has done a solid job of that as evidenced by the fact we are still talking.

As to the value of the name. You are correct. It would be extremely difficult to quantify. I wish the old oilers were back but that's because I like the baby blues. As I see it there is an opportunity there though. Although my marketing expertise is admittedly limited I think they could quiet some unnecessary chatter and make a great PR move while still turning some coin on the deal. Very hypothetical and speculative though. I do think Snyder's stodgy traditionalist "we will never change" attitude is a poor attitude. I think he should be open to all possibilities and by taking that stance he has pinned himself in a little bit of a corner where it looks like his hand was forced.

However it is also speculative to say they would see a loss and people should donate. Would Ketch get a percentage of the profit if the team in fact increased in value? If so I'd take that investment.



This post was edited on 5/6 3:17 PM by JBR2009

 

[skihorn]

Originally posted by JBR2009:
skihorn. I think to water this down to a liberal vs. conservative debate is a little unfair. I do think that the democratic politicians tend to be a bit more vocal because they pander to their voter base which I agree is a bit ridiculous. The issue in and of itself is not a political one though and I think to throw Ketch in with that crowd is off base. He's a sports writer. His job is to generate discussion about sports and he has done a solid job of that as evidenced by the fact we are still talking.

As to the value of the name. You are correct. It would be extremely difficult to quantify. I wish the old oilers were back but that's because I like the baby blues. As I see it there is an opportunity there though. Although my marketing expertise is admittedly limited I think they could quiet some unnecessary chatter and make a great PR move while still turning some coin on the deal. Very hypothetical and speculative though. I do think Snyder's stodgy traditionalist "we will never change" attitude is a poor attitude. I think he should be open to all possibilities and by taking that stance he has pinned himself in a little bit of a corner where it looks like his hand was forced.

However it is also speculative to say they would see a loss and people should donate. Would Ketch get a percentage of the profit if the team in fact increased in value? If so I'd take that investment.




This post was edited on 5/6 3:17 PM by JBR2009

I agree it shouldn't be a liberal versus conservative issue - but it is. To be fair, the majority of the liberals I know think it ridiculous. In fact, virtually everyone I know thinks it absurd. The only ones arguing otherwise, are some national liberals who are in the business of promoting victims and also love to tell others what they should do with their business and tell others what should offend them.

As to the donation fund that was not completely serious as I know Ketch is not about to pony up money. He just likes others to be financially burdened with his PC beliefs. It was also a reference to something I said in a private e-mail to him which he has not responded to yet (just sent this morning).

 

[djw314]

Damn I'm glad I didnt go to high school with you.

 

[o5prey]

You know Ketch,

PETA is offended by any animal being used as a mascot in any way. How many people being offended does it take to do the right thing? Should all team mascots that are animals be changed because to PETA it marginalized those animals?

Do I believe the above strawman? no. But since we're throwing out them (blackskins) - and small percentages of offended in this thread it's relevant.

Also yes I would change the name of the team. I suppose I just don't agree with the logic, reasoning and preaching that's going on in this thread.


This post was edited on 5/6 3:34 PM by o5prey

 

[skihorn]

Originally posted by o5prey:
You know Ketch,

PETA is offended by any animal being used as a mascot in any way. How many people being offended does it take to do the right thing? Should all team mascots that are animals be changed because to PETA it marginalized those animals?

Do I believe the above strawman? no. But since we're throwing out them (blackskins) - and small percentages of offended in this thread it's relevant.

Also yes I would change the name of the team. I suppose I just don't agree with the logic, reasoning and preaching that's going on in this thread.




This post was edited on 5/6 3:34 PM by o5prey

Yes, PETA is very offended by the name "Packers" even. Which is ironic because before their protests I didn't even know what it stood for (had never thought about it). Cheese is the more visible current macot but that also offends PETA, because they believe we should all be vegans.

Not only is having a Longhorn as a mascot offensive to PETA, I promise you hauling around a live mascot really offends them! I guess Ketch now wants us to become the Texas Armadillos (that was a real movement when I was a student). Oh, but Armadillos are aminals too. This is really getting hard not offending anyone! Perhaps we should become an unpronounceable symbol?

This post was edited on 5/6 4:23 PM by skihorn

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
You do not know that the NBA would have a team called the Redskins if they had been established 50 years ago. That's conjecture.

I feel quite confident that the league would not have a team called the Redskins.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:

Whereas the NFL set a precedent with the Rooney Rule in organized sports in hiring black coaches and are the only league to address racial language used on the field, history indicates that the NBA was anything but swift in kicking a known bigot out of the league.

You're citing the Rooney Rule, something put into place because of the league's horrific trend of not giving black candidates chances? Yes, that went into place about 20 years after the NBA addressed black coaches and front office jobs. Frpm Lenny Wilkins, to Bill Russell to KC Jones... again... the NBA far ahead of the NFL. Thank you.

Hell, even Sterling had Elgin Baylor in a front-office role as a general manager. That position in the NFL is currently held by 6 black men, which means that roughly 19% of GMs in the league in 2014 are black.

Baylor was hired in 1986 to be the decision maker with the Clippers. Again... are we really going to keep debating that the NFL is even with the NBA? Even racists were hiring blacks in important front-office roles before most of the NFL.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
And not just any bigot, a known owner of a professional franchise with a laundry list of just despicable racial accusations against him.

Who was somehow far, far ahead of the NFL in hiring blacks in front office roles.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by djw314:

No 6 is laughable. The NBA game today is a watered down Euro version when compared to the 80s or even 90's. It is nothing more than an isolation game played against teams that have no concept of defense.

Those days are far too romanticized. The number of very good teams was very limited. The overall talent and depth of good players has never been higher.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Yeah, the NBA set the bar. Have a bigot owner who said that he wanted a team consisting of 5 poor southern black boys coached by a white man.

Way to go.

But it's okay. He gave a black man a front office job before discriminating against him. Nothing to see here.

This guy would have been laughed out of the NFL owners circle.

 

[Baguette]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Baguette:

"Don't use a word that others find offensive!?? Wow! That list would go & on ad infinitum/ad nauseum .

Are you otherwise able to keep fro saying racist words on a daily basis?

I was referring to words other than racist. The point I'm trying to make here is when does it ever end? Someone, somewhere, is going to be offended by something or someone at some time. What about short people. Should we start using words other than "short" because a small group takes offense to that word? Should we then start using "vertically challenged?' Janitor became offensive so now we refer to janitors as "building engineers." Garbage men became 'sanitation engineers." Illegal aliens, became illegal immigrants, but since 'illegal' offended some we then had to change that to just 'immigrants' whether they were here legally or not. Christians are mocked 24/7, but that's ok, but don't you be mocking Muslims, or even worse calling "terrorists' by that name. Why don't you know-they're freedom fighters! Really!? Really!!????
PC has become insane! What's next? Lowering the hoops to 6 feet so the vertically challenged can compete? Hell, why we're at it, lets ban tackle football and do Flag football instead! After all, all those little guys are greatly offended that they cant compete! Besides its racist {tackle football} on several levels.....if you catch my drift. And what about all those good looking people!? Unfair! So lets "uglify" them. What, you're rich!? I find that offensive & unfair, so lets redistribute income, and on & on it goes.
So Ketch, where & when will this type of moronic PC end? Cuz its already started and it just seems to get more ridiculous every day.

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by Baguette:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Baguette:

"Don't use a word that others find offensive!?? Wow! That list would go & on ad infinitum/ad nauseum .

Are you otherwise able to keep fro saying racist words on a daily basis?

I was referring to words other than racist. The point I'm trying to make here is when does it ever end? Someone, somewhere, is going to be offended by something or someone at some time. What about short people. Should we start using words other than "short" because a small group takes offense to that word? Should we then start using "vertically challenged?' Janitor became offensive so now we refer to janitors as "building engineers." Garbage men became 'sanitation engineers." Illegal aliens, became illegal immigrants, but since 'illegal' offended some we then had to change that to just 'immigrants' whether they were here legally or not. Christians are mocked 24/7, but that's ok, but don't you be mocking Muslims, or even worse calling "terrorists' by that name. Why don't you know-they're freedom fighters! Really!? Really!!????
PC has become insane! What's next? Lowering the hoops to 6 feet so the vertically challenged can compete? Hell, why we're at it, lets ban tackle football and do Flag football instead! After all, all those little guys are greatly offended that they cant compete! Besides its racist {tackle football} on several levels.....if you catch my drift. And what about all those good looking people!? Unfair! So lets "uglify" them. What, you're rich!? I find that offensive & unfair, so lets redistribute income, and on & on it goes.
So Ketch, where & when will this type of moronic PC end? Cuz its already started and it just seems to get more ridiculous every day.

Obviously this discussion isn't for you. Ok the world is different. It's a place where you ought to be considerate of other cultures in this case even if it is as simple as with your language. The rest was just kind of a rant. But I get it this PC stuff isn't for you. Not really a big deal the world will move on without you.

Honestly I am not all about the PC world either. It goes to far to the point of being silly sometimes. A simple change in my vocabulary in the case of short people or sanitation engineer just doesn't bother me like it does you I guess. In the case of the redskins it just isnt that big of a deal to rebrand the team in fact it may even be an opportunity.

I am not about forcing it however I do think it would be the right decision for the team.

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Originally posted by JBR2009:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
JBR,

Absolutely it would hurt. The Redskins are worth over 1.5 billion dollars. This isn't a minor deal. They're one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports.

To put it in perspective, can you imagine the Cowboys overnight changing their name and waking up tomorrow a Dallas Outlaws fan?

How much would it hurt? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Maybe hardly at all. But undoubtedly it would have a at least some negative impact on Redskin fans and franchise value. I don't think the owner and fans should be bullied by a vocal minority on such a subjective matter into taking the risk.

This post was edited on 5/6 2:18 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

I am not suggesting they get bullied into it. What I am saying is that if the decision were mine (it very clearly is not) I would change the name and stem the tide before it becomes a forced issue and frame it as a PR success. An unforced correction that is sensitive to but not mandated by a "vocal minority".

Like MLK said it is "Almost always the creative deidicated minority that make the world a better place."

It is my belief that the value of the redskins has little or nothing to with the redskins name. I would disagree that it would have a negative impact at all. The opportunity to rebrand creates a terrific opportunity to connect to the community. It would also undoubtedly create a bump in jersey/memorabilia sales of both the new stuff and the old. I would imagine that this would more than make up for the cost of any design changes.

This is all my opinion though. I understand your point I think we just differ which is fine. I appreciate the debate over it. Very interesting stuff to see both sides.

Just so we're in agreement then- you don't think the NFL and Goodell should get involved as Ketch seems to suggest, lest the NFL be labelled as "behind on race relations"? If the NFL got involved, that would absolutely be bullying the Redskins into a name change.

That MLK quote can be dangerous. We all know how many fringe minority groups are left better on the well, uh, fringe. Yes, the minority viewpoint should always be considered. That doesn't mean it should always be considered as the correct option. Let's stay true to our democratic ideals here.

I think you're just misguided on what "branding" really is. It's powerful. It's what all commercial products hope to achieve in the perception of consumers and helps give them their perceived value. You take away the Redskins name, and you potentially take away millions and millions of dollars in branding earnings and create millions of disillusioned fans.

Even if you don't think that is what would happen, why do you think the NFL should have the power to take the dice and roll it on behalf of the Redskins organization, all based on something not intended to be offensive and not offensive to most of the American population, including many folks in the implicated ethnic group? Do you see a slope here and does it appear to be slippery? Ever referred to someone as a Yankee to try and marginalize them away from you as a Texan?



This post was edited on 5/6 9:21 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

 

[Hornius Emeritus]

Originally posted by VALonghorns:



PC police shot down Condi Rice this week as speaker at Rutgers, diversity to them are liberals, socialist and communist.

It had nothing to do with political correctness, but because they did not like her roll in advocating and prosecuting the invasion of Iraq.






This post was edited on 5/6 9:25 PM by Hornius Emeritus

 

[JBR2009]

Yes I am in agreement that the decision should be Snyders. I wouldn't say the NFL shouldn't get involved. I think it is the NFL's prerogative to protect its own brand. If the league feels the name could be construed as a slur and it damages its own brand or that they should head that direction they have every right to get involved. I don't think a forced change should be the way to get involved but whatever.

I do understand branding. I think some product is reliant on their branding. Kleenex or velcro for example. I don't however see that much value in the redskin name itself vs how much value there is in the team and the contracts it has with the league. People would still buy tickets and jerseys etc. That is just my opinion though and it is purely hypothetical and I could be 100% wrong.

I just think we put different value in the vocabulary we use. Yes I have used yankee as a faux derogatory term. If someone told me it really offended them I would stop it just doesnt affect me that much to change my behavior to accomodate. I do get that it gets ridiculous though like with sanitation engineers to protect . I once when i was younger had the mother of an autistic child say that using the word retarded was offensive to her and her family. I have tried to phase that word out of my vocabulary. I j that isn't something just think day to day it isnt something that really gets under my skin as much as it does yours and I guess we'll just differ on that. But I do appreciate where you are coming from.

 

[VALonghorns]

Originally posted by Hornius Emeritus:

Originally posted by VALonghorns:



PC police shot down Condi Rice this week as speaker at Rutgers, diversity to them are liberals, socialist and communist.

It had nothing to do with political correctness, but because they did not like her roll in advocating and prosecuting the invasion of Iraq.







This post was edited on 5/6 9:25 PM by Hornius Emeritus

In `07 Rutgers warmly welcomed Mrs. Clinton to speak, she was a big supporter of invasion, did not bother looking at any new CIA info---saying she had seen it all in Clinton White House and was sure Iraq had WMD.

Double standard sounds PC to me