So when will the Redskins Logo get back on the helmet and playing field?

[Riggo44]

Exactly my point. 63% want a new name, ok, fine. No one can agree on a name: 80%+ of the people hate all those choices.

 

[Spearfeather]

Exactly my point. 63% want a new name, ok, fine. No one can agree on a name: 80%+ of the people hate all those choices.

The first sentence, is the most important.
By, your reasoning, they should have stayed with Washington Football Team, because, you know, ... Can't please everybody.

 

[Riggo44]

The first sentence, is the most important.
By, your reasoning, they should have stayed with Washington Football Team, because, you know, ... Can't please everybody.

By your logic and those numbers, 81% of the people dislike that name--more than the current name. So, no!

 

[Spearfeather]

By your logic and those numbers, 81% of the people dislike that name--more than the current name. So, no!

If you told those people there was going to be a name change and didn't include names like Brigade, Armada, and Defenders - which are never going to happen - the numbers would change.
The names and how many choices are given affect the numbers.

You think Commanders was the most popular choice among fans ?

 

[Chris]

The C name will always have the stink of Snyder (and Wright & Rivera) associated with it. At least until the majority of long-time fans like me die off.

 

[TD_WashingtonRedskins]

If 2/3 of fans want a new name, it should inform but not MAKE the decision. NFL franchises shouldn't make decisions simply based on what their fans want, but they should take their fans' opinions into account, especially when it comes to branding and the replacement of a multi-generational brand.

I am convinced that MORE fans would be happy with a name closer to the original name that goes along with traditional branding (maybe not the 1980s-2010s logos, but certainly the spear logo from the 1960s). If ownership could do that and make more fans happy, I'm not sure why they wouldn't.

 

[Spearfeather]

If 2/3 of fans want a new name, it should inform but not MAKE the decision. NFL franchises shouldn't make decisions simply based on what their fans want, but they should take their fans' opinions into account, especially when it comes to branding and the replacement of a multi-generational brand.

Pretty much.
Kevin Sheehan was on Galdi's show a couple of days ago. He thinks ownership has been intent on changing the name since the purchase, but it was always going to have to wait until the stadium situation was sorted out. He said there's a serious emotional disconect with the fans and the name.
He ended his comments by saying " Better to do something about it, than not do something about it. "

 

[SkinsFTW]

I'm still not even spending a dime on anything that says Commanders on it.

Well, I take that back. I once bought the video game Supreme Commander

 

[Riggo44]

If you told those people there was going to be a name change and didn't include names like Brigade, Armada, and Defenders - which are never going to happen - the numbers would change.
The names and how many choices are given affect the numbers.

You think Commanders was the most popular choice among fans ?

Probably not, but you're missing the point--no name will be "the most popular" There always going to be a significant portion of the fan base that will be pissed they didn't get their name picked. So it's an exercise in futility--as shown by those numbers you proudly posted.

 

[TD_WashingtonRedskins]

Probably not, but you're missing the point--no name will be "the most popular" There always going to be a significant portion of the fan base that will be pissed they didn't get their name picked. So it's an exercise in futility--as shown by those numbers you proudly posted.

You're saying two different things.

There will always be a "most popular" even if a large part of the fan base would have chosen a different one. One of the choices is going to be backed by more fans than any other. By definition, that's the most popular even if "the field" outnumbers it.

 

[Riggo44]

You're saying two different things.

There will always be a "most popular" even if a large part of the fan base would have chosen a different one. One of the choices is going to be backed by more fans than any other. By definition, that's the most popular even if "the field" outnumbers it.

So 19% instead of 17%? Whopping majority there.

Well this is all pointless anyway, because it isn't changing until at least 2027. So, I am bowing out. Agree to disagree. I'll wear my Commanders gear because that's what they're called. You do you, Scotty P.

 

[TD_WashingtonRedskins]

So 19% instead of 17%? Whopping majority there.

Well this is all pointless anyway, because it isn't changing until at least 2027. So, I am bowing out. Agree to disagree. I'll wear my Commanders gear because that's what they're called. You do you, Scotty P.

That's fair, it doesn't need to be contentious...just making a point. I agree that 19% to 17% is pretty immaterial. But just the blanket statement that no name that isn't liked by the majority can be the most popular is flat out wrong. If they were to release 2-3 names (let's say Redwolves, Braves, and Commanders) and the votes came in 45, 30, 25...there would be a "most popular" even though more than half didn't vote for it.

 

[Spearfeather]

So 19% instead of 17%? Whopping majority there.

Well this is all pointless anyway, because it isn't changing until at least 2027.

Where are you getting this from ?

Old article:

Report: Commanders Have 'No Timeline' for Possible Name Change After Sale of Team

The Washington Commanders' new ownership group might eventually change the team's nickname, but it doesn't appear to be a pressing matter at this point. Per…

bleacherreport.com

NFL constitution and bylaws (h/t Scot Chartrand of Front Office Sports) typically require teams to wait five years to undergo a rebrand, except in certain special circumstances that include a change in ownership.

 

[heisenberg]

Probably not, but you're missing the point--no name will be "the most popular" There always going to be a significant portion of the fan base that will be pissed they didn't get their name picked. So it's an exercise in futility--as shown by those numbers you proudly posted.

Although I agree with your base point that a majority opinion will be hard to come to because I remember the insanity of trying to pick a new name the first time, part of the problem with that poll is it didn't include redskins as an option but it did include other which is the option everybody who wants redskins picked.

If they got rid of other, because I also agree that it's never coming back you'd start to see something like redwolves become a majority although it wouldn't be by a huge margin.

 

[Commander PK]

Ideally you get a poll that has RedWolves, Wolves, Warriors, Sentinels, and a few others that are not “Football Team,” “Redskins” or “other.”

You have to force people to make a decision on a realistic new name without the salty old Redskins fans voting some kind of way out of spite. Then you find out which new name is really the most desired.

 

[Spearfeather]

Ideally you get a poll that has RedWolves, Wolves, Warriors, Sentinels, and a few others that are not “Football Team,” “Redskins” or “other.”

You have to force people to make a decision on a realistic new name without the salty old Redskins fans voting some kind of way out of spite. Then you find out which new name is really the most desired.

If you kept the number of choices to say three or four, I'm pretty sure Redskins is the only name that would get a majority instead of just a plurality,. ( but that would probably also depend on what those other couple of choices were ). So taking that choice out, I think it's safe to assume some of them went to WFT, but certainly not all of them. I suspect most of the rest went to Redwolves.

 

[Riggo44]

Where are you getting this from ?

Pretty sure league rules require a 5 year wait after changing names, logos, colors, yadda, yadda, yadda. Add to the pointlessness of this debate, it's clearly not on their radar right now.

 

[Spearfeather]

Pretty sure league rules require a 5 year wait after changing names, logos, colors, yadda, yadda, yadda. Add to the pointlessness of this debate, it's clearly not on their radar right now.

You keep saying this.

There was a change in ownership.
None of what you said applies.

 

[Riggo44]

You keep saying this.

There was a change in ownership.
None of what you said applies.

Please show me where it doesn't apply? Or if they're even asking for an exemption?

Sure they MIGHT do it down the road, anything is possible, but it's definitely not now.

 

[Spearfeather]

Please show me where it doesn't apply? Or if they're even asking for an exemption?

Sure they MIGHT do it down the road, anything is possible, but it's definitely not now.

Again:

NFL constitution and bylaws (h/t Scot Chartrand of Front Office Sports) typically require teams to wait five years to undergo a rebrand, except in certain special circumstances that include a change in ownership.