[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-28-2021).]

quote Originally posted by sourmash: Stop creating arguments constantly. I have no idea what the Redskins are called now. Nor care. That's why I called them what I called them. Just because you repeatedly lose when you challenge me doesn't mean you can act uncivilized at will. Try to elevate to our American heritage.

How in the world is advising you there are no "Skins" in the NFL creating an argument?
OMG that's funny. You blame me for simply advising you that there are no "skins"?
There was nothing in that message to get anyone upset and yet you responded with this:

quote Originally posted by sourmash: A man.calling himself a woman doesn't mean he has a vagina. Political correctness is your position, not mine.

You can call yourself whatever you wish but, there was nothing in my posting suggesting anything about Men calling themselves a Woman nor political correctness. Simply stated there were no "Skins" in the game. Yeah, you're a real winner........

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-28-2021).]

One of the subtexts here is the branding of the NFL's District of Columbia franchise, the Washington Football Team--the successors (in terms of branding) to the Washington Redskins of not that long ago.

In much the same vein, MLB's Cleveland franchise will be known as the Cleveland Guardians when the MLB 2022 season gets underway. The Cleveland Indians will be relegated to times past.

Emory University.

So what's that got to do with it?

There was a sports marketing research study, published with the imprimatur of Emory University, that concluded that sports teams were disadvantaging themselves in terms of their following, and financially in terms of revenues, by persisting with mascots and branding based on Native American references and themes.

Keith Olbermann boosted this study by referring to it when he was on TV and expressing his somewhat singularly passionate views on the topic. It's not an easy proposition to analyze, on a strictly empirical basis. Olbermann wasn't concerned with any impacts on sports teams' revenues. He just didn't like that kind of branding.

I'm not going into any depth on this, but I feel prompted to offer some of what I turned up online, with Google, using the search strings SPORTS, TEAMS, STUDY, PROFITABLE and MASCOTS or NAMES.

The Financial Impact of Mascots on Sports Brands
Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.
https://scholarblogs.emory....ts-on-sports-brands/

Rebranding: The Effect of Team Name Changes on Club Revenue
Agha, N., Goldman, M., & Dixon, J. C. (2016). European Sport Management Quarterly, 16(5), 673-693.
https://repository.usfca.ed...icle=1006&context=sm

What's in a Name: Examining what Sports Team Names Communicate
Bridget Lewis; M.A. Thesis; Liberty University; 2021.
https://digitalcommons.libe...1735&context=masters

Study says MLB teams lose $2.6 million a year by sticking with Native American mascots
Ted Berg for ForTheWin; April 16, 2014.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/20...ive-american-mascots

Do Native American Mascots Actually Cost Their Teams Money?
Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi for Deadspin; December 19, 2013.
https://deadspin.com/how-va...an-mascot-1486410061

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-28-2021).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: One of the subtexts here is....

There is no moronic "subtext" here.

It's simply more of your garrulous, incoherent, book length, babbling while attempting to ATTENTION WHORE and turn the thread into a what YOU want to talk about while focusing on YOU.

Just compliment "williegoat" on his musical talent then STFU and move along.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-28-2021).]