San Francisco Chronicle dumps “Redskins” name

Getty Images

The Washington Redskins aren’t ready to stop using their name, but a major newspaper in another city is.

Per multiple industry sources, the San Francisco Chronicle has decided to no longer print the term “Redskins.”

No announcement has been made, and it’s not known whether an announcement is coming.  It’s possible, we’re told, that the change will be explained in a column.

Regardless, the decision was communicated internally on Friday, October 25.  The 49ers play at Washington on Monday, November 25.

On Wednesday, representatives from the Oneida Indian Nation will meet with NFL executives regarding the opposition to the team’s name.  Team owner Daniel Snyder reportedly told Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday that Snyder has no plans to change the name.

Other media organizations has stopped using the name, including the Kansas City Star,, and Peter King’s

192 responses to “San Francisco Chronicle dumps “Redskins” name

  1. Because SF is such a cosmopolitan place that is high society and does not tolerate anything offensive to others. Until you have slightly different opinion and then the knives come out and they filet you. Well, at least this town wasn’t the first to cry foul at “Redskin” but I’m not surprised they’re on the bandwagon.

    City that has seen its better day. Almost becoming a nice overnight before flying out from visits to Wine Country or south to the warmer climates.

  2. Organizations is plural, should be have stopped. Either way, I don’t who stopped using it, except that the city that is home to the Chiefs won’t use the term is ironic.

  3. That would be a powerful method of protest – that is, if anybody read newspapers anymore.

    It’s as if the actor who played J.J. threatening not to say”Dy-no-mite!” again. The average persons reaction: “he’s still alive?? Cool!”

  4. “Other media organizations has stopped using the name, including the Kansas City Star…..”

    But they’ll keep printing “Chiefs.” Hypocrites.

  5. I don’t have a dog in the fight, but i wish this story would go away. This team has been around how long? All of a sudden “Redskins” is deemed offensive by some overly sensitive people?

  6. Yawnnnnnn, you are still irrelevant San Francisco Chronicle. What are you going to do when the number 48 gets offended by the name 49ers?

  7. In solidarity with the people on the correct side of the issue….. I will no longer be using the word redskins.

  8. As a fan of the lowly and pathetic Vikings, I say, Dan, don’t give in. This sorry American world of hurt feelings and political correctness has gotten way out of control. It’s a friggn football team for crying out loud. Our country would be better served if we plebians subplanted our anger and frustration on things that truly matter.

  9. This article has nothing to do with talking about how the Seahawks are going to win the Super Bowl in February 2014. You should talk about that, because it’s true.

  10. Stand your Ground Snyder. I’m behind you. Don’t let these PC crazy people change your mind.

  11. So sick of all these crybabies. Dont like it? Dont support it. otherwise stop telling people what they should do with their privately owned business.

  12. It’s a free country, right name fans? So you should have no problem with this, just like you use that excuse for the team keeping their name. Right?

  13. They will ALWAYS BE THE REDSKINS! No amount of pressure will make Daniel Snyder change the name of HIS team! Least of all a Libtard newspaper from the land of fruits and nuts! REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS!

  14. Well, if I were Dan Snyder I’d demand they not be able to use the term NFL or have any sort of “pictures or accounts of the game” for any NFL. Next you guys are going to get the heavy hand of the government involved. Man I hope Snyder doesn’t cave on this.

  15. Sorry logical and redskins82 but this is haplening despsite what you think of Snyder. He is not all powerful and is one of the most widely hated owners even im dc where to cut down hundreds of trees in his backyard and neighbors lots so he could have a better view of the Potomac. He is a scumbag plain and simple.

    The r-words terrible season isnt going to help him get much support either.


  16. Really Chron?!!

    Never one to disparage my own City but if there was another reason not to suscribe to this paper it’s to perpetuate that self-fulfilling joke about how PC/liberal we are when in reality less than 15% of us are that.

    And to boot, the clowns who foster that behavior are transplants from across the country who come to San Francisco to live out their freaky fantasy and further an embarrassing reputation.

  17. seriously though.. it doesn’t matter how many bleeding heart liberal rags stop using the name redskins, it only matters when Dan Snyder decides to stop using it…and for once, that little guy is on the right side

  18. Kinda slow to the game, I dropped the name a long time ago in my blog posting activities. Never even explained why I made the change. I guess I just thought if people would notice it would spur some healthy thinking in others. Keep pumping up the brain and make it stronger by filtering out the stuff that carries negative energy with it.

  19. How can you “dump” something that still exists, is legitimate, and is a name of a nationally recognized organization?

    If you wish to disgrace it, do so on your op-ed pages, but please continue to refer to said entity by the name it currently (and according to recent reports, has no intention to change) has.

    Thanks for setting your own agenda, while the rest of us will continue to refer to the REDSKINS as the REDSKINS.

    Newspaper Fail.

  20. Easy to dismiss the controversy if you aren’t a minority but you don’t walk in their shoes.

    We are a little too PC these days but really think about that name for a second. RED-SKINS. Wow.

    If it was a derogatory term for african americans there woulda been the Sharptons and Jacksons denouncing it.

    Says a lot about their silence as well.

  21. Its Synder’s team, so he can’t be forced to change the name to a non-epithet. That said, the NFL is first and foremost a multi-billion dollar business, one overtly concerned about maintaining the most pristine social image.

    As more and more media outlets and non-Washington fans isolate and criticize, the more PR damage this ownership group takes.

    Tick-tock, Mr. Synder. Tick-tock.

  22. this is so stupid, it is the name of a team. its not offensive, people just overreact and make a big deal out of nothing

  23. let’s just say than “the Dan” will change it when he’s GD good and ready to do it…go ask Martha Burke how effective she was trying to bully Augusta National into letting women it…it’ll happen eventually…but on “the Dan’s” schedule, not the SF chronicle’s.

  24. Ouryoung men in this country are being brainwashed ..Be nice to the kid in your classroom who likes to wear dresses, everyone gets a trophy no hard hitting in football….When will it end? My son will play football, know how to turn a wrench , ride a motorcylce like a maniac and beat the crap out of Seahawk fans!

  25. Political correctness. It’s good for two things:

    1) getting money (in the form of “donations”) out of someone.

    2) censoring someone.

    If Snyder and the NFL mysteriously agreed to “donate” some money to some tribe or Native American foundation, this would all mysteriously go away. Snyder would have proven himself to be entering into a “new era or friendship, sensitivity, and caring with the Native American community” and all would be forgiven. That’s how the political correctness crowd works.

    This whole thing is a slippery slope folks… The next thing you know, some group of white people will be upset about the Cowboys and Vikings names…cause, you know, those names refer to the violent histories of (mostly) white people.

    I’m white. If they want to change the name to “Whiteskins,” I’m totally cool with it. Or, since I’m white, is that racist? I get confused. I need someone in San Francisco or maybe Peter King to straighten me out. /sarcasm.

  26. People are talking themselves into believing the name is offensive. Like the guys on the Porch Night Podcast show said, “the 49ers” is just as offensive. 49% is a minority so their name is essentially the San Francisco Minorities.

  27. So if you can’t force someone to do as you think they should. You decide to call them as you wish.

    It’s hilarious coming from outlets who make their money “reporting” on the team.

    It’s not like these liberals are going to be calling the redskins like team noname.

    How about those media outlets stop covering the NFL. That will show em …… Oh wait ….

  28. My site started doing this weeks ago! I call them the Washington [Censored] whenever I write up my power rankings every week. I guess it sucks to be a small publication in this world.

  29. This whole “Redskins” issue is unreal. So why is that name so wrong now and it wasn’t 10 years ago? Give me a break! This sounds like several people reaching out for attention. I think if you’re offended by the name of a football team…you need to get a life.

  30. San Francisco is ground zero for self-righteous political correctness, so this figures. Publishing a column to trumpet and bask in their fabulous self-awareness also sounds par for the course.

  31. So let me get this straight:

    A liberal newspaper in the most liberal city in the country is taking a liberal stance?

    Color me shocked.

  32. That pretty cool. I guess next will be the 49ers because the gold rush in CA led to the use of Chinese slaves to build the railroads that were a result of the gold rush. Let go SF drop the 49er name out of respect for history.

  33. Add another one to the IGNORANT list.

    “REDSKINS” refers to WAR PAINT, not skin color.

    Too bad so many people won’t do just a tad bit of origin research before jumping the gun.

  34. They should probably eliminate the words “black,” “white,’ “yellow,” and “brown” as well. While they’re at it, they should dump “rich,” “republican,” “income inequality,” “conservative,”and “Harbaugh” too. Pompous, politically correct simpletons. Language is subjective, open to interpretation, and fluid. Didn’t we all learn this in grammar school?

  35. Oklahoma: derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning ” red people”.

    Isn’t that exactly the same? White people didn’t make up the term “Redskin”.
    Native Americans used these terms for themselves. Nobody uses “redskin” as a derogatory term. This whole issue is about politics.

    Why aren’t the Cleveland Indians being protested? In terms of mascots, the Redskins logo is dignified and honorable, while the Indians logo is an incredibly offensive caricature and highly racist. Yet the Oneida aren’t meeting with Major League Baseball.
    Why is that?

    Follow the money and you’ll find the answer.

  36. So a liberal paper from the most liberal city in the US won’t print the team name Redskins? Well that should really influence….no one.

  37. This has gotten beyond silly. I’m not for a rebranding of the team, but at this point it’s only way to shut noisey people up. Everyone being offended only because someone else might be offeneded, not that they are really offended themselves. Not just with this, but with everything. People are way too sensitive these days. As soon as this name is changed, the same people who were offended on the behalf with this subject, will move on to something else to make noise. It never ends.

  38. And while I’m at it, when did it become the media’s job to protect, censor, and teach us? Aren’t they merely (poorly compensated) vehicles to report the news? It makes one long for the Favre and Tebow stories of yesteryear. And no, I’m not logicalvoice using an alias….that cat is a dysfunctional tool.

  39. Snyder has declined multiple opportunities to do what inevitably has to be done anyhow. Eventually he will be forced to.

  40. I am by no means a Redskins fan, as a matter of fact I can’t stand the Redskins….but please, please, please DO NOT fold to this progressive communist tactic.

    This is how they force their progressive ideas of the minority of people on to the majority. Do not give in!

  41. I’m not a redskins fan , but if you have to change the name then it should be for all professional sports team. Let’s see , Indians , braves, Blackhawks ? What else is there???

  42. blackhawks2010 says: Oct 29, 2013 10:26 PM

    Typical liberal West Coast garbage.

    Typical right wing East Coast garbage.

    See how ignorant you sound?

  43. Will they stop using San Francisco when referring to the 49ers in 2014? Since they will be the Santa Clara 49ers? No longer in SF County either, Santa Clara County.

  44. Good. Im disappointed I missed the rally in Denver on Sunday. I wanted to sign their petition.

  45. What the hell, the San Francisco Chronicle should actually rid itself of itself.

    After indirectly admitting a mistake by using the word Redskin it should also admit that the book “game of shadows” and the Balco coverage as a way to get fame and relevance rather than take a moral stance.

    We hate it when athletes use illegal drugs, but we will disrespect the government to its face by taking it’s documents to expose athletes who don’t directly affect us.

    Way to Chronicle!!!

  46. This just opens the door to tall people wanting the Giants to changes names. Animal rights people not liking animals being mocked. This is a road I hope they don’t go down. If this was so offensive every tribe would be together in this. Not just the one. They aren’t all together because none of this matters

  47. What’s in a name anyway?

    The Washington ……

    The Washington Danskins
    The Washington Capitalists
    The Washington Hypocrites

    Soon to be…..

    The Washington DC PC Football Club

  48. Since the SF Chronicle is against using the name Redskins then I favor the Redskins in keeping the name. The Chronicle is like George Costanza. Whatever they say, do the opposite.

  49. Cry Babies!!! All these grown people who get hurt by words. So weak!

    Somalian Pirates arent complaining cause they are somehow linked to The Raiders. And thats bad.
    Cmon people, bigger issues out there.

  50. akasaintsbaby says:
    Oct 30, 2013 1:38 AM
    Saints need to change their name too. Might offend the muslims…..

    Yup, they the next whiners, then Tall people for the Giant name, then a eagle for association for the stinky Philly team, Jaguars are gonna revolt for Jacksonville using their name and on and on.

    BOO HOO.

  51. I am waiting for San Fran to be offended at the 49ers name as it implies their citizens “Dig for Gold”- not the metal either and I expect them to be equally offended at the “Packer” name. At least they got the Oilers to change their name. Baby steps…lol

  52. Fantasy Football Index hasn’t printed the name Redskins (or Chiefs for that matter) for well over a decade. I don’t recall them every explaining it either, just happened to notice it thumbing through an issue of it years ago.

  53. I actually think Washington Bravehearts sounds awesome. But Snyder shouldn’t change anything because of some butt-hurt vocal minority that suddenly decided to make an issue where there isn’t one.

  54. Wow. So courageous of them. Rosa Parks, John Brown and Frederick Douglass have nothing on the San Francisco Chronicle.

  55. When NBC, CBS, FOX ,ESPN, DirectTV and NFL Network decide to not broadcast any of Washington’s games nationally over a few seasons then this will start hurting Snyder’s pockets as his franchise will begin to stop drawing new fans beyond the DMV area. The logo will stop being shown during highlights, etc. He will be forced to change the name.

    It all comes back to who are you really supporting, the football team or the team name? Would fans of the Redskins like to keep their name and history while the league uproots the team to LA with a new name? Don’t forget, Snyder is a franchise owner, the league as a whole will do what is best for its league. Snyder can be apart of change or not be apart of the NFL.

    Just support a name change, hold onto your history and build a future with an NFL team in your city. You look stupid supporting a racist term just because your NFL team has had the name for 80 plus years. Its a sports team. Go watch films of the idiots who protested desegregation , look how dumb they looked standing up for “white rights”, “keep our schools and communities white”. The Redskins name and logo will soon be viewed by those outside of DMV just like those who proudly fly the confederate flag. Those who wave that flag are saying one thing, not southern pride, but I am a racist.

  56. I’ve quit reading any publications refusing to use Redskins.

    See that? Works both ways.

    I actually quit Peter King beforehand, I enjoyed his football writing but couldn’t take the liberalism anymore. Ditto Greg Easterbrook.

  57. johnnyjagfan says:
    Oct 29, 2013 9:10 PM

    “City that has seen its better day. Almost becoming a nice overnight before flying out from visits to Wine Country or south to the warmer climates.


    Ha! Apparently you have not been there in a while. Shouldn’t spout off on something you known nothing about!

  58. Great Job SFC. The writing is on the wall, the name will be changed, bank on it! Tick…Tock! A Change is Gonna Come!

  59. Oh no! There goes all revenue the Redskins get from the SF newspaper readers because it’s not like they have TWO teams in that area for fans to like.

    Next thing the SF paper is going to dump is the name NAACP.

  60. Funny how a bunch of people crying about freedom of speech are in the same breath blasting a paper for exerciseing their right to do the same. Hail to the hypocrites.

  61. there’s a quick fix for all of this. Just say “I’m offended by the name change suggestion and name boycott.” and you have just used the Jedi mind trick on the politically correct.

  62. Bret will come back and save the team and from that day forward they will be known as the Washington Favreskins.

  63. I love my Redskins, and the name. I’m part Native American (but everyone born in the USA is!) and I find nothing offensive about the team name. It is just a name, after all. There are much bigger fish to fry. I’m still smiling at Calvin Johnson’s performance on Sunday. The CowButts losing is something to get excited about!

  64. I wonder how many Native Americans that are complaining and crying foul have actually been called Redskins in real life.

    I didn’t think that name meant anything any longer other than as a logo for a football team.

  65. Really:

    dondada10 says:
    Oct 29, 2013 10:17 PM
    More and more, I’m starting to think that this might actually happen.


    Well that’s because most outlets are only reporting one side and we know who they are…again the majority say leave it alone they find nothing offensive about the name. Again also as one with Native American ancestry I find nothing wrong with it and wish these few who do would just go away. If I find anything offensive it would be with the Braves fans and that lame tomahawk chop and chant now that’s offensive.

  66. Just because a team uses the word chief doesnt make it racist as chief is used in several different ways in the english language,there is chief financial officer,chief of police,chief executive officer etc. it simply means leader and Native Americans have no exclusive rights to the title of chief so why be upset about KC using it,as for the Washington Redskins,all they have to do is drop the Red and all is well in Oneida Nation,or go with Potomics.

  67. The mistake the SF Chronicle is making is believing that their stance on the Redskins name is relevent, or that it matters to Dan Snyder or anyone else.

    Sounds more like a desperate attempt to draw attention to the paper, especially by letting the news ‘leak’ out prior to an official announcement. Lame.

  68. I lived in SF for five years and always found it hard to believe how awful the SF Chronicle was for sports coverage. For an area with 6 professional teams the coverage and commentary was abysmal and the sports section was a joke, so really who cares what they do….idiotic and hypocritical politics will always reign supreme in SF.


  69. Unlike the citizens in D.C. who have a permanently left-wing government, those in Georgia can vote against the left-wing politicians who jump on board to change their teams name and toss them out of office.

  70. asspantz says: Oct 29, 2013 10:36 PM

    The paper’s job is to report the news, not make it.

    Someone please tell the NY Times that.

  71. I don’t think the name should be changed. That’s my opinion. However if people are truly offended why is it coming up after 80 years. Is this really coming out because it’s a racist term or is it coming out because of the ease of voicing your opinion these days. The original coach was a Native American. I do however offer a simple solution….change the name back to braves….the name was originally braves….still shows the intended respect of redskins….and you wouldn’t have to change anything as far as mascot…..until someone deems braves offensive…and if the NFL wants to throw in the first overall pick to sweeten the pop I’d accept (last comment is a joke relax people)

  72. I hate the redskins with a passion and with that being said I’m behind them on this one. Don’t give in Danny boy don’t give in!

  73. If Snyder moved the team to another city, would you still support the redskins or would you support a team that eventually replaced them with a new name?

    So many cities have lost and regained teams with new names, who cares about the name. It’s is about having a team and supporting the players on the field.

    Just change the name and get back to playing football.

  74. Diehard Eagles fan…

    Don’t change the name. It is a sad time in our country for us to even be wasting time having a discussion on this. Again, the name does not refer to skin color, but the color of paint that the natives used to apply to their faces prior to battle. However you try to twist it today to meet your liberal agenda is bs.

    This is America and even though you may not like it, every business owner in this country has the right to name their investment whatever they choose to. If you are offended by the name, you are not forced to patronize that business.

    I don’t remember anyone publicly having any issues with this name prior to the last 12 months. Where was all the outrage from the posters that agree then? Do you not think independently enough to have been offended prior to someone pointing out a name that has existed for 80 plus years?

  75. The football team is no longer in San Francisco. They should “change their name” to the proper city: THE SANTA CLARA 49ERS.

  76. Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint when preparing for battle.

  77. @tomtravis76

    How can you have a name change and have a history. It would seem to me that any change would need to occur retroactively … meaning any Intellectual Property in the league’s possession would need to be changed. After all we if the name is offensive to see then clearly a rebroadcast of the 1983 Super Bowl would also be offensive.

    However digital technology would allow us to voice over or beep out the term “Redskins” and obscure the logo from all historical footage.

    In addition if the league forces a change I would think they would need to offer to “buy back” merchandise. After all if it is offensive why should there be a t-shirt with said offensive term and the NFL logo on it.

    Really to claim that the name can be changed but the history can remain seems to be a cop out. Either it is offensive and must be changed completely (i.e. historically) or it is not so bad or not really offensive and can remain.

    Anyone that advocates a change without maintaining that the change occur retroactively is not really offended by the name.

  78. Careful, San Francisco. After all, your team is named after a bunch of crazed white prospectors that ravaged the environment and destroyed Native American tribes.

    “The human and environmental costs of the Gold Rush were substantial. Native Americans, dependent on traditional hunting, gathering and agriculture, became the victims of starvation, as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats. The surge in the mining population also resulted in the disappearance of game and food gathering locales as gold camps and other settlements were built amidst them. Later farming spread to supply the camps, taking more land from the use of Native Americans. Native Americans also succumbed in large numbers to introduced diseases such as smallpox, influenza and measles. Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80–90% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics. By far the most destructive element of the Gold Rush on California Indians was the violence practiced on them and their environment by miners and settlers. Miners often saw Native Americans as impediments to their mining activities.”

  79. I don’t understand why people are automatically equating the “Chiefs” to the “Redskins”, they’re two totally different types of words.

    ONE is a derogatory, racial slur.

    Chief is a term used for a person of status.

    Blackhawk, Seminole, etc… are names of tribes. How is that distinction not being made?

  80. flik44 says: So, Redskins is NOT OK and Mississippi Rebels is OK. Got it.


    Nope. Not OK either

  81. I used to think Mountaineers were people that settled Appalachia — now that I’ve seen Deliverance and now know what a Mountaineer is I am offended by this name — this would be like naming a team the West Virginia Sanduskys.

  82. Having a professional, college team with a Native American name and logo should be almost as good as an honor. I know we honor more important things in life like the great spirit, Mother Earth, our elders, and also our children. But what are we fighting for. To be forgotten like most nations that already are. Some tribal nations have their names on sports uniforms and travel all over the country sporting their tribe their nation. We should be proud to be out there and not forgotten

  83. tfbuckfutter says:
    Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM
    Just start calling them the Washington Blackfaces.

    See if that gets the point across.
    No dont do that!!!! Cause unlike native Americans, basically all races, African Americans will DEFINITELY loot, random violence to anyone who has nothing to do with it, and they will burn their own city down.
    Yes i know the whiners gonna cry “racist”. But its not. Its a fact. Just look at history and it says it all as far as certain peoples reaction.

  84. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. I’m leaving comments the encourage level headed conversation with no name calling or curse words and they get deleted!!! Meanwhile there are people on here acting like children, leaving nasty comments yet theirs stay untouched. What gives?!?!?

  85. This is only a topic because the REDSKINS stink this year. Wait until they start winning again and NOBODY will care. Also I haven’t seen any notable native americans complaining.

  86. here’s the deal. I’m a Delaware. When I visit my relatives we don’t hang around and say to each other “Hey redskin how are you doing?” unless you want to start a fight. Just like you don’t say “hi there yellow chinaman how’re you?” The fact is, many of my native brethren don’t like the term. It carries no respect, its not an honor, its a white mans word, not ours.

    How they determine the outcome of the issue is up to the organization but don’t pretend to speak for native americans and how we feel about this.

    Honor? thats a bunch of crap.

  87. Many people including large groups of Native Americans see the redskin term as one of pride and respect. Some high schools with a majority of Native students have even resisted pressure to change their name.

    There was a small piece of history where the term was primarily used as derogatory in mainstream forms of communication… however there is also evidence many Natives were so prideful they weren’t going to let others tarnish their own ideas of their own image. Did many native tribes not refer to themselves as the red people as well?

    I understand the desire to end the mockery that is the Cleveland Indian or the Tomahawk Chop, but this Washington Redskin is an image which envokes pride and respect. Much like the Saxon mascot of my high school.

    Political activists have a choice. They can either let racism of the past (late 1800s to early 1900s) define the term or they can allow the term to natually be nuetered via people’s present day ideas of the term.

    I have friends that have either lived on the Rez or live there part time. I’ve never heard the term Redskin spoken about in a negative manner. Though there is enough mistreatment and bad history to apply almost a political cause to most any term used to describe a Native American.

  88. “Chief” is a title or position, like “King”. It is not a slur.

    “Brave” is a title or position, like “Private” or “Corporal”. It is not a slur.

    “Redskin” is not a title or the name of a position. There is nothing flattering or honorable about it.

  89. A) Time marches on. Period. Even if bigots resist.

    B) Every guy who keeps making excuses for it, by saying he knows a native American who doesn’t mind, should back that up by going to a Res (we have plenty here, east of San Diego) and slinging’ the word around. Try it out for size, forked tongue. 🙂

  90. The decision makes perfect sense. Most publications use the city name and team name interchangeably in articles anyway, so if their editorial board thinks the term is offensive it’s easy to just stop using it.

    For those who complain about censorship: it’s the Chronicle’s free speech right not to use a term it considers offensive, and also to decry what it considers to be an insult to Native Americans.

    And for those who feel Snyder has the right to call his privately held business anything he wants: the Chronicle as the right not to use the term if it so chooses in articles published by its privately held media products.

  91. Tradition. History. Hypocrites. Rights infringement.

    These are the words that are used to defend calling a football team the Redskins. And these same words were used to defend other stances that we have agreed to be bigoted. So why is this different?

  92. If tomtravis76 has his way then the NFL will blackmail Snyder into changing the teams name. That is a sad and fascist way to to make a change. I hope he does not use that tactic on his kids. If the name change goes through other teams better look out including the Dallas Cowboys after all they did to the American Indians.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.