Why the Washington Redskins Will Remain as the Redskins

Let’s pretend like the New York Yankees held a press conference and decided that they are going to become the New York Boroughs.


Let’s then pretend like Walt Disney World is going to be re-named Lake Buena Vista World.


Lastly, let’s pretend like the company of Apple is going to change to Granny Smith Inc.



None of these ideas sound appealing, right? Those names just don’t seem to fit, right? Well, this is exactly what would happen if the Washington Redskins change their name. And this will also be why the Redskins are never going to change that name, whether it’s the right thing to do or not.

The Washington Redskins have existed since 1932---when they started out in Boston (Ironically, along with the Boston Braves). They are the second most-valuable franchise in the NFL and one of the most valuable in the entire world. The Redskins are worth 1.7 billion dollars. They are the first professional team with a marching band and a fight song. They have won several championships and Super Bowls for an area that isn’t used to winning. Their attendance is the best in the NFL for the past several years.

As ridiculous as it may seem, changing the name despite being the morally correct thing to do would be a financial setback to the organization. The Washington Reveres, the Washington Capitals, the Washington Mountainmen, the Washington Union, the Washington Yanks---doesn’t matter how different or how potentially good the name will be, it will not have the old-school, retro, and generation-laden appeal of the Redskins.

If you want a great example of name-changing and how it can negatively impact an organization look no further than the Charlotte Bobcats. They rank near the bottom in attendance, appeal, and attention. And this is with Michael Jordan at the helm. You know what team has more mainstream and underground appeal than the Bobcats? The Charlotte Hornets. That’s right, the franchise that peaked in the 90s, led in attendance several years in a row, and was a staple in the NBA and in the hip-hop community. That’s right, the brand that had left the NBA in 2002.

And even after New Orleans got the Hornets brand, it wasn’t the same and the franchise never really took off---forcing them to change names and become the Pelicans. And the 1988 Charlotte Hornets remained such a staple even after the city got a new basketball team with a new look that starting next season they are going to re-become the Hornets. Whether or not the New Charlotte Hornets can ever match the 90s popularity will remain to be seen—but I can guarantee you they regret not going after the Hornets name brand back in 2004 when they first re-entered the NBA.

And let’s pretend like that even if the demand was too great and Washington finally changed the name, what on earth is to stop the hats, jersey, shirts, and jacket companies from simply continuing to print the Redskins logos for the retro sales? You can still find Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, Montreal Expos, Washington Senators, New York Giants, and Los Angeles Raiders hats and apparel online and in sports stores nationwide even if each of the franchises I mentioned no longer actually exist. Even if Washington became the Gridiron, the Redskins gear would most likely outsell it.

Look, I am not stating an opinion about whether or not the Redskins should change into another name in the near-future. What I am stating is that from a financial standpoint, it would not benefit the organization and will be the ultimate be-all, end-all reason why I don’t see a name-change happening in my lifetime. There is far too much money running through the veins of the Redskins name to block it off with a change.



And you and I both know how far the NFL and its greedy owners are willing to go to keep that financial momentum.



Get used to the Washington Redskins, because I have 1.7 billion dollars convincing me that the name is here to stay---whether you and America likes it or not.

The Stupidity of Paying College Athletes

Hey remember that debate about paying college athletes?


Yep, still happening.


Well, it shouldn’t be happening, because no student-athlete should ever make any money doing what they do.



My reasoning is simple: there is absolutely no fair way to do this. None whatsoever.



Look until America learns that the NCAA and the universities themselves see students as $$$ and not like people, they are going to ponder why students get squandered and drained out of every possible penny during their 3-4-5-6-7 years in college. Guess what, they don’t care about their athletes, they care about the brand name of the school. The Penn State disaster is the prime example of this: screw the people, protect the school.

Universities are not educational facilities anymore, they are the connecting piece between tennagehood and adulthood and it costs good money. You are no longer paying for the education nowadays, you are paying top dollar for the experience. You are paying top dollar for the intoxicating blend of light education, good-looking specimens, wild parties, and your first taste of independence from the family. Nowadays, a universities’ ability to party is literally taken into account when deciding where you want to “study.” This is where the NCAA and the billions come in at the expense of these athletes: the schools are now like your professional teams: you root for some, root against others, and align yourself with a specific division. College Football is exactly like the NFL except for the paying players part.

But nobody forced any of these athletes to participate. Nobody forced them to sign the statement annulling them of any form of payment while they played. None of this is trickery; you know this from the start. You know how things work. If college football was not such a big moneymaker, would the country be so up at arms about the quarterbacks, running backs, and other high-profile players not making money? Of course not; America is upset because the student-school relationship is a mirror of what their future relationships with the big businesses that hires them is going to become---pay that may not be suitable, while watching the big bosses make exponential amounts. I work for Disney making around $30,000 a year, while watching them make 1.7 BILLION off of two movies alone this summer. Do I like it? Not always. But that’s life.



Life’s not fair. Students and advocates for the God-awful pay-the-athletes campaign should know this.



And before you cry for these athletes keep in mind of one thing: they get such a nice little ride throughout this you can’t feel sorry for them. Since NCAA is such big business they powder the athletes-to-be from high school right to their final year in college. I can promise you if you are good, you will never have to pay for the education, or the housing, or most of the smaller expenses that comes with going to school. They are going to pamper you.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: universities with good football programs don’t give a shit about your education. See all the recent accusations from students left and right about not having to do most of the schoolwork to focus more on football? Almost every student you see on that field gets a leeway on all their classes, gets special treatment, more opportunities to not get that damning mediocre grade. And even if you struggle, expect that full ride scholarship to catch your fall. These athletes don’t need to be paid, because we are already basically paying for their entire life for their entire college career. We are already making it smooth sailing for them their entire educational career.

And then here’s the other issue: are we also going to pay the squash athletes? The wrestling athletes? The woman’s softball athletes? The chess athletes? The lacrosse athletes? The volleyball athletes? I assure you that these players don’t make a thousandth of the amount of money generated by football. Are we going to pay ALL student-athletes? Because if you limit it to just football, I can smell the lawsuits for miles upon miles.

What about the smart students? Are we going to pay them for contributions to science, math, and psychology? Of course not. They aren’t on network television. Why are we punishing them for choosing a different path in life? What about the physically disabled students that couldn’t compete at a sport even if they wanted to? Why would we be punishing them?

And lastly, what in Sam Hill makes you think that just because we give them a paycheck they won’t find ways to break the rules to rake in more cash? Wall Street douchebags makes millions a year but will still pinch corners to save a few hundred. Even if you make money, if the opportunity for even more money pops up who wouldn’t take it? People like Johnny will still charge for autographs, charge for pictures, charge for appearances. You think Johnny would have left the Manning camp early if a paycheck had been held next to it?

One final story to cement my unchanging opinion towards this issue: During college I suffered a C grade and as a result my entire scholarship was pulled. After I dropped out I got full-time at Animal Kingdom ODF. There I met a cast member who had a son that was good at wrestling. Apparently the son accidently got a gal pregnant and asked for time off from the university to cater to the girlfriend and the upcoming child. Not only did they agree, but offered to give him his full scholarship after his YEAR absence from the school. Then there was a second university that told him he could leave for TWO YEARS and STILL get a full-ride scholarship if he were to jump ship.



You still expect me to cry over them not getting paid?


They have everything else..........

How Lack of Cable Destroyed The Simpsons

So Modern Family is about to hit cable and the rerun planet by the end of this month as you will see the show not only on ABC, but also on FOX and on the USA network among other places. Expect the ratings of the new episodes to essentially explode because once this awesome show hits the masses; expect the interest to increase dramatically.



Seriously, best comedy on television right now.


Big Bang Theory accomplished the same thing, once the reruns began on the pre-Conan hours on TBS. Now it is the top comedy on television (regardless of its subtle depleting quality this past season) and is the third most-watched show in all of television. Want to know who is first?


NCIS of course, which also went on the upswing once the reruns started popping up on USA---one of the most-watched cable networks out there. Believe it or not, its ratings actually increased during the Writer’s Strike because of the catalog of great episodes that had been thrown at the viewers to make up for the lack of new content. Reruns may have a negative connotation, but in recent years shows like George Lopez, Futurama, It’s Always Sunny in Philedalphia among others enjoyed a new breath of life because of the increasing exposure through the past episodes.



So where am I getting at?




Well, if Fox had not been so stingy on its greatest show, then The Simpsons would not be where it is today—a mere shell of what it used to be.



Hear me out, because this is more theory than fact, but The Simpsons had awesome, awesome ratings during the first couple seasons. And they were well-deserved ratings because the first several seasons were pure gold. Bart Gets an F, one of the Simpsons classics, got 33.6 million viewers upon first airing. People were tuned in, people were watching, and the show was one of the biggest moneymakers on the planet.


So usually when a show hits episode 100, it’s time to expand to cable and branch out its audience and try to nab some new ones. However Fox decided to cling to The Simpsons for as long as they possibly can, getting greedy and trying to absorb as much money and viewership as possible without having to share the love with channels like TBS, TNT, USA, etc. So instead of The Simpsons hitting TBS, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central (the three channels I predict would have benefited most from getting the reruns at the time), Fox was the only network with the cartoon.And its ratings were slowly beginning to plummet.


And even after watching other shows in its own network receive new fame upon cable viewings like Futurama, King of the Hill and (especially) Family Guy, Fox still did not even consider moving the cartoon to cable. And with this, the show began to suffer because the show was forced to find other means to obtaining a bigger audience---resulting in the show being more focused on celebrities, being less risky with touchy subjects, being a bit more family-friendly, and ultimately missing the rough edges that made the first seven seasons of The Simpsons absolutely amazing. Going from 30 million viewers to 6 million in a multitude of years would scare any major network, but there are ways around this. Its just that Fox chose the wrong method.


Watch the older Itchy and Scratchy cartoons and watch the social commentary violence dwindle. Watch the older Halloween episodes and tell me they are more gruesome and even scarier than the new ones. Watch the older episodes in general and notice that the language was heavier, the violence was tougher, and the overall content of the show was always on the fun borderline. And while it makes me sound like a violence lover, the appeal of The Simpsons is that nothing was too taboo, nothing was too risqué, and nothing was too harsh for them to show—and I applauded them for that. And in the midst of the carnage were plenty of feel-good moments and plenty of beautiful messages attached.


Now, without the cable ratings giving the show the boost it had desperately needed in the mid-to-late 90s, we saw a cartoon losing to other primetime cartoons, we saw a cartoon that needed good news and wasn’t receiving it, and ultimately felt that they had written themselves into a corner and had to alternate the strategy. Now we get episode after episode of The Simpsons jumping the shark, and its output of current pop culture references increase by 800%. I can g.u.a.r.a.n.t.e.e. you that if The Simpsons had gone to other networks in the mid-90s and gotten the boost of ratings it definitely would have received, and then it could have garnished enough money on its own to maintain its writing staff, maintain its humor, and see that America didn’t want to see The Simpsons change. America probably wanted to see The Simpsons on other days of the week as opposed to Sundays, which is a terrible timeslot because newsflash this isn't the 80s anymore.



Of course, this is all theory.



But I firmly believe if Fox had not been so greedy, The Simpsons would have been even bigger than it is now, and it would not have dipped into the pathetic levels that we are currently witnessing. Maybe they would have ended the show earlier (as opposed to not seeing an end until they reach episode 93982940). And then we wouldn’t see millions of pointless celebrities, jumping-the-shark moments, recycled storylines, and ill-timed-for-the-sake-of-ratings character deaths. No scripted show can ever run for more than 10 years and still remain good and relevant, that I can promise you. But The Simpsons could have prevented it’s terrible evolution if it had expanded to cable. Ratings would have increased, and no necessary developmental changes would have occurred.


Of course….this is all theory. But I promise you the world would have been drastically different if Fox had allowed Simpsons reruns to exist in 1995…or 2000….or 2005…..or 2010……


The reruns are finally happening, but its too little too late.




One of the greatest primetime shows in the history of television deserves much, much better than this fate.

The Miami Dolphins and the Depleting Quality of the AFC

Hey, remember when the AFC used to be powerful? Yea, it has been a while, hasn’t it?



This season, I can pretty much all but guarantee you that the champion this season will come from the NFC. I can pretty much guarantee you that the NFC will own most of the better records. And I can guarantee you that at least two mediocre teams will make the playoffs. Would not surprise me in the slightest bit if the Buffalo Bills or even the Cleveland Browns make the playoffs.

All of the usual powerhouse AFC franchises are weaker this season whether it be because of injuries (Denver Broncos), because of losing an ishload of players (Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots), or because their good fortunes had simply run out (New York Jets—who at one point went back-to-back seasons nearly making the Super Bowl and sadly the lovable Indianapolis Colts who could not repeat last season’s magical run).

None of the six AFC playoff teams from last year actually improved. The Cincinnati Bengals kept most of their lineup, the Broncos made good changes but are contradicted by injuries, and the Houston Texans get the bitter satisfaction of knowing they must depend on Matt Schaub to go far in the playoffs—not exactly something to look forward to. And like I previously said, the Baltimore Ravens had lost so many of their Super Bowl cast I have no idea how they can possibly top the previous incredible season, regardless of Flacco at the helm with one of the better coaches in the league known as John Harbaugh.

I could be wrong, maybe the Patriots under the evil genius Bill Belichick will thrive heavily once again; even though one must wonder how much longer Tom Brady can keep up his amazing career. Maybe Andrew Luck is for real and will catapult the Colts into even more success---even though their schedule consists of fighting the 49ers, Seahawks, and the Texans twice. Lots of maybes, but lots of uncertainty. Maybe Joe Flacco will allow the Ravens to rise once again—even though while typing this article they have given up 35 points to the Broncos and they haven’t even hit the fourth quarter. The defense lacks the Ray Lewis identity .

Which brings me to my main point: the potential sleeper surge of the Miami Dolphins.

Before you laugh, think about it----


----seriously, stop laughing. Enough. I get it.









We good now?



Anyways, they are in a ridiculously weak division this season with only one pure-true-blue team above mediocre. Yea, their schedule is rather ridiculous with the nasty stretch of the Colts, Falcons, Saints, AND Ravens before the merciful bye week. But besides that bloodfest of a stretch there are the Browns, Bucs, Bills (Twice), and Jets (Twice) to look forward to. And if they can split with the Patriots that’s 7 guaranteed wins right there. 7 winnable games on that schedule and I am not even throwing in the Chargers and Panthers; two franchises who has seen better days.

Ryan Tannehill is definitely not in the quality league of the awesome young quarterbacks of the NFC, but he has the advantage of not having to be in the NFC. How does it feel to be in a place that lacks the consistent presence of Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Colin Caepernick, Russell Wilson, RGIII, Tony Romo (Who has amazing numbers until he has to be clutch), and Jay Cutler? Feels pretty good doesn’t it. Instead, you get to deal with aging legends Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and the young-but-looking-rather-old Ben Rothlesburger.

Tannehill last season was mainly missing an identity and a good supporting staff. The GM made a few baffling and puzzling decisions and now we have a variety of veterans including the quietly-good Mike Wallace at the helm. The team is better built, more experienced, and now more accepting of their Miami quarterback (which was an ugly scenario the past several years in South Florida). The Wildcat (Which I admit I miss) is now a thing of the past, and we can look forward to the young yuppie quarterback taking advantage of the NFL’s recent attempted murder of anything defense-related and turning it into a quarterback’s league.

The Dolphins have the identity, they have the potential, they have the kind second-half schedule, and have the opportunity to make some noise in the AFC and sneak up and grab a Wild Card spot. While the division shall belong to the Patriots for at least another two years, the Dolphins can be a dangerous second-place threat that with a little tweaking can stand toe-to-toe with some of 2012’s playoff teams like the Colts, Bengals, and maybe even the Texans (well….maybe not so much). A 9-7 or a 10-6 record doesn't seem too far off for Miami if they can improve the offense and the offensive line.



This shouldn’t be Super Bowl or Bust for the Dolphins, but for the first time in a while things just might be looking up for the South Florida franchise.






Their new logo is hella ugly though…..