Let’s talk about the leaked polls

Posted on by

July 15, 2024

by Steve Thomas

Last week, what was apparently an internal poll leaked out of Washington’s front office.  Check out this post on X, formerly Twitter, from @JayDanielsMVP:

The slide shows a number different poll results, including gameday fan satisfaction, fan excitement and plans to attend games next season, desires on the team’s next stadium, and other things.  Let’s discuss the more interesting parts of this slide.

The name

Some part of me hates to keep writing about the nickname of the team from Washington and its journey from “Redskins” to “Washington Football Team”, to  “Commanders”.  Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that I truly hate the name “Commanders”, to the extent that its actually affected my ability to root for the franchise.  However, at this point, it is what it is.  Why, then am I dredging this topic up again right now?  Well, this slide shown by @JayDanielsMVP describes polling on this subject.

The apparently poll determined that 63% of fans believe that the team should change the nickname again.  Then, the team polled fans on desired names.  The slide shows the following results:

None of these: 42%

Washington Football Team: 19%

Redwolves: 17%

Defenders: 12%

Redhogs: 6%

Brigade: 3%

Armada: 1%

Aside from the fact that we know nothing about either the size of the population polled or anything the characteristics of that population, there are a number of things that jump out at me here.  To get the most obvious point out of the way, note that the team’s real name, “Redskins” wasn’t included in the poll at all.  This shouldn’t surprise anyone – political correctness has taken over in today’s society.  While it’s true that corporations today are terrified of irritating the blue-haired nose-ring crowd that loves to scream in the streets, they are more afraid of left-leaning investment firms such as Blackrock, Vanguard, and others that inject social preferences into their investments.  Those sorts of entities unfortunately have a major control over the American economy and politics right now, and they gear their investments to match their political and social views, which are nearly unanimously left.  The result is that a nickname like “Redskins”, obviously a reference to Native Americans, is absolutely not allowed regardless of whether the name actually is a slur.  Therefore, in spite of the fact that most fans would probably want it to happen, “Redskins” is dead forever.

That should surprise no one.  The more interesting fact is that the leading contender was “none”, followed by “Washington Football Team”, meaning that a total of 61% don’t want “Commanders” or anything else previously proposed.  I assume that the vast bulk of this 61% would probably be in favor of “Redskins” if given that option.  Clearly, fans simply don’t want a nickname that lacks some sort of connection with the past.  I’d argue that the two names in the poll using “Red”, which are “Redwolves” and “Redhogs” may qualify, but clearly the fans don’t agree.

The other point to note is that “Warriors” wasn’t polled.  This may be because of the existence of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors, but I suspect that “Warriors” is probably too close of a reference to the team’s Native American history to allow ownership to be comfortable with it.  Another Native American reference means more potential cancellation from the Blackrocks, Vanguards, and overly concerned politicians of the world.

It’s tough to foresee what, if anything, Washington owner Josh Harris and his partners are going to do in regards to the name.  These polls show them that the fans are unhappy, but that surely isn’t a surprise.  They almost certainly already suspected that “Commanders” wasn’t popular, even if they didn’t have objective polling on the subject.  Whether they actually follow the wishes of the fans is another issue entirely.

NFL rules don’t normally allow a franchise to change its nickname more than once in the span of a five year period.  Something called “2002 Resolution G-3”, passed by the NFL’s Executive Council, amended Article XIX of the NFL’s Constitution and Bylaws.  This resolution is couched in legalese, but the bottom line is that five years is the norm.  However, there’s an exception for “specific extenuating circumstances (e.g., Club ownership change or relocation)”.  Harris and company clearly fall into this exception, but the rule doesn’t define how long the NFL will give Harris to make a change.

The point is, Harris and company can change the name right now if they want to do so, but after some period of time, they’ll need to wait awhile.  The fact that most of the known name candidates are already trademarked by various individuals isn’t going to ultimately stop anyone, as a solution is just a financial payment and written agreement away.  That having been said, “Warriors” would be more difficult given existence of the NBA’s Warriors.  I suspect that’s why it wasn’t in the poll.

Will these poll results change anything?  I don’t think so.  Like I said earlier, this data shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone, including Harris.  All anecdotal evidence already pointed to the fact that the majority of the fanbase dislikes the name.  This poll probably only reinforced what ownership already knew.  I strongly suspect that Harris and company wants the team to whistle past the graveyard, so to speak, by winning, which they hope will make people forget all about the name.

What the poll really does is tell us that (1) Redskins is 100% not on the table, at all, and (2) nothing that will even indirectly remind anyone of Native American culture, will ever be back in DC.

The stadium

The very bottom right-hand corner of this slide claims that 55% of the fanbase wants the team’s new stadium to be located at the site of the Redskins’ greatness, RFK Stadium.  As we discussed a couple of months ago on The Hog Sty Podcast and in writing (click here to read), a bill is working its way through congress that will give the District of Columbia the right to lease out the RFK site to be developed, including as a stadium.  This makes a new Washington stadium possible at that location, albeit still probably the most unlikely landing spot.  The poll results are no doubt born from nostalgia, which is understandable.  Just remember, though, that (1) DC will have the hardest time financing a stadium, and (2) it’s not as good of a spot for a major commercial mixed use development as several in both Maryland and Virginia, including the site of Washington’s current stadium.  Both states will have access to significantly more public funds – as distasteful as that may be to many, including me – than DC, which had to take a construction loan to build the significantly less expensive Nats Park.  As far as the site goes, in my view, it is neither big enough nor in a location that is convenient enough for major commercial development.

The rest of these results are fairly non-controvesial.  What do you think?  Let me know in the comment section below.