The Kevin Sheehan Show - RG3's 'Safe Space' Polling On Name

Episode Date: July 11, 2024

Kevin solo today with reaction to the Twitter polls conducted by former Redskins QB Robert Griffin III. The polls were about the name and potential for change and the reaction was huge and instructive. Kevin talked Nats, Wizards, top NFL safeties, Bill Belichick to Inside the NFL, and more. Download the PrizePicks app today and use code Sheehan for a first deposit match up to $100! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it. But you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Cheon Show. Here's Kevin. Wind Donation is the presenting sponsor of this podcast. Call them at 86690 Nation or head towindonation.com. Mention my name and you'll get a free in-home estimate.

Lots of feedback from the last two shows specifically. And we'll start with a lot of this feedback. The last two shows were, multi-topic, but it started with, or at least on Tuesday it started with, and then we got to it yesterday, I think, in the second segment. But a lot of the feedback has been on the gold pants and the gold pants trick that we called it yesterday, or one of our emailers called it. So I start with this from Jason. Kevin, let me help you with what breaking news is and what isn't. Tom's train cancellation is not breaking news.

Real quickly, I'll just add parenthetically. On the show yesterday, Tom called in from Burlington, Vermont, where he took a train from New York to Burlington, Vermont. It was an eight-hour ride. His wife was not very happy about taking an eight-hour train ride to Burlington, Vermont. But Tom loves train rides, and he talked about how beautiful the ride was through the New York countryside, I guess, into Vermont. But he, during a break, during our recording of the podcast yesterday, he said, hey, I've got breaking news. And he came back and said that his train

home had been canceled. So Jason writes, let me help you with what breaking news is and what isn't. Tom's train cancellation is not breaking news. But it's much more of a breaking news story than the gold pants announcement from the team. You asked who actually fell for this. Well, many of your friends in local media were singing the praises of the pants party. That was embarrassing, Kevin. You said yesterday, quote,

nobody you know asked or yearned for the gold pants. I did say that. I mean, I put out a group text to a bunch of people and I said, if you haven't seen this, the team announced it was going to bring back the gold pants, as part of their uniform mix and said that, you know, you asked for it. We delivered kind of a thing. Is this something that you guys really wanted?

Nobody cared about the gold pants. Anyway, back to Jason's note. He said, I did my own friend poll, and the only positive response to the gold pants was my fashionista garment district brother-in-law, who said it goes better with the gold numbers on the current jersey tops. Every other response was, give me the old name back, and then I'll care about the gold pants. Appreciate, as always, you having a real read on the fan base.

Yeah, I guess the numbers are gold, right? On the New Jersey's, on the commander's jerseys. On the burgundy tops, they are gold numbers. So, Jason, you are right. Tom's train cancellation was not really worthy of breaking news. That's for sure. But remember that anything that impacts Tom is breaking news for him and therefore for the show. You know what's kind of funny actually is that in thinking about Tom and he, you know,

anything that kind of impacts him is breaking news to him. And it reminds me of someone else I worked for. and them friends with, and that would be Tony. And maybe I'm about to speak a little bit out of school here. But I've been super close with Tom and Tony for a long time now. I mean, 15 plus years, close to 20. Obviously, super close with Tom because we've worked together so much, including having done a radio show together that lasted seven and a half years.

But I'm also good friends with Tony and was part of his show for 10 plus years, right? 10, 11, 12 years, something like that. And the two of them, and again, maybe I'm talking a bit out of school here. But they are not particularly close. But I've always felt like they should be, and they would be if they gave each other a chance. It's not that they dislike each other, but they've never really interacted that much, despite being in the same building for years together at the radio station. I bet Tony and Tom didn't have more than a half dozen conversations over a 10-year period.

That might be aggressive, too. It may have been like one or two conversations. They were in the same building at pretty much the same time for a long period of time, probably a decade. And Tony's studio, which was different than the studio that we used, he had his own studio. You had to walk right by Tom's office, as Tony did every morning to get to his studio. And then walking out of the office, you'd have to walk right by Tom's office into our bullpen area to leave the studio. And they were in the building a lot at the same time. Now, Tony came in super early.

all of us that worked for Tony's show or on Tony's show came in super early because he recorded really early. But when he left for the show, Tommy was already in because our show followed Tony's show. For years, Tony was 10 to 12, and Tommy and I followed that with a noon start to our show. Now, Tony recorded his show in later years. That was another story altogether. But the reason I bring this up is that I've said this to both of them many times over the years, that they would actually enjoy each other's company because they are much more alike than either understands. And it starts with the universe pretty much revolves around their convenience.

And if someone or some company makes something inconvenient for them, they are capable of going scorched earth and burying that person or entity. You know, using their notoriety to exact not only an apology, but an apology that includes not only a refund, but something beyond a dollar-for-dollar refund. They want something for the discomfort. They had to experience and endure. Tony is an only child.

Tom acts like one at times. But, you know, there's more than just the, you know, by the way, a lot of it is performance. But a lot of it is really the way they feel in terms of when they feel aggrieved in some way, shape, or form. They're going after that person. They can't just let it slide. But they're similar in so many ways. They have a similar sense of humor. They are fearless, you know, in their approach, whether it's in writing or on radio or podcast,

especially when it comes to some big fish, you know, a big name. You know, that actually gets them more excited to kind of go on the attack. And it's sometimes the best of each of them when they're going after somebody big. And they do it well. Like, I think Tommy and Sally and Tony are the best when they are on the attack. But I've always told both of them that they would actually enjoy each other's company, but it's never really happened for some reason. I guess, you know, there is a competitive thing between the Post and maybe any other paper in town.

I get that. But it's always been obvious to me that Tony and Tom have a lot in common. There's a lot that they don't have in common. But anyway, back to some of the feedback from the gold pants story of the last few days. This from Leach 81-H-O-F, Leachman, 81-H-O-F, I think it is. Kevin, I'm a big fan of the gold pants returning, but I'm also not naive enough to think that this was anything other than an attempt to reroute talk around the real issue, excuse me, around the real issue, which is the team. team name and all of the drek that comes with it.

Do you think that they're just waiting to clear the deck of everyone that had anything to do with it, like Jason Wright, before moving on to changing it? I actually don't Leachman 81. I think

the stadium issue is still precarious and they don't want to put any more obstacles in front of their ability to get back to D.C. And they probably think that anything having to do with the name could be another obstacle. This is something that I've kind of referred to for the last three to four weeks.

And as I mentioned, you know, I did have somebody of significance reach out to me and say that is spot on. You know, that this name thing will be addressed at some point, but they're not going to put up an obstacle in front of their desire. to figure it out in D.C. And you still have, you know, all that's going on in the Senate and the ability to get that RFK site bill through the Senate. So, you know, be patient. I think when the path is either cleared for them to do something with D.C. Or it falls apart with D.C.

I think then we'll hear something about the name. This from Andrew. The gold pants are hideous and actually made our... team look slow on the field? Did they really think social media, you asked for it, you got it, would fool anybody? It's so funny, Andrew, when I read your note, I used to think the gold pants made them look slow on the field, too. I always felt, just like in Chicago, when you see a game in Soldier Field, doesn't the grass

look higher and everybody looks slower in a game at Soldier Field? I don't think it's true. And certainly cold pants can't actually slow anybody down, but the mustard yellow pants that Bruce Allen brought

back in 2010, I used to think the same thing, but it certainly didn't make Deshawn Jackson look any slower, or RG3 looks slow in those pants. But I do think that, you know, they thought the gold pants, you asked for it, you got it, would work to a certain extent to diffuse a lot of the conversation for the time being around the team name.

I don't think it did, but some people actually view it as maybe a first step. And that's fine. Some people, you know, actually misconstrude, I think, this show yesterday or maybe the day before. Because I got this from wise and true. By the way, I think it's more about misconstruing the show's title, maybe. The title of yesterday's show, The Gold Pants Trick, it was actually related to an emailer who wrote in yesterday, Kevin, I can't believe how many people fell for the old good old pants trick, the good old gold pants trick.

The good old gold pants trick. It was as obvious as what's that on your nose, you know, when somebody then starts to feel their nose. and you smacked their hand into their nose. It was obvious as what's that on your nose? I knew you would call it out as redirection, gold pants, ha, ha, ha. But I think this tweet from Wise and True, that's who tweeted me, wise and true, agrees with me but didn't realize he was agreeing with me when he wrote,

Put the pom-poms down, Guy. I love when people say, Guy. Harris is jerking the fan base around and the longer the rebrand takes, the more fans will be checked out. Disengagement is visceral and not easily reversed. So, yes, wise and true, while I don't think he's jerking the fan base around, I don't. I do think you are right that for many, the longer the rebrand takes, the more people will be checked. doubt. I think there's something to that. But by the way, again, I think you just misconstrued the show yesterday. I don't have the pom-poms out for the gold pants. It's the opposite of that.

But anyway, your last line in your note is the most spot on as it relates to this situation. When you write, disengagement is visceral and not easily reversed. 100% right. The disengagement was in the making for years already, and the engagement for years was indeed visceral. It was entrenched. It was ingrained. It was emotional.

And the embarrassing results in behavior of the Snyder regime had already chipped away at that engagement, you know, at that visceral attachment. But the name changed. was a massive head blow, you know, no doubt. And reversing the way you and many feel is not going to be easy. I think they realize this. And those that say that just win baby, you know, and everybody comes back, that's just theory. All right. And in my opinion, I think it's, you know, it's a bit cliche, it's a bit naive. Beyond that, whether the franchise wins big or not,

can't be the only determining factor for success for this new ownership group who just spent $6 billion. Many teams in the NFL thrive without being a big winner. It's dangerous for them to put all of their apples into the just win basket and they'll come back. They have to re-energize this fan base with or without winning. Of course, winning is the most important thing. it's number one on the list, but they can do things to bring back the significant part of what was the fan base without winning a Super Bowl.

And the name and branding is a big part of that. The stadium decision is a part of it too, but that is not the needle mover that bringing back something that looks like the team that we all rooted for is. And the current version is not the team that most of us had this. this visceral attachment to. That's just a fact. It's theory that winning will bring everybody back. It's a fact that they're not back now, and a big part of it is the name. You know, the overwhelming majority of what used to be the fan base wants a rebrand.

They, of course, want the old name back. And I'll get to some of that today because RG3, your favorite 2012 quarterback, actually did an old name back pull, which I will get to in the next segment. This is heavy on pants and name today. Sorry, it's July 11th. But yes, I think, honestly, wise and true, I think, you know, you really understand. I don't think Harris is jerking the fan base around. I don't at all.

I do think that the longer a rebrand takes, there's more risk. But when you say disengagement is visceral and not easily reversed, this is the part that those that aren't real fans, you know, just they're here and they're from another market and they haven't felt it the way most of us has felt, you know, has felt the attachment to the team. They don't understand this. They like to say, you know, move on. This from Bailey.

Bailey writes, Gold Pants is lipstick on the pig. Best brand to worst in all of professional sports, thanks to a scumbag owner and Fred Smith. Let me just remind you, Bailey. Fred Smith did have something to do with it, but Snyder was the root cause. Treat your minority shareholders,

your minority owners professionally, and perhaps the name is still here. here. You know, he screwed him. He didn't pay him dividends. He didn't give him access to the books. He took out a $55 million credit line without telling them which he was supposed to do per their agreement. But again, you know, as we've discussed many times previously, the summer of 2020 was getting everything, you know, even things that were remotely or very distantly. controversial. I mean, Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, the Cleveland Indians, many other brands got swept up in that silly summer of 2020, and perhaps the skins would have gotten got even without Snyder

treating his minority owners poorly and dishonestly. Yeah, most people, and most of the feedback from the show's the last two days, and it was good to see that most of you weren't, you know, duped. Most seem to sniff out the old gold pants trick. But there were a few dissenters. Ian was one of them, long-time caller to the show, Ian. Ian tweeted me, quote, I have no issue with this, meaning the gold pants, but the constant obsession with the past, old name, old stadium location, old colors, old logo, etc. speak to how little winning has occurred since 1991. There is nothing, and he writes nothing in all caps. IAN, you're too much of an all caps guy all the time.

There is nothing to hold on to, so let's bring back stuff from 30 plus years ago. Well, yeah, of course the lack of winning and the way they didn't win was a turnoff. We all understand that. But, Ian, when you write the constant obsession with the past, you know, the old name, the old colors, the old logo, etc., these are the emotional. attachment things to this long-standing brand that were the reasons that people held on as long as they did. And more importantly, would be a major reason why they would re-engage in a much faster way. You know, assuming the product is, you know, less embarrassing than it was during the Snyder years, and I think we all assume that it will be, and that it actually wins more.

You know, this is why the constant obsession with the past, it's not a constant obsession. What you're overlooking there is these are the reasons that they hung on for as long as they did. It's why people hang on to a lot of brands for as long as they do when they're not doing well, because it's still their team. They're still emotionally attached to the team. And if that still existed, it would be much. easier for people to have re-engaged at this point after Snyder sold the team. By the way, when you write, let's bring back stuff from 30 plus years ago, what are you talking about? The

name and branding just went away four years ago. You know, and then we, you know, had to deal with the way it went away, which was a big part of the way people feel. I don't think it's the majority reason people feel the way they feel. They feel the way they feel because they feel less attached. They feel, as I've said many times, like an expansion team replaced their team. But it didn't help that the rebrand was introduced so poorly. Not that anything would have worked well, and I've said that repeatedly. It was a major challenge, but everything about the way it was done, the way it turned out, was just so amateur hour. You know, it's still, it's still incredible to think about that day, February 2nd, 2022. I mean, it was

like they announced a new restaurant was opening and saying, you know, hey, come out and see our new place. Our food looks and smells like crap, but give it a try anyway. Like, it was just so poorly done. One of the worst rollouts of a new product I think I have ever seen. You know, and in saying it, the way I just said it, calling and referring to it as a new product, that's it in a nutshell. You know, the current product is a new product, and the new product has many challenges, starting with, for many people, it's not the old product. Or better put, it doesn't look like or feel like the old product. Maybe winning would bring people back, maybe not, theorize all you want,

but right now it's not theory that the majority of fans, both past and present, want something different than what it has right now. That's a fact. The idea that new ownership would ignore that fact and just roll the dice and say, hey, they'll be back if we start winning. That's a huge risk. And I understand that addressing this, which I think they will, I don't think they will ignore it,

means that you have to come up with a solution, and it's not an easy solution, because the one solution that would please the most people is not an option. Redskins. It's not an option. But they are smart enough, I think, to know that this is a big issue and an issue that has to be taken seriously. And I believe they are. Another tweet that I wanted to read.

And I lost the name of this tweeter because I cut and pasted it from Twitter into my show notes. And I think I cut off his name, but I'll read it anyway. He writes or she writes, quote, Tired of pandering to the old heads who think the team's identity has to relate around the 80s because they're scared of getting old and holding onto the past. That equals holding on to their youth, spare me. I was born in 1988 in the Super Bowl years mean nothing to me. I get that.

You know, if you were born from, you know, say, 1988 on, you know, where you were far too young to remember the 91 Super Bowl team, the last team to win more than 10 games in a season for this franchise. If you're, say, younger than 35, what is 88, 12, 24, 30. If you're younger than, say, 36 years old, I get it. If you're 36 or younger, I totally get it. Most of your life was the Dan Snyder era Redskins. You didn't get to experience. the same thing I and many others did. And in many cases, because of it, you've never actually been, you know, a fan, never had a chance

to have the fan experience anyway that we had. Many of you just aren't fans at all and really never have been. But I would push back on one part of what you tweeted me. The Super Bowl years meaning nothing to you is somewhat irrelevant. There are plenty of teams with passionate fan bases where the teams have never been great or won championships. But there's a big difference in the team that you rooted for and a lot of other teams, and I've used this example before,

but take the Chicago Cubs. You know, they were lovable losers. You know, the Cubs are the ultimate example, actually, of a team that for decades upon decades were mostly bad, yet they had a huge and passionate fan base. And that's because there were, you know, emotional attachers, great ballpark, legendary players. You know, there was just a lot to that brand. And, you know, when you grow up with a team and you become attached to a team and there are generations that have been attached to the team,

and that team hasn't won a lot. but they've had a good experience in rooting for the team or going to games and you know you don't need World Series I mean they finally got one in 2016 but you don't need them to keep that fan base there the Redskins were totally different than the Cubs or any other fan base that's never won a ton look the Cleveland Browns have never won a Super Bowl their fan base is so passionate still to this day But the Redskins were different, you know, for a lot of you from, you know, the age group that we talked about.

Because not only were they losers on the field, they consistently embarrassed themselves off of it. And they mistreated and took advantage of, you know, the people in this market who were football fans or fans of the team. There was just no reason for somebody currently under the age of 36 to attach themselves to the team. even if their parents tried their best to encourage it. I have three boys. They've never seen anything other than the skins being a laughing stock at the NFL. You know, they also came around when things like fantasy football in the red zone just made it easy to not root for, you know, one team or the home team.

They care a little bit, but not much. They do actually like to hear about the Super Bowl years. They do. Anyway, RG3 did a poll on Twitter on X yesterday that generated some interesting and headline creating results. We'll get to that right after these words from a few of our sponsors. This segment of the show is brought to you by MyBooky. Go to MyBooky.orgie.orgie. Use my promo code, Kevin D.C., and MyBooky will let you play with house money on your initial deposit. They'll give you a cash bonus by just using my promo code, Kevin D.C.

They've got everything you need for the upcoming Big Soccer Sunday. Double header. EuroLeague final at 3, the Copa America final at 8. The Euroleague final, Spain is a plus 134 favorite. England is a plus 255 underdog. If you want to bet on a draw, it's plus 186, so $100 would win you $100. $186. Yes, I know the game can't end in a draw. It's a EuroLeague final. But for those that are unfamiliar with soccer betting, if you bet on a draw, you're betting for the game in regulation

to be a tied game, you know, before they get to extra time and penalty kicks. In the Copa America final, Argentina with Messi plus 125 favorites, Colombia is a plus 255 underdog. And the draw is plus 200. You know what the over-under is in that game? One-and-a-half. One-and-a-half is the over-under. So all they've got to do is score two goals and you win if you bet the over. But would you? Would you dare bet the over one-and-a-half in a soccer game? The over-under on the Euroleague final is two and a half. They've been scoring a little bit more. I think the both semi-final games were two-one finals. So both of those games would have been over two and a half goals. All of the NFL stuff is up, guys, at my bookie. The week one lines, all of the futures

bets. Washington remains a four-point underdog on Sunday, September 8th in their season opener. Washington remains plus 800 to win the NFC East. That's third behind Dallas at plus 151 in Philly right now, even money plus 100. You know, the disparity between Philly and Dallas and the division odds continues to grow. People are down on Dallas a bit. There's no doubt that Dallas is the team that many people think will take a major step back from last year's 12-win season and their first-round playoff loss. I just want to remind Cowboy fans, they gave up 48 in a playoff game at home to Green Bay. Of course, we got their defensive coordinator as our new head coach.

MyBooky.ag promo code, Kevin, D.C. So I'm going to get to this RG3 poll on the name here in a moment. I know this show is kind of uniform and name heavy at this point. I'll get to a few things that are not name-related in the final. segment of the show. But the RG3 poll made big news. So it will be addressed. But there was one other tweet I wanted to read first because I thought it was interesting and I thought it was wrong, but I thought it was passionate. And I can tell that Redskin Recon is a passionate, you know, or was a passionate fan. And he wrote to me on Twitter, Kevin, we'd like a return brand. That's

hashtag by the way. So they want, you know, a return to the old name, clearly. And his Twitter handle, his ex-handle, is Redskin Recon. And he writes, the NFL never should have allowed demonization of a founding franchise and its fan base could have and should have stood up to the false narrative surrounding the former name. Unfortunately, much like the local media, they chose the path of least resistance. So the first part of that about the NFL never should have allowed demonization of a founding franchise and its fan base could have, should have stood up to the false narrative surrounding the former name. I think they did. I think for the most part, the league backed this franchise for years. They stood up for the franchise in the face of

pressure from non-native Americans primarily who were activists against this name for years. You know, the league told its sponsors. They told its television network partners. They told fans. They told, you know, definitely the activists, you know, that had an issue with the name, the same things that the franchise said over the years. You know, this is not ill-intended. You know, we're honoring Native Americans, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, it was like, you know, the league had the same talking points to address what was, I think, an issue for a much smaller group than most people understood who weren't paying attention, but a pretty loud group. But I think the league back the team. You know, from say when this became a real issue, late 70s, early 80s,

through the 2010s, I think they totally had the teams back. You know, they understood that this was mostly a niche issue with mostly non-Native Americans. And when the actual Native Americans were polled, the results were overwhelmingly that the name wasn't offensive. Like many believed, you know, the dictionary definition demanded it to be. But the league didn't demonize a founding franchise. The league didn't back away from standing up for the team. They didn't buy into a false narrative about the name. I don't think they ever did that.

I don't. I think they pushed back constantly on the few that really were loud and boisterous when it came to what are you going to do about the name, Roger Goodell. Look, the name is gone because of what we've talked about. about many times, including on this show already. Dan Snyder lied to and mistreated his minority owners, Fred Smith in particular. And he did something about it, Fred Smith did. But when you write Redskin Recon, unfortunately, much like the local media, they chose the path of least resistance. Really? The path of least resistance? Why? Because people like me and others aren't fighting hard

enough to keep the old name? I mean, I think, you know, if you're talking about local media, there are local media people that aren't from here, that aren't fans of the team, that don't feel what we feel, never have. It's one of the reasons they are really detached from this subject in terms of the reality of it. Because I guess if I were, you know, doing a show in a different market about a controversial thing that I was like, I don't understand the big hullabaloo over this, I'd probably say it. But, you know, you know, I'd be doing a show in a different market about a controversial thing that I was like, I'd You know, they don't. They don't. Some people that do what I do, they just don't, they don't understand because they're not, they didn't live it and they haven't lived it like we have.

Which is why I've said in the past, this conversation, they can have an opinion. I just couldn't care less about it. They just, it doesn't come from the perspective that's important and should be important to the owners. I want the old name back. I want it back, period. You know, I also understand that prior to 2020 before the name was lost, you know, there was no data that suggested that, you know, any more than a small percentage of Native Americans thought it was offensive. You know, and yes, to those people that say, oh, what number, you know, is that? I mean, if it's just 5% or 1% or 1 person, you should change it, no, you shouldn't.

10% of just about any group is going to be offended by almost anything. You can't go around ruining businesses and returning much smaller returns to your investors into your business because of a loud small minority of people. If the data out there had been consistently that this is truly offensive to a large group, overwhelming group of Native Americans, rather than typically a very strong. small percentage, I would have been all for the change of the name, but it never was. So I do agree there was never any real evidence that the name should go away. I also always and still feel completely mystified as to why things like the Tomahawk chop are embraced, you know, in Kansas City, Atlanta, etc. by the same people who wanted our team's name changed. It just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. But I never wanted the name to change. And when it did,

I felt detached from the team I grew up with, and I still do. I was losing the passion anyway. And if truth be told, if it had to change, honestly, the best timing for it to change was when it did because the team's fan base was at its lowest point. It had reached a point of, you know, a third of what it once was. Two-thirds of the fan base had evaporated in front of our very eyes. You know, following that 2019, 3 and 13 season, that was probably the best time for the summer of 2020 and the Dan Snyder treatment of his minority, you know, owners to take place. But it was very much close to a final blow for me as it was for many of you. I'm keeping an open mind about the team and what the team chooses to do with the name and the brand.

Because Dan is gone. And new ownership, I think, will address this at some point. I believe right now, and certainly am giving the benefit of the doubt to the new ownership. And yes, I'm excited about Jaden Daniels. Just had to throw that in there. But I don't really know that much about anybody else in local media. But I don't feel like I've taken the path of least. resistance. If I owned the team, I would definitely look into what it would mean to bring the old

name back. And it wouldn't surprise me if they looked at that, at least briefly. Both positives and negatives of bringing it back. And, you know, and whether or not the league would even allow them to do it. But here's the thing. It's not going to happen because whether we like it or not, you don't pay $6 billion for a team and then do something that you know will invite major negative reaction and controversy, right or wrongly. You know, rightly or wrongly, why invite that back? Because while fan reaction to it locally and maybe even nationally would be positive, the league's television partners, the league's corporate sponsors and partners,

they wouldn't like it. And their dollars speak loudest. It's not happening. So I wanted to get to this RG3 poll. Pretty interesting. Robert, I mean, I, you know, I see a lot of his tweets. Do I follow? I don't think I don't follow Robert.

But I get all of his stuff through many of you. By the way, I just went to his page, and it says to follow him, you have to subscribe. Do you have to pay something to follow him? I don't even know how that works. I should probably look into that. I would never do that because I wouldn't have enough people that would be willing to pay to follow me on Twitter. I just don't tweet very much. Not to mention why would you do that anyway.

But anyway, so RG3s put out a couple of polls here. in the last 24 hours. First of all, he wrote this tweet, and I'm going to read it to you. I had it up a second to go. He wrote and tweeted out, dear Washington commanders fans, this is a safe space. Okay, thanks. This is safe. You've made it so safe, Robert.

Would you be happy if the old logo was brought back? and man, did that generate a reaction? 12.8 million views, 11,000 responses, 3,000 quoted responses, and just going through a lot of it, all of the responses are old logo, we want it all back. We want the logo back, we want the name back, and so he followed that up with a poll yesterday. There's another poll that came out today. The poll that he put out yesterday, what's your favorite new name if the old logo was brought back? And this generated a lot of news reaction because he had 68,000 plus votes.

This is more than just, you know, a small sampling. What's your favorite new name if the old logo was brought back? and he gave four options. Now, this is part of the problem in the layout of it, but one of the options was only want the old name. The other three options were Washington Tribe, Washington Warriors, and Washington Redhogs. We all understand that Washington football team would, you know,

generate a large reaction, that Washington Red Wolves would probably generate a large reaction. But anyway, 65.2 percent only one. the old name back. Couple of things. First of all, not surprising. We've all done polling with a significant number of votes in the poll. I did a poll a while back that generated 10,000 plus votes, not near 70,000, but five figures worth of votes on, you know, where it was as a priority and it was top priority, you know, and it was worst case top three priority. In terms of the

rebrand and then the old name versus well that was like 70 something percent so the result is not surprising but what it says the way he phrased only want the old name is the dilemma for ownership because the old name ain't coming back i mean i hope i'm wrong god i hope i'm wrong I mean, to see Josh Harris and Mitchell Rails and Magic Johnson and company say, yeah, sorry, but we're going back to what the significant majority of our fans past and present want. They want the old name back, and we've talked to, you know, a hundred different tribes and reservations, and it's just as it's always been, it is overblown by a small group of non-Native American activists. not that some Native Americans don't have a problem with it. But it's not happening. The Lee, I don't think, would ever allow it

because I think the television networks and corporate sponsors would have an issue with it. You know, the corporate sponsors have to answer to shareholders. The television networks have to answer to shareholders. That was part of the Fred Smith pitch in 2020. My shareholders are outraged. Well, they had been outraged. The few that were loud with Federal Express

had been outraged for years. They did nothing about it. They finally did something about it. And now that it's been done, it's hard to undo what's been done. But it really does, man, reflect the challenge here. Because when they do decide to, you know, rebrand and rename, and I still would put the odds in favor of that happening, I still think the best odds are that the uniforms would come back.

But I still think that, you know, a new name will happen at some point. But it's that solution problem. There's not an obvious solution. There just isn't. Robert then did another poll, and he put that one out today. And he gave two options. Would you rather Washington keep the current name or go back to Washington football team? 60% right now, and it's a poll that he just put out.

So he's only got 5,000 votes in. So if he gets the same sort of response that he did yesterday, he's got another 65,000 votes to go roughly, 63,000 votes anyway. But right now it's 6040 Washington football team to Washington commanders. And then there was something else. And let me preface what I'm going to talk about for the next few minutes with this. What I'm about to talk about for the next few minutes may or may not be. true. But I decided to put it into the show today anyway because I found it to be very interesting

and I have a feeling that it is true. What I'm referring to is somebody sent me a link to what appears to be a survey conducted by a survey company on behalf of the team, the Washington commanders. Now, if this was a doctored up survey and it's fake and it's just out there, so be it, but it's not like there are any jarring conclusions. In fact, I think most of the conclusions seem pretty intuitive and obvious to me. But I thought it was worth talking about. I did try to reach out to a couple of people that would be able to confirm that this is actually real and I haven't heard back from those people as of the recording of this podcast. But anyway, let me get to it. It is, it looks like it's a document that's titled,

titled A Renewed Sense of Hope for the Washington Commanders based on a survey of fans conducted in June 2024 by Market Research Company, Limelight Insights by Shugall. And there are four big headings on the page of this survey that I'm looking at anyway, that I was sent. And again, this might be something that a lot of you have already seen. It might be out in the social media sphere at this point. The first kind of big headline is many commanders fans are jaded.

And what's written is after coming off a 4 and 13 season and the negative press surrounding the team over the last several years, it's not surprising that commanders fans are not particularly pleased with the fan experience. The question in this particular portion of the survey is, is how would you evaluate the experience of attending Washington Commander's games in the following areas? Welcoming environment, family friendly, quality of concessions, ease of arriving and departing, and price of tickets. And what's written here is it's a percentage of the fans rating these categories as good or excellent. And it's a low number for all of them.

welcoming environment, 33% family-friendly, 31% quality of concessions, 27% ease of arriving and departing 15% and price of tickets, 13%. So people overall are not very excited about the fan experienced. Then the next part is somewhat encouraging. They title it, but there is a renewed sense of hope and promise for the future. 81% of commanders fans feel the overall fan experience will be better this year under new ownership. 81% of commanders fans are more excited about the upcoming season than previous seasons. One third of fans say that will attend games more often this season compared to last season. And when thinking about the future, fans are most excited about, fresh new culture led by a new team of owners and coaches,

coaches, potential for a winning record in the near future, seeing how the new ownership team improves the fan experience at games, and the potential for a new stadium to be built. Then the third part of this is, and fans are eager for drastic changes to the franchise under new ownership. And there are two categories here, a new name and a new stadium. I'll start with a new stadium. More than half of fans, 55% want to see a new stadium built at the site of RFK Stadium in D.C. No other potential site was preferred by more than 14% of the fans.

Not surprising. I mean, actually, what would be surprising is that it's not a higher number. But no other, and I don't have the list of potential answers here, I would assume, you know, maybe another place in D.C. or, you know, the Maryland locations, the versus. Virginia locations, and RFK was the overwhelming preferred site. And then we get to the name. So bullet point one, a majority, 63% of commanders fans believe the owners should change the name again. Okay, so that means 37% don't. That actually is not as high as I would have thought. it's still a majority and a significant majority, but much of, you know, like the post poll,

remember a few weeks ago, essentially had like 80% wanted a new name. And then the second bullet point under a new name is, but management should go back to the drawing board. An entirely new set of potential names should be considered since the finalists from the last name change do not resonate with the family. Base. Remember, there was that list of finalists, and some of those names were ridiculous. But the question is, if the commanders were to change the name again, which would be your favorite? Here were the options. None of these, I'm sorry, let me save that for last. Washington football team, Washington Red Wolves, Washington Defenders, Washington Redhogs,

Washington Brigade, Washington Armada. So, and then the option, none of these. 42% said none of these. And then 19% said Washington football team of the people that answered one of the names. That was the highest of the remaining options. Washington football team, Washington Red Wolves, Washington defenders, Washington Redhogs, Washington Brigade and Washington Armada. Washington football team came in at 19%. But none of these, 42%.

So, again, another sort of data point that says that the solution to a new name is not easy. 63% won it, according to this survey, if this survey is real. we saw the post numbers from a few weeks back even higher than that. We've got our G3s poll, but there's no easy solution, none. And by the way, 42% saying none of these, you know that if Redskins had been an option, it would have been the overwhelming choice. You know, then none of these is the 42% or a big percentage of that that want Redskins. and then if Redskins had been an option,

people wouldn't have chosen Red Wolves or Defenders or Red Hogs or Brigade. But again, that's not put out there as a survey choice because it's not an option. And let's face it, if this was a survey conducted for the team and Redskins isn't an option for the new name, well, it's because it's not an option for the new name, which they've told us anyway. Mitchell Rails admitted it.

There's kind of a last heading, which looks like kind of a conclusion to the survey that reads, The future of the organization is bright, but there is hard work to be done. Hail to the commanders. Yeah. Yes, look, build a really good organization

that has a chance to win on the field. Number one, we get it. number two, the name and the brand. Number three, the stadium. All right, some other things that are not name or uniform color or pants color related. I'll get to that right after these words from a few of our sponsors. If you get a chance, especially on Apple and Spotify, to rate us and review us, it would be much appreciated.

Apple gives you a chance to give us five stars and write a question. quick review, and it's super important for us to get as many ratings and reviews between now and the end of the summer before football season starts. Follow us, if you can, on Apple and Spotify, and subscribe to the podcast if you haven't done that already. It doesn't cost you a thing. So a few things to finish up with. First of all, the Nats, they just lost again. The game just went final in this afternoon Thursday getaway game. They lost in New York 7 to nothing.

And that makes it now for the Nats, a losing streak of five games in a row, and now 12 of their last 16 they have lost. And they're 10 games below

500 at this point. They are out of right now any reasonable wild cards standings scenarios. They're the worst of the teams that were in contention. The Rockies and Marlins have been bad all season long, but that big group of teams that were within a game, game and a half of each other, the Nats are now six games behind two teams, the Mets and the Padres for that third wildcard spot. The All-Star break can't get here fast enough for them. They just seem to be a team that

is running out of gas. Three more games, starting tomorrow night in Milwaukee, against a Brewer's team that is 14 games above 500 and leads the NL Central by five games. So not a great spot to head into the All-Star break, but the Nats now look like, if they didn't already, a team that will be in cell mode come. the trade deadline. The Wizards made a move. They signed Sadiq Bay to a three-year $20 million deal.

Sadiq Bay played for Dematha and then went to Villanova. He's 25. He was a first-round pick of the Pistons back in 2020, but he has had a good start to his career. And this year, before tearing his ACL in Atlanta late in the season, he was averaging 13.7 points per game in six and a half rebounds for the Hawks. He's one of nine players with at least 650 career-made three-pointers through his first four seasons, according to ESPN stats and information. And he's ranked in the top 10 of made corner threes the past four years per second spectrum. And, you know, this is like a lot of their other deals, you know, and a lot of the existing deals. They are acquiring Sadiq Bay probably not for the future when they're ready to win,

but as a trade chip for more draft choices. I mean, I think that's one of the ways to look at this particular signing. I've been talking about the ESPN position breakdown top 10 lists. Today was safeties, and the only reason I bring it up, not because Washington's got a safety on the list, but because Kyle Hamilton is on the list at number two. Kyle Hamilton, who, you know, was in the John Dotson draft when Washington was picking 11th, traded back to 16 with New Orleans. And I wanted Kyle Hamilton. He was my guy in that draft.

After two years in Baltimore, Kyle Hamilton right now, according to execs, coaches and scouts around the NFL, is the second best safety behind Antoine Winfield Jr. in Tampa. He's just 23 years old. Lastly, before we call it a day, I wanted to read from this story that I saw right before I started to record the show. Bill Belichick is joining inside the NFL for the upcoming 2024 season. First of all, I had no idea inside the NFL was still running. It's a show that I used to watch a lot.

The HBO show, remember Len Dawson, Nick Bonacani way back in the day. Recent years it was J.B. and Phil Sims and Chris Collinsworth. It's on the C.W. Network, and it's hosted by Ryan Clark with also Chad Johnson and Chris Long on the show. Belichick's going to be on that show. where you know, you recap the games from the week before and preview the upcoming games, that's going to make that show must watch. That's a show that is now produced by NFL films. Maybe it was before.

It's entering its 48th season. It actually started in 1977. By the way, Belichick's also doing the Manning cast on ESPN for Monday Night Football, when the Mannycast actually airs. And he's going to join the Pat McAfee show on ESPN one day a week. I don't know which day of the week it will be. I think anything Belichick does this year, I'm going to try to watch. Now, we'll learn quickly enough if he's good, if he's sharing information in a very honest way,

or if he's being more protective. My guess is he's going to be really good. And he's going to be a real teacher and instructor. of the game of football for everybody. And we're going to learn so much about, you know, what he thinks and what the league thinks about players and, you know, other coaches, et cetera. I hope that's what we learn from him.

I think he's always, when he is open as he was during that top 100 NFL players of all time thing that they did on NFL network, he's great. All right. for the day. I will be back tomorrow.