TD_washingtonredskins

Sure...but where I have an issue with this discussion is the assumption that any person even remotely uncomfortable with any aspect of this being taught is put into one homogenous category like you and Larry have described. That's unfair and closed-minded. I know plenty of people who are perfectly fine with everything you guys have described and much more but want to draw the line somewhere else (for example, having an actual discussion about how to handle the complicated sports issue or how to deal with exactly what should be taught in school curriculum when it comes to gender). It's not fair to instantly label them as unwilling to admit that "different people exist" when many of them are gay themselves.

@Larry You're still painting with an extremely broad brush. Referencing genders in conversations ("my husband and I...") or using genders to label things (bathrooms or locker rooms) isn't "teaching" genders. That's where I misunderstood. I took your comment to mean that anyone who isn't for the instruction of all the different gender choices that now exist to young kids must be for teaching intolerance to young kids. And that's an unfair characterization. What you portrayed above is that we have basic usage of genders in schools and people can't both want those to persist without wanting their kids to understand the nuances that come with it.

I know plenty of people who think they are two completely separate topics. Being accepting and kind to everyone is expected. Being instructed about the various gender choices out there at a young age is a different topic. To accuse everyone of being a bigot or not open to acceptance is pretty obtuse.

I don't think that's true at all.

This is a great point, but I honestly believe that this is where many people on all sides of this topic are swinging and missing these days. The way I see it, the extreme right is trying to control what they see but the extreme left is trying to control how what is seen is labeled and defined. I don't think either is the right approach as long as people are treated well.

@gbear thank you for sharing your personal connection to this topic. I 100% agree that acceptance and kindness should be stressed everywhere and taught.

So, I agree with most of what you say...but I think you're describing gender NORMS. To me, that's a little different. If a man wants to dress in pink, wear makeup, raise the children, date other men, drink Cosmos, watch the Kardashians, etc...who cares? He's not asking society to conform to his interests and claim he is what he isn't, use facilities that he shouldn't use, win awards that are categorized for other people, etc. That's the line that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

You don't know what "prioritized" means then.

There are some of those! There's a kid in my son's school who identifies as a bird...I think it's a crow, and it pisses him off to no end.

I think Wright is pretty bad and has done a pretty laughable job. But I also think he's an intelligent guy. Therefore, I think it's extremely unlikely that he truly believes he's in the running for the GM position here or anywhere else.

Just another example of an echo chamber (on both sides) and how detrimental they can be.

I'm talking playoffs...1989 was my first taste but it broke my heart! I have hated Toronto more than Boston or New York since...add the Camden All-Star Game show up of Mussina and the Josh Donaldson feud with Manny, and I can't stand the Blow Jays.

I have extremely fond memories of Redskin Sundays in the 1980s with my mom and, later, my friends. But, the fact remains that as powerful and nostalgic as anecdotal evidence is, that's all it is...anecdotal. The new ownership group is going to need to follow the metrics and the numbers. And that will lead them to younger, newer fans who are NOT in this age bracket. They might CONSIDER the 50-somethings, but they aren't going to PRIORITIZE that group when making any decisions.

Agreed...I'm glad they are doing this, but I wasn't expecting last year and expected (kind of still do) a little slide back this year. As for the Buck 6-year oasis, that was pretty special to someone my age. I just missed the 70s/80s teams, so before that I only really had those 2 years in the 90s. 1996 was fluky, but they were dominant in 1997. I feel like 1996 was very similar to 2012 in that it was extremely HR-driven while 1997 was much more legit like 2014 in that they could have won it all. I'm very excited for what's to come!

Nothing you said is untrue, but it still represents a subset of a subset of the fanbase. They should be considered, but the "diehards" are not what they were even 5 years ago, continue to shrink based on the state of the team, name change, etc., and hold a smaller and smaller role in the future significance of the state of the fanbase.

I agree. But they can do that without being a great team. If the experience itself is fun, the location of the stadium is convenient, the brand is cool, and the team is liked...that all contributes. They do need to be a little careful...the old regime straight up lied about the scarcity of season tickets for a few years, so they can't go too far I think a competent owner can parlay the wealth and power of Washington, DC plus a new stadium into making football games a must-attend event again. Especially at the numbers we are talking to sell out boxes and luxury seats of a smaller stadium. And I don't think the team would need to win a championship for that to happen.

They need some fans in that demographic for things like that...but think of how small that population is that you mention. Their major marketing decisions don't need to take 50-year old people in mind to capture the number of people it will take to fill the stadium...that's thousands. Plus, if they market things properly in an area with this much money and influence, some of those PSLs will be paid for by rich people who aren't necessarily fans. That's what happens in many cases anyway...if they can create a market or demand, they don't need someone who has a signed Riggo jersey AND money, just someone with money. There are plenty of those people in this area happy to flaunt it.

I doubt the ownership group plans to completely disregard that group of fans, but the wise business decision would be to deprioritize them more and more. Eventually, they need to realize that even those with fond memories of this team are aging out of ever having the same passion and dying off. That population is shrinking every day/month/year that goes by.

Oh, I disagree. I think Jerry Jones is near the top of the NFL (and North American sports) pecking order. I don't really know about actual cool factor, but the other owners care about the partnerships and revenue-generating...and that's what Jones has always done well. He more than pulls his weight and has been GREAT for the NFL. If he's not the alpha of the NFL, he's very, very close to it, possibly behind some of the long-time families like the Maras, Rooneys, and Hunts.

Interesting...I didn't realize that.

My company is valued in the tens of millions of dollars and purchased another similar-sized company...each had just 1-2 owners. So we are talking about an exponentially simpler transaction that took place. And that still took a few months of due diligence. I can't imagine the level of difficulty that billions of dollars and vetting 15-20 different owners would entail.

After reading the article I posted though...even though the lady had been there for 20 years, I'm not sure "beloved secretary" is quite the right description of her. She was a fired person's personal secretary, so being fired seems pretty standard. I must have been blending those two stories in my head.

Just found it...July of '99 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1999/07/17/snyder-fires-about-25-from-redskins/3a44b31c-1df5-468e-91e3-add520c45b00/ By Mark Maske July 17, 1999 The Washington Redskins' new owner, Daniel M. Snyder, fired approximately 25 of the team's front-office employees yesterday, mostly in the stadium operations, public relations and marketing departments. The firings came two days after Snyder, a Bethesda marketing executive, and his partners, Mortimer Zuckerman and Fred Drasner, closed on their $800 million purchase of the Redskins and Jack Kent Cooke Stadium from the Cooke estate. "We're beginning a new era with the Washington Redskins and are anxious to have our own people in key positions," Snyder said. "We're very excited about what's happening with the franchise." ..... Also released were public relations director Mike McCall and all but one member, Chris Helein, of his staff. It was learned that McCall would be replaced by onetime Redskins public relations staff member John Konoza and that a former Snyder Communications staffer, Casey Husband, would join the public relations staff. "Any owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his company," said McCall, who was about to enter his 10th season with the organization and whose secretary, Phyllis Hayes, was fired after being with the team since 1976.

Doesn't he have to fire a beloved secretary first? For some reason, I feel like that was the first reported thing he did to leave his mark.

What I liked about The Process (at least from what I know about it) is that it showed that Harris is open to an outside-the-box mindset to trying to win. It was almost a new version of Moneyball or New England's Gronk/Hernandez 2-TE studs, where you just try to zig while the rest of the league is still zagging. You can't always control results, but unless he imposed some of those draft choices on his basketball people (which it doesn't sound like he did), I have no issues whatsoever with trying something new and different to gain an competitive advantage.