Discuss the NHL, NFL, CIS, NCAA, Lacrosse, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Motorsports, Golf, Rugby, Amateur Sport, Curling, Wrestling ... Whatever Sport or Leisure activity you like!
I 've been fascinated by the behind the scenes politics and large dollar spending by American Indians with riches they don't seem to be sharing with their people beginning with the Oneida Nation.
This is quite a slanted view of the Oneida and their lawyer Ray Halbritter but as they say in politics - "follow the money."
Which Oneidas does he actually represent? He has more employees than tribe members and he’s vocally opposed by actual members of the tribe, including the family of the woman who appointed him.
In 1993, the Grand Council of Chiefs removed Mr. Halbritter as the Oneida wolf clan representative and notified the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that he no longer represented the Oneida people. The decision was accepted by the BIA, only to be reversed 24 hours later, reportedly under pressure from Sherwood Boehlert, the U.S. congressional representative for the area and a casino supporter.
Today the U.S. government but not the Grand Council of Chiefs gives official recognition to the Oneida Indian Nation with Ray Halbritter as its representative.
The Oneida Inc were significant contributors to political campaigns - money talks. Halbritter gets a good gig and a good issue but are the real Oneida Nation behind him.?
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
In what seems like retaliation some Americans (whites) are now taking offense to Cracker Jacks as "cracker" was/is a derogatory name for whites and the little boy is white - Sailor Jack.
Cracker Jack: Offensive? Racist?
Most people have heard of Cracker Jack®. It's sort of like caramel corn, it comes in a box with a prize, and it was immortalized in "Take me out to the Ballgame". But why does it have that name? The food is vaguely cracker-like, sharing more similarities with crackers than Grape Nuts® shares with either grapes or nuts. Apparently, crackerjack was a late 19th century slang expression meaning "great" or something along those lines. There's also an apocryphal story of someone tasting the first batch and exclaiming something along the lines of "That's a Cracker Jack" (whatever that means).
So, is the name explained? Can we leave it at that? We could, if not for one little detail. Cracker Jack has a mascot. A little boy named Sailor Jack (and his dog Bingo). The little white boy is Sailor Jack. He is the mascot for Cracker Jack. "Cracker" is a derogatory term for white people. I find it difficult not to conclude that the little white boy is Cracker Jack.
Why has there been no outcry about this? Is it because the makers of Cracker Jack initially had no ill intentions? But that is not enough - the Cleveland Indians were named to honor Louis Sockalexis, a Native American who played for a previous Cleveland team, but that has not prevented an outcry about the team's name and logo, a bright red caricature of a Native American known as Chief Wahoo. Cracker Jack sells itself based on the image of a pale little boy in a blue sailor suit known as Sailor Jack. Is this not offensive? Is it overlooked merely because he is caucasian? Why is this allowed to go on without comment?
I see this on Facebook:
I doubt anyone will do this but this on The Tea Party page.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
CBS will let individual announcers decide whether to say “Redskins”
Posted by Michael David Smith on July 17, 2014, 9:20 AM EDT
If CBS announcers don’t want to say the arguably offensive name of the Washington NFL team, they don’t have to. If they want to, they can.
That’s the word from CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus, who tells the Hollywood Reporter that although he hasn’t told his on-air talent what to say regarding the Redskins controversy, he trusts each individual announcer to make the right call.
“We haven’t talked to them yet,” McManus said. “Generally speaking, we do not tell our announcers what to say or not say. Up to this point, it has not been a big issue for us. Last year, it was simmering; now it’s reaching a hotter level. But we probably will not end up dictating to our announcers whether they say Redskins or don’t say Redskins. We leave that up to them and our production team. There are times when something becomes important enough that we talk to them, and between now and the start of football season we’ll decide what is the right thing to do.”
CBS is scheduled to air five Redskins games this season, and you can bet people on both sides of the issue will be listening closely to determine whether they’re refusing to say the team’s name, whether they’re continuing to say the team’s name, or whether they’re avoiding it other than when commenting directly on the controversy. Regardless, the fact that one NFL team has a name that some TV announcers will not say is another reminder that this controversy is not going away.
This from Peter King (via Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk), who knows a thing or three about the inside workings of the NFL:
King: Washington will have a new name by 2016
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2014, 9:25 AM EDT
Every Monday morning, we take a stroll through Peter King’s Monday Morning Quarterback column in search of nuggets that fit within our never-ending non-stop shop of NFL news and whatnot. Today, we found a potent piece of whatnot buried in the column.
Off for the last month or so, King dropped the following bombshell in the 10 things he thinks: “I think the Washington franchise will have a new team name by 2016.”
With a Ruthian finger to the outfield bleachers, the reporter who no longer has a Ruthian physique became the first national media type to put a date certain on change. In fact, other than Senator Harry Reid (who has predicted a change within three years), we can’t think of any other prominent person who has provided a timetable for changing the name.
While King’s “I think” feature often has a wistful, speculative quality, he doesn’t throw dirt. He typically has heard something specific that makes him think what he thinks.
“I know things,” he’ll often say to me when we get together before a Sunday slate of games, with a twinkle in his eye that may or may not be attributable in whole or in part to caffeine.
Chances are that, in saying that the name will change by 2016, King has indeed been told something by someone in position to know the truth that the current plan is for the name to change by 2016.
It’s a tight timetable, and it suggests that the NFL and/or the team have moved much closer to deciding that it no longer makes sense to have a lingering (and intensifying) debate regarding whether the name of one of the NFL’s 32 franchises is racially offensive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this from US Attorney General Eric Holder (again via Pro Football Talk):
U.S. Attorney General: Redskins name “offensive”
Posted by Darin Gantt on July 14, 2014, 1:00 PM EDT
While he’s not pursuing it in his job as the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder’s feelings about the Redskins nickname are clear.
Holder made it clear he was opposed to the name during an appearance on ABC’s This Week.
“I’m going to speak very personally now,” Holder said, via ESPN.com. “The name ought to be changed. It’s an offensive name. The Redskins, that organization is a great one. It’s a team with a storied history that has huge amounts of support in Washington, D.C., and in the 21st century they could increase their fan base, increase their level of support, if they did something that from my perspective that is so obviously right.”
While it might not carry the governmental weight of the U.S. Patent Office’s recent trademark ruling, it’s still interesting to note.
Politicians will generally try to stay out of such matters, as President Barack Obama said last fall they should consider changing the name. But Holder’s opinion provides some counterweight to the pandering of some Virigina legislators.
A Regina high school is re-naming its “Redmen” sports teams, saying the name is no longer appropriate even though it refers only to the teams’ colours and no aboriginal imagery is used.
“Some people do associate anything related to ‘red’ or ‘Redmen’ as potentially derisive, as potentially racist, so the school wants to eliminate any of that,” said Regina Public Schools spokesperson Terry Lazarou. “I’m not going to say it’s political correctness … however, people don’t want to offend people. We’re responding to the general time and culture of the province right now, which wants everyone to feel like they belong, and if there’s a risk that someone feels a name is offensive, then we want to avoid that.”
The school’s decision comes after an informal school survey in which community members, including elder groups, expressed that the Redmen name was inappropriate. Balfour Collegiate will choose a new name and logo when the school year begins after input from parents and students, staff, alumni, and aboriginal elders, said Mr. Lazarou.
At the end of the article, Lazarou speculates re: whether the Ottawa Redblacks might be in for an eventual name change.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Washington dismisses name opposition from George Preston Marshall’s granddaughter
Posted by Mike Florio on July 23, 2014, 1:21 PM EDT
When they first emerged in Leesburg Today last week, comments from Jordan Wright about the name of the Washington NFL franchise got some attention, given that she’s the granddaughter of George Preston Marshall. But her opinion didn’t move the needle very much. After all, only so many stories can be written about specific people who think the team owned by Daniel Snyder should change its name; as time goes by and as more and more offer their views, the bar gets higher and higher.
We opted not to write a story about Jordan Wright’s opinion, relegating the subject to one-liner status. But the matter has now migrated to the pages of the Washington Post, fueled by the team’s decision to respond to the comments from the daughter of the child of the man who applied the name to the team more than 80 years ago.
“We are aware that Jordan Wright has recently changed her long-held position on the Redskins name,” team P.R. spokesman Tony Wyllie told the Post. “However, we do know from her bio that she has been paid by the newspaper Indian Country Today, which is owned and operated by the Oneida tribe, the most vocal critics of the Redskins name. So her change of heart is consistent with her employment choices.”
There’s a certain irony that undoubtedly applies to Wyllie’s belief that beliefs can be so easily bought. How many employees of the team, including perhaps Wyllie himself, are saying what needs to be said in order to ensure that checks signed by Daniel M. Snyder, Millionaire will continue to be deposited into their accounts? If the team thinks “employment choices” directly influence opinions, it’s fair to wonder how many people who have chosen to work for Snyder are muzzling any disagreement with the name in order to continue to be employed.
The team surely wouldn’t expect Wright to admit that her “employment choices” are influencing her opinion. In turn, I don’t expect Wyllie or anyone else who works for Snyder to do the same thing.
Well common sense says you don't use someone who may have the appearance of bias to make your case for anything. As you rightly point out, employment is a pretty good reason to say something that is going to please the employer. It isn't ironic at all. That's pretty much SOP for most of the world. Don't piss off the people who pay your salary. Life is full of choices. If people are working for the Redskin's and are ideologically opposed to the name, then they have to decide whether they put their ideals first or their allegiance to their paycheque. Nothing stopping anybody from leaving the Redskins organization if they don't approve of it. Same can be said for fans of the team. They don't have to buy the gear, attend the games or any of that if the name offends. Ultimately, that would be the best way to induce a name change. They are currently the 3rd most valuable NFL franchise and the 9th most valuable sports franchise in the world according to Forbes. Doesn't really appear as though this name issue is having a really impact on the bottom line. That will be the tie that binds or breaks and IMO really the only peer pressure likely to have any impact whatsoever.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
Daniel Snyder seems to have some of the same qualities as Donald Sterling, along with the same initials. What do those stand for? Dum Sonofa*****? Dum Scheisskoph. That's it.
I expect Snyder will fight for his "right" for as long and hard as can be.
Not sure Goodell has the brass to force a change.
Not sure Obama, or any future administration, will make a move on it.
It might take a different owner to make the change.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.
Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.
Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
WestCoastJoe wrote:Daniel Snyder seems to have some of the same qualities as Donald Sterling, along with the same initials. What do those stand for? Dum Sonofa*****? Dum Scheisskoph. That's it.
I expect Snyder will fight for his "right" for as long and hard as can be.
Not sure Goodell has the brass to force a change.
Not sure Obama, or any future administration, will make a move on it.
It might take a different owner to make the change.
You might be right about that (the need for a different owner), but I think that change could come with Snyder. We've seen a somewhat insecure guy in many ways--the posturing with and sucking up to celebrities--who deep down needs affection from others. If he senses that the big boys among the owners (guys like Robert Kraft, Jerry Jones, the Rooney and Mara families) see his holding out negatively, this will make a difference, I think. The other thing that would bring about a change would be a loss of revenues from team-related gear--something that could happen, I think, with the recent trademark decisions coming down in the courts.
As for the valuation of the team, I think we have to take some of those figures (like those from Forbes magazine) with a grain of salt. It's all very well to place a somewhat arbitrary value on an item (like a team), but something else entirely to receive that value upon sale.
Last edited by South Pender on Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sir Purrcival wrote:Well common sense says you don't use someone who may have the appearance of bias to make your case for anything. As you rightly point out, employment is a pretty good reason to say something that is going to please the employer. It isn't ironic at all. That's pretty much SOP for most of the world. Don't piss off the people who pay your salary. Life is full of choices. If people are working for the Redskin's and are ideologically opposed to the name, then they have to decide whether they put their ideals first or their allegiance to their paycheque. Nothing stopping anybody from leaving the Redskins organization if they don't approve of it. Same can be said for fans of the team. They don't have to buy the gear, attend the games or any of that if the name offends. Ultimately, that would be the best way to induce a name change. They are currently the 3rd most valuable NFL franchise and the 9th most valuable sports franchise in the world according to Forbes. Doesn't really appear as though this name issue is having a really impact on the bottom line. That will be the tie that binds or breaks and IMO really the only peer pressure likely to have any impact whatsoever.
That piece wasn't mine, Sir Purrcival, but Mike Florio's. What he saw as ironic (and perhaps a better term would have been hypocritical) was the Washington PR person, Tony Wyllie, accusing Jordan Wright, granddaughter of George Preston Marshall, of saying what she did simply because she was in bed with the newspaper Indian Country Today, when Wyllie's own views (and support for the team name) could just as easily be the result of his own "employment choices." I'm not really sure what to make of Ms. Wright's position on the name, but I'd guess that it is more sincerely held than Wyllie's!
Sorry for the mis-attribution. As I said, no irony at all. I would no more take a Washington Redskin employees say so that the name should remain the same than I would an employee of the Oneida Indian Band. Both would be expected to be partisan. Their opinions are meaningless given the potential for conflict of interest. You have to sway the rank and file. You may also question the validity of the Forbes ranking but whether it is the 3rd, 4th or 5th most valuable franchise is really not especially important. The bottom line is the franchise is worth a clanking lot of money and as such isn't likely going to sweat this name issue unless it really starts hitting the balance sheet. I doubt Forbes is far enough off in their evaluations to really question whether or not the Skins continue to make gobs of dough. By contrast the only NHL franchise to make the top 50 was the Maple Leafs and we all know how lucrative they are.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
James Brown says Washington should “do the right thing and change the name”
Posted by Mike Florio on July 25, 2014, 11:46 AM EDT
CBS has given its announcers the green light to apply the red light to the use of the Washington team name. It sounds like NFL Today and Thursday Night Football host James Brown could be taking Les Moonves up on his offer.
“I firmly believe that this is a people issue,” Brown said at a CBS News symposium, via Scott Allen of the Washington Post. “If, in fact — to me, this is my opinion only, not representing CBS Sports, or News — if the name is offensive to a group of people, then do the right thing and change the name. It’s as simple as that.”
Brown doesn’t buy one of the strongest arguments for keeping the name: That the name has been in place for more than 80 years.
“Yeah, well, the civil rights issue was one where ‘that’s just the way it was’ for a long period of time, right? So that holds no basis and substance to me. Do the right thing,” Brown said.
“You know, a number of years ago, when I was a kid, there was a restaurant chain called Sambo’s, which, as I understand was the last name of two guys who owned the restaurant chain. But it was offensive to black people, so they changed the name, except for the one franchise in California I believe it was. Well, so, if in fact it’s offensive to Native Americans — and there doesn’t have to be unanimity on this, and don’t just have a intractable attitude saying, ‘I’m not going to change’ — that’s wrong as far as I’m concerned. I’ll get in trouble with that, but I stand on principle.”
Brown’s principle will be tested at least once this season, when Washington hosts the Giants on Thursday, September 25. There’s also a 50-percent chance that the Philly-Washington game on Saturday, December 20 will be played in prime time, with Brown serving as the studio host.
______________________________________________________________
The Sambo's restaurant is mentioned. (Interestingly--to me--we took our kids to the Sambo's in Santa Barbara on a trip to Disneyland in the early 80s.) That restaurant chain was not only named Sambo's (a combination of the first names of the two founders--Sam and Bo), but picked up on the theme from the Little Black Sambo book by having pictures on the walls depicting scenes from the book with a black boy, tigers, a white boy in a turban, etc. It's not that the owners benevolently changed the name when complaints arose, but more that they were forced to change the name because of lawsuits and communities passing laws prohibiting the use of the name in their community. To a lesser extent, something similar has happened to the Washington football team. The latest was the decision from the U.S. Patent Office to cancel the team's trademark registration. I wouldn't be surprised to see more on the legal front. The "little black Sambo" theme was offensive to African Americans, but it can't be seen to be any more offensive to African Americans (and I would say it was probably less offensive) than "redskin" is to Native Americans. The outcry over the former, however, was much larger than that over the latter has been because African Americans make up about 13% of the US population, whereas Native Americans make up only about 1.5%. Still, these societal movements do eventually bring about change, and I think we'll see the change in Washington sooner rather than later (although it may take a few years yet to reach critical mass).
Mike Carey reveals he declined to referee Redskins games
Posted by Michael David Smith on August 20, 2014, 11:40 AM EDT
Mike Carey, long one of the NFL’s best referees and now a TV analyst, has revealed something that hadn’t previously been disclosed: Over the last several years of his career, he declined to work Redskins games because he was offended by the team’s name.
“The league respectfully honored my request not to officiate Washington,” Carey told the Washington Post. “It happened sometime after I refereed their playoff game in 2006, I think.”
Carey, who was the first African-American to referee a Super Bowl, said that he decided he had had enough after working that playoff game in January of 2006.
“It just became clear to me that to be in the middle of the field, where something disrespectful is happening, was probably not the best thing for me,” Carey said.
Although Carey didn’t want to make a big public show of his opposition to the Washington team’s name, he did say that he didn’t feel right about being a part of games that featured a team whose name is a racial slur.
“Human beings take social stances,” he said. “And if you’re respectful of all human beings, you have to decide what you’re going to do and why you’re going to do it.”
The NFL was able to handle the Carey situation quietly, but this is a growing problem for the league: There’s a substantial portion of the population that opposes the Washington team’s name, and that includes people who work within the NFL.
_______________________________________________________________________
Just a couple of thoughts about Mike Carey. First, he was an excellent referee, really one of the NFL's best over the years. I'd put him in the same class as Ed Hochuli--got the call right (almost always) and was definitive. Second, I respect him for his stance on this and the class he has shown in taking it. He didn't make a big deal out of it, just quietly made his position clear and moved on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now this, from Mike Ditka:
Mike Ditka wants anti-Redskins liberals to get off his lawn
Posted by Michael David Smith on August 20, 2014, 1:14 PM EDT
Mike Ditka is the crusty old coot of the football world, the grandpa you love even as he says things that make you cringe. So now that Ditka has waded into the controversy over the Washington NFL team’s name, it’s tempting to ignore him, just as you try to ignore the old neighbor who talks your ear off about how everything was better back in his day, when men were men and Herbert Hoover was president.
Still, the 74-year-old Ditka’s recent comments about the Redskins name have received enough attention that they probably merit a response. Ditka talked to a totally unbiased website called RedskinsHistorian.com, and he made it clear that he’s angry about this newfangled effort to change the name of the team in Washington.
“What’s all the stink over the Redskin name?” Ditka said. “It’s so much horse s–t it’s incredible. We’re going to let the liberals of the world run this world.”
Ditka has never made any secret of his dislike of liberals. Ditka briefly considered running against Barack Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, and he has said declining to do that is his greatest regret in life, because he believes he could have prevented Obama from becoming president. But if Ditka thinks only liberals oppose the use of a racial slur as the name of an NFL team, he’s sorely mistaken. John McCain, who unlike Ditka really did run against Obama, has said the Redskins should probably change their name. Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post who is among the most conservative voices in the American media, has written that the team should change its name. Tom Cole, a Republican who is one of only two Native Americans in Congress, wrote to Commissioner Roger Goodell that, “The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur.”
Whether opponents of the team name are liberal or conservative, Ditka believes they’re wrong. Just as Daniel Snyder has, Ditka insists that the team’s name is meant as a sign of respect.
“It was said out of reverence, out of pride to the American Indian. Even though it was called a Redskin, what are you going to call them, a Brownskin? This is so stupid, it’s appalling,” Ditka said.
But right there, with his own example, Ditka is showing the problem with the name “Redskins.” Ditka seems to realize that we would never tolerate a team being called the Brownskins. So why does he think we should tolerate a team being called the Redskins? Ditka appeals to tradition in support of his beliefs.
“It’s been the name of the team since the beginning of football. It has nothing to do with something that happened lately, or something that somebody dreamed up. This was the name, period. I mean, leave it alone,” Ditka said.
Ditka is wrong that “Redskins” has been the team’s name since the beginning of football. It’s actually been the team name only since 1933. It’s also true that the owner who gave them the Redskins name, George Preston Marshall, was a vicious racist who refused to sign black players until 1962, when the federal government told him his team wouldn’t be permitted to play in Washington, D.C., anymore if he didn’t agree to integrate. Times change.
Snyder won’t change, however, and Ditka believes that Snyder deserves respect for his stubborn stance against changing his team’s name.
“I admire him for it,” Ditka said. “Really, I think it’s tradition, it’s history, it’s part of the National Football League. It was about Sammy Baugh and all the guys who were Redskins way back then. I didn’t think that Lombardi and Halas never had a problem with it, why would all these other idiots have a problem with the name? I’m sorry. I’m not very tolerant when it comes to the liberals who complain about everything.”
It may be true that Vince Lombardi and George Halas had no problem with the name “Redskins” when they were involved in the NFL, many decades ago. It is also utterly irrelevant to the question of whether “Redskins” is an appropriate name for a team in 2014.
There’s a lot to respect about Ditka, a Hall of Fame tight end turned Super Bowl-winning coach who has been a great ambassador for the game of football. But Ditka also talks a lot about that which he knows nothing. This is one of those times.
This just in from Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk:
Washington Post stops using Washington team name, sort of
Posted by Mike Florio on August 22, 2014, 3:36 PM EDT
It’s not easy to cover an NFL team without ever mentioning its nickname. But that’s precisely what the Washington Post will do, from this point forward.
Sort of.
The editorial board of the Post has announced that it will stop using the team’s name, most of the time.
“While we wait for the NFL to catch up with public opinion and common decency we have decided not to use the slur ourselves except when it is essential for clarity or effect,” the newspaper said.
While it’s unclear why or how the Post would need to use the name for clarity or effect, it’s smart to leave a loophole, since the newspaper is in, you know, Washington. The broader loophole comes from the fact that the newsroom will keep using the name.
The Washington NFL team, through spokesman Tony Wyllie, called the move “no surprise.”
“The editorial board has been opposed to the Washington Redskins name for more than 30 years,” Wyllie said, inadvertently gutting one of the knee-jerk arguments from the name truthers, who insist that opposition has arisen only recently. “We just wish they would have had taken us up on our offer to visit several reservations to see how much Native Americans embrace and value the name and use it as their own logo and mascots across this country.”
That position ignores the reality that the National Congress of American Indians actively opposes the name. Which is no surprise, since the franchise generally continues to ignore the fact that the NCAI actively opposes the name. If the franchise had simply ignored the debate in 2013 instead of attempting to engage or debunk it, the franchise probably wouldn’t be dealing with an issue that has now grown to the point where the editorial board of the biggest newspaper in the team’s market now refuses to use the name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Gumbel stopped using Washington’s team name years ago
Posted by Michael David Smith on August 23, 2014, 6:07 AM EDT
Add Greg Gumbel to the list of NFL broadcasters who won’t say the name of the team in Washington.
Gumbel, the No. 2 play-by-play announcer on CBS and the host of Showtime’s Inside the NFL, told NJ.com that he doesn’t say the team’s name. Although the long-simmering controversy over the team’s name has boiled over in the last year, Gumbel said he stopped using the controversial team name years ago.
“I told our PR department this summer: I haven’t used that nickname on the air in three years,” Gumbel said. “It’s just a personal choice; I just didn’t feel like I needed to call a news conference and announce it to everybody.”
Gumbel added, however, that he does not believe Daniel Snyder is prepared to change his team’s name, and Gumbel will be surprised if a change is made.
Snyder has insisted that he won’t change the name. But as more and more people in and around the NFL disassociate themselves with Snyder’s team’s name, Snyder is going to find himself more and more alone.
