Another NFL Problem Solved

Okay. So I have a confession to make. I don't understand what's up with the Redskins name change issue.

Certain people are claiming it is racially offensive to them.

What? No. That I understand now. Apparently it's really bad to name a group by the color of their skin. It even does make sense to me that with that name maybe they shouldn't play against the Dallas Cowboys unless they're part of an early American reenactment for a historical documentary.

No, what I don't get is why it's so important to keep the name the same. Is the team worried they'll be forgotten? I forgot who they were while they kept their name, so the name change probably won't hurt them . . .

Bulk analysis suggests that money is the motivation.

People bet it wouldn't happen?

People own things with the logo and name. It would cost money to change signs and keepsakes and other merchandise to the new name.

Oh. [lazy twirling motion by one blue and one red tentacle, glazed expression on one eye, others darting about--neuralink web search]

Well, Shelob, from my initial research, I can tell them how to save money on a changeover if it does happen. Double-check my math.

They need to go for minimal change. Take the following:

REDSKINS     becomes          REDNECKS

Renaming the team the rednecks would mean that any physical stencils would need minimal changes and virtual work would too, because the two names are about the same size.

And the picture?

Hire an artist! Herr D could use some more money. Turn those feathers into a mullet, change the hue of the skin depicted, maybe change the eyebrow shape a bit. Shelob?

There are no names in a common language that would be as efficient. Your math is correct.

I'll be happy to contact him if the team wants somebody good!