Apr 26, 2013; New York, NY, USA; NFL commissioner Roger Goodell speaks before the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft at Radio City Music Hall. Mandatory Credit: Debby Wong-USA TODAY Sports

In a move that should surprise nobody, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has sided with owner Dan Snyder in the naming controversy of the Washington Redskins. In May, ten members of Congress sent a strongly worded letter to Snyder, Goodell, and other NFL owners imploring them to change the name of the Redskins to promote racial sensitivity. In a letter dated June 5th, Goodell wrote the group back defending the team name, calling the Redskins “a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.” The commissioner added that the Washington nickname “from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” and was never “meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.”

According to Erik Brady of USA Today, Goodell’s letter “cited opinion polls suggesting that the public at large, and many American Indians, are not offended by the name. He also cited a court ruling that upheld use of the name in a trademark disparagement case.”  There is an additional case currently being reviewed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which could eliminate exclusivity rights for the name of the team.

Goodell had previously remained neutral with his public responses to the controversy. During the Super Bowl week, Goodell spoke to both sides of the issue:

“Growing up in Washington, I do understand the affinity for that name with the fans. I also understand the other side of that. I don’t think anybody wants to offend anybody. This has been discussed several times over a long period of time. I think Dan Snyder and the organization have made it very clear that they’re proud of that heritage and that name and I believe fans are, too.”

With this letter, Goodell makes it clear that the NFL has Dan Snyder’s back. Serving as the representative of a multi-billion dollar product, Goodell was unlikely to agitate for social change; there’s simply too much money at stake. Still, citing public opinion polls and an old trademark case is a weak defense of the Redskins name. Whether a majority of Americans find the name offensive or not is inconsequential to the issue of whether nickname offends a specific ethnic group. Goodell speaks of “exemplifying the values of diversity,” but refuses to address the very real concerns of Native American groups that have expressed offense at the Washington team name. Instead, these people have been marginalized by being pigeon-holed as “the minority” when in fact it is not known by anyone how a majority of Native Americans feel.

As I have stated before, the best chance of a name change in Washington will come from the case currently under review by the TTAB. If the “Redskins” are not a protected brand, Snyder figures to lose millions of dollars in exclusive rights. His bravado in never changing the name would be put to the test. However, this letter makes it clear that change will not be coming from the league office. Goodell has chosen to defend “the shield” by protecting the name of one of its most expensive brands. His actions are not surprising, but are still disappointing.

May 5, 2013; Ashburn, VA, USA; Washington Redskins head coach Mike Shanahan (R) talks to his players during rookie minicamp at Redskins Park. Mandatory Credit: Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

With two months remaining until the official start of the NFL season, ESPN.com writer Matt Williamson has already passed judgment on how teams have fared in the offseason. In his article, Williamson grades every team based on their free agent moves and draft selections. The Washington Redskins received a “D”, the worst rating in the NFC. This analysis is overly harsh about what has been a pretty decent offseason for the Redskins front office. If forced to grade what the Redskins have done since the Super Bowl, I would give the team a B+. Here’s why:

1) Salary cap management: For the second consecutive season, the Redskins had no chance to compete for elite free agents because of the dubious $18 million penalty passed down from the NFL. Despite having little financial wiggle room, the front office has managed to keep most free agent players from leaving Washington (with the exception of Lorenzo Alexander). Tyler Polumbus and Kory Lichtensteiger were  brought back to maintain continuity along the offensive line. Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen also got several key players to restructure their contracts in order to stay with the team. DeAngelo Hall was cut before being re-signed for a more reasonable price tag. Santana Moss and Josh Wilson each took pay cuts of nearly two million dollars a piece. Washington used to be a destination for players past their prime to be paid exorbitantly. This offseason is proof that the front office culture has become more frugal since the departure of Vinny Cerato.

2) Draft: The Redskins did not have a first round pick because of the Robert Griffin III trade, but the team still managed to address key needs in the secondary. According to Williamson, “the Redskins didn’t have a lot of resources for improvement, but they did address problem areas from the 2012 squad, particularly at defensive back, through the draft. The big question is how NFL-ready will their rookie cover-men be?” Undoubtedly, there will be growing pains with David Amerson, Bacarri Rambo, and Phillip Thomas in coverage. However, it seems short-sighted to give the team a “D” rating for using the draft to fill immediate needs. Free agency was not a viable option to reconstruct the entire secondary. The Redskins did the best they could do and got younger and more athletic in the process.

Williamson agrees with me about Jordan Reed at least.

3) Free agency: Though the Redskins were not “buyers”, the team did add a few complimentary pieces to provide depth. Tony Pashos and Jeremy Trueblood were brought in for cheap to support the offensive line in case injuries are more of a concern in 2013. E.J. Biggers was signed to a one year deal to assist DeAngelo Hall in coverage. Darryl Tapp provides an insurance policy in case Brian Orakpo cannot remain healthy. None of these players have elite talent, but the roster is more complete with these additions.

The problem with Williamson’s analysis is that it lacks context. Naturally, the Redskins would be improved if players like Cliff Avril, Mike Wallace, and Anthony Spencer could be signed. However, those players were not available given the salary cap situation. Williamson asserts, “In the end, if you are not going forward in this league, you are going backward. And this roster does not look to be much improved — if at all — from the end of last season.” This seems like a weak argument to me. Prolonged success in the NFL is usually achieved by keeping the core of the team intact and not recklessly spending in free agency (look at the Ravens, Patriots, and Steelers as examples). The Redskins have done just that and deserve credit for it.

May 23, 2013; Ashburn, VA, USA; A flag flies at half-staff to honor tornado victims in Oklahoma outside Redskins Park during organized team activities. Mandatory Credit: Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

The controversy around the Washington Redskins name continues to linger in the national discourse, as ten members of the United States Congress have re-joined the discussion. On Tuesday, representatives announced that formal letters were sent to commissioner Roger Goodell, owner Daniel Snyder, and the owners of the other 31 NFL teams urging for a name change in Washington. Among the Congressional authors were Native American Caucus chairs Tom Cole (R) and Betty McCollum (D). According to the authors, “Native Americans throughout the country consider the term ‘redskin’ a racial, derogatory slur akin to the ‘N-word’ among African Americans or the ‘W-word’ among Latinos.” The letter to the commissioner can be read in full here (from the National Journal).

For those just joining the Riggo’s Rag community, you can put me squarely in the pro-name change camp for reasons I have previously outlined. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the news from Congress:

1) I am glad the Congressional group took the time to write these letters. I think it is an important issue that should actually be debated and discussed. Granted, it is very difficult to have an honest discourse about the name when the owner is emphatic about never changing it. Still, I think it is a discussion worth having. And when I say discussion, I mean a genuine back and forth between interested parties: Native American groups from around the country, Redskins personnel, NFL officials, and yes, Daniel Snyder. I don’t feel like this has actually happened. The people in power have been very happy to sweep this under the rug because it is financially convenient to do so.

2) There will be plenty of sports journalists and pundits who will point to this and say, “This isn’t going to change anything.” And in one sense, they are right. Dan Snyder is under no obligation to change the name because ten members of Congress want him too. However, change rarely comes from a single letter. Change occurs gradually over time, as political, economic, and social norms evolve. Even with 79 percent of the country favoring the current team name, that number is down ten percent from 1992. As political elites, members of Congress have the ability to shape national discourse in a way most of us cannot. So pointing out that a strongly-worded letter was not effective in achieving an ultimate goal is a weak argument.

3) There will be others who complain that these members of Congress have inserted themselves into someone else’s business. With all the pressing issues facing the country, the argument goes, don’t they have better things to do? Indeed, if Congress was only writing letters to NFL sports owners, I would probably agree. However, Congressional members have staffs of people working on all kinds of issues. Bills are introduced, interviews given, hearings attended everyday on issues that most Americans would more poignant- creating jobs, national security, promoting economic growth, education, etc. When a political figure talks sports, it does not mean he is ignoring his other responsibilities. We all do it at our offices on a daily basis.

In this case, however, Congress isn’t just talking about sports. It is trying to address multiple issues that are very much in the realm of what Congress should be working on. There are issues of racism. There are issues of trademark protection and exclusivity rights for a business that is worth over a billion dollars. These are issues we want out representatives working on, even in the realm of sports.

4) As nice as letters can be, I believe the most likely source of change in the Redskins name will come from the Federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. If the Daniel Snyder loses exclusivity rights and trademark protection in the current lawsuit he is facing, he will seriously consider having to change the name. I know he said we could put it in “caps”, but that ruling could cost him millions of dollars. Grandstanding has a fixed price.

For an issue that has been laid to rest many times, it keeps refusing to die. I think there is a legitimate reason for that, and I certainly don’t mind Congress bringing it back to the forefront of our national attention. Certainly beats watching the NBA playoffs.