"Perhaps Dan Snyder is holding onto the name out of spite or to protect the value of the trademark -- a trademark that is being challenged by a group of Native Americans. Or maybe he simply believes keeping the name is the best way to honor the traditions of a team he's followed since he was a boy.

Except those old traditions are being replaced by new traditions. On the field, a mediocre product. Off the field, lawsuits against fans. You would think at this point Snyder would want to change the name, the way the owners of ValuJet changed the airline's name to AirTran after a few crashes.

What could the new name be? When you think about it, "Redskins" doesn't have much to do with Washington. The name's a holdover from the team's Boston days, where it started as the Boston Braves, a name that apparently echoed one of that city's baseball teams, not its aboriginal population.

The fact that "Redskins" has no connection to Washington frees the team from having to replace it with a D.C.-centric moniker. They could pick a name that was cool but didn't have any connection to the capital. That is, you could go the Wizards route. "

Get the Story:
John Kelly's Washington: Snyder's Team's Play Is Now as Offensive as Its Name (The Washington Post 10/1)

Relevant Documents:
Petition for Certiorari

D.C. Circuit Decision:
Pro-Football v. Harjo (May 15, 2009)

Related Stories:
Column: America has outgrown Redskins name (9/28)
Letters: Readers react to Redskins controversy (9/24)
Courtland Milloy: It's time to release 'Redskins' (9/23)
The Independent: On the warpath over Redskins (9/21)
Column: 'Redskins' is the equivalent to N-word (9/18)
Column: Activists await last word on 'Redskins' (9/18)
Column: Not all 'Indian' mascots are offensive (9/18)
Turtle Talk: Redskins has Supreme Court appeal (9/16)
BLT: Supreme Court asked to take on Redskins (9/15)
Opinion: A shameful day in America with 'Redskins' (05/20)
Court sides with 'Redskins' in trademark dispute (5/18)