>we're not going to win a hate-off...a boycott alone isn't
>going to create change when the opposite boycott is likely to
>both be more stubborn and a larger percent of the audience.
let's create a hypothetical. suppose the raiders were to sign him. for all the people it would turn off, do we see fans of OTHER teams really caring that much or just mainly raider fans? To that end, think about all those who DID boycott or have still supported Kaep. If they all became Raiders fans and jersey sales went out the roof, then that alone would make a loud statement.

people had already stopped watching the NFL for one reason or the other, a more focused effort from a specific revenue generating demographic such as black viewership would impact TV contracts when they are next up for negotiation.

That's why I started with IF, because there are still a plethora of black people who partook in the NFL product. We still don't even know what a boycott of that scale would look like. However, with the treatment of Reid, I'd hope that folks can let go of this bullshit notion that it had ANYTHING to do with Kaep's play, and that these cracka ass crackas have lengthened their whip and comfortably put their boots back on the neck of these boys.


>we're left with starting a new league or emphasizing our
>support of the players is viable.
>
>we could also just let football die and build better
>sports/entertainment.