Think about this: ESPN's decision didn't even have to be a matter of worrying about a CONSCIOUS negative reaction to that name.
A vast amount of money goes into putting major broadcasts together. They fuss over every little detail -- the intensity of the lighting on the sets, the color of the backdrop, the necktie the on-air talent is wearing, how his makeup looks, what sound cues will accompany the down-and-distance graphics, and so on. That's not because they worry a viewer will consciously think "the host's nose is shiny, so I'm not going to watch." Obviously, nobody's going to do that. Yet, the broadcasters shell out good money to have people standing by to powder the noses during commercial breaks. Why?
It's because even if that won't consciously decide whether someone flips the channel or not, it may subconsciously do so, and every fraction of a ratings point makes a big difference in revenue. Would having on-air talent who subconsciously reminds people of a controversial political issue in the news have a similar effect? Quite possibly. It's at least conceivable that someone sick and tired of the coverage of the Charlottesville protest (liberal or conservative), and just looking for some sports escapism, might find himself inexplicably turned off by one game, and thus more likely to flip the channel to another, based on something as meaningless as the subconscious link between the on-air name and the controversy. When you're putting big bucks into details as trivial as the part of the host's hair, you don't want to lose a fraction of a ratings point based on the neglected detail of an on-air name resonating in an unfortunate way with the geography of the game.
