Veras

History of a Fictional Football League (The USFA - Indiana Warriors)

Recommended Posts

I'll go for Orange/Blue but with a blue jersey and an orange helmet. 

 

EDIT: Nevermind that. Ideally, the Blue/Charcoal combo works best, but I don't see that color combo working until the mid-90's. I'd say keep the orange and red color scheme until then, but that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Blue/Charcoal the best, BUT have you ever thought of Teal or Jade colors along with Charcoal? just a suggestion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe for the next couple of seasons, the sharks stick to the red and orange. Then go to charcoal and blue. This reminds me of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. They had an odd "creamsicle" scheme  for a pirate theme. Then they switched to the epic red and pewter. So I can see the sharks going down a similar route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for what reason would blue and black be too early for '82.......Remember the USFL Outlaws doned all Black uni's in '84, mostly likely that idea being hatched sometime in '83.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...what's wrong with the Sharks being ahead of their time?  (They play in a state-of-the-art dome, after all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the blue/charcoal best.  I would suggest a lighter blue (more blue-green) and a bluish gray.   Gotta make the teeth stand out.  I wouldn't worry about teams being to similar if they play each other one team will be in white and the other in dark uniform 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sharks should keep the colors they had up in Buffalo for a few years and then change to either orange blue, blue charcoal, or silver and blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to stick with the red/orange scheme for now.  I acknowledge that it is kind of an odd choice, and if it were an expansion team I certainly wouldn't choose it.  The main reason is that I want the Sharks to be one of the teams that has a pretty wild look in the 90s, a move that will probably be made some time between 1988 and 1992.  Making huge changes now would mean that they would undergo two major redesigns in less than a decade, which I would kind of like to stay away from.

 

That point aside, to answer the question about what is wrong with blue and charcoal - I don't think "ahead of its time" is quite the right phrase here.  I might use it to describe the current Miami Suns look, but as a color scheme, the black and blue combo was just very popular starting in the late 1980s.  I've just glanced through the main page, so I could be wrong, but looking at the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB, it appears to me that there wasn't a single team wearing this combination before the late 1980s.  But then, between 1988 and 1992, most of the new teams that entered all four leagues had logos and/or uniforms that were black and either blue/teal/purple or something similar  (the Jaguars, Panthers, Lightning, Rockies, Marlins, Magic, Raptors, and Grizzlies all did it; while the Devil Rays, Mighty Ducks, and Timberwolves all made some use of that scheme).  The thing that I'm looking at here is whether or not a team at this time and place would make the switch to that scheme, and the answer is probably not.  @chrisCLEMENT makes a good point about the NFA's Drillers wearing those colors, which establishes some precedent, and could certainly justify the change, but I want to hold off for now.

 

I don't know how many of you read @hawkfan89's Professional Hockey League:  A Fictional History (you should check it out if you haven't been following it), but his league recently held a late-1980s expansion.  He described both expansion franchises (one of which wears blue and black, btw) as "ushring in the 90s era."  I really like that sentiment, and I see the Sharks as being the team to do that.  Obviously, that can't happen for another 8-10 years, and taking a partial step in that direction now undermines what I want from them in the medium term, if that makes sense.

 

I did, however, decide to heed the advice of dropping the USC-inspired shoulder stripe and switching to white pants.  I remember checking to ensure that the Trojans uniforms looked like that in the early 1980s, but they didn't so I was obviously wrong about that.  Here is what the Sharks will be wearing in 1982:

 

1982_new_jersey_sharks_uniform_by_verast

 

I also have another playoff bracket template that is easier to read, easier to work with, and sleeker than any that I've used previously.  Here is what it would have looked like for last season.  I wanted to give it a background, but everything I did just cluttered it up and caused Illustrator to lag, so it's blank for now.  Thoughts?

 

another_tournament_bracket_by_verasthebr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely understand wanting to keep the Sharks' look relatively conservative for now. Also like keeping the same sort of uniform color scheme from Buffalo as a temporary way of tying New Jersey to it's old home.

 

The new playoff bracket looks great! It states all relevant information in an easy-to-follow format. I actually have a pretty good idea what is going on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question about the new playoff scheme. Why do you start off with 3 versus 8 and 4 versus 7 instead of 7 versus 10 and 8 versus 9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because only wildcard teams have to play in the first round. Winning a division gets a team a first round bye, but it doesn't entitle them to a top-6 seed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the updates to NJ. I like the USC stripe better, but I understand it's to soon. 

 

The new playoffs bracket definitely flows better. I also couldn't understand why NY being #3 had to play an extra game and #10 Cleveland didn't. I understand it now. I like that about your league. Just because you win your division, doesn't mean you will be ranked in the top 4. The NFL should do something similar especially if the division winner is below .500. So when can we expect the next season? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon, possibly tomorrow.  The season and postseason have both been simulated and written up, and all of the graphics are complete, with the exception of the Victory Bowl field.  The only other thing that I want to post before that is the revision that I made to the Cleveland Ghosts (this isn't a new logo, just a more refined version of their current one).  That's also ready to go, and I'll post it as soon as I have time, probably after I get off of work tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense, maybe add an astrick(*) to wildcard team. But we will most likely have the season standings by the first playoff round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cleveland_ghosts_revised_by_verasthebrujI've mentioned it a few times, but here is the update to the Cleveland Ghosts.  As I've said, this isn't a new logo that the team will adopt in 1982, this is just what the logo that I originally posted in 1974 should have looked like.  There are a few others that I look at from time to time that I was never really happy with, this is just the first one where something clicked into place and I suddenly saw how to fix the things that I didn't like about it.

 

Improvements include smoothing and evening out the borders (notice the elimination of the point on top of the head), improved consistency in line thickness and tapering, and a more expressive face.  The only thing that I like less about the new one is the inconsistency in the shape of the arm section between the primary and the secondary, but that's just the way that it has to work for now.  If and when the Ghosts get another update, that will likely be resolved.

 

The biggest change (and I think the biggest improvement) is in the helmet.  In the revised version, the ghost is white on a purple background and doesn't have visible outlines.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Veras said:

Because only wildcard teams have to play in the first round. Winning a division gets a team a first round bye, but it doesn't entitle them to a top-6 seed.

 

 

HUH ? How can you win the division but a wildcard team be a higher seed ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wildcard team has a better record than the winner of another division. For example, this year the Raiders were 12-4 and the Texans were 9-7, but the AFC West happened to contain another 12-4 team. In the AFA, Oakland would have been seeded higher than Houston. 

 

Actually, it's also technically possible within a division due to how tiebreakers work. Imagine that two division rivals have the same record, and Team A won both head to head meetings, giving them the tiebreaker and the division title. If, however, when seeding the field there is a Team C that also has the same record and defeated Team A but lost to Team B, then the three-way tiebreaker could go to B even though they lost the division to A. The AFA, however has a rule in place to prevent that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: double post. That's the second time that this has happened to me after posting on my phone in the last few days. Is anyone else having problems with this all of a sudden?

Edited by Veras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now