leopard88

That's fine. I thought the lawsuit news fit here because it is based on the names and logos, but I'm good either way.

Offer to settle now and forward a check for $3. That way you can avoid interest on the judgment. I believe the NFL wound up paying approximately $0.67 in interest by the time it wrote a check to the USFL.

So, this is interesting . . . Original USFL ex-owners file lawsuit aimed at new USFL, potentially halting start of spring football league

That is the most likely outcome. Courts are very reluctant to require a person or entity to perform what is essentially a skilled service, so the CUSA will likely have a difficult time keeping them in the fold for another season. The only way the CUSA might be able to keep them around is if a court enjoined them from playing in the Sun Belt in 2022. Without knowing the specifics of the contracts, that seems unlikely to me, especially since Marshall and Southern Miss would have to have shown a "likelihood of success on the merits" to obtain temporary restraining orders.

I immediately thought of Spinal Tap too. Great minds . . . or showing our age. And that fact that this exists is awesome . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_More_Black

Probably so . . . and the designer delivered if that was the goal. I don't think that approach is the right one for a soccer team, but reasonable minds can differ.

Agree to disagree. I think being able to use a stadium with these markings lends an air of credibility to the league by making it seem as if it's endorsed by the Hall of Fame and has more history than it really does. It's not like the Salt Lake Stallions playing on a field with University of Utah logos everywhere. Meanwhile, they can cover every inch of the concrete walls around the perimeter with USFL logos.

I had the same thought. It might work if they can set up the cameras on the open side so only the other side is visible most of the time. The Patriots played there during part of their AFL run and the Boston Breakers played there during the first season of USFL 1.0. However, there were still seats on the other side and the total capacity was somewhere around 20,000. I also forgot about Harvard Stadium, which seats 30,323 according to Wiki. The Cannons played for a large part of their MLL tenure.

In Baltimore, they play at Homewood Field, which only holds 8,500. Wiki says Nickerson Field at Boston University seats 9,871. If's that is too small, Alumni Stadium at Boston College seats 44,500. That's pretty big, but not as overwhelming at Gillette.

I'm not sure from your post whether you're suggesting that Colorado wore that look first. In any case, the original Panthers jerseys had the same stripe pattern.

I meant "disadvantage" solely in the context of generating color scheme diversity. Having a solid starting point and only needing to update uniforms that already looked good is most definitely an advantage.

. . . and it's a perfectly valid question. I was around for USFL 1.0 (I was born in 1967) and loved it. I'm also a uniform nut (or else I wouldn't be here), but the three red and silver teams never bothered me in the least. That may be because the Blitz and Bandits used decent amounts of blue and red, respectively, while the Showboats just used red and silver. I will say that it bothered me that the Stars and Stallions were basically twins. The Stars' white facemasks (which looked terrible) were the only thing distinguishing between the two at a quick glance.

The disadvantage this incarnation of the USFL has is that it is attempting modern updates to existing looks. That left less room for change without knocking the nostalgia train off the tracks. The issue could have been mitigated by reviving different teams. However, I assume they didn't want to bring back the San Antonio Gunslingers or Washington Federals just for the sake of having a green team. It seems like the more recent spring leagues (AAF, XFL 2.0) have made a concerted effort to provide color variation. I have no problem with that as long as it doesn't result in forced combinations that don't look good. I also have no problem with 1/6th of the 1984 USFL having teams with silver/red/silver looks because they all looked good.

I don't get the concern over multiple teams using the same color. There are only so many colors to choose from. By my hasty count, the NFL has 16 teams with a shade of blue in their color scheme if we count aqua and teal as shades of blue. There are also 13 teams with at least a black jersey, including alternates (assuming the Niners still use their black Color Rush jersey). However, I don't recall any discussions about there being too many blue or black teams in the NFL.* I know there is a greater chance for diversity among 8 teams than among 32. That said, I don't see it being that big a deal. * -- This is separate from the BFBS discussion, which has substantial merit.

It's well done, but it looks like the logo for an organic ice cream brand sold primarily at Whole Foods and farmers' markets . . . or a statewide initiative to promote recycling and composting.

At that distance, it vaguely reminds me of this logo . . .

If they were really showing their position within the Nation's Capital, that space would be blank and there would be a mark outside the circle at around 2:00 signifying the location of Landover/Raljon.

Very good comparison . . . and one I hadn't thought of.

Agreed on both counts. The original is still one of my favorite all-time helmets.

. . . which hasn't existed since the retrocession of the Virginia portion of the District in 1847.

Just in time for my daughter to (maybe) be a freshman there.

. . . or perhaps you prefer a mudcat . . .

This is officially official now. Colonial Athletic Association adding Hampton, Monmouth, Stony Brook to conference

FedEx Forum? FedEx Field. It's almost too much on topic. That said, we could discuss how they reworked the branding after the move from Vancouver without changing the name.

*JUST SITTING HEAR THINKING OF WHAT OTHER TEAMS WE CAN DISCUSS*