gosioux76

My eye goes to the negative space between the helmet and hammers, which makes sort of a pentagon shape. I'd love it if it somehow could be adjusted into a keystone shape. Not sure it's possible, but it would be cool.

I was lukewarm on it to start, too, but now I love it. In fact, I'm wearing that hat right now as I type. I live in the St. Louis region, but from Minnesota, and made it back home last weekend to see a game at Target Field. They've really pushed that mark everywhere, including on stadium seats and on the plastic helmets used as a nacho delivery system. (I bought those, too. ) I've come to love everything about the new look.

I'm not sure it's all that unusual. I'm no expert, but it seems like trademark applications can take a long time to process, and in most cases it's either a formality or creates obstacles that can easily be overcome, which seems to be the case here. If you continue following that tweet thread, the author says these trademark rejections aren't likely to become major obstacles for the team.

This is such an interesting discussion, because I can't disagree with anything in @FinsUp1214's post, but at the same time find the Texans look to be completely forgettable. Looking back, it was unveiled in an era of relative design restraint, right before Reebok got high on piping and side panels. I think about the Eagles and Patriots redesigns at the tail end of the '90s as being in a similar class: lacking in gimmick, simple in execution, not flashy, but following much of the traits of traditional football uniforms with small touches of panache. The big difference is that the Eagles and Patriots actually won things in their boring uniforms. Save for the heroics of JJ Watt, there's almost nothing memorable about the 20-year history of the Texans other than the fact that they have nice, but boring uniforms. Is that a case for changing it up? I'd argue that it can't hurt. We've seen teams change their look for worse reasons.

I can't look at that fabric without thinking of the upholstery of my grandmother's couch from the '60s or the trim on the wrist of Captain Kirk's Star Trek uniform. It's awful. I can't imagine wanting to transfer this to another sport, let alone use it at all.

But wouldn't the risk be a lot higher for the NHL than it is for the NBA and MLS? By the late '80s, the NBA had reached near-universal popularity in the U.S. and globally by the next decade. The MLS, meanwhile, was a niche, much like the NBA in the '70s, that benefitted from operating within only-game-in-town markets. The NHL, though, isn't as universally popular as the NBA. It's also not a star-driven league like the NBA, which can generate enough revenue through TV and licensing deals, plus through global markets, regardless of the size of their markets. In the NBA, the high-profile of Dame Lillard in Portland or Ja Morant in Memphis is far more powerful, value-wise, than the relative small size of the cities they play in. You can't say the same about Connor McDavid and Edmonton.

All of this is correct. But if it comes to choosing between a tiny market they know will work or a riskier large market with huge growth potential, they'll take their chances on the large market. Winnipeg, at the time, was the only alternative for Atlanta. If Houston's in play for the Coyotes, I don't see the league passing it up.. I hope I'm wrong. I'd much rather see QC in the league.

That may be true, but it's still a small part of a franchise's overall valuation, and the valuation of the league in its entirety. Consider Winnipeg: Forbes ranks it as the league's 27th most valuable franchise at $650M, but the biggest share of that — 40% — is based on revenue it collects from league-wide revenue sharing. Stadium-generated revenue, including gate receipts, totals less than 20% of the franchise's value. Another piece of the pie is market size. Nearly half of franchise value for the Rangers, the most-valuable franchise, is derived from its market size compared with just 30% for Winnipeg. So if you're the NHL Board of Governors, and things like valuations matter to you, market size is likely a driving factor behind where they choose to expand or relocate a franchise. To be fair, any market — whether it be QC or otherwise — would be an improvement over the Coyotes, which Forbes ranked dead last in valuation and drives more than half of its meager value from revenue sharing. Its market size didn't help boost its value at all, though I'd guess that probably has something to do with its previous suburban location.

But attendance (i.e. ticket revenue) and local interest aren't a big part of the equation when evaluating the big money drivers of pro sports, which is the size of the potential TV audience and franchise valuations. I'm not going to pretend to have the number on this, but it seems logical to me that the league's value with a failing team in a top 10 market like Phoenix (or Atlanta or Houston) is higher when it comes to pursuing TV revenue than a league that has a super-successful team in a tiny market like QC.

I once saw Robin Lopez wearing a Minnesota Wild jersey while shopping at a Target store in downtown Portland, Oregon.

I know nobody likes to hear the realities of sports economics, but @Sodboy13 makes some really good points here. The NHL's return to Winnipeg may have been successful, but I can't imagine franchise owners and broadcast partners being enthusiastic about what adding a second small, but plucky Canadian market to the league will do it their valuations and revenue potential. I think there's no doubt that QC is the market that deserves a team. But professional sports leagues aren't known to be charitable when it comes to profit potential.

I don't know how anybody looks at that logo and doesn't see the clear intent to combine both a D and R. Knowing the XFL 2020 team was called the Dallas Renegades makes it even easier to draw a conclusion about the sequence of events here. But regardless of how it happened, the fact that the debate between whether it's just and R or a D/R exists is evidence enough that this is muddled branding. I'll agree with @Ferdinand Cesarano on one point: It is a very nice logo — but for a team named Dallas Renegades. It's otherwise not a strong enough "R" on its own.

I'll let @Conrad. confirm or deny this, but my bet is they're going back to blue/red/white. (probably a light blue, if I had to guess.) The video unveiling the script change was predominantly filled with images of the Kings from their days as a primarily blue club. There's only one or two purple uniforms in that issue. It feels as if they went out of their way to showcase their prior color scheme.

This is something I'd never considered, having both MLS and Liga MX teams in the same metro. It's only a 30-minute drive between Caliente Stadium and Snapdragon, according to Google Maps. That's really interesting.

I'm not a Padres fan, but I'd put this in the running for best-ever BP jersey.

I don't think showing demand for NHL hockey has ever been a pre-requisite when it comes to this league's expansion strategy.

100% correct. As much as I appreciate the idea of the antler helmet, it wasn't substantial enough to carry the helmet. And the antler placement looked wrong, even though it was appropriate based upon the location of an elk's actual antlers. What they did last year, in reverting to the classic EE logo and using the antler secondary on the sleeves, was the perfect compromise and evolution of the brand. It was the choice they should've made from the start.

This is pretty much the scenario for all of the relocation options. It isn't ideal. Theoretically, the ownership situation wouldn't be an issue if the current ownership decided to keep the team upon relocation. But the disadvantage would be in moving to a venue in which you'd be a tenant and not an owner. The stadium in Quebec City, I believe, is owned by the city, as is the T-Mobile Center in KC. The Houston arena is owned by Harris County. Portland's Moda center is controlled by Blazers' owner Jody Allen, and she hasn't (lately) expressed any interest in the NHL. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only scenario — of those mentioned so far — that seems to fit would be SLC. If Ryan Smith is truly interested in buying the franchise, he already owns the arena, and would be able to get the maximum benefit of owning a second tenant.

Most Canadian thing ever. Molson would've gone out of business.

Minnesota lost to Anaheim in the 2003 Western Conference Finals. They were swept, so it's pretty much as if they were never there.

One thing I've noticed and enjoyed about watching MLS on Apple TV+ is that I'm getting more exposure to the various stadiums across the league, and you can really see the evolution of soccer-specific stadium architecture on display. It doesn't seem that long ago that the stadiums in L.A., New Jersey, Philly, Dallas, Salt Lake and Denver stood out as symbols of the MLS' evolution from questionable fringe sport to a stable and growing league. But now when you look at those venues, on TV anyway, they seem like they'd fit better in USL, especially when compared to the flying saucer-like designs in Minneapolis and Philly or the more museum-like designs in St. Louis and what NYCFC is pursuing.

I hope you're right about Orlando, but the people behind the Nashville campaign are very intent on naming an expansion team the Stars. This is from the FAQ on their website:

This is a fantastic idea, but I don't understand why an airline's branding would have any bearing on what a baseball team chooses to do.

Just because those things once existed doesn't make it a good idea. Maybe it's just not what I'm used to, but "32's" sounds very awkward to me. The standard that the 49ers and 76ers have established makes it clear that the name represents a year and not a singular number. The 32s sounds as if the team's mascot is just the number, rather than a year. I'm nitpicking, I realize, but we've nit-picked worse. I can also see that name being weaponized against them: "Washington once again has a bigger number in its name than it does on the scoreboard."