gosioux76

I agree that, as a starting point until a franchise were to build its own venue, that Snapdragon offers a better situation than what most expansion markets might offer, at least in terms of a viable stopgap. But I'm afraid not having to pay for upkeep isn't much of a tradeoff for having to pay rent and not reaping the revenue of a facility.

Living in St. Louis, it's been really fun to follow this team. Super exciting for the city. But part of me worries a bit about what it might say about the league that a new team can come in with a European-seasoned sporting director who has apparently unlocked the formula for success in MLS. Just as it seemed as if the MLS as a whole was upping its game, St. Louis comes in and makes it look subpar again. This is just me thinking out loud. I'm sure things will even out to some degree as the season goes on.

But if you're a prospective MLS owner who will be asked to shell out $300+ million in expansion fees, do you really want to play in a stadium owned by a university? It's a nice venue, and certainly seems to meet the standards, but I'd have to presume that Snapdragon — if it's even made available to a MLS team — would only be a short-term option until a MLS-specific venue were proposed. I'm sure that will be part of the vetting process for whether the league awards SD a franchise.

I'm aware. But in the post you quoted, I said "the A's can claim to be the best team in baseball during multiple eras in both Philadelphia and Oakland." They were a largely terrible team in KC and could not have claimed to be among baseball's best during those years.

Can someone explain the significance of this to me? If he's the first-ever draft pick to "get arrive" (), then what is the point of having a draft at all?

This is a great point. I know in 2020, the Battlehawks did a lot of outreach to youth leagues and other community organizations just to build brand awareness. Clearly, it worked, because fans immediately embraced the team. I have to wonder if the XFL wasn't hoping to see some degree of the St. Louis experience in other markets. Here in STL, there's also little to no local marketing, but they don't need to because by turning into this massive party, it guarantees news coverage. Plenty of free media. St. Louis and San Antonio are the real outlier markets in this league. They're cities that have either been scorned or overlooked by the NFL and with NFL-viable stadiums and minimal competing events in their own market. In that situation, the XFL will be treated like a main event, whereas in Dallas/Seattle/DC/Houston it's a fringe sports offering. That doesn't explain Orlando, of course, but as others have said, this XFL iteration could be an aberration considering that market's relative success in other spring leagues.

I agree that the Cardinals' lengthy history is something that hasn't been capitalized upon by the franchise. But if we're talking about brand value, I'm not sure comparing it to the A's situation really works. The A's can claim to be the best team in baseball during multiple eras in both Philadelphia and Oakland. There's a legacy there that's worthy of being maintained. Plus the name itself is probably the most language-agnostic moniker in all of sports. The Cardinals have won two championships, both in Chicago, a city most people would surprised to know the team once resided. Their one recent Super Bowl notwithstanding, I can't really say age alone is enough to suggest a full rebrand isn't plausible.

Visually, I'm a big fan of the old St. Louis Cardinals look, especially the all white set. It's one of the most underrated looks in the history of pro football. I otherwise think your hot take might be spot on. I always thought it was strange that a city would have two professional sports teams named the Cardinals. (I came to learn after moving here that locals referred to the football team as "Big Red.") That alone would have been logical reasoning for a name change. And even as a 12-year-old in 1988 I thought it was dumb that the team didn't change upon relocating to Phoenix. At the same time, though, I kind of hate being the guy who suggests to longtime fans that the team you follow should just start over.

I realize I'm writing from the perspective of someone who has no intention of going out on a Saturday night, but there's something to be said for the consistency of the schedule as it is now. I like knowing that my team will be on every weekend at one of same three or four time slots.

It does, however, beg the question of whether Fanatics plans to now get involved in things like textile innovation and performance design. With an Adidas/Nike/Reebok, etc., those functions are built in. But Fanatics, from what I can tell, plays mostly in high-margin fan apparel. While they can certainly contract with a manufacturer capable of manufacturing quality, the real question becomes whether they invest in in-house design and R&D operations to enhance the performance quality of uniforms.

I'm with you. It's at least worth taking a shot at modernizing. In the hierarchy of reasons to choose a logo, using one with historical relevance should rank above one that doesn't make sense. And trying to suggest a riverboat casino is some fast-moving object doesn't make sense. If anything, a clever designer could build a logo package that uses iconography for both steamboats and gambling. The current logo could just as easily be a roulette wheel or a card table, as well as the paddle wheel of the boat. Secondaries could be aces or dice or a full roulette wheel. Maybe put a wave motif on the base of the sleeves with a secondary logo. I'm just spitballing. But i'd like to know if the USFL commissioned designers to spend time thinking about this or if they just said, "we're moving Tampa to Memphis, so whip us up something fast."

I'm just going to repeat what I wrote in the other thread: Fanatics is just a retail brand, so this really comes down to who they choose for suppliers. And if the game-worn jerseys are going to be made at the same place where they're made now, then I'm not sure I'd put a lot of stock in the idea that their quality concerns will carry over. If anything, this looks more like an opportunity for Fanatics to elevate its brand to become more than a purveyor of cheap t-shirts that fade after two washes. Hopefully they'll live up to the opportunity and surprise everybody.

I don't know, call me an eternal optimist, but I'd kind of like to think that Fanatics would appreciate the difference between making overpriced, high-margin, low-quality fan apparel for the mass audience and producing the performance apparel worn by professional athletes. Fanatics is just a retail brand, so this really comes down to who they choose for suppliers. And if the game-worn jerseys are going to be made at the same place where they're made now, then I'm not sure I'd put a lot of stock in the idea that their quality concerns will carry over. If anything, this looks more like an opportunity for Fanatics to elevate its brand to become more than a purveyor of cheap t-shirts that fade after two washes. Hopefully they'll live up to the opportunity and surprise everybody.

Yes, this was my reaction. I agree that the colors work well together on that patch because the colors are blended together. But on the uniforms, it looks like the blue-and-gold numbers and letters were forced onto an Astros jersey. The colors don't complement each other; they look like a mistake.

I disagree. I love it. It makes MLS Saturday nights feel like an event. Living in the St. Louis area, in the central time zone, I've gotten into a rhythm of watching the early games on MLS 360 before St. Louis CITY game starts at 7:30. And then I typically stick around and watch bits of the late games. Prior to St. Louis getting a team, I followed the Timbers. When I lived in Portland, before the league simulcast on ESPN+, I'd ONLY watch the Timbers and then tune out from the league, mostly because the other games weren't on. Once the league went to ESPN+, I could still watch other games, but the way it was integrated into my streaming service (Hulu) made it easier for me to click away to other content. But with Apple+, I'm not as inclined to click out of the app and, as a result, I'm getting exposed to far more of the league than I ever did before. The whiparound format has been great for this. I'd much rather have bits of multiple games on screen than click in and out among several ongoing matches. The only way this is possible is if the league structures its schedule to have all their games in one night. The other benefit to this: By branding yourself as primarily a Saturday night league, like the NFL has done with Sundays, you run into fewer individual programming conflicts. I'm less likely to tune into a game on a Friday or a Sunday because, in my mind, MLS is for Saturday nights.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but that gold looks terrible next to the orange. Assuming this will only be worn for opening weekend, it would have made more sense to drop the orange and just go with gold and navy. And it's not like this franchise hasn't worn those colors before.

Ha! At first glance (from in phone,) I thought it was RSL.

That Angel City patch idea is incredible. A brilliant way to show you support multiple causes without having to over-commit to one of them, while also adding in a season ticket holder incentive. Super, super smart.

I like that they're using gray facemasks, for no other reason than it sets them apart from the Steelers. But in terms of playing look-a-like, they don't do themselves any favors by keeping the roundel logo on the helmet. (Just watch: they'll only place it on one side of the helmet.) If they were already going to break from tradition by losing the purple and orange, I'd like to see them take it a step further by relegating the roundel to a sleeve patch. I'd like to see what the crossed-hammers secondary would look like on the side of the helmet. Or maybe even something more inventive, like a wraparound design where the helmet's handle starts from the back with the hammerhead closer to the front. Anyway, I realize I tend to always want to see some sort of immersive helmet designs from these alt-leagues, especially as an alternative to slapping a round sticker onto the side.

Aaron Rodgers = Ken Anderson <covers his head while he exits the room ...>

I haven't paid much attention to the Roughnecks, mostly because those helmets are so godawful. But now that I look closely at the whole set, it feels strange that they chose a path that's essentially Texans cosplaying. The 2020 version also featured navy and red, but it really played up the silver and gray, making a clear distinction from the other team in town. (For what it's worth, I didn't like the 2020 uniforms either.)

This is a fantastic point. Couldn't agree more. The NHL very clearly works well as a niche sport in markets, like Winnipeg, that will fill every seat. It's just an unfortunate circumstance that the league has yet to see it for what it is.

1) you're right. I missed your Saskatoon joke. That's on me. 2) This is a question, and not me attempting to poke holes in your point: Is it possible that Winnipeg's franchise value was higher than Atlanta's because of the considerable wealth of its new owner? 3) Your responses always seem to want to make this personal, which I really don't understand. I'm not attempting to "crack the code the rest of us are too dumb to get." I think i made it pretty clear that Atlanta would continue having problems as an NHL market and that Quebec City is preferable. There was no attempt at making an "iF AtLaNtA cAn WoRk..." argument. The point was that you can never really convince people to STOP pursuing the holy grail if they think it's still there for the taking. And markets like Atlanta and Houston are certainly far more valuable to the league than smaller markets that are likely to be sure successes.

Personally, I'd love to see additional Canadian expansion, particularly to Quebec City. Long overdue. And like with Winnipeg, I think the game would be well-served by returning to the markets it abandoned in the '90s. (Saskatoon is less than half the size of Winnipeg, in terms of population, so while it works as a metaphorical example, it falls short in about every other metric that matters.) But you know that there's almost certainly someone, somewhere in the league offices who believes that the upside of Atlanta is so strong that even making it a moderate success would reap more benefits for the league than a return to Quebec City. It really isn't even about "sunbelt vs. canada." It's about finding a way to crack the 8th largest metropolitan area and the home to some of the nation's biggest consumer-facing corporate brands and potential sponsors. It's the same reason why Houston (the 5th largest MSA) is considered a near shoo-in for the next round of expansion. The fact that Winnipeg got the Jets back is a miracle, and one that I would be surprised to ever see repeated.

I find this point to be really interesting. This issue seems to pit the league's two biggest missions against each other: growing the game and increasing the league's value and financial position. The reason that Atlanta could one day get a third shot at the NHL is because it would seem to satisfy both objectives. From looking at Forbes' list of franchise valuations, it's clear that market size plays a big role in assessing franchise value. The top of that list is mostly peppered with North America's largest markets while, after Winnipeg, you run into other small-ish NHL markets: Raleigh, Columbus, Buffalo (with the failed Miami and Phoenix experiments holding up the bottom.) But even based on that measure, I wouldn't rule out Quebec City. It's interesting to me that Edmonton is No. 7 on the valuation list and Calgary is at No. 21. (Also worth noting, Winnipeg ranks No. 22 on Sportico's valuation list, ahead of Nashville, St. Louis, Anaheim and San Jose.) So market size alone doesn't dictate a franchise's value. It's possible for small or mid-sized markets to pack a bigger punch than their metro population would suggest, especially if they happen to be Canadian mid-sized markets. When it comes to Atlanta, though, I'd argue that the biggest obstacle is market saturation. Vegas and Seattle have been successes, in part, because they had far less competition relative to the size of their markets. The NHL's entrance filled a gap in the marketplace. While the success in Dallas might suggest that adding hockey to an already sports-saturated market can work, I'd argue that the examples in Phoenix, Miami and twice before in Atlanta would indicate the Stars' situation is the outlier.