gosioux76

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.

Both. Let’s pull a full TampaMontreal Rayxpos.

Let's just bring it full circle. Allow me to say the magic words that will push this thread into a death spiral: The Nats should go back to being the Expos.

I can see why someone would make the Ed Hardy connection, but I see this as targeting the tattoo-loving fan base, of which the Thorns have many. As the spouse of a woman with dozens of tattoos, and who lived in Portland for a decade, the tattoo artist community there is vast and impressive.

It's also remarkable that they've accomplished this while being the most transient franchise in baseball, and probably only behind the Raiders in all of pro sports. Five of those titles came in Philadelphia, the other four in Oakland, and sandwiched in between is their otherwise unremarkable 12 years in Kansas City where, from the bottom of the standings, they served as an unofficial farm club for the Yankees.

Translation (probably): "The gold paint was more expensive, so we only used it on half the helmet."

In case it wasn't clear, that was the point I was trying to make.

Yet not even the dumbest idea to come from that franchise:

Is that the same shade of green in the word "loyal" in their crest? It seems quite a bit darker for some reason. I'd have preferred the Loyal lean more into the seafoam-ish green in the waves of the crest rather than that darker shade.

To be fair, the Seventies weren't really worth remembering anyway.

Not to mention that the term "physical specimen" is a stupid and nonsensical piece of sports slang that could literally apply to anybody on the planet. If you exist, you're a physical specimen. So congratulations to everyone.

I've seen several people make this point, and I don't really understand why this is an issue. As a fan, I'd love a white-paneled cap. (In fact, I have one; it was a BP design from several years ago.) But I don't get why there's this insistence on them needing to have one in order to right some wrong, as if they broke some unwritten rule of baseball design that says the helmet NEEDS to match the cap. Although I didn't agree with it, I could at least understand why people felt the prior set was inconsistent because of its use of gold only at home. But that was because they introduced an entirely different color for only one use. This white-paneled helmet, by comparison, fits seamlessly into the overall design scheme. Its only offense is that it doesn't match the home cap, and only out of some apparent belief that helmets and caps must match in order to keep the universe in balance or something? It seems to me that the Twins aren't afraid to try new things, and should be applauded for it.

You can play in stereotypes all you like. Such as how the NHL/NBA/MLB/NFL fan experience is little more than a Pavlovian call-and-response exercise led by a Jumbotron, at least until a fight breaks out between drunk meatheads high on Busch Lite or the dance team whips them into a frenzy to the tune of "Pump up the Jams." But that doesn't do anyone any good. It sounds to me like if anyone's coming in with an attitude to this situation, it's you. Meet the sport on its own terms and learn to live within it. I've found soccer people to be among the most welcoming of any sport, entirely because their intent is to build a community around their love of the game. If that community feels foreign to you, and you don't like it, that's fine. Maybe it's not for you. Thanks for giving it a shot.

I don't know, I actually felt the color balance worked just fine in the 2020 version. I really liked navy as a base color, with orange used primarily as the striping and number outlines. The green worked as a fine secondary, with the orange serving as a separator between the green and navy. I also disagree with the suggestion made earlier that the white helmet seems out of place with this. If you gave that team a navy or green helmet, the whole set would come off as overly dark and one-note. The white helmet brings some weight balance to the whole set, especially in the absence of white pants.

Back when sleeves were sleeves.

That's a brilliant idea. Leagues like this need a touch of whimsy, especially when fans develop these things organically. It shows people are showing up to their event and genuinely having a good time.

I think the bigger issue is the gradient. Going from white to blue on a blue jersey makes the red outlines necessary in order to see the blue-on-blue bottom half of the numbers. Perhaps the better solution, if you're going to use a gradient, is to make it a white-to-red transition on the numbers.

For the most part, I agree with what Brian's saying here. I much prefer the XFL wings-style helmet, but Brian's right in noting that the package feels incomplete without the sword. If the hawk head logo is preferred, as the most recent poll results suggest, then I'd recommend trying to incorporate the wings onto the shoulders as a design element, maybe reminiscent of the Chargers lightning bolts. Not sure I've ever seen that done before, and it might not work, but I'd love to see what it would look like.

I can 't disagree more. I really liked how the Jaguars tried to come out with something different. What's interesting is, despite that, the uniforms they went with were still better than this. But I applaud them for taking a chance on being unique. On that point, is it possible that, with the leaping jaguar helmet design, they were trying to draw some connection to the USFL Jacksonville Bulls, which also used a wraparound logo on a silver helmet?