gosioux76

Setting aside the question of whether they even need a stadium, I don't think it's that outlandish for them to pursue an indoor venue. I'd venture a guess that Nashville, being the destination that it is, sees this venue as being one more arrow in its quiver to attract major conventions and other events to the city, not unlike what Lucas Oil Stadium is to Indianapolis.

Late to the game on this, but does anybody else see the potential for the H and the T to make a goalpost?

I think the only thing that really needs to stay on Carolina is the sleeve stripes. Frankly, I'm surprised the TV numbers have lasted as long as they have in their current form, considering how many new designs have emerged without them. The Chargers' shoulder stripe -- OK, it's a lightning bolt, which is just a fancy shoulder stripe -- works fine on its own. I don't know why the same couldn't be true for the Panthers. I mean, if you reduce the toilet-bowl collar and keep the sleeve stripes, is there really anything on these sleeves/shoulders you'd miss if they weren't there?

You're spot-on about the supply and demand equation factoring into this. 100%. That said, I can completely understand the sense of outrage at the same time. I can't speak to the quality of either venue, so I'll play a bit in generalities, but it feels like a lot to ask your biggest supporters to pay a premium to go from an NHL-caliber venue to a significantly smaller, college-level venue, which I presume would offer a much lower-quality environment. Again, I'm speaking in generalities. The team's old venue could've been an outmoded dump and this new college venue may be state of the art, but from a surface level, I could see questioning whether, even with significantly shorter supply, you're getting value for your money. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that this has all been factored into the pricing. Maybe they figure that they have just enough die-hards to fill that smaller-capacity venue at that price, and they're OK losing everyone else. If that's the case, then it makes a lot more sense.

I wonder why they didn't include the light-blue crown onto the KC hats like they do on the jersey crest. Not suggesting it needs it, just seems like an odd choice.

It's also nice to see another team that listens and reacts to fan feedback in a constructive way. From the story on the team's website (emphasis mine):

Much like last year, I think this is shaping up to be an incredibly fascinating NBA playoffs. I'm not sure how, at this stage, anybody could conclude that this is destined to be a Boston and GSW finals just because neither team has lost in this round. Phoenix and Memphis are the only two power teams in either conference scuffling at this point. Outside of Boston, the Bucks, Heat and Sixers all have commanding 3-1 leads. The fact that the Pelicans and T-Wolves are battling it out with two of the league's best teams is great for the NBA and the future of the league, which is edging closer and closer to relative parity than it's ever been. I feel like we're well past the days when the super teams could run the table. The Warriors might still fit that definition, but the competition from teams that can boast of great balance and depth is stiffer than it's ever been.

I don't think the issue with those Jazz leaks is the simplicity of the design. Unfussy design should be the standard. I'm a big fan of what the Hawks did with their 50s- and 60s-inspired look two years ago. I like the simplicity of the Nets uniforms, though they're already growing a little tired. Some do it better than others, clearly (I find both the Wolves and Raptors to be uninteresting), but I'm all for simple as a default. What these Cavs uniforms have (as does @sayahh's mockup above) is simplicity but with identity-re-enforcing character. A super clean and simple design can be a knockout if it also helps to reenforce the identifiable traits of your historic brand, much like the wine, gold and navy colors do for this Cavs example. The fact that the Jazz might take this simple approach while emphasizing two colors that, at best, are tertiary elements of their historic looks, is what makes the entire strategy a bad decision.

These are gorgeous, and really the best example of how to do one of these city-themed alternates without looking like a team from an alternate reality. These are unmistakably the Royals paying subtle homage to one distinct element of their city. They're not the Kansas City Fountains or the Fountain City Kings or the BBQ City Pitmasters, etc. This is the correct way to do it.

Meanwhile, the marketing hucksters behind the MLB-to-PDX charade say they've renewed their invite to the A's to come kick the tires on Portland and claim the have four viable stadium sites, two each in the city and the suburbs. Of course, they don't say where specifically, and they admit they don't have any sort of development rights in the suburbs. So at this point, it still feels like a vacant marketing tactic to make the case that they're not just a campaign to sell baseball caps with a "P" on them. Anyway, the resident sports columnist bit on this without asking any tough questions: https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mlb-to-pdx-effort-invites?s=r For the longest time I had questions about who would own a Portland team and who's backing this Portland Diamond Project endeavor. But It's starting to become clear that this is just a business recruitment effort. They trot out Russell Wilson and Ciara as "investors" but it seems as if they're just trying to get the current owners to decamp for Portland.

You seem to be missing the point. Nobody's arguing with you about whether it will or won't last. In fact, several of us, myself included, have agreed: It very likely could fail. History tells us this. I don't see anybody arguing that point. The issue is that so many of you seem so eager to label it a failure after only one week. It's akin to a sports radio meathead calling a top draft pick a bust after only one game, or declaring a baseball game over after the top of the first inning. The odds might be in your favor, but you can only get so much satisfaction from an "I told you so" moment in which very few people disagreed with the eventual outcome.

I think you're engineering phantom arguments at this point. There's a difference between believing something will succeed and openly predicting its imminent demise. Nobody here seems to be claiming they have confidence the USFL will last. They're just willing to give it a chance without (gleefully) presuming, after only one week, that it's destined for failure.

Yes, I forgot that part. So I'm wrong. They do have a partnership with the the NFL, just not one involving player development. Thanks for pointing that out, @GDAWG

Yeah, I don't get the animosity either. I've said multiple times, this USFL could easily fail like the others. But sitting here practically wishing for it just seems to be counterproductive and, frankly, useless dialogue. But to your question, the answer is quite a bit. For one, it's owned by one of the biggest TV networks on the planet, and has broadcast partnerships with not only that network (Fox), but one of the other biggest TV networks on the planet (NBC.) It has name recognition and sports nostalgia in its favor, too. And even so, I wouldn't necessarily pick sides in this competition. I'm not favoring the USFL over the XFL just because I defend it. I'm for giving them both a reasonable chance to succeed -- the benefit of the doubt, if you will -- rather than moaning about how it's a bad look that a made-for-TV football league isn't drawing 50,000 people into the stands.

Except, they don't really have a partnership with the NFL. They have a deal with a private training organization affiliated with the NFL Alumni Association, which is an entirely different beast. It's good marketing, and a good buzz builder, but it's not the NFL.

Sort of. It's with the NFL Alumni Academy, which develops and trains free-agents released from NFL training campus during the NFL season to prep them for signing in-season contracts with NFL teams that need replacement players due to injuries. My guess is that it serves as the backup for practice squads. The new deal with the XFL has the two organizations working together to identify which players will train at the NFL Alumni Academy. Those players will then receive an automatic opt-in contract to play in the XFL once the NFL season is over. So it's more of an alignment with an adjunct of the NFL Alumni Association, not the actual NFL. In other words, this isn't like the World League/NFL Europe, which was an NFL-backed spring league. Still, it's a smart personnel development move by the XFL, but I don't think it has the sort of gravitas that that an actual partnership with the NFL would carry.

This is another fascinating component to these spring football leagues. It's at least a new wrinkle in the story. The WFL, USFL 1.0, the AAF and both prior XFLs were only competing against themselves. Having two actively trying to compete against each other could be beneficial to both leagues -- each driven to one-up the other, increasing their quality and value along the way. Maybe it eventually forces a merger of the two. Or maybe it bankrupts them both.

Yeah, man, they should've just folded the league on the spot. Like, right in the middle of the kickoff. Just have the players toss their helmets into a moving truck right at the 50-yard-line. I'm sure Fox already has the press release drafted, "Well, we gave it a good try, but the good people of Birmingham have convinced us at Fox, after just one week, that our entire long-term TV-focused strategy is a failure. Maybe we'll try again in 30 more years! Good luck XFL!"

I think, in the end, it works out better because it stretches the league across three nights and in a better time slot. Speaking personally, I'd rather watch another game on a third night than power through three consecutively on a Sunday with a lot of other sports on TV.

I don't think anybody is questioning why people expect the worst. Nobody's blind to the struggles of prior spring football leagues. This one could just as easily fail, too. In fact, I'll even submit that, perhaps, it's the likeliest outcome, considering the prior history. But to go into it seemingly assuming that failure is pre-ordained is, well, useless noise. And doing so ignores the real intrigue, which is whether, maybe, this one can figure it out. I, and I assume many others on here, would like nothing more than to see one of these spring leagues finally gain traction. Because then it will be followed by growth, expansion into new cities, more uniforms and branding to discuss, more prominence, and mostly, more enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with, as @Redwolfsaid, being realistic about the situation. It just, I don't know, seems tired. But to each their own.

I think the Gamblers so far are my least favorite of the bunch. For one, I don't care for the mismatched side panels. And compared to the other teams, their jerseys feel way too plain. Every other set has some sort of small detail, whether it be basic sleeve stripes or secondary branding elements. The Gamblers have nothing other than the mismatched side panel. They could have easily been practice jerseys. I also found myself really enjoying the Generals uniforms way more than I expected. For being relatively simple, they still had a lot of character. I think adding the five-stars logo to the shoulders really helped.

This is where I'm at. People can say what they want, and I'm all for having a healthy dose of skepticism, but sometimes it seems to border on outright cheering for failure, which I find to be unnecessarily cynical and unproductive. And @Redwolf, you're right. Perhaps "compelling evidence" was the wrong choice of words. But there seems to be a prevailing sentiment that a spring league should work. And yes, maybe it's all borne from the unfulfilled potential of the original USFL. I'm sure it's not an uncommon lament to wonder what could've been with that league, and it seems like every effort since has taken the USFL model and tweaked it, trying to find which mix of elements will make the most successful formula. In a way, it's like the holy grail of sports business. More leagues die trying, but the dream is still alive. I find that quest almost more compelling than the games.

I guess I just don’t understand how anybody can essentially insinuate something is bound for failure after such a limited sample size. You ask why they keep trying these spring leagues? Because there’s enough compelling evidence that it could work that people keep trying to unlock the formula. So if you ask me, you’re judging the wrong things. Let the string play out on the strategy. Give it the time it needs. And see if the people behind this venture finally unlock the formula. Suggesting it’s a failure when it’s barely started? That’s just annoying.

Here’s a different question: what were you expecting?

This thing is an experiment. So many other formulas have failed, many due to insufficient TV exposure, so this league is clearly banking on two things: incredible TV exposure and a hint of nostalgia for the old USFL. There’s a zero percent chance that the minds behind the USFL are banking on the citizens of Birmingham to keep them afloat. The attendance doesn’t matter. They’re trying to build buzz through TV exposure. Like with any experiment, it could fail. But I wouldn’t judge it based upon the small crowds from a mid-sized host city that likely cares more about the free tourism exposure.