gosioux76

This is the question that's often overlooked in relocation discussions. Too often they're limited to filling holes on a map. "Portland is a big-league city, ergo it should have NHL." Theoretically, a professional sports team can be successful almost anywhere if you have dedicated, ambitious and creative ownership that's willing to invest heavily to make it work. But too often these discussions start with the city first and never conceive of who would own it. Another layer I'd add to the Admirals' question is corporate support. You could have a fanbase as devoted as, say, Winnipeg's, but there's still going to be a need for sponsorship revenue and to fill corporate suites.

That skepticism is certainly warranted, no doubt. But watching those hustlers burn cash in pursuit of being the ones who finally unlock the success of spring football — the white whale of sports business — is, to me, part of the entertainment value. There are two games at play here: the one on the field and another in a board room.

I was watching some old NBA clips the other day and started thinking about the evolution of base layers in the league. I recall back in the late '80s/early '90s, right before Michigan's Fab 5 made long shorts a trend, a lot of players began to wear team-branded compression shorts underneath their team-issued short shorts. As a junior high basketball player at the time, I remember buying a pair just to match the trends. I seem to recall they came in team colors, so this image of Kenny "Sky" Walker may not be the best example.

Agreed. That is straight out of Tecmo Bowl.

Yes, exactly. It's about as charmless as they come. And I don't think they require a name change. It works perfectly for that region. They've just never found the right visuals to pair with it.

I agree, which is why I think there's a real opportunity to embrace silver in a way no other team, maybe short of the Rockies, has done. I know somebody earlier mentioned gold, but silver plays into the look of the badges worn by actual Texas Rangers. I could even see a logo that merges the T with a silver star, not unlike what the Mariners do with the maritime S.

That's true, but they don't have to stand out necessarily among those other Texas teams. They have to stand out against other MLB teams. I could see them swapping out colors, maybe even taking cues from the Cowboys and going heavy on navy and silver, maybe with a minimally-used red accent. That would be unique to MLB and still fit within the cowboy aesthetic.

The Rangers are an odd case study. Their only era of sustained success — the mid-90s Pudge Rodriguez /Juan Gonzalez era plus two early 2010s World Series appearances -- is largely marked by the same visual identity. But despite the relative consistency, I never found that look to be very compelling. Despite the western-inspired font, it all felt a little character-less. The Nolan Ryan-era was perhaps the blandest uniform in MLB history. I think this '70s-early '80s era, with the whimsical font, is the most visually interesting uniform they've ever worn, but I wouldn't suggest it's something they return to. Long story short: The Rangers are definitely a team that could scrap it all and start over. They lose nothing by doing that.

About 10 years ago, there was a grassroots effort among some local businesses to drum up interest in an NHL team. And the late Paul Allen, owner of the Trail Blazers, at one point had team President Chris McGowan, a former executive with the L.A. Kings, sniff around at the idea of hosting an NHL franchise at the Rose Garden, but nothing ever came of it. In 2017, the Glendale newspaper reported Coyotes officials had toured arenas in both Portland and Seattle, but the Blazers insisted it never happened. Long story short: it's long been floated as a possibility, especially in the years prior to the Kraken coming into the picture. But there's never been any solid movement or outward expression of interest, at least not in the way there has been for a MLB franchise. Plus, Portland suffers from the same lack of corporate support as other mid-level markets. It's just not a big business town.

This, plus I also don't like the ring collar. Their regular uniforms have more of a subtle v-shaped collar which is much nicer. But on the whole, I agree with @Berlin Wall that it's an eye-catching set.

Wouldn't this, however, be the same formula that got us the Atlanta Thrashers?

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but didn't the Texans initially unveil a white helmet when they were awarded the franchise? I remember playing Madden back then, and they initially included the Texans with a white helmet and generic uniform design. Of course, that's because they had yet to unveil their inaugural uniforms by the time the game was released.

Ha! Thanks, man. More of a Columbo, I'd say.

I've been thinking a bit about this, in particular whether the Spring League's ownership of the old USFL intellectual property limits the league to locations that had previously been part of the old USFL. In other words, in order to use the Invaders name, would it have to be in Oakland because that's how it's identified in its trademark filing? What I learned, in digging through trademark filings, is that the league has trademarks for just the names, without city designations. It also filed applications using USFL names but with different cities. For example, in January they made a St. Louis Invaders trademark claim, as well as a Dallas Stallions. In June it filed trademark claims for four different former USFL team names in Austin ,Texas: Austin Wranglers, Austin Renegades, Austin Outlaws and Austin Gamblers.

Considering that Fox owns the league and will be broadcasting games, I'm sure the size of the media market had a big influence on that choice.

You asked how that Stallion would work on a helmet. If they're trying to go for a full recreation of the old USFL, I would assume they'll end up trotting out a full-body horse that will go on the helmet, much like the original.

That's a good point. I wonder if the league at all feels limited by its decision to stick with USFL brands. I'm sure it's cheaper, considering they likely own all that intellectual property. But it makes it harder to then place a team in, say, St. Louis or Columbus or Charlotte where there wasn't an original USFL brand.

I'll be curious to hear why they selected the cities they did. I could see them being chosen for geographical reasons, since the furthest west they go is Houston.

I'd have rather bet on how much time it took for someone to make the tired "how soon will they fold" comment.

Whenever I see this wordmark, I want the hook on the P to continue forming the truss of one of the city's yellow bridges. The underline under the wordmark could build into the base of the bridge. It's probably a dumb idea, but I'd like to see it.

It's a good thought, but to me this feels too out of balance. My brain badly wants something to fill that space under the "Kan." And while I agree with @SFGiants58 that the interlocking letters is a more elegant solution, I've never liked those uniforms for the same reason I don't like the one above. Having the logo on one side always feels out of balance to me. I'm willing to admit that this could just be a personal nit that I'm picking. I have the same feelings about the National's "W" jersey and the Twins' red alternates. I hate the imbalance. For the Royals, I much prefer the road script that they ditched, even if it has some minor flaws.

Maybe you've addressed this already (and maybe I've asked and forgotten), but the NFL by this time in its history and joined the NBA and MLB in stitching the league logo onto the uniforms. Do you expect your USFL to do the same?

Not sure if I'm alone on this, but I have a general dislike for powder blue over white. Go all-in or don't do it at all, I say. And I'll third (or fourth?) the sentiment on the Kansas City script being better than the block type.

I was watching the Bucks/Lakers last night and my impressions of the Bucks' City Edition unis really took a plunge. I thought they looked terrible. Just way too much going on there. I've always liked the Irish rainbow look of the Bucks, but forcing purple and one tiny little royal blue panel into the mix is overkill. I also hate how the pattern repeats on the shorts. I'd rather they lose the purple from the jersey and let the green continue seamlessly onto the shorts. Instead, it goes green-purple-green-purple. Looks disjointed. Also, while I recognize that the wishbone collar is an homage to their prior uniforms, it really looks terrible on this jersey. When these were released, I didn't mind them. But watching them in action, they were a real eyesore.

I fear it'll be another Inter Miami situation: a really great and unique color that just comes off as too light.