41 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Falls apart as soon as you consider the heresy of the Lakers in red and green.

And the Celtics would just be the Celtics unless they made the bonkers switch to red. 

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

They match well enough in those pics:

Maybe it's my eyes, but I'm seeing something closer to a butterscotch or a bronze than I am gold. 

Maybe it's because I'm old, but I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet. Since you're willing to re-use logos and helmets from other leagues, and since the XFL is merging with USFL, have you considered adopting the far-superior Jacksonville Bulls helmet from the original USFL? 

Not only is it one of (in my opinion) the best helmets in all of pro sports, but it also uses the dusty, maroon/gray color palette you're seeking. 

11 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

it should be Louisville because it would make Louisville a major league city.  However, based on recent expansion history, the MLS probably won't add Phoenix Rising, Indy Eleven or Louisville City FC.  Instead it will be Phoenix FC, Indianapolis FC and FC Louisville.  Then USL fans will be enraged at the MLS, fearing that those three teams would fold and then demanding that the US Soccer Federation sanction the USL Championship as a Division 1 League to rival MLS.  

I understand your point, of course, but these things don't happen just because MLS doesn't want USL brands. It depends  on which local groups are chosen as local owners.  The St. Louis, San Diego and Charlotte franchises were granted to majority ownership groups who weren't in any way connected to the USL clubs or, in the case of St. Louis, a USL owner who only held a minority stake in the MLS bid. 

By contrast, Minnesota United was able to carry its brand through from USL, as was Cincinnati and Orlando. (Not to mention, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and Montreal before them.)

If the existing USL ownership groups for Louisville, Phoenix or Indianapolis put in an expansion bid and are chosen, I can't see any reason why MLS would object to those brands joining the league. 

15 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

 

I assume, and I hope, that this answers the question of whether it would be the Gamblers or Roughnecks surviving the merger in Houston. 

18 hours ago, henburg said:

The Texans have now had decades to establish something memorable and new on their own, and while they have a great logo, the brand as a whole remains stale. It just feels super desperate and misguided for them to now try and backtrack to tap into this nostalgia.

Yet nostalgia is marketable, and it happens that the biggest market for this specific strain of nostalgia happens to be Houston, their own market. So I wouldn't call it desperate or misguided. I think they're finally recognizing it's time to breathe some life into their brand and have undoubtedly witnessed an affinity for powder blue and red from their supporters. 

The Minnesota Wild have done the exact same thing with green and gold and, from what I can tell, it's immensely popular with their fan base. That seems to me as the opposite of desperate and misguided. 

Those Dallas Outlaws uniforms are gorgeous. Some of your best. Well done.

On the patch, I'd think, as a practical matter, producing a chain-stitched patch (which I presume this would be) with those skinny flags hanging off the side would be difficult, or at the very least awkward. 

Personally, I liked your prior version better, though I'd suggest working a way to keep the years within the boxy frame of the 30. Having those flags extend and widen the logo makes it feel unbalanced. 

I also don't think it's necessary to force a "u" into the design. Using the stars and stripes within the 30 is enough to convey the league's branding. 

22 hours ago, tBBP said:

It kinda sucks too because the Texans currently have one of the best team logos and name/NOB fonts in the league. I really believe that we're about to see all that tossed aside for something more "flavor of the moment" than enduring, which, colors aside, is the aesthetic the Texans currently have. And of course there's the merchandising revenue they can pull in (do doubt aided by the swoosh) by doing that, so...

I don't dispute the idea of a brand, particularly one that doesn't resonate as it should, completely switching up its color scheme. But I wouldn't characterize the Texans' potential return to Oilers' colors as a "flavor of the moment" trend, at least not in the context of Houston football. 

I'd bet most people see this is a righting of a wrong moreso than jumping on any current trend. 

2 hours ago, Anubis2051 said:

 

It was designed by tiffany! Here's a good article on this: https://www.mlb.com/news/yankees-new-york-logo-origin

And we all know she had some serious style ... 

14 hours ago, who do you think said:

So much fun that they're ready to pounce on any and all dissenters en masse.

Or maybe a lot of people just really think the dissenters are wrong. I'm sure regular, everyday disagreements happen all the time on Reddit. They're not all conspiracies. 

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

Teams in both the XFL and USFL were told "business as usual" until a merger is officially announced. 

And once that happens, I presume there will be some sort of dispersal draft  or redistribution of players with contracts tied to defunct teams. 

18 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

It's cool but still red and blue

The problem isn't the red band blue, it's that they're using way too many colors. I can't really tell what colors this team is supposed to be. 

I think the Marlins branding is a really odd case.  I really love the colors -- the combo of black, pink and a bright aqua is unique.  But the super black-heavy way it's applied makes it lose all the vibrancy of those other colors. Just drowns it out and makes everything look drab and hard to read. 

I agree that the easiest, and more popular move, would be a return to the retro branding. Moreso, I'd like to see some modernization of it, akin to what San Diego and Minnesota did with their rebrands.  Come to think of it, the current design of the uniforms might have been a good modernization of the old look had they reverted to the original colors. 

At the very least, I'd like to see some color redistribution with their current look. I think there's some really strong potential there that's lost in a sea of black. 

13 hours ago, Ark said:

This board will love the NBA now

 

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/39058113/lakers-switch-black-uniforms-mandated-nba-source

 

Lakers' switch from black uniforms mandated by NBA

Also from that story: 

Quote

When one Lakers player was informed the team wouldn't be allowed to wear black on Thursday, he replied, "That's ass."

On 11/27/2023 at 4:51 PM, MDGP said:

 

United Health (New England) is worth nearly $500 billion, Alaska Airlines (Portland) is the 5th largest airline in North America, Thomas' (Philadelphia) is just a sub brand of Bimbo, the largest bread company in America, American Family Insurance is a multibillion dollar company, and basically every company sponsoring an MLS jersey is a Fortune 500 company

 

Not being sufficiently well known to you =/= Not well known or extremely profitable

Portland has taken a different route now, replacing Alaska with DaBella, a little-known chain of 46 home-improvement stores. It's a huge downgrade in stature, and likely revenue, but a boon for an entity like DaBella that's looking to raise its profile. 

4 hours ago, who do you think said:

"People need to watch these December games now! Did you know that Sam Hauser gets money if the Celtics win? You don't understand, this changes everything! No NBA team has ever tried to win a regular season game in December before! This trophy matters! Teams will covet the distinction of being the best team of November and December! Why can't you just be positive and supportive of Lord Silver!"

 

I genuinely don't understand this take.  This is nothing but additive to the NBA schedule. It harms nothing, has no bearing on the regular season, and is just an attempt to add another layer of intrigue in the early part of the season, when fans have the NFL and college football to divert their attention. 

I don't care about either the Boston Celtics or the Indiana Pacers, but I genuinely enjoyed watching Tyrese Halliburton dismantle the Celtics in the in-season tournament. I think it's incredibly cool that the Pacers and Pelicans, two teams that don't stand a chance at sniffing a title this year, are now in the semifinals of this tournament. And I'm willing to bet their fanbases are energized by it, too.  I wouldn't be surprised if this run in the In-Season Tournament causes some of those fans to STAY engaged throughout the rest of the season. 

And I ask again, what is the harm in that? 

On 12/1/2023 at 8:13 PM, dont care said:

The inseason tournament is a complete fabrication. There is no benefit to the teams, and minimum impact to the players making a few extra bucks. 

It also doesn't really hurt them either. It's not like these are extra games; they count toward their regular season record. And it adds a degree of intrigue and gives a reason to watch some of these early-season games that might otherwise be easy to ignore. 

As as far as there being "no benefit," it seems logical, at some point, that winning this trophy will become something teams come to covet. Just look at the Pacers. They're not going to win an NBA title this year, but winning the NBA Cup would be a positive takeaway from what would otherwise be a lost season. 

51 minutes ago, McCall said:

I actually prefer UFL. I've come to the belief that a 3-letter initialism ending with FL sounds the most legitimate, and since AFL wouldn't be available, unless they came up with something else for A to stand for, this is the next best option, IMO. I did like how the X in XFL didn't stand for anything and met the previously stated criteria, but as mentioned, if it's a merged league, one name over the other my not feel even. SFL (Spring Football League) wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure who, if anybody, still  owns that one, but I like that UFL doesn't restrict it to a particular time of year, even if they stay there.

I thought the new USFL was borne from the prior Spring Football League, or was at least initiated by that organization to the point that thy retain ownership over that brand. I night be wrong, though. 

5 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Since it's a split of both leagues, I don't see why one league gets preference over the other.

That's right. It would be a different story if this were an acquisition instead of a merger. I agree that keeping USFL or XFL branding would be ideal, but it would also incorrectly suggest it was a straight-up takeover, which this isn't. 

1 hour ago, raysox said:

Unsure what you guys disappointed that there's only 8 teams post-merger want. They went with the 3 USFL cities that they had stadium deals with, the top 3 in attendance in XFL, the city with a team in both, and a team that takesthe highest priority in their home stadium. They picked the strongest 8 options i feel moving forward. Seattle got bumped to thursday night games  twice by the Sounders. Just kinda the reality of it.

Plus have you seen the quality of play at the NFL level? Have to condense a little bit for stability. Hell, after a couple years put a team in Ohio and San Diego. But now I think theyre trying to catch their footing.

This is the correct take.

This merger is a retrenchment -- a restart of two leagues whose models on their own weren't likely sustainable. This was never going to be an expanded single league. And I wouldn't look at the exclusion of certain markets as a condemnation of their viability. I believe it if the merged league describes those markets as "on hold." They've got to get a firmer footing before moving back into markets where they either don't have a current stadium deal or would add excess travel demands onto their schedule. 

I wouldn't expect this to stay an 8-team league for long, assuming it finds a sense of stability as a merged league. That's still the big unanswered question. 

12 hours ago, sayahh said:

 

Seattle, Disneyland, Disney World, SoFi Stadium, Austin, San Diego, Honolulu, Key West.

They should play one outside and call it the Winter Classic. 

17 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

Why can't MLS get more well known companies for sponsorships?

The entire purpose of these companies buying a shirt sponsorship is to become more well-known. Teams are trying to attract an advertiser that finds the exposure valuable to growing their brand. It's about benefiting the advertiser -- the paying customer, in this case. It's not to solicit a more well-known brand to benefit the team. 

Besides, some of the bigger, more recognizable brands are already league-wide sponsors, which would make a shirt sponsorship deal unnecessarily duplicative. 

On 11/21/2023 at 10:44 PM, BBTV said:

I don’t think it’s even remotely possible but it’d be cool for the A’s to play a gap season in Phila, though they’d have to share CBP  

That would be fun. But if it's successful, we'd start hearing Philly fans make claims that they should be a two-team market.

This weeks-long break in the middle of the playoffs is ridiculous. 

The MLS for years has struggled with making the end of its season as widely engaging as the beginning. The playoffs are already easy to ignore for casual fans or those who support teams who didn't make it far. Taking weeks off doesn't help that. I had forgotten the the playoffs weren't over by the time I saw ads that they were starting back up again. 

I understand the logic behind expanding a playoff system so that you can include more markets, but in a sport in which postseason tournaments aren't the norm, and in a country in which the league will inevitably be drowned out by other sports in the fall, the best path would be to make the playoffs pass as quickly as possible. 

The St. Louis Battlehawks this week just promoted the fact that they're opening season ticket sales to the 400-level at the Dome at America's Center, the first time they've done that. They've opened it up to single-game tickets, but not season tickets in prior years.

It seems to suggest the obvious, that the Battlehawks will be included in the merged league. Not a surprise to anybody. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2023/11/21/xfl-battlehawks-season-tickets-usfl-merger.html