gosioux76

I'm just learning about the San Diego expansion. How exciting. The NWSL is really shaping up to be a fantastic looking league. Taking a look at all their badges, I'd say only the Washington Spirit is in need of an upgrade. I also really love that KC logo, even though I know it's a placeholder. I'm not sure what the plan is for creating a name for the franchise, but I hope they consider keeping that logo.

That's incredible. Really, really well done.

I actually find this all quite interesting. Most of us, I presume, weren't around to watch Los Angeles' rapid growth in the early 20th century. Most of the sentiment around the Dodgers seems rooted in Brooklyn's loss. But I wonder whether there wasn't also this sort of "Los Angeles doesn't deserve pro sports" attitude back then, too? It's easy to still envision Las Vegas as some sort of backwater novelty, particularly if you're only paying attention at surface level. But @spartacat_12's right: Vegas' rapid population growth, combined with the enormous amount of wealth that floods into that city, has given it a more than sufficient foundation to host multiple professional teams. And its MSA is already larger than Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Milwaukee and several other markets that already host more than one pro top-level team.

I'm not sure I remember this the same way you do. The Seahawks, if my memory is accurate, never intended to wear two helmets. They released both the navy and silver versions with their uniform unveiling, saying fans would get to pick which one they went with full time. It even says as much in that ESPN link:

This certainly looks nice, no doubt. But -- and maybe this is just me -- I've come to think of Navy as too drab lately. I prefer it for my own casual attire, but it's just not a color that adds a lot of dimension to a look. I mean, if you want to be a franchise that just hangs out in the background, sure. But royal seems to have a lot more dimension. Again, this is probably just a personal preference of mine. I just always felt that the Oilers in navy represented more of a downshift for the brand rather than a modernization.

This is an incredibly helpful and thorough response. I really appreciate it.

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways.

Curious about this, I began noodling around the USPTO trademark database to see what The Spring League's been up to. Between Jan. 14 and Jan. 21 it filed applications for trademarks for several pre-existing USFL brands (Oakland, Michigan, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver, Memphis, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, New Orleans) and two that weren't part of the original league: the St. Louis Invaders and Dallas Stallions. It filed two more applications for old USFL brands — Oklahoma Outlaws and Arizona Wranglers -- on March 3. In each case, it's identified as "applicant" rather than "registrant." I'm not a trademark lawyer by any means, but I'd guess this means they don't yet own the rights to the names -- they're merely applying for the trademarks at this point. (By contrast, a separate filing from 2015 indicates they are the registered trademark owner of United States Football League LLC, and not just an applicant. ) Regardless, this at least gives us a sense of what markets they could be targeting, particularly with the inclusion of Dallas and St. Louis. It also might give us a sense of where they aren't looking. For example, while they filed applications for the Stars in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, they only filed applications for the Breakers in New Orleans — and not Portland or Boston. The also have not filed trademark applications for the Washington Federals, Orlando Renegades, San Antonio Gunslingers or Jacksonville Bulls.

Yes! Thanks for this. This would make for a fantastic Jets secondary.

I think the Jets are in an enviable position. The Jets name has such versatility and visual potential, especially when compared with the Giants, a term that's difficult to covey without resorting to cartoonish cliches. The Jets, though, could really have the best of both worlds here. There's no reason why they couldn't build a brand that evokes "jets" while also including a NY logo into its collection. I, and others, have suggested earlier in this thread that the '80s Jets logo — or some modernized variant of it — could be modified by placing the Jet silhouette atop an NY. I think that would work as a perfect secondary to a JETS primary. The Giants don't really have that option. All they have is the NY and the underlined GIANTS mark.

I'd like to see a Miami fan show up to one of the games with a sign that says "Nike, please stop" using letters from Miami's various uniforms -- like a ransom note.

What a nightmare and, simultaneously, a perfect metaphor for the current state of NBA aesthetics. Not only will we make your team schizophrenic, we'll now combine all of its personalities onto one uniform! Good lord.

I've always loved this mark. It's the rare example that works as both logo and wordmark. I could see the same jet treatment applied above a similarly styled "NY" to be used either as a secondary mark or -- for those of you who believe they should showcase the gravitas of New York — on the helmet. The other thing I really like about this: it accomplishes the difficult (in my mind) task of showcasing a jet without being tripped up by the need to angle it to show the wings on each side, like the awkwardly shaped 1963 logo.

That's a lot of disparate elements that would seem too complicated to replicate on the modern cut uniforms without significant modifications. Not suggesting it isn't possible, of course. I don't dislike the idea of using the 60s set as a baseline but reimagined. In other words, what didn't happen when Nike took the reins.

True. Those were pretty cool. But that was less a sponsorship as much as it was a charitable contribution.

I lived in Portland for 10 years as a business journalist. I can't disagree with most of this analysis, but I have always had serious doubts about the veracity of the corporate support in the city. The biggest corporations there do very little in the way of local branding: Nike doesn't sponsor anything because they don't feel they need to. Their logo is all over the sport without having to send a nickel on marketing. Outside of local health care players, there isn't a deep well of companies waiting to place their brand on sports franchises. I can't speak toward an appetite for season tickets. I suppose there's enough law firms and banks and accounting firms and consulting firms of a certain size — all industries in which networking is key — to buy up a few luxury suites. But Portland isn't a city like Seattle, which is littered with billion-dollar companies. It's a mid-sized and small business town, with a few notable exceptions.

The Gresham project is the latest attempt in the 25-year odyssey of Lynn Lashbrook to bring MLB to Portland. I give him points for persistence, but this initiative -- much like his prior attempts -- is little more than pie-eyed optimism. There's a rendering, but nothing in the way of a legitimate plan. As that story lays out, this is just Lashbrook attempting to kickstart a community discussion around the idea of MLB in Gresham. As for the Portland Diamond Project, they've been spinning their wheels for years now. At this point, they're little more than an apparel brand. Russell Wilson's involvement appears to be cosmetic. They've been talking from the start about how they've got some big-money investors behind the scenes, but they've never shown their cards. The effort could turn out to be legitimate, but at this point it's mostly hype.

This would also explain the old Bengals uniform on display. I wouldn't be surprised to know the NFL had all these displays already prepped before the pandemic hit last year, then just rolled them out as-is this year. The Bengals is the only significant change in that time, and we've already documented the issues the Patriots had in having some players wearing the old number style on new jerseys last year.

I also really like this, only with the current helmet intact. One change I'd suggest: I'm a sucker for the old Cardinals road jerseys, with the thick red stripes on the sleeves outlined in black. Instead of gray stripes and stars on the white jersey, I'd like to see the stripes red and outlined in black or, perhaps simpler, just outline the star in black and leave the stripes red. It would be a nice homage to these old classics.

For an upstart league, one with a history of failure, it got plenty of mainstream coverage. You can't reasonably expect that a spring league filled with wannabe NFLers would immediately get the same attention as a Big Four league. The pandemic killed this league before it got even halfway through its schedule, and there was almost zero indication that it wouldn't have made it to a year two. So, basically, you didn't care.

What makes you think nobody cared in 2020?

This is underselling it quite considerably. Yes, in terms of tangible assets, the XFL is essentially a collection of brands. But it's also a collection of deep-pocketed investors who are willing to come to the table with an existing league that appears to be in financial distress and seeking a way out of it. So maybe discussion of a merger is premature, but I don't think it's as premature as you think it is. And if nothing else, it's an intriguing thought exercise. Such as the question by @McCall about how two leagues with different rules could make a merger work? I would think that in a hypothetical scenario like this, where a storied existing league would merge with a startup, you can't assume either party's rules or structures are set in stone. They'd have to adapt -- give up some things, amend others. I mean, a merger like this for the CFL would sort of be like hitting the nuclear button -- and if you're willing to take such a drastic action, why would you let something like field size get in the way?

I get what you're saying about the brand not being region specific, which is a good point. I'm less bothered by the use of OL. I think soccer fans by now have grown accustomed to names affixed with some sort of initialed prefix or suffix, like AC, FC or SC, that this won't stand out much, nor be an inhibitor. Sure, the OL may require explanation, but it's not a terribly complicated thing to explain. And the smartest thing U.S. pro soccer leagues have done in the past decade is market themselves to soccer fans -- who are less likely to require an explanation -- than Americans they're trying to convert into soccer fans.

I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. It could also be something they use in the aggregate. A version of the name appears on every ballot, and they can say XX% of all voters chose some form of WFT, therefore making it the most logical choice.

Right, that all makes sense, but it doesn't explain why some form of Washington Football Club -- whether it be Washington DC Football Club, just Football Club or some other iteration -- seems to appear on every ballot. To me, that suggests that they're stacking the deck.