gosioux76

Yeah, i just assumed that it's a foregone conclusion that it will be Sacramento Republic.

I agree with you 100%. I'm hoping they stick with the color scheme, but can find differentiation in the specific hues they choose (rhyming!). A Navy and yellow, with red accents would be nice. Or channel Liverpool and lean into red and yellow, with blue as an accent. It can work.

I'm choosing to think of this as a bonafide clue.

I was wondering the same thing. Feels like a placeholder, but I could be wrong. I think this club's in a difficult spot when it comes to color choices. It's embraced the colors of the city's flag so far, but it's a color scheme already used by RSL and recently adopted by Chicago Fire. It could work if they embraced yellow, with red and blue as secondary colors, which would give them similar color schemes to the Cardinals and Blues, with all three clubs emphasizing a different primary color. The drawback is the league already has two primary yellow clubs, including one of its newest, Nashville. There are relatively few other color references i can come up with that relate to St. Louis and are unique to the league. The old St. Louis Stars of the NASL (notable for favoring players from the city's Italian neighborhood, The Hill, over big names from Europe) were a red, white and blue team, of which the league has plenty.

The ownership group of the St. Louis Major League Soccer expansion franchise announced today that the club's name, color and crest will be unveiled Aug. 13. https://mls4thelou.com/?fbclid=IwAR0n5WcXSsJc-QIVDbFmmEZJierklSIIXTi5CQaptvuzNbZ5pzsoDcLxTbA This is notable because I think it's the first solid indication that all of these decisions (name/colors/crest) had actually been made. Some of the club's supporters discovered that the mobile version of the same page linked above initially included a date of July 15 for the event. That suggests they had perhaps intended to make this announcement last week prior to the league's decision to delay the launch of St. Louis, Sacramento and Charlotte by a year each.

I know that's supposed to be a miner's pick inside the C, but my brain only wants to see it as an airplane or a bird. Also, didn't realize how much the prior 49ers logo resembled the SF 49ers infamous one-day logo. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly in spirit.

I agree. Their only downfall is their location in the middle of a giant parking lot when KC has such a vastly improved urban core. That wouldn't be enough to raze Kaufmann -- it's a gem of a stadium -- but it will always be battling that debate over urban density.

I love everything about this, especially the name. It's perfect for community-based independent minor league baseball. It's certainly got more staying power than some names we've seen before, and seems to be far less of a novelty than other whimsical names that have since proven their worth (the Isotopes and Biscuits, to name a few.)

I'd also think that if the NFL wanted to take this on, that slapping an H and star onto the logo wouldn't be enough to deter them.

You don't think the big, giant H on the front is distinct enough?

You guys, this isn't that hard. I wasn't questioning the relevancy of a star for the Houston franchise. I get why they would have a star. It's Texas. You're big on stars. I was questioning the necessity of it. There's already too much going on with that uniform and logo. The star is extraneous. Not every Texas team needs to shoehorn a star into their look.

Yes, I recognize that Texas is the Lone Star State. But that doesn't mean the star needs to be forced onto the uniforms or the logo, which is the case here.

Pants aside, I'd hate the Roughnecks look far less if they removed that gigantic star from the shoulders. It's unnecessary, overly simple and, yet, somehow garish. And while they're doing that, they can also remove the star from the logo. I see no visual benefit to having an oil derrick topped by a star.

As great as the BattleHawks look, I wish they’d find a use for their fantastic secondary logo. It would work great on the collar, like the Guardians and Vipers do with their secondaries.

If it has a flaw, it's in trying to execute the entirety of the primary logo onto the helmet. The sword that runs between the wings could easily be omitted from the helmet. But the more I look at it, the less it bothers me.

The use of the Arch in that secondary is brilliant. I love it.

I agree. They've also done some really cool promo stuff using old-school two-bar helmets.

The Vipers are clearly the worst of the bunch. The most offensive part of it has to be the use of two shades of green. They’re just not distinct enough. From a distance, that thin V logo is difficult to make out. Might have been easier had they swapped greens: dark green helmet, light green logo. The better choice would’ve been to swap one of the greens for a different tertiary color..

But how could you really expect anything different from a new league in its first year. Particularly when you consider the huge graveyard of failed spring leagues that preceded it. Vince McMahon has more capital at the ready than the Alliance of American Football, but that doesn't mean the XFL shouldn't be prudent in managing expenses. IF this league continues beyond one season and somehow manages to grow -- which I sincerely hope it does -- then it will have a better chance at parlaying that success into a more favorable deal with an apparel brand that could cater to them with bespoke designs or at least a wider variety of templates. Frankly, I'm kind of impressed by how the league was able to trot out better-than-decent identity packages without Nike, Adidas, UA, Champion, Starter, New Balance or some lesser-known brand. Much better to build demand on your own terms and come to those brands with a more valuable product.

Houston really missed the mark by not using powder blue in this set. And this LA color scheme should be used by the Tampa Bay Vipers.

I completely agree. This would look just as good with an orange/aqua scheme or just leaning more into its existing forest green and navy while minimizing the orange. That would still set it apart from the rest of the league and the Seahawks enough while still being appropriate for the Northwest.

I get it. From a purist’s standpoint, this is a logical take. But most uniform purists don’t have any skin in the game. And we’re also the types to collectively mock these spring football leagues that fail after a season or two. If convincing Bud Light to fork over thousands of dollars to stick a small logo on the back of a helmet helps keep XFL around a bit longer, I’ll deal with it. Looks won’t matter to a dead league.

I know nothing about modern turf technology, but doesn't it seem more than reasonable to make turf in which design elements can be interchangeable? Like, replaceable endzone designs, etc. I might be asking too much.

I mean, this isn't the greatest design, but I'm not sure it's enough to just outright dismiss an entire league. Seems kinda harsh.

I think this debate stands to illustrate one thing: that whichever regional identity the Angels use doesn't really make a difference. Using the name "Anaheim" means more for the city than it does the team. Using "Los Angeles" likely means more for the team than it does Los Angeles, at least when it comes to global brand recognition. Maybe it's the my nostalgia kicking in, but I'd be in favor of splitting the difference and going back to California Angels.