gosioux76

RedBird Capital as an investor. Possibly an existing TV deal with Disney/ESPN/ABC. A successful franchise in the St. Louis market. The XFL isn't without its attractive assets. In this case, the whole isn't as valuable as portions of its parts.

This will almost certainly be the case. All of these merged-league realignment theories are fantasy, I hate to say it. There's no logical reason why a supposed profitable entity (USFL) would merge with one losing $60 million a year as part of an expansion strategy. Deals like that are usually asset transactions, where the buyer gets what it wants from the seller and discards the rest. In this case, I'd suspect the USFL is buying out RedBird from its XFL investment so it can instead invest in its league. I hope I'm wrong, but I'll really be surprised if this results in a 16-team league. If the plan is to have this merged league in place for the 2024 season, they'd have only 5-6 months to figure out what to do about franchise locations and venues, and somehow find the capital to finance it all. If you believe what Fox says, the USFL is the profitable one in this deal, which means they'd be the one steering the direction of this merged league. And remember, the USFL is the league that used hubs as a cost-cutting strategy. Knowing all that, my prediction is that this will result in a league of no more than 12 teams. Like the USFL, it will be a made-for-TV product that will continue to play in hubs rather than host cities for at least two more seasons.

Even if this were true, the Gamblers are only a few small moves away from matching the simple but outstanding look of their USFL 1.0 brethren. That G logo is an icon of the USFL. The Roughnecks branding has been a dumpster fire from the jump.

I really like the idea of having each league be separate divisions, with an AFL/NFL-style championship game. It allows them to retain a bit of their personalities as leagues, such as it is.

A couple other notable details from the Axios story: The plan is to have this merged league in place for the 2024 season. So they're not messing around. The story cites Fox executives as saying the USFL is profitable while the XFL lost $60M. I find that odd.

Axios reports today that XFL and USFL are in advanced merger talks. An announcement could come as early as this week. Story here.

And if anybody comes on here with some nonsense suggesting the Twins switch to purple and gold or royal and kelly green or chartreuse and khaki I'm going to burn this place down.

Here comes the Suns, doo-doo-doo-dooHere comes the Suns, and I sayIt's alright

I 100% agree. Also, the idea of horns on a helmet might seem like a novel idea, in the same class as the Eagles wings and Vikings, but it's becoming clear that those two teams seem more like the exception than the rule when it comes to pulling that look off. The Texans are more likely to swing and miss, a la the Edmonton Elks and San Antonio Brahmas. The Texans feel like a franchise trapped by its own good logo. That Texas flag bull works on every level, except for the fact that they wrapped it in colors that have grown stale. Now that every team is trying to pull off multiple helmets, the Texans have very little to go with other than changing the base color of the helmet. And since it's literally the only thing they've worn in their 21-year history, they have no other visual references to pull from. So I understand why they're seemingly throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. There's a real sense of jersey/helmet envy going on there. The easiest thing to do in this case would be to swap the navy for powder blue in the color palette. (And maybe switch to Oilers-esque helmets.) They wouldn't really be treading on anybody's territory. The Titans have made it clear their intent to be a navy-first team, leaving the powder/red/white company there for the taking. And the Texans would end up with a refreshed look that will also likely energize the fan base.

I get what you're saying. I guess I was speaking more toward dress codes as a whole. @BBTV made the point more succinctly: Dress codes, whether for coaches or rank-and-file employees, are little more than work costumes that suggest a comical degree of seriousness that isn't justified. Just do the job. Wear what you want.

This is the right response. I dislike dress codes in general. They're a tool for micromanagers and another means of stifling personal identity in favor of homogeneity. What you wear doesn't affect what you do.

I've never been that fond of the faux-leather-helmet throwback uniforms. I think it's the gold numbers that throw me off. For some reason they look cheap. I'd always felt, outside their classic uniforms, this is the best Washington has ever looked: With a different helmet logo, these could stand the test of time.

So much better. Great work.

Nice job on this! Personally, though, I've never liked the Portland State monogram -- in general, but especially on a helmet. A "P" and "S" aren't shapes that fit together seamlessly, and the resulting space under the top of the "P" is an eyesore on this logo. I'd go with the far superior viking head as the primary helmet art. Use the monogram as a secondary, or not at all. Just my two cents. Keep up the good work.

I'd like to see them paired with a match and set on fire.

These are absolutely incredible. Really, really well done. If I'd change anything, I'd find a way to work the secondary logo onto the uniforms. I don't love the full dragon-head repeated on the sleeve caps -- it feels a bit repetitious with the helmet. So I'd consider putting the 'S' monogram there, though I think the best option would be to leave that area blank. The color contrasts and TV numbers are enough to make the sleeves distinct. In that situation, I'd make the 'S' monogram a hip logo on the pants.

That's a good point on the colors. The brighter blue is a notable improvement. But the more I look at these, the worse they get. The Minnesota wordmark is so much smaller than the number font that it seems inconsequential. For a jersey that is meant to highlight such an important aspect of the state, minimizing the state name seems strange. The tiny wordmark also draws more attention to the off-center numbers, which make the whole set feel unbalanced. The whole thing feels like a cheap tourist t-shirt you'd find at a souvenir shop, right next to coffee mugs that say "Life is Better at the Lake!"

How far does the branding iron go toward the back of the helmet? The various angles you have for it in the graphic seem to give contrasting views. The back view looks as if the irons nearly wrap around the helmet, while the side views seem to suggest they stop well short of that.

I think they were made out of trees, which is why we were all so confused.

The Rome When-ins.

The dialogue around troubleshooting X and Twitter posts is far more interesting than the new Timberwolves uniform, which really says something.

Wouldn't it be something if the "the worst everyday starting player ever" ended up being your team's MVP this year?

It might seem counter-intuitive, but I don't think the Gateway Arch needs to be forced into the leading visual for a brand called the Archers. I'd give a nod to it elsewhere. For example, emphasize the bow-and-arrow -- maybe do an arrow-focused helmet, akin to Florida State's spear -- and incorporate the arch in more subtle ways, like on the sleeves or along the sides of the pants.

These are really clever. This league's branding has been pretty great. I still have a hard time, though, taking a rooting interest in leagues that aren't structured around geographic locales. That's a "me" problem, I realize, but it leads to me forgetting this league exists.