Sykotyk

Stars do self destruct.

Pittsburgh isn't moving to Acrisure. Based on the deal with Canton, I'm fairly certain that the team will be on hiatus and a Canton or Ohio themed name will be used next year. A lot of this depends on the XFL. I doubt they start in Houston if the XFL is still going. Another hiatus. Denver, Oakland and Arizona the likely options for a new city that has the ability to host.

Seems to be a recent trend. SKC always had interesting uniforms. Usually a lot of stripes with their designs (horizontal, not vertical): but this was what they won their title in: At least they gave up the mismatched sleeve look. I tried looking back because I swear they had dark blue shorts in the past but none of the quick photos I could find showed them. Here's a few randoms. This appears to be 2016: Anything is better than this (1996):

Yeah, it is a bit of an oddity. Closest I can think is that Columbus Crew are black and yellow, owned by the Browns' owner whose chief rival is the Steelers who are black and yellow. But at least the names are different. What's REALLY strange is that KC/STL are in their first true rivalry. Royals/Cardinals played for a World Series title against one another. And interleague lets them play. But year-to-year, what happens with their games really doesn't affect the other team much other than the W/L outcome. They're not competing for the same playoff spots or division titles. In the NFL, the Rams are no longer in St. Louis. But even then, the same general situation as the Royals/Cardinals. AFC/NFC, and not much of a rivalry when they did play. Chiefs went 6-0-0 against the Rams in the regular season. NHL, Kansas City doesn't have a team. NBA, neither have teams. MLS? Both have teams and both in the same conference. So, it's not just getting another 1 or 3 points. It's you are hindering your rival by beating them for the same playoff spots you're both playing for. That's surprisingly new for Missouri*. But, of course, Sporting KC is in Kansas. HAHA As for caring? Yeah, obviously don't care.

Never heard Knifey Lions, but that's funny. Orange and Blue I would say has been the most common name I've heard from afar (other end of the state) or just FCC/FC Cincy.

HOWEVER, American Football teams tend to name themselves American names when in Europe. They're trying to be like what people know. That's why there's a Vienna Vikings and Tirol Raiders. As for names, they come up on their own. Some reference the club, team, city, fans, etc. Toronto FC - Reds FC Cincinnati - Lions/Orange and Blue Minnesota United - Loons Atlanta United - Five Stripes Sporting KC - Blue/Blues (The Cauldron/Blue Hell is their stadium nickname): Nashville SC - Coyotes FC Dallas - Hoops Austin FC - Verde/El Verde/The Verde Orlando City SC - Lions NYCFC - Pigeons LAFC - Black and Gold St Louis CITY SC - (too early to tell)

Without the shine, it just looks like mustard was spread over it and dried.

FSDC It's the best of both worlds!

I was just thinking how the Colorado Avalanche and Florida Panthers played for the Cup Colorado's first season. Broncos and Dolphins can't in the NFL, but for as successful as they've been making the Super Bowl never faced off in either the AFL or AFC Championship Game.

At least that had the redeeming quality of looking like Lisa Simpson playing her saxophone.

Since when did the Sounders move to Toronto?

I' m not going to let you polish this turd. This is bad and there's nothing redeeming about it. This not a logo. This is clipart disguised as a logo.

I think we may see a two-stage approach to the season as well. Take the 40 teams. Split them into 10 team conferences, everyone plays everyone else twice (18 games), play everyone in another conference once (10 games). That gives you 28 games in the first stage. Take the Top 8 from each conference (32 teams), and put them into groups of 4 (random draw, by placement, whatever, just 8 groups of 4). 4 teams from each of the 4 conferences, one each. Have home and away (6 games). Take the winner and runner-up of each group (16 teams), and hold first round, quarterfinal, semifinal, and the MLS Cup Final. That's 28 games for 8 teams, 34 games for 16 teams, and only 16 teams will play more. Whether it's single elimination (preferable) or two-leg (acceptable), that's between 38 and 41 games for the finalists depending on tournament format (single or two-leg) One thing for the first stage is, after 3 years you'd play everyone in the league at least once, after 6 years you'd play everyone both home and away. Plus, the second stage would be played against two teams that are entirely new that year. The playoff tournament could be seeded one of two ways: Group A #1 hosts Group B #2, Group B #1 hosts Group C #2, etc. OR Take the 16 qualifiers and seed them #1 through #16 based on total points for all Stage 1 and Stage 2 games. #1 v. #16, #2 v. #15, etc. This still gives impetus to do well in Stage 1 once you're assured of a position in Stage 2. And keeps teams wanting to win even if they know they're #2 in a Stage 2 group, a win might help them in seeding the elimination tournament.

Years ago FIFA had rules about top flight leagues in countries. Not sure if it still exists, but I don't think a top flight league can only cover parts of a country. Unless things have changed. I think in an east/west scenario, you'd still have to play cross-conference games. I don't think too solid lined leagues would work. Especially since the middle of the country would lose out on some chief rivalries just due to being near the imaginary border. If you took the 30 right now, and split east west, this would be the leagues: WEST Vancouver Seattle Portland San Jose LA Galaxy LAFC San Diego Real Salt Lake Colorado Austin FC Dallas Houston Sporting KC Minnesota St. Louis EAST Chicago Nashville Atlanta Cincinnati Columbus Orlando Charlotte Miami Toronto DC Philadelphia Red Bulls NYCFC Montreal New England No STL-CHI? No MIN-CHI? No STL-NASH? That'd be a tough plan to sell to the teams in The Middle™

I think the weakness of the logo is that the 'stalk' of the R is shorter than the leg sticking down to the right. It almost feels like it's missing this:

That sounds like it's just in the offseason so they don't need to cut a player from their roster to bring on a rookie from this draft. But, I'm guessing sometime around training camp they'll trim the rosters back down to the usual number. I didn't see that written out anywhere or missed it. Either way, this is a good thing for UDFA that still don't get picked up by an NFL team for the fall season.

No one is spending $500 million to get a spot in the league and then demoted to the second tier.

Could definitely see them increasing demand so that a game at MetLife could work when they're playing Red Bulls, or if Messi is at Inter Miami and they're @ NYCFC, or LAFC comes to town, etc and they know they can expect much more than their small stadium can hold. The overflow demand from week to week might fill 80k once or twice a year. Get the league to plan the schedule right they might even bring in grass at MetLife for two games a few weeks apart in June.

I absolutely despise this idea that people can't figure out it's a World Cup without a World Cup Trophy in the logo the same as the NFL did to the Super Bowl. Each one is unique and memorable in its own right. By trying to meld them altogether into one you begin to forget them individually and nothing becomes remarkable. NBA/NHL/MLB has this problem with older tournaments. Who won the NBA Finals 3 years ago?

That article is from October. This article is from July where the league announced their deal with Arlington to be the 'hub' and also what cities would host teams.. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/sports/xfl-introduces-cities-joining-league-announces-arlington-as-football-operations-hub/3030683/ Either they had been working on the identities before July (extremely likely) OR they created the D/R logo AFTER agreeing to change to Arlington and call the team Arlington. If it's before, then they simply liked the logo too much after the wheels were greased by Arlington and Arlington became the name. OR The logo was created AFTER this announcement and the subsequent city name was chosen, as an easter egg for Dallas, the chief city in the area most people know. Similar to a TC logo for the Twins. Not officially anything related to the team. Either way, I just don't like it as a logo. Partly because too many clamoring for the old single letter logos of the past (Bears C, etc). Are that they were a monumental change from the older looks where teams didn't wear any sort of logos. It was colors/striping, etc that signified the teams. Logos were simple and hand painted onto the leather helmets or baked into the plastic shells. They had to be simple. They're not great because they were simple. They're simple because the teams generally were already well established before logos became a thing on the uniforms.

Charger FC

Sounds like a Montreal Alouettes situation. Small stadium creates scarcity and you could then leverage that scarcity into filling the larger Olympic Stadium from time to time. But without scarcity the average game loses all emphasis to get tickets in advance and you're more affected by day of game weather, etc.

Stole? Where else was Atlanta going? The other prime growing cities were covered. Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix,... Where would they go? SLC? San Antonio? Houston? Kansas City? Sure, Seattle was always a possibility, but the arena and getting in there were never going to happen without a lot of planning. Atlanta was a much more last minute relocation. NHL went to Columbus instead of Cleveland or Cincy, which effectively eliminated both of those options. Indianapolis is much more basketball-centric and probably struggles to get a third team there. Baltimore is never happening. Charlotte isn't happening with Raleigh. San Jose takes the rest of the SF Bay area. San Diego is a no due to venue options. LV was a pipedream at the time, long term yes, but not at the time. Kansas City is MAYBE a market suited to host a team with the Sprint Center (now T-Mobile Center) but KC isn't exactly a market able to handle a third team when they have arguably the two most expensive leagues to support (NFL and MLB). Memphis? Nah. They just got NBA and are lucky to support that. Milwaukee? Admirals have had a long standing tradition there, but what venue was going to take in an NHL team and make it valuable? By the time Atlanta failed (and Arizona failing), there wasn't much of an option for new markets. Las Vegas and Seattle were definitely possibilities with a new venue. LV especially. But at the time only one market really had a strong view of getting the revenue needed to not contract them. It's why NHL is letting Arizona slum it in a 4500 seat arena. They don't have a choice. And the sweet $650 million expansion fee for Seattle was better suited for the league than letting Arizona walk. The only markets NHL has been successful in the south are markets where other sporting options were limited. TB started when it was just the Bucs. Raleigh had college sports. San Jose was the up-and-coming southern sprawl of the bay area. Anaheim was suburban hell where fans of the Kings weren't driving that far when they had the new Ducks at home. Really the biggest relocation/expansion team early on was the Avalanche. Who barely moved to town to an old stadium the same year the new Rockies a few years old opened Coors Field. There already was Broncos and Nuggets, but it was much more a 'hockey town' and winning the Stanley Cup their first year definitely helped solidify a fan base. Meanwhile, Winnipeg was in prime uncontested real estate. Far enough from other markets they didn't see flack from nearby cities. Edmonton and Calgary were too far for the Canada markets to care, and Minnesota probably has very little sway nor care much if they were to lose some North Dakota support. They went to the only major city that really wanted a team. If another Winnipeg existed today Arizona might have a new home already. But they're insistent on keeping teams in the south even though they struggle for support without winning much more than northern cities would.

When it comes to the 1pm timeslot, the big driver for both Fox and CBS will be which local markets NEED the game more for viewership (both home and away team numbers). Imagine there's a Browns @ Colts game. WJW (fox) and WOIO (CBS) are both the local stations in Cleveland that want that game. But over in Indianapolis, it's between WTTV (CBS4) and WXIN (FOX59). Tribune Media owns WJW, WTTV, and WXIN. Gray Television owns WOIO. Indy is a wash regardless which network gets it, but you gotta believe WOIO is SCREAMING at CBS to get that game on their network instead of letting Tribune get it on their stations in both markets. The only matter CBS and Fox has is which one might draw better outside their local markets. But you gotta believe there isn't a huge difference unless it's a disparity in total number of games each has and matchup wise there's a better one out there (say 6 for one network and only 4 for the other). But they've got to keep their local affiliates happy.