Sykotyk

Just for those that might not know... the old UFL was NOT a spring league. It's one of the reasons it struggled so much financially. Trying to play mid-week in the fall. As for the USFL and XFL 'division' names... if they wanted League to be the divisions... they should've went with "Alliance" or "Association" in the 'league' name instead. Maybe the United Spring Association, United Football Association, National Spring Association, National Football Association, Spring Football Alliance, etc. Having leagues inside a league just feels hokey. Also makes having the Gamblers staff rebrand as Roughnecks but play in the USFL division just feels so hack-jobbed.

Would've given them the chance to have a cohesive branding after the first logo was deemed "too NFLy". Would've also been one way to promote this as a 50/50 merger, rather than what it was. Four best XFL markets and the three 'home' markets that were 'home' markets in the USFL. We all knew the thousand or so fans showing up in Canton weren't cutting it in USFL. I'm just curious what image this UFL is trying to project. USFL at least went 'throwbacks'... XFL went 'new and edgy'... UFL is just... "We have football, please watch."

The "Awful" UFL. I'm just curious... exactly... what the Rock and Redbird Capital BOUGHT from Vince McMahon. A couple of team names, of which they changed the logos or names/colors? Some former contracts for venues maybe? Some basic equipment in storage maybe? Because to spend the $15m or so they reportedly paid and now a year later have given up the name to XFL (which apparently was a good portion of what they were buying), and the team names (only three of which remain, one was modified, and none of them are using their original logos). What exactly did they buy? After all, the USFL went after the IP rights to glom onto that and are also giving it up. But didn't pay an exorbitant price for them.

There is absolutely no way the Browns make their first ever Super Bowl, and first time in an NFL title game in over 50 years. And have the option of wearing home darks... and going with a throwback uniform. None. Only thing I could see is them maybe going all white if they pulled the "win every game on the road". But they'd have the orange lids. Though, it would be cool to see the first Super Bowl matchup of former AAFC teams (and rematch of the 1949 AAFC Championship Game, that the Browns won, 21-7)

Yes. But the quarterfinals and semifinals will be at bowls. 12 teams taking up 6 bowls. No way a school gives up a home game to play a bowl site.

It is NOT going to take long for the 16-team conferences to decide that semifinals are required. And yes, that means that, better chance one team is making it to the playoffs... but all that money stays with the conference. They don't have to share any of it. And it will be aligned with their TV partners. Imagine Michigan-Penn State and Ohio State-Iowa in semifinals the week after the regular season. And a conference championship the week before the CFP first round. Yeah, there's a reason that extra week was put in there. And it wasn't to get things ready for four host sites. Some conference with their divisionless format will have 3 11-1 teams with 9-0, 8-1, and 8-1 conference records complaining about being left out. And get the change made to allow it. Give it four years, tops.

How? We now have 8 teams that will play a total of 6 bowl games. Essentially taking four teams out of the rotation. The four first round losers aren't bowl eligible? Either way, if they aren't, that puts 12 teams playing a total of 6 bowl games (4 quarterfinals and two semifinals). Which is the same adjustment as 4 teams playing in two bowls today (national championship is its own game). You'd still net the same number of bowls to team ratio.

Because, I'm sure, Cowboys did their film study and saw that 70 was the usual OT to declare as eligible. Regardless the number announced, and where they line up, you're expecting every defender to hear the announcement, remember the number, see the formation, and follow through with it. They obviously THOUGHT 68 was eligible because they covered his route like he was eligible. You don't do that if you don't think he's eligible.

First game of the season: Last game of the season: My best/favorite photos of 2023: Last game of the year, I was just going around the stadium and found my favorite photo spot. DeSoto-Summer Creek was a blowout (74-14), and I wasn't doing sideline for it as I had finished up with the afternoon game. So, was looking for something unique. And found it: Run-Throughs: Coin Toss: Kickoff:

I think what we may see is some sort of 'NIL-umbrella deal' that bowls will make with the teams picked to play in them. So, that players will be incentivized to still play. Sure, some Future First Round Pick might still opt out, but a lot of kids will take the $10k-$20k etc for one extra game. Another option may be college football moving into some sort of NIT like tournament structure under the CFP level. Where, again, there's some reward at the end for the winners (maybe a few million to the winning team's players). Games will be at host schools and not neutral sites. While a few 'marquee' places stick around. Such as Bahamas, Orlando, Miami, New Orleans, Hawaii, etc can still live on 'vacation status' alone.

Look at all the other markets with multiple teams LA has four teams, Clips are building their own stadium. That just leaves Kings and Lakers at Staples/Crypto, and both are owned or co-owned by Anschutz. Who also owns the venue. They're not getting a new arena for either. Ducks are far enough out it's not an issue. SF Bay area, Sharks and Warriors have always played in different cities/venues. Denver hosts both at Ball Arena Phoenix, Suns play downtown at a very hockey-unfriendly venue, and the Coyotes are playing in a shoe box. Dallas, one venue downtown hosting both, currently. Minnesota, both have their own venue. Timberwolves in Minneapolis, and Wild play in St. Paul. Miami/South Florida, Heat play in Miami, Panthers play 39 miles away in Sunrise. Chicago, both play at United Center. Owned by the owner of the Blackhawks. Detroit, went the other way. Pistons went to the Palace out in the suburbs while Red Wings played at Joe Louis Arena downtown. Both went in on Little Ceasars Arena not far from downtown. Boston shares a venue NYC area still has MSG while the periphery teams have their own venues; Devils, Nets, and Islanders. Philadelphia, the 76ers are eyeing the new arena away from the sports complex south of downtown. Flyers aren't moving anywhere. DC, shares a venue. What's honestly really notable about going through this list is how many cities only have either NBA or NHL teams. In fact, it's always been notable how NBA teams tend to be in markets by themselves (pre-MLS being considered a major league). But that the two don't overlap much outside the major markets. But there's considerable pairing: Seattle and Portland have one of each. SLC and Vegas have one of each. SF and SJ have one of each. STL and MEM have one of each. New Orleans, Houston, and San Antonio each have NBA but no NHL. Nashville and Atlanta have one of each. Central Florida has both, one in TB and one in Orlando. Carolinas have both, but in two markets. NBA in Charlotte and NHL in Raleigh. Indianapolis and Columbus have one of each. Pittsburgh and Cleveland have one of each. Buffalo has just NHL. Milwaukee has just NBA.

They're too drunk on the Lions hosting a playoff game to notice...

No. Tonight is not their night.

Especially for the Thrill and Rise. Maybe a bigger outline would've helped?

Underwhelming. Especially for "Thrill". Colors feel 'beach', not desert. The spikes/star in the background feel like the Mariners, not a Las Vegas team. Decent logo. The little blue/yellow Trouble game pieces feel a bit off. The comic sans wording a little off. Feels like it really fails the whole 'can this logo be drawn by a kid' thing just because they'll never get the font just right. As for the Mojo name... does feel like it belongs with something other than a bird/eagle. Only mojo I know are: And Odessa Permian:

It really is a bit strange. Most of the games feel the name is overused to get it onto air. But, the cutbacks to the announcers trying different flavored mayos just feels like 'infomercial mixed with football'.

QBoTY Ashuance

As a Browns fan, I wouldn't say he was much of a surprise. He played horribly injured and the Browns coaches refused to replace him with the backup (seeing our backups play, he was probably the best option). He got thrown under the bus and sent to Carolina who were a dumpster fire and I don't think many quarterbacks at all were able to turn it around without a lot of other roster moves the team just can't/won't make. Bucs are a middle of the road team, and Baker has, from the outside perspective, been given a long leash to do what he does best and not try to shoehorn him into an offense he doesn't run well.

I'm still disheartened to see that Sacramento, now, will probably never be in MLS. I think Phoenix and one of Indy or Louisville happens at some point. I agree with you on Las Vegas. But back to Sacramento. I've been following long enough to remember when Rochester seemed like a shoe-in for MLS, but the owners of the Rhinos didn't want to join (a lot of valid reasons), primarily due to the single-ownership structure where the team could make more being non-MLS. The team would've struggled, but it might have kept the fans coming to (and finishing) their stadium. Being one of the first MLS teams with their own stadium would have been huge. They'd have become one of those 'regional' teams representing all of Western New York. They'd just need to hang on until around 2016. And having their own stadium and still being 'big league' probably keeps the fans with the team.

Orlando just had the Guardians, so rather apropos that they have another team that doesn't really fit to the market.

I can't be the only one that sees it, right?

Only real complaint, as others have pointed out, is the Vibe logo just feels too overtly colored. They could've gone with a great, simple 3 or 4 color logo, even, and been great. The gradient, the chrome... just feels off for a 2D representation. Same problem the SDFC logo suffers. But overall these are great. Some minor nitpicks. The Supernovas logo feels a bit 'background' and less 'identifiable logo' if not for the wordmark. The Rise logo looks like the phoenix is surprised at what city they're representing. Fury is a great logo, it's simple. It works... except I don't like the added color to the Y in Fury. Plain white would've been just fine. From a distance it's gonna look like FUR-Four. That little toe on the R is unneeded as well. But it's a minor quibble. Valkyries is a great logo.... but the incomplete roundel just kinda feels off. Also feels more 'elf' than 'warrior'. Might just be the chin. Also, what's with the hidden E below the neck? Could've been a nice easter egg if E was anywhere of prominence. Seems far too obvious to be unintentional. Overall, it's far better than a lot of other leagues starting or new teams. EDIT: Didn't even notice, but love, the volleyball at the center of the logo. Glanced right over it at first since it's incomplete. But when you see it it suddenly stands out.

That's a name I never thought I'd hear of again.

One way they always could do the MLS in Open Cup is to co-op one weekend of the season as a 'play in' for Open Cup. Take the 13 games, every winner enters the Open Cup. A draw or loss and you're not in the Open Cup. This would keep teams from throwing games with backups because it is a league game. So, half the teams save one game from their schedule. Want to go further, take the next two weeks, and schedule the weeks to coincide with the first week's matchups. Any game pitting two Open Cup teams becomes another play-in round/elimination game. Same thing, win moves on, draw or loss and you're out of the Open Cup. There would, theoretically, be anywhere from 0 (all draws) to maximum of 7 teams entering actual Open Cup play. Any open spots would be a bye for the other side in the Open Cup tournament. Easy way to schedule is it make sure over a three week span the same four teams play eachother three straight weeks. Week 1 A v. B C v. D Week 2 A v. C B v. D Week 3 A v. D B v. C If A & C win, Week 2's A v. C is the next play-in game. If A & D win, Week 3's A v. D game is the next play-in. If B & C win, Week 3's B v. C game is the play-in. If B and D win, Week 2's B v. D is the next play-in. If either Week 1 game is a tie, the other winner gets into the Open Cup and Week 2 and Week 3 games go on as normal. If both are ties, neither team advances to the Open Cup and Week 2 and 3 go on as normal. They'd be MLS regular season games regardless. With 26 US teams, there'd be one two-team 'group' and six four-team 'groups'. Only a small number of MLS teams would face extra games. With up to 7 teams making it into the Open Cup, that's no more than 4 rounds Open Cup playoffs for no more than 2 teams. 3 rounds for no more than 4, 2 rounds for no more than 7.

The 90s may have been best known for the teal/purple/neon trend with the likes of the original Marlins, Rockies, Rays, Diamondbacks, Panthers, Jaguars, Raptors, Grizzlies,... The Texans were among the teams in the next 'wave' where everything was navy, earthtones, dark,... and bland. Patriots rebrand, Texans, Rams rebrand, Seahawks rebrand, Broncos rebrand, D'back AND Rays rebrands, Blue Jackets, Wild, new Jets, Coyotes rebrand, Bucs rebrand, Eagles color shift, Bills first rebrand to the dark shades with gray, etc. They feel dated, especially as the trend seems to be more primary colors, brighter contrasts and away from the dark era. Rams are bright blue and yellow, Broncos embracing the orange again, VIkings going a brighter purple... The only one that really bucked the trend were the Titans going with the primarily dark colors while simultaneously embracing the Luv Ya Blue throwback/fauxback Chargers even brought back both the powder blues and the brighter Air Coryell looks. Bucs haven't switched back the Bucco Bruce look is favorable now than in the past. Pats really going in on the red more than navy/blue as their alternates. Bills are in much brighter colors now. Seahawks are still meandering along with the eye-bleeding green and the darker tones other times. But to say Texans have some type of 'classic' look would be to say that the Kansas City Royals going blue away uniform is a 'classic look'. It's just dated, and nostalgia plays a role. Houston went navy/red instead of light blue/light red because of the Titans, not because they prefered that look. Going darker still, with a dirty white and burnt red and navy wouldn't help any.