sky1324

I want to like bottom-middle, but something about the colors and balance is off for me. Top-middle is my favorite, that splash of gold just makes it pop for me. It's stupid to have "In God We Trust" on the flag, but I'll take it since it meant replacing their old flag. I would've taken "state seal on blue field" over their old one, but the fact that it will most likely look good is reassuring.

Even the almighty Creamer got into it:

Minneapolis City's home kit, yes, but the team using the colors is Minneapolis City Futures, their youth team. I think the main things that connect the two are the colors which are nearly identical, which isn't uncommon, but it's the use of the exact same font as well that pushes it over.

Minneapolis City's youth team. I think it's more than just the colors, it's the font and style that combine to make this more than a coincidence for me. Yeah the filled/outline text thing is popular, but has any other team recently used it?

Oh man, that's far too close to be coincidence. Same colors, same font, same outline/fill style, oh no. MLS better get on this real quick, MPLS City might have a decent lawsuit to file. I like the Thieves nickname, though.

Just checked, it's true. In what some could call fate, it seems that Cerezo stylizes their name as Cerezo OSAKA, connecting the two teams further. If STL CITY SC balances magenta with navy like Cerezo does, they'll be a very good-looking team, but by introducing yellow and gray I'm worried they'll throw it all off.

The arch is very noticeable (should be yellow but I digress), but I have to disagree with you on the rivers. In the crest, the rivers are straight lines that run parallel to the arch and perpendicular to it, but on the flag, the rivers are wavy (defining them as rivers) and meet at a single, defined point to suggestion confluence (the fleur-de-lis). The crest, to me, doesn't suggest rivers, it suggest the crossbar of an A and some lines that look like New Mexico United. I have to be told that those are rivers, and I still don't see it. That's an example of failed symbolism, because they tried to get a little too cutesy with it and ended up confusing the viewer.

Let's not drag Cerezo into this, their crest is actually well-made. What's funny is Cerezo is my favorite J-League team, specifically because of their crest and colors. But they actually know how to balance it and didn't shove yellow and gray into the scheme as well. That crest isn't even good for J-League, those are either great or qualify for the "so bad it's good" exception. St. Louis CITY Soccer Club's crest doesn't look good, and I can't imagine how they'll incorporate yellow into the palette without minimizing magenta or having it clash hard. Maybe it'll be a blue kit with magenta/yellow striping?

MOD EDIT: Not getting into that here.

I went through the images, and I thought the magenta was bright, but my god is that yellow obnoxious. River blue is a nice color, but it's ruined by the other ones. And I'm not sure why having gray is a good idea when you already have white and three other colors, especially since they don't use it on the crest.

IMO trying to stylize your name like that is incredibly stupid. The RedBlacks do it as well and it looks dumb. Are poor copywriters going to have to write out St. Louis CITY Soccer Club every time the team refers to itself? No, it looks very magenta to me, which is just a gaudy shade of pink, which is a dignified and glorious color.

Suddenly Charlotte FC's looking a lot better, huh? Very disappointed by STL, I was hoping they could be what Charlotte wasn't and put together and unique name and brand, but they flopped hard for me. Pink is good, this magenta is gaudy and if there's yellow in the package, where is it in the logo? The arch/river thing is just way too abstract to work well, not to mention all the lines being the same color make it worse. This is impressively bad, at least CLTFC managed to have a solid crest and colors. And as for the name, I don't mind having another City FC, but from what it seems like there's a big split between St. Louis "city" and St. Louis County. If so, this seems like a missed opportunity to unite the two under a different name. Holding out hope that Sacramento can keep Republic and their crest.

Probably not, fans hated the name which led to the name-the-team contest that yielded Hornets, so I assume there would've been another contest, the winner just wouldn't have been Hornets. According to this website I found (I can't verify how accurate it is) other choices were Knights, Cougars, Spirit, Crowns, and Stars. I'd bet that Knights and Crowns would've been the leaders, and I bet Knights would've been selected as the team's name.

For and giggles I decided to do something based on the complete impossibility that both the Federal and Continental Leagues survived and joined MLB and eventually they got to 48 teams. Completely ignoring the lack of talent, lack of suitable markets, etc, and against my better judgement, here it is. American League: East: Boston Red Sox Montreal Royals (former Washington Senators, moved 1961) Nashville Sounds (expansion, 1997) New York Yankees Norfolk Destroyers (expansion, 2013) Orlando Challengers (expansion, 2013) West: Cleveland Blues Detroit Tigers Los Angeles Browns (former St. Louis Browns, moved 1942) Phoenix Firebirds (expansion, 1997) San Francisco Athletics (former Philadelphia Athletics, moved 1942) Seattle White Sox (former Chicago White Sox) National League: East: Cincinnati Reds Jacksonville Suns (expansion, 1997) Memphis Redbirds (expansion, 2013) Milwaukee Braves (former Boston Braves, moved 1954) Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates West: Chicago Cubs Dallas Giants (former New York Giants, moved 1958) Las Vegas Aviators (expansion, 2013) San Diego Padres (former Brooklyn Dodgers, moved 1958) St. Louis Cardinals Vancouver Canadians (expansion, 1997) Federal League: East: Baltimore Terrapins Buffalo Bisons Charlotte Hornets (expansion, 1985) Hartford Chiefs (former St. Louis Terriers, moved 1924) Newark Peppers (former Indianapolis Hoosiers, moved 1924) Tampa Bay Tarpons (expansion, 1985) West: Chicago Whales Indianapolis Stars (former Washington Senators/Brooklyn Tip-Tops, moved 1972/1965) Kansas City Packers Louisville Colonels (expansion, 2005) San Antonio Missions (expansion, 2005) Oakland Oaks (former Pittsburgh Rebels, moved 1954) Continental League: East: Atlanta Firecrackers Miami Marlins (expansion, 1979) Minnesota Twins New York Mets Toronto Metros Washington Senators (expansion, 2005) West: Denver Bears Houston Astros Los Angeles Angels New Orleans Pelicans Portland Beavers (expansion, 1979) Sacramento Solons (expansion, 2005) As I made this I realized how unbalanced some of the leagues are, but it serves the purpose well enough as a bit of an experiment. For whatever reason, figuring out what to do with the Rebels was the hardest, since I had mostly filled up suitable cities in the '50s. Most of it is impractical and I work off some leaps of logic (I doubt the A's would've gone with the Browns to the west coast in '42, the AL has no Chicago team, the NL has no NY team, etc) but it was a fun little experiment.

I wouldn't want it for all teams (as I said) and the Padres have already made their brown tops their primary road, so it's not like it'd be entirely unheard of today. I'm thinking teams like the Padres, Marlins, A's, Rays, Astros, D-Backs, Orioles, maybe the Blue Jays or Mariners could make it work. I actually didn't know about the Cubs' blue roads, that's interesting and maybe they could make it work as well. The one thing I'd be a stickler about is it would have to be the designated road jersey, not just an alt that they wear more than their normal road.

Alright, I'll say it: most MLB teams should make a colored top their primary road jersey. Not all, teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, or Cubs should never, but newer teams (and the A's) should. Extra points if you pair it with matching white pants. The one caveat to that is that the home team would have to wear all-white, which is what they should be doing anyway. Another one: I'd rather have both the home and road uniforms say the team's geographic name than have both say the nickname. At the very least, the road jersey should always say the geographic location, absolutely no exceptions.

Not inherently, but when they throw back to a team that was named after a slur, they're celebrating that team, which includes the name, no matter what they try to do. As for the Super Bowls, they can simply place "Washington" on the banner with the SB number/year and not have the old logo, no "erasure" of history in that. Honoring alumni is also fine since they're honoring that player, not the name he played for.

The Chargers do, but I agree, the helmet numbers are fine for this year. The problem with doing a throwback is they're still honoring the old name, which is what they're trying to avoid.

Unless those buildings are parking garages, what is their plan here, to remove all the parking then hold their hands and say "well, we tried!" then head to whatever LA suburb will build them a stadium? I like it and it looks nice, but it seems like the game-day experience would be hell if you can't park within a reasonable distance.

Agreed, but I don't hate it. It looks pretty good with the letters and it's better than the Hornets' CHA they've been trying to push.

I really like it! Definite upgrade over the old one, I love the use of CLT, and it actually looks great on the helmet. CLT is very common around here. It's on of the more common nicknames, along with Queen City and the QC. But you don't say it like a word, you say it letter by letter, like C-L-T, just like any other airport code.

I love the updates and Atlanta! The hive ATL logo is sheer brilliance. The only changed I'd make is maybe going with "Bees" instead of Swarm, but that's just my aversion to singular names. Excited to see the final teams!

That's true, I hadn't thought of that. You could switch Atlanta and St. Louis reasonably with the Astros still in the NL. It would suck but the Cubs and Cards absolutely have the power to make that happen.

I'll take a crack at that. We'll start in 2001 where MLB had voted to contract two teams for the 2002 season. In our timeline, this never went through due to legal challenges with the Twins' lease at the Metrodome and issues with the Players' Union. However, we'll take that idea and run with it. In 2002, the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins were contracted and players dispersed to other teams. As it stands, there are currently 28 teams in Major League Baseball, with 14 in each league. After the success of the contraction, both Florida franchises also became targets, however, both survived (through different means). With 28 teams, MLB was reorganized into 4 7-team divisions, 2 in each league. Additionally, the Brewers were moved back to the American League. This is in 2005, four years after the contraction. American League: East: Baltimore Orioles Boston Red Sox Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers New York Yankees Tampa Bay Devil Rays Toronto Blue Jays West: Anaheim Angels Chicago White Sox Kansas City Royals Milwaukee Brewers Oakland Athletics Seattle Mariners Texas Rangers National League: East: Atlanta Braves Chicago Cubs Cincinnati Reds New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates Washington Nationals (former Florida Marlins) West: Arizona Diamondbacks Colorado Rockies Houston Astros Los Angeles Dodgers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants St. Louis Cardinals Not sure how realistic this is, I'm a too young to remember anything about MLB in the early 2000s, but I think this would be a decently realistic scenario. Despite contraction, MLB would probably start looking at expansion in the early 2010s to "catch up" to other leagues, with the popular sites like Las Vegas, Charlotte, and Nashville joined by Minnesota and Miami. If it was up to me, I would've contracted both Florida franchises, but I decided to go with what was the most likely at the time.

I like it. It's a clever minor league club name, and while the horse could use some work (namely the chainmail, come on guys) the H for Henderson further reenforces the parent club because of the V in Vegas' logo.