WideRight

Yeah, I am not tracking every possible issue or event that could lead a team to do a patch, but 9/11 seems too big to ignore.

BTW, there is one missing piece to these 2002 uniforms. I am designing a 9/11 commemorative patch that all USFL clubs will wear (patch on jersey, perhaps sticker on helmet too) in 2002. New Jersey, Washington and Pittsburgh may take it a step further, we shall see. I thought about altering history and not having 9/11 happen, maybe having Gore win the 2000 election, but decided I should stick to one big historical change (no move to fall for USFL) and not mess with the rest.

And the last of the 3, the new look for the Atlanta Fire, still trying to get a foothold on the sports market in Atlanta (and still waiting for a winning season). Will a new look in 2002 help them along? (Or will they improve in 2001 and kick off a new look with a winning club in 2002?) The new flame design adorns the helmet, and the new A logo is on the pants and the sleeves. The basic jersey design is not changed, though the collars now contain an ombre effect shifting from gold to red or white to gold. The numbers do the same, with gold at the top of both sets. No pant stripes (We will see how long this lasts) but three pant sets, with the orange being the least used to be sure.

The goal is to go until I catch up with real life, so yes, 2023 perhaps? Not sure what happens after that, maybe I start over with a different premise. I still have 22 seasons to go, with 18 in the books.

Ok, here we go again, the second of 3 new looks for 2002. Here are the Philadelphia Stars. It is hard to portray using the template and colors I have available, but the gold for Philly remains a very saturated metallic gold, not the yellow used in the actual 2022 USFL Stars. So, metallic gold pants and helmet to go with the red jersey. Philly is the first of our clubs to go with a stripeless pant set, but only in gold, not white. You can also see (particularly if you zoom) that the orange is used very sparingly in the sleeve stripes and as part of the logo. We will see if it becomes more visible in later iterations of their uniform.

Yes, the Bandits and Bucs, like many USFL/NFL clubs in the same city, work together to finance a new stadium and then share that stadium. This is a good arrangement for both clubs as it differs some costs, and a better deal for the city since they get twice the number of games in the stadium each year. Sharing a stadium with an MLB or MLS team is much more problematic due to scheduling, and the USFL teams with the biggest stadium issues tend to be those who are the only tenant (Portland, Memphis, Birmingham, Jacksonville, etc.) because it is hard to convince the city to spend $$$ on renovations much less a new stadium.

Thinking about the Buccaneers redesign. I do believe that they would still abandon Bucco Bruce around 2000, but the presence of the Bandits as a major rival for sports attention means that there is no way the Bucs go with pewter, red and black as their dominant colors. So, what to do? Well, if you look at some of the design ideas pitched for the change, you can find the answer. They move to the flag logo (or a version of it) but they do not abandon the creamsicle look in its entirety. I may make a design just to show this off, but I am going to work from the premise that the Buccaneers chose the design in the upper right of this image as their new look, never adding pewter and not adding quite so much black as they did IRL.

Yes, the Bandits were red with silver long before the Bucs ditched the creamsicle look. Maybe they don't in this world because they would be accused of trying to look like the Bandits. The Fire play at Bobby Dodd, and they are owned by a newspaper magnate from Athens whose name eludes me. The Stars currently play at Veterans Stadium (The constrction of Lincoln is ongoing) but scheduling won't be any worse than it is for other teams that have shared multiuse stadiums in the past, like Veteran's Stadium, the Astrodome, or Oakland's stadium. Besides, it is only for a couple of years until the Phillies get their new ballpark. The Stars will play 1 season at Franklin Field during the final stages of construction since the Vet will be razed.

Ready to post 2002 USFL Uniform updates. We have 3 on tap. None are radical departures from IRL, but some modifications based on early 2000's style. Despite my better judgement, after watching some college football this weekend I realized I cannot ignore the trend against pant stripes. While I find it quite boring and in most cases leads to bad unitard looks, it is a real trend in football design, so 2 of the 3 clubs in 2002 will jump on that bandwagon (in whole or in part). We will see how long that lasts. But, we start with a club that went in another direction. Gone are the thin "Bronco" style tapered stripes, and in there place are side panels and thicker stripes on all aspects of the uniform. So, two thick black stripes with a thin red stripe in the middle is the dominant feature of the new Bandits look. They retain a side panel from their previous uniform, but without the "swoops". Instead it is more black. Reebok symbols are on the sleeve cuffs, with the league's U symbol on the left chest. A pretty standard look for TBY, but with a very 2000's emphasis on side panels. Philly, then Atlanta coming up.

It was by team, with Russell Athletic and Champion each with teams in their camp through 1993. From 1993-1999 it was a leaguewide contract with Nike (Phil Knight was a league owner in Portland) Starting in 2000 the contract has moved to Reebok. it will shift again, perhaps 2 times, before we finish the league.

And the Atlanta Fire, a franchise in need of some new life. They take a bit of inspiration from the Atlanta Flames NHL club, creating a new fiery A logo. The flames will feature heavily on the helmet (as they always have) but the new monogram logo will also appear on the uniforms and in most media formats, replacing the older 1995 Olympic torch. Will this new look inspire a change to one of the league's perennial also-rans?

Working on the 2002 Reebok updates. Starting off with two modified logos. 1. Philadelphia Stars Decided to go halfway between the original logo (with wordmark) and the logo of this year's new USFL, adding the orange as an intermediary color and simplifying the fading star effect. Still a bit of an issue of the logo fading too much on the helmet, but will maintain a metallic gold helmet. Here is the new version of the Stars logo. 2. Tampa Bay Bandits A tweak that includes a new script wordmark and a more detailed rider & horse logo. The inspiration to add silver highlights to the horse comes from Brandon Williams's design for the A11FL Bandits, but I wanted to keep the original form of the horse & rider (not adjusting the legs) and I did not add the red to the horse's mane or legs as BW did. So, again, somewhere between the original and a very good concept from the 2010's. The final new logo for 2002 will be the Atlanta Fire. Still a couple of touch ups to do on it, but I should be ready to post it soon. The Olympic reference of the torch will be gone and a new, more modern (non-WLAF) flame will be at the center of the logo, one that pays a bit of homage to the Atlanta Flames NHL team while still being very much along the lines of the WLAF and now USFL Fire. Coming soon, along with 2002 uniforms.

This is a really solid concept. Love the sleeve treatment. Wondering if it would be possible to have some element of the mountain shape incorporated into the helmet or pant stripe. Not sure. You would not want to go too far with it, but maybe something like the chevron that Wisconsin added to their plain helmet and pant stripes.

Well, the Atlanta Fire were created as a 1995 Expansion club, so I used the WLAF template for them. They will adopt another element of another team later in the 2000's, but not one of the ones you mentioned. For 2002, they will get a new look, but one from me, not from a real world team (I am doing this a bit more as I move through the years, but as much as possible I am trying to retain the true USFL identities in some form or, if not possible, using real world parallels where they fit well. I have deviated on occasion (Seattle Dragons using D&D dragon head, not Barcelona Dragons logo, Chicago Machine borrowing only very tangentially from the lacrosse team with that name after starting as a WLAF borrowing, etc.)

Yes, the Raiders and Express worked together to build Farmers Insurance Field in Carson, CA. around 1996

Working on my 3 Reebok Redos for the 2002 season. What I think we will see: 1. Tampa Bay: Same main logo, a lot of uniform changes from the current 1990's look. 2. Philadelphia: Updated logo, updated uniform with some "modern" touches. 3. Atlanta: An new primarly logo, new helmet look but the uniforms don't change much. Looking ahead to potential changes for Seattle, Texas, LA (again), and Baltimore in the near future.

A good question, and one I have not really addressed on the Alt History website, not in any depth. This is the NFL as of 2000: AFC EAST: BUF-MIA-NYJ-NE-BAL (Baltimore Ravens moved from Cleveland in 95) AFC CENTRAL: CLE-CIN-PIT-IND-TEN- HOU (Tenn. Copperheads were 1995 Expansion Club, Houston Oilers never moved. This is the one 6-team division) AFC WEST: KC-DEN-SD-LA-SEA (Raiders never moved from LA) NFC EAST: NYG-DAL-PHI-WSH-CAR (Carolina Panthers were 1995 Expansion Club) NFC CENTRAL: CHI-MIN-DET-GBY-TBY NFC WEST: SF-ARZ-STL-NOR-ATL (Rams relocated to STL in late 1990's) The league is scheduled to add 1 more team, to expand to 32 in 2002, the two frontrunning cities are Jacksonville and San Antonio, due to the success of the USFL franchises in those cities. When they add the 32nd team, the league will shift to 8 divisions of 4 clubs each, creating a similar format to what we see IRL. The new format will be: AFC EAST: BUF-MIA-NYJ-NE AFC NORTH: CLE-CIN-PIT-BAL AFC SOUTH: IND-TEN-HOU-EXPANSION CLUB AFC WEST: KC-DEN-SD-LA NFC EAST: DAL-NYG-PHI-WSH NFC SOUTH: ATL-TBY-CAR-NOR NFC NORTH: CHI-DET-GBY-MIN NFC WEST: SF-STL-ARZ-SEA (Seattle moves to the NFC West, expansion club joins AFC South)

I don't think we will see all of the teams in NFL markets, but there are some cities which are a bit problematic stadium-wise. I think it is safe to say that several non-NFL cities are just fine and new stadiums will be built as needed, while others maybe not. I can tell you that the plan for the Thunder will have them eventually in a non-NFL city, but not Portland. I am actually planning for 4 relocations between 2002-2018. Some dramatic, some not so much.

It is an issue, but Portland has very real stadium issues, since Civic Stadium really is an old baseball stadium that has been converted for different uses. I think it works as an MLS stadium, a good size for that, and Portland State can certainly use it, but for a major league franchise in pro football it would never be big enough, and with the USFL as the only football team in town, it is hard to imagine Portland coughing up the money to build a new stadium with a big enough capacity for Portland to compete with LA, Denver, Arizona, etc. on revenue. It's not like the NBA, where cities like Portland or Sacramento can compete on a pretty even playing field with bigger markets, at least when it comes to stadia. The pattern developing in this alt history is that cities that have both NFL and USFL fall into one of two categories: Cooperation (new stadiums have 3 partners, 2 pro teams and the city) and confrontation (NFL team refuses to play ball with USFL, making stadium issues worse). Cities without an NFL team have to hope they have a major college nearby to help fund a stadium or struggle with stadium renovation/rehab,. I see Memphis as another trouble spot, perhaps Birmingham and Orlando too, but at least UAB and UCF might chip in. Ohio may have issues also since OSU has such a vast stadium for their needs. Meanwhile we have some major markets in the NFL that don't have the USFL yet, and that could lead to relocation. I am thinking of Boston metro, Dallas, Miami, Twin Cities, Kansas City, Nashville, Charlotte, and both NFL cities in Ohio. Stadium politics and pressure from other cities is the new reason USFL teams would move, as opposed to shaky owners or the need to deal with a shift to the Fall, which is what caused most team changes in the real USFL back in the 80s.

Yes, I like the logo and name too much to give it up.

OK, more crowdsourcing. My premise is that the Portland Thunder are never going to be able to get a bigger, better stadium in Portland. Civic Stadium is fine for the Timbers, there is no MLB or NFL in town, and UO is not interested. This, in my mind, makes Portland one of the clubs most likely to relocate, and I am thinking early 2000's for that move. But where? I know where they are going to end up in the late 2010's, but I am trying to figure out where they might go in between. Here are some contenders. Let me know your thoughts and any suggestions. Remember that the idea is that this will be a 12-18 year home, but that they will leave again late in the 2010's again because the conditions are not ideal for a profitable endeavor. And I would want them to stay in the West so as not to force another team to realign or switch divisions. So, thoughts on possible intermediary locations? Honolulu, Aloha Stadium Las Vegas, Sam Boyd Stadium San Jose, SJSU Spartan Stadium Dallas, Ford Stadium (SMU) Salt Lake City, U. of Utah Stadium

Thanks to all for your input. I do want to make it clear that this is the same Wranglers team, but I found the brand a bit busy, especially with the Titans' style flames. So, back to the drawing board and I think I have come up with a modern, simplified design that still clearly evokes the IRL Wranglers' look. What do you think of this look for the 2001 (and beyond) Arizona Wranglers? (Click to get a zoomable version)

Hey all, hoping for some crowdsourcing on some Arizona Wrangler concepts. 3 different versions, 2 largely based on "Real World" designs and one a little out of the ether. Let me know what you think and which you think would make a good transition for the Wranglers in 2000. Option A: Modified branding iron. This one combines some elements of the original Wranglers logo with new flames, courtesy of the Tennessee Titans, and a different font W. Option B: Going a different direction, we combine a more angular "W" with the deer/cow/thing from the XFL's Las Vegas Outlaws. Option C; I started by trying to modify the LV Outlaws into a more clearly defined cattle or buffalo skull, but ended up going a totally new direction by adding in elements of a dreamcatcher. If we assume that the Wranglers worked with local indigenous artists (similar to the kachinka coyote) to create the look, I could see them going possibly in this direction. So, minor change (with NFL influence), big change (with XFL influence) or big change with no real world equivalent? Which should it be?

I have a couple of options if I must. I don't like either of them as well. They tend to lean heavily towards a version of the Titan's flaming thumbtack.

Still waiting to hear back from Dane Storrusten and Gridiron Labs to see if they are OK with me basing my new Wranglers' logo on their Dallas Wranglers concept. Since my whole concept for the ongoing USFL Alt History is to use actual logos that exist both within and outside of the actual USFL, I want to be able to incorporate the work of others, rather than purely invent my own designs. Hoping to get a "sure, go for it" from them since the project is in no way a financial benefit for me. Figured you would want to see how I would incorporate it with Arizona's 18 seasons of flaming brand. Here is what I am hoping to use moving forward. Fingers crossed I can. Yes, a lot of gradient work here. Well, it is 2000-2001, so that seems about right.