The Golden One

XFL 2020 Logos and Names

Recommended Posts

For anyone speculating that they needed to update the website, specifically having merchandise ready the day of the team names and logo releases, nothing is for sale with the new team names and logos until Saturday ...

 

https://shop.xfl.com/password

 

You'd think that's one of the more important things to have done. Capitalize on people making an impulse buy as soon as they see all the logos and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Soblito said:

I like the Guardians logo and the the D.C. shield logo. The rest are not that impressive.

I think they have more character than the AAF logos, but very underwhelming.

 

The Dragons, Roughnecks, Renegades  logos are "been there done that"

 

The LA Wildcats? Come on...it looks to close to LAFC..wow.

 

The Vipers is ok.. BattleHawks....they tried too hard on that..

 

 

Seattle Sockeyes 

Los Angeles Cougars

Houston Roughnecks

Dallas Stallions

 

New York Guardians

D.C. Defenders 

Tampa Bay Breakers

St. Louis Spirits

 

Dragons I’m okay with, at least it sounds different 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roughnecks - Cool, but basically a copy of the Houston Oilers. 

 

Wildcats - Pretty generic, especially for LA. 

 

Renegades - Not bad. Like the colors.

 

Guardians- Ok I guess, still not sure exactly what it’s supposed to be. A lion or gargoyle? 

 

BattleHawks - Again just ok, seems pretty generic 

 

Dragons - Would have been so much better if they just called them the Seattle SeaDragons. 

 

Vipers - Pretty cool. Vipers is an awesome name. Yellow & Green are always a cool combo. 

 

Defenders - Another “meh”

 

i do wish they switch the names for St. Louis & Tampa.

“Tampa Bay BattleHawks” & “St. Louis Vipers” sound a lot better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, officeglenn said:

So that they're all in one handy spot:

 

 

 

Personally, for the most part, these logos are pretty good. But they don't come w/o critiques in my opinion.

1. It looks like these were all designed by the same designer. There's a uniformity that I don't like (similar wordmark placement (city and nickname)).

2. Some of the team names are weird. LA Wildcats. Too generic. St. Louis Battlehawks. Too wordy. 

3. Last, but not least, TOOO MUCH RED. Too many of the teams have red, whether as a major color or a minor one (you could sorta say the same with blue). With so many colors like Purple and Teal or colors combos to choose from, the XFL shouldve made use of that. At least the AAF had a variety.

 

Overall, it's not bad. Theyre pretty good actually. The LA Wildcats are the worst mainly because the lack of creativity (in name, and logo) and color choice. DCs are fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as much as I love the Roughnecks, I wonder if @hawkfan89 has grounds to sue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pitt6pack said:

Doesn't seem like all teams have secondary logos. Houston appears to have one.

 

 

Ya, looks like Houston, LA, and Tampa have secondary logos as of right now, whereas none of the others seem to have a secondary. I wonder if that's permanent or if secondary logos will be developed for those teams later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

They had to give LA one of the most used names in college football.  🙄

 

I'm not a fan of any of them.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pitt6pack said:

For anyone speculating that they needed to update the website, specifically having merchandise ready the day of the team names and logo releases, nothing is for sale with the new team names and logos until Saturday ...

 

https://shop.xfl.com/password

 

You'd think that's one of the more important things to have done. Capitalize on people making an impulse buy as soon as they see all the logos and such.

Yeah, they're totally giving people too much time to realize just how much they DON'T like their team's names and logos.

 

Someone earlier was posting in defense of the BattleHawks name. Here's my problem with it. It's not only that it's generic and uninspiring, I hate any name whose root needs to be modified to make it seem more aggressive. Adding "Battle" to the name isn't a workaround. It's a sign that the name Hawks itself doesn't work on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jimmy Lethal said:

as much as I love the Roughnecks, I wonder if @hawkfan89 has grounds to sue

I think the only logo that could be sued for is the dragons by uAb. These chaps have probably never heard of the Creamer logo forums.  Their best defense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a former Houston Oilers fan, current Tennessee Titans well-wisher, Dallas resident, and apathetic NFL observer, I'm pretty excited about what I'm seeing from the Dallas Renegades.....

 

Oilers colors, but another boring/generic "Wild West" style name? I can stomach it. Especially if they somehow play up the tattoo/biker culture in their other logos, and utilize columbia blue and red primarily over black....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. These nicknames are pretty good and the St Louis nickname won’t win title for stupidest name in all of sports. Sorry!  

 

In general I like all the logos. Definitely better overall than the AAF!  I’m excited to see the uniforms.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are interested in rating these logos, click HERE to take the survey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Yeah, they're totally giving people too much time to realize just how much they DON'T like their team's names and logos.

 

Someone earlier was posting in defense of the BattleHawks name. Here's my problem with it. It's not only that it's generic and uninspiring, I hate any name whose root needs to be modified to make it seem more aggressive. Adding "Battle" to the name isn't a workaround. It's a sign that the name Hawks itself doesn't work on its own.

 

I agree with this take about the BattleHawks nickname. I have no problem with colleges like St. Joseph's and Quincy that just use "Hawks." But once it becomes Skyhawks, River Hawks, or War Hawks it just becomes a bit overdone. My only excuse for it is that they can refer to the historic St. Louis Hawks identity but without actually stepping on the toes of the current Atlanta Hawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle has a significant Asian population, including Japanese, Vietnamese and Chinese communities.

 

I can't think of much direct outreach done with those communities from our existing sports franchises, which is weird because the stadiums are about 2 city blocks away from Seattle's Chinatown.

 

I'm not saying that audience drove the choice of the Dragons name, but I expect it may land well with members of those communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

 

Seeing more people whine about how close the nickname is to "Blackhawks" who St. Louis fans obviously hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

 

That should be the primary. But then again, Leatherheads would've been nice for Tampa.

I live here and dont know what a leatherhead refers to.  Leatherback is a type of sea turtle, but no clue what a leatherhead is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.