XFL 2023 Logos, Names and Uniforms

[bosrs1]

36 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

 

No one except those who've decided the NFL's rules are too strict.

 

So like 10 people at this point? The kneeling thing and the Kap van were the only real sticking points and that dried up last season. 

[mkg74]

40 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Spring ball... the thing no one is asking for and no one watches as a result

We will see in February. On the outside things appear to be going well at the moment.

[Survival79]

40 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

random thing: my brain's been so conditioned to Tampa ''Bay''  didn't even realize at first that the Vipers are just Tampa

 

They're not just Tampa... they're the Tampa Bay Vipers.

 

[Dynasty]

The Guardians is actually pretty cool. I was surprised to learn that no team has ever taken New York's gothic architecture as a foundation for a sports identity.

 

I'm actually disappointed in Dallas. They couldn't have used anything besides another cowboy/western theme? Is that all that city is known for?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, BellaSpurs said:

Second, how is LA’s logo the best?

 

The accomplishment of creating an intertwining "LA" logo that is truly new really impresses me. And the way the letters interact with each other, each one fitting snugly into the negative space of the other, is very satisfying.

 

The flair on the crossbar of the A is a great complement to the serifs on the L. The natural tendency would have been to leave off both the flair and the serifs. That would no doubt look pretty good; but such a logo would have a more staid and corporate feel. The addition of the flair and the serifs makes the logo feel more vibrant, without sacrificing any of its seriousness.

 

Add to that the delicious colours — and that's what those colors are: delicious. I can almost taste them! I think there's some papaya in there.

 

Also, considering the context of the dearth of letter-based logos in American football, it is impossible not to feel still more enthusiastic about this mark — and, likewise, it is impossible to avoid the disappointment at the league's decision not to create an equally high-quality "NY" logo for the New York team. 

[The_Admiral]

Always liked "Dallas Renegades" as an NHL expansion team had they not taken the Stars

[Groucho]

St. Louis logo is very similar to the SAS logo. 

 

[FiddySicks]

10 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

The Birmingham Iron logo was love at first sight for me.  I don't get that feeling over any of these.  Quite a letdown.

 

That’s exactly how I felt about the AZ Hotshots logo. I like it so much, I actually found a way to get ahold of one of their helmet decals and I put it on my car. 

[AHcreative]

10 hours ago, GFB said:

I think you could place the St Louis logo on the back of the helmet, have the sword act as the helmet stripe, and have the wings fold around the sides of the helmet.

I had the exact same idea. If executed properly, it could be a really kickass looking helmet. 

 

11 hours ago, WideRight said:

3. STL: I am ok with the name, though it is awfully close to "Blackhawks" which is not what you want in STL. The logo is a fine secondary logo, but will it look good on the helmet?

While I'm not crazy about the name, I don't hate it. What bugs me most is its stylization. It should either read "Battlehawks" or "Battle Hawks." Admittedly though, I could see more similarities to the Blackhawks name, as others have mentioned, if they chose either of those. Especially considering the Blackhawks existed as the Black Hawks for a long while. But honestly, comparing the names is frivolous.

 

Take a look at @GFB's post that I quoted above. I believe that the helmet will look similar to what he described. 

 

12 hours ago, Midwest_surfer said:

A BattleHawk isn’t a thing

A Battlehawk actually is a thing, though. I'll admit, I had to look it up, but through a little bit of research I found out what it is. Ironically enough, the Battlehawk was developed to essentially be a new build of Black Hawk helicopters that upgraded their combat. There are different tiers of Battlehawk kits, each of which build upon the previous adding more firepower. So, if we're going to compare XFL football to the NHL, we can conclude that the St. Louis BattleHawks are a more powerful Chicago Blackhawks. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Maroon said:

I've come to the conclusion that I like the St. Louis logo more than I did at initial glance (it looks better to me in the version that was published as their twitter handle photo rather than the 3D-ish version on the reveal show), but that the name "Warbirds" would have gotten across the same message as "BattleHawks" but without sounding contrived - and it would have played into the aviation theme better than the actual name.

 

The logo on twitter:

 

Honestly, and maybe it's the homerism and/or my St. Louis football withdrawals, I think that this logo is the best in the league. The color scheme is beautiful, the logo is symmetric and bold, and it doesn't have that flat look like some of the other logos revealed (Tampa Bay, L.A., New York*). 

 

*Don't get me wrong, I love New York's overall identity, but everything to the left of the ear on the logo makes it appear really flat. 

[Gothamite]

15 hours ago, buzzcut said:

The Twitterverse seems to hate both the names and logos.

 

Hey, whadd’ya know?

 

Twitter got something right. 

[TBGKon]

I don’t get those saying the lightning bolts on the Defenders logo is a DC.  I mean it’s kinda there, but so abstract it’s easy to pass by.  Likely just coincidence

[TBGKon]

7 hours ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said:

random thing: my brain's been so conditioned to Tampa ''Bay''  didn't even realize at first that the Vipers are just Tampa

 Nope....it’s officially Tampa Bay according their social media accounts 

[Maroon]

11 hours ago, Ark said:

 

A bit of a stretch but I see it

 

 

Is it just me, or does that actually make the logo better? This makes it look like the wings are enveloping a sword, almost evoking the feeling of some angel holding a sword.

Kind of reminds me of the old art for Kayle from League of Legends

 

[AHcreative]

2 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

I don’t get those saying the Lightning Bolts on the Defenders logo is a DC. I mean it’s kinda there, but so abstract it’s easy to pass by. Likely just coincidence

Weird, that was one of the first things I noticed. When I first saw the logo, I thought it was redundant for 'DC' to appear twice.

 

That aside, the font choice for the 'DC' at the bottom baffles me. All of the lines in the logo meet up at sharp points (as stars and lightning bolts generally do). All of the corners of the shield come together at a sharp angle as well but then you have this rounded 'DC' that looks like it was slapped on just minutes before the unveil. On top of that, even the 'D' looks more like an 'O'. 

 

I actually really like the logo; it's simple and effective. But the way the 'DC' reads at the bottom will always bug me. 

[nuordr]

I did a survey to see what people thought of the new logos and out of 128 responses, the people liked the Houston Roughnecks logo the most. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Atomic
Please refrain from advertising your website. The link in your signature is more than enough.

[Maroon]

6 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

That’s exactly how I felt about the AZ Hotshots logo. I like it so much, I actually found a way to get ahold of one of their helmet decals and I put it on my car. 

 

Going off the "funny how we can have such different opinions of logos" theme, it's funny because I love the AAF logos and identities... excepting the Hotshots. I liked their colors and loved the uniforms, but never could quite get on board with the logo. Atlanta's logo was tops for me even though I was rooting for Memphis.

[nuordr]

12 hours ago, Ark said:

 

A bit of a stretch but I see it

 

I love this logo turned upsidedown! It looks 1000x better. 

[AHcreative]

9 minutes ago, Maroon said:

Is it just me, or does that actually make the logo better? This makes it look like the wings are enveloping a sword, almost evoking the feeling of some angel holding a sword.

It actually does. I was thinking that last night. On top of the "hidden" 'STL', if you cut off the top of the logo where the curved lines of the wings meet straight lines, there's an arch right there in the middle.

 

[nuordr]

11 minutes ago, Heitert said:

It actually does. I was thinking that last night. On top of the "hidden" 'STL', if you cut off the top of the logo where the curved lines of the wings meet straight lines, there's an arch right there in the middle.

 

[Skycast]

11 hours ago, mkg74 said:

Years ago I was arguing about cfl vs what ever league on the web with some guy from Canada. He had all these preposterous claims of and this is my all time favorite one ever.

 

He claims: The 1984 Blue Bombers would’ve destroyed the 1984 49ers (

basically CFL vs NFL champs of that time). Never laughed harder in my life yet it had me thinking. Is the CFL really that good?  Uh. Nah! 

 

It would be kind of fun to see some NFL-CFL match ups. I really do wanna know. 

 

 

 

 

 

The need for a debate of this type always slays me. They are two different animals because of the rules. One example is the wider field and having the d-line a yard off the ball requires a bit smaller and more agile offensive linemen.

 

I'm a HUGE CFL fan...have been for about 5 years now and the caliber of players in the NFL is definitely better than that of the CFL. But so is the level of athlete in DI football to DIAA, DII, DIII, etc. and on down to juco and high school. That's not to say you can't watch some great, exciting and entertaining football at the "non-elite" levels. It's more about the level of competition being relative to each other, having well coached athletes, good game plans, etc. Many, if not most, of the CFL players are just a slight notch below their NFL counterparts...good, but just not good enough.

 

It's a spectacularly exciting brand of football to watch.