raz Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 According to what we've seen so far, black and red is Vegas, black and yellow is San Antonio, and black and silver is Orlando. I think I have that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOOVER Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 1 hour ago, ralphz said: According to what we've seen so far, black and red is Vegas, black and yellow is San Antonio, and black and silver is Orlando. I think I have that right. I'm surprised we have had no additional leaks. I still can't believe they kept the 2020 team names/colors, if the one leak is accurate. First tragic mistake of this reboot, if true. Outside of the Dallas Renegades and their colors/marks, which they're diluting by renaming them "Arlington", nothing was worth keeping, and shuffling team names between cities (Guardans from NY to ORL) is just really stupid. Houston always should've been Black, Red, and Light Blue, anyway. I'm curious as to when we'll see uniforms. One has to think UA is involved, either under the UA brand or Project Rock, or both. I'm sure Dwayne was tempted to put his little Brahma Bull logo on every uniform, helmet & cleat, but if not for actually naming the whole San Antonio team after his wrestling nickname. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOOVER Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Both reveal videos for those interested in ruining their Halloween morning. I'll post a full review shortly, but this is incredibly underwhelming & disappointing. I've long said the decisions around team names, colors, logos and uniforms is the prime indicator on whether an upstart league will make it. I give XFL 3.0 two seasons, tops, and that's just because Dwayne will refuse to accept failure after the first season. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Arlington: The logo’s a downgrade, as is unnecessarily switching to the Arlington place name. DC: The logo is a downgrade. Houston: A slight improvement over the previous logo, which isn’t saying much. Orlando: The logo’s a downgrade and the Guardians identity doesn’t fit the Central Florida market as well as the gargoyle-driven theme fit New York City. San Antonio Brahmas: Meh. Seattle Sea Dragons: A wash to, maybe, a slight improvement. St. Louis Battlehawks: A wash. Vegas Vipers: The name fits the Las Vegas market better than it did Tampa Bay, but the logo still looks like that of a third-rate sportswear brand. Bottom line? The on-field play had better be electrifying, because the branding isn’t going to put fannies in the seats or generate much in the way of merchandising revenue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VDizzle12 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Lots of "meh" logos here. All the new logos are downgrades except for Seattle and maybe DC. The Renegades logo looks like it was designed for Dallas and then they just decided to leave the D in there. Guardians doesn't fit well with Orlando and I have no idea what's going on with that Vipers logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 The ones kept were a little too over simplified, save for Houston's. That's actually pretty nice. The Vipers, IMO, is an upgrade over the original. San Antonio NOT against a dark gray background. 1 Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOOVER Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 1 minute ago, VDizzle12 said: Lots of "meh" logos here. All the new logos are downgrades except for maybe Seattle. The Renegades logo looks like it was designed for Dallas and then they just decided to leave the D in there. Guardians doesn't fit well with Orlando and I have no idea what's going on with that Vipers logo. Seriously, the longer I look at these, the worse they get. What the hell is that Renegades logo? !? The was the only holdover worth anything; it was a modern classic. Jeepers creepers. I love Orlando's color choice, and the San Antonio Yellow has potential if paired with Dark Grey as teased yesterday (but absent in today's reveal). Can't believe they just recycled Seattle & St. Louis, who were horrific to begin with. I've got a report to complete, but I'll be back to critique this in full. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 9 minutes ago, Volt said: Seriously, the longer I look at these, the worse they get. What the hell is that Renegades logo? !? The was the only holdover worth anything; it was a modern classic. Jeepers creepers. I love Orlando's color choice, and the San Antonio Yellow has potential if paired with Dark Grey as teased yesterday (but absent in today's reveal). Can't believe they just recycled Seattle & St. Louis, who were horrific to begin with. I've got a report to complete, but I'll be back to critique this in full. Fully disagree (with quite a bit here, actually). Here's all the logos against a white background. My PERSONAL tidbits: - Arlington Renegades: Clearly looks like it was intended for the name to remain DALLAS. In that case, it would've made a great secondary logo. But doesn't quite work as a primary and is not as good as the original - DC Defenders: Kind of a lateral, yet good, move. A simplification that works. - Houston Roughnecks: Probably my favorite of the holdovers. Simplified (and de-Oilerfied) very well. Clearly still presents as an 'H' and oil derrick while looking less like it's predecessors in H-town. Also less detail helps. - Orlando Guardians: Still don't think this was the best place to send that name. But the logo looks like some internet concept of someone trying to "improve" upon the original. - San Antonio Brahamas: Not a bad take on a bull logo. Colors are a plus. - Seattle Sea Dragons: Improved name by adding "Sea" and I like the idea of a full bodied sea dragon forming an 'S', but it feel like it could've had just a little bit more detail without going overboard. Overall, not bad. - St. Louis Battlehawks: Again, I feel it was a little oversimplified. I understand removing some detail, but the hard corner points make it a little jagged. Still plan on finally attending a game. - Vegas Vipers: IMO, an upgrade over the original, even if a little simple. 2 Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Orlando colors are great. Name, no. Not a fan of Vegas instead of Las Vegas. Houston and Vegas should've gotten new names. St. Louis wasn't going to change at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 All of these logos are well done, though D.C.'s is not as good as the previous one. Other retained logos, especially that of Set. Louis, are improved by the removal of faux-3D clutter. The addition of green distinguishes the Guardians in Orlando from the team's origin in New York. I am also pleasantly surprised to see the retention of the D.C. Defenders' name, after a team official had said that a change was coming. My quibble is with another name. There is no good reason for the addition of the word "Sea" to the name of the Seattle Dragons. But the logos are very good, sharing an attractively clean aesthetic. A good sports logo is one that a kid can draw on his/her notebook; and these logos have that fundamental quality. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittSmith_95 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 So, this a mixed bag. Arlington: Boring. This is not just a downgrade, it doesn't even look like an "R". DC: The Defenders old logo was fine. This is bland, and generic. Downgrade. Houston: Lateral at best, but overall a nice logo. Definitely won't cause Oilers confusions anymore. Orlando: I really dig this? The colours are distinct, the logo looks good, the only thing I'm not huge on is the name itself. San Antonio: Opposite of Orlando. Love the name, hate the colours and logo. Sure, it's one Dwayne's nicknames from his wrestling days, but it fits a football team. Just wish the logo was stronger. Seattle: I.... like this? I feel like it's going to look great on a helmet if done right, colours pop.... name's a little cheesy though. Much like the Kraken moniker, I assume it will grow on me. St. Louis: Battlehawks are back. Good. Did anything about this logo change? Vegas: This one does nothing for me. It's too generic for it's own good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonBull9584 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Here are the secondary logos: 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Vegas Vipers and the secondary logo is LV 4 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 8 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said: Here are the secondary logos: Renegades should be reversed (same for the location name change). Defenders, like how they kept the shield. Looks better here honestly. I love the Roughnecks identity the more and more I see it, especially with the nice secondary logo. I'm guessing Orlando's is supposed to be an 'OG'? Not sure. A little plain. Seattle's is... meh, I guess. Don't know why it's rotated. Feels like it was done just because. Battlehawks' works as maybe a under the collar logo, but as a secondary, a little too basic. Vipers's LV feels like it doesn't go with the primary at all. 5 Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonBull9584 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Arlington: Why is the "R" the primary logo and the old primary is the secondary now? Just switch them. DC: Primary and secondary should be switched. I liked how the secondary is the old primary, but now in the shape of The Pentagon. Houston: I liked the old logo, but this is fine. Orlando: I hope it grows on me. Just nothing about "Guardians" feels like Florida like the Apollos, Tuskers, or Vipers did. San Antonio: It's ok. The name is odd, but the logo is ok. Seattle: Downgrade from previous. At least it's more obvious what the primary team colors are. But why add "Sea"? Dragons was fine. St. Louis. I actually like this better than the previous. Sharper. Vegas: Okay, I like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 9 minutes ago, Sykotyk said: Vegas Vipers and the secondary logo is LV Too make sure everyone knows they're really LAS Vegas and not... Vegas, Puerto Rico, I guess? Or Mr. Vegas? Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavybass Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 So Vipers moved to Vegas, good call. Renegades moving to Orlando bad call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosioux76 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 15 minutes ago, Sykotyk said: Vegas Vipers and the secondary logo is LV And in what appears to be a completely different typeface. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 8 minutes ago, Sykotyk said: Vegas Vipers and the secondary logo is LV There’s simply no excuse for that type of inconsistency and lack of attention to detail in a modern professional sports branding package. You’re either the Vegas Vipers or the Las Vegas Vipers and your visual branding should consistently reflect one or the other. Further, the sleek, modern treatment of the stylized V-fangs that makes up the primary mark clash horribly with the Western-style font in which the LV secondary logo is rendered. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 16 minutes ago, Sykotyk said: Vegas Vipers and the secondary logo is LV Doesn't every other team not named the Raiders do that? 6 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said: San Antonio: It's ok. The name is odd, but the logo is ok. They just took the Black Adam logo and merged it into a new logo. 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.