XFL 2023 Logos, Names and Uniforms

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, RichMGH said:

For the naysayers… show me the NFL brand work of the last 5 years that’s better

I won’t attempt to speak for anyone else. I’d just say that my less than enthusiastic response to this morning’s XFL team identity  rollout is based upon what I perceive to be the strengths and/or shortcomings of each XFL team’s individual branding in its own right. As such, I don’t see a need to compare the subpar brand work of this year’s XFL teams to the subpar brand work trotted out by NFL teams over the past 5 years. Middling work is middling work, regardless of team or league.

[MJWalker45]

7 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

I won’t attempt to speak for anyone else. I’d just say that my less than enthusiastic response to this morning’s XFL team identity  rollout is based upon what I perceive to be the strengths and/or shortcomings of each XFL team’s individual branding in its own right. As such, I don’t see a need to compare the subpar brand work of this year’s XFL teams to the subpar brand work trotted out by NFL teams over the past 5 years. Middling work is middling work, regardless of team or league.

The only actual NFL logo changes in the last few years was the Commanders, and I think every logo here would be better than that monstrosity. 

[FiddySicks]

The Vegas Vipers? Really? 
 

Yeah, these all suck. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

17 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

The Vegas Vipers? Really? 
 

Yeah, these all suck. 

 

"Vegas (anything)" sucks.  But "Las Vegas Vipers" would be a good name.  

[raz]

5 hours ago, Volt said:

 

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 kinda think funding is a better indicator... 

[WideRight]

Got to say these are not good.  They took decent/good concepts from 2020 and made most worst, and the new ones are some of the worst yet.  Well below the standards we saw in the AAF and even the reinvented versions of classic USFL logos in the  new USFL.  Not a good confidence builder for me that the XFL 3.0 will be worth following over the USFL.    Here is my quick summary, from best to worst:

 

HOUSTON: The best of a bad lot.  At least it looks like a professional logo, has solid colors, and a clear visual image.  The secondary is a good addition, though I liked the hardhat guy from 2020.   It still feels oil-industry related without being a clear homage to the Oilers. 

 

ARLINGTON:  The only reason this is #2 is because they are keeping the masked bandit as the 2nd logo.  The primary is laughable.  If the team were the Dallas Renegades, then the logo would at least make some sense.  It is clear that they did not pivot away from it when they were told to name the team Arlington.  That is pretty bad.   What about that logo says anything other than D + R?

 

DC: Another team that gets some credit for updating the original Defenders logo.  I like the reshaping into a pentagon.  The "main" logo is boring and does not speak to the team identity. 

 

ST. LOUIS:  I never really cared for the original.  Named after a helicopter (maybe), when just "Hawks" would make sense, or Skyhawks (with alliteration), but at least the revised version keeps somewhat close to the original.  Now if they could just avoid overcrowding the helmet with both the wings and the sword on it. 

 

SEATTLE:  The first of the truly bad downgrades. The 2ndary is at least interesting, but when you compare the primary to the 2020 version it is clearly a downgrade.  I wish I could put them lower, in part because the addition of "Sea" to the name is totally unnecessary and because they took a pretty good logo and made it clearly worse.

 

ORLANDO:  The name makes no sense for the city.  The logo makes no sense for the name.  Is that a cougar?  In what way is a cougar a "Guardian"?  The connection with gargoyles when the team was in NY/NJ was tenuous at best.  Now there is no connection at all.  And, I will say right now that I think this color scheme is a disaster.  I hated the Tampa Bay Vipers colors, and this looks like it could be worse.  Highlighter pen green with grey (because you know it won't be metallic on the unis) is not a good combo.   This is a huge downgrade from the NY version. 

 

LAS VEGAS:  Another big downgrade.  I did not like the Tampa Bay Vipers look, but at least it seemed like a sports logo and the secondary snake head logo was decent.  This is not a sports logo.  This is a new scent of Axe bodyspray, or maybe an energy drink logo.  It is 100 kinds of bad, as in I can picture a dude-bro chugging a can of Vegas Viper caffeine jolt before he works on his pecs at the Golds Gym.  

 

SAN ANTONIO:  WTF is this?  Seriously?  Is it a bull's head, or lightening?  It honestly looks like a plucked turkey or chicken if you splay out the wings.  Seriously, I cannot not see that now.  The colors are bad, especially for a team in Texas with a western/agriculture motif.  The B is totally lost, and actually looks more like an R than a B.   At least the secondary logo is passable, but that is not saying much.  The primary logo is trying too hard to be "kewl", almost like it was designed for a pro wrestler instead of a football team. Funny how that seems to be the case.  I am fine with the name, but there are so many ways to portray a bull (Jacksonville, your USFL is calling) that are better than this.  It's another Axe scent or energy drink instead of a sports logo.    Compare this logo to the logos of the USFL Gunslingers, AAF Commanders, even the WFL Wings and I think it comes in dead last.  

 

I get it.  I am too old for the marketing on the new XFL.  These designs feel very e-sports to me, which is not something I enjoy.   Just let me keep the new version of the USFL along with the other 50-somethings and I will just let the XFL fade away in my consciousness.  The first one was a joke.  The 2020 version had some potential.   This one is starting poorly.  

 

[tBBP]

Okay, so...having taken some of this in:

 

*INHALES LIKE ACE VENTURA*

 

I'm quite curious to see the creative brief on this project...just to gain some idea of the bounds and/or restrictions placed on the directive. All of this is of course purely soeculative, but I think I can already identify at least one possible: "each team must have a direct or implied letter lockup (monogram) mark, be it primary or secondary". I can't quite make or any other possible ones, other than "all the identities must be refreshed in some way" (with the exception of the all-new San Antonio identity). I point this out because [for those who've yet to engage in the professional designer/client transaction] these are the kinds of things that can happen, and the more restrictive (or insistent) the client--in this case, Dwayne Johnson/Dany Garcia/the XFL or some combination of such--the more it can inhibit the creative process...but that's a challenge most designers have faced at some point or another, some several times over. Some clients may give the designers they hire carte blanche on a project...but clearly this wasn't one of those times. 

 

All that said...something else strikes me as strange about all this. IIRC, didn't Joe Bosack handle the previous go-round of XFL identities? (I see a lot of his signature trademark illustration style in those.) If so--and even if not--I wonder if whoever they used for this go-round to alter/edit from the previous ones. (If the league owns the IP, they most certainly are within their rights to do so.) 

 

With all of that said...

 

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I think it's just a trident, since Seattle Sea Dragons would still be two S's. 

 

I thought so too at first...but in both the form and orientation of that trident I can clearly see an implied "D". Whether it was intentionally for "Seattle Dragons" before they added the "Sea" or intentionally for "Sea Dragons", it works either way...and is among the strongest of the new marks in terms of execution.

 

2 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Hilarious quote from the press release:

 

*snip*

 

I know people love to remark, many times sarcastically, that some works may have only had such-and-such amount of time put into it, but I can tell you this: with the scale on which this stuff will be used, I can promise you they put a lot of time into it. That in no way defends the outcome of the final product, but just knowing a little something about the process from concept to completion, the (probably tens if not 20s) of rounds of revisions, color matching (if they thought that far) across digital, print and textile media--and we haven't even gotten to the uniforms yet--then yeah, they probably did put a whole lot of time into all this. (Of course, "a lot" is also subjective, relative to one's own experience or lack thereof.)

 

1 hour ago, RichMGH said:

For the naysayers… show me the NFL brand work of the last 5 years that’s better

 

@Brian in Boston already hit on it, BUT...since you asked, which also prompted me really think about it, then I'd say the Jets, though a/that's not saying much and b/ I surprised  myself by even mentioning them in this light.

 

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I doubt "hours" went into that new Renegades logo 

 

Reference the above...that, said, it's no easy feat taking a complex and/or abstract idea and reducing it into something that simple. I like the concept...but I definitely ain't feeling the final execution. At all. 

 

1 hour ago, Volt said:

Anyone have any idea which design firm swindled them on this crap? 

 

Don't know.  As I mentioned earlier, I think Joe Bosack handled the previous iteration of the league's branding. It wouldn't totally shock me though if the XFL 3.0 hired someone else this go-round to update/recreate these identities...which then worldly have entailed essentially "denaturing" the previous work. (Except for Houston...that update is *chef's kiss*.)

 

34 minutes ago, Skycast said:

What blows my mind is folks regularly post stuff here that is far superior to these. Makes me shake my head and wonder what they paid for these.

 

Again, reference all of the above. To that, add this: time costs $. Designers' talents/skill levels/experience being whatever they/it may be, the one thing smart/shrewd businesspeople know to charge well for is time.

[McCall]

5 minutes ago, tBBP said:

All that said...something else strikes me as strange about all this. IIRC, didn't Joe Bosack handle the previous go-round of XFL identities? (I see a lot of his signature trademark illustration style in those.) If so--and even if not--I wonder if whoever they used for this go-round to alter/edit from the previous ones. (If the league owns the IP, they most certainly are within their rights to do so.) 

 

Don't know.  As I mentioned earlier, I think Joe Bosack handled the previous iteration of the league's branding. It wouldn't totally shock me though if the XFL 3.0 hired someone else this go-round to update/recreate these identities...which then worldly have entailed essentially "denaturing" the previous work. (Except for Houston...that update is *chef's kiss*.)

Joe Bosack did all the logos for the Alliance (of American Football of Anaheim) logos, but I'm not sure he was in on XFL 2020.

[Brian in Boston]

46 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

The only actual NFL logo changes in the last few years was the Commanders, and I think every logo here would be better than that monstrosity. 

Fair enough. Still, sporting a mediocre brand identity in the XFL rather than an abysmal brand identity in the NFL isn’t much of an achievement. You should be striving to clear a higher bar than “better than that monstrosity.”
 

Ill-conceived and poorly-rendered branding is Ill-conceived and poorly-rendered branding… period. 

[McCall]

I will say, some of the holdover logos (Guardians, BattleHawks, & Vipers to precise) look like someone, who was not involved in the 2020 designs, maybe an intern, was told to recreate them without looking exactly like the old ones. And in a short amount of time.

[tBBP]

36 minutes ago, McCall said:

I will say, some of the holdover logos (Guardians, BattleHawks, & Vipers to precise) look like someone, who was not involved in the 2020 designs, maybe an intern, was told to recreate them without looking exactly like the old ones. And in a short amount of time.

 

That's my main curiosity with all of those...

[BengalErnst]

I think I'm mostly disappointed because I was looking forward to having more logos to use for my sim XFL league. I however don't want to use any of these.

[McCall]

35 minutes ago, BengalErnst said:

I think I'm mostly disappointed because I was looking forward to having more logos to use for my sim XFL league. I however don't want to use any of these.

You should've told them that beforehand.

[BengalErnst]

1 minute ago, McCall said:

You should've told them that beforehand.

Missed opportunity on my behalf

[BengalErnst]

2 hours ago, WideRight said:

Got to say these are not good.  They took decent/good concepts from 2020 and made most worst, and the new ones are some of the worst yet.  Well below the standards we saw in the AAF and even the reinvented versions of classic USFL logos in the  new USFL.  Not a good confidence builder for me that the XFL 3.0 will be worth following over the USFL.    Here is my quick summary, from best to worst:

 

HOUSTON: The best of a bad lot.  At least it looks like a professional logo, has solid colors, and a clear visual image.  The secondary is a good addition, though I liked the hardhat guy from 2020.   It still feels oil-industry related without being a clear homage to the Oilers. 

 

ARLINGTON:  The only reason this is #2 is because they are keeping the masked bandit as the 2nd logo.  The primary is laughable.  If the team were the Dallas Renegades, then the logo would at least make some sense.  It is clear that they did not pivot away from it when they were told to name the team Arlington.  That is pretty bad.   What about that logo says anything other than D + R?

 

DC: Another team that gets some credit for updating the original Defenders logo.  I like the reshaping into a pentagon.  The "main" logo is boring and does not speak to the team identity. 

 

ST. LOUIS:  I never really cared for the original.  Named after a helicopter (maybe), when just "Hawks" would make sense, or Skyhawks (with alliteration), but at least the revised version keeps somewhat close to the original.  Now if they could just avoid overcrowding the helmet with both the wings and the sword on it. 

 

SEATTLE:  The first of the truly bad downgrades. The 2ndary is at least interesting, but when you compare the primary to the 2020 version it is clearly a downgrade.  I wish I could put them lower, in part because the addition of "Sea" to the name is totally unnecessary and because they took a pretty good logo and made it clearly worse.

 

ORLANDO:  The name makes no sense for the city.  The logo makes no sense for the name.  Is that a cougar?  In what way is a cougar a "Guardian"?  The connection with gargoyles when the team was in NY/NJ was tenuous at best.  Now there is no connection at all.  And, I will say right now that I think this color scheme is a disaster.  I hated the Tampa Bay Vipers colors, and this looks like it could be worse.  Highlighter pen green with grey (because you know it won't be metallic on the unis) is not a good combo.   This is a huge downgrade from the NY version. 

 

LAS VEGAS:  Another big downgrade.  I did not like the Tampa Bay Vipers look, but at least it seemed like a sports logo and the secondary snake head logo was decent.  This is not a sports logo.  This is a new scent of Axe bodyspray, or maybe an energy drink logo.  It is 100 kinds of bad, as in I can picture a dude-bro chugging a can of Vegas Viper caffeine jolt before he works on his pecs at the Golds Gym.  

 

SAN ANTONIO:  WTF is this?  Seriously?  Is it a bull's head, or lightening?  It honestly looks like a plucked turkey or chicken if you splay out the wings.  Seriously, I cannot not see that now.  The colors are bad, especially for a team in Texas with a western/agriculture motif.  The B is totally lost, and actually looks more like an R than a B.   At least the secondary logo is passable, but that is not saying much.  The primary logo is trying too hard to be "kewl", almost like it was designed for a pro wrestler instead of a football team. Funny how that seems to be the case.  I am fine with the name, but there are so many ways to portray a bull (Jacksonville, your USFL is calling) that are better than this.  It's another Axe scent or energy drink instead of a sports logo.    Compare this logo to the logos of the USFL Gunslingers, AAF Commanders, even the WFL Wings and I think it comes in dead last.  

 

I get it.  I am too old for the marketing on the new XFL.  These designs feel very e-sports to me, which is not something I enjoy.   Just let me keep the new version of the USFL along with the other 50-somethings and I will just let the XFL fade away in my consciousness.  The first one was a joke.  The 2020 version had some potential.   This one is starting poorly.  

 

I look forward to you going ahead and fixing these per usual. Thanks in advance.

[GDAWG]

Looking at these logos again, the Renegades, Defenders, Guardians, Brahmas and Vipers do not have great logos.  St. Louis has the best one.  Houston and Seattle is alright.  

 

I think the USFL logos are better overall as those were modernized versions of classic USFL logos without significant changes.

[Cujo]

 

[PERRIN]

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The only actual NFL logo changes in the last few years was the Commanders, and I think every logo here would be better than that monstrosity. 

The LA Chargers refreshed their logo in 2020, and it was miles better than anything CFL 2023 has put out. I gotta say, I'm vastly disappointed in this set, aside from Houston, which is an upgrade in my book. St. Louis and Orlando (why?) are fine logos, but inferior to their prior looks. I highly doubt any of these logos took hours to make; most of them feel like first drafts rather than final primary logos. XFL 2020 was by far a better looking batch of teams, and even then they had some issues. Hell, I'll take the original XFL of this dreary array. Poor job across the board.

 

I'll still watch the league, but unless the uniforms knock it out of the park, I'm not particularly thrilled about doing so.

[LogoFan]

3 hours ago, PERRIN said:

I highly doubt any of these logos took hours to make; most of them feel like first drafts rather than final primary logos. 

 

Poor job across the board.

 

 

Ditto here.  The Sea Dragons primary looks like it was the first rough sketch from brain-storming on the toilet.  Clearly inspired by the original Dragons secondary logo, but about as poorly executed as if a kid did it.

[LogoFan]

Not trying to be funny here, but WTF am I looking at with that stupid Viper logo?  It doesn't look like an open mouth like the original was, not sure what the black line dividing the top and bottom parts is supposed to be.  Is it supposed to be 2 Vipers facing each other?  It's pathetic!

 

And what does the bulky, clunky secondary have in common to the sleek whateveritis?  Complete disconnect, and that's not even addressing the inconsistency with adding the "L" back in after being removed in the primary.  My God these are awful.