WideRight

Alliance of American Football - Team Names and Logos

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, kimball said:

How do the colors of the Salt Lake Stallions not scream Utah?

 

I was thinking the same thing, I think the name and colors are perfect for a Utah based franchise.

 

I'm a big fan of all of the logos and color schemes because they're no necessarily cliché choices (i.e. Arizona Hot Shots) and while the names are sort of odd (i.e. San Diego Fleet) I like that they're mostly original in pro football (exception being Express (LA -USFL) and Stallions (CFL-USA) I'm not sure most teams will draw comparisons to past teams in their respective markets and that's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wings said:

San Antonio Commanders

https://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/pro-sports/article/Commanders-ready-to-call-San-Antonio-home-13255036.php#photo-16029867

 

And they've got a few players ready for introduction as well. I'm guessing the QB's have already gone through their "mini-combine" or they will once everyone reports to San Antonio for training camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego Armada would have been a great team name, but another proposed spring league Major League Football (MLFB) announced last year the Virginia Armada as one of their teams. The others being Alabama Airbourne, Arkansas Attack, Florida Fusion, Ohio Union, Oklahoma Nation, Oregon Crash, and Texas Independence. The MLFB has been trying to get started since 2014 and will probably play a single down, but I have to wonder if that could have been a reasoning behind going with San Diego Fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OchentaYOcho88 said:

another proposed spring league Major League Football

 

:lol:

 

No, wait.  

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OchentaYOcho88 said:

San Diego Armada would have been a great team name, but another proposed spring league Major League Football (MLFB) announced last year the Virginia Armada as one of their teams. The others being Alabama Airbourne, Arkansas Attack, Florida Fusion, Ohio Union, Oklahoma Nation, Oregon Crash, and Texas Independence. The MLFB has been trying to get started since 2014 and will probably play a single down, but I have to wonder if that could have been a reasoning behind going with San Diego Fleet.

MLFB cannot even pay an accountant to perform services so they can deliver their Securities and Exchange Commission mandatory filings. $750 could've gotten the name...$2000 could have gotten them shareholder control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, kimball said:

How do the colors of the Salt Lake Stallions not scream Utah?

 

ds20-lakers_jazz3hg.jpgwinter-in-ogden-valley-in-the-wasatch-mo9146823_web1_ap17273156492740.jpgThe-Great-Salt-Lake-in-Utah.png

 

Aren't the Utes Red and White?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WideRight said:

[T]he USFL... just crushed it with the team identities and design.  Even the worst USFL teams are better than nearly everything that has come since. 

 

That depends upon how you elect to define "crushed it". Because, while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, from where I'm sitting, there was some egregiously bad branding on display in the United States Football League.

There was nothing remotely groundbreaking about team names like Bulls, Panthers, Stallions, or Stars; you could have found them being used by high school, college, or other pro teams all over the country at the time. There was nothing outside-the-box about the Invaders name; it simply aped the name of the NFL's Raiders. 

The San Antonio Gunslingers' logo was absolutely awful... a cartoonish depiction of gunfighter that looked like the cousin of Dick Dastardly from Hanna-Barbera's Wacky Races. The Orlando Renegades' logo was - for all intents and purposes - dated clip-art, even by mid-'80s design standards. The stars-and-wreath device in the New Jersey Generals' logo was more clip-art. The Philadelphia Stars' logo looked like it should have been adorning a low-budget, basic-cable network. The Pittsburgh Maulers' logo was a textbook example of how not to render the proportions of a human figure. The word mark portion of the Arizona Wranglers' logo was utter crap that didn't come close to complementing the design of the branding iron in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The thunderbolt-in-fist device in the Oakland Invaders' logo resembled nothing so much as the rough draft/first pass/thumbnail sketch for a potential mark. The Oklahoma/Arizona Outlaws' logo wouldn't have looked out of place in a Rorschach Test. The LA Express logo simplified a design idea that the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers had been using for decades, then changed the font and color scheme.

I enjoyed the United States Football League as much as anyone. Hell, I was a season ticket-holder for the Breakers' lone season in Boston. That said, my nostalgia for the USFL doesn't manifest itself in donning rose-colored glasses when it comes to honestly assessing the branding of the league's franchises. There was plenty of crap on display in the USFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

 

That depends upon how you elect to define "crushed it". Because, while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, from where I'm sitting, there was some egregiously bad branding on display in the United States Football League.

There was nothing remotely groundbreaking about team names like Bulls, Panthers, Stallions, or Stars; you could have found them being used by high school, college, or other pro teams all over the country at the time. There was nothing outside-the-box about the Invaders name; it simply aped the name of the NFL's Raiders. 

The San Antonio Gunslingers' logo was absolutely awful... a cartoonish depiction of gunfighter that looked like the cousin of Dick Dastardly from Hanna-Barbera's Wacky Races. The Orlando Renegades' logo was - for all intents and purposes - dated clip-art, even by mid-'80s design standards. The stars-and-wreath device in the New Jersey Generals' logo was more clip-art. The Philadelphia Stars' logo looked like it should have been adorning a low-budget, basic-cable network. The Pittsburgh Maulers' logo was a textbook example of how not to render the proportions of a human figure. The word mark portion of the Arizona Wranglers' logo was utter crap that didn't come close to complementing the design of the branding iron in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The thunderbolt-in-fist device in the Oakland Invaders' logo resembled nothing so much as the rough draft/first pass/thumbnail sketch for a potential mark. The Oklahoma/Arizona Outlaws' logo wouldn't have looked out of place in a Rorschach Test. The LA Express logo simplified a design idea that the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers had been using for decades, then changed the font and color scheme.

I enjoyed the United States Football League as much as anyone. Hell, I was a season ticket-holder for the Breakers' lone season in Boston. That said, my nostalgia for the USFL doesn't manifest itself in donning rose-colored glasses when it comes to honestly assessing the branding of the league's franchises. There was plenty of crap on display in the USFL.

I agree with Brian on this one. Nostalgia makes us want to look at the USFL branding far more favorably than it probably deserves. (Though the Michigan Panthers — uninspiring name excluded — were a few choices short of perfect.)

 

I get it. I look back fondly at the NASL and the WHL the same way, and each of those leagues had some atrocious designs (I love the old Minnesota Kicks, but that logo ... ).

 

That said, I just don't understand what sort of expectations you all had to make these AAFL logos and names seem so atrocious to you. They're FINE. Nothing spectacular, nothing atrocious — exactly what you should expect from a brand new minor league. 

 

Rewrite history and toss these new AAFL logos into the USFL: You'd be calling them some of the best ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:
4 hours ago, WideRight said:

[T]he USFL... just crushed it with the team identities and design.  Even the worst USFL teams are better than nearly everything that has come since. 

 

That depends upon how you elect to define "crushed it". Because, while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, from where I'm sitting, there was some egregiously bad branding on display in the United States Football League.

 

14 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I agree with Brian on this one. Nostalgia makes us want to look at the USFL branding far more favorably than it probably deserves.

 

You guys are selling the league very short.

The helmet logos of the Stars, Outlaws, and Gunslingers might have been lacking.  But their uniforms, and their choices of colours, were tremendous.  We all know the motivation for the Invaders' name; that doesn't detract from the solidness of the logo and uniforms.  The Generals had a solid brand (and I say this despite my disdain for military themes).  The Breakers and the Birmingham Stallions had beautiful looks all around, with gorgeous colours.  The Washington Federals had a good look, with an amazingly good logo.  

And then there's the class of the league, from an aesthetic point of view: the Houston Gamblers.  Their look was perfect, from the clever helmet logo, down to the tasty striping on the jersey and pants.

Image result for generals houston gamblers  Image result for kelly houston gamblers

 

No new league has come close to reaching the uniform standard set by the USFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably apples to oranges, but how many different concept leagues do we have here in which all the branding is done by an individual? No one bats an eye at that unless it’s just awful work.

 

I get none of those are for pro leagues, but if the logos are executed well I don’t see the issue. There are letter logos, an animal logo, Shield based logos, an inanimate object logo, a logo whose primary focus is a football, and some logos that have more depth than others. All the variety of most leagues is present. What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WideRight said:

uWGo8NA.jpg

 

 

Salt Lake - love the logo and some relative effort on the font.

San Antonio - looks like 2 separate logos sliced by the sword.   no red on bottom, no white on top.   red outline on top, no outline on bottom.   not cohesive at all.

 

I can live with AZ and SD.   Not fantastic, but not disappointing either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Fleet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Antonio Commanders-- with the sabre (old weapon) and Alamo imagery--  are obviously going for that 1836 event for inspiration.  But the use of "Commanders" as a name with that is a fail.

 

  • The actual military rank of commander is only present in the Navy and Air Force, neither of which had anything to do with the war for Texas independence.
  • The leader of a garrison is colloquially referred to as a "commander"; okay, and the Alamo actually had two: Travis and Bowie.  "Co-commanders.", if you will.
  • So, it's sort of like "San Antonio Two Guys at the Alamo".

 

It would have been so PERFECT and EASY to get it right and call the team the DEFENDERS.  Why, oh why, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe with the single designer is that there is no individuality. That heavy line weight throughout all the logos is just too much. Maybe if a couple of them were more traditional they would differentiate better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few more observations:

 

  • No one has said anything about the "S" in the horse's neck in the Stallions logo (maybe because it is so obvious, like they-are-hitting-you-in-the-head-with-it level of obvious)
  • The use of just "Salt Lake" for the place identifier. This puts the team in the same realm as Tampa Bay, in naming it for a body of water.  It's not Utah; it's not Salt Lake City; it's Salt Lake.  I think it was obviously done for the alliteration with Stallions, but I think it's also an inclusion thing (like it is in Tampa Bay), not just Salt Lake City but the whole Great Salt Lake Basin including Ogden and (although it's further away from Great Salt Lake and on its own Utah Lake), Provo.
  • Not sure how I feel about the Arizona Hotshots. Had really high hopes for the green-orange-yellow color scheme, but we get what is (to me) a Chicago Fire rip-off named after a cool/heroic, but VERY specific job.  I mean, it'd be like calling a team the Seals, and not after the animal, but after the Navy special forces units.
  • San Diego Fleet--  like the logo; just can't get past the name. 'Armada' seems too archaic with the modern ship imagery; 'Destroyers' might have been okay; I think 'Admirals' would have been better, but to make it perfect you would have had to throw the diamonded four stars in the logo or somehow use four stripes in there (which could have been done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

That depends upon how you elect to define "crushed it". Because, while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, from where I'm sitting, there was some egregiously bad branding on display in the United States Football League.

 

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I agree with Brian on this one. Nostalgia makes us want to look at the USFL branding far more favorably than it probably deserves. (Though the Michigan Panthers — uninspiring name excluded — were a few choices short of perfect.)

 

The two of you?  When you die, you're gonna smoke a turd in Hell for these comments.  The USFL is sacrosanct, with every bit of its identity PERFECT!

 

Okay.  I exaggerate.  But they've come closer to 'nailing it' than any league, before or since, in any sport.

 

46 minutes ago, B-Rich said:
  • San Diego Fleet--  like the logo; just can't get past the name. 'Armada' seems too archaic with the modern ship imagery; 'Destroyers' might have been okay; I think 'Admirals' would have been better, but to make it perfect you would have had to throw the diamonded four stars in the logo or somehow use four stripes in there (which could have been done).

 

When San Diego was mentioned as a franchise location, I immediately thought of six different nautical nickname possibilities, of which "Fleet" was, well, not one.  I did ultimately think of "Fleet," but couldn't imagine them actually using it because such better options were available.  

 

I want to see these in a collateral context before making any hard-line judgments, but based on these marks alone, to me they get maybe, maybe a "C" on team nickname selection.  Fraser's Apollos design raises the overall grade for the marks, but the Legends mark drags it right back down again.  Given the tight time and weird name constraints Joe had to be under with the rest?  I'd give the design work itself a "B."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, B-Rich said:

Few more observations:

  • The use of just "Salt Lake" for the place identifier. This puts the team in the same realm as Tampa Bay, in naming it for a body of water.  It's not Utah; it's not Salt Lake City; it's Salt Lake.  I think it was obviously done for the alliteration with Stallions, but I think it's also an inclusion thing (like it is in Tampa Bay), not just Salt Lake City but the whole Great Salt Lake Basin including Ogden and (although it's further away from Great Salt Lake and on its own Utah Lake), Provo.

 

As a native Utahn, it's not on the same level as Tampa Bay. Provo or Ogden could care less if it's Salt Lake or Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is hardly referred to as such by locals, it's usually simply Salt Lake or Downtown Salt Lake if you're talking about the city itself. 

 

Plus, Salt Lake Stallions sounds much better than Salt Lake City Stallions -- like Real Salt Lake/Real Salt Lake City or Salt Lake Bees/Salt Lake City Bees. The name becomes too long and cumbersome, kinda like how the Vegas Golden Knights didn't go with Las Vegas Golden Knights. 

 

Anyways, I'm okay with the name. It's something different and not bee or pioneer related. That in and of itself is good.

 

 

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.