XFL 2023: Third Time's the Charm!

[Cujo]

3 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

4 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

I get they want a merger. But both the USFL and XFL names have name recognition. Seems ridiculous to move away from both of them. 

 

They're also both associated with multiple (now) failures. You'll tick off some part of the fanbase by keeping one of the names. Changing seems less bad.

 

When the new "UXFL" or whatever this renamed league fails, who owns/retains the XFL brand for when they give it a 4th shot in 2028?

[MJWalker45]

13 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

When the new "UXFL" or whatever this renamed league fails, who owns/retains the XFL brand for when they give it a 4th shot in 2028?

Saudi Arabia

[HOOVER]

2 hours ago, McCall said:

When it comes to deciding what teams stay and what teams get dropped? If you think it does, then maybe your opinion should be the one in question. Market viability and venue access are the only things that are going to determine whether a team will be successful in either league, individually or merged.

 

I understand your position, but if you place a horrible identity in a great market, it'll likely still bomb, just as placing a great identity into a poor market can still bomb.  

The point is that identity is critical.  

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

 

The USFL already proved identity means nothing by changing the Maulers and Showboats colors and retiring the Bandits. Since most of the XFL teams had direct flights from DFW, location away from the rest of the teams only matters to the fans. I also wonder if we see a Birmingham hub for one half of the league and keep the DFW hub for the other half. The USFL model was to put teams in the area they played. That could have been a bit more expensive than the single locations. 

Agreed. First week of March should be the latest this happens, and even then it's at the far end of when you should start.

 

I wouldn't agree that changing the color schemes qualifies as a complete identity change.  In these cases, it was a correction (Pittsburgh, especially).  

Moose said they really didn't want to leave Tampa and that they'd go back, so I don't think you pin that one on the Bandits identity.

 

I think our opinion here differs as you guys are thinking of it from a short-term, geographic viability standpoint, which is totally valid...for the league to survive the first 1, 2, 3 seasons.  I look at it from a branding perspective first, more as a long-term viability prospect, which is perhaps short-sighted.  Different lens.

[MJWalker45]

Just now, HOOVER said:

  I look at it from a branding perspective first, 

But that's the issue with the Maulers. Their brand was purple and orange, and changing over to match teams in a city they aren't even playing in made little sense to me.  Getting rid of Tampa seemed to be more about color balance in the league, which tells me they didn't even consider it when choosing the original 8 teams. Even the AAF considered that, though to be fair they were trying to cut corners wherever they could to give the impression of being better financed than they were. 

 

[McCall]

15 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

 

I understand your position, but if you place a horrible identity in a great market, it'll likely still bomb, just as placing a great identity into a poor market can still bomb.  

The point is that identity is critical.  

No. It's not. They are most definitely not gonna pick a location without a stadium or sustainable market over one that has both just because they like the name and uniforms better. You can change a team identity far more easily than you can change locations.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

21 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

...if you place a horrible identity in a great market, it'll likely still bomb, just as placing a great identity into a poor market can still bomb.  

The point is that identity is critical.  

 

Right. If identity meant nothing, then no one would have paid one cent for the team names and logos of the USFL or for the XFL name. From the other football, we have seen the importance of idenity in the persistence of the identities Seattle Sounders, Tampa Bay Rowdies, New York Cosmos, and, if you include indoor, Baltimore Blast, San Diego Sockers, and Kansas City Comets.

 

Having a good identity is certainly no guarantee of success, but it is a very important component.

[McCall]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Right. If identity meant nothing, then no one would have paid one cent for the team names and logos of the USFL or for the XFL name. From the other football, we have seen the importance of idenity in the persistence of the identities Seattle Sounders, Tampa Bay Rowdies, New York Cosmos, and, if you include indoor, Baltimore Blast, San Diego Sockers, and Kansas City Comets.

 

Having a good identity is certainly no guarantee of success, but it is a very important component.

But it's not the determination, actually far down the list of requirements, for which markets stay and which get dropped.

[Cujo]

12 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

21 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

  I look at it from a branding perspective first, 

 

But that's the issue with the Maulers. Their brand was purple and orange, and changing over to match teams in a city they aren't even playing in made little sense to me.  Getting rid of Tampa seemed to be more about color balance in the league

 

Aside from the uniqueness Michigan Panthers' burgundy/columbia, the the USFL teams who are left standing after the merger should bail on most of their other red identities.

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

Aside from the uniqueness Michigan Panthers' burgundy/columbia, the the USFL teams who are left standing after the merger should bail on most of their other red identities.

I don't think it's an issue if either, or both, New Jersey or Philadelphia get the chop. Birmingham and Michigan are the other red identities and other than D.C. there's no real red identity in the XFL squads. 

 

[Skycast]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

When the new "UXFL" or whatever this renamed league fails, who owns/retains the XFL brand for when they give it a 4th shot in 2028?

 

I vote for the United Spring Football League.

[Cujo]

After trimming the fat, gonna assume the UXFL might look something like this:

 

Birmingham Stallions

Dallas Renegades

DC Defenders

Houston Gamblers

Memphis Showboats

Michigan Panthers

Orlando Guardians

San Antonio Brahamas

Seattle Sea Dragons

St Louis Battlehawks

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

But that's the issue with the Maulers. Their brand was purple and orange, and changing over to match teams in a city they aren't even playing in made little sense to me.  Getting rid of Tampa seemed to be more about color balance in the league, which tells me they didn't even consider it when choosing the original 8 teams. Even the AAF considered that, though to be fair they were trying to cut corners wherever they could to give the impression of being better financed than they were. 

 

 

But in a city like Pittsburgh, where the Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins are Black & Gold, a team that is Purple & Orange doesn't stand a chance.  Even the Riverhounds SC is Black & Gold.  It was a logical change.

Agree on the '22-23 USFL's color problem...way too much Red.  They tried to fix that with the Showboats by changing their colors, given they were also a Red team.  

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

No. It's not. They are most definitely not gonna pick a location without a stadium or sustainable market over one that has both just because they like the name and uniforms better. You can change a team identity far more easily than you can change locations.

Yes, it is.  I'm not advocating for putting a great brand in a terrible market; I'm telling you that a terrible identity will sink a team in a great market.  

 

You said it's not important.  It is.

[MJWalker45]

Just now, HOOVER said:

 

But in a city like Pittsburgh, where the Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins are Black & Gold, a team that is Purple & Orange doesn't stand a chance.  Even the Riverhounds SC is Black & Gold.  It was a logical change.

Agree on the '22-23 USFL's color problem...way too much Red.  They tried to fix that with the Showboats by changing their colors, given they were also a Red team.  

But if we're talking about an identity, black and gold isn't a Maulers identity. Changing colors to match everyone else in town smacks of minor leagues to me. You've been purple and orange forever, granted you only played one season since 1986. Unless you completely change your identity there's no reason to change your colors. I also wonder if they just get moved to Colorado and become the Denver Gold. 

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

Aside from the uniqueness Michigan Panthers' burgundy/columbia, the the USFL teams who are left standing after the merger should bail on most of their other red identities.

Agree that there's too much Red, but I think the USFL identities have more brand equity than the XFL identities; I wouldn't take Red away from the Generals or Stars, per se, but I would add Navy to the DC Defenders, in the absence of the Roughnecks, in order to minimize some Red in the league.  
 

Summary:  I'd prioritize preserving USFL brands over XFL brands, who have 1-2 years of history.

[HOOVER]

2 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

But if we're talking about an identity, black and gold isn't a Maulers identity. Changing colors to match everyone else in town smacks of minor leagues to me. You've been purple and orange forever, granted you only played one season since 1986. Unless you completely change your identity there's no reason to change your colors. I also wonder if they just get moved to Colorado and become the Denver Gold. 

 

I'd say this is fair in most cities, with Pittsburgh being the exception, since the majority of their teams have an identity that is now synonymous with the city.   

I grew up in PA and lived in PGH for 11 years.  If you're not Black & Gold, you're not Pittsburgh.  Pitt gets the only pass.

[HOOVER]

31 minutes ago, Cujo said:

After trimming the fat, gonna assume the UXFL might look something like this:

 

Birmingham Stallions

Dallas Renegades

DC Defenders

Houston Gamblers

Memphis Showboats

Michigan Panthers

Orlando Guardians

San Antonio Brahamas

Seattle Sea Dragons

St Louis Battlehawks

The travel logistics must drive the leaders of these leagues nuts.  Seattle makes sense from an attendance standpoint, but has to be an expensive one to keep. 

 

How did the New Jersey Generals draw?  Do they have a good venue to play in?  I could see them wanting another Northeast team, especially one in the New York market.  Perhaps Seattle gets dropped for New York, which is easier on travel to DC, Detroit, and Orlando.

[McCall]

4 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

The travel logistics must drive the leaders of these leagues nuts.  Seattle makes sense from an attendance standpoint, but has to be an expensive one to keep. 

 

How did the New Jersey Generals draw?  Do they have a good venue to play in?  I could see them wanting another Northeast team, especially one in the New York market.  Perhaps Seattle gets dropped for New York, which is easier on travel to DC, Detroit, and Orlando.

Where are they gonna play? The Guardians didn't do well at MetLife and not sure if they can get Red Bull Arena. So until NYCFC's stadium is completed (and assuming they'd get permission to use it), where would a NY area team play? The Generals identity doesn't solve that problem.

[kmccarthy27]

4 minutes ago, McCall said:

Where are they gonna play? The Guardians didn't do well at MetLife and not sure if they can get Red Bull Arena. So until NYCFC's stadium is completed (and assuming they'd get permission to use it), where would a NY area team play? The Generals identity doesn't solve that problem.

The NY UFL team played at Hofstra University, so they could use that