USFL (Alt History)

[BengalErnst]

As a day one glory fan. Make the switch 

[WideRight]

OK guys, a Chris Creamer exclusive.  The three bids for the final 2008 expansion team should go live on Thursday, when the Week 7 Midseason Report is published, but I will release each bid here first, complete with team colors, nickname, logo, and helmet design. 

 

Three very different designs and motifs for 3 very different bidding groups.  Today I will release the NC Triangle bid (including a special peak at their secondary logo which appears nowhere else unless this team becomes the winner.   Tomorrow I will release the Charlotte bid, and then Tuesday the Tidewater/Hampton Roads bid.   

 

Voting will begin on Thursday, along with a comment section on the webpage where you can try to persuade your "fellow owners" at the owners' meeting to vote for the best bid.  

 

So, here is your sneak peak at the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill bid.... The Carolina Surge. 

 

 

And a special extra peak, the secondary logo, which those of you old enough to remember the early days of the Arena Football League may recognize as a modified version of one of the classic Arenaball clubs.  

 

[raz]

1 hour ago, WideRight said:

OK guys, a Chris Creamer exclusive.  The three bids for the final 2008 expansion team should go live on Thursday, when the Week 7 Midseason Report is published, but I will release each bid here first, complete with team colors, nickname, logo, and helmet design. 

 

Three very different designs and motifs for 3 very different bidding groups.  Today I will release the NC Triangle bid (including a special peak at their secondary logo which appears nowhere else unless this team becomes the winner.   Tomorrow I will release the Charlotte bid, and then Tuesday the Tidewater/Hampton Roads bid.   

 

Voting will begin on Thursday, along with a comment section on the webpage where you can try to persuade your "fellow owners" at the owners' meeting to vote for the best bid.  

 

So, here is your sneak peak at the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill bid.... The Carolina Surge. 

 

 

And a special extra peak, the secondary logo, which those of you old enough to remember the early days of the Arena Football League may recognize as a modified version of one of the classic Arenaball clubs.  

 

What a great idea to use that Sacramento Surge logo, and to pull in the... Detroit Drive! 

[Blindsay]

The Surge Logo looks more 1998 than 2008…

[WideRight]

 

3 hours ago, Blindsay said:

The Surge Logo looks more 1998 than 2008…

Yeah, that is a bit hard to avoid as I pull ideas/designs from everything from WLAF to XFL, to AAF, to XFL 3.0, UFL, etc.   Sometimes the eras are not exact because there is something of a limited pool.  The same is true for color schemes, the Surge colors are way more 90's than mid 2000's, and they are not going to be the worst offenders on that front.  

 

I still think it is the kind of a logo that makes sense for a USFL squad, more than most of the 2001 XFL logos do.  

 

And, while I am here, let's release the 2nd of the 3 bids.

 

The Tidewater Football Group has revealed their design, and to the very likely surprise of no one, the design is based almost exclusively on the 2011 Virginia Destroyers of the UFL.   I modified the shape of the ship a bit, using elements of the AAF San Diego Fleet, and they won't have a torpedo helmet stripe, but the colors and the main logo are very much based on the Destroyers from the UFL.    The question is, can the Norfolk/Virginia Beach region win out over the two wealthier NC regions, especially with the worst current stadium situation of the three?

 

 

The Tidewater Group's bid logo now becomes a secondary logo for the team as well, though this logo is unlikely to appear on the uniform. 

 

[raz]

I like it, but just for the cleverness of using the triangle S, I like the Surge so far. 

 

Let's see what Charlotte has to offer. 

[BengalErnst]

The Surge could’ve been perfect with the XFL Birmingham Bolts helmet at least haha.. give the 2001 XFL a little love 

[WideRight]

And the third expansion bid, the Charlotte Monarchs.

 

The sharp-eyed will notice elements from both the London Monarchs (WLAF/NFLE) and the Atlanta Legends (AAF).  The color scheme is heavily influenced by the Charlotte Hornets NBA club, which I explain away by having Larry Johnson and Muggsy Bogues among the ownership group.  No pinstripe jerseys, I promise, but a healthy dose of teal and purple (which I know is very 1990's, but is in play here because of the former Hornets).    

 

This design does not yet have a secondary logo.  I want to do something other than another variation on the crown (since already the main logo is not the same as the helmet logo), but want to avoid the cliche of a lion.  

 

 

So, you now have all 3.  Starting Thursday at the website you can vote for which club you think should join the USFL in 2008.  You can also use the comment thread on the page to try to sway others.   The polling will stay open through Week 11's recap and then the winner will be announced in Week 13's recap. 

 

 

[Bomba Tomba]

15 hours ago, BengalErnst said:

The Surge could’ve been perfect with the XFL Birmingham Bolts helmet at least haha.. give the 2001 XFL a little love 

Yes, this, maybe even the colors too

[WideRight]

21 minutes ago, Bomba Tomba said:

Yes, this, maybe even the colors too

If Surge wins, I could see a makeover sometime between 2008-2023 that could move them more to a Birmingham Bolts style helmet.  That is possible.   Honestly, most teams, particularly those not originally part of the USFL, are likely not going to look exactly the same in 2023 as they do in 2006/2008, so that is certainly a possibility. 

[Dozap17]

Of the three options I'm most impressed with the Charlotte Monarchs pitch; the color scheme and the design work very well with the NFL Europe and AAF elements mixed together in the logo

[sky1324]

Big fan of the Charlotte bid, it's easily my favorite brand of the three. I wish the crown had a C instead of an M but that's a minor complaint. Good choice to use teal and purple, especially after the original Hornets' departure that would be a great way to connect to the city.

[Brian in Boston]

I’d  personally rank the identity packages…

 

1st - Virginia Destroyers

2nd - Charlotte Monarchs

3rd - Carolina Surge

 

… with the Destroyers’ brand striking me as being clearly preferable to that of the Monarchs (I’m not a huge fan of the Teal as the primary color in the latter), and both the Destroyers’ and Monarchs’ identities absolutely  outclassing that of the Surge.

 

I’ll be interested in seeing whether a secondary logo for the Monarchs can close the gap that I perceive between the top two packages, but it would have to be one hell of an ancillary mark.

 

 

[ManillaToad]

Torn between voting for Charlotte because it's by far the best looking, or Virginia because I like the idea of USFL teams in untapped markets

[Chi-Tex_Kidd]

love this series inspired me to make my own league series but I think your league has ran into a predicament where some teams don’t match the time frame at all 

[Chi-Tex_Kidd]

specifically the surge look too 80s and the monarch’s look to 20s but the destroyers look time period appropriate and great 

[BengalErnst]

What screams 2020 about the Monarchs logo other than it was the logo for a team in 2019? 

[WideRight]

17 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

 

 

I’ll be interested in seeing whether a secondary logo for the Monarchs can close the gap that I perceive between the top two packages, but it would have to be one hell of an ancillary mark.

 

 

Brian, (et al),

 

So after many variations, many other concepts, and a few very weird turns, here is my proposed 2ndary logo for the Monarchs.   It is based on the Hudson Valley Fort of the short-lived FXFL.  A lot more purple-dominant, than the primary, but still hopefully works as a part of the same basic identity package.   I have 2 versions and would love some feedback on which works best.  

 

 

And I have to say that I agree with the idea that trying to mimic styles of a particular 5-10 year period of design and at the same time stick to existing logos at the same time is a huge issue.  The truth is that I have had to be flexible, pulling designs from a limited number of real world or concept logos to try to show progression over time.  There are just not a lot of good options in each time period.  For me WLAF/NFLE designs are the closest to the original USFL aesthetic.  XFL 1.0 was very far from that look, very "xtreme and kewl", which is just not the USFL.  The only other option between 2000-2010 is the UFL, which had only a handful of teams, and then you have to wait until 2019-2023 for the AAF, XFL 2.0, XFL 3.0, and USFL 2.0.   I did not find a lot in arena football that would work, thought there are some very good logos in that league (Rattlers, for example).   So, in an effort to try to repurpose actual logos, the timeframe is not always going to align perfectly.  The minimalism of the 2020's vs. the love of gradients or multiple outline complex wordmarks earlier in the decade, the obsession with darkening colors and BFBS, or the explosion of teal and purple in the 90's, are just not all going to perfectly fit into the USFL alt history timeline.  it is an inherent issue with the limitations of the alt history genre, as well as with my efforts to stick with real world designs as much as I can, rather than just inventing a league from scratch. 

 

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, WideRight said:

 

 

I prefer Version 1. I don’t think the teal turret roof adds anything to the design. In fact, I prefer the stylization of the C into a tower better in the first version of the mark.

[Chi-Tex_Kidd]

2 hours ago, WideRight said:

Brian, (et al),

 

So after many variations, many other concepts, and a few very weird turns, here is my proposed 2ndary logo for the Monarchs.   It is based on the Hudson Valley Fort of the short-lived FXFL.  A lot more purple-dominant, than the primary, but still hopefully works as a part of the same basic identity package.   I have 2 versions and would love some feedback on which works best.  

 

 

And I have to say that I agree with the idea that trying to mimic styles of a particular 5-10 year period of design and at the same time stick to existing logos at the same time is a huge issue.  The truth is that I have had to be flexible, pulling designs from a limited number of real world or concept logos to try to show progression over time.  There are just not a lot of good options in each time period.  For me WLAF/NFLE designs are the closest to the original USFL aesthetic.  XFL 1.0 was very far from that look, very "xtreme and kewl", which is just not the USFL.  The only other option between 2000-2010 is the UFL, which had only a handful of teams, and then you have to wait until 2019-2023 for the AAF, XFL 2.0, XFL 3.0, and USFL 2.0.   I did not find a lot in arena football that would work, thought there are some very good logos in that league (Rattlers, for example).   So, in an effort to try to repurpose actual logos, the timeframe is not always going to align perfectly.  The minimalism of the 2020's vs. the love of gradients or multiple outline complex wordmarks earlier in the decade, the obsession with darkening colors and BFBS, or the explosion of teal and purple in the 90's, are just not all going to perfectly fit into the USFL alt history timeline.  it is an inherent issue with the limitations of the alt history genre, as well as with my efforts to stick with real world designs as much as I can, rather than just inventing a league from scratch. 

 

I understand did not mean to attack you as I see that you have limited ideas to pull from still love the series and would love to see a league map of sorts