This is the UFL! (XFL/USFL Merger)

[McCall]

7 minutes ago, CS85 said:

I still think they should go with LOAF:  League of Alternative Football, with the catchphrase, "Let's Get This Bread."

Why not League of AMERICAN Football?

[MJWalker45]

58 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

In that case, maybe it was a logistical measure that caused it, like obtaining a venue lease in time for March 2024.

Moving the schedule forward from what it was for the USFL probably plays a role here.

8 hours ago, Cujo said:

They can't drop a team in Canton and just rebrand as "Ohio" to also represent Cleveland, Columbus and Cincy? It's been done before.

 

If they were going to stay with USFL branding, they were probably hamstrung with which name to use.  Canton may still be in play this coming year anyways, because Rice Stadium's dates sliding back may cause the school to decide not to let the Gamblers use it. 

Around the 30 minute mark they discuss the possibility of Canton still being in play. I would just call the team the Aviators or Linemen form TSL and go with that. Calling them the Gamblers for a year, then moving the team to Houston would also be a possibility, but are they going to be called Canton, or do you call them Houston expecting that they'll be leaving after a season? 

 

[raysox]

Unsure what you guys disappointed that there's only 8 teams post-merger want. They went with the 3 USFL cities that they had stadium deals with, the top 3 in attendance in XFL, the city with a team in both, and a team that takesthe highest priority in their home stadium. They picked the strongest 8 options i feel moving forward. Seattle got bumped to thursday night games  twice by the Sounders. Just kinda the reality of it.

Plus have you seen the quality of play at the NFL level? Have to condense a little bit for stability. Hell, after a couple years put a team in Ohio and San Diego. But now I think theyre trying to catch their footing.

[McCall]

6 minutes ago, raysox said:

Unsure what you guys disappointed that there's only 8 teams post-merger want. They went with the 3 USFL cities that they had stadium deals with, the top 3 in attendance in XFL, the city with a team in both, and a team that takesthe highest priority in their home stadium. They picked the strongest 8 options i feel moving forward. Seattle got bumped to thursday night games  twice by the Sounders. Just kinda the reality of it.

Plus have you seen the quality of play at the NFL level? Have to condense a little bit for stability. Hell, after a couple years put a team in Ohio and San Diego. But now I think theyre trying to catch their footing.

I really think they need a team in Orlando. One of the strongest spring football markets with 3 stadium options (including one they were already using). Ideally, I think a start with 10 (the current 8 plus Orlando and Canton since they already have stadium deals) would be a better start. I personally don't mind the 8, just would've preferred 10. Speaking of Canton, I'm not an Ohioan(?), but what is the better Ohio market for spring football; Canton or Columbus? I feel like while Canton has the HOF and probably a better stadium, Columbus is the bigger market with 2 soccer stadium options that could be used, availability notwithstanding. Maybe someone with more insight could enlighten me on the matter.

[raysox]

I'm sure Orlando could work if done right, but why should they continue to exist if they averaged 7th of 8 teams at just a shade under 9000 fans a game

[McCall]

4 minutes ago, raysox said:

I'm sure Orlando could work if done right, but why should they continue to exist if they averaged 7th of 8 teams at just a shade under 9000 fans a game

I feel the city's history of success in spring football merits more than one season to be judged on. You can just go back to 2019 and see the Apollos were #2 in the AAF in attendance at just over 19.5k per game. Now they played at UCF, which is a newer stadium. But I think it can still work. Hopefully if/when they come back, they can go back to UCF or even Exploria Stadium.

[PrimalCookie]

40 minutes ago, McCall said:

I feel the city's history of success in spring football merits more than one season to be judged on. You can just go back to 2019 and see the Apollos were #2 in the AAF in attendance at just over 19.5k per game. Now they played at UCF, which is a newer stadium. But I think it can still work. Hopefully if/when they come back, they can go back to UCF or even Exploria Stadium.

Honestly, I think that history of success is part of the reason the city largely passed on the Guardians last year. Orlando loved the Renegades, then the league folded. Orlando loved the Thunder, then the league folded. Orlando loved the Rage, then the league folded. Orlando loved the Apollos, then the league folded. So why should we care about the Guardians? The league probably won't exist in a few years anyway. At least, that was the thinking. In a way it was a self-fulfilling prophecy now that the Guardians got passed up for the merger, but I doubt many will care too much.

[MJWalker45]

59 minutes ago, raysox said:

I'm sure Orlando could work if done right, but why should they continue to exist if they averaged 7th of 8 teams at just a shade under 9000 fans a game

Choosing the right stadium would work, and Camping World isn't the right stadium, especially when they put the fans directly in the sunlight. Exploria would be the best option, but if we're looking at a permanent move to mid-March starts, that's not going to happen. I think you also need to have Tampa Bay playing at the same time as well, to get those extra casuals in.

1 hour ago, McCall said:

Speaking of Canton, I'm not an Ohioan(?), but what is the better Ohio market for spring football; Canton or Columbus? 

Canton has the allure of the original NFL cities and the Hall of Fame, and a better stadium. Columbus has the ability to host football at LDC and HCS, but the Crew would not allow that at LDC. So for the UFL, Canton is the best option going forward. Ohio Stadium just isn't going to happen. With Ohio Stadium, you'd have the same field painting issues you have with Ford Field. But I also believe that the logos and Big Ten logos are stitched in still, so that's even more of an issue in cold weather when you have to paint over those. 

 

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, raysox said:

Unsure what you guys disappointed that there's only 8 teams post-merger want. They went with the 3 USFL cities that they had stadium deals with, the top 3 in attendance in XFL, the city with a team in both, and a team that takesthe highest priority in their home stadium. They picked the strongest 8 options i feel moving forward. Seattle got bumped to thursday night games  twice by the Sounders. Just kinda the reality of it.

Plus have you seen the quality of play at the NFL level? Have to condense a little bit for stability. Hell, after a couple years put a team in Ohio and San Diego. But now I think theyre trying to catch their footing.

 

This is the correct take.

 

This merger is a retrenchment -- a restart of two leagues whose models on their own weren't likely sustainable. This was never going to be an expanded single league. And I wouldn't look at the exclusion of certain markets as a condemnation of their viability. I believe it if the merged league describes those markets as "on hold." They've got to get a firmer footing before moving back into markets where they either don't have a current stadium deal or would add excess travel demands onto their schedule. 

 

I wouldn't expect this to stay an 8-team league for long, assuming it finds a sense of stability as a merged league. That's still the big unanswered question. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 hours ago, CS85 said:

I'm assuming they'd also have to acquire the UFL trademarks and such.  It's a poor name for a league, IMO, but whatever.

 

Not only is UFL a poor name in its own right, but it's a significant step down from one of the existing names, the USFL.  The USFL name has tremendous recognition, and enjoys overwhelmingly positive associations.  To just toss away this brand equity is to create a new problem where one did not previously exist.

 

The 2024 season should rightfully be presented as the third season of the current version of the USFL, and the league's sixth season overall.

 

 

  

3 hours ago, CS85 said:

I still think they should go with LOAF:  League of Alternative Football,

 

If they can get a TV deal in Canada, then it could be:  Liaison of Inter-National Television; League of American Football, or . . .

 

LINT LOAF.

 

 

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Not only is UFL a poor name in its own right, but it's a significant step down from one of the existing names, the USFL.  The USFL name has tremendous recognition, and enjoys overwhelmingly positive associations.  To just toss away this brand equity is to create a new problem where one did not previously exist.

Since it's a split of both leagues, I don't see why one league gets preference over the other. As long as the new logo is closer to the USFL design than the XFL design I'll be happy. I also wonder what changes will occur to the USFL uniforms if Under Armour stays as the uniform provider. I figure Memphis will look like Houston, minus the split helmet designs. The Gamblers would probably just lose the grey insert on the jerseys, though I think a new uniform that's closer to the 1984 team is a better move. Birmingham's design is easy to transfer over to the UA templates. I really want UA to lean into branding and fan gear with this league like they didn't do with the XFL. The only way you could get your hands on anything that was actual league gear was to attend a season ticket member event and be lucky enough to win whatever draw was being held. I did buy the Brahmas home jersey, but it was 60% off, so I only paid $76 instead of $190. 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

If they can get a TV deal in Canada, then it could be:  Liaison of Inter-National Television; League of American Football, or . . .

 

LINT LOAF.

Fox and NBC running the league will probably be the best thing for this, as the USFL has gotten big viewing bumps after NASCAR and the Kentucky Derby. 

[gosioux76]

5 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Since it's a split of both leagues, I don't see why one league gets preference over the other.

 

That's right. It would be a different story if this were an acquisition instead of a merger. I agree that keeping USFL or XFL branding would be ideal, but it would also incorrectly suggest it was a straight-up takeover, which this isn't. 

[McCall]

I actually prefer UFL. I've come to the belief that a 3-letter initialism ending with FL sounds the most legitimate, and since AFL wouldn't be available, unless they came up with something else for A to stand for, this is the next best option, IMO. I did like how the X in XFL didn't stand for anything and met the previously stated criteria, but as mentioned, if it's a merged league, one name over the other my not feel even. SFL (Spring Football League) wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure who, if anybody, still  owns that one, but I like that UFL doesn't restrict it to a particular time of year, even if they stay there.

[gosioux76]

51 minutes ago, McCall said:

I actually prefer UFL. I've come to the belief that a 3-letter initialism ending with FL sounds the most legitimate, and since AFL wouldn't be available, unless they came up with something else for A to stand for, this is the next best option, IMO. I did like how the X in XFL didn't stand for anything and met the previously stated criteria, but as mentioned, if it's a merged league, one name over the other my not feel even. SFL (Spring Football League) wouldn't be a bad option, but not sure who, if anybody, still  owns that one, but I like that UFL doesn't restrict it to a particular time of year, even if they stay there.

 

I thought the new USFL was borne from the prior Spring Football League, or was at least initiated by that organization to the point that thy retain ownership over that brand. I night be wrong, though. 

[GDAWG]

47 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I thought the new USFL was borne from the prior Spring Football League, or was at least initiated by that organization to the point that thy retain ownership over that brand. I night be wrong, though. 

 

You are not wrong.  It did come from that.  The owner of that though left before the 2023 season to create a new league involving high schoolers:

 

Inside the ambitious idea for AAU football with Prep Super League founder Brian Woods - SBNation.com

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I thought the new USFL was borne from the prior Spring Football League, or was at least initiated by that organization to the point that thy retain ownership over that brand. I night be wrong, though. 

Fox Sports eventually bought out the original rights holders to the USFL identities and legacy. That's why there was little commentary about the original league in 2022, but a lot of parallel re-writing in 2023. 

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I thought the new USFL was borne from the prior Spring Football League, or was at least initiated by that organization to the point that thy retain ownership over that brand. I night be wrong, though. 

The Spring Football League was a league that ran in 2000 and lasted all of 4 games. San Antonio and Houston were namedthe league champs by default, with 2-0 records. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Football_League

That San Antonio uniform was interesting to say the least. 

[Sodboy13]

9 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Fox and NBC running the league will probably be the best thing for this, as the USFL has gotten big viewing bumps after NASCAR and the Kentucky Derby. 

 

I think the more likely media rights arrangement for 2024 is a split between Fox and Disney. Based solely on what I saw during the ad breaks and NBC touting how happy they were with the arrangement, I'm fairly sure the airtime on NBC Universal properties was brokered.

[Sodboy13]

On 12/1/2023 at 10:17 PM, Sodboy13 said:

 

I think the more likely media rights arrangement for 2024 is a split between Fox and Disney. Based solely on what I saw during the ad breaks and NBC touting how happy they were with the arrangement, I'm fairly sure the airtime on NBC Universal properties was brokered.

 

NBC has announced they will not be part of the broadcast package for The Mergéd League, not on the network, not on USA, not on Peacock, because, gosh darn it, they just have too much golf to show, and definitely not because of that other thing I mentioned in the quote above.

 

https://awfulannouncing.com/nbc/usfl-xfl-games-wont-broadcast-golf.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[MJWalker45]

 

NBC out of the UFL broadcast package. Fox, ESPN. ABC, and FS1 are in. 

 

In other news, I was able to upgrade my seats to a sky box for the Brahmas this year. The cost basically doubled my season tickets, but I have comfier seats, a better view and unlimited food service. It's $650/seat, so not too bad.

 

[GDAWG]

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

 

NBC out of the UFL broadcast package. Fox, ESPN. ABC, and FS1 are in. 

 

In other news, I was able to upgrade my seats to a sky box for the Brahmas this year. The cost basically doubled my season tickets, but I have comfier seats, a better view and unlimited food service. It's $650/seat, so not too bad.

 

 

NBC wants a bigger fish, although they will have to wait until 2025:

 

 

And the Rock's Instagram indicates that the XFL is returning in 2024, meaning that the league will not be called UFL:

 

 

Which also means that everything he's involved with will still be league sponsors.