Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ Jor-El said:
I'm one of the people who fear complacency by our local NFL team owners - essentially that any owner can think, "I get my huge cut of the TV money whether we're in first place or last, my fans sell out every game as long as the team remains fairly close to .500 - so why put forth the extra effort to keep improving the team and its management?"
The Wilfs have had the extra advantage that the Vikings have dominated Minnesota sports for a decade - signing a 3rd-round pick usually gets more attention than the Twins winning a midseason series.
I wonder if it will be any different now that the Twins are relevant. If they get swept by the Yankees this might swing back, but if the Twins win the first series and move to the ALCS, there will be more competition for sports attention in Minnesota than we have seen in some time. Maybe that's good and will spur the Wilfs to keep the Vikings competitive.
The Vikings have had one of the best records since Zim took over. Theyve consistantly brought in extra coaches. Theyve always spent to the salary cap. Theyre the first owners to give out a massive $84m gaurenteed contract. They built them a state of the art training facility.
Short of the wilfs suiting up for the active roster what exactly would you suggest they do?
So far, the Wilfs are fine. My comment was more about the general risk of complacency among owners.
There may come a time when it's clear that the direction of a team is not going to go to the next level - true championship competition is beyond the approach taken. But if that management is "good enough" to keep the team decent, the owners sometimes just put up with it for a long time. 7-9 or 8-8 isn't embarrassing like 3-13.
If the Vikings reach that point, I hope the Wilfs are willing to see it and start over, even if it means suffering through a crashed season or two to get to a great result.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
The Wilfs have always kept the Vikings competitive. And the Twin Cities have always been more Vikings territory than Twins, but that's the NFL. It dominates everywhere. You can love them both, you don't need to have it at another's expense. Not sure why you'd worry about the Wilfs, they've been nothing but amazing so far.
Its good for the soul of a city to have good sports teams for residents to bond over.
I agree on the Wilfs... as far as the NFL being dominant everywhere, St Louis and LA would like to have a say in that conversation. (likely a few more, but they were the ones that popped into the noodle.)
Dodgers and Cardinals are iconic baseball franchises. And the NFL hadn't been in LA in what, 18 years? St. Louis doesn't have a football team. They are outliers.
The NFL is in a different solar system of popularity than baseball. https://www.thenation.com/article/why-no...x-yankees/
The nfl was in both of those towns for long stretches and never came close to being the draw that baseball is there, just a couple exceptions to your rule where football has failed to secure a strong permanent fan base and yet baseball has thrived. Yes football is is by far the #1 spectator sport in the US.
That's not true: you understand St. Louis won a Super Bowl with The Best Show on Turf, right? Football was very popular there while they were winning. An unscrupulous owner moved them back to Los Angeles because St. Louis wouldn't build him a stadium.It wasn't for lack of fan support. Los Angeles is the only obvious outlier but there are several reasons for that. They've also been winning which means everything in LA. But they have a giant population density to pull from and they've done a great job of cultivating diversity:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/sport...eries.html
talk to anybody from St Louis and they will tell you baseball is king there, the liked their rams, but they loved their Cards.
Yes, I know this. I lived in KC for 18 years. They've won 11 World Series titles in their history and have been around basically since 1875. Like I said, they are iconic.
Sigh. Your contrarian nature must be fun for your family. lol. :p
You do realize you are about as big of a hypocrite as there is right? you made an incorrect absolute statement and I simply noted the exceptions and you are the stubborn ass that tried to argue the point that you ended up agreeing with.
my family and I are fine, how are you and yours? by the way... an insult followed up by a cute emoticon or an LOL is still an insult and is received as such.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Jor-El said:
I'm one of the people who fear complacency by our local NFL team owners - essentially that any owner can think, "I get my huge cut of the TV money whether we're in first place or last, my fans sell out every game as long as the team remains fairly close to .500 - so why put forth the extra effort to keep improving the team and its management?"
The Wilfs have had the extra advantage that the Vikings have dominated Minnesota sports for a decade - signing a 3rd-round pick usually gets more attention than the Twins winning a midseason series.
I wonder if it will be any different now that the Twins are relevant. If they get swept by the Yankees this might swing back, but if the Twins win the first series and move to the ALCS, there will be more competition for sports attention in Minnesota than we have seen in some time. Maybe that's good and will spur the Wilfs to keep the Vikings competitive.
The Vikings have had one of the best records since Zim took over. Theyve consistantly brought in extra coaches. Theyve always spent to the salary cap. Theyre the first owners to give out a massive $84m gaurenteed contract. They built them a state of the art training facility.
Short of the wilfs suiting up for the active roster what exactly would you suggest they do?
So far, the Wilfs are fine. My comment was more about the general risk of complacency among owners.
There may come a time when it's clear that the direction of a team is not going to go to the next level - true championship competition is beyond the approach taken. But if that management is "good enough" to keep the team decent, the owners sometimes just put up with it for a long time. 7-9 or 8-8 isn't embarrassing like 3-13.
If the Vikings reach that point, I hope the Wilfs are willing to see it and start over, even if it means suffering through a crashed season or two to get to a great result.
when the Wilfs took control, i honestly think their driving focus was on a championship. since then I think they have settled in and are making as many or more decisions with the team centered on profits than on competition. However I am glad they arent knee jerk like some owners and never really give their GMs and Coaches a chance. IMO RS and Zim are to the point where they shouldnt get any more chances, simply making the playoffs isnt good enough. They have been given ample time and the product doesnt seem to be improving any longer.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
The Wilfs have always kept the Vikings competitive. And the Twin Cities have always been more Vikings territory than Twins, but that's the NFL. It dominates everywhere. You can love them both, you don't need to have it at another's expense. Not sure why you'd worry about the Wilfs, they've been nothing but amazing so far.
Its good for the soul of a city to have good sports teams for residents to bond over.
I cannot say the team has been competitive under the wilfs. It has been a dreadful time with them running the show. It actually statistically may be our least competitive era.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ StickyBun said:
The Wilfs have always kept the Vikings competitive. And the Twin Cities have always been more Vikings territory than Twins, but that's the NFL. It dominates everywhere. You can love them both, you don't need to have it at another's expense. Not sure why you'd worry about the Wilfs, they've been nothing but amazing so far.
Its good for the soul of a city to have good sports teams for residents to bond over.
I cannot say the team has been competitive under the wilfs. It has been a dreadful time with them running the show. It actually statistically may be our least competitive era.
is that on the efforts of the ownership or the underachieving of the staff and players? really all an owner can do is put qualified management in place (which they have done according to industry experts), give them the tools they need (that has certainly been the case) give them the players they need (they have never been shy with the cash) and then get out of the way until its time to change what they are doing... (which appears that we are once again at that point) I dont think you can hang the failures on them considering we have been to the championship game twice in their relatively short (nfl ownership terms) tenure.
|
