Posts: 68
Threads: 68
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation:
0
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 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.
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 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.)
Quote: @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/
Quote: @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?
Quote: @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.
Quote: @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
Quote: @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.
And the NY'ers and Bostonians love their Yankees and Red Sox...I love this Twins team and characters;
Bombas This....
Wilfs have done remarkable things for the franchise, it's almost unbelievable. My wallet still smarts from PSL's for that stadium, but to their credit they've put a lot of proceeds into infrastructure.
They may have one of the more difficult decisions to make this off-season if the Vikings finish in that no mans land of 7,8,9 victories.
Quote: @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
|
