HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Tidbits: Will a Vikings Relocation Affect the Wild? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1020927)

this providence 11-03-2011 09:43 AM

Will a Vikings Relocation Affect the Wild?
 
So I was thinking about this the last few weeks as the Vikings future becomes more and more bleak by the day.

If the Vikings were to pick up and be relocated, do you believe it would have any effect on the Wild? This is more pertaining to the type of coverage and general interest than anything else. As things stand now, the Vikings receive most, if not all, local coverage during these winter months. Remove them from the picture and what does it look like? While those fans are now left without a team could find a rooting interest in other NFL teams, it's likely that they could devote more of their time and money into more local teams. Especially if they start to show promise.

Russo is really the only consistent media guy of note for the Wild. Sure, you'll have a random scribe show up to a game here and there, watch it, and feel the need to come off in the next edition of the paper as all-knowing on the Wild, but that's not coverage. Would a significant void like the Vikings moving bring more hockey guys into town? How about those corporate dollars that go into the Vikings? They may choose to use that money elsewhere.

It's interesting to think about considering I think it's a virtual certainty the Vikings are out the door at this point. It's possible some focus would shift to Gopher football but this is a program that will likely never be relevant in our lifetime. With professional sports, a draft (in theory) allows for more parity and better chance to bounce more significantly than a college game would.

mnwildgophers 11-03-2011 09:49 AM

I think you may see some sort of shift into a focus of the Wild, but the NBA will undoubtedly get more coverage as well. The Wild would get more reign on KFAN because they are the flagship now, as we can see with a lot more Wild-related guests and stuff of that nature.

I think they would try to bring the Gophers to the forefront, and possibly, we might see more Packers coverage. I hate the Packers so much, but I have a feeling we'd see more Packer-centric shows. I think the NFL is too big for the local media and stations to not pay attention to it.

I really hope that the Vikings don't leave, I don't think that some people realize what the Vikings do for the state, but hey, what do I know? I'm no politician.

Jarick 11-03-2011 09:58 AM

I have to think they'll get a stadium done.

I'm not a big believer in sports fans crossing over to other sports. You'd just see more focus on the Gophers and Packers.

this providence 11-03-2011 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 38892387)
I have to think they'll get a stadium done.

Can't see it. The tribes will block anything from getting done in terms of realistic funding not using tax dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 38892387)
I'm not a big believer in sports fans crossing over to other sports. You'd just see more focus on the Gophers and Packers.

While there's certainly a good portion of football fans who just don't enjoy the game, this is still Minnesota. At the non-professional level hockey dominates the sports culture.

As far as Packer coverage, I highly doubt it. If people want to get their Packer fix, there's already tons of coverage out east for that. Not sure why we'd see that in this large of a market for a team that has nothing to do with the area outside of the Sconnie transplants here.

Jarick 11-03-2011 10:29 AM

Expanding my thoughts:

1. Why they'll get a deal done

This market loves pro football. It has for 50 years. It's going to want a team. If we lose a team, that's another 5-10 years of lobbying for a new team, we have to build a new stadium anyway, and then there will be relocation or expansion fees, plus we lose our tradition of the Vikings.

I just think it will be career suicide for any politician to tank the stadium deal. Even casual fans saw what happened to the North Stars and I really don't think they'll have a stomach for it.

2. What happens to the NFL fans

Okay, let's say you've got two sets of NFL fans, the hardcore and the casual.

The hardcore NFL fan probably knows about most teams and players, follows the draft, might play fantasy, and likely follows to some extent college football. They just plain love football as a sport. Take away the NFL team and they are still going to love football, just either find a new team to follow at the NFL level or focus more on the Gophers or college football. It's not as if sports fans are just thinking "SPORT SPORT SPORT SPORT SPORT GOTTA FOLLOW A SPORT". And they just shift from one to another.

The casual fan gets into it because of the passion of the hardcore fans, everyone talking about it at the watercooler or on the radio, or just something to do on a Sunday. NFL football is a weekly tradition, not a marathon of games like MLB, NHL, or NBA. There are just way too many meaningless games for the casual fan to seriously devote their attention. They're going to just do something else on a Sunday.

squidz* 11-03-2011 10:30 AM

I haven't been following the stadium debacle that closely, but it's not like the current situation should be surprising or any more of an indicator of the Vikings possibly leaving. T-Paw had outright told the Vikings he wouldn't be approving any government spending for them, so they didn't have a chance to bother. Once Dayton came in, there was no way anything would ever happen until the absolute moment when there were no other options for delaying things longer.

Regardless, if we assume the Vikings do leave, there will undoubtedly be effects upon the Wild. Any Vikings season ticket (or even single game ticket) buyers will have an increase in disposable income. Naturally a large portion of that's going to go back to non-sports related discretionary spending, but there's certainly going to be situations where Vikings fans are fans of other sports as well. Some, non-trivial, amount of those dollars will go towards other local sports spending, as well as a fair amount going to non-local sports spending (Bears/Packers/LA Vikes).

The big part that gets missed though is corporate spending. Any corporate spending towards the Vikings will either disappear (as cost savings for still tight business budgets) or towards other local sports. Ultimately I think the big winners here will be the Timberwolves (assuming their lockout is resolved prior to a 2012-2013 season). MSP was rated amongst the most over-extended sports markets (of course the analysis didn't acknowledge the complete lack of any pro sports to the west or south of us) in the US.

To circle back to where I think you're really going with the whole thing: if the Vikings leave, KFAN isn't going with them. Sports media in the area will suddenly lose their favorite coverage target, and I'm certain none of those sportswriters, analysts, and radio personalities want to lose their jobs. As the coverage of the fallout dies off, they'll have to find something to talk about. They'll also have to give significant effort to show their bosses that they're still adding value. If you accept Say's Law, the increase coverage of alternative sports will increase consumer demand for them.

The distribution of that new coverage is in question though. Naturally the first target will be high school and U of M football coverage. However, unless the Gophers can work a significant turn around, there's not much to cover there that's not already covered. Minnesota doesn't traditionally care about high school football (quick, name any two state champions from the past 5 years at any high school level) so I don't know how well such a thing would pick up. Any way you split it, I think that there has to be an increase in NHL coverage. The T-Wolves are horrible. College coverage is largely saturated. Baseball has a largely non-overlapping season with hockey. People in the area are too predisposed to dislike other nearby football teams, and even if they weren't, it's not like you can get tickets to a Packers or Bears home game. With the Finnish Baby Jesus coming over, all the Wild need to do to secure a bit more relevance is make the playoffs this season.

What I'm really curious about is whether a post-Vikings Minnesota would be able to support a minor league hockey team. There's only so much those extra sports dollars can spend on college and high school hockey. If Wild tickets start becoming hard to get a hold of, could a Rochester support an ECHL team? Could Duluth pick up a USHL team?

Jarick 11-03-2011 10:34 AM

Part of me thinks this market or at least state could support a minor league hockey team, but I think the Wild brass would nix it. They have trouble enough putting butts in the seats. The recent calls for teams closer to the main clubs would be a big draw, but I just don't see it happening.

If it did, I would be a HUGE fan and would love to go to games and/or get season tickets. THAT would be killer. Being able to see hockey games (and drink beer) with players who aren't making millions of dollars and not having to pay $150-200 to take one other person to see a game? Sign me up.

squidz* 11-03-2011 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 38893319)
Expanding my thoughts:

1. Why they'll get a deal done

This market loves pro football. It has for 50 years. It's going to want a team. If we lose a team, that's another 5-10 years of lobbying for a new team, we have to build a new stadium anyway, and then there will be relocation or expansion fees, plus we lose our tradition of the Vikings.

I just think it will be career suicide for any politician to tank the stadium deal. Even casual fans saw what happened to the North Stars and I really don't think they'll have a stomach for it.

To play devil's advocate on this point:

It's political suicide to support shelling out government dollars on a private, for-profit building for someone the general public views as "super rich." Political memories are very short, but people still remember a fair bit of the bickering from this summer's government shutdown. If we don't have the money to keep the state functioning, how do we have the money to build a fancy stadium for a rich guy?

/please note the fact that I'm playing devil's advocate here, as the owner of a degree in Economics, I understand the scenario is far more complex than that. However, the average person is of the "food comes from the grocery store" mentality when it comes to anything remotely related to econ.

Dee Oh Cee 11-03-2011 10:41 AM

small grammatical point - pretty sure it should be 'affect' in the title of the thread...it would be effect if you said 'will the vikings have an effect on the wild...'

squidz* 11-03-2011 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 38893509)
Part of me thinks this market or at least state could support a minor league hockey team, but I think the Wild brass would nix it. They have trouble enough putting butts in the seats. The recent calls for teams closer to the main clubs would be a big draw, but I just don't see it happening.

If it did, I would be a HUGE fan and would love to go to games and/or get season tickets. THAT would be killer. Being able to see hockey games (and drink beer) with players who aren't making millions of dollars and not having to pay $150-200 to take one other person to see a game? Sign me up.

Living in the middle of the woods my options to watch live are to watch single A high school hockey or drive 5 hours to the cities. I will hopefully be moving back to Duluth very soon, and would love to have more options than just UMD hockey and a couple double A high school teams. I can't see an AHL team taking root in the state (and unless Leipold owned it, I don't think the Wild would really allow it) but I can imagine a lower league would be allowed to set up shop in one of the population centers.

this providence 11-03-2011 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee Oh Cee (Post 38893697)
small grammatical point - pretty sure it should be 'affect' in the title of the thread...it would be effect if you said 'will the vikings have an effect on the wild...'

Ya, ya Hamline smarty pants. I'm a U of North Dakota alum. Only real education we get is alcohol consumption. ;)

Northland Wild Man 11-03-2011 11:02 AM

The Vikings are gone after this season no matter what. I don't see any politicians letting tax dollars go to a team owner in the current economic climate. I also don't believe that the NFL wants to keep the Vikings in Minnesota, but that's another issue.

The Wild would get better coverage because of the deal with KFAN and no NFL to talk about. (I wonder if PA would stay or go with the Vikings?) The Timber wolves haven't made a significant impact in the pro sports scene in Minnesota for a long time. Honestly the way the NBA negotiations have gone I would not be surprised if they contracted them. (I wouldn't care either.)

I see the Wild making significant gains in sportswriter coverage and everything wise sports related in Minnesota. If both the T wolves and Vikings leave then the Twins and UM hockey are really the only other games in town to compete with.

In short it's great for Wild hockey.

Northland Wild Man 11-03-2011 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by this providence (Post 38894143)
Ya, ya Hamline smarty pants. I'm a U of North Dakota alum. Only real education we get is alcohol consumption. ;)

This. :laugh:

Jarick 11-03-2011 11:17 AM

Why wouldn't the NFL want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota?

mnwildgophers 11-03-2011 11:17 AM

Well, since we are talking Vikes stadium Dayton + GOP pledge to pass stadium bill this year primarily using gaming as the funding source. I just don't see how they can let the Vikings leave.

Cooperalls 11-03-2011 11:18 AM

I'll die a little inside if the Vikes move. Go to at least a couple games a year, (out of Winnipeg). And have been a Vikes fan for about 25 years, since I was 10. There's a significant amount of out of Minnesota staters, of the 60,000 that attend the 2 preseason and 8 home games. My guess is there won't be a significant increase in ticket sales for any one else. And there obviously won't be the same Vikes (or L.A. whatevers) coverage, but there will ALWAYS be NFL interest, so the media will continue to cover that.

Get a stadium deal done!!!

Randy BoBandy 11-03-2011 11:24 AM

1 Attachment(s)
I just did a review of literature on research that has been done regarding the economic impact of sports facilities. I am hoping to submit a grant proposal on a topic that will focus on the problem here in Minnesota.

It is quite interesting to know that just about every academic research done on this subject finds the construction of new facilities never actually promote economic development. Basically the benefits never justify the costs. Especially with the large amount of public financing that is involved.

I attached my Review of Lit if anyone wants to check her out. Squidz might like it at least.

Engebretson 11-03-2011 11:25 AM

Very interesting thread TP.

For me personally, it's always bothered me that the Vikings consume the majority of Minnesota sports attention year round. Yeah, I know, it's football and it's the NFL, but if the Wild were in the playoffs and if some dumb Vikings player got a DUI in the offseason, THAT would make more headlines than the Wild in the playoffs. If some Wild player got in trouble for whatever reason, you know that would hardly be a footnote if the Vikings were in the playoffs. That's what really bothers me.

I grew up in Mankato and I have so many members of my family down there who hardly even acknowledge the Wild as a Minnesota sports team because hockey just doesn't mean as much down there. The constant arguement I get is that hockey is too complicated and hard to follow, which is a cheap excuse IMO. The majority of the sports following in that area is Vikings, Twins and Timberwolves. That's right, they talk about and follow the Timberwolves more than the Wild, for crying out loud!

I have never really been a big Vikings fan, so I wouldn't be really sad to see them leave, but I'm not sure how/if it would affect the Wild. I want to say that the Wild would get more attention but, outside of the metro area and north of the metro, I just don't see them getting that spotlight.

squidz* 11-03-2011 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patp14 (Post 38895221)
I just did a review of literature on research that has been done regarding the economic impact of sports facilities. I am hoping to submit a grant proposal on a topic that will focus on the problem here in Minnesota.

It is quite interesting to know that just about every academic research done on this subject finds the construction of new facilities never actually promote economic development. Basically the benefits never justify the costs. Especially with the large amount of public financing that is involved.

I attached my Review of Lit if anyone wants to check her out. Squidz might like it at least.

Any chance of a .doc instead of .docx? My comp at work doesn't have the compatability pack to open it.

Northland Wild Man 11-03-2011 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarick (Post 38894951)
Why wouldn't the NFL want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota?

I just think they would want them in LA more than Minnesota.

squidz* 11-03-2011 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engebretson (Post 38895239)
I grew up in Mankato and I have so many members of my family down there who hardly even acknowledge the Wild as a Minnesota sports team because hockey just doesn't mean as much down there. The constant arguement I get is that hockey is too complicated and hard to follow, which is a cheap excuse IMO. The majority of the sports following in that area is Vikings, Twins and Timberwolves. That's right, they talk about and follow the Timberwolves more than the Wild, for crying out loud!

If I recall correctly, of the four major pro sports, hockey has the fewest rules. Football has by far the most rules, and is easily the most complicated of the pro sports.

Engebretson 11-03-2011 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidz (Post 38895357)
If I recall correctly, of the four major pro sports, hockey has the fewest rules. Football has by far the most rules, and is easily the most complicated of the pro sports.

Pretty much my retort against the people who claim hockey is too complicated, and unfortunately it does nothing to deter those people against continually believing that.

mnwildgophers 11-03-2011 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patp14 (Post 38895221)
I just did a review of literature on research that has been done regarding the economic impact of sports facilities. I am hoping to submit a grant proposal on a topic that will focus on the problem here in Minnesota.

It is quite interesting to know that just about every academic research done on this subject finds the construction of new facilities never actually promote economic development. Basically the benefits never justify the costs. Especially with the large amount of public financing that is involved.

I attached my Review of Lit if anyone wants to check her out. Squidz might like it at least.

I'm reading through this right now as I'm currently a student studying economics at the U. I'm in my last year and thought researching this argument, but haven't had enough time to even give it consideration right now. Any reading you suggest besides this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engebretson (Post 38895451)
Prett much my retort against the people who claim hockey is too complicated, and unfortunately it does nothing to deter those people against continually believing that.

I think the real reason why people don't like hockey as much is because it's much harder for people to follow the puck when watching. It's very small, and let's be honest, before HDTV's were the norm, it's not easy to know what the hell is going on if you can't see the puck.

Engebretson 11-03-2011 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnwildgophers (Post 38895637)
I think the real reason why people don't like hockey as much is because it's much harder for people to follow the puck when watching. It's very small, and let's be honest, before HDTV's were the norm, it's not easy to know what the hell is going on if you can't see the puck.

I hear that all the time, and while I agree with you to a certain extent, I feel there are many people just use that as a lazy excuse. When they sit down and actualy watch the game, it's a not that much of a problem.

Jarick 11-03-2011 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnwildgophers (Post 38895637)
I'm reading through this right now as I'm currently a student studying economics at the U. I'm in my last year and thought researching this argument, but haven't had enough time to even give it consideration right now. Any reading you suggest besides this?

Condolences.

I'd have to agree that for the most part these stadium deals are a kind of corporate welfare, but the reality is that the horse is out of the barn now and you HAVE to do it to keep a team. It's just a matter of whether or not taxpayers are willing to spend $500m or whatever to have a new NFL stadium now, or are they going to want to spend $1b+ to try and get a new NFL team in 10 years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.