The media outfit known as Portfolio.com, part of the company that includes the Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal, just did a study of communities with professional sports teams. They wanted to find how many teams certain communties could support based on the communities "total personal income." Here is a MSP Business Journal story about the study.
The findings were not surprising. It was determined that many cities, including Minneapolis-St. Paul, are overextended in their ability to support 4 professional teams (and throw in Gopher sports) based on the total personal income in the area. Using their methodology, the authors of report determined that the total personal income of the MSP-St. Paul area was $154.59 billion in 2008, $43.13 billion short of what would be need to adequately support 4 teams (i.e. buying tickets, suites, etc.). If you want to view the chart for all cities here it is. And we are not alone in this assessment. Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Tampa, Detroit and Denver are in over their heads with their ability to support their teams (not necessarily 4 teams - it could even be 1).
The reason this is relevant is, of course, the Vikings campaign for a new stadium. Being a fan of the team, I'd like them to stay even if it means skyrocketing blood-pressure levels for me. What happens, however, if a brand new shiny stadium is built for the Vikings, complete with 60-75 luxury suites. If so, the Twin Cities population would have the opportunity (and need) to support the new Vikes stadium, Target Field, Target Center, Xcel Energy Center, TCF Bank Stadium, Williams Arena & Mariucci Arena. I have to admit that I don't believe this can be accomplished, even in good economic times, let alone the shit-storm that we are experiencing now. What does all of this mean?
It means we have to give somebody the Timberwolves - and quick.
Anyone - who wants them? Seattle just lost the Sonics. How would they like to take the Wolves?? Losing the Vikings and retaining the Timberwolves is akin to keeping the moldy mayonnaise in the refrigerator but throwing out the sirloin steak. I don't think anybody would even notice that the Wolves were gone. The Vikings and Twins are state institutions, and the Wild has a rabid following in the State of Hockey. The Gophers can't leave.
If that study is correct, we are going to lose a team eventually. Folks, it simply has to be the Wolves. Who wants them?
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I seriously think that the timberwolves are such an afterthought, I forgot they even are around anymore. faithful readers of this blog know that fred hoiberg is my neighbor. even he is perplexed on how to turn this team around. what a joke. see ya.
tony - how the Timberwolves will become relevant in this market is a mystery to me. I think it's even beyond simply "winning" again. It may take drafting a player who is the next Michael Jordan. And good luck with that.
Part of the problem (and a point to this study) is that when a town has too many teams there is always an "odd man out." Unless the Wolves start winning multiple championships, I think it will always be them.
I have to question that study because it also said that L.A. could support 5(!) more NFL teams.
Me, it sounds weird but I'd rather see the Wild go than the T-wolves. If (a big if, I know) we ever got a decent team, NBA basketball is a blast.
Free - I also read that the study said LA "Could" support 5 NFL teams based on their sheer buying power. How many they "will" support is another question based on their past history with the Rams and Raiders.
Regarding the Wolves and Wild, I have always felt that hockey and basketball fans are two very seperate camps with little cross over. I grew up loving hockey and the North Stars and wasn't really interested in the NBA. They are plenty of folks like you, however, that prefer pro basketball and have no intrest in hockey. So maybe there is hope for the Wolves if they can start winning.
Having been to a Timberwolves game, as I'm sure many of you have, I really can't see any reason for them to be here. The arena was barely 1/2 full, the fans there were there were not at all into the game. Beers are $7. It's just a total waste of time and money. The Vikings and Wild sell out constantly and now that the Twins have a new stadium, I'm sure they will too. We simply have no use for Basketball.
Peter King from SI chimed in on this very issue:
14. Stadium blues in Minnesota. Want to know why the Minnesota Vikings have a tough fight on their hands to get a new stadium built? Politics. And one of the biggest budget deficits in the United States.
For the first time in more than 20 years in Minnesota, the governor, lieutenant governor, 134 state representatives and 67 state senators will all be up for election in the same year, 2010, without a presidential or U.S. Senate election next November. That means the focus of the entire state will be on the state, not divided between Washington and Minnesota. Those 203 politicians are in no mood to foot much of the bill for a new sporting venue.
The state has just overseen the opening this fall of the new 50,000-seat stadium on the campus of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and the Twins' new Target Field will open downtown next April. Combined total of those two projects: $578 million. The state is projecting a $1.2-billion budget deficit next year. Add all those factors together, and you understand how tough it's going to be for the Vikings to get a new stadium anytime soon.
I don't think it'll be in 2010, which will raise the threat level of a franchise shift to Los Angele to orange. When, or if, they do build, I can tell you that people on the football side -- players, coaches -- aren't crazy about an open-air stadium. A retractable roof would add about $200 million to the cost; a fixed roof would add about $125,000. It'll be a homefield edge at this time of year, but that doesn't mean the locals used to playing inside and sitting inside for the past 28 football seasons want to go back to playing in the elements.
I was at the Vikings facility Thursday, and it was minus-1 with a wind-chill of minus-12 at 11 in the morning. As one player told me, "A whole generation of fans grew up without ever sitting outside to watch the Vikings. What's it been, 30 years? How are you going to get all those people used to being warm for a game to sit outside when it's below zero?'' Good question. But the Vikings would be happy to get any new stadium, inside or outside.
Jerry - that is why I belive the Wolves should give away free beer at all times and make people sign a waiver that they are responsible for whatever happens. I bet they would have sell-outs.
dools - I saw that too. I am glad the national media is starting to acknowledge that, "Gee, there actually might be some economic problems right now," rather than "what are those people in Minnesota thinking - they don't support their Vikings."
Jeff,
I was amazed at the cost difference between a fixed roof and a retractable roof. I also liked the last point of 30 years of indoor football.
dools - while having a retractable roof on a football stadium would be nice, I think the cost is ridiculous for somthing that is going to be used around 10 times a year. Open-air would help bring back the Viking "good old days," but is probably not realistic. If the State is going to get it's money's worth, the new stadium will need to attract other events like the Final 4 and concerts.
I think the best option is a fixed roof - like Ford Field.
Jeff & Dools-
Open-air only. Lets bring back the true "black and blue"
Jase - I agree that open air would be best for atmosphere and all. It's probably not realistic, however, when it comes to the cost vs. use of the stadium. The politicians are going to want to get as many events as possible out of the building.
Post a Comment