MN Wild = worst name in pro sports. Who is to blame for this? (Gary: real estate, prices)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by knke0204

As a fan, you cannot have it both ways. It's so unfair and worthless to argue, "Give us a good team and we'll go". How about going to a game to support your team. More tickets purchased means more revenue for the team. More revenue for the team means better players. Better players means better teams. Better teams make successful franchises. The Vikes are still riding their wave of success in the 70s.

All i can think about when i go to Wild games and see idiots with a North Stars sweater on is "you moron". Why are you wearing that sweater? IS it because you're trying to get a message across to show people that they should have never left? How about buying and wearing a sweater when they were actually HERE?

Also, The Excel sold out games for a decade with only 3 seasons of GOOD hockey.

Whether or not it's fair, it's how the sports market works. Nobody wants to watch a game where the team is crappy. People don't have to support a crappy team any more than they have to support a crappy business. A businessman with a bad product may need to dig deeper into his business's profits and maybe even his own checkbook to improve his failing product. Similarly, sports teams that are getting poor attendance can't blame their bad performance on lack of people coming to watch, resulting in less money. That is unfair.

As for the people in North Star jerseys, they very well might have been fans and supported the team by going to the games. I don't think you can look into the person's mind and history to see if they were loyal North Star fans. And I don't think they're even trying to make a statement if they're showing up to a Wild game. It might just be a show of support for Minnesota hockey in general. We don't have to get bitter about these things.

[Ghengis]

In perhaps an ironic (but extremely gratifying) twist of fate, it appears that the luster is now off the Dallas Stars as they rank last in the league in attendance barely drawing 10,000 a game and playing to barely 50% capacity. Attendance is off more than 40% from just two years ago, the club filed for bankruptcy in September and there is limited interest from any potential buyers. Doesn't appear that anything will improve soon in the way of attendance as the competition from the recent success of the Rangers and Mavs have pushed them to a distant fourth on the Dallas sports scene with not much hope of recovery anytime soon.


Nelson - YouTube

Report: Stars bankruptcy filing will lead to auction - NHL.com - News

[mrconfusion87]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I don't mind the name "Wild". According to Wikipedia, there were some other cool names up for grabs, though. The six finalists were: Blue Ox, Freeze, Northern Lights, Voyageurs, White Bears, and Wild.

Of those, I personally like Blue Ox, Northern Lights, and Wild the best. The Freeze sounds cool too, but for whatever reason almost sounds too obvious?

If the Wild wasn't picked, I would certainly would have wanted the team moniker to be Voyageurs! That name would be cool - the only French language nickname for a professional, major league sports team outside of Quebec!

[Astron1000]

Seriously, who the hell cares? "Wild" is just a name. And it refers to just a hockey team. So what? It's a name that lives or dies with the success of the franchise that owns the name.

Are people so insecure that they need to justify their own existence by identifying with a damned sports team?

As if the success or failure of that team somehow reflects upon their own identity?

Get a grip. It's a damned game. Nothing more.

[wherespankakehouse?]

The balloting definitely wasn't decided by the fans. If it was mayoral voting, then that would certainly explain a lot. I remember kmsp conducted one of their phone polls and the 'Wild' came in 5th (of 6). Northern Lights and Voyageurs fared well. Blue Ox not so much. The Freeze either won the poll or came in last (i think it was the latter).

I have a feeling that the logos would have turned out much different, but the Wild did a what-could-have-been article last year:

Looking At The Wild Identity - Minnesota Wild - Features

[Gibbous Moon]

Heh.

It used to be easy to name your sports team; just pick a dangerous animal and go. Unfortunately, there are way more sports teams in the world than there are cool animals, and the result is a lot of names that range from lame to laugh-out-loud retarded.

The World's Most Ridiculous Sports Team Names | Cracked.com

In the ABSTRACT CONCEPTS category, the Minnesota Wild was one of three runners-up.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Put your money where your mouth is. Disgruntled North Star Fans forshadow what Vikings fans will be like in 6 years when they're in LA. The Stars sucked, could hardly fill an arena in MINNESOTA and couldn't reach a deal for a new arena. Sounds pretty familiar. When the Goophers are pulling in more fans into Mariucci, then there's no reason for an NHL team to stick around.

All you babies cry about teams leaving and then blame the owner who is a businessman and couldn't care less about your sporting bias.

If all you people wanted the North Stars to stay, then you should have done something. Get an arena built. Go to games. Stop being typical bandwagon Minnesota fans.

You obviously weren't an active fan when the North Stars left or you'd know that attendance was always decent even though the Stars were a middle of the road team, and that Norm Green was going to move the team regardless of fan or local business reaction due to his legal problems in the Twin Cities.

I put my money where my mouth is. I paid for tickets, and I watched the North Stars. I also learned my lesson about pro sports.

Never again.

[Gibbous Moon]

Originally Posted by wherespankakehouse?

The balloting definitely wasn't decided by the fans. If it was mayoral voting, then that would certainly explain a lot. I remember kmsp conducted one of their phone polls and the 'Wild' came in 5th (of 6). Northern Lights and Voyageurs fared well. Blue Ox not so much. The Freeze either won the poll or came in last (i think it was the latter).

I have a feeling that the logos would have turned out much different, but the Wild did a what-could-have-been article last year:

Looking At The Wild Identity - Minnesota Wild - Features

It wasn't mayoral voting-- at least, not according to the link you posted.

From the link:

Before that night, the "Wild" nickname hadn't existed. Majka, and a small group of Minnesota Hockey Ventures Group employees were led by branding consultant Corky Hall in a lengthy process of picking the nickname. From over 13,000 submissions (which, back then, came in the form of emails, letters and faxes) from Minnesota hockey fans, there was a lot of clamoring to resurrect the North Stars nickname. A trademark issue with the NHL made that an impossibility, so Majka and his group arrived at six finalists "that had potential": Freeze, Northern Lights, Blue Ox, White Bears, Voyageurs and Wild.

The six names were pitched to the fans for feedback, and Majka admits, there wasn't a clear consensus.

"It was a bit of a 'pick em' situation as we got to the end," remembered Majka."We liked the marketing potential of "Wild", so we went with it."

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Whether or not it's fair, it's how the sports market works. Nobody wants to watch a game where the team is crappy. People don't have to support a crappy team any more than they have to support a crappy business. A businessman with a bad product may need to dig deeper into his business's profits and maybe even his own checkbook to improve his failing product. Similarly, sports teams that are getting poor attendance can't blame their bad performance on lack of people coming to watch, resulting in less money. That is unfair.

As for the people in North Star jerseys, they very well might have been fans and supported the team by going to the games. I don't think you can look into the person's mind and history to see if they were loyal North Star fans. And I don't think they're even trying to make a statement if they're showing up to a Wild game. It might just be a show of support for Minnesota hockey in general. We don't have to get bitter about these things.

Say what you want about crappy products on the field, but the Chiefs have been irrelevant for forever and they still manage to put 70,000 into a stadium. Make a great atmopshere and people will come. That's what happened with the Wild at the X and that's how the Twins still brought in over 3,000,000 fans last year with a crap team.

[knke0204]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

You obviously weren't an active fan when the North Stars left or you'd know that attendance was always decent even though the Stars were a middle of the road team, and that Norm Green was going to move the team regardless of fan or local business reaction due to his legal problems in the Twin Cities.

I put my money where my mouth is. I paid for tickets, and I watched the North Stars. I also learned my lesson about pro sports.

Never again.

Yeah because 7,800 average attendance is "decent"

Yearly attendance for the Minnesota North Stars of the NHL at hockeydb.com