The dichotomy in a pro sports town

Donate To GopherHole
Ski U Mah Gopher said:
The Pro-town thing is bullshit.

Seattle has a whole 300K more of population than the Twin Cities.

I see Washington in the Pac-12 championship and competing for the CFP.
Click to expand...

Being on the coast with subjectively better weather is a variable at play with that, no doubt.
 

It doesn’t snow in Seattle usually.
 

MplsGopher said:
So we agree that being in a pro-sports town is a hindrance over time.

Otherwise Washington would’ve been consistently great, not just periodically.


Certainly, each market is unique. Some pro-sports towns are more of a hindrance over time than others.

Indeed, the world is not black and white. Nuance is abundant and necessary.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a direct hindrance to a team's performance by itself, but it's probably a hindrance for off-the-field stuff (attendance, awareness, fundraising) which does have an impact.
 


I disagree even with that.

1) people have a limited budget on the number of hours they can invest to watch football on TV.

2) people have a limited budget for buying tickets to football games.


I definitely think it forces more either/or type decisions in households when you have two major programs right there in the metro you live in.
 


Snow in of itself is fine other than F’ing up roads while it is snowing.

Cold and ice (on the roads and sidewalks) destroys quality of life far more than rain.


Would have to see the actual numbers, but there are also arguments to make about total sunshine hours per year.
 

LongSuffering said:
Michigan is not in a major city. Ann Arbor is a unique college town 45-60 minutes outside of the city center. (That until recently people avoided) And, Michigan has been a dominant program since the early 20th century. Colorado is 40 minutes outside of Denver in an affluent college town. Furthermore, with the exception of a short period of time with Bill McCartney in the early 80's (and maybe Rick Neuheisal in the mid 90's, Colorado has been a doormat. Miami had a run many years ago but nothing since and USC has been irrelevant pre and post Pete Carroll.

Washington has fluttered around .500 for decades with some really good seasons and some abysmal seasons. Through it all they've had a unique and beautiful stadium of their own with a cool culture around it. The Seahawks were a late expansion team and they were awful for a long time before the got good. The Kraken are late arrivals. The Mariners are fine but it's not a baseball town like a St Louis.

Maybe Seattle is the exception to the rule. I'd take their level of success. But I do think they have some huge advantages over Minnesota; climate (sort of), facilities and, mostly, access to the California recruiting base. Not to mention the Pacific Islands.

Certainly, Minnesota has a host of other challenges but you have to admit the media bias towards pro sports and the host of things to spend ones money on don't help.
Click to expand...
Sorry man, this feels a little like shaking fish bones to come to the conclusion you'd like.
  • The Seahawks have been around almost 50 years. Since Holmgren has been the coach (1999) they've been way more successful than the Vikings including more playoff appearances, a Super Bowl and another Super Bowl appearance.
  • Do you really think the Kraken have an impact on Washington football? Did the Wild hurt the Gopher football team?
  • Who cares about whether something is a baseball town? It's as much of a baseball town as Minneapolis and would, in your theory, pull as much attention away from the college football team.
  • You're listing small things that Washington might have over the U without acknowleding our advantages - we're the only D1 school in our state; we have greater access to recruits in Ohio, PA, Missouri, Indiana, etc.
  • Facilities? Sure. But that's not an issue with being a pro sports town. That's an issue of commitment from the University.
 


We’re talking about a P5 football team attempting to cohabit a market that is home to an NFL franchise.

That’s the actual discussion.

I don’t think any other pro-sport matters and guessing no one really disagrees?
 



Also, the state of Washington is really two separate states. Eastern Wash generally share little kinship with Westerners and specifically the SeaTac Socialist Overlords.

And there is a physical divide, with the mountains. Minnesota has no such thing with our outstate. Might seem like a pithy thing, but it is real.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Sorry man, this feels a little like shaking fish bones to come to the conclusion you'd like.
  • The Seahawks have been around almost 50 years. Since Holmgren has been the coach (1999) they've been way more successful than the Vikings including more playoff appearances, a Super Bowl and another Super Bowl appearance.
  • Do you really think the Kraken have an impact on Washington football? Did the Wild hurt the Gopher football team?
  • Who cares about whether something is a baseball town? It's as much of a baseball town as Minneapolis and would, in your theory, pull as much attention away from the college football team.
  • You're listing small things that Washington might have over the U without acknowleding our advantages - we're the only D1 school in our state; we have greater access to recruits in Ohio, PA, Missouri, Indiana, etc.
  • Facilities? Sure. But that's not an issue with being a pro sports town. That's an issue of commitment from the University.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing my point here. I was saying that for the first half of their existence the Seahawks were irrelevant. And, the NFL wasn't the dominant societal force it is today. The previously established UW football program was not losing fan interest to the pro team. When the Vikings arrived here the Gophers were the football focal point but quickly, and somewhat simultaneously, the Gopher program dipped as the Vikings found success. I believe that led to a shifting of loyalties. I was saying that the Kraken are a new addition to the Seattle sports scene so any impact they may or may not have on the Huskies remains to be seen.

Nevertheless. We are way too caught up on Seattle. Let's go ahead and concede that they are a major city with multiple pro sports teams that is still has a really good football program. I will continue to argue that they are the extreme exception to the rule in Power 5 (4) football.

Boston College: Bad
Georgia Tech: Bad
Louisville?: Meh
Miami: Irrelevant since Run DMC was popular
Pitt: Bad
Northwestern: Mostly bad to meh with some breakout seasons
Ohio State?: Elite but very unique situation
TCU: Some good years but many bad years. Also sitting in the bastion of football.
Arizona State: Bad
USC: Bad before Pete Carroll/Bad after Pete Carroll
UCLA: Bad
Cal: Bad
Stanford: Couple good years with Harbaugh but mostly bad
Utah: Bad for years, better recently but dipping again?
Vanderbilt: Really bad
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
Sorry man, this feels a little like shaking fish bones to come to the conclusion you'd like.
  • The Seahawks have been around almost 50 years. Since Holmgren has been the coach (1999) they've been way more successful than the Vikings including more playoff appearances, a Super Bowl and another Super Bowl appearance.
  • Do you really think the Kraken have an impact on Washington football? Did the Wild hurt the Gopher football team?
  • Who cares about whether something is a baseball town? It's as much of a baseball town as Minneapolis and would, in your theory, pull as much attention away from the college football team.
  • You're listing small things that Washington might have over the U without acknowleding our advantages - we're the only D1 school in our state; we have greater access to recruits in Ohio, PA, Missouri, Indiana, etc.
  • Facilities? Sure. But that's not an issue with being a pro sports town. That's an issue of commitment from the University.
Click to expand...
Couple things. Isn't St Thomas D1? The U has spent a lot on facilities.
 



Let's breakdown what Long Suffering said. Remembering that Minnesota has not been to a Rose Bowl since 1960, has not even had a shared conference title since 1967, and has never been to any other major bowl game.

Boston College: Agreed. With the except of the Flutie years, BC has been largely irrelevant. Outside of maybe Syracuse, college football in the Northeast just isn't very popular. (unless you count Penn State as NE.)

Louisville?: Has no major pro sports - not relevant to this at all. Why would you mention this?

Miami: Since 1990, nine conference titles, two National Championships, three runners-up. Played in the Orange Bowl in 2017. Average of late, but a National power far more recently than Minnesota. I believe they have facility issues.

Pitt: Pitt is similar to Minnesota, but they won a conference title in 2021.

TCU: Seven conference titles since 2000. National runner-up last season, plus a Rose and Fiesta bowl in that time.

Arizona State: Very fair comparison to MN.

USC: Bad before Pete Carroll/Bad after Pete Carroll:
Since Carroll left, they're 114-63 and have played in one Rose Bowl and two Cotton Bowls, including last season. You're just plain wrong here.

UCLA: They have not been very good as of late. They have had serious money and facility problems as well.

Cal: Very fair comparison to MN.

Utah: Seven conference titles since 1995, including THE LAST TWO YEARS. In that time, a Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and two Rose Bowls. Utah is a big time program.

GA Tech, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford:
All very similar places to recruit to due to high academic standards. All but Vandy have had more success than Minnesota in the past 30 years or so.

Ohio State is probably most similar to Texas and possibly Utah. Big city. Capital of the state. Has a few pro sports, but not many. (Columbus NHL/MLS, Austin MLS, Salt Lake NBA/MLS).
 
Last edited:

PMWinSTP said:
No, but the winters are equally harsh in a different way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a miserable climate. One of my favorite places, but I couldn't live there in the winter.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Couple things. Isn't St Thomas D1? The U has spent a lot on facilities.
Click to expand...
They are, but in terms of football, they're minor league. I believe in hoops they'll be a much better program than the Gophers in five years.
 

disco said:
Boston College: Agreed. With the except of the Flutie years, BC has been largely irrelevant. Outside of maybe Syracuse, college football in the Northeast just isn't very popular. (unless you count Penn State as NE.)

Louisville?: Has no major pro sports - not relevant to this at all. Why would you mention this?

Miami: Since 1990, nine conference titles, two National Championships, three runners-up. Played in the Orange Bowl in 2017. Average of late, but a National power far more recently than Minnesota. I believe they have facility issues.

Pitt: Pitt is similar to Minnesota, but they won a conference title in 2021.

TCU: Seven conference titles since 2000. National runner-up last season, plus a Rose and Fiesta bowl in that time.

Arizona State: Very fair comparison to MN.

USC: Bad before Pete Carroll/Bad after Pete Carroll:
Since Carroll left, they're 114-63 and have played in one Rose Bowl and two Cotton Bowls, including last season. You're just plain wrong here.

UCLA: They have not been very good as of late. They have had serious money and facility problems as well.

Cal: Very fair comparison to MN.

Utah: Seven conference titles since 1995, including THE LAST TWO YEARS. In that time, a Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and two Rose Bowls. Utah is a big time program.

GA Tech, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford:
All very similar places to recruit to due to high academic standards. All but Vandy have had more success than Minnesota in the past 30 years or so.

Ohio State is probably most similar to Texas and possibly Utah. Big city. Capital of the state. Has a few pro sports, but not many. (Columbus NHL/MLS, Austin MLS, Salt Lake NBA/MLS).
Click to expand...
 

I wavered on Louisville. That's what the question mark was about. You're right. They don't belong. I got my capitols mixed up and gave them credit for being a capitol city. (But, if we are counting capitol cities, add Kentucky and mark them as bad to average of late)

Utah is probably another question mark as they are in a medium sized city with no pro sports. BYU is nearby but they are a niche school. Utah has become competitive but they seem to have a couple of nine-ten wins seasons following by a return to average. Their success has been limited to the Pac 12 and they lost both Rose Bowls they appeared it.

Miami had a three year run in the very early 2000's and won a Natty, yes. Prior to that they were moribund going back to 1991. Since then they have hovered around .500 with the exception of a 10-3 record a few years ago. They are drowning in football talent in the state of Florida but have been very average overall.

Part of TCU's success came in Conference USA and the rest in a weak Big 12. They have only had two top 10 finishes and the one last year was a gift. They lost their conference championship game but still snuck into the playoff . They surprised Michigan and pulled a massive upset. If they played nine more times MIchigan wins close to all nine. They ended the year be getting thoroughly embarrassed by Georgia. They were way in above their heads. 5-7 this year? Like with Miami they are always going to have a strong base of talent due to their geographic location. If they bring in a really good QB and a couple of other skills guys they will jump up

Lane Kiffin had a couple of ten win seasons but got fired because they were not nationally relevant. Clay Helton had a couple of ten win season early but then the wheels came off. Lincoln Riley won a lot of games last year but this year was a disaster. The in between years were generally north or south of .500.

Lots of variables in play but overall with these three schools the talent pool they live in makes it almost impossible to fall much below .500. And with a consistent base of talent, the addition of an exceptional QB and a couple more skills players and they can jump up.
 

rugger14 said:
So most of us are Twin Cities sports fans so we are fans of the pro sports and the Gophers. It never ceases to amaze me how people do not understand how mich harder it is for the Gophers to turn a program around vs the pros. Not even close.

Pros: you suck and you get the first pick
College: you suck and no recruits

Pros: salary cap: you can only pay so much

College: NIL whatever we can afford and oh my gosh the best teams have all the $$$

MEDIA COVERAGE

PROS: A small number of teams and most teams get media coverage for every game.

College football: only the top 25 teams are guaranteed to get coverage.

Bottom line: pro sports try to create parity while college sports reward winning. It is impossible to hold pro and college sports.to that same standard.
Click to expand...
Fleck could just donate some of that 6 million a year to help get a good team....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom