Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

[johnnypohlfan]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

As a die-hard Gopher fan who despises UND just as much as in the WCHA days, I must say: This doesn't bother me at all. I can't believe we're nearly 50 posts into this non-issue topic. Who gives a rat's *** that UND is being honored? I know tons of people in Fargo/Grand Forks and many of them are big Twins fans. The idea that only Minnesotans are allowed into the 'Constituency' of Twins fandom is ludicrous. They're the Minnesota Twins. Not the Minnesotans' Twins.

And they're honoring the NDSU football team too, so there goes your asinine St. Peter bias argument. This whole thing is not worth 10 seconds of time, let alone several days' worth of discussion it has garnered. If it truly bothers you that the Twins are doing this, grow a pair, and grow up!

 

[Jockstock]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

<img src="http://images.memes.com/meme/tile/266289" class="irc_mi iFw_QCCy_fXM-pQOPx8XEepE" alt="" style="margin-top: 5px;" height="250" width="250">

 

[Jockstock]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

<img src="http://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4023375.jpg" class="irc_mi" style="margin-top: 6px;" height="220" width="340">

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

If someone boos college kids being honored at an open event shame on them. I have no love lost for UND but congratulations to them. It sucks but the only way to beat them is win one for the M.

However some of the UND angst toward the Gopher angst is equally as silly.

 

[SteveO]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Sorry if I ruffled some feathers with my posts here. It's just sports talk, and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter much to me. Found this map in the NY Times of MLB marketing areas based upon Facebook likes. The Twins area is actually quite large.

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/04/17/baseball-post/f06b982d13298b7aabb3a37bee1e9d1d280e4c3b/baseball-zips2.png">

 

[burd]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

If someone boos college kids being honored at an open event shame on them. I have no love lost for UND but congratulations to them. It sucks but the only way to beat them is win one for the M.

However some of the UND angst toward the Gopher angst is equally as silly.

Angst on angst. Sounds a little indecent. And fun.

 

[icehawk]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

As usual? I'm a long time Twins fan from way back. But you gotta read between the lines with St. Peter. He's ruined this team.

WTH does he have to do with the players? I'll tell you. Nothing. Starts with the Pohlads and Terry Ryan. Some folks just aren't that smart.

 

[icehawk]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

If someone boos college kids being honored at an open event shame on them. I have no love lost for UND but congratulations to them. It sucks but the only way to beat them is win one for the M.

However some of the UND angst toward the Gopher angst is equally as silly.

Well said SS.

 

[SteveO]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

WTH does he have to do with the players? I'll tell you. Nothing. Starts with the Pohlads and Terry Ryan. Some folks just aren't that smart.

Well, if you do a bit of research there's a lot of blame going around and both Ryan and St. Peter are under fire as well (management, scouting, drafting, player development, prima donna acquisitions, etc.). St. Peter's not biased?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Ah well. The Twins are in last place and the Gophers in first.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Correct, and there's a little more.

Once had a conversation with a friend from Eau Claire on this topic. He pointed to a time in the 1960's when WI didn't have MLB. The Milwaukee Braves departed in 1965; the Milwaukee Brewers first played in 1970.

Anyhow, his comment was that a certain number of baseball fans from Western WI adopted the Twins at that point in time. Many, along with their subsequent families, stuck with it. Today they're obviously a minority. But it's more than a small handful of fans.

The 1960's were a long time ago. Still, it makes sense. The Twins were very good at that time, winning the AL in '65; finishing 2nd in '67; and winning the new AL West in '69 and '70. Decent run; certainly enough to create a bond among those following the team.

One more tidbit. The same friend and his wife refer to MSP as "the Cities," just as people from Greater Minnesota do. As you say, MSP is a lot closer than MIL for them. So for some purposes, they're part of the MSP market.

That would be within the rules of a sports fan:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020227

19. Once you choose a team, you're stuck with that team for the rest of your life ... unless one of the following conditions applies:
Your team moves to another city. All bets are off when that happens. In fact, if you decided to turn off that sport entirely, nobody would blame you.

[my words] You are then a "free agent."

 

[burd]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

I think for many of us older, pre-web fans, radio played an important part in forging loyalties. I grew up listening to Halsey Hall, Ray Scott, and Herb Carneal call Twins games. I have lived in other market areas--SF, KC, and now WI--where I have enjoyed something about the local teams, but I will forever be a Twins fan. Lived in WI for 26 years now and the Packers are a great small town story, but still a Vikes fan. Loyalties die hard.

When I think what might have happened if I'd started out watching gopher hockey games in those formative years, I look skyward and cross myself.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Great story, terrible ending.

 

[Koho]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

I can't believe we're nearly 50 posts into this non-issue topic.

So, you are new to the interweb? You do realize this is the offseason?

 

[The Rube]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Great story, terrible ending.

I dunno. burd's kind of a jack bag. But that could be tArrogance talking.

 

[icehawk]

Ah well. The Twins are in last place and the Gophers in first.

I'd rather go watch the Saints than the bums the Twins put on the field. Unwatchable right now.

 

[icehawk]

Great story, terrible ending.

I thought it was a great ending.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

...Found this map in the NY Times of MLB marketing areas based upon Facebook likes. The Twins area is actually quite large.

<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/04/17/baseball-post/f06b982d13298b7aabb3a37bee1e9d1d280e4c3b/baseball-zips2.png">

Fun map; thanks for posting that. The large majority of the results make perfect sense. That certainly includes Twins Territory.

Not sure if the chart was accompanied by an article. But if yes, a few questions:

1. Is it really true that the A's, White Sox & Mets have no territory at all? More specifically, are they so overshadowed in their own markets that there's literally no geographic area where their fans are in the majority?

2. If Canada were added to the map, would the Blue Jays be in the majority from Halifax to Vancouver? Or are there cities/provinces with other favorites?

3. Which teams get the most frequent mentions in Alaska?

No worries if there's no further info. Just curious.

 

[Buckeye22]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

Fun map; thanks for posting that. The large majority of the results make perfect sense. That certainly includes Twins Territory.

Not sure if the chart was accompanied by an article. But if yes, a few questions:

1. Is it really true that the A's, White Sox & Mets have no territory at all? More specifically, are they so overshadowed in their own markets that there's literally no geographic area where their fans are in the majority?

2. If Canada were added to the map, would the Blue Jays be in the majority from Halifax to Vancouver? Or are there cities/provinces with other favorites?

3. Which teams get the most frequent mentions in Alaska?

No worries if there's no further info. Just curious.

1. If you look closely you'll see that the White Sox have the area from the South Side of Chicago stretching down towards Indiana. I wouldn't be surprised if Giants fans outnumbered A's fans out there but I couldn't say for sure. As for the Mets, they have a ton of fans, especially on Long Island, but again, I wouldn't be shocked if they were outnumbered by Yankees fans. Still, its New York. There are still probably more Mets fans out there than there are for most other teams.

2. Yes. They showed a map like that when the Jays were in the playoffs last year. Now that Montreal's gone they've really become Canada's team.

3. In general Seattle. I know the Seahawks are the most popular NFL team up there. Alaska's so sparsely populated though, that according to the map on the NY Times site it says there are some regions which are majority Red Sox/Yankees fans and the Aleutian Islands are apparently Giants fans. I would bet most native Alaskan's root for Seattle though.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Minnesota Gophers Off Season thread - 2016

1. If you look closely you'll see that the White Sox have the area from the South Side of Chicago stretching down towards Indiana.

Got it; that makes sense. I had originally interpreted that "splotch" as the core of the Cubs Territory. But on further review it does look more like an island of White Sox support.

I wouldn't be surprised if Giants fans outnumbered A's fans out there but I couldn't say for sure.

My thought -- and uncertainty -- as well.

As for the Mets, they have a ton of fans, especially on Long Island, but again, I wouldn't be shocked if they were outnumbered by Yankees fans. Still, its New York. There are still probably more Mets fans out there than there are for most other teams.

l would have thought Long Island was Mets Territory for sure, and probably Queens too. But you've got the right bottom line. Even if the map is fully correct, the Mets are still a large fan base in absolute terms.

2. Yes. They showed a map like that when the Jays were in the playoffs last year. Now that Montreal's gone they've really become Canada's team.

Guess I knew that without asking. But I still couldn't help wonder if there might be a few exceptions, like Red Wings fans from across the bridge in Windsor, that kind of thing.

3. In general Seattle. I know the Seahawks are the most popular NFL team up there. Alaska's so sparsely populated though, that according to the map on the NY Times site it says there are some regions which are majority Red Sox/Yankees fans and the Aleutian Islands are apparently Giants fans. I would bet most native Alaskan's root for Seattle though.

Gotta believe you're right about the Mariners. Beyond that, the Giants do pre-date the Mariners. So maybe that's a case of pockets of fans sticking with the pre-existing team, even though its no longer the closest geographically.

Red Sox/Yankees? Have to believe those are transplants, and that it's mostly a matter of math. I presume those are the two largest fanbases in MLB. If emigration to Alaska is spread out randomly across the Lower 48, then it makes sense that the two largest groups would contribute the most emigrants.