OT: ESPN Mag Ultimate Standings

Post #1 » by **Klomp** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:04 am

First, here are the categories:

Title Track: Titles already won or expected -- soon
Ownership: Honesty; loyalty to players and city
Coaching: Strong on-field leadership
Players: Effort on the field; likability off it
Fan Relations: Ease of access to players, coaches & management
Affordability: Price of tickets, parking and concessions
Stadium Experience: Friendliness of environment; quality of game-day promotions
Bang for the Buck: Wins over the past three years per revenues directly from fans

Now, here is how the Timberwolves ranked in each category and overall out of 122 teams
Title Track: 120
Ownership: 108
Coaching: 119
Players: 113
Fan Relations: 106
Affordability: 64
Stadium Experience: 110
Bang for the Buck: 102
OVERALL: 113

Other Minnesota franchises

Vikings
Title Track: 83
Ownership: 87
Coaching: 111
Players: 54
Fan Relations: 97
Affordability: 82
Stadium Experience: 117
Bang for the Buck: 46
OVERALL: 89

Twins
Title Track: 33
Ownership: 58
Coaching: 14
Players: 5
Fan Relations: 12
Affordability: 4
Stadium Experience: 114
Bang for the Buck: 43
OVERALL: 23

Wild
Title Track: 77
Ownership: 59
Coaching: 92
Players: 64
Fan Relations: 30
Affordability: 77
Stadium Experience: 2
Bang for the Buck: 101
OVERALL: 66

LOBO 7 · Post #2 » by **LOBO 7** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:07 am

113 out of 122?
Seems like arbitrary BS based on exposure and popularity. I call BS.

mefromthefuture · Post #3 » by **mefromthefuture** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:09 am

yeah just finished checking that out and was going post the thread

I can why we would be ranked like at.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #4 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:14 am

what is with all these articles funded by the Knicks owners to make the Wolves look bad lately? First SI says the Wolves are the worst team to play for, now this. Go write some real stories you hoity toity panty wearing cupcakes.

mefromthefuture · Post #5 » by **mefromthefuture** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:19 am

Devilzsidewalk wrote:what is with all these articles funded by the Knicks owners to make the Wolves look bad lately? First SI says the Wolves are the worst team to play for, now this. Go write some real stories you hoity toity panty wearing cupcakes.

how can you disagree

Title Track: 120 In it's a lot of different in the NBA and difficult in terms of parity
Ownership: 108 Glen Taylor keep Kevin Mchale how long
Coaching: 119 We don't have one
Players: 113 Should be higher but
Fan Relations: 106 They do some good stuff around here
Affordability: 64 good score
Stadium Experience: 110 No fans so up really and when they do it's dead there
Bang for the Buck: 102 not many wins

mnWI · Post #6 » by **mnWI** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:24 am

mefromthefuture wrote:
I can why we would be ranked like at.

touche

LOBO 7 · Post #7 » by **LOBO 7** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:29 am

mnWI wrote:
mefromthefuture wrote:
I can why we would be ranked like at.

touche

ROFL!

Devilzsidewalk · Post #8 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:40 am

mefromthefuture wrote:
Devilzsidewalk wrote:what is with all these articles funded by the Knicks owners to make the Wolves look bad lately? First SI says the Wolves are the worst team to play for, now this. Go write some real stories you hoity toity panty wearing cupcakes.

how can you disagree

Title Track: 120 In it's a lot of different in the NBA and difficult in terms of parity
Ownership: 108 Glen Taylor keep Kevin Mchale how long
Coaching: 119 We don't have one
Players: 113 Should be higher but
Fan Relations: 106 They do some good stuff around here
Affordability: 64 good score
Stadium Experience: 110 No fans so up really and when they do it's dead there
Bang for the Buck: 102 not many wins

I'm not disagreeing, just saying it's unnecessary. We already know we suck, we don't need them finding new ways to put it in writing every single day. Talk about beating a guy while he's down, jeez

mefromthefuture · Post #9 » by **mefromthefuture** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 1:01 am

Devilzsidewalk wrote:
mefromthefuture wrote:
Devilzsidewalk wrote:what is with all these articles funded by the Knicks owners to make the Wolves look bad lately? First SI says the Wolves are the worst team to play for, now this. Go write some real stories you hoity toity panty wearing cupcakes.

how can you disagree

Title Track: 120 In it's a lot of different in the NBA and difficult in terms of parity
Ownership: 108 Glen Taylor keep Kevin Mchale how long
Coaching: 119 We don't have one
Players: 113 Should be higher but
Fan Relations: 106 They do some good stuff around here
Affordability: 64 good score
Stadium Experience: 110 No fans so up really and when they do it's dead there
Bang for the Buck: 102 not many wins

I'm not disagreeing, just saying it's unnecessary. We already know we suck, we don't need them finding new ways to put it in writing every single day. Talk about beating a guy while he's down, jeez

Okay I can see that's my mistake, I can see in three or four year we will be up more on that list with no injures and dumb trades

At least they think we have a better shot to win a title then the Detroit Lions and Golden State Warriors.

teams better then

114. Cleveland Browns
115. New York Islanders
116. Oakland Raiders
117. Sacramento Kings
118. Cincinnati Bengals
119. Detroit Lions
120. Toronto Maple Leafs
121. New York Knicks
122. Los Angeles Clippers

Devilzsidewalk · Post #10 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 1:06 am

thats silver lining up the wazoo

Post #11 » by **Calinks** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 1:37 am

Not surprising. This just shows how horrible of a position we have dug ourselves into. Its no wonder why many of us wolves fans were calling for the complete uprooting and removal of the front office. Good news is that now we got Kahn. I am very confident that he will clean house as most new GM's do. Its a new day in Minnesota my friends, a new day.

GopherIt! · Post #12 » by **GopherIt!** » Thu Jul 2, 2009 9:21 pm

This needs to be updated. The Grizz traded for Z-Bo today. We just moved up to 112.