Did the Marlins make the right move?

Some of us have heard, and for some, it doesn't matter, but last Saturday, Roy Halladay of the Philadelphia Phillies (Major League Baseball) pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in Miami.

A perfect game in baseball is 27 batters up, 27 batters down. The feat has only been achieved in the MLB 20 times; however, it is the second perfect game this season (Dallas Braden had the other) and the third in the last calendar year.

It's what the Marlins are doing about this perfect game that has me a little confused. The game was played at SunLife Stadium. For those in Minnesota, it's like the Metrodome, without the roof. It's one of the few remaining "multi-purpose" stadiums that also serve as ballparks.

According to the Marlins website (click "Did the Marlins make the right move" for the article), the announced attendance was just over 25,000. To "commemorate" this occasion, the Marlins are selling the remaining tickets, online, for face value.
To me, this is a bad PR move by the Marlins. First, the Marlins didn't pitch the perfect game, the Phillies did.

Second, what is now likely to happen is that these "re-sold" tickets are going to go for a bundle on eBay and other online sites. Instead of creating a scarce memento, the Marlins are essentially crowding the market with tickets that were never used, and never sold for the actual game. If there's 58,000 tickets on the market, and 33,000 tickets weren't even used; it demeans the "rare" nature of a ticket for a rare occurrence.

Third, if anyone should get possession of the tickets, it should be the Phillies. I think the Marlins should have released the remaining tickets to the Phillies, and let them decide whether to resell them or not. Incidentally, because the Marlins are doing this, that will bump up the attendance for the game.
Marlins president David Sampson said this, "Any ticket revenue is part of revenue sharing and part of the local revenue. So it gets reported." So, essentially, they have to report these tickets as sold, even though more than half weren't even used for the game.

The ultimate solution, because a perfect game is such a rare occasion, the Marlins should have destroyed the remaining tickets, or left that decision to the Phillies, so as to put more of a collectible nature on the tickets that legitimately got people into the game; and weren't sold after the fact.

At any rate, there are now going to be 58,000 people who said "I was there when Halladay pitched that perfect game." And, unfortunately, they'll also have the ticket to prove it. What I am not sure of, is because of this, whether or not there was some sort of authentication given to the tickets that actually were scanned at the gates. Sometimes for special events or rare occasions, tickets can be stamped as a verification that they were in fact at the game.

As of right now, I am not sure whether the Marlins did this or not. Sadly, we will probably never know for sure.

Sometimes...it just doesn't work

I've always been interested in the behind-the-scenes workings of sports business. The team sales, new arenas, relocations - that sort of thing. But, lately, I've been thinking about this fact: sometimes a new arena or a new location just doesn't work.

The National Hockey League's (NHL) Phoenix Coyotes are a great example of how both a new arena and a new location don't really work for a franchise.

The Phoenix Coyotes moved from Winnipeg, Manitoba in 1996. When the franchise was the Winnipeg Jets, they struggled in a fairly bad market with a below-par arena. Matter of fact, the Jets almost moved to the Twin Cities as a replacement for our beloved North Stars, who headed south to Dallas a couple years before.

The Phoenix area beat out the Twin Cities for the struggling Jets. The first couple seasons, the newly-renamed Coyotes shared an arena in downtown Phoenix with the NBA's Suns. A couple seasons later, the Coyotes moved west to Glendale, AZ where they have played ever since.

But now, the Coyotes are even struggling in Glendale at the Jobing.com Arena. And, according to the article linked above (click on "Sometimes...it just doesn't work") and others floating around on the Internet, the Coyotes must find a local buyer by the end of this year, or the NHL will allow the team to move backto Winnipeg.

This is not new. You may remember, several years ago, Los Angeles lost not one but both of it's National Football League (NFL) franchises. The Rams moved east to Saint Louis, and the Raiders, moved back to Oakland; where they had left about 17 years prior. The Rams moved into a downtown domed stadium in Saint Louis, and the Raiders moved back to the dingy, old stadium (albeit some renovations) in Oakland they had left behind.

There have been rumors that the NBA's Sacramento Kings might move back to Kansas City, where they departed in 1985, to a more modern, shiny new arena just outside of downtown Kansas City.

There are the relocation successes: Washington Senators moving to the Twin Cities in 1961. Baltimore Colts moving (to the shock of everyone) to Indianapolis in 1983. Houston Oilers moving to Nashville circa 1996; and these are just a few. But, apparently, relocation to a shiny, new arena in another city, sometimes just doesn't work as well as expected.

As for the final fate of the Coyotes - stay tuned.

The Metrodome Gets a New Name

Imagine my shock today, when I looked at my daily email from the Twin Cities Business Journal saying that the Vikings have sold the field naming rights to the Mall of America.(http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/09/28/daily47.html?ed=2009-10-01&ana=e_du_pub)

Call it what you want, the Hump, the Dump, the Humpty Dumpty...this one does take me by surprise. I know why they named the place the way they did back in 1982: after Senator Hubert H. Humphrey. But, the Dome seems to be a mediocre tribute to a famous Minnesota politician.

The article cites reasons why the Vikings did it: they are the only tenant left in the Dome as of next Monday (Oct. 5). The Gophers are gone, and the Twins will be moving into their new Target Field next April; however, the transition of the Twins offices to the new ballpark will probably take place much sooner. This deal is at least one means of making some extra revenue for the Vikings - now that they don't have 81 guaranteed nights of revenue from concessions, tickets, advertising and so forth.

The article begs the question, why would the Vikings ink a deal like this, with only a year-and-a-half left on their lease? They've been telling us for years, at the end of the 2011 season, their time is up. So, will a naming rights deal with the Mall of America really make that much of a difference?

There seems to be a catch, however. The naming deal does not expire until February 2012. According to the article, "the [Vikings] described the arrangements as a short-term rebranding effort." The fact that it is a "rebranding effort" piques my curiosity. I know that there has been some light talk as of late about a renovated Metrodome which the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission (the group that operates the Dome) touts as "Metrodome Next."

So, is this to suggest that the wheels are spinning for "Metrodome Next" to come to fruition; and the naming deal with the Mall of America is an inroad to the future of the Vikings and the Metrodome? I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a "short-term rebranding effort," usually, if you re-brand something, it's should stick for more than three years. Are the Vikings suggesting that a much larger re-branding effort is in the works somewhere?

The new naming rights deal will be unveiled on Monday Oct. 5 (the day after the Twins' final home game) during the Monday Night Football (R) matchup with the Green Bay Packers.

A 3rd jersey for the Minnesota Wild?

A ha, finally. an issue I love to write about: sports and corporate branding.

It has been announced that the Minnesota Wild (NHL) will unveil a "third" jersey to be worn this season. The unveiling will happen next Sunday at the Minnesota State Fair. There are speculations about what the jersey might look like. One can be found here: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Wild%20green%20jersey/puckdrawn/Concepts/MinnesottaWildConcept.png, and another can be found here: http://www.wildpuckbanter.com/2009/08/new-wild-jersey.html.

This is an interesting concept to me, sports teams have been using "alternate" jerseys for many years now. Some have been successful, and others have been total flops. However, the Wild had an alternate jersey a few years ago. The jersey seen here: http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354.

What happened was, the NHL had switched jersey manufacturers. The league contracted with Reebok and their new Edge line of jerseys. The "Rbk Edge" was a custom-fit jersey, which was supposed to supply better comfort for players. And, the NHL made a rule that teams had to scrap whatever third jerseys they had, and couldn't unveil a new one for two years.

The Wild kept their white jersey, and opted to keep the red "alternate" jersey http://www.icejerseys.com/item_details.php?id=5354 and got rid of the original green sweater.

Here's what bothers me about the red sweater they kept. The logo on the front. In my estimation, a good and respectable corporate brand, should not have to tell you what it is. You will notice that the words "Minnesota Wild" surround it. Earlier in the franchise's history, the words "NHL Hockey" even appeared on a secondary logo the team was going to use.

If you see the logo for GM, you know that it's for General Motors. They make cars. The company does not need to put "auto manufacturer" on the logo. If you see an oblong "G" surrounded by a green and gold oval, you know that logo is for the Green Bay Packers. They don't need to put "We play football in Green Bay" on the logo. Let's not forget the Golden Arches. These are respectable, reputable, trustworthy corporations, that do not need to label what they are, or what they do, to get the point across.

I feel the Minnesota Wild made a mistake when choosing what sweater to keep. The Minnesota Wild have some of the best merchandise sales, if not the best merchandise sales in the National Hockey League. The only problem, most people can't figure out what animal the head belongs to, that you see on the front of the jersey. Is it a bobcat, cougar, a panther? No one knows. But, they DO know that logo.

On the other hand, looking at some of the concept drawings people have conjured up in their minds (the ones with a script font "Minnesota"), many sports teams in all professional leagues are putting the city or state of origin on their road jerseys.

Personally, I think the Wild should ditch the red jersey with the circle "Minnesota Wild" surrounding the cougar head (I'll call it a cougar). The Wild have made a name for themselves in the National Hockey League, in their ten years of existence - on the basis of their enormous fan base, merchandise sales and team ownership.

I feel that it is in the best interest, not just of the Wild, not just of sports teams, but of all corporations, to do their very best to cultivate a corporate brand, a corporate logo that is immediately recognizable - without being told what it represents.