Vikings Stadium

[Central Valley Bowties]

So the news has reported a Vikings Stadium deal is being pushed before the state legislative session ends in May.

Where I like the Vikings....I love the Gophers. I hope a stadium deal gets pushed thru for the Vikings as I think they are good for the state but do feel the if they Vikings leave Gopher football benefit with more fan interest across the state.

Thoughts on if/when this gets pushed thru?

[parkinglotgopher]

The Gophers and the Twins got their stadium deals in the nick of time. Considering the economic climate of the past two years and the pace of the current recovery, coupled with Minnesota's own debt issues, I can't imagine the allocation of public funds to build a profit-turning machine for a billionaire.

[Brew_recruit]

The Gophers and the Twins got their stadium deals in the nick of time. Considering the economic climate of the past two years and the pace of the current recovery, coupled with Minnesota's own debt issues, I can't imagine the allocation of public funds to build a profit-turning machine for a billionaire.

only people who don't understand economics think that a vikings stadium only benefits Wilf.

[streetfighter]

The Gophers and the Twins got their stadium deals in the nick of time. Considering the economic climate of the past two years and the pace of the current recovery, coupled with Minnesota's own debt issues, I can't imagine the allocation of public funds to build a profit-turning machine for a billionaire.

This.

It will be an atrocious mistake if public funds are allocated for a stadium at this point. Minnesota faces a budget deficit of about $1b this bienium and nearly $6b (projected) for the 2012-13 bienium. That doesn't sound conducive to a new stadium.

[streetfighter]

only people who don't understand economics think that a vikings stadium only benefits Wilf.

1) He never said that it only benefits Wilf
2) Nothing about PLG's statement was inaccurate. Wilf IS a billionaire, and a new stadium = a profit turning machine.

[GophBen]

only people who don't understand economics think that a vikings stadium only benefits Wilf.

A football-only stadium has little to no impact on a municipality. However, the potential of jobs created right now might be enticing to the schmucks in St. Paul.

[Brew_recruit]

A football-only stadium has little to no impact on a municipality. However, the potential of jobs created right now might be enticing to the schmucks in St. Paul.

so it will have little impact on our city? Check your vocab please. Plus you don't know what you are talking about because Zygi never said it would be a football only stadium.

[GophBen]

so it will have little impact on our city? Check your vocab please. Plus you don't know what you are talking about because Zygi never said it would be a football only stadium.

You're absolutely right. I always tend to post things I know nothing about. And you're right that it wouldn't be football-only. The monster truck rallies would be vital to Twin Cities.

Since I don't know anything, let me ask you something. How much new money would exist if the Vikings build the stadium? And what would happen if the stadium did not get built and the team moves to Kuala Lumpur? Would money currently spent by Minnesotans on the Vikings evaporate?

[FireCosgroveGuy]

A stadium would put about 3,000 people back to work right now, so that impact to people can't be understated.

No general fund money will be used, so please stop crying about that and the deficit. It will almost exclusively be things like Vikings lottery game, ticket tax, memorabilia tax (jerseys, hats, etc), etc.

People sure do hate TCF and Target Field..............

The team paid $18M in taxes in 2008 and over their life has paid a huge amount more than that. So if they leave you automatically lose $18M in taxes paid from the organization.

[Handsome Pete]

, I can't imagine the allocation of public funds to build a profit-turning machine for a billionaire.

What a completely idiotic statement. What the hell does building a stadium for the state of Minnesota have to do with "a profit-turning machine for a billionaire"? It is this type of whiny, inferiority-complex drivel that keeps the rest of us from making progress.

By the same ridiculous logic, why should we have a new football stadium for a bunch of STUDENT athletes who shouldn't care where they play?

This moron thinks it is a great idea to turn down a Vikings stadium so we can pay 2 or 3 times as much in five years to lure an NFL team back when the Vikings move to Los Angeles. Give me a break.

[GophersInIowa]

You're absolutely right. I always tend to post things I know nothing about. And you're right that it wouldn't be football-only. The monster truck rallies would be vital to Twin Cities.



Yeah, who wants events like Super Bowls and Final Fours?? They do nothing for the economy.

[GopherVotary]

Zig will build it himself. He's quite a guy.

[loki]

I may be the only guy who wishes the Vikings would just go away. I'm sick of pro basketball and Football because all it has become is "thug life." I still have season tickets for Gopher football but I'm starting to become somewhat disinterested in college football and basketball as well for the same reasons. There are just too many players that are not good people. In regards to helping the economy if I don't spend my money on football I will spend it on something else so in general I would call it draw at best. I figure its the same for other people.

[GophBen]

Yeah, who wants events like Super Bowls and Final Fours?? They do nothing for the economy.

I'm sorry. I should work on my hyperbole. A Final Four is a reasonable expectation if it's indoors. A Super Bowl, however, is not. The NFL seems to be edging closer and closer to keeping it in warm climates to enable more activities during Super Bowl week.

And just to play nice, I went and figured what the Jock Tax benefit is for an NFL team. Assuming we've got comparable tax levels and Indiana for this subject, revenue collected from visiting teams is roughly a $500,000 a year.

[ust4life]

...I can't imagine the allocation of public funds to build a profit-turning machine for a billionaire.

It's comments like these, made by completely ignorant people, that are the exact reason why the Vikings won't get a stadium. For some reason, we never heard a thing about the $14MM of state money used to renovate Orchestra Hall, did we? How much money does Orchestra Hall make for the state? You never heard one complaint from the artsy fartsy's about that, did you? Bring up using public money (which will mostly come in the form of a "use tax" - additional ticket fees, lottery games, merchandise tax, etc.) for a Vikings stadium and you'd think the world was ending. People need to wake up and smell the roses. Factoring in the tax paid by the Vikings alone last year, that's $18MM in funding for the state that we'd be losing. Not only that, but think about all of the bars/restaurants/parking lots that benefit from these events? Been down to a Twins game yet? In the 8 years I've lived in the cities, I've NEVER seen 1st Ave hopping on a week night at 5pm as it is with the new stadium. Think of all the cash going to the state from those establishments.

Wake up and smell the roses...the sooner, the better.

[Rotundo]

When the state spent money on orchestra hall did somebody get rich? Zygi's net worth will increase by hundreds of millions the second the stadium is built over and above his contribution. The stadium will provide a place where the business he owns will be able to generate more revenue than the stadium where his business currently plays.

The stadium is about Zygi making more money. Don't kid yourself. He has made a couple hundred million owning the Vikings so far but he wants to make much more. That is his right but is it our duty to help him do this? No.

The vikings have no where to go. They have no real leverage. They say they won't renew the lease after 2011. OK. Where will they playin 2012? There is no other option.

All businesses have employees who pay income tax. Should they all be able to divert their income tax payments and use them to build new offices, plants, etc?

[Brew_recruit]

You're absolutely right. I always tend to post things I know nothing about. And you're right that it wouldn't be football-only. The monster truck rallies would be vital to Twin Cities.

Since I don't know anything, let me ask you something. How much new money would exist if the Vikings build the stadium? And what would happen if the stadium did not get built and the team moves to Kuala Lumpur? Would money currently spent by Minnesotans on the Vikings evaporate?

check old stories, the stadium would be an entrainment center

[gopherjay]

laugh like hell when the northern Minnesota communist party folks run the Vikes out of town. We should then sell northern Minnesota to North Dakota to get a new team.

[badgergopher]

so we can pay 2 or 3 times as much in five years to lure an NFL team back when the Vikings move to Los Angeles. Give me a break.

This is the best reason to do it. Set aside idealism for a moment and be pragmatic. If the Vikings leave we will get another team. This is not LA. The twin cities rival Green Bay every year as the NFL markets drawing the greatest local share. The new team will be just like the old one except the stadium will cost more, the team will win less, and the tradition will be gone forever. Think Lakers/Timberwolves. Given all of this I'm not willing to call Zygi's bluff.

[Brew_recruit]

This is the best reason to do it. Set aside idealism for a moment and be pragmatic. If the Vikings leave we will get another team. This is not LA. The twin cities rival Green Bay every year as the NFL markets drawing the greatest local share. The new team will be just like the old one except the stadium will cost more, the team will win less, and the tradition will be gone forever. Think Lakers/Timberwolves. Given all of this I'm not willing to call Zygi's bluff.


your right, because no teams have ever left this area before....

[streetfighter]

laugh like hell when the northern Minnesota communist party folks run the Vikes out of town. We should then sell northern Minnesota to North Dakota to get a new team.

A+ point. Thanks for bringing something intelligent to the conversation...

[mnboiler]

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings need a new stadium sooner rather than later. Most of thier designs they have been really nice but the most recent ones have Teflon roof. Wait, that sounds familiar, isn't that what the Metrodome roof is made out of. So let me get this right Viking, Gophers, and Twins fans have suffered for years under a white puffy sky. Now that two team to get out of it now the only team left to escape wants a NEW Metrodome. Am I missing something here. The Metrodome is terrible and NOW you want to build a new Metrodome. I feel like Lewis Black here. Some people are just stupid.

You don't believe me check out the 6th paragraph in this blog.
http://www.savethevikes.org/2009/12/22/metrodome-next-great-vision-or-pipe-dream/

Those photos look familiar too.

[GoAUpher]

The economic benefit arguments for taxpayers don't add up or pan out over the long haul. This has been proven time and again with other stadiums. Even with Final Fours and the occasional (at best) Super Bowl, this is a new building that will go unused most of the year. There are already too many arenas fighting for the non-sports related concerts and events. Building a new Vikes stadium won't increase the number of these events. If anything, all it means is that an event that used to be held somewhere happens at the new stadium. However, building new stadiums do offer short term economic benefits. In this case, it would be a boon to the construction sector at a time when that area of industry is still hurting.

None of this means that the stadium isn't worth building. The same is true of Target Field/TCF and I think that both were good decisions. They both put their teams back where they belonged and in their own stadium. And both will revitalize there respective areas (campus and Warehouse District) in their own ways. The best reason for either was not economic (outside of the benefit to the Twins/Gophers). So lets not pretend anything will be different with a new Vikes arena.

In the end, the one enjoying the best economic benefits will be Wilf. People can deny this all they want but its true. A new stadium skyrockets the value of the franchise. Nothing wrong with that. But there is no need to push this idea aside.

The only worthwhile argument for building a new Vikings stadium is the same one used by supporters of the new Guthrie or Orchestra Hall. Keeping the team in the state is a quality of life issue. People can disagree about whether the Vikes are worth it or not (just like folks will disagree if the artsy fartsy stuff is worth it). But in the end this is a choice to partially subsidize a form of entertainment because it is an asset to the people of Minnesota.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other because I don't believe the Vikes have the leverage to move. The NFL has a good product here with a loyal fanbase, strong history, great rivalries, and solid revenue stream (that is currently hamstrung by the Dome). A stadium will eventually get built. I just don't see them being shortsighted and moving the team out of a strong market when in the end this will happen.

How the pay for it means something. General fund money should be a no-no. "Use taxes" seems promising but the proof is in the pudding (i.e. can they raise enough money to fund the state's end w/o dipping into other sources of revenue).

[AhliBobwa]

The economic benefit arguments for taxpayers don't add up or pan out over the long haul. This has been proven time and again with other stadiums. Even with Final Fours and the occasional (at best) Super Bowl, this is a new building that will go unused most of the year. .

Target Field and The Bank were approved in a drastically different economic climate from the one that currently exists. Social services are being slashed across the board all over Minnesota. Hospitals don't have the resources they need, schools are cutting programs that are vital to kids, and unless things get better this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is completely irresponsible to allocate significant public funds for a new stadium when hospitals, schools, etc., are experiencing devastating budget cuts. Period.

The fact that Wilf/some members of the legislature are pushing for this right now just shows how out of touch they really are.


Does anyone know if there is currently an organized effort opposing public funding for a new stadium?

[awag777]

Target Field and The Bank were approved in a drastically different economic climate from the one that currently exists. Social services are being slashed across the board all over Minnesota. Hospitals don't have the resources they need, schools are cutting programs that are vital to kids, and unless things get better this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is completely irresponsible to allocate significant public funds for a new stadium when hospitals, schools, etc., are experiencing devastating budget cuts. Period.

The fact that Wilf/members of the legislature are pushing for this right now just shows how out of touch they really are.


Does anyone know if there is currently an organized effort opposing public funding for a new stadium?

You're a moron if you think a majority of Minnesotans don't want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota.

And your argument about slashing social services, schools, etc. is obviously a good one, if it were at all relevant. This is not a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. It's not like we're going to cut social services, entitlements, etc. and use the money saved for the stadium. Absolutely fallacious argument. NOT building a stadium will not stop those cuts from happening, I guarantee you.

[forestlaker]

Education, Health and Human Services take up 70% of the State Budget. How much do you want to set aside for them? Do you think Education will ever say "You've given us enough?"

[GoGophers2005]

Construction jobs, construction jobs, construction jobs.
Does anyone against this stadium realize the total lack of construction cranes in the Twin Cities area? I am in the architecture field and although a Vikings stadium will be barely felt in my line of work it will be huge in general construction, mechanical, electrical which are really getting hit hard in this recession. The economy will not be righting itself in this country until we get building things once again.

In saying that, I think we need to throw out the 'what the Vikings bring to the State of Minnesota talk in terms of $$'. It's a debate that nobody is going to win. I will say that if the Vikings really were a cash cow Hennepin County would have hitched their wagon with the Vikings instead of with the Twins. Twins=80 home games....Vikings=10

In saying that, look at all the nice architecture we have helped build in the past 10 years. Guthrie, Science Museum, History Center, Convention Center addition, TCF, Target Field, Xcel Energy Center, Mpls Library, Light Rail. Our airport is one of the nicest in the country (built on user fees not taxes). A Vikings stadium would be a nice exclamation point.

[wait!what?]

If the Vikes are allowed/forced to move to a new city then please alter the state consititution to ban trying to lure another team to the city by building a new 1 billion dollar stadium. See North Stars.

[streetfighter]

Is there somewhere online that depicts the financing package they are proposing?

[RodentRampage]

One big reason that I am glad the Gophers have their own stadium is because if we were still in the dome, the Gophers would again be used as a revenue source for the Vikings, and we'd be forced into the new Vikings stadium for decades more.

That being said, if the Vikings to move, there will be another team here. Many of the people opposed to building a new stadium would then shake their fists and demand "why did you let the Vikings leave?" We'll just wind up spending even more for a stadium to entice a team to move here than we would if we built a new Vikings stadium.

Maybe the NFL should expand by a few more cities so that there is no longer a credible threat of moving to another city.

[AhliBobwa]

You're a moron if you think a majority of Minnesotans don't want to keep the Vikings in Minnesota.

At no point did I argue about whether or not people want the Vikings to stay in Minnesota. You should try reading before opening your mouth to hurl childish insults. You just make yourself look stupid when you engage in behavior like that. :pig:

[AhliBobwa]

That being said, if the Vikings to move, there will be another team here.

It is far from guaranteed that Minnesota would bring a replacement NFL franchise in the event that the Vikings left town. Just because the North Stars were replaced does not ensure that the Vikings eventually will be. If (hypothetically), a struggling economy prevents the state of Minnesota from building a new stadium for Vikings, why would Minnesota turn around and pay more money for an expansion franchise without the Vikings history or popular appeal? :confused:

[goldengophers]

One big reason that I am glad the Gophers have their own stadium is because if we were still in the dome, the Gophers would again be used as a revenue source for the Vikings, and we'd be forced into the new Vikings stadium for decades more.

That being said, if the Vikings to move, there will be another team here. Many of the people opposed to building a new stadium would then shake their fists and demand "why did you let the Vikings leave?" We'll just wind up spending even more for a stadium to entice a team to move here than we would if we built a new Vikings stadium.

Maybe the NFL should expand by a few more cities so that there is no longer a credible threat of moving to another city.

That's why LA has remained open for so long the NFL needs a viable threat in order to continue to receive public stadium subsidies league wide. The minute a credible threat ceases to exist public financing goes away.
The state needs to learn from the North Stars debacle and build the stadium for relatively cheap now rather than lose the team and pay double to get another team back.

[RodentRampage]

I agree, LA is by far the most credible threat for relocation for any team. All 32 teams can threaten to pack up and move to LA. Once LA gets a team, the threat of moving is drastically reduced. If people want to say goodbye to the Vikings, they had better be prepared to say 'no' to the NFL, because we will may more to build a new stadium for a new team than to build one for the Vikings.

If we do build a stadium, we need to make sure that the Vikings are signed for a very long time.

The NFL won't allow teams to be fan-owned like the Packers (the Packers are grandfathered in). I think the NFL should change this rule.

[SMU GOPHS FAN]

It is far from guaranteed that Minnesota would bring a replacement NFL franchise in the event that the Vikings left town. Just because the North Stars were replaced does not ensure that the Vikings eventually will be. If (hypothetically), a struggling economy prevents the state of Minnesota from building a new stadium for Vikings, why would Minnesota turn around and pay more money for an expansion franchise without the Vikings history or popular appeal? :confused:


See Browns, Cleveland.

[ruralgopher]

If the Vikings are willing to sign a 75 yr lease, build it. If not, I won't lose too much sleep over not having the opportunity to be held hostage every 20-30 years by billioniares.

[tjgopher]

why would Minnesota turn around and pay more money for an expansion franchise without the Vikings history or popular appeal? :confused:

Why did Cleveland do it when it lost the Browns?
Why did Houston do it when it lost the Oilers?
Why did St. Louis do it when it lost the Cardinals?
Why did Baltimore do it when it lost the Colts?

They did it because they realized they missed football and it was worth it to the community.

[Pewterschmidt]

I wish Wilf would agree to this plan:

1. Sell the Metrodome to Wilf for $1, including the land it sits on.
2. Purchase some parking lots around the Dome and give it to Wilf.
3. Give Wilf $300-$400 mil to renovate the Dome.
4. Pay for #2 and #3 thru slots, lotteries, merchandise taxes, etc

I saw a plan that showed that $400 mil would be enough to add an additional level of suites in the dome as well as increase the size of the concourses, refurbish the exterior and roof, and improve the lockerrooms.


Benefits of this plan:
1. Infrastructure is already in place given the site doesn't change.
2. $400 mil is less than 1/2 the amount that it would cost to build a stadium from scratch.
3. Wilf gets twice the suite money, more parking revenue, plus all concessions.
4. No existing public money to fund.

Drawbacks:
1. For at least 1 season, the Vikes have to find another home. A renovation this large would take at least 18 months.
2. Wilf wants to start from scratch.

Personally, I'd like to see the state play chicken and say take it or leave it with this plan.

[AhliBobwa]

Why did Cleveland do it when it lost the Browns?
Why did Houston do it when it lost the Oilers?
Why did St. Louis do it when it lost the Cardinals?
Why did Baltimore do it when it lost the Colts?

They did it because they realized they missed football and it was worth it to the community.


We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings (this is GopherHole after all). I don't understand how some people think the community will fall apart without an NFL franchise. It won't, and vastly more people than you think couldn't care less about anything sports related.

[RodentRampage]

We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings (this is GopherHole after all). I don't understand how some people think the community will fall apart without an NFL franchise. It won't, and vastly more people than you think couldn't care less about anything sports related.

Vastly more people than you think would move heaven and earth to get a new NFL team here if the Vikings left. This may be Gopherhole, but lets not think that we are a random sampling of the people of the state of Minnesota.

If the Vikings left, the Gophers would probably become a hotter ticket, but the move for a new NFL team would begin the moment the Vikings left.

[Sean Lumpkin]

I may be the only guy who wishes the Vikings would just go away. I'm sick of pro basketball and Football because all it has become is "thug life." I still have season tickets for Gopher football but I'm starting to become somewhat disinterested in college football and basketball as well for the same reasons. There are just too many players that are not good people. In regards to helping the economy if I don't spend my money on football I will spend it on something else so in general I would call it draw at best. I figure its the same for other people.

I heard some "Patriot" is trying to form a pro basketball league for "non thug life", "real American" players only. I'm serious. If the "Patriot" gets enough like minded sports fans for that sport, he'll try for a football league, too. In the mean time, head on up w94 and become a Johnnies fan. Believe me, the Vikings, t-wolves and Gophers fb/bb won't miss you. You'll still have gopher and wild hockey. After all, there's only "good people" on those teams.

[Sean Lumpkin]

your right, because no teams have ever left this area before....

Norm Green

[Sean Lumpkin]

At no point did I argue about whether or not people want the Vikings to stay in Minnesota. You should try reading before opening your mouth to hurl childish insults. You just make yourself look stupid when you engage in behavior like that. :pig:

But that is precisely the point. Forget about everything else. Do we want the Vikings or don't we, period. They have us by the nards. Believe me they will leave and we will be very unhappy not to have our Vikings to root for on Sundays. Piss and moan about revenue, other needs, what ever. The question is, do you want to keep the Vikings? If yes, then we pay the price. If no, we all learn to love skiing, skating and the Green Bay Packers.

[dpodoll68]

We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings

:rolleyes:

[13 Lined Ground Squirrel]

Lets not kid ourselves the Vikings need a new stadium sooner rather than later. Most of thier designs they have been really nice but the most recent ones have Teflon roof. Wait, that sounds familiar, isn't that what the Metrodome roof is made out of. So let me get this right Viking, Gophers, and Twins fans have suffered for years under a white puffy sky. Now that two team to get out of it now the only team left to escape wants a NEW Metrodome. Am I missing something here. The Metrodome is terrible and NOW you want to build a new Metrodome. I feel like Lewis Black here. Some people are just stupid.

You don't believe me check out the 6th paragraph in this blog.
http://www.savethevikes.org/2009/12/22/metrodome-next-great-vision-or-pipe-dream/

Those photos look familiar too.

Correct. The current design is like a bad joke.

When Zigi came to town talking about an open air stadium in the suburbs, I had visions of the Vikings going back to real football with real tailgating. Now they're talking about building the Metrodome again? Maybe even in the same location?

Eff that. I'd rather the team just leave town.

An open air stadium is the cheapest and best option. The economic impact of Superbowls and Final Fours is grossly exaggerated.

[ChemEGopher]

Jerry Jones built his own multi-purpose stadium. It seems to be working out well for him. Why can't Mr. Wilf?

[tjgopher]

We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings (this is GopherHole after all). I don't understand how some people think the community will fall apart without an NFL franchise. It won't, and vastly more people than you think couldn't care less about anything sports related.

No one said the community would shrivel up and cease to exist. Houston, St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore all would have survived without the NFL. That isn't what anyone is saying. The point is, enough people in those towns felt like the NFL was important enough to pay big $$$ and build a new stadium to lure teams back to their cities or get an expansion team. There will be enough people in the upper midwest who agree. Should the Vikings bolt for LA, we will get an NFL team back here in due time. And, I promise you if you poll the people in all of those other towns, they would ALL say they should have just ponied up the dough to begin with and kept their original franchise. They all would have been better off.

As to us already having big time football, could you not make the argument we already had big time hockey (this is GopherHole after all). Yet, that didn't stop the puck heads from going and getting a new NHL hockey franchise here. The same will happen with the NFL.

Just build the thing, employ 3000 people at a down time, and keep the original team. It isn't that hard. This community will pay at some point, and the sooner it happens the cheaper it will be.

[positively4thstreet]

We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings.

Funniest thing in this whole thread.

[ChemEGopher]

...the sooner it happens the cheaper it will be.

Funny thing is, the sooner it happens, the less Wilf will have to pay as well. How much has the price tag on a new stadium gone up since Wilf bought the team in 2005? Back in those days, wasn't the cost estimated to be in the $600-700MM range? Now its estimated to be $870MM at the cheapest. Wilf is a smart guy. He has to realize that trying to get public funds while the country is recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression probably isn't going to work (here or anywhere else in the US). Soon, he'll have to accept that if he wants a new stadium he's going to have to pay for most of it himself and that the sooner he scraps his attempts to get tax payer help, the more money he will save himself.

[RodentRampage]

The Vikings could agree to an extension and try again when the economy is more favorable. It depends on how credible the threat of moving to LA is. If they did move, I wonder if they would leave the name behind as they did with the Browns.

[josh087]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers. We're on a GOPHER message board and I get the feeling most people on here want the Vikings to stay. If you took a poll - I would bet most would want them to stay.

It would be equivalent to a Burger King message board where BK executives were in favor of the McDonald's across the street building a brand new state-of-the-art facility.

The Burger King can still stay in business even though the McDonald's is across the street. If it works really hard, it might even be able to thrive one day. There is enough demand. But think of how many MORE people would eat at the Burger King if the McDonald's moved that franchise to another location. It might take awhile to build up the new clientele, and it wouldn't happen overnight, but in the long run it would be a good thing - and make it that much easier for that BK to be the #1 choice for fast food in that town.

I just can't believe so many diehard Gopher fans are also big Vikings fans. Just because they don't compete in your mind doesn't mean it is that way for the other 99% of the population of MN. My obsession with the Gophers has made it evidently clear in my mind the the Vikings are one of many obstacles in the way of success - and as a result I am no longer a Vikings "fan" because of my Gopher loyalty - and I just wish more of us realized it.

[RodentRampage]

I would wager that most of the people sitting in the stands watching the Gophers on Saturday are on their couches watching the Vikings on Sunday. Even if the Vikings were to leave, it is unlikely that the Gophers would remain the only game in town for long. The number of people who would demand an NFL would be many times greater than those who demanded that the Gophers be the only team in town.

Why not build the Vikings stadium in Saint Cloud? It's close enough to the Twin Cities so that people could just drive up I-94 to go to the games or get on the Northstar line once it goes all the way to Saint Cloud. Since the team is named for the state rather than for a city, the name wouldn't be a problem.

[z-stein]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers. We're on a GOPHER message board and I get the feeling most people on here want the Vikings to stay. If you took a poll - I would bet most would want them to stay.

It would be equivalent to a Burger King message board where BK executives were in favor of the McDonald's across the street building a brand new state-of-the-art facility.

The Burger King can still stay in business even though the McDonald's is across the street. If it works really hard, it might even be able to thrive one day. There is enough demand. But think of how many MORE people would eat at the Burger King if the McDonald's moved that franchise to another location. It might take awhile to build up the new clientele, and it wouldn't happen overnight, but in the long run it would be a good thing - and make it that much easier for that BK to be the #1 choice for fast food in that town.

I just can't believe so many diehard Gopher fans are also big Vikings fans. Just because they don't compete in your mind doesn't mean it is that way for the other 99% of the population of MN. My obsession with the Gophers has made it evidently clear in my mind the the Vikings are one of many obstacles in the way of success - and as a result I am no longer a Vikings "fan" because of my Gopher loyalty - and I just wish more of us realized it.

I don't agree with that at all. If the Vikings leave Minnesota, the Gophers would certainly get a lot more attention from Minnesotans and the media, however I don't see how the Viking's absence would systematically cause the Gophers to become a better team. Maybe you could explain your thought process. The idea that the football program's recent mediocrity can be attributed to the Vikings in any way is asinine.

By the same logic, do you think Gopher basketball and hockey fans should want the Timberwolves and Wild to leave?

The Vikings have a long history and tradition in Minnesota, and I don't think "diehard" gopher fans should be told that they should want the Vikings to leave if they are true gopher fans. The Gophers can succeed with the Vikings in town. They just haven't.

[craw0092]

Jerry Jones built his own multi-purpose stadium. It seems to be working out well for him. Why can't Mr. Wilf?

Because he didn't pay for the stadium himself. The people and visitors of Arlington did.

[positively4thstreet]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers. We're on a GOPHER message board and I get the feeling most people on here want the Vikings to stay. If you took a poll - I would bet most would want them to stay.

It would be equivalent to a Burger King message board where BK executives were in favor of the McDonald's across the street building a brand new state-of-the-art facility.

The Burger King can still stay in business even though the McDonald's is across the street. If it works really hard, it might even be able to thrive one day. There is enough demand. But think of how many MORE people would eat at the Burger King if the McDonald's moved that franchise to another location. It might take awhile to build up the new clientele, and it wouldn't happen overnight, but in the long run it would be a good thing - and make it that much easier for that BK to be the #1 choice for fast food in that town.

I just can't believe so many diehard Gopher fans are also big Vikings fans. Just because they don't compete in your mind doesn't mean it is that way for the other 99% of the population of MN. My obsession with the Gophers has made it evidently clear in my mind the the Vikings are one of many obstacles in the way of success - and as a result I am no longer a Vikings "fan" because of my Gopher loyalty - and I just wish more of us realized it.

This is the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. If it's is a joke-well done.

[AhliBobwa]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers...I just can't believe so many diehard Gopher fans are also big Vikings fans. Just because they don't compete in your mind doesn't mean it is that way for the other 99% of the population of MN. My obsession with the Gophers has made it evidently clear in my mind the the Vikings are one of many obstacles in the way of success - and as a result I am no longer a Vikings "fan" because of my Gopher loyalty - and I just wish more of us realized it.
:clap:

+ infinity.

I too, don't think it's a coincidence that since the advent of the Vikings, The Golden Gophers-- one of the most storied programs in the history of college football, is now treated like a second class citizen by much of its own local media.

College football is superior to professional football in every respect and for many reasons.
--Game Day is always electric due to the fact that every single week sees teams eliminated from National Title/Conference title contention. (whereas, in the NFL 9-7 in the regular season is enough to win the Super Bowl). Rivalries have incredibly interesting histories (and as Golden Gopher fans we are lucky to be involved in three of longest running and most historic trophy games in college football). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370284-the-10-best-traveling-trophies-in-college-football#page/8

--In CFB the play on the field is varied and interesting. Teams run drastically different styles on both offense and defense. Last year the Gophers saw an option team, different spread looks, variations of power attacks, all with vastly different blocking schemes.
This point is illustrated by the brilliance of smartfootball.com. I suggest reading this article in its entirety.
http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

The below quote from the aforementioned article says it all--

'There's several reasons why I devote less space here to what NFL teams do than for college teams. Far and away the most significant reason though, is that, somewhat counterintuitively, NFL offenses are surprisingly bland and homogenized. Not entirely, but as a rule of thumb, 80% of what NFL teams do on offense (or defense, really too) is extremely straightforward to the point where every team runs the same stuff. And the list is not that long.'

There's a reason why the best announcers and football purists watch college football. Watching the NFL is often mind numbingly boring because of this strategic blandness.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that Universities are no threat to leave and serve the community infinitely more than any professional sports team.

[UpnorthGo4]

This is the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. If it's is a joke-well done.

I am with you, josh. You are right on target with your comments. The sooner we can get the Purple out of town, the sooner the Gophers can get back to winning Big 10 Championships. Once the Vikings leave there will never again be an empty seat at Gophers Stadium.

[dpodoll68]

College football is superior to professional football in every respect

Obviously, it is not. Why even type something so stupid? Stop fishing for replies to your posts.

"I like it more" in no way equals "superior...in every respect", d*uchenozzle.

[tjgopher]

Soon, he'll have to accept that if he wants a new stadium he's going to have to pay for most of it himself and that the sooner he scraps his attempts to get tax payer help, the more money he will save himself.

That's just not true. Industry (California) is prepared to pay for most of a stadium. They just need a team. So, if you're Wilf, you can ask Minnesota to step up and pay for 65% of the stadium. If MN does, the Vikings stay. And, if MN fails to do it, then he takes his poker chips to California where they ARE COMMITTED to paying for 65%+ of the new stadium. He gets into a bigger market and the value of the team increases. So, he has leverage and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Then, 7-8 years later, some bigwigs in the MSP sports community realize how much they miss the NFL, combine some forces, talk the lawmakers into finally building a new stadium and pay $1.3 billion to build it and introduce the Minnesota Jaguars (moving in from JAX). Yeah! The NFL is here! Does that sound appetizing?

No, it is best to spend the money now, keep the current storied franchise in town, and be done with it. Yes, the economy is down. All the more reason to commit some resources towards job creation and economic development surrounding a new football stadium. Instantly, there would be at least 3000 new construction jobs for at least two years. There would be countless ancillary economic benefits (secondary jobs, property development, community pride) in both the short term and long term. An $800 million dollar stadium means there is money being spent on jobs, goods, materials, etc. If they're smart, they'll force them to buy much of the supplies from MN based companies to keep that part of it local. There could be tons of benefits that may - in a small way - help get the economy going a bit.

And, for clarification, I'm just dealing in what I believe is reality. If I had my druthers, I'd love for the Vikings to bolt for LA and never have NFL football in MSP again. I do think it would help the Gophers. But, the reality of it is, the NFL is a money-producing machine that is the most popular sport in America. The Vikings are wildly more popular than the Gophers. If the Vikings leave, the reality is there will be NFL football returning here. The Gophers won't get a football monopoly. There's just too much money to be made in the the nation's 16th largest market for it to be NFL-less.

[RodentRampage]

I too, don't think it's a coincidence that since the advent of the Vikings, The Golden Gophers-- one of the most storied programs in the history of college football, is now treated like a second class citizen by much of its own local media.

Other colleges have head to deal with NFL teams without having to deal with such a negative media. I'm not so sure the media would be much more positive if the Gophers were the only game in town.


College football is superior to professional football in every respect and for many reasons.

I prefer college football too. However, what I prefer doesn't matter. The NFL is quite popular, after all. The NFL playoffs have been extremely popular, I don't think there are many NFL fans crying out for dispensing with the playoffs and having #1 play #2.

[ruralgopher]

That's just not true. Industry (California) is prepared to pay for most of a stadium. They just need a team. So, if you're Wilf, you can ask Minnesota to step up and pay for 65% of the stadium. If MN does, the Vikings stay. And, if MN fails to do it, then he takes his poker chips to California where they ARE COMMITTED to paying for 65%+ of the new stadium. He gets into a bigger market and the value of the team increases. So, he has leverage and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Wilf is not interested in the CA plan because the guy developing that is requiring 51% ownership for the expense of building the stadium. Wilf wants to retain majority ownership.

[tjgopher]

Wilf is not interested in the CA plan because the guy developing that is requiring 51% ownership for the expense of building the stadium. Wilf wants to retain majority ownership.

No, Roski wants only minority ownership (he's quoted as saying 30%), which Wilf just might do if he gets his stadium paid for AND moves up to the country's #2 market. Of course, Wilf is playing nice for now and saying he isn't interested in California. But, if 2012 rolls around and there isn't a stadium deal for Minnesota, expect the gloves to come off.

[howeda7]

Reading this thread gives me a headache. That said a few points:

-This isn't just about the Vikings. A major metro area the size of MSP needs a major venue such as what the new Vikings stadium will provide. TCF and Target Field are outdoors and this is Minnesota. A large indoor venue to host things like Final Fours and Political Conventions (in addition to the mocked tractor pulls) is needed. Yes, maybe the X can host a political convention, but it will never host a Final Four. And despite the NFL's trend towards the South, we will get at least 1 Super Bowl out of the deal, especially if we demand it upfront.

-Yes, they are talking about another Dome, but the Metrdome was built on the cheap and outdated the day it opened. Even so, it's lasted 30 years. A replacement not contructed on the cheap will last 50.

-The whole 'what about the children without winter coats?' argument is beyond stupid. No one is talking about swiping $700 million from the state General Fund for this. That has never been the proposal. It will be financed with taxes on things like tickets, rental cars, hotels, resteraunts and sports memorabilia. You know...all the things that those out-staters and out-of-staters spend thier money one when they to the 'the cities' for a Vikings game.

-The argument that a new stadium 'generates no economic impact' is wrong. Many of the Vikings season ticket-holders are from Fargo and Sioux Falls, etc. Do you think those folks are really going to come into town anyway and drop a few hundred on meals and hotels? Do you think a Final Four has no economic impact? A Super Bowl? The player payroll is near $100 million. They pay income taxes. Those jobs will leave with team. That's not worth $0. Does it have enough impact to justify paying the whole $800 million? No. But paying half is not such a bad proposition. In any case, it's worth a lot more then $0.

-If we let the Vikings leave, we will indeed end up paying more 5-10 years from now to replace them. We will become the new LA. The NFL will not leave the #14 tv market that produces some of it's highest TV ratings and sells out every game for 13 years sit empty while teams die in Jacksonville and Buffalo.

-This is just to allow Ziggy to get rich some say. Yes, the value of the Vikings will probably go up $200-300 million if he gets a new stadium. I also expect him to pay $300-400 of the cost. Sounds like a wash to me. I'm all for holding out and getting a fair % out of him. But 100% is not going to happen, so let's try for 50%.

-'TCF and Target Field were approved in a vastly different economic climate and the Vikings shouldn't think of trying this now.' TCF and Target Field were passed all of 4 years ago. They are on 25-30 year bonds. They are still being paid for right now in this horrible economy. Approving or not approving a major contruction project that will be paid for over 30 years because of how the economy is right now is the definition of short-sighted. All of these stadiums will be paid for during good economies and bad. Because of the current situation, the construction costs and interest rates are lower then they will ever be again. In reality it's the perfect time to do build it.

-And finally the worst argument of all from Josh087, Ali and others: As Gopher fans we should hate the Vikings and want them to leave. How selfish and pathetic can you get? First, to question anyone's Gopher fanhood because they also loves the Vikings blows my mind. And those of you trying to pin the last 40 years of failure on the Vikings are sad. Try looking in the mirror and at the administration and coaches for the real culprits and not some made-up conspiracy theory. Would the Gophers get more media coverage and a bit more interest if the Vikings left? Yes, but not nearly as much as you probably think. Not enough to effect one single recruit coming here or win us one single extra game. That you would wish heartache on millions of your fellow Minnesotans so that YOUR team may experience some marginal, meager benefit is beyond pathetic.

[ruralgopher]

No, Roski wants only minority ownership (he's quoted as saying 30%), which Wilf just might do if he gets his stadium paid for AND moves up to the country's #2 market. Of course, Wilf is playing nice for now and saying he isn't interested in California. But, if 2012 rolls around and there isn't a stadium deal for Minnesota, expect the gloves to come off.

At one time I heard 51%, last I heard was more vague, he said "without local ownership it isn't going to happen". I guess in light of that I don't know the exact %.

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

The reason guys like Wilf get to be billionaires is that they don't spend their own money on stadiums. Do the math. Spending $800M on a facility that brings in less than $100M a year total for concessions, suites, ticket sales a year for 8-10 home games (I'm doing the math in my head so I may be off). That's an 8 year payback, ignoring operating costs, upkeep, etc. Generally, you don't invest in a capital project unless the payback is 2 years or less. Complicating the equation is the fact that there is a usable stadium in the metrodome already in existence.

From a purely economic standpoint this is an idiotic investment. As for those 3,000 jobs everyone's hyping: A good construction job pays $50-75K/yr without overtime. 3000 x 50,000 =$150,000,000. Granted, that's a lot of payroll taxes, but again, should the state be paying for these workers? Or if public funds are used to fund construction, what about rebuilding infrastructure? Remember how upset folks were about our bridges falling down a couple of years ago?

I agree that there is a benefit to the community to having an NFL franchise here. And you can play games with which bucket the money is coming from. But if you're going to slap another tax on restaurant, hotel, and entertainment (a favorite trick of our legislature), why not use the money to fund more teachers rather than enriching Zygi Wilf? I do concur with other posters that the only possible scenario for paying for the stadium is a tax focusing on users of the stadium (e.g. pull tabs, tax on vikings paraphenalia, etc).

Still, in this economy its a nonstarter. For Zygi its all about the money. He'd move the team to Gary Indiana if he could get a flashy stadium for less cost than he'd spend here. My guess is that our spineless legislators cave in and give Wilf a new stadium, but there have been other offers on the table, and he hasn't bit on any of them. Largely because he'd have to spend too much (e.g. any) of his own jack.

[josh087]

If the Vikings leave Minnesota, the Gophers would certainly get a lot more attention from Minnesotans and the media,

Agreed. Thank you.


however I don't see how the Viking's absence would systematically cause the Gophers to become a better team. Maybe you could explain your thought process. The idea that the football program's recent mediocrity can be attributed to the Vikings in any way is asinine.

More media exposure = more fans will start to care = more fans' sons will start to care = more of those sons will want to someday play for the hometown team = better recruiting = better results. Pretty simple logic.


By the same logic, do you think Gopher basketball and hockey fans should want the Timberwolves and Wild to leave?

Hockey is a little bit different because there are so many more hockey fans and players here than in other states. Plus college hockey is a regional sport - so the same logic doesn't really apply. In general, yes, it always helps your product if there is less competition.


The Vikings have a long history and tradition in Minnesota, and I don't think "diehard" gopher fans should be told that they should want the Vikings to leave if they are true gopher fans. The Gophers can succeed with the Vikings in town. They just haven't.

I fully admitted they could succeed with the Vikings here. But then you have to admit it is far easier if they get more media exposure as you admitted above. Everyone says Notre Dame has been at the top of relevency in college football because of their media exposure. You can't have it both ways. Media exposure affects the gophers too.

[josh087]

This is the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. If it's is a joke-well done

Do you have any reasoning - or do you just disagree?

[josh087]

-And finally the worst argument of all from Josh087, Ali and others: As Gopher fans we should hate the Vikings and want them to leave. How selfish and pathetic can you get?

Pretty selfish when it comes to wanting my favorite team suceeding.


First, to question anyone's Gopher fanhood because they also loves the Vikings blows my mind.

I never said all of us aren't fans of the Gophers. We are - or else we wouldn't be here. But I think most of us don't realize we are very very far from the typical MN fan.



And those of you trying to pin the last 40 years of failure on the Vikings are sad. Try looking in the mirror and at the administration and coaches for the real culprits and not some made-up conspiracy theory.

I'm not really sure why I should look in the mirror?????? Seems a bit harsh. Conspiracy Theory? What conspiracy have I outlined? That the rest of the Big Ten forced a pro team to come here? Not a chance. Just pointing out simple facts. Who are the culprits then? What stops recruits from coming here, especially top local recruits?


Would the Gophers get more media coverage and a bit more interest if the Vikings left? Yes, but not nearly as much as you probably think.

Probably not as much as I want, but your statement is only an opinion, which is fine. But thank you for agreeing that the FACT is that they would receiive more. More is better, no matter how big or small.


Not enough to effect one single recruit coming here or win us one single extra game.

So you're saying that they will get more media exposure locally, but it will not help with one single recruit or game????? Really??? This is beyond an ignorant statement.


That you would wish heartache on millions of your fellow Minnesotans so that YOUR team may experience some marginal, meager benefit is beyond pathetic.

Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

[RodentRampage]

More media exposure = more fans will start to care = more fans' sons will start to care = more of those sons will want to someday play for the hometown team = better recruiting = better results. Pretty simple logic.

I seem to recall an old parable about not counting chickens before they hatch.

The Gophers might get favorable local media coverage if they were the only game in town. But we woldn't get any more national coverage just because we were the only game in town.

The most we would get out of being the only game in town would be that ticket demand would probably increase. It's a question of how much the demand would increase by.

[RodentRampage]

Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

[z-stein]

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

I'm curious, Josh. Why don't you like the Vikings? Are you not from Minnesota originally?

[josh087]

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

Not at all. I fully aware I am in full-obsession with the Gophers and it causes me to not be a fan of the Vikings. I still watch Vikings games because of fantasy football and I love watching sports. I totally understand that most Gopher fans are vikings fans.

Regardless, however, the Vikings presence here in the Twin Cities does not allow the Gophers for as full of a fan base as they could have, and thus, as much success as they could have. That is the point I'm trying to make. To call the vikings' impact on the gophers as none IMO is pretty difficult to believe.

If your opinion is that the Gopher's gain would be too small to want to give up the vikings, then fine. That is your desire as a fan of both. I just wish more fans were like me - but they're not.

[howeda7]

Pretty selfish when it comes to wanting my favorite team suceeding.



I never said all of us aren't fans of the Gophers. We are - or else we wouldn't be here. But I think most of us don't realize we are very very far from the typical MN fan.

When it comes to Gopher football fans, those of you hating the Vikings are in the minority even among that group. Most Gopher football fans love the Viking too, they don't hate them. It's a bizzare thing that a small subset have clung to hatred of the Vikings to explain thier favorite teams failure. I'm dismayed by the fact that the Gophers have never made a relavent Bowl Game in my lifetime, let alone the Rose Bowl. And I too, hope desperately that it will change. But I'm not desperate enough to try and pin it on the Vikings. Frankly, the only real role the Vikins have played in the Gophers decline is the extent to which they indirectly forced them to move the the Dome. But that was still the U's voluntary decision.


I'm not really sure why I should look in the mirror?????? Seems a bit harsh. Conspiracy Theory? What conspiracy have I outlined? That the rest of the Big Ten forced a pro team to come here? Not a chance. Just pointing out simple facts. Who are the culprits then? What stops recruits from coming here, especially top local recruits?

You should look in the mirror because maybe if you stopped blaming the big bad NFL team down the street for the problems and instead put the heat on your AD, your Adminstration, your coaches and your fellow sports fans to support the team the right way, you might solve the problem. Instead, you wish for the Vikings to leave in the mistaken belief that those other issues will then magically disappear. Whatever it is that stops local recruits from coming here (it's many things) the Vikings leaving will not solve them.


Probably not as much as I want, but your statement is only an opinion, which is fine. But thank you for agreeing that the FACT is that they would receiive more. More is better, no matter how big or small.

And if you don't care about the Vikings yourself, I suppose any benefit is worth it. But that also means you don't give a crap about the fact that many of your friends and neighbors do care, and it would be a signifcant loss to them and to the state you live in. Nope, as long as it drives up the Gophers TV ratings by a big whoppin half a point, and means there are 48,000 in stands intead of 46,000, it's all worth it to you. Neither of those things will likely ever make the difference to a recruit signing on the bottom line or the Gophers winning a game. (If the current fans are any indication, those extra 2,000 will sit on thier hands and leave early to beat the traffic.) If you think the Vikings leaving suddenly means they're gonna expand TCF to 80,000 and fill it, you're dillusional.



So you're saying that they will get more media exposure locally, but it will not help with one single recruit or game????? Really??? This is beyond an ignorant statement.

Yes. As above, the benefit would be meager and like have no impact on either of those things. We can project whether it will matter 16 years from now to a kid who's 2 years old now, I suppose. But if that's the crux of your argument, you're not going to win many points. Besides the MN Jags will be in full swing by then, making it moot.


Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Did I say the Vikings mean alot and the Gophers only mean a little? Gopher football is the first thing I ever grew attached to. My mother claims I would sit and listen to Ray Christensen at 3 years old, long before I knew what the Vikings were. There are more Vikings fans in this state the Gopher fans, but a huge % overlap. The arguement that you can only love one or the other is misguided at best. You'd have a much stronger arugment for wanting the Timberwolves to move. At least in that case, they frequently play at the same time and directly compete for ticket sales. Tell me the last time the Vikings played a regular season game at the same time as the Gophers? I'd wager it's never happened.

There are a lot of Minnesota sports fans that don't care about Gopher football and I wish we could change that. But the Vikings moving isn't what's going to do it. The Gophers getting a Rose Bowl is. And the Vikings aren't the ones stopping that from happening.

[13 Lined Ground Squirrel]

-This isn't just about the Vikings. A major metro area the size of MSP needs a major venue such as what the new Vikings stadium will provide. TCF and Target Field are outdoors and this is Minnesota. A large indoor venue to host things like Final Fours and Political Conventions (in addition to the mocked tractor pulls) is needed.

Wrong entirely. Chicago makes the Twin Cities look like Hooterville by comparison, and they don't have a closed football stadium-sized venue. The same goes for Boston and New York.

An outdoor stadium would be just fine. The south can have the Superbowl.

[howeda7]

Wrong entirely. Chicago makes the Twin Cities look like Hooterville by comparison, and they don't have a closed football stadium-sized venue. The same goes for Boston and New York.

An outdoor stadium would be just fine. The south can have the Superbowl.

First, those are all larger cities with more venues of varying sizes to accomodate things like political conventions, etc. I know the X already got one, but you're more likely to get another with a larger venue.

Second, when is the last time any of those cities hosted a Final Four or even a Regional Final? Not in recent decades. When is the last time any of them hosted a Super Bowl? Never. I'd argue that a Super Bowl, 2-3 Final Fours and 8-10 NCAA Regional Finals over the course of the next 30 years is nothing to sneeze at. New York doesn't really need that kind thing, they already have everything else (and they're getting an outdoor Super Bowl anyway). MSP does.

[UpnorthGo4]

Very good strategy, howeda. Make your post so long and with so many different points in it that most posters won't have the time or energy to dispute it. Just to choose one, though, it is just not credible to say that the extreme popularity of the Vikings has not had a significant negative impact on media attention and fan interest in the Gophers.

Those Gopher fans who were around prior to the arrival of the Vikings can tell you what a huge deal the Gopher football team was all over Minnesota in the 1950's - even when the Gophers did not finish over .500 for seven out of the ten seasons. The sports pages of all four major daily newspapers provided wall to wall coverage of every Gopher football game. That media coverage makes it seem like the Vikings are being covered by the Sun Current weekly newspaper.

Prior to the arrival of the Vikings, the Gopher football team owned the media and fan support for big time football in Minnesota. They did not immediately lose it to the Vikings, but once Bud Grant's teams starting winning it has been all downhill for Gopher football ever since. If you continue to deny this your credibility on this subject will fall to zero.

[howeda7]

Very good strategy, howeda. Make your post so long and with so many different points in it that most posters won't have the time or energy to dispute it. Just to choose one, though, it is just not credible to say that the extreme popularity of the Vikings has not had a significant negative impact on media attention and fan interest in the Gophers.

Those Gopher fans who were around prior to the arrival of the Vikings can tell you what a huge deal the Gopher football team was all over Minnesota in the 1950's - even when the Gophers did not finish over .500 for seven out of the ten seasons. The sports pages of all four major daily newspapers provided wall to wall coverage of every Gopher football game. That media coverage makes it seem like the Vikings are being covered by the Sun Current weekly newspaper.

Prior to the arrival of the Vikings, the Gopher football team owned the media and fan support for big time football in Minnesota. They did not immediately lose it to the Vikings, but once Bud Grant's teams starting winning it has been all downhill for Gopher football ever since. If you continue to deny this your credibility on this subject will fall to zero.

You can sit around and wish for Gopher football to be as it was in the 1950's all you want, it's not going to happen. It's not 1950. The Twins weren't here either, or the T-wolves, or the Wild. There was no UFC. Nascar was nothing. There was no ESPN, no FSN, no 57 other college football games on television every week-end. The NFL was still minor-league compared to college football everywhere, not just here. And the Gophers had still won National Championships in most people's memory.

But, nevermind, you're right. The Gophers decline the last 40 years is mainly due to the Vikings. Not going 43 years without winning the conference. Not going decades without even having a winning record in the conference. Not 50 years without a Rose Bowl. It's all the Vikings.

And it's not because the entire sports landscape has changed. Not because MLB and College football declined while the NFL, the NBA, Nascar and College Basketball got bigger. Sure, this happened everwhere, but no, that's not what hurt the Gophers. Nope, it's because of those darn Vikings. If the Vikings hadn't come, fans wouldn't have cared about the losing seasons for years on end. They'd have gladly agreed to pay millions to re-build Memorial Stadium in the 1970's to 80,000 seats. And we'd fill it. Every week. We'd be like Nebraska or Florida. Because that's what it was like right? Memorial Stadium was filled every week right? Those stories about it being 2/3 empty at the end are all lies, right? It would be so great. Darn those Vikings.

Did the Vikings arrival pour salt in the Gophers wounds? Sure, I can buy that. But the wounds themselves were still self-inflicted or caused by things bigger then the Vikings.

And if it were all true, even if the Gophers decades of failure was all started by the Vikings, do you really think you can put the genie back in the bottle? Will the Vikings moving away really make it go back to the way it was? Not a chance. Even you folks can't really believe that. It would help a tiny bit at the fringes and nothing more.

[josh087]

But, nevermind, you're right. The Gophers decline the last 40 years is mainly due to the Vikings. Not going 43 years without winning the conference. Not going decades without even having a winning record in the conference. Not 50 years without a Rose Bowl. Nope, it's because of those darn Vikings. If the Vikings hadn't come, fans wouldn't have cared about the losing seasons for years on end. They'd have gladly agreed to pay millions to re-build Memorial Stadium in the 1970's to 80,000 seats. And we'd fill it. Every week. We'd be like Nebraska or Florida. Because that's what it was like right? Memorial Stadium was filled every week right? It would be so great. Darn those Vikings.

Wait a minute - hold on here.

You can't argue that the START of the decline of Gopher Football is related to the losing over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Something started the decline. Sure, looking back now, if you knew the Gophers would be going 50 years without a rose bowl you might have stopped paying attention back then if you could go back in time. But fans can't predict the future. It doesn't work that way. Actually, the way you are pointing it out STRENGTHENS the argument that the Vikings hurt us since we've NEVER WON with the Vikings here!!!

It's not ALL about the Vikings. I've always conceded that. I believe we can go to a rose bowl without them - even though it has never happened (coincidence?) But you can't ignore the fact that with them gone it HELPS the Gophers. Plain and simple. How can anyone not see that - especially on this board where we are almost (save for the trolls) all Gopher fans?

You're acting as if we all think that if the Vikings are gone we would be national champs. Please point out one of my posts where I even remotely entertained that thought.

You're trying to change my opinion so that it strengthens your own argument. You can't debate that way. It doesn't work.

[RodentRampage]

How about this perspective: Rabidly anti-Viking Gopher fans manage to convince enough legislators to kill a Vikings stadium deal. The Vikings move, and Gopher fans get blamed. Attendance at Gopher games would plummet if Gopher fans were blamed.

[skoalvikings]

Yeah, who wants events like Super Bowls and Final Fours?? They do nothing for the economy.

Correct, if you factor in the cost of a new stadium, and how a new stadium only moves revenue from things like movies theaters and other forms of entertainment to the NFL, then Super Bowls and Final Fours do nothing for the economy. One thing you may want to take note of is that there is not a chance that there would be more than one Super Bowl. So when you consider that no new out-of-state new money comes in with a new park, except for a couple of big events like the Super Bowl and Final Four, you end up spending half a billion of public money in order to get 1 Super Bowl and probably 2 Final Fours. I guess you could throw in 5-6 NCAA regionals. The economic arguments for stadiums don't hold water.

[cwilson21]

Wait a minute - hold on here.

You can't argue that the START of the decline of Gopher Football is related to the losing over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Something started the decline. Sure, looking back now, if you knew the Gophers would be going 50 years without a rose bowl you might have stopped paying attention back then if you could go back in time. But fans can't predict the future. It doesn't work that way. Actually, the way you are pointing it out STRENGTHENS the argument that the Vikings hurt us since we've NEVER WON with the Vikings here!!!

It's not ALL about the Vikings. I've always conceded that. I believe we can go to a rose bowl without them - even though it has never happened (coincidence?) But you can't ignore the fact that with them gone it HELPS the Gophers. Plain and simple. How can anyone not see that - especially on this board where we are almost (save for the trolls) all Gopher fans?

You're acting as if we all think that if the Vikings are gone we would be national champs. Please point out one of my posts where I even remotely entertained that thought.

You're trying to change my opinion so that it strengthens your own argument. You can't debate that way. It doesn't work.

I can see where you're coming from in regards to the increased publicity that the Gophers would get if the Vikings were to move but there's no way in knowing that they'd get favorable coverage just because the Vikings are gone. Imagine another couple of down seasons for the Gophers without a positive light in the Vikings to turn to. The sports page would be littered with "were stuck with this crappy football team" and "bring back a pro sports team" columns. Fans would be more upset than ever that the only meaningful football in town is a Gophers team that can't win half of their games in their conference.

Plus, there's no guarantee that they'd get more national coverage which I think is far and away more important than local coverage simply because the high school talent in Minnesota is nowhere near the likes of a Florida, Texas, Califonia, whatever. Down the road we might be able to get a McNeal or Floyd to stay home but the recruiting in the powerhouse states would still be a challenge. The Gophers just have to start winning more games and then the better recruits will start to follow. The coaching, administration, etc. need to be the ones looked at for past failure, not the Vikings.

IMO, a few more recruits staying home to play with the Gophers and increased coverage is not worth the sacrifice of a pro sports team.

[josh087]

I can see where you're coming from in regards to the increased publicity that the Gophers would get if the Vikings were to move but there's no way in knowing that they'd get favorable coverage just because the Vikings are gone. Imagine another couple of down seasons for the Gophers without a positive light in the Vikings to turn to. The sports page would be littered with "were stuck with this crappy football team" and "bring back a pro sports team" columns. Fans would be more upset than ever that the only meaningful football in town is a Gophers team that can't win half of their games in their conference.

Plus, there's no guarantee that they'd get more national coverage which I think is far and away more important than local coverage simply because the high school talent in Minnesota is nowhere near the likes of a Florida, Texas, Califonia, whatever. Down the road we might be able to get a McNeal or Floyd to stay home but the recruiting in the powerhouse states would still be a challenge. The Gophers just have to start winning more games and then the better recruits will start to follow. The coaching, administration, etc. need to be the ones looked at for past failure, not the Vikings.

IMO, a few more recruits staying home to play with the Gophers and increased coverage is not worth the sacrifice of a pro sports team.

Fair points.

I am one who believes that negative coverage is better than no coverage - at least it means people will care about the program, even if they don't like the current state of it. However, if the Vikings left this instant there is no doubt the coverage would be almost all negative - kind of like the Timberwolves currently, so obviously not the ideal scenario so I can see what you're thinking.

We would definitely not get any more national coverage - until we start winning in a big way. But national coverage is less of a factor initially in the building process IMO. Let's say we're going after a recruit from Florida, for example, and he is choosing between between Illinois, Michigan State, Connecticut, Oregon State, and Minnesota - I doubt his decision would come down to national exposure/prestige, since none of these stand out significantly over the others. My point is that at least initially, national exposure would not play a role in this recruit - but it would for our beloved local top talent. If we're able to keep local midwest talent here better, it might mean a few more wins here and there - and eventually more national exposure to tip the scales to this recruit. We're not all of a sudden going to compete consistently with the big boys like Ohio State and Texas - it takes time.

[badgergopher]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers. We're on a GOPHER message board and I get the feeling most people on here want the Vikings to stay. If you took a poll - I would bet most would want them to stay.

It would be equivalent to a Burger King message board where BK executives were in favor of the McDonald's across the street building a brand new state-of-the-art facility.

I think in your analogy the BK executive would be Joel Maturi and we would be customers would we not? As a customer I can go to both BK and McDonalds can't I?

[GophersInIowa]

The Vikings are more popular in Minnesota because they've won more, I think it's that simple. No, the Vikes haven't won a Super Bowl but almost every year they are in the hunt. I think they've made the playoffs 26 out of the last 40 seasons. The Gophers have not had that kind of success. The best way to increase fans is to win, plain and simple. Most people are not die-hard fans. Most will only follow a team that wins. When the Vikings are not winning, attendance goes down. It's like that just about everywhere.

Say over the next 10 years the Vikings are really bad, average only 6 wins a year and get to the playoffs twice. Then say over that same time frame the Gophers average 8-9 wins per year, go to two Rose Bowls and consistently finish in the top third of the Big Ten. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Gophers would slowly become more popular while the Vikes would become less popular.

[josh087]

The Vikings are more popular in Minnesota because they've won more, I think it's that simple. No, the Vikes haven't won a Super Bowl but almost every year they are in the hunt. I think they've made the playoffs 26 out of the last 40 seasons. The Gophers have not had that kind of success. The best way to increase fans is to win, plain and simple. Most people are not die-hard fans. Most will only follow a team that wins. When the Vikings are not winning, attendance goes down. It's like that just about everywhere.

Since 1960:
Vikings: 407-326 .555%
Gophers: 247-290 .459%

Not that big of a difference. Less than 1 win per year difference.

Last 10 Years:
Vikings: 68-61 .527%
Gophers: 56-56 .500%

Even less of a difference than history suggests.

Perhaps since you were just thinking off the top of your head, you just thought the difference was bigger because of the media's impact and portrayal of the two teams.

To save you the response I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and point out you thought this because the Vikings benefit from a system where after the regular season nearly 40% of the teams have a chance at a championship while less than 2% have that same chance in college football.


Say over the next 10 years the Vikings are really bad, average only 6 wins a year and get to the playoffs twice. Then say over that same time frame the Gophers average 8-9 wins per year, go to two Rose Bowls and consistently finish in the top third of the Big Ten. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Gophers would slowly become more popular while the Vikes would become less popular.

IMO there is absolutely no chance this scenario comes close to happening. If you think there is a chance the Gophers become more popular without winning multiple BT titles you are very naive.

From 2002 - 2006 here are the teams' records:
Vikings: 40-42 .487%
Gophers: 38-25 .603%

I didn't see ANY evidence that the Gophers were becoming more popular than the Vikings during this timeperiod. Heck, it took a Vikings BYE week and an undefeated record just to fill the dome for a Gopher game - then we all saw what happened after only one loss. You've got to be kidding me if you think anything short of multiple BT championships will even begin the entertainment of the discussion of whether Gopher popularity will pass the Vikings.

Unbelievable.

[GoGophers2005]

The Vikings have been around 50 years and have 4 NFC Championships to show for it. Less than 1 per decade.

People say the Vikings are always in the hunt? So are the other 31 teams in the league. That's the genius of the NFL. The Vikings play in a 4 team division. 25% chance at winning it without even playing a game.

Throw in a salary cap and an NFL draft and you get a recipe of turning a bad team into a good one in a short time.

College football and the NFL are two totally different monsters and it bugs the crap out of me when people want to compare them apples to apples.
A great example of this is how Chilly couldn't put together a team all his own by the draft and had to go out and sign Jared Allen and Brett Favre. Brew would have loved to go out and sign Seantrel Henderson to a billion dollar deal to fix his offensive line problems.

I've said this before but the Big Ten expanding to 12 teams and splitting into 2 divisions is going to benefit teams like the Gophers more than anyone. Having a shot at winning a 6 team division is much more attainable than winning a 11 team division.

[Chadypu]

You absolutely cannot compare NFL/NCAAF winning percentages because 4 of the 12/13 games in NCAAF (especially Minnesota, we are cupcake kings) are not against equal competition.

Compare Viking divisional records vs Gopher Big ten records and you will see why the Gophers are not watched by casual fans.

[GoGophers2005]

So the Vikings getting to play Detroit twice a year shouldnt be thought as cupcakes either?

Go back and look at the Vikings schedule last year and take a look at who they actually beat...

During the regular season the Vikings beat 3 teams that made the playoffs (4 wins total-GB twice). So the other 8 wins were over cream puffs....plus losing to Chicago and Carolina, ouch.
Talk about an easy schedule.

Vikes fans have a tough time taking the blinders off.

[goldengophers]

So the Vikings getting to play Detroit twice a year shouldnt be thought as cupcakes either?

Go back and look at the Vikings schedule last year and take a look at who they actually beat...

During the regular season the Vikings beat 3 teams that made the playoffs (4 wins total-GB twice). So the other 8 wins were over cream puffs....plus losing to Chicago and Carolina, ouch.
Talk about an easy schedule.

Vikes fans have a tough time taking the blinders off.

The loses at Carolina and Chicago were painful to watch as anything but the Vikes beat their chief rival twice last year and made it within a field goal of the super bowl.
Running over Michigan State and Northwestern was great but for the average football fan in Minnesota the Gophers are going to need to start beating Iowa and Wisconsin regularly so that both series take on the excitement of the Vikes-Pack every year. That's how fan interest will be gained and maintained. Casual fans need more than a close game or win against a top teir team every five years (i.e. Michigan game).

[JackiO]

The gophers struggle against the middle tier opponents in the big ten every year and have next to no chance against the upper tier teams so you can see why the Vikings are head and shoulders above them in terms of fan support. Disappointment after disappointment for the gopher football team.

[howeda7]

Correct, if you factor in the cost of a new stadium, and how a new stadium only moves revenue from things like movies theaters and other forms of entertainment to the NFL, then Super Bowls and Final Fours do nothing for the economy. One thing you may want to take note of is that there is not a chance that there would be more than one Super Bowl. So when you consider that no new out-of-state new money comes in with a new park, except for a couple of big events like the Super Bowl and Final Four, you end up spending half a billion of public money in order to get 1 Super Bowl and probably 2 Final Fours. I guess you could throw in 5-6 NCAA regionals. The economic arguments for stadiums don't hold water.

You're not spending $500 million only for 1 Super Bowl, 2 Final Fours and 5-6 regionals, those are just the bonus events where almost all of the economic activity is from out-state people who would not be here otherwise. That doesn't mean you can disregard that a significant portion of the money spent on the Vikings would be spent outside the state of Minnesota whether by folks who are season-ticket holders from Iowa, ND and SD or by folks in MN who will spent thier Viking season ticket alottment on a vacation or something similar. The argument that every $ spent on the Vikings would simply get re-directed to Gopher tickets, theatre tickets and the Mall of America is ridiculous. Sure some would, but not that much.

Can the whole $500 million be justified? Maybe not, but a good chunk of it can. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there is an intangible quality of life benefit to having an NFL franchise in the state as well as a venue capable of bringing Final Fours, Super Bowls and political conventions.

[howeda7]

The Vikings have been around 50 years and have 4 NFC Championships to show for it. Less than 1 per decade.

People say the Vikings are always in the hunt? So are the other 31 teams in the league. That's the genius of the NFL. The Vikings play in a 4 team division. 25% chance at winning it without even playing a game.

Throw in a salary cap and an NFL draft and you get a recipe of turning a bad team into a good one in a short time.

College football and the NFL are two totally different monsters and it bugs the crap out of me when people want to compare them apples to apples.
A great example of this is how Chilly couldn't put together a team all his own by the draft and had to go out and sign Jared Allen and Brett Favre. Brew would have loved to go out and sign Seantrel Henderson to a billion dollar deal to fix his offensive line problems.

I've said this before but the Big Ten expanding to 12 teams and splitting into 2 divisions is going to benefit teams like the Gophers more than anyone. Having a shot at winning a 6 team division is much more attainable than winning a 11 team division.

12 of 32 teams make the Play-offs. That's equivalent of 4 Big 10 Teams making a Bowl. How often have the Gophers finished in the Top 4? The two years they did (1999 and 2003) they went to a decent Bowl Game (Sun Bowl) and probably should have gone to an even better one. Those were exciting seasons and I know many casual fans who go into it. Going 6-6 and to the Insight Bowl is simply not the same as mking the play-offs in the NFL.

Whining about Free Agency like it's some sort of disadvantage for the Gophers is silly. Do Wisconsin and Iowa have the ability to go buy thier players? And if they do, that's a whole different problem and has nothing to do with the Vikings.

[josh087]

12 of 32 teams make the Play-offs. That's equivalent of 4 Big 10 Teams making a Bowl. How often have the Gophers finished in the Top 4? The two years they did (1999 and 2003) they went to a decent Bowl Game (Sun Bowl) and probably should have gone to an even better one. Those were exciting seasons and I know many casual fans who go into it. Going 6-6 and to the Insight Bowl is simply not the same as mking the play-offs in the NFL.

Are you really trying to equate making the playoffs in the NFL with making a bowl in college football? Nice stretch - but it's like saying getting into a community college and getting into medical school are equivalent.


Whining about Free Agency like it's some sort of disadvantage for the Gophers is silly. Do Wisconsin and Iowa have the ability to go buy thier players? And if they do, that's a whole different problem and has nothing to do with the Vikings.

The point you are failing to comprehend is that it is much easier to fix an NFL losing team than a college football losing team. I don't really have the time or energy to point out the numerous examples of teams that have made the turnaround but I would hope you can even see the hole in this argument as well. Nobody is claiming that it is a disadvantage against the Gophers versus other CFB teams, but what it does mean is that the NFL team they are competing with has a much better chance of winning in any given season - all it takes is a little money and some good draft picks. Iowa and Wisconsin, the teams you mentioned, don't have to deal with this competition like the Gophers do.

Stop twisting people's opinions around to something they never claimed just so you can attempt to have a better argument.

[howeda7]

Are you really trying to equate making the playoffs in the NFL with making a bowl in college football? Nice stretch - but it's like saying getting into a community college and getting into medical school are equivalent.



The point you are failing to comprehend is that it is much easier to fix an NFL losing team than a college football losing team. I don't really have the time or energy to point out the numerous examples of teams that have made the turnaround but I would hope you can even see the hole in this argument as well. Nobody is claiming that it is a disadvantage against the Gophers versus other CFB teams, but what it does mean is that the NFL team they are competing with has a much better chance of winning in any given season - all it takes is a little money and some good draft picks. Iowa and Wisconsin, the teams you mentioned, don't have to deal with this competition like the Gophers do.

Stop twisting people's opinions around to something they never claimed just so you can attempt to have a better argument.

I think you're misunderstanding the point. I agree with you, going to a bowl game onto itself does not equal making the NFL play-offs. The OP was trying to say that the Vikings success has been over-blown when compared to the Gophers.

I also fully understand that it's easier to get better quickly in the NFL. My point is that the teams the Gophers are actually competing against (Iowa, Wisconsin) operate under the same system as they do. Likewise, the teams the Vikings are competing against have the same opportunity to get better. The Vikings have done a better job competing against thier peers then the Gophers have. Plain and simple. Iowa and Wisconsin's dominance over the Gophers has nothing to do with the Vikings as you seem to be saying. They have been better-coached and have recruited better over the last 20 years. Trying to pin that on the fact that there's no NFL team in Iowa City or Madison is weak. Kirk Ferentz is simply a better coach/recruiter then Tim Brewster and Barry Alvarez was generally better then Glen Mason. (I cannot bring myself to say the same for rat-face).

The Pitt Panthers not only have to compete with a team that's even MORE beloved then the Vikings, they have to play in thier stadium, off-campus. On top of THAT, they're not even the most popular college football team in thier own state. PSU is. By a mile. But in spite of that, they have been nationally relevant in recent years, and made runs at thier conference title. Yes, the Big 10 is better then the Big East, but the point remains that they were once great, fell into a decline and when they got a decent coach back at the helm, they returned to competing at a high level. If you don't like that example, see Georgia Tech. Boy, the darn Falcons are sure keeping them down, huh?

[badgergopher]

The Pitt Panthers not only have to compete with a team that's even MORE beloved then the Vikings, they have to play in thier stadium, off-campus. On top of THAT, they're not even the most popular college football team in thier own state. PSU is. By a mile. But in spite of that, they have been nationally relevant in recent years, and made runs at thier conference title. Yes

Good point on Pitt. Also won a national championship while the Steelers were winning Super Bowls didn't they?

[howeda7]

Good point on Pitt. Also won a national championship while the Steelers were winning Super Bowls didn't they?

Yes during the Tony Dorsett era. Who was the coach then? I want to say Johnny Majors but I could be wrong.

[monk10]

I also fully understand that it's easier to get better quickly in the NFL. My point is that the teams the Gophers are actually competing against (Iowa, Wisconsin) operate under the same system as they do. Likewise, the teams the Vikings are competing against have the same opportunity to get better. The Vikings have done a better job competing against thier peers then the Gophers have. Plain and simple. Iowa and Wisconsin's dominance over the Gophers has nothing to do with the Vikings as you seem to be saying. They have been better-coached and have recruited better over the last 20 years. Trying to pin that on the fact that there's no NFL team in Iowa City or Madison is weak. Kirk Ferentz is simply a better coach/recruiter then Tim Brewster and Barry Alvarez was generally better then Glen Mason. (I cannot bring myself to say the same for rat-face).



I disagree with this. The perception of a team that is getting better has a huge effect on the casual fan. The casual fan that I would think we would want to be a hard core fan. The amount of revenue that comes into the U from propaganda of selling Gopher gear comes from a perception of whether it is "cool", "hip" etc to be a Gopher fan. When you have another football team in town there is no worry from the media that they will lose viewership by pumping up Viking Football instead of Gopher football. In addition we have a large number of badger/hawkeye fans here that have an interest in ensuring that Gopher football is perceived to be a lesser commodity. It has been reported over and over again that we are one of the lowest revenue based Big Ten teams, and therefore we are not on equal footing with the other Big Ten teams around us.

[howeda7]

I disagree with this. The perception of a team that is getting better has a huge effect on the casual fan. The casual fan that I would think we would want to be a hard core fan. The amount of revenue that comes into the U from propaganda of selling Gopher gear comes from a perception of whether it is "cool", "hip" etc to be a Gopher fan. When you have another football team in town there is no worry from the media that they will lose viewership by pumping up Viking Football instead of Gopher football. In addition we have a large number of badger/hawkeye fans here that have an interest in ensuring that Gopher football is perceived to be a lesser commodity. It has been reported over and over again that we are one of the lowest revenue based Big Ten teams, and therefore we are not on equal footing with the other Big Ten teams around us.

The Gopher football program is among the bottom of the Big 10, but the basketball program is near the top and they have to compete with the Timberwolves a lot more directly then the Gophers compete with the Vikings (games being played at the same time, direct competition for ticket sales and tv eyeballs.) Yet no one is crying on the basketball board and wishing the Timberwolves would move away. Yes, they are a joke right now, but that has not always been the case. As for the perception of the casual fan, yes winning makes all of the difference. But the fact that the Vikings have a game the next day doesn't change anyone's perception of what they're seeing on a Saturday afternoon. Winning or losing does.

Bottom-line is that the basketball program is competative financially and the football program could be too. TCF helps a lot. I doubt they're in the bottom 2-3 anymore. Either way, it's not the Vikings fault for thier struggles. Yes, if the Vikings moved, the Gophers would sell a few more tickets and a few more t-shirts, but not enough to make any signficant difference, and certainly not enough to get the Seantrel Henderson's of the world so excited that they do a complete 180 and ignore the USC's and Florida's.

A marginal uptick in fan interest due to the Vikings moving does not directly translate to wins on field unless we're suddenly going to expand TCF to 80,000 and fill it with loud, screaming fans every week like OSU or Michigan. If you think this is what will happen simply because the Vikings leave, I can procure some beachfront real estate in Louisiana I think you'd like.

[monk10]

Okay at least you are on the right track that they no longer compete on equal footing. Your over the top statement at the end is trying to drive the debate to an end. Is that your interest? I would argue that every dollar lost can relate to a lot of our history of not being able to provide a consistent coaching staff ala the two forces you keep trying to say we are on equal footing with.

Dollars that could be spent on: recruiting, marketing, assistant coaching staff. If you are concerned about wins on the field why would you ignore the costs that have a direct affect on those wins, or maybe you are just trying to sell a viking stadium coupled with some beachfront real estate in Louisiana.

[GoGophers2005]

I think you're misunderstanding the point. I agree with you, going to a bowl game onto itself does not equal making the NFL play-offs. The OP was trying to say that the Vikings success has been over-blown when compared to the Gophers.

I also fully understand that it's easier to get better quickly in the NFL. My point is that the teams the Gophers are actually competing against (Iowa, Wisconsin) operate under the same system as they do. Likewise, the teams the Vikings are competing against have the same opportunity to get better. The Vikings have done a better job competing against thier peers then the Gophers have. Plain and simple. Iowa and Wisconsin's dominance over the Gophers has nothing to do with the Vikings as you seem to be saying. They have been better-coached and have recruited better over the last 20 years. Trying to pin that on the fact that there's no NFL team in Iowa City or Madison is weak. Kirk Ferentz is simply a better coach/recruiter then Tim Brewster and Barry Alvarez was generally better then Glen Mason. (I cannot bring myself to say the same for rat-face).

The Pitt Panthers not only have to compete with a team that's even MORE beloved then the Vikings, they have to play in thier stadium, off-campus. On top of THAT, they're not even the most popular college football team in thier own state. PSU is. By a mile. But in spite of that, they have been nationally relevant in recent years, and made runs at thier conference title. Yes, the Big 10 is better then the Big East, but the point remains that they were once great, fell into a decline and when they got a decent coach back at the helm, they returned to competing at a high level. If you don't like that example, see Georgia Tech. Boy, the darn Falcons are sure keeping them down, huh?

I believe the Vikings success has been overblown.....they won their first playoff game this year in how many years? Yet Chilly gets an extension (before he even won a playoff game), while Brew gets mocked and ridiculed for taking a team to 2 bowls in 3 years?

And for all you out there going to rip the Insight Bowl, how many Big Ten teams went to a Bowl Game this year? 7. How many Big Ten teams went to the 2009 NCAA BB tourny? 7. So essentially you can rip the football team from going to the post season but celebrate the Field of 64 (now 68) in basketball like they are kings of the world? Sorry that isn't Vikings related but I'm tired of all the crap downgrading a bowl game. There were 3 plus years under Mason where the Gophers got passed over for a better bowl game....please remember that people. What if the Vikes went 9-7 and Green Bay went 8-8 but Green Bay jumped over the Vikes by a secret panel and the Vikes had to play in the Wild Card Game and the Packers didn't? I'm not complaining, as a college football fan I realize that happens and I also am smart enough to get all my information and facts straight. The typical fan in this state doesn't have the attention span at looking at all the facts and jumps to conclusions "the gophers suck and played in the music city bowl again".

[goldengophers]

I believe the Vikings success has been overblown.....they won their first playoff game this year in how many years? Yet Chilly gets an extension (before he even won a playoff game), while Brew gets mocked and ridiculed for taking a team to 2 bowls in 3 years?

And for all you out there going to rip the Insight Bowl, how many Big Ten teams went to a Bowl Game this year? 7. How many Big Ten teams went to the 2009 NCAA BB tourny? 7. So essentially you can rip the football team from going to the post season but celebrate the Field of 64 (now 68) in basketball like they are kings of the world? Sorry that isn't Vikings related but I'm tired of all the crap downgrading a bowl game. There were 3 plus years under Mason where the Gophers got passed over for a better bowl game....please remember that people. What if the Vikes went 9-7 and Green Bay went 8-8 but Green Bay jumped over the Vikes by a secret panel and the Vikes had to play in the Wild Card Game and the Packers didn't?

Brewster was hired to take us to a different level, beyond Mason who was fired after losing the Insight Bowl. I am sorry that I am not entirely on-board with a coach who brought us two straight loses in bowl that got the previous coach fired.

[UpnorthGo4]

Brewster was hired to take us to a different level, beyond Mason who was fired after losing the Insight Bowl. I am sorry that I am not entirely on-board with a coach who brought us two straight loses in bowl that got the previous coach fired.

Mason got fired by President Bruininks because it was painfully obvious to anyone who saw him in the locker room after the Texas Tech bowl game that blowing huge leads on national TV was not something that bothered Mason all that much.

Does anyone in GopherHole think that Brewster would not be tempted to sell his soul to bring the Gophers to the Rose Bowl?

[howeda7]

I believe the Vikings success has been overblown.....they won their first playoff game this year in how many years? Since 2005. 5 years. Not that long. Before that? 2000, 1999 and 1998, etc.


Yet Chilly gets an extension (before he even won a playoff game), while Brew gets mocked and ridiculed for taking a team to 2 bowls in 3 years?

It's possible to love the Vikings and not hold Chilly in any higher regard then Brew. Put me down for that.


And for all you out there going to rip the Insight Bowl, how many Big Ten teams went to a Bowl Game this year? 7. How many Big Ten teams went to the 2009 NCAA BB tourny? 7. So essentially you can rip the football team from going to the post season but celebrate the Field of 64 (now 68) in basketball like they are kings of the world? Sorry that isn't Vikings related but I'm tired of all the crap downgrading a bowl game.

You have a point. But it depends. The 7th place team in football will almost always get to a bowl game, even if they went 6-6, 3-5 like the Gophers did this year. A 7th place basketball team that goes 15-15, 7-11 will NOT make the NCAA tournament. The Gopher basketball team went 21-13, 12-10 and barely made it in. And no, I don't think anyone was crowning them. It was only impressive in light of everything that went wrong earlier in the season.



There were 3 plus years under Mason where the Gophers got passed over for a better bowl game....please remember that people. What if the Vikes went 9-7 and Green Bay went 8-8 but Green Bay jumped over the Vikes by a secret panel and the Vikes had to play in the Wild Card Game and the Packers didn't? I'm not complaining, as a college football fan I realize that happens and I also am smart enough to get all my information and facts straight. The typical fan in this state doesn't have the attention span at looking at all the facts and jumps to conclusions "the gophers suck and played in the music city bowl again".

That's a valid point. The 1999 and 2003 Gopher football seasons were every bit as sucessful as anything the Gopher basketball team has done in the same period and every bit as successfull as the Vikings were in that period too. But what is your point? That people don't give them credit for those seasons? Perhaps not, but many on here wanted Mason gone not too long after that as well.

[wait!what?]

Maybe it's just me but Rick Spielman sounds like a dic&.

[Ski U Master]

If this passes, will the U expand TCF's seating for the Vikings temporary stay during construction or will the Vikings just have to reduce their season tickets for the duration?

[ruralgopher]

If this passes, will the U expand TCF's seating for the Vikings temporary stay during construction or will the Vikings just have to reduce their season tickets for the duration?

I can't see one good reason for expansion unless the Vikes pay for it. The stadium is perfect, an empty upper deck would look ugly.

[ruppertflywheel]

Improving our schools. Drive up 169 and talk to the locals about what bad shape the school or schools are in their specific towns. You would be surprised on how quick those 3000 jobs would be put to use

[RodentRampage]

I can't see one good reason for expansion unless the Vikes pay for it. The stadium is perfect, an empty upper deck would look ugly.

How many season tickets do the Vikings sell each year? I now you can usually obtain individual game tickets, so season tickets can't be sold out. Perhaps 50,000 seats would be enough to meet the Vikings season ticket demand for a year or two if they rented TCF stadium while a new stadium was built.

I'd like to see expansion at TCF someday, but only if the demand is there long-term for the additional seating. 50,000 people in a 50,000 seat stadium makes for a great experience. Even with the same 50,000 in a 60, 70 or 80,000 seat stadium, the experience would be totally different. It reminds me of some of the NSIC games played at the Metrodome - the crowds might not feel too bad in a small college stadium, but put the same size crowd in a 60,000 seat stadium, and it's like no one is there.

Obviously 50,000 people in a 60,000 seat stadium isn't as bad as 3,000 in a 60,000 seat stadium, but still, the whole energy is different than a packed crowd. I have no problem with the Vikings using TCF on a temporary basis, but any expansion has to meet the needs of the U, not the Vikings.

[FireCosgroveGuy]

Improving our schools. Drive up 169 and talk to the locals about what bad shape the school or schools are in their specific towns. You would be surprised on how quick those 3000 jobs would be put to use

Believe it or not we can actually have both schools and stadiums.

I hate the people who act like we can never have things like stadiums until every single aspect of life is perfect. I've got news for you - it will never happen. Ever. Its OK to pursue other things that improve quality of life for everyone.

[UpnorthGo4]

Believe it or not we can actually have both schools and stadiums.

I hate the people who act like we can never have things like stadiums until every single aspect of life is perfect. I've got news for you - it will never happen. Ever. Its OK to pursue other things that improve quality of life for everyone.


Every big time team in Minnesota has a stadium. The Hump is only 25 years old. If Ziggy doesn't like it he can expand it or build another one. He has already made $200 or $300 million from his brief ownership of the Vikings.

Owning an NFL team is license to print money. Ziggy could fund a new stadium all by himself if he wanted and he would still make a good living. He doesn't want to do that because he thinks he can get the taxpayers of Minnesota to pay for it. Ziggy can go screw himself.

[goldygo4]

Ziggy is a smart man. If he doesn't have to pay for the stadium all by himself and can con the public to pay for half of it why wouldn't he? There is a reason he has millions of dollars, he knows how to save money.

[Zales04]

I can't see one good reason for expansion unless the Vikes pay for it. The stadium is perfect, an empty upper deck would look ugly.

If they built an expansion for the Vikings, we would be right back into the problem we had in the Metrodome. 1 game per year would turn into an away game, and would completely negate the whole reason for TCF being the size it is. I think the Vikings could tough it out for 2 years with the current capacity. If they don't like it, tough sh!t, they can go somewhere else.

The construction market is essentially dead in the Metro, and I know I am one of the lucky ones to still be employed right now. I don't know how much longer I can say that. Stadium construction would definitely help quite a few folks get back on their feet. My company probably wouldn't get a shot at it because of the Big Green Machine, but I wouldn't mind hearing about other guys getting back to work. Personally, I am undecided about this whole issue. It would be a good thing, but at the same time there are so many issues in this state it is ridiculous.

[badgergopher]

I can't see one good reason for expansion unless the Vikes pay for it. The stadium is perfect, an empty upper deck would look ugly.

I suspect that they would look at cramming more people into the bleachers, adding temporary seats in the end zone, and look at adding about 8-10 rows of temporary seats around the bowl on top. I'll bet they could add close to 10,000 temporary seats without needing to modify the stadium. They would be lousy seats however.

[ruralgopher]

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth: Bagley states the Vikings have 'concerns' over the 40 year lease. 800 million dollars for something that isn't going to last 40 years. This is exactly why I hate Bagley, the Wilfs, and public funding of a new stadium.

[RodentRampage]

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth: Bagley states the Vikings have 'concerns' over the 40 year lease. 800 million dollars for something that isn't going to last 40 years. This is exactly why I hate Bagley, the Wilfs, and public funding of a new stadium.

Stadiums should last a long time. If we had been able to get funds to rennovate Memorial Stadium, we'd still be playing there for many decades to come. I don't think 40 years is at all unreasonable for a stadium to last.

[howeda7]

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth: Bagley states the Vikings have 'concerns' over the 40 year lease. 800 million dollars for something that isn't going to last 40 years. This is exactly why I hate Bagley, the Wilfs, and public funding of a new stadium.

On this, I have to agree with the stadium oppenents. Bagley, frankly comes off like an idiot more times then not, and quiveling over whether the Vikings will contribute 1/3 of the Open-air cost or 1/3 of the domed cost and whether the lease should be 40 years does nothing but make them look petty. Newsflash to Ziggy and Lester, an open-air stadium does no one but the Vikings any good. So if you want an open-air stadium, pay for it yourself. A dome is the only thing that makes sense for all parties involved and 1/3 of the cost is a starting point for your share.

[FishingMN]

howeda7 wins the debate (as far as I'm concerned).

The only thing that matters is winning and it's not the Vikings fault. I definitely consider myself a proud Gopher alum and fan but I like pro football much better and would hate to see the team leave. Personally, I think the salary cap, the draft and playoff system make the product so much better. College football is like baseball where you get the haves (Yankees/Texas/USC) and the have nots (Royals/Gophers). The built in disadvantages just make for a poor fan experience when you know going into the season that your team has zero chance to compete for a title. Winning, or at least the appearance of a somewhat equal chance to win, are critical. Then the stupid college football post season where only 1 game matters is assinine.

I renewed my football tickets because of the good schedule this year but "paying" to watch a losing team really isn't that fun (for me anyway).

[UpnorthGo4]

howeda7 wins the debate (as far as I'm concerned).

The only thing that matters is winning and it's not the Vikings fault. I definitely consider myself a proud Gopher alum and fan but I like pro football much better and would hate to see the team leave. Personally, I think the salary cap, the draft and playoff system make the product so much better. College football is like baseball where you get the haves (Yankees/Texas/USC) and the have nots (Royals/Gophers). The built in disadvantages just make for a poor fan experience when you know going into the season that your team has zero chance to compete for a title. Winning, or at least the appearance of a somewhat equal chance to win, are critical. Then the stupid college football post season where only 1 game matters is assinine.

I renewed my football tickets because of the good schedule this year but "paying" to watch a losing team really isn't that fun (for me anyway).


Your post pretty much says it all about sports fans in general. They will only support a winner. If their favorite team at the moment starts losing, they find another team to cheer for.

Fortunately, many Gopher football fans have more integrity and loyalty than that. We have been rooting for a team that hasn't won a Big 10 Championship for over 40 years. Some of us have had season tickets for longer than that.

Winning may be the only thing that matters in professional sports. But for true blue college sports fans - winning is irrelevant. You can't stop supporting your favorite college team any easier than you can stop supporting a friend. Your loyalty to your favorite college football team says a lot about who you are as a person.

[AhliBobwa]

Obviously, it is not. Why even type something so stupid? Stop fishing for replies to your posts.

"I like it more" in no way equals "superior...in every respect", d*uchenozzle. :rolleyes:

Wow, clearly you didn't read my post. Along with the other reasons I offer, the fact is that professional football is strategically bland and sterile. (since you missed it the first time read this http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

There are reasons why intelligent announcers and football purists almost universally prefer the college game.

My argument is clear (and backed by expert analysis).

In response to a cogent argument you hurled grade school insults that amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions. (you actually called me a d*uchenozzle, that's embarrassing for you) :pig:

Grow up.

[UpnorthGo4]

nm

[dpodoll68]

:rolleyes:

Wow, clearly you didn't read my post. Along with the other reasons I offer, the fact is that professional football is strategically bland and sterile. (since you missed it the first time read this http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

There are reasons why intelligent announcers and football purists almost universally prefer the college game.

My argument is clear (and backed by expert analysis).

In response to a cogent argument you hurled grade school insults that amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions. (you actually called me a d*uchenozzle, that's embarrassing for you) :pig:

Grow up.

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football.

And that's just for starters.

And no, I am not saying that the NFL is better in every way. Far from it. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

[monk10]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football.



That isn't a fact, that is an opinion. Hope that helps.

[glovedgopher]

Every big time team in Minnesota has a stadium. The Hump is only 25 years old. If Ziggy doesn't like it he can expand it or build another one. He has already made $200 or $300 million from his brief ownership of the Vikings.

Owning an NFL team is license to print money. Ziggy could fund a new stadium all by himself if he wanted and he would still make a good living. He doesn't want to do that because he thinks he can get the taxpayers of Minnesota to pay for it. Ziggy can go screw himself.

Ziggy is a business man and is trying to make a profit. Why would Ziggy pay for a new stadium when he can get a state or city to pay a large portion? If we don't pay for it he will move and we'll be the ones that get screwed. The Hump is a terrible stadium and it needs to be replaced otherwise the Vikings will leave. The Hump could be five years old and it would still suck.

[dpodoll68]

That isn't a fact, that is an opinion. Hope that helps.

How so? You're trying to argue against the overwhelming majority of NFL players being better than even the best college player? How can you seriously even attempt to make that argument? I'd love to hear it.

[monk10]

It is an opinion, not a fact. I don't have to prove or disprove the opinion since it isn't a fact which you were trying to do. Go back update your post with one of your other list of "facts" on your list.

[dpodoll68]

It is an opinion, not a fact. I don't have to prove or disprove the opinion since it isn't a fact which you were trying to do. Go back update your post with one of your other list of "facts" on your list.

Wow. If you can't see how NFL players are more skilled, better football players than college players, I'm not going to engage you in this. Go ahead and espouse your circular logic - I won't be participating.

[monk10]

Do you really struggle with not understanding the difference between facts and opinions? I had a base assumption that you understand the difference. Reread your quote look at it carefully and try to understand how that isn't possible a fact.

First you would have to find a measure to determine the worst football player, which in itself is an opinion. Then you would have to quantify pretty much any college football player. Which pretty much has not factual value that I am aware of. And then you would have to do that over and over again every year. You can make an assertion that we believe that in general the worst football players are better then the best college football players, but there is no factual method to prove that. You would have a bunch of people stating their opinions using their own metrics to try to prove their point. In the end it wouldn't be a fact it would still be an opinion.

[AhliBobwa]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions...

Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

'Suck on that?' 'd*uchenozzle' --You are beyond childish? What are you 12?

The POINT that you are clearly missing is that I was arguing my opinion based on reasoning, with expert analysis to back it up, whereas you are throwing out opinions backed almost entirely by immature insults.

When you someday grow up you will be embarrassed by your actions.

Also, are you really questioning whether the Big Ten is Big Time football? The Big Ten is the most storied conference in the history of college football, makes more revenue than any other conference, and Minnesota is one of the Big Ten's most storied programs. The Big Ten has had more National Champions than any other conference (29), and that's not counting the 4 Penn State won before it joined.

Minnesota won a whopping 6 of those titles. Ohio State has also won 6 and Michigan has won 10. No other Big Ten school even comes close to those totals.

Basically, you're arguing that no college football is Big Time football. When it comes to Minnesota and the Big Ten, you are blatantly ignoring history.

[Ski U Master]

Vikings stadium plan fails to pass in house committee. LINK (http://wcco.com/vikings/vikings.stadium.bill.2.1676162.html)

[dpodoll68]

The POINT that you are clearly missing is that I was arguing my opinion based on reasoning, with expert analysis to back it up, whereas you are throwing out opinions backed almost entirely by immature insults.

You can find "expert analysis" to back up pretty much any viewpoint. That doesn't make it correct. You're seriously going to keep insisting that your asinine comment is correct? Seriously?


Also, are you really questioning whether the Big Ten is Big Time football?

Nope. But that's not what I said. When Minnesota actually becomes a competitive member of the Big Ten again, then your statement will be true. I guess it's technically true for a few days a year, when Ohio St., Penn St., Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. play here.

I'm as big of a Gopher fan as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that what the Gophers put out there on an annual basis is "Big Time" football. Many of my friends and family, all of whom are huge football fans, laugh at my fanhood of such an inept program.

I'm very proud of what the Gophers have accomplished in their storied history. But what the Gophers put on the field in 2010 has only slightly more relation to our national championships than the Twins do to the Washington Senators of Walter Johnson. When our Gophers can actually compete consistently with real Big Ten programs, I'll actually be able to call it "Big Time" football with a straight face. Until then, we're a slightly better Indiana.

[glovedgopher]

Hey look another thread with dpodoll in a verbal sparing match!

[vinko bogataj]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football..

Not quite sure where to start here. You criticize someone for offering opinions by offering opinions premised as fact. Since you offer one "fact", I would argue by refuting it with real facts. Using the 2009 Vikings as example, the 53 man roster that left camp consisted of 6 rookies (including undrafted FA's). Doing the simple math, one could argue that if the Vike's were near the average NFL squad, the new college kids were better than 11% of the seasoned vets. This number is most likely low considering there were other veterans trying out for the team. I don't think that 11% is statistically insignificant, therefore, your cited "fact" is in question, not refuted, but certainly in question. We know the incoming players are the higher regarded college players, but still if these players are better than 11% of a typical NFL roster, its not a stretch to say your "fact" is in question. If you have competing statistics, or "facts", I'd welcome the information.


Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

Not sure what the correlation between a strong opinion and being a "d*uchenozzle is. This is simply inflamatory and intended to skew the debate by casting aspersions on Ali. Well played, but transparent.


I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

Again, you have a reasonable argument to make, yet you stoop to this? I don't think its far fetched for someone in Ann Arbor, Iowa City or Madison (I just threw up a bit in my mouth at the last two) to say they have "Big Time" football. Further, I don't think its far fetched for someone in Oxford, MS or Columbia, SC to make the same comment. Therefore, I'd argue that despite the lack of success we've seen here at Minnesota over the past 50 years, its not unreasonable to argue that we'd have "Big Time" football regardless of whether the Vikes are here or not. Your viewpoint is provincial. We see BCS games draw ratings that most TV execs consider "big time", maybe not at Super Bowl level, but certainly in excess of other "Big Time" events such as the World Series or NBA Finals. I spend enough time in the southeast to know that SEC fans find the NFL to be a secondary, less imaginative league, heck you hear some coaches who've coached at both levels talk about the more simplistic, homogenous approach of the NFL. That point is very arguable IMO (I can concede my opinions, my ego doesn't require me to validate my own opinions as "fact"), but shows that not everyone, including those in the coaching profession considers the NFL superior, despite your name calling argument to the contrary. The definition of "Big Time" as near as I can tell is subjective. As someone who generally enjoys your commentary and point of view, it seems like you have some irrational emotional connection to the NFL and will doggedly defend it the detriment of your own reputation. Frankly, it doesn't reflect well.

[dpodoll68]

not everyone, including those in the coaching profession considers the NFL superior

Thank you for your sensible, well-reasoned post, my friend. I try to keep things in perspective, but when people make idiotic statements, and then refuse to recant when called out on their stupidity, it gets my dander up like no other. I am no steadfast supporter of the NFL - far from it. But it is beyond obvious that college football is NOT "superior in every respect". Even if one is the biggest college football fan in the world, they must concede that the NFL is, at very minimum, better in some respects. Your statement proves my point - using the phrase "not everyone" implies that some find the NFL better, and that by definition validates that college football is NOT superior in every respect.


Hey look another thread with dpodoll in a verbal sparing match!

And you are...?

(P.S. I have yet to have a verbal sparring match on this board. No one else has either.)

[ruralgopher]

The Vikings continue their bullying tactics. hilites from the statement include things like:

"We thank the tens of thousands of fans"- tens of thousands, believe it or not Vikes, is not a majority or even really a decent sized minority.

"While we respect the challanges and priorities of the state this has now been pushed to the final year"- obviously they do not respect the challenges and priorities or they would try to work something out w/o an ultimatum. They respect themselves, only.

"We appeal to our State's leaders"- Ha! YOUR state wilf?

And of course, Bagley, the worst PR guy in the history of PR guys, had no further comment.

full statement:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_15110906

[bigtenchamps1899]

i'm going to jump in here without having read any of this thread.

the SF giants recently built one of the best venues in all sports with private money. the minnesota vikings need to do exactly what other private organizations do when they want to expand, take out a loan. the revenue made by building a beautiful new stadium would be more than enough to pay off the loan in a timely fashion, but the team would also get all the revenue that comes from renting out the facility.

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

[ruralgopher]

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

This is exactly how I feel. I am not a 'vikings are the reason the gophers suck' guy, I just hate being held hostage.

[howeda7]

i'm going to jump in here without having read any of this thread.

the SF giants recently built one of the best venues in all sports with private money. the minnesota vikings need to do exactly what other private organizations do when they want to expand, take out a loan. the revenue made by building a beautiful new stadium would be more than enough to pay off the loan in a timely fashion, but the team would also get all the revenue that comes from renting out the facility.

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

Sorry, but I have to take issue with the inaccuracies here. First, the Giants didn't 'recently' build thier stadium with private money. It was done well over a decade ago in the middle of the internet boom in Silicon Valley. If they were trying to build it now or anytime 'recent' they'd be screwed.

Second, as with most 'privately' financed stadiums, you must take that with a grain of salt. Yes, they did pay for it. They were also given development rights around the stadium for free that could have been sold to others for tens of millions. So there was still public support, just in a round-about way. The Giants tried for years to get public funding, and nearly moved several times. Only in a perfect storm of a great economy, a booming Silican Valley business community, low interest rates and some under-the-table, indirect funding was this 'privately-financed' stadium deal done. To expect the same thing to happen in MSP, which does not have anywhere near the business population of late 90's silicon valley, is unrealisitic.

Bottom-line if any Vikings stadium is ever going to be built, it will require a public-private partnership. Should the Wilf's pay more then 1/3 of the cost? Yes. Should they quit whining and issuing dumb statements to the press like they did yesterday? Yes. But if you think they're suddenly going to up and pay 100% of the cost, you're nuts. Met Stadium wasn't built that way. The Dome wasn't built that way. Target Field wasn't built that way. Even TCF wasn't built that way. All required public/private partnerships and this will too. The Vikings best get working with some local governements so that they have an actual workable bill to present next year, rather then sit around until April and throw together a bad version of stadium-funding hot dish.

[bigtenchamps1899]

Sorry, but I have to take issue with the inaccuracies here. First, the Giants didn't 'recently' build thier stadium with private money. It was done well over a decade ago in the middle of the internet boom in Silicon Valley. If they were trying to build it now or anytime 'recent' they'd be screwed.

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.


Second, as with most 'privately' financed stadiums, you must take that with a grain of salt. Yes, they did pay for it. They were also given development rights around the stadium for free that could have been sold to others for tens of millions.

do you know anything about China basin? the park has invigorated a destitute area that the city could not pay business to move to in 1999. the park has injected over 50 million of revenue into the surrounding area since its opening, so, yes, they were given city land, but the city has been repayed in revenue generated and taxes raised:

At 10 years old, AT&T Park has won over many non-sports fans, progressives and community activists who 10 years ago worried that the expected noise and congestion from the ballpark would ruin the quality of life along the waterfront, and that the cost of police, Muni and paramedic service for the ballpark would divert needed city dollars from programs for the poor, homeless and seniors. The stadium has sparked a wave of new development in China Basin and South Beach that has been criticized by some for gentrification, but city officials say that AT&T generates more than $2 million dollars in ticket taxes, and tax revenue on the estimated $70 million dollars spent by fans at nearby businesses created since the AT&T was built generates more than enough revenue to pay the cost of gameday police and Muni services.

to say that an NFL stadium (a different beast than a baseball park, in that the demand for the product is much higher) cannot be built without public funds is wrong.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Billionaire developer Edward P. Roski Jr. has made a commitment to build the kind of stadium an NFL team needs to thrive in Los Angeles. Now, he's hoping one will commit to play there.
Roski, a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent years trying to lure the NFL back to this area, unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility in the City of Industry he said could be finished in time for the 2011 season. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-04-17-la-stadium_N.htm)
LA is the second largest media market in the country, but they have no fan base right now and the economy in LA is 10 times worse that the economy in the cities. building a stadium for a new team is much different than building a stadium for a team with a built in fan base.


Bottom-line if any Vikings stadium is ever going to be built, it will require a public-private partnership.
that is just wrong. the vikings may get public funding for a stadium in minnesota, but if they move to LA it will not require public-private partnership.

[GoAUpher]

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.

Not when you're talking building costs and economic climate. And those are really the 2 biggest factors here. Building costs are much higher now and the economic climate is much worse. Age of the stadium has nothing to do with it.

[howeda7]

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.

Not for the purposes of this discussion it's not. As GoAu mentioned, in terms of the econcomy and the building costs it's eons ago. There have been no less then 12 MLB stadiums opened more recently the SF, not to mention many NFL stadiums.



do you know anything about China basin? the park has invigorated a destitute area that the city could not pay business to move to in 1999. the park has injected over 50 million of revenue into the surrounding area since its opening, so, yes, they were given city land, but the city has been repayed in revenue generated and taxes raised:

I dont' know the intimate details of SF. I don't dispute what you're saying above. The land the city gave was justified, and it would seem if all you say is true they should even have offered to kick in some tax revenue instead of nearly seeing the Giants move to Tampa...


At 10 years old, AT&T Park has won over many non-sports fans, progressives and community activists who 10 years ago worried that the expected noise and congestion from the ballpark would ruin the quality of life along the waterfront, and that the cost of police, Muni and paramedic service for the ballpark would divert needed city dollars from programs for the poor, homeless and seniors. The stadium has sparked a wave of new development in China Basin and South Beach that has been criticized by some for gentrification, but city officials say that AT&T generates more than $2 million dollars in ticket taxes, and tax revenue on the estimated $70 million dollars spent by fans at nearby businesses created since the AT&T was built generates more than enough revenue to pay the cost of gameday police and Muni services.

This is all fine and dandy, but this seems to speak toward there being a benefit to the public stepping up and helping fund it, which is the opposite of what you are trying to argue?


to say that an NFL stadium (a different beast than a baseball park, in that the demand for the product is much higher) cannot be built without public funds is wrong.

Sure it CAN be. And there are more examples of NFL teams doing so, then MLB (SF and St. Louis are the ONLY two MLB stadiums built privately, and both had side deals for other development rights, etc.) But it's NOT going to happen in MN. Ziggy has no incentve to pay 100% of the cost and let the owners of the downtown hotels and resteruants reap the benefits of the Vikings, the Super Bowls and the Final Fours, etc. The instances where it has been done by NFL teams privately are generally where there was enough land for the owners to develop the area around the stadium themselves and reap the these benefits. The Anoka site was a possiblity of this happening in MN but that is dead and everyone seems to agree that downtown on the Dome site is the only thing that makes sense at this point.


LOS ANGELES (AP) — Billionaire developer Edward P. Roski Jr. has made a commitment to build the kind of stadium an NFL team needs to thrive in Los Angeles. Now, he's hoping one will commit to play there.
Roski, a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent years trying to lure the NFL back to this area, unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility in the City of Industry he said could be finished in time for the 2011 season. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-04-17-la-stadium_N.htm)
LA is the second largest media market in the country, but they have no fan base right now and the economy in LA is 10 times worse that the economy in the cities. building a stadium for a new team is much different than building a stadium for a team with a built in fan base.


that is just wrong. the vikings may get public funding for a stadium in minnesota, but if they move to LA it will not require public-private partnership.

First, this guys hasn't actually done anything yet. Maybe he will build it himself. But the LA situation fits the profile I described above. He's building it in the middle of nowhere and developing everything around it himself. He will be in control of the entire 'eco-system' that the stadium creates and reap all of the revenue. And because the Collesium and the Rose Bowl are both VERY old, he will not have much competition when it comes to the types of events that seek large venues. Further, in LA, you can guarantee MULTIPLE Super Bowls will be awarded to him, versus one in MSP, at best.

Could Ziggy or another owner go out in a confield in Anoka and build thier own stadium? Yes. Will they? No. It's not going to happen for any # of reasons inclduing those above. If MN wants to keep the Vikings, they need to be willing to partner in the costs and the benefits. If they dont' do it now, the Vikings will move to LA, and MSP will become the new location everyone threatens to move to. And chances are, our wise legisluature will move very quickly to approve funding for the MN Bills or Jaguars within 5 years. Why go through the heartache? Let's just do it now and be done with it.

[UpnorthGo4]

Quote: Could Ziggy or another owner go out in a confield in Anoka and build thier own stadium? Yes. Will they? No. It's not going to happen for any # of reasons inclduing those above. If MN wants to keep the Vikings, they need to be willing to partner in the costs and the benefits. If they dont' do it now, the Vikings will move to LA, and MSP will become the new location everyone threatens to move to. And chances are, our wise legisluature will move very quickly to approve funding for the MN Bills or Jaguars within 5 years. Why go through the heartache? Let's just do it now and be done with it.

If the Vikings leave Minnesota we will NEVER have another NFL franchise unless the new owner pays the large majority of the costs for a new stadium. The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.

The Twins are the last professional team to be able to go to the taxpayer well for a new facility. The Tea Party is here and it is NEVER going away. Smaller government and fewer taxes are the future - and the future is now.

[howeda7]

If the Vikings leave Minnesota we will NEVER have another NFL franchise unless the new owner pays the large majority of the costs for a new stadium. The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.

The Twins are the last professional team to be able to go to the taxpayer well for a new facility. The Tea Party is here and it is NEVER going away. Smaller government and fewer taxes are the future - and the future is now.

Working the Tea Party into the discussion...nice work. 2006 was really so long ago? I can assure that you should never use the word 'NEVER' in politics. The discussion of a Vikings stadium has 'never' been about just taking $500 million bucks from the general fund and building a stadium, so don't think a Tea Party rant is warranted. It's about whether the state/local government will take part in allowing the areas that benefit from the stadium pay for it. That's what the bill this year tried to do, in its own flawed way. And however difficult the current political environment is for the Vikings to navigate, it's still a lot better then the one the Twins faced from 1997 to about 2002.

[Maximus]

The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.


When did Minnesota taxpayers ever agree to fund professional sports facilities? They sure didn't agree to build a Twins stadium.

[Iceland12]

When did Minnesota taxpayers ever agree to fund professional sports facilities? They sure didn't agree to build a Twins stadium.


Nope, the County Commisioners, Legislators and Gov. Pawlenty did.

[GoAUpher]

Keep in mind that I'm not a MN resident and thus face no increased tax burden save the sale tax increases I pay while in the Cities. For me, new MN stadiums are cool shiny new toys I get to enjoy when I'm back in my home state.

As Iceland notes, the funding was approved by duly elected officials. This is how representative democracy works. Politicians aren't required to vote based on poll results. However, if they piss off their constituents they risk being booted. I'm not trying to be a huge a** and pretend folks don't know this. I think basically everyone gets the concept. This issue is that everyone understands and accepts/embraces this process until something that is unpopular passes. Then its all "well, we didn't want this!".

If we don't like the way your reps voted, we should all work to get a new rep. If we don't want them to vote a certain way, call their office. Repeatedly and politely. We should get our friends and family to do the same (assuming they agree with us). It works.

If you would like to go to direct democracy that's a valid opinion. But be prepared to have MN turn into an ungovernable mess like California.

[Maximus]

Keep in mind that I'm not a MN resident and thus face no increased tax burden save the sale tax increases I pay while in the Cities. For me, new MN stadiums are cool shiny new toys I get to enjoy when I'm back in my home state.

As Iceland notes, the funding was approved by duly elected officials. This is how representative democracy works. Politicians aren't required to vote based on poll results. However, if they piss off their constituents they risk being booted. I'm not trying to be a huge a** and pretend you don't know this. I think basically everyone gets the concept. This issue is that everyone understands and accepts/embraces this process until something that is unpopular passes. Then its all "well, we didn't want this!".

If you don't like the way your reps voted, work to get a new rep. If you don't want them to vote a certain way, call their office. Repeatedly and politely. Get your friends and family to do the same (assuming they agree with you). It works.

If you would like to go to direct democracy that's a valid opinion. But be prepared to have MN turn into an ungovernable mess like California.

I was just refuting the claim that the so called rise of a tea party in Minnesota means the end of a public funding option for a Vikings stadium. I live in Hennepin County and had no problem with the Twins funding.

[GoAUpher]

I was just refuting the claim that the so called rise of a tea party in Minnesota means the end of a public funding option for a Vikings stadium. I live in Hennepin County and had no problem with the Twins funding.

My bad. Misread the intent. Kept my post but eliminated the quote and changed some of the pronouns.

I agree with you on the "rise of the Tea Party thing". The Tea Party isn't a majority of folks in MN or the country...they're just really vocal and good at getting on TV.