Amazing how the ViQueens have never won a title, and everyone pees in their pants at kick-off on Sunday. Otherwise, the "casual fans" of Minnesota sports generally suck. Win or else here in the land of bandwagon-jumpers. Twins will see that soon.
Can you guys explain why feminizing a team name is seen as funny rather than lame and vaguely sexist?ViQueens
Can you guys explain why feminizing a team name is seen as funny rather than lame and vaguely sexist?
Well that doesn't answer my question at all!Can you explain why making fun of someone's weight is funny rather than lame and vaguely prejudiced?
4-0 non-conf would get some heads to turn but it will take at least a year of two of 8-9 wins before people will start to pull the bags off their head and jump on the band wagon.
It is the insecure fan that calls his opponent names like "Becky", "Viqueens", "scUM", "Squakeyes", "Goofers" etc.Can you guys explain why feminizing a team name is seen as funny rather than lame and vaguely sexist?
Amazing how the ViQueens have never won a title, and everyone pees in their pants at kick-off on Sunday. Otherwise, the "casual fans" of Minnesota sports generally suck. Win or else here in the land of bandwagon-jumpers. Twins will see that soon.
In 2003 the Gophers had their best team in over 30 years and despite the Vikings missing the playoffs for the 3rd year in a row, the bandwagon didn't increase.
It will take a conference championship.
In 2003 the Gophers had their best team in over 30 years and despite the Vikings missing the playoffs for the 3rd year in a row, the bandwagon didn't increase.
It will take a conference championship.
The Vikings were in four Super Bowls, and even though they didn't win any of them, they were dominant teams. And that lasted for a decade. Sure, that was 30 years ago, but they've been to the NFC Championship game at least once in each decade since then.
If you're over 40, watching and rooting for the Vikings has been a lifelong habit, as has watching the Gophers lose. Just when you think the Vikings are going to go into a tailspin, lightning strikes and they reach the NFC championship game. Just when you think the Gophers are on the verge of a breakthrough season, they lose to Indiana or blow a 21-point fourth quarter lead.
A 4-0 nonconference record? Saw it a lot with Mason. An 8-win season? That probably means .500 in the Big Ten. I don't know if we'll have to win a championoship, but we'll have to challenge for it for several years in a row to get people to care. Watching the Gophers win has to become a habit.
In 2003 the Gophers had their best team in over 30 years and despite the Vikings missing the playoffs for the 3rd year in a row, the bandwagon didn't increase.
It will take a conference championship.
They did for one night! The Michigan 03' game was electric! The Dome was rocking! Then the fourth quarter....
The 2003 myth. The Gophers lost 2 of 3 rivalry games in '03 including a devastating loss to Iowa as favorites that knocked them out of a January 1 bowl opportunity. The Gophers finished in a 3 way tie for 4th place in the conference with Iowa and Michigan State who both defeated them. The Gophers defeated two BCS teams (Wisconsin and Oregon) who finished the season with a winning record. Yes, this was the best record the Gophers have accomplished in 30 years or whatever, but there is a huge gap between that type of season and a conference championship. It's going to take real success to increase the fan base and it might take more than one year of success to do it. Talking longingly about a season like 2003 exemplifies why the fan base is so down. Starting in 2003, I would guess that Iowa and Wisconsin have combined for 10 or more seasons that were better than the Gophers 2003 year.
It is the insecure fan that calls his opponent names like "Becky", "Viqueens", "scUM", "Squakeyes", "Goofers" etc.
It's no myth, my friend. It was a possible program-changing opportunity squandered. If not for the Michigan collapse, we would have gotten the "40-year-Rose-Bowl-less" streak off our chest. You can say that the schedule was weak (which it was), but who cares? That's how lots of Big Ten teams got to Rose Bowls. You need to take advantage when you have a favorable schedule.
me that Minnesota fans don't deserve diddly squat. Did you people HONESTLY like all those 49-7 or 42-3 type head bashings that Michigan always gave Minnesota...Stoll got a win against Michigan Salem to hoax produced NO wins against the cornblues.( Gutey got a WIN!) Wacker got creamed by meatchicken. The run of the 2003 & 2004 heart breakers and finally that 2005 Mason win provided the MOST highlights against Michigan in succession since Murray ran a number of wins off against Michigan back in the early 60's. IF you liked the 49-7 head bashings BETTER than 2003, 2004 & 2005, I say you are flat-out CRAZY little excuse makers.
Give me a game with Michigan when we either beat them OR, at least are able to compete with them any day...even if it is a tough loss.
You people who whine about that 2003 game DESERVE those 49-7 head bashings that you all seem to LOVE so much...
As for me: it is FAR better to compete and lose than to not be competetive at all. 49-7 head bashings at the hands of Michigan, OSU or anyone else have GOT to stop.
You people who whine about the 2003 loss to Michigan so much deserve to keep right on walking in the wilderness.
It is ALWAYS better to be highly competetive...lead most of the game...and then either win it or lose it at the end than it is to never even be in the game in my opinion.
It really IS time for Minnesota fans to quit using a damn tough loss as a stinking excuse to have let badger joel macturi and the administration run the football program into the ground they way they have since that point in time. THAT is really pathetic. It is 2011 people. Quite frankly, I kind of LIKED being able to compete with Michigan for 3 seasons in succession even if we only won ONE of those games. Our Football Program was at a FAR better place then than it is now.
Ditch badger joel macturi NOW.
; 0 )