Are Vikings to Blame for Poor Football Program?

KoolAid

Red Drank Brewmaster
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
267
Points
83
Stemming from a debate on here a couple of weeks ago, I don't think a College football program located in the same city as a pro team can achieve ultimate success.

Now there are a number of reasons why this program struggles (weather, fanbase, commitment from university, etc), but I think this argument is a valid one. For now, I'll save WHY it's a valid argument and simply lay out the pro towns.

The specifics are - A college program located within the SAME CITY as a pro team will achieve limited success.

Looking across the pro football landscape, we have these 31 cities:


Baltimore – No big time football programs in Baltimore. University of Maryland is relatively close. They are, however, rarely good

Cincinnati – University of Cincy. Had a couple good years under Brian Kelly, but have never been close to being a powerhouse

Cleveland – No major program operates in or near Cleveland. The powerhouse of college football that does operate in Ohio (Ohio State) is far from both Cleveland and Cincy.

Pittsburgh – The University of Pittsburgh is right there. Definitely not a powerhouse and very comparable to the Gophers. At their very best, they’re still not that relevant or good.

Houston – University of Houston. Traditionally decent program. Definitely had some good year’s way back when, but still not a powerhouse (currently). This city, Dallas and Miami will be exceptions to the rule because of their fertile recruiting.

Indianapolis – Bloomington is pretty close (Indiana University) and they’re certainly not that good. The powerhouse that does reside in Indiana (Notre Dame) is nowhere near Indianapolis. ND is much closer to Chicago.

Jacksonville – Newer Pro football franchise. No major college program operates near or in the city. There’s a couple decent programs in the state, however.

Nashville – Vanderbilt. Not a powerhouse. University of Tennessee is a traditional powerhouse, but Knoxville is a couple hundred miles away from Nashville.

Buffalo – University of Buffalo. Not that good. Syracuse is a couple hundred miles away, but they aren’t that good traditionally, either. Except when McNabb makes it rain.

Miami – The University of Miami. The true exception. This school will probably always be good just because all the athletes they need to recruit are within city limits. I think at one point, Jimmy Johnson only recruited 3-5 different counties. They’re fans are never really that into it, but they’re good nonetheless.

Boston – Boston College! Clusterf*ck city. When they were in the Big East, they’d be somewhat competitive, but they get tossed around in the ACC.

New York – Rutgers. Not a powerhouse.

Denver – No big time programs in Denver. Boulder and Fort Collins are to the north and AFA is south, but nothing close to city limits. Boulder had some time in the National spotlight, but aren’t a traditional powerhouse.
Kansas City – No big time programs in Kansas City, but the University of Kansas is pretty close. They’re garbage though. The university of Missouri has generally been better, but they’re located conveniently right between KC and St. Louis.

Oakland – No big time programs in Oakland, although Stanford is actually pretty close. My guess is that no Stanford graduates live in Oakland or care to root for the Raiders. Stanford has been good in the past and is good now. They operate on their own laws.

San Diego – San Diego State is very close to Qualcomm stadium. Yet, they’re always garbage. Lot’s of good players come out of San Diego every year, you’d think they could field a better program.

Chicago – Northwestern is right in city limits. They suck. The University of Illinois has had some good years, but Champaign isn’t close to Chicago at all. They should be better than they are, being able to draw from Chicago, Indianapolis and St. Louis. Notre Dame is the closest program to Chicago and they have been very successful. Their success stems from a lot of other reasons though.

Detroit – No programs in Detroit. The University of Michigan is not too far from Detroit, however. Having built a powerhouse long before professional football was popular, they are considered a powerhouse. Michigan State isn’t near Detroit.

Green Bay – No big time program in Green Bay. University of Wisconsin is far away and located in the state’s capital. People are drunk regardless.

Minneapolis – The University of Minnesota is located pretty darn close to the ThunderDome. Was a powerhouse before pro football became popular. If you don’t want someone going for two on you – don’t let them in your endzone.

Atlanta – Georgia Tech is right there and they’ve certainly had their ups and downs. Much easier to field a competitive team in the south.

Charlotte – No major program in Charlotte that I can think of off the top of my head. Duke, UNC and NC State are all located a couple hundred miles away. None of them are dominant anyway.

New Orleans – Tulane is right in city limits. They’re garbage. Traditional powerhouse LSU is about a hundred miles away.

Tampa Bay – I’m not even sure where Florida’s directional schools are located, but UF, FSU and Miami aren’t located in Tampa.

Dallas – TCU (Fort Worth) and SMU are both located within city limits. SMU already had it’s day and TCU appears to be having it’s day right now. They would both fall into the same category as Miami – being able to field a (very) competitive team simply off of local talent. A recent study often referenced on GH said that the Dallas/Fort Worth area produces the most division 1 talent every year. Texas’ traditional power University of Texas resides a couple hundred miles away from the metroplex.

Philadelphia – Temple is right there, so is Princeton. Neither is very good. Penn state is good, but not located near Philly.

Washington DC – See Baltimore

Arizona – Arizona State is right there, but they’re not a traditional big boy. Nobody really give a f*ck about the Cardinals anway.

San Francisco – See Oakland

Seattle – U of Washington is right there. They’ve been decent before, but nothing fantastic. At best, the Gophers can achieve similar success.

St. Louis – Nothing in city limits.
 

There's probably competition for ink on the sports page and revenue from jersey sales, but I have never really bought this excuse.
 


Seattle – U of Washington is right there. They’ve been decent before, but nothing fantastic. At best, the Gophers can achieve similar success.

You may want to check your facts regarding U-Dub football.
 



This post is rife with inaccuracies. Not to mention rationalizing away the significant number of teams (Stanford, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Washington, Colorado, etc.) who make the point moot.
 

You could go a graph with the number of wins on the Y-Axis, and the distance from an NFL team on the X-axis. Then you could see if there is any significance.

The Vikings do have some impact, but it isn't big. They can't cause us to lose. They impact attendance, which has some impact on revenue. But the decisions made by the U have had a greater impact. The Vikings didn't force the U to make hiring and firing mistakes. They didn't force us into the Dome, the legislature gave us little choice, it was either go to the dome or play at Memorial with no rennovation money.

But the dome is gone. We have first-class facilities now, we just need to make the right hiring decision. I wouldn't care if a coach bolts after getting us out of the ditch, so long as we are left in a good position for the next coach. Make the buyout stiff for the first couple years, so the coach can't bolt too soon.
 

facepalm.jpg
 

A real lamer of an excuse considering the University of Minnesota has long been one of the largest Universities in the country which means a deep alumni base, its up to the administration to put a good product on the field so that alumns feel an affinity towards the football team. Is it any wonder that older generations are some of the best supporters of U of M football? They attend and support because they remember when the U was a dominant team, if the U creates and maintains a winning tradition in the future the large alumni base will support the team. Think of how many student no-shows that would be attending and building a lifelong love for Gopher football if this team was winning...
 



And we've seen the local media step up this year. Phil Miller's providing daily coverage in the Strib. The columns, while not always supportive, have been there. Doogie is doing his thing. I just don't buy the Vikings as an excuse.
 

viking town argument is garbage- The fact that the U of M exists in a city big enough to support 3 pro sports franchises, (4 if you count the Timberwolves) should be a positive thing. In a perfect world the local high school 3 and 4 star recruits would grow up dreaming of playing for the U of M in college, and the Vikings in the pros. There is no reason that the Vikings and the U cannot be mutually beneficial to one another.

I have always and will always hate the "Vikings" town argument. The reason I hate this is because the moment the Vikings start going downhill people abandon them as well. The fact that more people in the state currently follow the Vikings than the Gophers has to do with 50 years of lackluster product on the field at the U trying to compete with 4 Super Bowl berths, multiple regular season division titles, etc.

As evidenced with the 2003 Michigan game, this city and state are ready to embrace and would love to focus on the Gophers.
 

The Vikings do have some impact, but it isn't big. They can't cause us to lose. They impact attendance, which has some impact on revenue. But the decisions made by the U have had a greater impact. The Vikings didn't force the U to make hiring and firing mistakes. They didn't force us into the Dome, the legislature gave us little choice, it was either go to the dome or play at Memorial with no rennovation money.

This. +1.
 

How often does this have to be discussed? How about doing it in reverse and maybe some of you will see the light:

Texas-They compete with the Cowboys and there is major cross-over in the ticket-bases. That they're in different cities is irrelevant. The majority of folks in Texas worship both (after they get done worshipping the HS team on Friday) and every major media market in Texas covers both.

Florida-They compete with both Jacksonville and TB for season-ticket holders and media coverage. Even the Dolphins have a radio affiliate in Gainesville.

Ohio State-They compete with both the Browns and Bengals, especially the Browns. City again is irrelevant, both have state-wide following.

LSU-New Orleans is an hour away. There's huge cross-over.

These are just a few examples. Now, do Alabama and Oklahoma, etc. have an advantage because they pretty much hold sway over an entire state? Sure. But they also have convince recruits to come live in Alabama and Oklahoma. And they have legitimate competition from Auburn and Oklahoma State. Minnesota, on the other hand, is the only D-1 University in a state of 5 million people and we want to use the Vikings as an excuse? Give me a break.
 



This post is rife with inaccuracies. Not to mention rationalizing away the significant number of teams (Stanford, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Washington, Colorado, etc.) who make the point moot.

Well, of those teams, only Michigan has been a consistent power over the years. They've all had good years, but not on a regular basis.

I grew up a Vikings fan and while I was aware that the U had a football team, I didn't pay much attention to it. It wasn't until I knew I was going to school there that I paid any attention and became the fan I am today. Having the Vikings in town kills our non-hardcore fan base. Yes, we have a big alumni base, but the vast majority of football fans who did not attend the U are Vikings fans. How many native Iowa City residents have a team ahead of the Hawkeyes?

Having said that, there are many more reasons why the Gophers have struggled, but I think the Vikings (and professional sports in general) are an important factor.
 

Well, of those teams, only Michigan has been a consistent power over the years. They've all had good years, but not on a regular basis.

I grew up a Vikings fan and while I was aware that the U had a football team, I didn't pay much attention to it. It wasn't until I knew I was going to school there that I paid any attention and became the fan I am today. Having the Vikings in town kills our non-hardcore fan base. Yes, we have a big alumni base, but the vast majority of football fans who did not attend the U are Vikings fans. How many native Iowa City residents have a team ahead of the Hawkeyes?

Having said that, there are many more reasons why the Gophers have struggled, but I think the Vikings (and professional sports in general) are an important factor.

Non-hardcore fans are fickle (aka band wagon fans) who will support the U if they begin winning. Like I said with the shear size of the alumni base losing has taken its toll, as there are generations of former students who do not look back fondly on the Gopher football team in their fours years. The administrations inability to connect with students and alumni is alarming and completely unrelated to professional football.
 

Nice job on ignoring many schools because they don't happen to be in the same city, way to try and skew the data to meet your objective. Where to start, have you even been to a game at either LSU, Michigan, or Colorado for instance? If you have any you talked to any of those fans you would find that the majority of those fans are the same fans that support and live in the same towns as the pro teams in that area. A huge amount of LSU, Colorado, and Michigan fans are coming from New Orleans, Denver, and Detroit to attend and support the college team as well as the pro team. Because of this you cannnot simply discount these schools and the fact that they have had success while supporting a NFL team at the same time. You also forgot that Pitt and the Steelers were both dominating at the same time in the 1970's.
 

This post is rife with inaccuracies. Not to mention rationalizing away the significant number of teams (Stanford, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Washington, Colorado, etc.) who make the point moot.

A college program located within the SAME CITY as a pro team will achieve limited success

Palo Alto, Ann Arbor and Boulder.

Sure, plenty of inaccuracies in there. What it does show, however, is that none of the Nation's elite programs share a city.
 

I grew up a Vikings fan and while I was aware that the U had a football team, I didn't pay much attention to it. It wasn't until I knew I was going to school there that I paid any attention and became the fan I am today. Having the Vikings in town kills our non-hardcore fan base. Yes, we have a big alumni base, but the vast majority of football fans who did not attend the U are Vikings fans. How many native Iowa City residents have a team ahead of the Hawkeyes?/QUOTE]
But if you have a coach who will promote the program and put a decent product on the field, people are going to be aware. I can't fault Brewster's efforts to promote the program. He's worked hard (perhaps too hard) building up his squad in his press conferences and the like. The problem is, that energy hasn't produced the on-field results people want to (and will pay to) see.

Brewster's been working on the high school programs and whoever is in here next has to take that even a step or two further. That's where you start to build the brand loyalty.
 

Pretending the Vikings have no impact on the Gophers is naive and ridiculous.

Pretending the Gophers can't win with the Vikings here is also naive and ridiculous.

There are many factors at play which negatively impacts the Gophers success.
 

Our attendance is respectable, we have an average sized D-I stadium, and we have average sized crowds. Memorial Stadium wasn't a lot larger than what we have now, it had a capacity of about 52,000 until 1969 when it was expanded to 56,000. Our attendance is lower than the Big Ten average, but that's because the Big Ten has some of the schools with the biggest attendance. It's not as if we used to get 80,000 before the Vikings arrived.

Let's just focus on what we can fix.
 

A college program located within the SAME CITY as a pro team will achieve limited success

Palo Alto, Ann Arbor and Boulder.

Sure, plenty of inaccuracies in there. What it does show, however, is that none of the Nation's elite programs share a city.

I see. So basically you want to use criteria that eliminates Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida State, Nebraska, USC, Michigan, Virginia Tech, Penn State and many others from the sample and then use it to say one can't achieve success? Brilliant.

All you are proving is that land-grant universities didn't generally chose large cities for thier location, and professional sports teams did. Nothing more. Miami, Pitt and GT's shares of the National Titles won in the last 30 years is far greater then the ratio of BCS teams in major cities to those that aren't.
 

Chicken and egg.

1) Win and you'll build your fan base.

2) Can't win because you don't have a fan base.

Pick one.
 

UCLA and USC had some pretty good seasons when LA was an NFL town. Granted, it's a much larger city, but we're talking about two D-1 teams competing with (at times) two NFL teams.
 

Think about it this way: Who would you rather have the Vikings playing down the street or Auburn, Florida State, UVa, UCLA, or Boston College playing in St. Cloud? Even if there is some tiny disadvantage to having an NFL team in the city, we have ZERO competition from other D-1 schools in a state of 5 million people and the U has one of largest alumni bases in the country.
 

Stemming from a debate on here a couple of weeks ago, I don't think a College football program located in the same city as a pro team can achieve ultimate success.

Now there are a number of reasons why this program struggles (weather, fanbase, commitment from university, etc), but I think this argument is a valid one. For now, I'll save WHY it's a valid argument and simply lay out the pro towns.

The specifics are - A college program located within the SAME CITY as a pro team will achieve limited success.

Great post as far as it goes, KoolAid. But you missed the most important factor of all. Since 1967 the Vikings have been one of the most successful NFL franchises in terms of division/conference titles won and Super Bowls played in. During the 43 years since the Gophers last won a Big 10 Championship the Vikings have owned football in Minnesota in every way possible because they are almost always in the mix.

The large majority of Minnesotans couldn't care less that the Gopher's lose on Saturday because they have the Vikings game to look forward to on Sunday. Compare that with Michigan Wolverine fans. If they start losing their only option is to start cheering for the Detroit Lions which has probably been the least successful NFL team during the last 43 years. Give me a break. The two situations are in no way comparable.

The Vikings success has made it easy for the University of Minnesota Board of Regents, President, and Administration to ignore the the lack of success of the Gophers football team because the students, alumni, and fans have cared far more about the Purple since Bud Grant won his first division title in 1968.

The Gophers also have a pathetic alumni base. It is absurd to compare it to the alumni bases at Michigan, Stanford, Texas, Wisconsin or any of the other schools that have to compete with NFL teams. People who graduate from those schools are extremely proud to let you know about it and they love to give money to their alma mater. When is the last time you heard someone bragging about graduating form the U? I don't think I have EVER heard someone bursting his buttons about his U degree. The Legislature, Board of Regents, and the Administration deserve ALL of the blame for this because they let the U's academic standing deteriorate to extreme mediocrity since the 1960's.

The Gophers situation is unique in all of Division I football. No other school compares to what any coach that is hired will have to contend with at the U. Most of you guys are setting yourselves up for huge disappointment. Whoever the new coach is will be facing huge hurdles in order to turn the program around. I don't think it is going to happen. But I will still have my very good season tickets at Gophers Stadium to watch Big 10 football on fall Saturdays.
 

No, it is not unique at all. You are using a very peculiar definition of successful. Zero super bowl wins doesn't add up to successful. And it has been 34 years since their last Super Bowl appearance. The Vikings have been division champions 7 times since 1980.

Meanwhile, Pitt does OK despite having the Steelers in the same city. The Steelers have clearly done better than the Vikings, with 6 Super Bowl championships and 7 Super bowl appearances. They do have one less playoff appearance, and one less division championship. The two teams success is pretty much equal except for the OVERWHELMING edge in superbowl championships and appearances.

I can thus say with absolute certainty that this situation is not unique, that if an NFL team in the same city is a disadvantage, that Pitt is at much more of a disadvantage than the Gophers are.

Plus, as has been pointed out USC and UCLA did well having to deal with up to 2 NFL teams.
 

We'll see if the Gophers' fortunes improve with no Vikings soon enough, after the purple moving vans come in 2012.
 

Here's the meaningful history in W/L for Gopher football

1900-1960 332-146-31 65% WINNING PERCENTAGE
VIKINGS ESTABLISHED SEPT 27, 1960
1961-2010 252-296-8 45% WINNING PERCENTAGE

Just a coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
 


Wouldn't last long. If the Vikings leave, the state will move heaven and earth to get another team here.
 




Top Bottom