ESPN says our most important game is at Iowa

[DLguy]

Oh, I see now. I guess I didnt actually know any of that about my freind who talked to ME about this.

He had a decision, because he only wanted to have season tickets to 1. Didnt have time to dedicate to both. So, he HAD to choose. 1 or the other. Neither are terrible options. Both are good options for him. He has freinds that have season tickets for both, so either way he was going to have a good time. The Vikings' projected success this year did weigh into his decision. But apparently you can read his mind, and the words out of his mouth dont mean anything.

I know this is only 1 example, and a very small sample size. But it does prove that there are people out there that want to spend their weekends at a football game, and have to choose one or the other.

 

[station19]

Oh, I see now. I guess I didnt actually know any of that about my freind who talked to ME about this.

He had a decision, because he only wanted to have season tickets to 1. Didnt have time to dedicate to both. So, he HAD to choose. 1 or the other. Neither are terrible options. Both are good options for him. He has freinds that have season tickets for both, so either way he was going to have a good time. The Vikings' projected success this year did weigh into his decision. But apparently you can read his mind, and the words out of his mouth dont mean anything.

I know this is only 1 example, and a very small sample size. But it does prove that there are people out there that want to spend their weekends at a football game, and have to choose one or the other.

Dpo knows everything. He is the world's smartest person, just ask him.

 

[Gophfan22]

This sentiment that I'm a Vikings fan so I can't be a Gopher fan is bullsh*t

Completely agree! I don't get why people think that it's sacreligious to be a Viking fan as well as a Gopher fan...I've lived here my whole life and I'm a huge fan of both the Gophers and the Vikings. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that

 

[Unregistered User]

Completely agree! I don't get why people think that it's sacreligious to be a Viking fan as well as a Gopher fan...I've lived here my whole life and I'm a huge fan of both the Gophers and the Vikings. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that

Well...aside from the intent of the original post, I don't think it was a discussion of whether or not people can be fans of both, but rather, are there Viking's fans out there who are not Gopher fans that will change their allegiance from the Vikes to the Gophers if the Vikings suck again this year as expected.

 

[dpodoll68]

Both are good options for him.

Earlier you said, quote, "he knows the Vikings are gonna be terrible", and now it's a "good option". Which is it? It can't be both.

 

[Nate]

Earlier you said, quote, "he knows the Vikings are gonna be terrible", and now it's a "good option". Which is it? It can't be both.

His next sentence clarifies: "He has freinds that have season tickets for both, so either way he was going to have a good time." The projected poor record for the Vikings doesn't seem to have much bearing, as the Gophers are not expected to have a great season either. Hopefully better than last year, but not Big Ten championship contenders.

 

[dpodoll68]

The projected poor record for the Vikings doesn't seem to have much bearing

Thanks again. I really love it when people reinforce my points over and over again.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

On the Original Post - I agree to a certain extent that Iowa will be AN important game, but I'm not sure that it will be the MOST important game. The Gophs have beaten Iowa 2 years in a row, so beating them again, even at Kinnick, may not be seen as a step forward for the program. I would say that the biggest potential step forward for the Gophs would mean beating a team they're not "supposed" to beat. In other words - BUCKY! Beat the Stinkin' Badgers, send BB home crying, and watch the Gopher fans come out of the woodwork.

Now, onto the new p***ing contest. My experience is that you have Gopher Fans and Viking Fans, and there is a (very) small cross-over between the two groups. Yes, there are some hard-core sports fans who support both teams. But, to fill TCF, the Gophs don't need to attract the hard-core sports fans - they need to attact the casual fans -the fence-sitters who have not attended Gopher games in the past. And I don't think that has much to do with the Vikes. The Vikings fans are some of the most passionate in the sports scene. The Gopher fans (except the long-time faithful) are much more tenuous. Look at the Michigan (4th-quarter from Hell) game - after the loss, attendance tanked the rest of the season.

My point - one or two bad years may make a small dent in Vikings attendance, but their fan base is (IMHO) much more loyal. The Gophers can not and should not count on or expect that any significant # of Vikes fans will 'defect' and become Gopher Fans. The Gophers need to attract new fans - or lapsed fans - and create their own fan base.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

I have to agree with the Iowa statement, assuming success in the NC. However, I think coming out of the NC at least 3-1 is the most important for a good season (Bowl Game). If you can't beat three out of UNLV, Syracuse, UNH and Western MI, I can't see beating four B1G teams.

As far as Gophers/Vikings, in my opionion if the Gophers are winning and the Vikings are losing, yes, you will have a good size group of casual fans that come out of the woodwork and buy some single game tickets or scalp some tickets. See MN Lynx and their attendance increase last year while the Twins sucked.

If both are winning, you will still have casual fans buying tickets, but those fans will be fewer, because most fans still can't afford or will choose not to go to both due to time and/or money constraints, and they'll be making choices based off cost, availability of tickets, etc. But either way you will get more fans by winning. If the Twins were winning the division last year do you think the Lynx would have gotten the same attention?

If the Gophers are losing regardless if the Vikings win or lose, there will be lots of empty seats. I don't see that changing much either way.

The key though in either winning scenario, those casual fans that do come will likely not buy season tickets next year. Unless they have the time of their life or the winning becomes more consistent, for them it's a chance to say they've gone to the Bank and that's about it.

Now if the Gophers have 45 years of more success than not, including several division and a few conference titles and the Vikings have 45 years of mediocrity or worse, then we might have a different discussion.

 

[highwayman]

It's a Viking town because the NFL is a marketing powerhouse.

The Vikings have not been to the Super Bowl in 35 years. Yes, they've won 9 divsion titles in that span, but a division title is not the equivalent of a college conference title--I'd say an NFC title is the equivalent. They have none. What's the difference between our football teams? Marketing.

If the Gophers can market themselves well and have the same (mediocre) success that the Vikings have had, they will have enough success to sell out 51,000 seats every week. Different game, different ticket price structure, different atmosphere. I prefer college football because of the totally different atmosphere.

We are suffereing more from a lack of identity than a lack of success. Kill and Teague are going to change that.

 

[magpie]

1) The most important game is the next one.

2) As for the Vi-queens, STFU. You can be fans of both teams. Win games and the fans will follow.

/thread

 

[westcoastgopher11]

Assuming the non-conference schedule goes well (which might be dangerous) Iowa will definitely be a large game. Our schedule is front loaded with winnable games, and if we stumble out of the gate this year we might just have a record as bad as the 3-9 debacle in 2011. We need to take baby steps for moving up in the B1G, and the first step in that is becoming more competitive in our division. With our first 4 games OOC, and our first 2 B1G games being Iowa/NW we have an opportunity to beat the two teams directly above us in the Legends. I can not emphasize how important it is to start well, if we stumble to 3-3 out of this stretch bowl eligibility won't happen. If we can go 4-2 I like our chances at ~ 50%. 5-1/6-0 (obviously for the latter) we can start making traveling plans to see the boys.(Hopefully somewhere warm)

 

[John Galt]

It's a Viking town because the NFL is a marketing powerhouse.

The Vikings have not been to the Super Bowl in 35 years. Yes, they've won 9 divsion titles in that span, but a division title is not the equivalent of a college conference title--I'd say an NFC title is the equivalent. They have none. What's the difference between our football teams? Marketing.

If the Gophers can market themselves well and have the same (mediocre) success that the Vikings have had, they will have enough success to sell out 51,000 seats every week. Different game, different ticket price structure, different atmosphere. I prefer college football because of the totally different atmosphere.

We are suffereing more from a lack of identity than a lack of success. Kill and Teague are going to change that.

Highwayman: with all due respect, this post couldn't be more wrong in every way possible.

 

[tjgesquire]

If they want to fill TCF, the focus needs to be on the students. College teams have a built-in advantage to selling tickets due to thousands of new freshman coming in each year. The goal should be to get them hooked on the traditions, tailgating, etc. during their stay so that they'll demand tickets after graduation. That's where 90% of the die-hard fans will/have come from.

 

[highwayman]

Highwayman: with all due respect, this post couldn't be more wrong in every way possible.

So the Vikings are successful? Really? Are we that deluded? Other than 1998 and 2009 they have been distinctly average, and certainly not a championship caliber team. That's a fact.

Go ahead, pick a year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_Vikings_seasons

Throw out the 98 and 09 seasons, they are a .500 team since their last SB with a 12-19 play-off record and averaged a finish of 2.4 in a 4 team division.

The Gophers have not been good. The Vikings have not been a quantum leap better. It's the press and marketing...

 

[Parski1]

Most important game is Syracuse - That will give us a 4-0 start and a Bowl game.

 

[John Galt]

So the Vikings are successful? Really? Are we that deluded? Other than 1998 and 2009 they have been distinctly average, and certainly not a championship caliber team. That's a fact.

Go ahead, pick a year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_Vikings_seasons

Throw out the 98 and 09 seasons, they are a .500 team since their last SB with a 12-19 play-off record and averaged a finish of 2.4 in a 4 team division.

The Gophers have not been good. The Vikings have not been a quantum leap better. It's the press and marketing...

I really don't want to respond, but you asked. As you stated above, the Vikings have won their division 9 times in the last 35 years. That's 1 year out of every 4. Most years they have been average to good. 3 years ago they were 1 play away from the Super Bowl. When have the Gophers been 1 play away from the Rose Bowl in the last 35 years? When is the last time the Gophers finished in the top 3 in the B1G? I'm sorry, but the Vikings have been average to good. The Gophers have not. The marketing makes no difference at all. There are very few effective ways to market a team that's 3-9.

 

[Gopherocious]

I really don't want to respond, but you asked. As you stated above, the Vikings have won their division 9 times in the last 35 years. That's 1 year out of every 4. Most years they have been average to good. 3 years ago they were 1 play away from the Super Bowl. When have the Gophers been 1 play away from the Rose Bowl in the last 35 years? When is the last time the Gophers finished in the top 3 in the B1G? I'm sorry, but the Vikings have been average to good. The Gophers have not. The marketing makes no difference at all. There are very few effective ways to market a team that's 3-9.

That's the thing though. The Vikings have been average over the past 35 years (with a couple of well-above average season like '98 and '09) and their fans and attendance generally stays pretty consistent. Over the past 10-15 years, the Gophers have also been average. Smaller bowl games, but usually competitive. In all of those years, especially in the Dome, Gopher attendance was never what the Vikings were drawing. The Gophers need to be above average to gain fans in the seats. The Vikings fans will still sit in the Dome and watch the Vikings go 8-8 like they often do. The Gophers just need to win, and win consistently, to fill TCF will maroon and gold.

 

[Cayman]

I really don't want to respond, but you asked. As you stated above, the Vikings have won their division 9 times in the last 35 years. That's 1 year out of every 4. Most years they have been average to good. 3 years ago they were 1 play away from the Super Bowl. When have the Gophers been 1 play away from the Rose Bowl in the last 35 years? When is the last time the Gophers finished in the top 3 in the B1G? I'm sorry, but the Vikings have been average to good. The Gophers have not. The marketing makes no difference at all. There are very few effective ways to market a team that's 3-9.

In overtime against Wisconsin in 1999, and pretty much any play that Michigan scored on in the 4th quarter in 2003. We win either of those games, we go to the Rose Bowl.

 

[RodentRampage]

So the Vikings are successful? Really? Are we that deluded? Other than 1998 and 2009 they have been distinctly average, and certainly not a championship caliber team. That's a fact.

Go ahead, pick a year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minnesota_Vikings_seasons

Throw out the 98 and 09 seasons, they are a .500 team since their last SB with a 12-19 play-off record and averaged a finish of 2.4 in a 4 team division.

The Gophers have not been good. The Vikings have not been a quantum leap better. It's the press and marketing...

Over the 35-year time frame you reference, the Vikings have had 20 winning seasons. In that same time frame, the Gophers have had 12 winning seasons, and only 4 winning Big Ten seasons. But why should we throw out the Vikings' 1998 and 2009 seasons? Should we then throw out the Gophers 1999 and 2003 seasons?

 

[dpodoll68]

Over the 35-year time frame you reference, the Vikings have had 20 winning seasons. In that same time frame, the Gophers have had 12 winning seasons, and only 4 winning Big Ten seasons. But why should we throw out the Vikings' 1998 and 2009 seasons? Should we then throw out the Gophers 1999 and 2003 seasons?

Not to mention that he completely ignores the 2000 season in which the Vikings went to the NFC championship game. Of course, the Vikings were thrashed mercilessly, but the Gophers even being in a position to be thrashed mercilessly in a conference championship game would be a vast improvement over anything seen here in 45 years.

 

[highwayman]

Over the 35-year time frame you reference, the Vikings have had 20 winning seasons. In that same time frame, the Gophers have had 12 winning seasons, and only 4 winning Big Ten seasons. But why should we throw out the Vikings' 1998 and 2009 seasons? Should we then throw out the Gophers 1999 and 2003 seasons?

Not to mention that he completely ignores the 2000 season in which the Vikings went to the NFC championship game. Of course, the Vikings were thrashed mercilessly, but the Gophers even being in a position to be thrashed mercilessly in a conference championship game would be a vast improvement over anything seen here in 45 years.

Whatever. 10 of those seasons were 8-7 or 9-7. My whole point is that the Vikings are not leaps and bounds better. They are average as best. Have been for 35 years. They've won 12 play-off games in 35 years. And that last comment is rediculous. You'd take a 41-0 thrashing from a vastly inferior team, eh? Interesting. I wouldn't.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

I wouldn't call the Giants vastly inferior. They were the home team for a reason. The Vikings haven't been spectacular, but they've been pretty good. The problem is they've failed at every turn to win that big game. Sixteen teams in the NFC and 13 teams have played in the Super Bowl over the past 20 seasons. The Vikings, Lions and Redskins are the only teams that haven't (Skins won the SB in 1991).

 

[dpodoll68]

My whole point is that the Vikings are not leaps and bounds better.

Nobody said that they are/were. They are/were unquestionably better nonetheless.

They are average as best.

"Big Ten average" for the Gophers would be a nice change of pace and much better than the last 45 years.

They've won 12 play-off games in 35 years.

How many bowl games have the Gophers been to/won in 35 years?

And that last comment is rediculous. You'd take a 41-0 thrashing from a vastly inferior team, eh?

How were the Giants "vastly inferior"? They had the best record in the NFC and a top 5 defense in the league.

Interesting. I wouldn't.

You'd rather go 6-7 and lose in the micronpc.com Toilet Bowl than go 11-1 and get thrashed 41-0 by OSU in the Big Ten championship game? Interesting. I wouldn't.

 

[RodentRampage]

If you're going to throw out the Vikings 9-7 seasons, then you must throw out the Gophers 7-5 seasons. That leaves a total of three Gophers season over the past 35 years with more eight or more wins in a season. And those were puffed up with weak non-conference schedules.

The Vikings have simply outperformed the Gophers by a considerable margin. 20 winning seasons out of 35 puts them above average. I might be off by a little, but I count the Vikings as having a regular season record of 289-266 in this time frame. In this same time frame, the Gophers have win 170 games and list 236. 52.1% is considerably better than 41.8%.