"Painted Field" for shared time with Vikings?

Donate To GopherHole
Don't expect to see the BLOCK M for Vikings games. They're using temporary paint, and I doubt they're going to replace the turf again in 2016 with sewn logos.
 

supadupafly said:
vikings colors in our U of M stadium (temporary/removable or not).........makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
Click to expand...

I understand how you feel and have heard many other people say the same thing, but it doesn't bother me. As long as the Gopher colors are there for GOpher games (and the Vikings stuff gone) and that they restore the place when the leave for the new, very awesome, stadium, big deal. They pay the cost, so who cares.
 

MRJ said:
would hope the U holds the Vikings' feet to the fire if they really want to start redecorating on Sundays.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have said that....but if the U was smart they wouldn't do that, at least in public. A good percentage of VIking fans, even in the state, have a low opinion or could care less about the Gophers. By hosting the Vikings for two years, especially good hosts, the Gophers have a great opportunity to make a good impression. I say Go Gophers and Skol Vikes, just on different days.
 

AO54 said:
Don't expect to see the BLOCK M for Vikings games. They're using temporary paint, and I doubt they're going to replace the turf again in 2016 with sewn logos.
Click to expand...

It would take a lot of paint to cover up the M for Vikings games.

I don't understand why the NFL has would be permanent and the Gophers painted, which is how I read the article.
 

Tim Riggins said:
It would take a lot of paint to cover up the M for Vikings games.

I don't understand why the NFL has would be permanent and the Gophers painted, which is how I read the article.
Click to expand...
The article just says they'll be painting. This is temporary paint. They can do the gopher paint on saturday, remove it, then paint Vikings logos. It doesn't look as good as the sewn-in logos, but it's football. We shouldn't care so much about the decorations.
 


Norsk_Gopher said:
Lots of people have said that....but if the U was smart they wouldn't do that, at least in public. A good percentage of VIking fans, even in the state, have a low opinion or could care less about the Gophers. By hosting the Vikings for two years, especially good hosts, the Gophers have a great opportunity to make a good impression. I say Go Gophers and Skol Vikes, just on different days.
Click to expand...

A "good impression" won't change the low opinions of Viking fans.
 

A lot of people on this board seem to have the little brother "we're not going to let them push us around" attitude. Norsk_Gopher put it best above, as long as it's Maroon and Gold on Saturday's, who cares if they work through the night to turn it over to purple and gold. The Vikings are paying a lot of money in rent and upgrading our stadium so everyone RELAX.

I'm basically an equal fan of both so I'm looking at it from both sides but you people need to realize it's a compromise and still good advertisement for the U even if some of the colors are changed on Sundays.
 

the only reason why I'm happy about the vikes playing at TCF is because it is the gophers field and their will be planety of block M's, a maroon endzone and it will be great publicity for gopher football and their facilities, that is the only reason why i like this deal, but if i would have know that they might get a completley new field with vikings logos and purple all over the field then i would let them play at a high school field
 

if the TCF deal didnt work would they have played at target field?
i would say their options were
1. TCF
2. target field
3. out if state stadium
4. division II or III college stadium, or highs chool field
 



also does this mean the highschool football state tournament will be played at TCF? this makes me happy, jashon cornell can play at TCF his senior year if cretin make it to state
 

Hammer Time said:
A lot of people on this board seem to have the little brother "we're not going to let them push us around" attitude. Norsk_Gopher put it best above, as long as it's Maroon and Gold on Saturday's, who cares if they work through the night to turn it over to purple and gold. The Vikings are paying a lot of money in rent and upgrading our stadium so everyone RELAX.

I'm basically an equal fan of both so I'm looking at it from both sides but you people need to realize it's a compromise and still good advertisement for the U even if some of the colors are changed on Sundays.
Click to expand...

They are not paying a lot of money in rent. It's nice that they are paying for heating coils and upgrades, but for $3 million a year they could play at TCF for 325 years for the same price as their new stadium. Which they will be unhappy with in 30 years. They are only getting that sweet of a deal because they won't be able to make as much money while playing at TCF, but still...
 

Curseislifted33 said:
If ya think about it, they will have 1 day to turn it from Gophers to Vikings and then a week to turn it back to Gophers. I'm sure everything will be alright by the time Saturday rolls around, anything that needs to be fixed can be done in 7 days to remove the purple from the field/stadium.
Click to expand...

Maybe they could do it faster if they use an exorcist.:rolleyes:
 

Parski1 said:
Where did you hear that....Replacing the turf twice in 2 years? Link?
Click to expand...

I assumed they would have to replace the field when they install the heating coils. I could be wrong on that.

I read somewhere in the agreement that the Vikes would be replacing the field to the original state when they are through playing at TCF(which only makes sense). Not going to bother looking for a link.

I still don't understand why the Vikes would want to make the field look all Vikings. What do they really gain. Advertising income I could understand. How about if one end zone is purple and gold Vikings(on Viking days), and the other end zone is maroon and gold MINNESOTA?
 



die hard gopher said:
if the TCF deal didnt work would they have played at target field?
i would say their options were
1. TCF
2. target field
3. out if state stadium
4. division II or III college stadium, or highs chool field
Click to expand...

I think the Vikings were at a point where it had to be TCF. Target Field and D-II/III stadiums would simply not be feasible.
 


Hammer Time said:
I'm basically an equal fan of both so I'm looking at it from both sides but you people need to realize it's a compromise and still good advertisement for the U even if some of the colors are changed on Sundays.
Click to expand...

Yup, couldn't agree more.
 

die hard gopher said:
the only reason why I'm happy about the vikes playing at TCF is because it is the gophers field and their will be planety of block M's, a maroon endzone and it will be great publicity for gopher football and their facilities, that is the only reason why i like this deal, but if i would have know that they might get a completley new field with vikings logos and purple all over the field then i would let them play at a high school field
Click to expand...

I'm sure that would have won the "U" a bunch a fans at the Legislature.
 

die hard gopher said:
if the TCF deal didnt work would they have played at target field?
i would say their options were
1. TCF
2. target field
3. out if state stadium
4. division II or III college stadium, or highs chool field
Click to expand...

Yup, Target Field. TCF is obviously the better choice but teams (including the Vikings) have played in baseball stadiums before.
 

FreakyDeke said:
They are not paying a lot of money in rent.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, because the alternative is that they don't play at TCF at the Gophers get.....$0 in rent. Could the Vikings have paid more, yes. Should they have payed more, maybe. Are the Gophers, students, or taxpayers (in terms of rent only, not refering to the taxpayer funding of the new stadium) getting a raw deal? No. Between $6,000,000+ (+ if they go into year 3 or 4) plus improvements or $0, I will take option 1.
 

station19 said:
I assumed they would have to replace the field when they install the heating coils. I could be wrong on that.

I read somewhere in the agreement that the Vikes would be replacing the field to the original state when they are through playing at TCF(which only makes sense). Not going to bother looking for a link.

I still don't understand why the Vikes would want to make the field look all Vikings. What do they really gain. Advertising income I could understand. How about if one end zone is purple and gold Vikings(on Viking days), and the other end zone is maroon and gold MINNESOTA?
Click to expand...

You are right that they will replace the field when they put in the heating coils, I'm not sure (and hadn't heard) that they have to restore the field afterwards. The first part is not a big deal, TCF was most likely due for a new field only, if I remember correctly field turf needs to be replaced every 7 years or so. The second part, replacing it again after two years, would surprise me. I could see them just replacing the endzone and the center, maybe the sidelines.

Why would the Vikings want their symbols? It's their brand and their brand is what makes them money. Also, I think the NFL requires that their brand (the NFL shield) is displayed on the field; I could be wrong about this.

I have heard the 2 end-zone (1 Vikings, 1 Minnesota) idea before, but I think it would look weird and it would anger almost everyone. That said, I think they (the Vikings) will value the Vikings logo at the 50 over the endzones but that the whole field will be done up in Vikings colors.
 

Norsk_Gopher said:
You are right that they will replace the field when they put in the heating coils, I'm not sure (and hadn't heard) that they have to restore the field afterwards. The first part is not a big deal, TCF was most likely due for a new field only, if I remember correctly field turf needs to be replaced every 7 years or so. The second part, replacing it again after two years, would surprise me. I could see them just replacing the endzone and the center, maybe the sidelines.

Why would the Vikings want their symbols? It's their brand and their brand is what makes them money. Also, I think the NFL requires that their brand (the NFL shield) is displayed on the field; I could be wrong about this.

I have heard the 2 end-zone (1 Vikings, 1 Minnesota) idea before, but I think it would look weird and it would anger almost everyone. That said, I think they (the Vikings) will value the Vikings logo at the 50 over the endzones but that the whole field will be done up in Vikings colors.
Click to expand...

The point of the Vikings replacing the field when they leave is fact and why wouldn't it be? The U should expect the original field replaced when the Vikes leave. Not a bunch of flaking paint. Why would anyone want a patched field(old and new)

How does a Viking logo on a field that is not their's make them money?

Damn, I thought the 2 end zone idea was a Station19 original. Why would it 'anger almost everyone'? Sounds like a good compromise to me.
 

station19 said:
The point of the Vikings replacing the field when they leave is fact and why wouldn't it be? The U should expect the original field replaced when the Vikes leave. Not a bunch of flaking paint. Why would anyone want a patched field(old and new)

How does a Viking logo on a field that is not their's make them money?

Damn, I thought the 2 end zone idea was a Station19 original. Why would it 'anger almost everyone'? Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Click to expand...

I doubt the Vikes will replace the same turf they just replaced for heating coils after just using it for two years. You may have heard that wrong.

A Vikes logo at the 50 @ TCF would be pathetic....Gopher fans would have the right to be pissed! I'm a Vikes fan.....but I have Gopher season tickets and on Saturdays I don't want to see anything Vikings around or on that field.
 

Parski1 said:
I doubt the Vikes will replace the same turf they just replaced for heating coils after just using it for two years. You may have heard that wrong.

A Vikes logo at the 50 @ TCF would be pathetic....Gopher fans would have the right to be pissed! I love the Vikes...but I have season tickets and on Saturdays I don't want to see anything Vikings around or on that field.
Click to expand...

Why would the U accept a field that was not as nice when the Vikes leave? The Gophers have a beautiful field that is colored turf(sewn in), Why would they accept a more used and painted on field? I did not read it wrong.
 

supadupafly said:
vikings colors in our U of M stadium (temporary/removable or not).........makes me throw up in my mouth a little. this is a MAROON AND GOLD stadium. please, please don't let these overpaid pros go overboard in what they are allowed to do in the stadium on game days. fingers crossed.
Click to expand...

Your favorite team's revenue's just shot up a bunch, not? Don't be so dramatic. This could be win/win.
 

station19 said:
Why would the U accept a field that was not as nice when the Vikes leave? The Gophers have a beautiful field that is colored turf(sewn in), Why would they accept a more used and painted on field? I did not read it wrong.
Click to expand...

For 16 games of football and maybe a playoff game they're changing the turf out twice?....so where did you see that?
 

Parski1 said:
For 16 games of football and maybe a playoff game they're changing the turf out twice?....so where did you see that?
Click to expand...

The first time would be because they have to tear up the field to install heating coils. I am assuming that can't re-install the same turf.

The second would be because the U would not want an inferior field from what they had before the Vikes showed up and started painting the field. I read it in either PP or Strib when the agreement was finalized.

Make that 20 games....2 exhibition games each year. They might play one home game in Europe however.
 

station19 said:
The point of the Vikings replacing the field when they leave is fact and why wouldn't it be? The U should expect the original field replaced when the Vikes leave. Not a bunch of flaking paint. Why would anyone want a patched field(old and new)

How does a Viking logo on a field that is not their's make them money?

Damn, I thought the 2 end zone idea was a Station19 original. Why would it 'anger almost everyone'? Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Click to expand...

The way you worded that makes believe it is not actually a fact; maybe it is, but I have seen nothing to state that (I would be happy if it was, but those fields are not cheap).

How does the Vikings logo on the field make them money? It's advertising and builds their brand. Also, I think the NFL would want this, not just the team. Playing at TCF without your logo for one game is one thing, playing for two years is something else (and remember, when they played in Detroit for that one "home" game, they did have their logo at the 50 yard line, do an image search if you don't believe me).

As far as "Why would it anger almost everyone," well many Gopher fans just want Gopher Logos and, as we all know, many Viking fans could care less about the Gophers and will want only Viking logos. This of course is no a fact, just conjecture. I don't think your idea is a bad one, I just don't think it will happen and I have heard negative feedback (on the Daily Gopher) about it.
 

Parski1 said:
For 16 games of football and maybe a playoff game they're changing the turf out twice?....so where did you see that?
Click to expand...

To be fair to station19, its not 16 games, its 36 (Gophers and Vikings, maybe a few less if the Vikings have overseas games) with an unknown number or repaintings. so more than double the number of football games (but not other events) but the same number of seasons (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer).
 

Norsk_Gopher said:
The way you worded that makes believe it is not actually a fact; maybe it is, but I have seen nothing to state that (I would be happy if it was, but those fields are not cheap).

How does the Vikings logo on the field make them money? It's advertising and builds their brand. Also, I think the NFL would want this, not just the team. Playing at TCF without your logo for one game is one thing, playing for two years is something else (and remember, when they played in Detroit for that one "home" game, they did have their logo at the 50 yard line, do an image search if you don't believe me).

As far as "Why would it anger almost everyone," well many Gopher fans just want Gopher Logos and, as we all know, many Viking fans could care less about the Gophers and will want only Viking logos. This of course is no a fact, just conjecture. I don't think your idea is a bad one, I just don't think it will happen and I have heard negative feedback (on the Daily Gopher) about it.
Click to expand...

I know I read the replacement(when the Vikes leave) somewhere. Like I said it only makes sense.

The Vikings do not make money by having their logo on the field. You can't just say they make money because 'it builds their brand'. That's the same as saying 'just because'. If the Vikes were to have advertising on the field(like Cub Foods) then yes they would be making money.

When the Vikes played at Ford Field that was a field that was already painted and for the DETROIT LIONS, not the MINNESOTA GOPHERS. I'm pretty sure when the Bears played at Illinois the field still said ILLINOIS.

As far as my idea for one end zone being purple and gold VIKINGS and one end zone being maroon and gold MINNESOTA.....that was for Viking games. It would be all maroon and gold for Gopher games. That way they would only have to paint one end zone each game. That way the Vikes would have their brand and still pay respect to the University. How could anyone be upset about that?

Edit: The agreement also states the Vikings will pay for all operational costs. The way the U allocated costs for the beer garden the U could take in way more than 3 mill per year.:)
 

Norsk_Gopher said:
To be fair to station19, its not 16 games, its 36 (Gophers and Vikings, maybe a few less if the Vikings have overseas games) with an unknown number or repaintings. so more than double the number of football games (but not other events) but the same number of seasons (Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer).
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the wear and tear the Vikes added to the field. Station17 still can't tell us where he came up with replacing the field again after 2 years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom