Shama Sounds Off!: Vikings Stadium Raises Bar for U

[mplsbadger]

Minnesota sports fans are very fair weather regardless. I don't doubt that if the University of Minnesota was in say Rochester, that they could pull in better crowds because it would be the only show in town.

If Minnesota ever wants to be treated as one of the big boys it has to start acting like a grown up, and that means coming out to support the team regardless of record and replacing apathy with pressure. What does it help our teams to not show up when they are losing? Does it "punish" them to send a message? No, its embarrassing and self defeating to abandon the team when times aren't good. If you see a sold out stadium every weekend though people will demand better performance because that's what expectations are.

It's been fifty years. The problem is not that we have a lot of "used to be's", the problem is that we have a lot of "never were's". The use of the term "abandon" doesn't fit. At least it doesn't fit with football. Maybe with hoops.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

It's been fifty years. The problem is not that we have a lot of "used to be's", the problem is that we have a lot of "never were's". The use of the term "abandon" doesn't fit. At least it doesn't fit with football. Maybe with hoops.

I definitely agree about the never were attribution. I do believe that the Metrodome killed the gameday experience for generations of students. This program is going to be revitalized by bringing in young alumni and getting them in the seats at TCF. That passion for Gopher football is cultivated in undergrad rolling out of bed on a Saturday morning, and pounding a few while cheering on the Maroon and Gold with thousands of your closest friends. Its going to be a long slog back but we started planting the seeds with TCF, the real dividends for the move back on campus are going to come a decade down the road. Here's to hoping that a few good winning seasons jump starts that process though.

 

[Parski1]

I definitely agree about the never were attribution. I do believe that the Metrodome killed the gameday experience for generations of students. This program is going to be revitalized by bringing in young alumni and getting them in the seats at TCF. That passion for Gopher football is cultivated in undergrad rolling out of bed on a Saturday morning, and pounding a few while cheering on the Maroon and Gold with thousands of your closest friends. Its going to be a long slog back but we started planting the seeds with TCF, the real dividends for the move back on campus are going to come a decade down the road. Here's to hoping that a few good winning seasons jump starts that process though.

Your last sentence - "a few good winning seasons". Build it and obviously they did not come...but win and they will.

 

[OutHouseGopher]

I definitely agree about the never were attribution. I do believe that the Metrodome killed the gameday experience for generations of students. This program is going to be revitalized by bringing in young alumni and getting them in the seats at TCF. That passion for Gopher football is cultivated in undergrad rolling out of bed on a Saturday morning, and pounding a few while cheering on the Maroon and Gold with thousands of your closest friends. Its going to be a long slog back but we started planting the seeds with TCF, the real dividends for the move back on campus are going to come a decade down the road. Here's to hoping that a few good winning seasons jump starts that process though.

"Its going to be a long slog back but we started planting the seeds with TCF, the real dividends for the move back on campus are going to come a decade down the road."

How do you make this claim when attendence has done nothing but decline since the gates of TCF have opened? The only thing that solves us, is winning and winning big on a consistant basis. This doesn't mean getting back to Masonomics 7 years later.

 

[RodentRampage]

Georgia Tech's stadium only has a capacity of 55,000, it isn't as if Georgia Tech used to have enourmous crowds that went away when the Falcons canme in. The Dolphins do not seem to have harmed the Hurricanes. Yes, I know that Florida has recruiting advantages. But it doesn't make a difference. The University of Miami isn't the only college football team in south Florida, if having an NFL team really had such a crushing effect, surely Miami would have felt it. Pitt has coexisted well with the Steelers

The Vikings didn't fire Cal Stoll. The Vikings didn't hire Salem, Getekunst, Wacker or Brewster.

 

[Go4Broke]

Georgia Tech's stadium only has a capacity of 55,000, it isn't as if Georgia Tech used to have enourmous crowds that went away when the Falcons canme in. The Dolphins do not seem to have harmed the Hurricanes. Yes, I know that Florida has recruiting advantages. But it doesn't make a difference. The University of Miami isn't the only college football team in south Florida, if having an NFL team really had such a crushing effect, surely Miami would have felt it. Pitt has coexisted well with the Steelers

The Vikings didn't fire Cal Stoll. The Vikings didn't hire Salem, Getekunst, Wacker or Brewster.

Thanks for making our point for us, Rodent. Every U President and AD kept their jobs after firing Cal Stoll and hiring Salem and all of the other losing head coaches (including Mason) since 1967. Maturi has been the only person at the U to have received widespread public criticism during the 44 years the Gophers have failed to win a Big 10 Championship. The primary reason for this is most football fans in Minnesota have been almost totally focused on the Vikings four Super Bowl seasons and their many conference championships since Bud Grant turned the franchise around in 1967. For them, a losing Gopher team was just not that big a deal.

 

[jovs]

I think the Vikings do make a difference, but winning is a more important, I remember going to a sold out Gophers game at the old Memorial Stadium as a kid, that was the coolest thing I had ever been to, while going to a Vikings game before they were competitive was no big deal. By the late sixties/early 70's the Gophers were an after thought, they weren't winning, Memorial stadium was three quarters full at best, many times half full, it just wasn't that entertaining, the vikings were going to super bowls.

A winning Rose Bowl season would change that, untill that happens I just don't see the Gophers being that big of a draw. The average fan will go with the Vikings because they have a chance for success, there just isn't that feeling with the Gophers. You really have to be a die hard Gopher fan to stick with them so long.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

The Vikes have had some impact, but the bigger reason for the decline of Gopher football was due to the powers that be at the U who wanted the school to be known for academics and not as a football school. They lessened the emphasis on providing for the program back in the 60s and early 70s.

Agree totally with this. Saying the Vikings have no effect is silly. I'm a fan of both teams but I can't afford season tickets to both, so I choose the Gophers. If there were no Gopher football, I would strongly look at Vikings season tickets. I know the opposite of that is true for a lot of people.

If you are a diehard Vikings or diehard Gophers fan you're going to buy your tickets regardless. But for the people who are fans of both to varying degrees, choices have to be made.

That being said, I think the hard correlation that people show of the decline of the Gophers vs. the rise of the Vikings is blown out of proportion. A big reason the Gophers were successful in the early 60's is because they recruited African-American players, which most big schools didn't do, which gave us a chance to get many of the best players in the country that were not even considered by others (Bobby Bell, Sandy Stephens, Carl Eller among others). However, not too many years later, African-American's were being recruited by everybody, and the U no longer got the cream of the crop. Then insert hundreds of poor decisions (coach hirings and firings, moving from Memorial, poor/no marketing, etc.), and they wrote their ticket to the bottom. Having the Vikings gain success during that timeframe just gave an outlet for all the frustrated fans. And after 45 years of mediocrity at best, the Gophers haven't done anything to pull the fans back.

 

[station19]

Agree totally with this. Saying the Vikings have no effect is silly. I'm a fan of both teams but I can't afford season tickets to both, so I choose the Gophers. If there were no Gopher football, I would strongly look at Vikings season tickets. I know the opposite of that is true for a lot of people.

If you are a diehard Vikings or diehard Gophers fan you're going to buy your tickets regardless. But for the people who are fans of both to varying degrees, choices have to be made.

That being said, I think the hard correlation that people show of the decline of the Gophers vs. the rise of the Vikings is blown out of proportion. A big reason the Gophers were successful in the early 60's is because they recruited African-American players, which most big schools didn't do, which gave us a chance to get many of the best players in the country that were not even considered by others (Bobby Bell, Sandy Stephens, Carl Eller among others). However, not too many years later, African-American's were being recruited by everybody, and the U no longer got the cream of the crop. Then insert hundreds of poor decisions (coach hirings and firings, moving from Memorial, poor/no marketing, etc.), and they wrote their ticket to the bottom. Having the Vikings gain success during that timeframe just gave an outlet for all the frustrated fans. And after 45 years of mediocrity at best, the Gophers haven't done anything to pull the fans back.

Probably the best explanation I have read so far.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

"Its going to be a long slog back but we started planting the seeds with TCF, the real dividends for the move back on campus are going to come a decade down the road."

How do you make this claim when attendence has done nothing but decline since the gates of TCF have opened? The only thing that solves us, is winning and winning big on a consistant basis. This doesn't mean getting back to Masonomics 7 years later.

You're garbage at trolling bro. All I got to say to you.

 

[josh087]

Yes, I know that Florida has recruiting advantages. But it doesn't make a difference.

This is without a doubt one of the top 10 dumbest takes I have read on this site in my 10 years here.

Not only is it laughable to suggest that a fertile recruiting base in your own backyard makes no difference, but in the previous sentence you actually acknowledged that geographically it is an advantage in recruiting to be in Florida. How is it possible that an advantage can make no difference???!!!

By definition, this cannot possibly be correct.
ad·van·tage (d-vntj)
n.
1. A beneficial factor or combination of factors.
2. Benefit or profit; gain: It is to your advantage to invest wisely.
3. A relatively favorable position; superiority of means

 

[Hates Monikers]

Georgia Tech's stadium only has a capacity of 55,000, it isn't as if Georgia Tech used to have enourmous crowds that went away when the Falcons canme in. The Dolphins do not seem to have harmed the Hurricanes. Yes, I know that Florida has recruiting advantages. But it doesn't make a difference. The University of Miami isn't the only college football team in south Florida, if having an NFL team really had such a crushing effect, surely Miami would have felt it. Pitt has coexisted well with the Steelers

The Vikings didn't fire Cal Stoll. The Vikings didn't hire Salem, Getekunst, Wacker or Brewster.

It seems odd that so many in this thread are using Georgia Tech, Pitt or Miami as examples of colleges in NFL cities that are succeeding. (Or finding excuses for them not doing better. Stadium seating 55,000? Playing off campus for, say, 25 years? Hello?) If they're doing okay, so are we. The schools in NFL cities that get a lot more attendance than us have far better football traditions (UCLA has slightly higher attendance without having been much better for two decades). And some who have better traditions are really no better.

2011 average attendance:

USC - 79,131
Washington - 62,531
UCLA - 54,6816
Stanford - 49,997
Miami - 48,654
Georgia Tech - 48,232
Minnesota - 47,714
Maryland - 42,355
Cal - 37,657
Boston College - 35,709
Northwestern - 33,442


http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

 

[RodentRampage]

This is without a doubt one of the top 10 dumbest takes I have read on this site in my 10 years here.

Not only is it laughable to suggest that a fertile recruiting base in your own backyard makes no difference, but in the previous sentence you actually acknowledged that geographically it is an advantage in recruiting to be in Florida. How is it possible that an advantage can make no difference???!!!

By definition, this cannot possibly be correct.
ad·van·tage (d-vntj)
n.
1. A beneficial factor or combination of factors.
2. Benefit or profit; gain: It is to your advantage to invest wisely.
3. A relatively favorable position; superiority of means

Here's the entire quote:

The Dolphins do not seem to have harmed the Hurricanes. Yes, I know that Florida has recruiting advantages. But it doesn't make a difference. The University of Miami isn't the only college football team in south Florida, if having an NFL team really had such a crushing effect, surely Miami would have felt it.

When I said it didn't make a difference, I was clearly talking about the impact of the Dolphins on the Hurricanes. They've won five national championships. Miami's attendance is highly volatile, but the NFL seems to have nothing to do with it, it rises when they win, and falls when they lose. Miami may have a general advantage over schools from areas with little football talent in their backyards, but Miami isn't the only team in Florida, let alone in South Florida. Miami doesn't have inherent recruiting advantages over those schools. If the presence of the NFL was so crushing, surely we would have seen at least some evidence of a negative impact to Miami, rather than seeing five national titles. Even if we were to grant that Miami's recruiting advantage is so great that it overrides the disadvantage of the NFL, there should be some measurable impact.

Miami has done extremely well since the Dolphins arrived. They haven't been placed at a disadvantage relative to other schools in South Florida. Pitt and Georgia Tech have won national titles since NFL teams came into their towns. If the only team that seems to have been harmed my the presence of the NFL, then perhaps the negative effect is not the NFL at all. Perhaps it is instead the result of the poor hiring decisions the U had made.

 

[dpodoll68]

Miami doesn't have inherent recruiting advantages over those schools.

I have to disagree with you here. Florida as a whole has a ton of high-level talent, but South Florida has even more, with the greatest concentration around the Miami metro area. The Gainesville and Tallahassee areas don't even come close, and while Tampa is good, it's not as good as Miami. For those recruits who want to stick close to home for whatever reason, Miami has an inherent recruiting advantage over every other school in the country.

Overall, however, your general premise is correct. Miami draws better when it's winning, and draws worse when it's losing.

 

[John Galt]

The NFL is the 2nd most popular sports league in the world - it gets more media attention than college football. The Gophers and Vikings play in the SAME MEDIA MARKET. This is WAY different than the Badgers/Packers, or Penn State/Eagles, or Wolverines/Lions. Growing up in the Twin Cities (where most of our top talent is), local talent sees the Gophers as 2nd fiddle. They see the NFL as the top prize. Therefore, the top of the top talent is more likely to leave the state to play in a more glamorous program.

2) Less fans = Less revenue = Less you can spend on your program = Greater chance the college team is not successful. Please tell me that you can comprehend how having an NFL team affects the bottom line of a college football team.

3) Only one other team in the Big 10 has to compete with a pro team in town. Not coincidentally, these two teams, over the course of the last 50 years, have had winning percentages at the bottom of the conference. (Yes, I understand that the other program with an NFL team in the same market has won a couple of BT titles in the last 20 years. This proves that you can win with an NFL team in town. But the overall performance of these two teams also proves that it is MUCH TOUGHER to win than your peers over time if you have an NFL team in your market). The other teams in the conference DIRECTLY COMPETING with the Gophers have an inherent competitive advantage over them. Again, if you cannot comprehend that it is a negative to have 10 of the 11 teams you are competing against have an advantage over you, then I don't really know what else to say.

Best post of the entire thread. Can the Gophers be successful with the Vikings in town? Yes. Have many of the Gophers problems been self-inflicted by decades of inept leadership, poor ADs, and coaches? Yes. Does having to compete with a pro football team in the exact same market make it more difficult to get fan support and win? Yes.

 

[station19]

Best post of the entire thread. Can the Gophers be successful with the Vikings in town? Yes. Have many of the Gophers problems been self-inflicted by decades of inept leadership, poor ADs, and coaches? Yes. Does having to compete with a pro football team in the exact same market make it more difficult to get fan support and win? Yes.

Why can't some people understand this?

To the best of my knowledge, no one on this board has ever stated the Vikings are the only(or main reason) for the Gopher's demise.

Can we just stop the crap that the Vikings have 'no effect' on the Gopher program.

 

[RodentRampage]

It seems odd that so many in this thread are using Georgia Tech, Pitt or Miami as examples of colleges in NFL cities that are succeeding. (Or finding excuses for them not doing better. Stadium seating 55,000? Playing off campus for, say, 25 years? Hello?) If they're doing okay, so are we. The schools in NFL cities that get a lot more attendance than us have far better football traditions (UCLA has slightly higher attendance without having been much better for two decades). And some who have better traditions are really no better.

The stadium capacity of Georgia Tech isn't any different than it was before the Falcons moved into Atlanta, therefore, the stadium capacity has nothing to do with the NFL. We have no reason to assume that Georgia Tech would have built a larger stadium had it not been for the arrival of the Falcons.

"If they're doing okay, so are we?" Take a look at Pitt's records since the Steelers came to town. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Panthers_football_seasons Take a look at Georgia Tech's performance since the Falcons came into town. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Georgia_Tech_Yellow_Jackets_football_seasons Both teams have significantly outperformed Minnesota.

I'm talking about performance on the field, attendance is more of a means to an end. But attendance at Minnesota isn't so different than at other schools. It increases when the team does well, and decreases when the team does poorly. In Lou Holtz's second season, the least attended home game was 55,700 against Montana. The attendance sagged by Gutekunst's fourth year, when only one game, the Nebraska game had an attendance of over 40,000.

I'll give you that if it wasn't for the Vikings and the Steelers, neither Minnesota nor Pitt would have played in NFL stadiums. But since the Gophers now have an off-campus stadium that aspect is eliminated.

2011 average attendance:

USC - 79,131
Washington - 62,531
UCLA - 54,6816
Stanford - 49,997
Miami - 48,654
Georgia Tech - 48,232
Minnesota - 47,714
Maryland - 42,355
Cal - 37,657
Boston College - 35,709
Northwestern - 33,442


http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

Compare this with records and attendance before and after the NFL moved in, and then you might have something.

 

[RodentRampage]

I have to disagree with you here. Florida as a whole has a ton of high-level talent, but South Florida has even more, with the greatest concentration around the Miami metro area. The Gainesville and Tallahassee areas don't even come close, and while Tampa is good, it's not as good as Miami. For those recruits who want to stick close to home for whatever reason, Miami has an inherent recruiting advantage over every other school in the country.

Overall, however, your general premise is correct. Miami draws better when it's winning, and draws worse when it's losing.

What I was suggesting was that if the effect of the NFL was so crushing, the other schools in South Florida could have stepped up risen to prominence. It wasn't just the available talent leven in the area that made them good.

 

[RodentRampage]

Why can't some people understand this?

To the best of my knowledge, no one on this board has ever stated the Vikings are the only(or main reason) for the Gopher's demise.

Can we just stop the crap that the Vikings have 'no effect' on the Gopher program.

I don't recall anyone saying the Vikings have no effect. I just think it is less of an effect than other people think, and that the effect of hiring mistakes is greater than any effect from the Vikings.