Sid: If Vikes play at TCF, Gophers to get $250K per game plus parking and concessions

Donate To GopherHole
http://dailytrojan.com/2011/09/20/numbers-can-tell-the-story-of-usc-football/

"69,322

USC’s average attendance in its first three home games of the season is the lowest it has been since 57,744 fans showed up per week to the Coliseum in 2001."

"Attendance, however, has fallen in each of the last four seasons, from a record high of 91,480 in 2006 to 79,907 last year."

"Despite no NFL team in Los Angeles, the Lakers looking like they will be locked out for some time and the Dodgers out of playoff contention since June, USC still hasn’t been able to fill the Coliseum during one of the most barren sporting times in recent memory for the majority of Angelenos."

What was USC doing in 2006? Oh, that's right, competing for national titles. What was USC doing in 2011? Serving out the final year of a cheating suspension. No NFL teams existed in LA during this entire period. Why did their attendance fall an average of more than 20,000 fans per game?

I can keep doing this all day if you'd like.
 

dpodoll68 said:
http://dailytrojan.com/2011/09/20/numbers-can-tell-the-story-of-usc-football/

"69,322

USC’s average attendance in its first three home games of the season is the lowest it has been since 57,744 fans showed up per week to the Coliseum in 2001."

"Attendance, however, has fallen in each of the last four seasons, from a record high of 91,480 in 2006 to 79,907 last year."

"Despite no NFL team in Los Angeles, the Lakers looking like they will be locked out for some time and the Dodgers out of playoff contention since June, USC still hasn’t been able to fill the Coliseum during one of the most barren sporting times in recent memory for the majority of Angelenos."

What was USC doing in 2006? Oh, that's right, competing for national titles. What was USC doing in 2011? Serving out the final year of a cheating suspension. No NFL teams existed in LA during this entire period. Why did their attendance fall an average of more than 20,000 fans per game?

I can keep doing this all day if you'd like.
Click to expand...

You could keep doing this all day whether anyone liked it or not for all I care.

You are stuck in the mud on attendance. No one has ever debated you about whether winning increases attendance more than anything else.

Get a grip. The Vikings are competition to the Gophers.

I humbly apologize for my lack of question mark usage, oh Great One.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????HAPPY NOW?
 

station19 said:
You could keep doing this all day whether anyone liked it or not for all I care.

You are stuck in the mud on attendance. No one has ever debated you about whether winning increases attendance more than anything else.

Get a grip. The Vikings are competition to the Gophers.

I humbly apologize for my lack of question mark usage, oh Great One.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????HAPPY NOW?
Click to expand...

How are the Gophers going to increase revenue, if not through attendance?

And no, outside of the corporate realm, the Vikings and Gophers are not competitors.
 


Go4Broke said:
By 1975 (less than ten years after their last Big 10 Championship) Gopher football had become all but irrelevant
for the large majority of football fans in Minnesota because they had their Vikings to cheer for.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Gopher football had become all but irrelevant for the large majority of football fans in Minnesota because they sucked.
 


dpodoll68 said:
How are the Gophers going to increase revenue, if not through attendance?

And no, outside of the corporate realm, the Vikings and Gophers are not competitors.
Click to expand...

On point #1: You should be able to figure that out for yourself.

On point #2: Are you really that uninformed????????????????????????????(NOTICE QUESTION MARKS?)
 

dpodoll68 said:
Incorrect. Gopher football had become all but irrelevant for the large majority of football fans in Minnesota because they sucked.
Click to expand...

Lots of teams have a bad decade and don't become irrelevant. When you are THE team in town, and you have a bad decade, people demand change because they don't want to see their beloved team suck. When the Gophers started to suck, this didn't happen. Lots of people made the Vikings their beloved team instead.
 

Go4Broke said:
Let me put it another way. When the Gopher football program went downhill in the 1950's after winning 6 National Championships in the 1930's and 1940's Gopher football fans all over Minnesota were not happy and they were very vocal about it. The U President and Board of Regents could not afford to ignore the criticism when Gopher football coverage filled up multiple pages of every major newspaper in Minnesota every day of the week. As a result, the U hired the right coach, who put the right coaching staff together, who went out and recruited players who could compete on an equal basis with every team in the Big 10 until they won their last Big 10 Championship in 1967 (which not coincidentally) was Bud Grant's first year as Vikings coach).

Bud had the Vikings playing in Super Bowls by 1970 while Murray Warmath had some lean years that previously would have caused a huge amount of concern and criticism by Gopher fans. Except it didn't happen. By 1970 most Gopher fans (including me) were all in with the Vikings and their year in and year out success that has continued with few interruptions until now. After the Vikings started going to the Super Bowl on a regular basis every football fan I personally knew stopped talking and caring about the Gopher football team. My friends used to roll their eyes and make jokes whenever I wanted to talk about the Gophers during the Viking glory years in the 1970's.

It all happened that quickly. Except for their Saturday games the Gophers were all but pushed off the sports pages by the seven days a week Vikings coverage. By 1975 (less than ten years after their last Big 10 Championship) Gopher football had become all but irrelevant for the large majority of football fans in Minnesota because they had their Vikings to cheer for.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but will add one clarification. The NFL and college football are different games and attract different types of fans. As disco chris said, a segment of the Vikings fans are in it for the all-day boozefest and party atmosphere. These people aren't going to suddenly en masse buy season tickets, put on Gopher gear, and spend each fall Saturday in Stadium Village if the Vikings leave. Many will migrate to the Twins, Wild, or Wolves because it's as much about the alcohol and atmosphere as it is the sport.

Having said that, Broke's point is completely accurate. Prior to the Vikings, it wasn't acceptable for Gopher football to have losing seasons because it would get talked about the following Sunday in the papers and media. People demanded a winning team, similar to how we now demand that the Vikings win. Now, people say , "eh, the Gophers lost, what time are the Vikings on?" People don't dwell on the Gophers losing because they move right on to the Vikings.

Bottom line, there would definitely be more media coverage and some extra "fans" if the Vikings leave town. How much that ultimately helps the team and leads to more wins is tbd. But for those thinking that the 80,000 ravenous fans that show up for Vikings games will seamlessly move over to TCF Stadium and become die-hard Gopher fans overnight are mistaken.
 

FreakyDeke said:
Lots of teams have a bad decade and don't become irrelevant. When you are THE team in town, and you have a bad decade, people demand change because they don't want to see their beloved team suck. When the Gophers started to suck, this didn't happen. Lots of people made the Vikings their beloved team instead.
Click to expand...

Hell, the Cubs had a bad century.:)
 



John Galt said:
I agree with this, but will add one clarification. The NFL and college football are different games and attract different types of fans. As disco chris said, a segment of the Vikings fans are in it for the all-day boozefest and party atmosphere. These people aren't going to suddenly en masse buy season tickets, put on Gopher gear, and spend each fall Saturday in Stadium Village if the Vikings leave. Many will migrate to the Twins, Wild, or Wolves because it's as much about the alcohol and atmosphere as it is the sport.

Having said that, Broke's point is completely accurate. Prior to the Vikings, it wasn't acceptable for Gopher football to have losing seasons because it would get talked about the following Sunday in the papers and media. People demanded a winning team, similar to how we now demand that the Vikings win. Now, people say , "eh, the Gophers lost, what time are the Vikings on?" People don't dwell on the Gophers losing because they move right on to the Vikings.

Bottom line, there would definitely be more media coverage and some extra "fans" if the Vikings leave town. How much that ultimately helps the team and leads to more wins is tbd. But for those thinking that the 80,000 ravenous fans that show up for Vikings games will seamlessly move over to TCF Stadium and become die-hard Gopher fans overnight are mistaken.
Click to expand...

As far as the bold; to my knowledge, no one has ever claimed that.

The Gophers and the pro sports teams are in the sports entertainment business, plain and simple. Individuals have disposable income and businesses have budgets. They all make choices as to where to spend that. The more options, the thinner the pie gets sliced.

And oh, the NFL is a very formidable competitor.
 

FreakyDeke said:
Lots of teams have a bad decade and don't become irrelevant. When you are THE team in town, and you have a bad decade, people demand change because they don't want to see their beloved team suck. When the Gophers started to suck, this didn't happen. Lots of people made the Vikings their beloved team instead.
Click to expand...

Yes! You're making my point for me. It's the Gophers own fault that they sucked. The Vikings being here didn't make them suck. There were other options to move away from the Gophers to following a different team, but they didn't move away because the Vikings were good. They moved away because the Gophers sucked. And they won't come back (Vikings or no Vikings) until the Gophers stop sucking. That has been my point all along.
 

station19 said:
The Gophers and the pro sports teams are in the sports entertainment business, plain and simple. Individuals have disposable income and businesses have budgets. They all make choices as to where to spend that. The more options, the thinner the pie gets sliced.
Click to expand...

Did the average sports fan in Houston suddenly start making more money in 2006? How were the Texans and Cougars both able to simultaneously increase attendance?

Again, you're assuming that the pie is constant, and that people will allocate X amount on one or the other. They won't. They will spend on both (or neither) because one or both (or neither) is winning or not winning. Everyone tries to make it more complicated than that, but it really is that simple.
 

If the Gophers put a good product on the field, more people will invest their time and money going to see them, I agree.

The Vikings, if they stay in town, are much less vulnerable to the fair-weatherdom that other teams in town see, because of the large number of fans that are there for the party, kind of like the Cubs.

If someone was nothing more than a football junkie, then yeah, they could move their interest over to the Gophers, but I just don't see that there's much crossover.


dpodoll68 said:
Did the average sports fan in Houston suddenly start making more money in 2006? How were the Texans and Cougars both able to simultaneously increase attendance?

Again, you're assuming that the pie is constant, and that people will allocate X amount on one or the other. They won't. They will spend on both (or neither) because one or both (or neither) is winning or not winning. Everyone tries to make it more complicated than that, but it really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with using Houston as your example. A whole lot of people in Houston are fans of UT, A&M, and any of the other major college teams in Texas. Probably a lot of OU and LSU fans in the area too. Here in Minnesota, we have one D1 team. There are just too many variables to compare the two.
 



discochris said:
Here's the problem with using Houston as your example. A whole lot of people in Houston are fans of UT, A&M, and any of the other major college teams in Texas. Probably a lot of OU and LSU fans in the area too. Here in Minnesota, we have one D1 team. There are just too many variables to compare the two.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's not like there are a whole lot of Iowa and Wisconsin fans in the MSP metro.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Did the average sports fan in Houston suddenly start making more money in 2006? How were the Texans and Cougars both able to simultaneously increase attendance?

Again, you're assuming that the pie is constant, and that people will allocate X amount on one or the other. They won't. They will spend on both (or neither) because one or both (or neither) is winning or not winning. Everyone tries to make it more complicated than that, but it really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for telling me what I am assuming. I would be lost on that without your help.

My apologies if the facts are too complicated for you. Econ 101 is obviously beyond your comprehension.
 

s19... LOL You are missing the point, brosef.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You're right. It's not like there are a whole lot of Iowa and Wisconsin fans in the MSP metro.
Click to expand...

Iowa and Wisconsin don't get a ton of media and TV coverage in this market. UT and A&M at the very least, get major coverage in Houston.
 

dpodoll68 said:
attend11.JPG


This graph represents attendance at the University of Houston Cougars football games. The Houston Oilers moved after the 1996 NFL season, so the University of Houston's attendance should've shot through the roof beginning in 1997, right? Wrong. Their win totals from 1997-2001 were 3, 3, 7, 3, and 0, and despite the complete absence of an NFL team during those years, their average attendance was actually lower than during the previous 5-year period, even though the Oilers were in town during that entire period. These football-starved folks should've been attending the Cougar games in force, right?

Surprisingly, when they've started being good again the last 6 years (win totals of 10, 8, 8, 10, 5, and 13), the attendance has increased correspondingly. I, for one, am shocked! Their 2011 average attendance was basically double that of their 2005 average attendance, despite the Texans being in town the entire time (and the 2011 Texans being much, much better than the 2005 Texans). If the Texans have been getting better and better, surely people would want to attend the Texans games and would give up going to the Cougars games, right? So how do you explain the 2011 Cougar average attendance being double that of the 2005 average attendance? I'm thoroughly baffled as to the answer. Can some of you math majors help me?

Face it, folks. Casual fans want to invest money, emotion, and time in a winner. Many like to grasp at straws and pretend that there's a shortcut. There isn't. Win and they will come. The presence or absence of the Vikings is almost entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you pointed this out. It proves that success of the Gopher football team would not be immediate if the Vikings left, but over time the team has seen success, and given the fact that the team would garner more media attention, the benefits would be that it would be easier to draw fans to games once the team starts winning. They were able to attract local in-state talent to the team like Kevin Kolb and Case Keenum, which helped to build the program into a winner. In Houston's case you could say that once the NFL team left town, within 10 years they started a run of success unprecedented in the team's modern day history.

We've seen recently that the average fan doesn't care about the Gophers even if they are winning. Case-in-point 10/18/2003 where a one-loss Gopher team in charge of their own destiny in the last half of the Big Ten Schedule drew about 35,000 to arguably their biggest conference home game since 1967.

It seems currently Gopher fans won't really get passionate unless the team wins a BIG Title. That seems about as unrealistic as suggesting the Vikings and Gophers don't have an effect on each other.
 

It would be interesting to see if the drunken party aspect of Vikings games would move over to Gopher games should the Vikings leave though, as people are looking for something to do. Sure, beer sales would be limited during games, but I'd guess that a lot of Vikings fans are drunk when they walk in the door.
 


josh087 said:
I'm glad you pointed this out. It proves that success of the Gopher football team would not be immediate if the Vikings left, but over time the team has seen success, and given the fact that the team would garner more media attention, the benefits would be that it would be easier to draw fans to games once the team starts winning. They were able to attract local in-state talent to the team like Kevin Kolb and Case Keenum, which helped to build the program into a winner. In Houston's case you could say that once the NFL team left town, within 10 years they started a run of success unprecedented in the team's modern day history.

We've seen recently that the average fan doesn't care about the Gophers even if they are winning. Case-in-point 10/18/2003 where a one-loss Gopher team in charge of their own destiny in the last half of the Big Ten Schedule drew about 35,000 to arguably their biggest conference home game since 1967.

It seems currently Gopher fans won't really get passionate unless the team wins a BIG Title. That seems about as unrealistic as suggesting the Vikings and Gophers don't have an effect on each other.
Click to expand...

In the *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#tiest college stadium in the world. Don't forget that gem of a fact.
 

Formo said:
In the *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#tiest college stadium in the world. Don't forget that gem of a fact.
Click to expand...

Yup. The same stadium that (with a few exceptions) is packed every Sunday.
 

If the Vikes leave, I think the Gophs would pick up 10% tops of the Viking fan base. IMHO, most of the Vikes fans will buy the NFL Sunday Ticket, and watch the Vikes play in their new city.

I just don't see a cross-over between the pro and college FB crowd. Vikes fans are loyal to the Vikes. Gopher fans are loyal to the Gophs.

If the Gophs can put together 3 or 4 solid seasons in a row (bowl-eligible, winning trophy games), that might bring in some of the fence-sitters and casual fans. But, if the Vikes leave, the vast majority of Vikes fans are not going to suddenly throw away their Harvin and Peterson jerseys, and adopt the Gophs as "their" team.

The Gophs control their own destiny. Win games - play entertaining football - draw more fans.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
If the Vikes leave, I think the Gophs would pick up 10% tops of the Viking fan base. IMHO, most of the Vikes fans will buy the NFL Sunday Ticket, and watch the Vikes play in their new city.

I just don't see a cross-over between the pro and college FB crowd. Vikes fans are loyal to the Vikes. Gopher fans are loyal to the Gophs.

If the Gophs can put together 3 or 4 solid seasons in a row (bowl-eligible, winning trophy games), that might bring in some of the fence-sitters and casual fans. But, if the Vikes leave, the vast majority of Vikes fans are not going to suddenly throw away their Harvin and Peterson jerseys, and adopt the Gophs as "their" team.

The Gophs control their own destiny. Win games - play entertaining football - draw more fans.
Click to expand...

So which are you going with? 0 or 10% ?

10% would be 6,000 game days fans.(tickets, concessions, memorabilia, suites ...etc.) That would be a nice start.

Yes winning would be a much bigger factor.
 


josh087 said:
We've seen recently that the average fan doesn't care about the Gophers even if they are winning. Case-in-point 10/18/2003 where a one-loss Gopher team in charge of their own destiny in the last half of the Big Ten Schedule drew about 35,000 to arguably their biggest conference home game since 1967.
Click to expand...
If you were at the game the week before that you would see why nobody showed up. Also, the game against Michigan the previous week was rockin' and awesome until the end.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Incorrect. Gopher football had become all but irrelevant for the large majority of football fans in Minnesota because they sucked.
Click to expand...

You keep missing the point. The Gophers have sucked and been irrelevant for over 40 years because not enough people cared about the team to demand that the U President and Board of Regents pour money and resources into the football programs. The reason people don't care enough is because their favorite football team has won numerous division titles and playoff games and gone to four Super Bowls in that same 40 year period.

If the Vikings leave town the statewide tolerance for a losing Gopher football team will come to a screeching halt. The drum beat to devote the necessary money and resources to turn the program around and start winning on a regular basis will be a constant presence in the lives of the people who make the big decisions at the U. That has not happened since the Vikings started winning division titles and going to the playoffs in the late 1960's.

Without the Vikings there will be zero tolerance for a losing Gopher football team in Minnesota for the first time since 1967. That will do more to change the culture at the U than 10 straight years of Gopher teams which don't compete for a Big 10 Championship but qualify for third rate bowl games by beating up second rate non-conference opponents. End of story.
 

Go4Broke said:
The Gophers have sucked and been irrelevant for over 40 years because not enough people cared about the team to demand that the U President and Board of Regents pour money and resources into the football programs.
Click to expand...

No. You are incorrect again. The Gophers have sucked and been irrelevant for over 40 years because every coach they've hired since Warmath (except Lou Holtz) has been a poor coach and ill-equipped to handle a major Division I head coaching job. Kill is the first head coach they've hired since Warmath who came here with a winning record as a head coach. It's not like Wisconsin and Iowa both became competitive in the Big Ten over the last 25-30 years because they magically decided to start spending money on football. It's because they both hired good coaches. And then, when those coaches succeeded, they rewarded them with higher salaries and a greater overall financial commitment to the program. Iowa hired Fry and followed him up with Ferentz. Wisconsin hired Alvarez and when he became AD, hired his pet who he can supervise and not give free reign to f the whole thing up.

Again, people try to make this complicated, but it's not. Hire a good coach. Win. It really is just that simple. The hard part is finding a good coach. Throwing more money at it decreases the margin for error, but it doesn't protect you from hiring sh*tty coaches. There are a lot of highly-paid coaches who sucked, and a lot of poorly-paid ones who were awesome. Of course, the poorly-paid ones don't stay that way for long, because they either get a raise or get hired elsewhere. The money follows good coaches. It's not the other way around.
 

dpodoll68 said:
No. You are incorrect again. The Gophers have sucked and been irrelevant for over 40 years because every coach they've hired since Warmath (except Lou Holtz) has been a poor coach and ill-equipped to handle a major Division I head coaching job. Kill is the first head coach they've hired since Warmath who came here with a winning record as a head coach. It's not like Wisconsin and Iowa both became competitive in the Big Ten over the last 25-30 years because they magically decided to start spending money on football. It's because they both hired good coaches. And then, when those coaches succeeded, they rewarded them with higher salaries and a greater overall financial commitment to the program. Iowa hired Fry and followed him up with Ferentz. Wisconsin hired Alvarez and when he became AD, hired his pet who he can supervise and not give free reign to f the whole thing up.

Again, people try to make this complicated, but it's not. Hire a good coach. Win. It really is just that simple. The hard part is finding a good coach. Throwing more money at it decreases the margin for error, but it doesn't protect you from hiring sh*tty coaches. There are a lot of highly-paid coaches who sucked, and a lot of poorly-paid ones who were awesome. Of course, the poorly-paid ones don't stay that way for long, because they either get a raise or get hired elsewhere. The money follows good coaches. It's not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Broke's point is valid and so is yours. If people truly cared and had passion in the state for the Gophers, Brewster would have never got 3.5 years, he would have been out after year 1. Mason wouldn't have got 10, he'd maybe have had 5-6. We've had some bad coaches along the way that have failed to elevate the program. Indisputable. We've also put up with them for far longer than we should have if we had a fan base that demanded to be in the top of the B1G.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom