Vikings Stadium

[ruralgopher]

That's just not true. Industry (California) is prepared to pay for most of a stadium. They just need a team. So, if you're Wilf, you can ask Minnesota to step up and pay for 65% of the stadium. If MN does, the Vikings stay. And, if MN fails to do it, then he takes his poker chips to California where they ARE COMMITTED to paying for 65%+ of the new stadium. He gets into a bigger market and the value of the team increases. So, he has leverage and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Wilf is not interested in the CA plan because the guy developing that is requiring 51% ownership for the expense of building the stadium. Wilf wants to retain majority ownership.

 

[tjgopher]

Wilf is not interested in the CA plan because the guy developing that is requiring 51% ownership for the expense of building the stadium. Wilf wants to retain majority ownership.

No, Roski wants only minority ownership (he's quoted as saying 30%), which Wilf just might do if he gets his stadium paid for AND moves up to the country's #2 market. Of course, Wilf is playing nice for now and saying he isn't interested in California. But, if 2012 rolls around and there isn't a stadium deal for Minnesota, expect the gloves to come off.

 

[howeda7]

Reading this thread gives me a headache. That said a few points:

-This isn't just about the Vikings. A major metro area the size of MSP needs a major venue such as what the new Vikings stadium will provide. TCF and Target Field are outdoors and this is Minnesota. A large indoor venue to host things like Final Fours and Political Conventions (in addition to the mocked tractor pulls) is needed. Yes, maybe the X can host a political convention, but it will never host a Final Four. And despite the NFL's trend towards the South, we will get at least 1 Super Bowl out of the deal, especially if we demand it upfront.

-Yes, they are talking about another Dome, but the Metrdome was built on the cheap and outdated the day it opened. Even so, it's lasted 30 years. A replacement not contructed on the cheap will last 50.

-The whole 'what about the children without winter coats?' argument is beyond stupid. No one is talking about swiping $700 million from the state General Fund for this. That has never been the proposal. It will be financed with taxes on things like tickets, rental cars, hotels, resteraunts and sports memorabilia. You know...all the things that those out-staters and out-of-staters spend thier money one when they to the 'the cities' for a Vikings game.

-The argument that a new stadium 'generates no economic impact' is wrong. Many of the Vikings season ticket-holders are from Fargo and Sioux Falls, etc. Do you think those folks are really going to come into town anyway and drop a few hundred on meals and hotels? Do you think a Final Four has no economic impact? A Super Bowl? The player payroll is near $100 million. They pay income taxes. Those jobs will leave with team. That's not worth $0. Does it have enough impact to justify paying the whole $800 million? No. But paying half is not such a bad proposition. In any case, it's worth a lot more then $0.

-If we let the Vikings leave, we will indeed end up paying more 5-10 years from now to replace them. We will become the new LA. The NFL will not leave the #14 tv market that produces some of it's highest TV ratings and sells out every game for 13 years sit empty while teams die in Jacksonville and Buffalo.

-This is just to allow Ziggy to get rich some say. Yes, the value of the Vikings will probably go up $200-300 million if he gets a new stadium. I also expect him to pay $300-400 of the cost. Sounds like a wash to me. I'm all for holding out and getting a fair % out of him. But 100% is not going to happen, so let's try for 50%.

-'TCF and Target Field were approved in a vastly different economic climate and the Vikings shouldn't think of trying this now.' TCF and Target Field were passed all of 4 years ago. They are on 25-30 year bonds. They are still being paid for right now in this horrible economy. Approving or not approving a major contruction project that will be paid for over 30 years because of how the economy is right now is the definition of short-sighted. All of these stadiums will be paid for during good economies and bad. Because of the current situation, the construction costs and interest rates are lower then they will ever be again. In reality it's the perfect time to do build it.

-And finally the worst argument of all from Josh087, Ali and others: As Gopher fans we should hate the Vikings and want them to leave. How selfish and pathetic can you get? First, to question anyone's Gopher fanhood because they also loves the Vikings blows my mind. And those of you trying to pin the last 40 years of failure on the Vikings are sad. Try looking in the mirror and at the administration and coaches for the real culprits and not some made-up conspiracy theory. Would the Gophers get more media coverage and a bit more interest if the Vikings left? Yes, but not nearly as much as you probably think. Not enough to effect one single recruit coming here or win us one single extra game. That you would wish heartache on millions of your fellow Minnesotans so that YOUR team may experience some marginal, meager benefit is beyond pathetic.

 

[ruralgopher]

No, Roski wants only minority ownership (he's quoted as saying 30%), which Wilf just might do if he gets his stadium paid for AND moves up to the country's #2 market. Of course, Wilf is playing nice for now and saying he isn't interested in California. But, if 2012 rolls around and there isn't a stadium deal for Minnesota, expect the gloves to come off.

At one time I heard 51%, last I heard was more vague, he said "without local ownership it isn't going to happen". I guess in light of that I don't know the exact %.

 

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

The reason guys like Wilf get to be billionaires is that they don't spend their own money on stadiums. Do the math. Spending $800M on a facility that brings in less than $100M a year total for concessions, suites, ticket sales a year for 8-10 home games (I'm doing the math in my head so I may be off). That's an 8 year payback, ignoring operating costs, upkeep, etc. Generally, you don't invest in a capital project unless the payback is 2 years or less. Complicating the equation is the fact that there is a usable stadium in the metrodome already in existence.

From a purely economic standpoint this is an idiotic investment. As for those 3,000 jobs everyone's hyping: A good construction job pays $50-75K/yr without overtime. 3000 x 50,000 =$150,000,000. Granted, that's a lot of payroll taxes, but again, should the state be paying for these workers? Or if public funds are used to fund construction, what about rebuilding infrastructure? Remember how upset folks were about our bridges falling down a couple of years ago?

I agree that there is a benefit to the community to having an NFL franchise here. And you can play games with which bucket the money is coming from. But if you're going to slap another tax on restaurant, hotel, and entertainment (a favorite trick of our legislature), why not use the money to fund more teachers rather than enriching Zygi Wilf? I do concur with other posters that the only possible scenario for paying for the stadium is a tax focusing on users of the stadium (e.g. pull tabs, tax on vikings paraphenalia, etc).

Still, in this economy its a nonstarter. For Zygi its all about the money. He'd move the team to Gary Indiana if he could get a flashy stadium for less cost than he'd spend here. My guess is that our spineless legislators cave in and give Wilf a new stadium, but there have been other offers on the table, and he hasn't bit on any of them. Largely because he'd have to spend too much (e.g. any) of his own jack.

 

[josh087]

If the Vikings leave Minnesota, the Gophers would certainly get a lot more attention from Minnesotans and the media,

Agreed. Thank you.

however I don't see how the Viking's absence would systematically cause the Gophers to become a better team. Maybe you could explain your thought process. The idea that the football program's recent mediocrity can be attributed to the Vikings in any way is asinine.

More media exposure = more fans will start to care = more fans' sons will start to care = more of those sons will want to someday play for the hometown team = better recruiting = better results. Pretty simple logic.

By the same logic, do you think Gopher basketball and hockey fans should want the Timberwolves and Wild to leave?

Hockey is a little bit different because there are so many more hockey fans and players here than in other states. Plus college hockey is a regional sport - so the same logic doesn't really apply. In general, yes, it always helps your product if there is less competition.

The Vikings have a long history and tradition in Minnesota, and I don't think "diehard" gopher fans should be told that they should want the Vikings to leave if they are true gopher fans. The Gophers can succeed with the Vikings in town. They just haven't.

I fully admitted they could succeed with the Vikings here. But then you have to admit it is far easier if they get more media exposure as you admitted above. Everyone says Notre Dame has been at the top of relevency in college football because of their media exposure. You can't have it both ways. Media exposure affects the gophers too.

 

[josh087]

This is the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. If it's is a joke-well done

Do you have any reasoning - or do you just disagree?

 

[josh087]

-And finally the worst argument of all from Josh087, Ali and others: As Gopher fans we should hate the Vikings and want them to leave. How selfish and pathetic can you get?

Pretty selfish when it comes to wanting my favorite team suceeding.

First, to question anyone's Gopher fanhood because they also loves the Vikings blows my mind.

I never said all of us aren't fans of the Gophers. We are - or else we wouldn't be here. But I think most of us don't realize we are very very far from the typical MN fan.

And those of you trying to pin the last 40 years of failure on the Vikings are sad. Try looking in the mirror and at the administration and coaches for the real culprits and not some made-up conspiracy theory.

I'm not really sure why I should look in the mirror?????? Seems a bit harsh. Conspiracy Theory? What conspiracy have I outlined? That the rest of the Big Ten forced a pro team to come here? Not a chance. Just pointing out simple facts. Who are the culprits then? What stops recruits from coming here, especially top local recruits?

Would the Gophers get more media coverage and a bit more interest if the Vikings left? Yes, but not nearly as much as you probably think.

Probably not as much as I want, but your statement is only an opinion, which is fine. But thank you for agreeing that the FACT is that they would receiive more. More is better, no matter how big or small.

Not enough to effect one single recruit coming here or win us one single extra game.

So you're saying that they will get more media exposure locally, but it will not help with one single recruit or game????? Really??? This is beyond an ignorant statement.

That you would wish heartache on millions of your fellow Minnesotans so that YOUR team may experience some marginal, meager benefit is beyond pathetic.

Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

 

[RodentRampage]

More media exposure = more fans will start to care = more fans' sons will start to care = more of those sons will want to someday play for the hometown team = better recruiting = better results. Pretty simple logic.

I seem to recall an old parable about not counting chickens before they hatch.

The Gophers might get favorable local media coverage if they were the only game in town. But we woldn't get any more national coverage just because we were the only game in town.

The most we would get out of being the only game in town would be that ticket demand would probably increase. It's a question of how much the demand would increase by.

 

[RodentRampage]

Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

 

[ZPI]

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

I'm curious, Josh. Why don't you like the Vikings? Are you not from Minnesota originally?

 

[josh087]

If we banned Vikings fans from TCF, the stadium would be pretty empty on Saturdays. You seem to think that in order to be a Gophers fan, we must hate the Vikings. The great majority of Gopher fans disagree with you.

Not at all. I fully aware I am in full-obsession with the Gophers and it causes me to not be a fan of the Vikings. I still watch Vikings games because of fantasy football and I love watching sports. I totally understand that most Gopher fans are vikings fans.

Regardless, however, the Vikings presence here in the Twin Cities does not allow the Gophers for as full of a fan base as they could have, and thus, as much success as they could have. That is the point I'm trying to make. To call the vikings' impact on the gophers as none IMO is pretty difficult to believe.

If your opinion is that the Gopher's gain would be too small to want to give up the vikings, then fine. That is your desire as a fan of both. I just wish more fans were like me - but they're not.

 

[howeda7]

Pretty selfish when it comes to wanting my favorite team suceeding.



I never said all of us aren't fans of the Gophers. We are - or else we wouldn't be here. But I think most of us don't realize we are very very far from the typical MN fan.

When it comes to Gopher football fans, those of you hating the Vikings are in the minority even among that group. Most Gopher football fans love the Viking too, they don't hate them. It's a bizzare thing that a small subset have clung to hatred of the Vikings to explain thier favorite teams failure. I'm dismayed by the fact that the Gophers have never made a relavent Bowl Game in my lifetime, let alone the Rose Bowl. And I too, hope desperately that it will change. But I'm not desperate enough to try and pin it on the Vikings. Frankly, the only real role the Vikins have played in the Gophers decline is the extent to which they indirectly forced them to move the the Dome. But that was still the U's voluntary decision.

I'm not really sure why I should look in the mirror?????? Seems a bit harsh. Conspiracy Theory? What conspiracy have I outlined? That the rest of the Big Ten forced a pro team to come here? Not a chance. Just pointing out simple facts. Who are the culprits then? What stops recruits from coming here, especially top local recruits?

You should look in the mirror because maybe if you stopped blaming the big bad NFL team down the street for the problems and instead put the heat on your AD, your Adminstration, your coaches and your fellow sports fans to support the team the right way, you might solve the problem. Instead, you wish for the Vikings to leave in the mistaken belief that those other issues will then magically disappear. Whatever it is that stops local recruits from coming here (it's many things) the Vikings leaving will not solve them.

Probably not as much as I want, but your statement is only an opinion, which is fine. But thank you for agreeing that the FACT is that they would receiive more. More is better, no matter how big or small.

And if you don't care about the Vikings yourself, I suppose any benefit is worth it. But that also means you don't give a crap about the fact that many of your friends and neighbors do care, and it would be a signifcant loss to them and to the state you live in. Nope, as long as it drives up the Gophers TV ratings by a big whoppin half a point, and means there are 48,000 in stands intead of 46,000, it's all worth it to you. Neither of those things will likely ever make the difference to a recruit signing on the bottom line or the Gophers winning a game. (If the current fans are any indication, those extra 2,000 will sit on thier hands and leave early to beat the traffic.) If you think the Vikings leaving suddenly means they're gonna expand TCF to 80,000 and fill it, you're dillusional.

So you're saying that they will get more media exposure locally, but it will not help with one single recruit or game????? Really??? This is beyond an ignorant statement.

Yes. As above, the benefit would be meager and like have no impact on either of those things. We can project whether it will matter 16 years from now to a kid who's 2 years old now, I suppose. But if that's the crux of your argument, you're not going to win many points. Besides the MN Jags will be in full swing by then, making it moot.

Thank you. Exactly the reaction that explains in full the problem we are dealing with. To him - even though he is a gopher fan - having the vikings leave would cause heartache. This explains why the vikings mean so much, the gophers mean so little, and we wonder why big-time recruits have no desire to stay and help their university improve. They have been trained their whole life by the MN media, parents, and adults in general that nobody cares, so why should they?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Did I say the Vikings mean alot and the Gophers only mean a little? Gopher football is the first thing I ever grew attached to. My mother claims I would sit and listen to Ray Christensen at 3 years old, long before I knew what the Vikings were. There are more Vikings fans in this state the Gopher fans, but a huge % overlap. The arguement that you can only love one or the other is misguided at best. You'd have a much stronger arugment for wanting the Timberwolves to move. At least in that case, they frequently play at the same time and directly compete for ticket sales. Tell me the last time the Vikings played a regular season game at the same time as the Gophers? I'd wager it's never happened.

There are a lot of Minnesota sports fans that don't care about Gopher football and I wish we could change that. But the Vikings moving isn't what's going to do it. The Gophers getting a Rose Bowl is. And the Vikings aren't the ones stopping that from happening.

 

[13 Lined Ground Squirrel]

-This isn't just about the Vikings. A major metro area the size of MSP needs a major venue such as what the new Vikings stadium will provide. TCF and Target Field are outdoors and this is Minnesota. A large indoor venue to host things like Final Fours and Political Conventions (in addition to the mocked tractor pulls) is needed.

Wrong entirely. Chicago makes the Twin Cities look like Hooterville by comparison, and they don't have a closed football stadium-sized venue. The same goes for Boston and New York.

An outdoor stadium would be just fine. The south can have the Superbowl.

 

[howeda7]

Wrong entirely. Chicago makes the Twin Cities look like Hooterville by comparison, and they don't have a closed football stadium-sized venue. The same goes for Boston and New York.

An outdoor stadium would be just fine. The south can have the Superbowl.

First, those are all larger cities with more venues of varying sizes to accomodate things like political conventions, etc. I know the X already got one, but you're more likely to get another with a larger venue.

Second, when is the last time any of those cities hosted a Final Four or even a Regional Final? Not in recent decades. When is the last time any of them hosted a Super Bowl? Never. I'd argue that a Super Bowl, 2-3 Final Fours and 8-10 NCAA Regional Finals over the course of the next 30 years is nothing to sneeze at. New York doesn't really need that kind thing, they already have everything else (and they're getting an outdoor Super Bowl anyway). MSP does.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Very good strategy, howeda. Make your post so long and with so many different points in it that most posters won't have the time or energy to dispute it. Just to choose one, though, it is just not credible to say that the extreme popularity of the Vikings has not had a significant negative impact on media attention and fan interest in the Gophers.

Those Gopher fans who were around prior to the arrival of the Vikings can tell you what a huge deal the Gopher football team was all over Minnesota in the 1950's - even when the Gophers did not finish over .500 for seven out of the ten seasons. The sports pages of all four major daily newspapers provided wall to wall coverage of every Gopher football game. That media coverage makes it seem like the Vikings are being covered by the Sun Current weekly newspaper.

Prior to the arrival of the Vikings, the Gopher football team owned the media and fan support for big time football in Minnesota. They did not immediately lose it to the Vikings, but once Bud Grant's teams starting winning it has been all downhill for Gopher football ever since. If you continue to deny this your credibility on this subject will fall to zero.

 

[howeda7]

Very good strategy, howeda. Make your post so long and with so many different points in it that most posters won't have the time or energy to dispute it. Just to choose one, though, it is just not credible to say that the extreme popularity of the Vikings has not had a significant negative impact on media attention and fan interest in the Gophers.

Those Gopher fans who were around prior to the arrival of the Vikings can tell you what a huge deal the Gopher football team was all over Minnesota in the 1950's - even when the Gophers did not finish over .500 for seven out of the ten seasons. The sports pages of all four major daily newspapers provided wall to wall coverage of every Gopher football game. That media coverage makes it seem like the Vikings are being covered by the Sun Current weekly newspaper.

Prior to the arrival of the Vikings, the Gopher football team owned the media and fan support for big time football in Minnesota. They did not immediately lose it to the Vikings, but once Bud Grant's teams starting winning it has been all downhill for Gopher football ever since. If you continue to deny this your credibility on this subject will fall to zero.

You can sit around and wish for Gopher football to be as it was in the 1950's all you want, it's not going to happen. It's not 1950. The Twins weren't here either, or the T-wolves, or the Wild. There was no UFC. Nascar was nothing. There was no ESPN, no FSN, no 57 other college football games on television every week-end. The NFL was still minor-league compared to college football everywhere, not just here. And the Gophers had still won National Championships in most people's memory.

But, nevermind, you're right. The Gophers decline the last 40 years is mainly due to the Vikings. Not going 43 years without winning the conference. Not going decades without even having a winning record in the conference. Not 50 years without a Rose Bowl. It's all the Vikings.

And it's not because the entire sports landscape has changed. Not because MLB and College football declined while the NFL, the NBA, Nascar and College Basketball got bigger. Sure, this happened everwhere, but no, that's not what hurt the Gophers. Nope, it's because of those darn Vikings. If the Vikings hadn't come, fans wouldn't have cared about the losing seasons for years on end. They'd have gladly agreed to pay millions to re-build Memorial Stadium in the 1970's to 80,000 seats. And we'd fill it. Every week. We'd be like Nebraska or Florida. Because that's what it was like right? Memorial Stadium was filled every week right? Those stories about it being 2/3 empty at the end are all lies, right? It would be so great. Darn those Vikings.

Did the Vikings arrival pour salt in the Gophers wounds? Sure, I can buy that. But the wounds themselves were still self-inflicted or caused by things bigger then the Vikings.

And if it were all true, even if the Gophers decades of failure was all started by the Vikings, do you really think you can put the genie back in the bottle? Will the Vikings moving away really make it go back to the way it was? Not a chance. Even you folks can't really believe that. It would help a tiny bit at the fringes and nothing more.

 

[josh087]

But, nevermind, you're right. The Gophers decline the last 40 years is mainly due to the Vikings. Not going 43 years without winning the conference. Not going decades without even having a winning record in the conference. Not 50 years without a Rose Bowl. Nope, it's because of those darn Vikings. If the Vikings hadn't come, fans wouldn't have cared about the losing seasons for years on end. They'd have gladly agreed to pay millions to re-build Memorial Stadium in the 1970's to 80,000 seats. And we'd fill it. Every week. We'd be like Nebraska or Florida. Because that's what it was like right? Memorial Stadium was filled every week right? It would be so great. Darn those Vikings.

Wait a minute - hold on here.

You can't argue that the START of the decline of Gopher Football is related to the losing over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Something started the decline. Sure, looking back now, if you knew the Gophers would be going 50 years without a rose bowl you might have stopped paying attention back then if you could go back in time. But fans can't predict the future. It doesn't work that way. Actually, the way you are pointing it out STRENGTHENS the argument that the Vikings hurt us since we've NEVER WON with the Vikings here!!!

It's not ALL about the Vikings. I've always conceded that. I believe we can go to a rose bowl without them - even though it has never happened (coincidence?) But you can't ignore the fact that with them gone it HELPS the Gophers. Plain and simple. How can anyone not see that - especially on this board where we are almost (save for the trolls) all Gopher fans?

You're acting as if we all think that if the Vikings are gone we would be national champs. Please point out one of my posts where I even remotely entertained that thought.

You're trying to change my opinion so that it strengthens your own argument. You can't debate that way. It doesn't work.

 

[RodentRampage]

How about this perspective: Rabidly anti-Viking Gopher fans manage to convince enough legislators to kill a Vikings stadium deal. The Vikings move, and Gopher fans get blamed. Attendance at Gopher games would plummet if Gopher fans were blamed.

 

[skoalvikings]

Yeah, who wants events like Super Bowls and Final Fours?? They do nothing for the economy.

Correct, if you factor in the cost of a new stadium, and how a new stadium only moves revenue from things like movies theaters and other forms of entertainment to the NFL, then Super Bowls and Final Fours do nothing for the economy. One thing you may want to take note of is that there is not a chance that there would be more than one Super Bowl. So when you consider that no new out-of-state new money comes in with a new park, except for a couple of big events like the Super Bowl and Final Four, you end up spending half a billion of public money in order to get 1 Super Bowl and probably 2 Final Fours. I guess you could throw in 5-6 NCAA regionals. The economic arguments for stadiums don't hold water.

 

[cwilson21]

Wait a minute - hold on here.

You can't argue that the START of the decline of Gopher Football is related to the losing over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. Something started the decline. Sure, looking back now, if you knew the Gophers would be going 50 years without a rose bowl you might have stopped paying attention back then if you could go back in time. But fans can't predict the future. It doesn't work that way. Actually, the way you are pointing it out STRENGTHENS the argument that the Vikings hurt us since we've NEVER WON with the Vikings here!!!

It's not ALL about the Vikings. I've always conceded that. I believe we can go to a rose bowl without them - even though it has never happened (coincidence?) But you can't ignore the fact that with them gone it HELPS the Gophers. Plain and simple. How can anyone not see that - especially on this board where we are almost (save for the trolls) all Gopher fans?

You're acting as if we all think that if the Vikings are gone we would be national champs. Please point out one of my posts where I even remotely entertained that thought.

You're trying to change my opinion so that it strengthens your own argument. You can't debate that way. It doesn't work.

I can see where you're coming from in regards to the increased publicity that the Gophers would get if the Vikings were to move but there's no way in knowing that they'd get favorable coverage just because the Vikings are gone. Imagine another couple of down seasons for the Gophers without a positive light in the Vikings to turn to. The sports page would be littered with "were stuck with this crappy football team" and "bring back a pro sports team" columns. Fans would be more upset than ever that the only meaningful football in town is a Gophers team that can't win half of their games in their conference.

Plus, there's no guarantee that they'd get more national coverage which I think is far and away more important than local coverage simply because the high school talent in Minnesota is nowhere near the likes of a Florida, Texas, Califonia, whatever. Down the road we might be able to get a McNeal or Floyd to stay home but the recruiting in the powerhouse states would still be a challenge. The Gophers just have to start winning more games and then the better recruits will start to follow. The coaching, administration, etc. need to be the ones looked at for past failure, not the Vikings.

IMO, a few more recruits staying home to play with the Gophers and increased coverage is not worth the sacrifice of a pro sports team.

 

[josh087]

I can see where you're coming from in regards to the increased publicity that the Gophers would get if the Vikings were to move but there's no way in knowing that they'd get favorable coverage just because the Vikings are gone. Imagine another couple of down seasons for the Gophers without a positive light in the Vikings to turn to. The sports page would be littered with "were stuck with this crappy football team" and "bring back a pro sports team" columns. Fans would be more upset than ever that the only meaningful football in town is a Gophers team that can't win half of their games in their conference.

Plus, there's no guarantee that they'd get more national coverage which I think is far and away more important than local coverage simply because the high school talent in Minnesota is nowhere near the likes of a Florida, Texas, Califonia, whatever. Down the road we might be able to get a McNeal or Floyd to stay home but the recruiting in the powerhouse states would still be a challenge. The Gophers just have to start winning more games and then the better recruits will start to follow. The coaching, administration, etc. need to be the ones looked at for past failure, not the Vikings.

IMO, a few more recruits staying home to play with the Gophers and increased coverage is not worth the sacrifice of a pro sports team.

Fair points.

I am one who believes that negative coverage is better than no coverage - at least it means people will care about the program, even if they don't like the current state of it. However, if the Vikings left this instant there is no doubt the coverage would be almost all negative - kind of like the Timberwolves currently, so obviously not the ideal scenario so I can see what you're thinking.

We would definitely not get any more national coverage - until we start winning in a big way. But national coverage is less of a factor initially in the building process IMO. Let's say we're going after a recruit from Florida, for example, and he is choosing between between Illinois, Michigan State, Connecticut, Oregon State, and Minnesota - I doubt his decision would come down to national exposure/prestige, since none of these stand out significantly over the others. My point is that at least initially, national exposure would not play a role in this recruit - but it would for our beloved local top talent. If we're able to keep local midwest talent here better, it might mean a few more wins here and there - and eventually more national exposure to tip the scales to this recruit. We're not all of a sudden going to compete consistently with the big boys like Ohio State and Texas - it takes time.

 

[mplsbadger]

Reading this thread should be example A1 on why the Vikings are a detriment to the Gophers. We're on a GOPHER message board and I get the feeling most people on here want the Vikings to stay. If you took a poll - I would bet most would want them to stay.

It would be equivalent to a Burger King message board where BK executives were in favor of the McDonald's across the street building a brand new state-of-the-art facility.

I think in your analogy the BK executive would be Joel Maturi and we would be customers would we not? As a customer I can go to both BK and McDonalds can't I?

 

[GophersInIowa]

The Vikings are more popular in Minnesota because they've won more, I think it's that simple. No, the Vikes haven't won a Super Bowl but almost every year they are in the hunt. I think they've made the playoffs 26 out of the last 40 seasons. The Gophers have not had that kind of success. The best way to increase fans is to win, plain and simple. Most people are not die-hard fans. Most will only follow a team that wins. When the Vikings are not winning, attendance goes down. It's like that just about everywhere.

Say over the next 10 years the Vikings are really bad, average only 6 wins a year and get to the playoffs twice. Then say over that same time frame the Gophers average 8-9 wins per year, go to two Rose Bowls and consistently finish in the top third of the Big Ten. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Gophers would slowly become more popular while the Vikes would become less popular.

 

[josh087]

The Vikings are more popular in Minnesota because they've won more, I think it's that simple. No, the Vikes haven't won a Super Bowl but almost every year they are in the hunt. I think they've made the playoffs 26 out of the last 40 seasons. The Gophers have not had that kind of success. The best way to increase fans is to win, plain and simple. Most people are not die-hard fans. Most will only follow a team that wins. When the Vikings are not winning, attendance goes down. It's like that just about everywhere.

Since 1960:
Vikings: 407-326 .555%
Gophers: 247-290 .459%

Not that big of a difference. Less than 1 win per year difference.

Last 10 Years:
Vikings: 68-61 .527%
Gophers: 56-56 .500%

Even less of a difference than history suggests.

Perhaps since you were just thinking off the top of your head, you just thought the difference was bigger because of the media's impact and portrayal of the two teams.

To save you the response I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and point out you thought this because the Vikings benefit from a system where after the regular season nearly 40% of the teams have a chance at a championship while less than 2% have that same chance in college football.

Say over the next 10 years the Vikings are really bad, average only 6 wins a year and get to the playoffs twice. Then say over that same time frame the Gophers average 8-9 wins per year, go to two Rose Bowls and consistently finish in the top third of the Big Ten. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Gophers would slowly become more popular while the Vikes would become less popular.

IMO there is absolutely no chance this scenario comes close to happening. If you think there is a chance the Gophers become more popular without winning multiple BT titles you are very naive.

From 2002 - 2006 here are the teams' records:
Vikings: 40-42 .487%
Gophers: 38-25 .603%

I didn't see ANY evidence that the Gophers were becoming more popular than the Vikings during this timeperiod. Heck, it took a Vikings BYE week and an undefeated record just to fill the dome for a Gopher game - then we all saw what happened after only one loss. You've got to be kidding me if you think anything short of multiple BT championships will even begin the entertainment of the discussion of whether Gopher popularity will pass the Vikings.

Unbelievable.

 

[GoGophers2005]

The Vikings have been around 50 years and have 4 NFC Championships to show for it. Less than 1 per decade.

People say the Vikings are always in the hunt? So are the other 31 teams in the league. That's the genius of the NFL. The Vikings play in a 4 team division. 25% chance at winning it without even playing a game.

Throw in a salary cap and an NFL draft and you get a recipe of turning a bad team into a good one in a short time.

College football and the NFL are two totally different monsters and it bugs the crap out of me when people want to compare them apples to apples.
A great example of this is how Chilly couldn't put together a team all his own by the draft and had to go out and sign Jared Allen and Brett Favre. Brew would have loved to go out and sign Seantrel Henderson to a billion dollar deal to fix his offensive line problems.

I've said this before but the Big Ten expanding to 12 teams and splitting into 2 divisions is going to benefit teams like the Gophers more than anyone. Having a shot at winning a 6 team division is much more attainable than winning a 11 team division.

 

[Chadypu]

You absolutely cannot compare NFL/NCAAF winning percentages because 4 of the 12/13 games in NCAAF (especially Minnesota, we are cupcake kings) are not against equal competition.

Compare Viking divisional records vs Gopher Big ten records and you will see why the Gophers are not watched by casual fans.

 

[GoGophers2005]

So the Vikings getting to play Detroit twice a year shouldnt be thought as cupcakes either?

Go back and look at the Vikings schedule last year and take a look at who they actually beat...

During the regular season the Vikings beat 3 teams that made the playoffs (4 wins total-GB twice). So the other 8 wins were over cream puffs....plus losing to Chicago and Carolina, ouch.
Talk about an easy schedule.

Vikes fans have a tough time taking the blinders off.

 

[goldengophers]

So the Vikings getting to play Detroit twice a year shouldnt be thought as cupcakes either?

Go back and look at the Vikings schedule last year and take a look at who they actually beat...

During the regular season the Vikings beat 3 teams that made the playoffs (4 wins total-GB twice). So the other 8 wins were over cream puffs....plus losing to Chicago and Carolina, ouch.
Talk about an easy schedule.

Vikes fans have a tough time taking the blinders off.

The loses at Carolina and Chicago were painful to watch as anything but the Vikes beat their chief rival twice last year and made it within a field goal of the super bowl.
Running over Michigan State and Northwestern was great but for the average football fan in Minnesota the Gophers are going to need to start beating Iowa and Wisconsin regularly so that both series take on the excitement of the Vikes-Pack every year. That's how fan interest will be gained and maintained. Casual fans need more than a close game or win against a top teir team every five years (i.e. Michigan game).

 

[JackiO]

The gophers struggle against the middle tier opponents in the big ten every year and have next to no chance against the upper tier teams so you can see why the Vikings are head and shoulders above them in terms of fan support. Disappointment after disappointment for the gopher football team.