Vikings Stadium

[dpodoll68]

Wow, clearly you didn't read my post. Along with the other reasons I offer, the fact is that professional football is strategically bland and sterile. (since you missed it the first time read this http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/07/nfl-offense-what-is-it-why-does-every.html

There are reasons why intelligent announcers and football purists almost universally prefer the college game.

My argument is clear (and backed by expert analysis).

In response to a cogent argument you hurled grade school insults that amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions. (you actually called me a d*uchenozzle, that's embarrassing for you)

Grow up.

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football.

And that's just for starters.

And no, I am not saying that the NFL is better in every way. Far from it. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

 

[monk10]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football.

That isn't a fact, that is an opinion. Hope that helps.

 

[glovedgopher]

Every big time team in Minnesota has a stadium. The Hump is only 25 years old. If Ziggy doesn't like it he can expand it or build another one. He has already made $200 or $300 million from his brief ownership of the Vikings.

Owning an NFL team is license to print money. Ziggy could fund a new stadium all by himself if he wanted and he would still make a good living. He doesn't want to do that because he thinks he can get the taxpayers of Minnesota to pay for it. Ziggy can go screw himself.

Ziggy is a business man and is trying to make a profit. Why would Ziggy pay for a new stadium when he can get a state or city to pay a large portion? If we don't pay for it he will move and we'll be the ones that get screwed. The Hump is a terrible stadium and it needs to be replaced otherwise the Vikings will leave. The Hump could be five years old and it would still suck.

 

[dpodoll68]

That isn't a fact, that is an opinion. Hope that helps.

How so? You're trying to argue against the overwhelming majority of NFL players being better than even the best college player? How can you seriously even attempt to make that argument? I'd love to hear it.

 

[monk10]

It is an opinion, not a fact. I don't have to prove or disprove the opinion since it isn't a fact which you were trying to do. Go back update your post with one of your other list of "facts" on your list.

 

[dpodoll68]

It is an opinion, not a fact. I don't have to prove or disprove the opinion since it isn't a fact which you were trying to do. Go back update your post with one of your other list of "facts" on your list.

Wow. If you can't see how NFL players are more skilled, better football players than college players, I'm not going to engage you in this. Go ahead and espouse your circular logic - I won't be participating.

 

[monk10]

Do you really struggle with not understanding the difference between facts and opinions? I had a base assumption that you understand the difference. Reread your quote look at it carefully and try to understand how that isn't possible a fact.

First you would have to find a measure to determine the worst football player, which in itself is an opinion. Then you would have to quantify pretty much any college football player. Which pretty much has not factual value that I am aware of. And then you would have to do that over and over again every year. You can make an assertion that we believe that in general the worst football players are better then the best college football players, but there is no factual method to prove that. You would have a bunch of people stating their opinions using their own metrics to try to prove their point. In the end it wouldn't be a fact it would still be an opinion.

 

[AhliBobwa]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions...

Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

'Suck on that?' 'd*uchenozzle' --You are beyond childish? What are you 12?

The POINT that you are clearly missing is that I was arguing my opinion based on reasoning, with expert analysis to back it up, whereas you are throwing out opinions backed almost entirely by immature insults.

When you someday grow up you will be embarrassed by your actions.

Also, are you really questioning whether the Big Ten is Big Time football? The Big Ten is the most storied conference in the history of college football, makes more revenue than any other conference, and Minnesota is one of the Big Ten's most storied programs. The Big Ten has had more National Champions than any other conference (29), and that's not counting the 4 Penn State won before it joined.

Minnesota won a whopping 6 of those titles. Ohio State has also won 6 and Michigan has won 10. No other Big Ten school even comes close to those totals.

Basically, you're arguing that no college football is Big Time football. When it comes to Minnesota and the Big Ten, you are blatantly ignoring history.

 

[Ski U Master]

Vikings stadium plan fails to pass in house committee. LINK

 

[dpodoll68]

The POINT that you are clearly missing is that I was arguing my opinion based on reasoning, with expert analysis to back it up, whereas you are throwing out opinions backed almost entirely by immature insults.

You can find "expert analysis" to back up pretty much any viewpoint. That doesn't make it correct. You're seriously going to keep insisting that your asinine comment is correct? Seriously?

Also, are you really questioning whether the Big Ten is Big Time football?

Nope. But that's not what I said. When Minnesota actually becomes a competitive member of the Big Ten again, then your statement will be true. I guess it's technically true for a few days a year, when Ohio St., Penn St., Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. play here.

I'm as big of a Gopher fan as anyone, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that what the Gophers put out there on an annual basis is "Big Time" football. Many of my friends and family, all of whom are huge football fans, laugh at my fanhood of such an inept program.

I'm very proud of what the Gophers have accomplished in their storied history. But what the Gophers put on the field in 2010 has only slightly more relation to our national championships than the Twins do to the Washington Senators of Walter Johnson. When our Gophers can actually compete consistently with real Big Ten programs, I'll actually be able to call it "Big Time" football with a straight face. Until then, we're a slightly better Indiana.

 

[glovedgopher]

Hey look another thread with dpodoll in a verbal sparing match!

 

[vinko bogataj]

Again, you are offering nothing more than opinions.

There are a myriad of ways in which the NFL is better than the college game, and these are FACTS, not opinions as you offer. I could literally list them for days, but for one, simple, overwhelming one, how about:

1) Even the very worst NFL player is better than pretty much any college player at the game of football..

Not quite sure where to start here. You criticize someone for offering opinions by offering opinions premised as fact. Since you offer one "fact", I would argue by refuting it with real facts. Using the 2009 Vikings as example, the 53 man roster that left camp consisted of 6 rookies (including undrafted FA's). Doing the simple math, one could argue that if the Vike's were near the average NFL squad, the new college kids were better than 11% of the seasoned vets. This number is most likely low considering there were other veterans trying out for the team. I don't think that 11% is statistically insignificant, therefore, your cited "fact" is in question, not refuted, but certainly in question. We know the incoming players are the higher regarded college players, but still if these players are better than 11% of a typical NFL roster, its not a stretch to say your "fact" is in question. If you have competing statistics, or "facts", I'd welcome the information.

Saying "college football is superior to professional football in every respect" is extremely unintelligent and makes you come off like a huge d*uchenozzle.

Not sure what the correlation between a strong opinion and being a "d*uchenozzle is. This is simply inflamatory and intended to skew the debate by casting aspersions on Ali. Well played, but transparent.

I'm having a hard time determining which is your more ridiculous statement in this thread. That, or "We have Big Time football here, with or without the Vikings". Both are laughably idiotic.

So suck on that.

Again, you have a reasonable argument to make, yet you stoop to this? I don't think its far fetched for someone in Ann Arbor, Iowa City or Madison (I just threw up a bit in my mouth at the last two) to say they have "Big Time" football. Further, I don't think its far fetched for someone in Oxford, MS or Columbia, SC to make the same comment. Therefore, I'd argue that despite the lack of success we've seen here at Minnesota over the past 50 years, its not unreasonable to argue that we'd have "Big Time" football regardless of whether the Vikes are here or not. Your viewpoint is provincial. We see BCS games draw ratings that most TV execs consider "big time", maybe not at Super Bowl level, but certainly in excess of other "Big Time" events such as the World Series or NBA Finals. I spend enough time in the southeast to know that SEC fans find the NFL to be a secondary, less imaginative league, heck you hear some coaches who've coached at both levels talk about the more simplistic, homogenous approach of the NFL. That point is very arguable IMO (I can concede my opinions, my ego doesn't require me to validate my own opinions as "fact"), but shows that not everyone, including those in the coaching profession considers the NFL superior, despite your name calling argument to the contrary. The definition of "Big Time" as near as I can tell is subjective. As someone who generally enjoys your commentary and point of view, it seems like you have some irrational emotional connection to the NFL and will doggedly defend it the detriment of your own reputation. Frankly, it doesn't reflect well.

 

[dpodoll68]

not everyone, including those in the coaching profession considers the NFL superior

Thank you for your sensible, well-reasoned post, my friend. I try to keep things in perspective, but when people make idiotic statements, and then refuse to recant when called out on their stupidity, it gets my dander up like no other. I am no steadfast supporter of the NFL - far from it. But it is beyond obvious that college football is NOT "superior in every respect". Even if one is the biggest college football fan in the world, they must concede that the NFL is, at very minimum, better in some respects. Your statement proves my point - using the phrase "not everyone" implies that some find the NFL better, and that by definition validates that college football is NOT superior in every respect.

Hey look another thread with dpodoll in a verbal sparing match!

And you are...?

(P.S. I have yet to have a verbal sparring match on this board. No one else has either.)

 

[ruralgopher]

The Vikings continue their bullying tactics. hilites from the statement include things like:

"We thank the tens of thousands of fans"- tens of thousands, believe it or not Vikes, is not a majority or even really a decent sized minority.

"While we respect the challanges and priorities of the state this has now been pushed to the final year"- obviously they do not respect the challenges and priorities or they would try to work something out w/o an ultimatum. They respect themselves, only.

"We appeal to our State's leaders"- Ha! YOUR state wilf?

And of course, Bagley, the worst PR guy in the history of PR guys, had no further comment.

full statement:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_15110906

 

[KD6-3.7]

i'm going to jump in here without having read any of this thread.

the SF giants recently built one of the best venues in all sports with private money. the minnesota vikings need to do exactly what other private organizations do when they want to expand, take out a loan. the revenue made by building a beautiful new stadium would be more than enough to pay off the loan in a timely fashion, but the team would also get all the revenue that comes from renting out the facility.

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

 

[ruralgopher]

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

This is exactly how I feel. I am not a 'vikings are the reason the gophers suck' guy, I just hate being held hostage.

 

[howeda7]

i'm going to jump in here without having read any of this thread.

the SF giants recently built one of the best venues in all sports with private money. the minnesota vikings need to do exactly what other private organizations do when they want to expand, take out a loan. the revenue made by building a beautiful new stadium would be more than enough to pay off the loan in a timely fashion, but the team would also get all the revenue that comes from renting out the facility.

i like the vikings and i want them to be minnesota's team, but i am getting a little sick of the extortion attempts coming from the wilfs. if they continue to hold the team leaving over our heads in order to get more money out of my pockets, then i am going to be happy to see them leave.

Sorry, but I have to take issue with the inaccuracies here. First, the Giants didn't 'recently' build thier stadium with private money. It was done well over a decade ago in the middle of the internet boom in Silicon Valley. If they were trying to build it now or anytime 'recent' they'd be screwed.

Second, as with most 'privately' financed stadiums, you must take that with a grain of salt. Yes, they did pay for it. They were also given development rights around the stadium for free that could have been sold to others for tens of millions. So there was still public support, just in a round-about way. The Giants tried for years to get public funding, and nearly moved several times. Only in a perfect storm of a great economy, a booming Silican Valley business community, low interest rates and some under-the-table, indirect funding was this 'privately-financed' stadium deal done. To expect the same thing to happen in MSP, which does not have anywhere near the business population of late 90's silicon valley, is unrealisitic.

Bottom-line if any Vikings stadium is ever going to be built, it will require a public-private partnership. Should the Wilf's pay more then 1/3 of the cost? Yes. Should they quit whining and issuing dumb statements to the press like they did yesterday? Yes. But if you think they're suddenly going to up and pay 100% of the cost, you're nuts. Met Stadium wasn't built that way. The Dome wasn't built that way. Target Field wasn't built that way. Even TCF wasn't built that way. All required public/private partnerships and this will too. The Vikings best get working with some local governements so that they have an actual workable bill to present next year, rather then sit around until April and throw together a bad version of stadium-funding hot dish.

 

[KD6-3.7]

Sorry, but I have to take issue with the inaccuracies here. First, the Giants didn't 'recently' build thier stadium with private money. It was done well over a decade ago in the middle of the internet boom in Silicon Valley. If they were trying to build it now or anytime 'recent' they'd be screwed.

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.

Second, as with most 'privately' financed stadiums, you must take that with a grain of salt. Yes, they did pay for it. They were also given development rights around the stadium for free that could have been sold to others for tens of millions.

do you know anything about China basin? the park has invigorated a destitute area that the city could not pay business to move to in 1999. the park has injected over 50 million of revenue into the surrounding area since its opening, so, yes, they were given city land, but the city has been repayed in revenue generated and taxes raised:

At 10 years old, AT&T Park has won over many non-sports fans, progressives and community activists who 10 years ago worried that the expected noise and congestion from the ballpark would ruin the quality of life along the waterfront, and that the cost of police, Muni and paramedic service for the ballpark would divert needed city dollars from programs for the poor, homeless and seniors. The stadium has sparked a wave of new development in China Basin and South Beach that has been criticized by some for gentrification, but city officials say that AT&T generates more than $2 million dollars in ticket taxes, and tax revenue on the estimated $70 million dollars spent by fans at nearby businesses created since the AT&T was built generates more than enough revenue to pay the cost of gameday police and Muni services.

to say that an NFL stadium (a different beast than a baseball park, in that the demand for the product is much higher) cannot be built without public funds is wrong.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Billionaire developer Edward P. Roski Jr. has made a commitment to build the kind of stadium an NFL team needs to thrive in Los Angeles. Now, he's hoping one will commit to play there.
Roski, a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent years trying to lure the NFL back to this area, unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility in the City of Industry he said could be finished in time for the 2011 season.
LA is the second largest media market in the country, but they have no fan base right now and the economy in LA is 10 times worse that the economy in the cities. building a stadium for a new team is much different than building a stadium for a team with a built in fan base.

Bottom-line if any Vikings stadium is ever going to be built, it will require a public-private partnership.

that is just wrong. the vikings may get public funding for a stadium in minnesota, but if they move to LA it will not require public-private partnership.

 

[GoAUpher]

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.

Not when you're talking building costs and economic climate. And those are really the 2 biggest factors here. Building costs are much higher now and the economic climate is much worse. Age of the stadium has nothing to do with it.

 

[howeda7]

sorry, but ten years is recent in the building of ball parks.

Not for the purposes of this discussion it's not. As GoAu mentioned, in terms of the econcomy and the building costs it's eons ago. There have been no less then 12 MLB stadiums opened more recently the SF, not to mention many NFL stadiums.

do you know anything about China basin? the park has invigorated a destitute area that the city could not pay business to move to in 1999. the park has injected over 50 million of revenue into the surrounding area since its opening, so, yes, they were given city land, but the city has been repayed in revenue generated and taxes raised:

I dont' know the intimate details of SF. I don't dispute what you're saying above. The land the city gave was justified, and it would seem if all you say is true they should even have offered to kick in some tax revenue instead of nearly seeing the Giants move to Tampa...

At 10 years old, AT&T Park has won over many non-sports fans, progressives and community activists who 10 years ago worried that the expected noise and congestion from the ballpark would ruin the quality of life along the waterfront, and that the cost of police, Muni and paramedic service for the ballpark would divert needed city dollars from programs for the poor, homeless and seniors. The stadium has sparked a wave of new development in China Basin and South Beach that has been criticized by some for gentrification, but city officials say that AT&T generates more than $2 million dollars in ticket taxes, and tax revenue on the estimated $70 million dollars spent by fans at nearby businesses created since the AT&T was built generates more than enough revenue to pay the cost of gameday police and Muni services.

This is all fine and dandy, but this seems to speak toward there being a benefit to the public stepping up and helping fund it, which is the opposite of what you are trying to argue?

to say that an NFL stadium (a different beast than a baseball park, in that the demand for the product is much higher) cannot be built without public funds is wrong.

Sure it CAN be. And there are more examples of NFL teams doing so, then MLB (SF and St. Louis are the ONLY two MLB stadiums built privately, and both had side deals for other development rights, etc.) But it's NOT going to happen in MN. Ziggy has no incentve to pay 100% of the cost and let the owners of the downtown hotels and resteruants reap the benefits of the Vikings, the Super Bowls and the Final Fours, etc. The instances where it has been done by NFL teams privately are generally where there was enough land for the owners to develop the area around the stadium themselves and reap the these benefits. The Anoka site was a possiblity of this happening in MN but that is dead and everyone seems to agree that downtown on the Dome site is the only thing that makes sense at this point.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Billionaire developer Edward P. Roski Jr. has made a commitment to build the kind of stadium an NFL team needs to thrive in Los Angeles. Now, he's hoping one will commit to play there.
Roski, a part owner of the Kings and Lakers who has spent years trying to lure the NFL back to this area, unveiled plans Thursday for a 75,000-seat facility in the City of Industry he said could be finished in time for the 2011 season.
LA is the second largest media market in the country, but they have no fan base right now and the economy in LA is 10 times worse that the economy in the cities. building a stadium for a new team is much different than building a stadium for a team with a built in fan base.


that is just wrong. the vikings may get public funding for a stadium in minnesota, but if they move to LA it will not require public-private partnership.

First, this guys hasn't actually done anything yet. Maybe he will build it himself. But the LA situation fits the profile I described above. He's building it in the middle of nowhere and developing everything around it himself. He will be in control of the entire 'eco-system' that the stadium creates and reap all of the revenue. And because the Collesium and the Rose Bowl are both VERY old, he will not have much competition when it comes to the types of events that seek large venues. Further, in LA, you can guarantee MULTIPLE Super Bowls will be awarded to him, versus one in MSP, at best.

Could Ziggy or another owner go out in a confield in Anoka and build thier own stadium? Yes. Will they? No. It's not going to happen for any # of reasons inclduing those above. If MN wants to keep the Vikings, they need to be willing to partner in the costs and the benefits. If they dont' do it now, the Vikings will move to LA, and MSP will become the new location everyone threatens to move to. And chances are, our wise legisluature will move very quickly to approve funding for the MN Bills or Jaguars within 5 years. Why go through the heartache? Let's just do it now and be done with it.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Quote: Could Ziggy or another owner go out in a confield in Anoka and build thier own stadium? Yes. Will they? No. It's not going to happen for any # of reasons inclduing those above. If MN wants to keep the Vikings, they need to be willing to partner in the costs and the benefits. If they dont' do it now, the Vikings will move to LA, and MSP will become the new location everyone threatens to move to. And chances are, our wise legisluature will move very quickly to approve funding for the MN Bills or Jaguars within 5 years. Why go through the heartache? Let's just do it now and be done with it.

If the Vikings leave Minnesota we will NEVER have another NFL franchise unless the new owner pays the large majority of the costs for a new stadium. The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.

The Twins are the last professional team to be able to go to the taxpayer well for a new facility. The Tea Party is here and it is NEVER going away. Smaller government and fewer taxes are the future - and the future is now.

 

[howeda7]

If the Vikings leave Minnesota we will NEVER have another NFL franchise unless the new owner pays the large majority of the costs for a new stadium. The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.

The Twins are the last professional team to be able to go to the taxpayer well for a new facility. The Tea Party is here and it is NEVER going away. Smaller government and fewer taxes are the future - and the future is now.

Working the Tea Party into the discussion...nice work. 2006 was really so long ago? I can assure that you should never use the word 'NEVER' in politics. The discussion of a Vikings stadium has 'never' been about just taking $500 million bucks from the general fund and building a stadium, so don't think a Tea Party rant is warranted. It's about whether the state/local government will take part in allowing the areas that benefit from the stadium pay for it. That's what the bill this year tried to do, in its own flawed way. And however difficult the current political environment is for the Vikings to navigate, it's still a lot better then the one the Twins faced from 1997 to about 2002.

 

[Maximus]

The days are over when Minnesota taxpayers will agree to fund professional sports facilities. That is a thing of the past.

When did Minnesota taxpayers ever agree to fund professional sports facilities? They sure didn't agree to build a Twins stadium.

 

[Iceland12]

When did Minnesota taxpayers ever agree to fund professional sports facilities? They sure didn't agree to build a Twins stadium.

Nope, the County Commisioners, Legislators and Gov. Pawlenty did.

 

[GoAUpher]

Keep in mind that I'm not a MN resident and thus face no increased tax burden save the sale tax increases I pay while in the Cities. For me, new MN stadiums are cool shiny new toys I get to enjoy when I'm back in my home state.

As Iceland notes, the funding was approved by duly elected officials. This is how representative democracy works. Politicians aren't required to vote based on poll results. However, if they piss off their constituents they risk being booted. I'm not trying to be a huge a** and pretend folks don't know this. I think basically everyone gets the concept. This issue is that everyone understands and accepts/embraces this process until something that is unpopular passes. Then its all "well, we didn't want this!".

If we don't like the way your reps voted, we should all work to get a new rep. If we don't want them to vote a certain way, call their office. Repeatedly and politely. We should get our friends and family to do the same (assuming they agree with us). It works.

If you would like to go to direct democracy that's a valid opinion. But be prepared to have MN turn into an ungovernable mess like California.

 

[Maximus]

Keep in mind that I'm not a MN resident and thus face no increased tax burden save the sale tax increases I pay while in the Cities. For me, new MN stadiums are cool shiny new toys I get to enjoy when I'm back in my home state.

As Iceland notes, the funding was approved by duly elected officials. This is how representative democracy works. Politicians aren't required to vote based on poll results. However, if they piss off their constituents they risk being booted. I'm not trying to be a huge a** and pretend you don't know this. I think basically everyone gets the concept. This issue is that everyone understands and accepts/embraces this process until something that is unpopular passes. Then its all "well, we didn't want this!".

If you don't like the way your reps voted, work to get a new rep. If you don't want them to vote a certain way, call their office. Repeatedly and politely. Get your friends and family to do the same (assuming they agree with you). It works.

If you would like to go to direct democracy that's a valid opinion. But be prepared to have MN turn into an ungovernable mess like California.

I was just refuting the claim that the so called rise of a tea party in Minnesota means the end of a public funding option for a Vikings stadium. I live in Hennepin County and had no problem with the Twins funding.

 

[GoAUpher]

I was just refuting the claim that the so called rise of a tea party in Minnesota means the end of a public funding option for a Vikings stadium. I live in Hennepin County and had no problem with the Twins funding.

My bad. Misread the intent. Kept my post but eliminated the quote and changed some of the pronouns.

I agree with you on the "rise of the Tea Party thing". The Tea Party isn't a majority of folks in MN or the country...they're just really vocal and good at getting on TV.