Why Minnesota has not been a Football Success?

[Schnoodler]

I hate to blow up the argument but in my quick math 16% ofthe NT's occurred in NFL cities. Meanwhile only about 10% of all D1 teams are in NFL towns. Seems like maybe there is a slight advantage to having an NFL team in town if this is the logic we're using.

 

[josh087]

I hate to blow up the argument but in my quick math 16% ofthe NT's occurred in NFL cities. Meanwhile only about 10% of all D1 teams are in NFL towns. Seems like maybe there is a slight advantage to having an NFL team in town if this is the logic we're using.

I see what you're trying to say, but all it really points out is that there is one team that is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to success in NFL cities. That same team has struggled with attendance despite all of the success on the field.

As of 2007 - "According to NCAA statistics, since 1998 the University of Miami has never ranked higher than 21st in Division 1-A football attendance, despite being ranked in the top 25 for their performance in each of those years and winning a national championship. Only three seasons in that span have seen the school average over 50,000 fans per game, all the while compiling the third-highest winning percentage in college football."

 

[JPIIGopher]

Maybe

I hate to blow up the argument but in my quick math 16% ofthe NT's occurred in NFL cities. Meanwhile only about 10% of all D1 teams are in NFL towns. Seems like maybe there is a slight advantage to having an NFL team in town if this is the logic we're using.

If you are Miami or USC it's a recruiting thing...outside of those programs the numbers don't lie.

I think this figure speaks for itself. Not one pro city cracked the top 25 in all of college football attendance.

1. Michigan 8 871,464 108,933
2. Penn St. 8 856,066 107,008
3. Ohio St. 7 736,830 105,261
4. Texas 6 607,049 101,175
5. Tennessee 8 793,760 99,220
6. Georgia 6 556,476 92,746
7. LSU 7 647,420 92,489
8. Alabama 7 644,084 92,012
9. Florida 7 634,446 90,635
10. Nebraska 7 601,216 85,888
11. Southern California 6 508,796 84,799
12. Oklahoma 6 508,670 84,778
13. Auburn 8 676,911 84,614
14. Notre Dame 7 565,565 80,795
15. Wisconsin 7 560,764 80,109
Rank School G Attendance Average
16. Texas A&M 7 537,602 76,800
17. Clemson 7 530,553 75,793
18. South Carolina 7 527,580 75,369
19. Michigan St. 7 523,186 74,741
20. Florida St. 6 446,067 74,345
21. Iowa 7 491,499 70,214
22. Kentucky 7 487,156 69,594
23. Virginia Tech 6 397,398 66,233
24. Arkansas 7 455,783 65,112
25. UCLA 6 387,283 64,547

 

[Schnoodler]

Just saying that the NT measurement is inconclusive.

Interesting to note how many of those schools are pretty darn close to NFL cities. Ann Arbor for instance is a suburb of Detroit.

As already mentioned there are only 12 universities in the same city as an NFL city.

The NFL argument is flawed. We've seen over and over again the tremendous support this market gives to any team that wins. We've got a large market, one of the largest universities in the world with a large local alumnus. The Gophers have a huge advantage over most schools. But you can't have a substandard product and expect great support.

We've had a poor program becuase of the lack of support from the administration. Up until recently we've had very little investment into winning. Just win baby.

 

[josh087]

If you are Miami or USC it's a recruiting thing...outside of those programs the numbers don't lie.

I think this figure speaks for itself. Not one pro city cracked the top 25 in all of college football attendance.

1. Michigan 8 871,464 108,933
2. Penn St. 8 856,066 107,008
3. Ohio St. 7 736,830 105,261
4. Texas 6 607,049 101,175
5. Tennessee 8 793,760 99,220
6. Georgia 6 556,476 92,746
7. LSU 7 647,420 92,489
8. Alabama 7 644,084 92,012
9. Florida 7 634,446 90,635
10. Nebraska 7 601,216 85,888
11. Southern California 6 508,796 84,799
12. Oklahoma 6 508,670 84,778
13. Auburn 8 676,911 84,614
14. Notre Dame 7 565,565 80,795
15. Wisconsin 7 560,764 80,109
Rank School G Attendance Average
16. Texas A&M 7 537,602 76,800
17. Clemson 7 530,553 75,793
18. South Carolina 7 527,580 75,369
19. Michigan St. 7 523,186 74,741
20. Florida St. 6 446,067 74,345
21. Iowa 7 491,499 70,214
22. Kentucky 7 487,156 69,594
23. Virginia Tech 6 397,398 66,233
24. Arkansas 7 455,783 65,112
25. UCLA 6 387,283 64,547

This is important because as most people can figure out, larger cities inherently have a greater chance of producing higher attendance figures than smaller college towns. Yet, these are not the programs that lead the NCAA in attendance.

Here are the top 50 media markets in the US.

1 New York - Rutgers
2 Los Angeles - USC #11 in attendance, but no NFL team
3 Chicago - Northwestern
4 Philadelphia - Temple
5 Boston - Boston College
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 Dallas-Ft. Worth - TCU
8 Washington, DC
9 Atlanta - Georgia Tech - BCS Bowl last year
10 Houston - University of Houston - only sold out the Texas Tech game last year despite one of the best seasons and rankings in school history
11 Detroit
12 Tampa-St. Petersburg - South Florida - attendance reached an all time high in 2007 when they were ranked #2, but after just one loss, attendance dropped almost 20%. Just two years later USF drew almost 30,000 fans less for their home opener in 2009.
13 Seattle-Tacoma - University of Washington
14 Phoenix - Arizona State
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul - Gophers
16 Cleveland-Akron
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale - University of Miami (FL)
18 Denver - Air Force
19 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
20 Orlando-Daytona Beach - Central Florida
21 St. Louis
22 Pittsburgh - University of Pittsburgh - drew just 46,000 to Heinz field for a home game while being ranked #14 and having a 7-1 record and controlling their destiny in the Big East in 2009
23 Portland, Oregon
24 Baltimore
25 Indianapolis
26 San Diego
27 Charlotte
28 Hartford-New Haven
29 Raleigh-Durham
30 Nashville
31 Kansas City, Missouri
32 Columbus, Ohio
33 Milwaukee
34 Cincinnati
35 Greenville-Spartanburg, Asheville, Anderson
36 Salt Lake City
37 San Antonio
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster
42 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
43 New Orleans
44 Memphis
45 Oklahoma City
46 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
47 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem, NC
48 Las Vegas
49 Buffalo
50 Louisville, KY

 

[josh087]

The NFL argument is flawed. We've seen over and over again the tremendous support this market gives to any team that wins.

It's easy to say winning cures all - but we're not playing on a level playing field as our competition, so in doing this you're ignoring one of the problems that is preventing you from winning.

We've got a large market, one of the largest universities in the world with a large local alumnus. The Gophers have a huge advantage over most schools.

So then why aren't we WINNING???!!!

We've had a poor program becuase of the lack of support from the administration. Up until recently we've had very little investment into winning.[/

Lack of support from the administration is something that I would like to change. But as FBT pointed out, our spending isn't nearly as bad as some would have you believe.

Just win baby.

You make it sound so easy with the "Just Win Baby" mantra. But its hard to win a NASCAR race when you show up to the battle with a Soap Box Derby Car.

 

[Schnoodler]

throw michigan in with detroit. Cal in with San fran.

 

[BreakTheGopherCurse]

If I were to look back over the 12 years that I have been paying close attention to Gophers football, here are the top-5 systemic reasons that I think we do not succeed as well as our peer institutions of Iowa and Wisconsin:

1) Too much coaching turnover. This has been obvious during the 2006 - 2010 seasons. During that time: 2HC, 4OC and 4DC. On the defensive coaching side, however, this has been a problem for the Gophers since Glen Mason took the job in 1997. And isn't that the side of the ball that suffered? I think we've had some really good coaches at times (Imagine Ted Roof's defense after a few years coupled with the Mitch Browning offenses of 2000-06), but we've rarely had all the pieces in place at once.

At this point, I guess I would rather have a mediocre coaching staff in place for a long time (I'm not saying that I think the current staff achieves this level) than to have a Lou Holtz (or Lane Kiffen) type using us as a stepping stone.

2) The Metrodome. Fixed!

3) Recruiting. I know, I know. Brewster has recruited much better. We still really haven't seen the results of that because either the players never really materialized (not here anymore, duds, etc.) or because they are not yet experienced enough. The problem I have had with both Mason and Brewster is the failure to keep Minnesota talent at home. Also, Brewster my have gotten more "star points" but were they suited to a system? Which system? Has he found any unpolished gems?

4) Fan Support. As someone who's been to many of our bowl games, I have to say that I'm embarrased that we get out-traveled by the likes of Iowa State. In all the bowls I went to (except the 2006 Insight) we were vastly outnumbered by the opposing team. I've also been embarrassed by the way our stadium can empty out with 20 minutes left to play just because we're down by a score or two. I would think that this would have a big effect on recruiting both players and coaches. Maybe not, but I know it would affect my decision in their shoes.

5) We're jinxed. I don't know how else to say it. Ever since the 2003 Michigan game, we've gotten a funny bounce from the ball more often than not. I know we've been the beneficiary of some good calls, good bounces, etc., but never in a big time game. Maybe our coaches and players just choke in big game situations, but I prefer to think that we've just been plain unlucky in big games and that the law of averages will catch up sooner-or-later and we'll catch some big breaks in a marquee game or two.

Anyway, that's my list. My opinion is no more right or wrong than anybody's, but I'd love to see other people list of reasons that we just can't seem to consistenly compete in our conference.

Go GOphers.

45% due to inferior talent (especially at the quarterback position and the defensive line. had we had a punishing/sacking DL during Mason years, we win the Big Ten at least once. And in the last 30 to 40 years, we haven't had a dominating NFL-to-be type quarterback. They can make all the difference in the world). Too many other exciting and enticing schools/coaches/legacies for kids to select.

45% inferior coaching and systems (the minute they brought in a truly talented coach in Lou Holtz, who understood the game better than most, the program began to turn around and get exciting. He brings in Ricky Foggie, Gary Couch, etc, takes over a team that had gone 1-8 and 0-9 in the Big Ten, and goes 3-6 and 4-4 in the next two years. The man may have cheated, but he knew how to coach and he could get real talent. The same is true for Mason. He took over for Wacker and had decent success turning around the program. He just wasn't the caliber of someone like Holtz.)

10% - all this other kabuki-theatre, mumbo-jumbo, NFL blah-blah being spewed. the vikings could win 10 super bowls in a row and we would still fill a gopher stadium if we "invested" the money in a real football coach. so you are all correct, i guess. it's the school's simple unwillingness to get and pay for a coach who could get it done. period.

 

[atsgopher]

throw michigan in with detroit. Cal in with San fran.

I am inclined to agree with schnoodler.

For the large city list you can also throw Ohio State with Columbus.

Either way, I think data relating to the size of the market where a team is located is just noise. Universities are traditionally built where land is plentiful and thus rarely fall in large cities. However, a universities market is transitory; the market is generally alumni and their progeny that remain loyal to the school. You can live anywhere and cheer for Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota. Boundaries mean very little.

I also don't buy much into the NFL argument. Sure there is competition for the entertainment dollars, but it follows that the Gophers have a boundless market as well. Moreover, The NFL serves as a way to educate the populace on the sport; thus as any salesman worth his salt will tell you leads to increased understanding and appreciation for the game.

A related example: baseball owners thought the Cincinnati Reds insane for broadcasting games on the radio. That is until they found out it doubled the size of the fan base.

Moreover, this also assumes that people not living in NFL cities don't follow the NFL. I do not believe this to be the case as I can drive to Hudson, Eau Claire, or Ashland and find a rabid base of Packer followers. Or I can drive to Dubuque, IA, Worthington, or Grand Rapids and find people who are as equally passionate about the Vikings. Similar claims can be made in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.

The fact is there has to be bad programs. We are one because we haven't tried as hard from a top down perspective as others have. We are finally curing the administrative failures of the past...you cannot heal said ineptitude in a day. We find ourselves with a rare opportunity to succeed in the coming years. I.E. a perfect storm so to speak with the building of the stadium, Bruinks retiring (hopefully a new and even more supportive president is hired), a world class basketball coach (exposure, exposure, exposure), and a football coach that emphasizes program building measures over the watered down success (I take license with this last point as I laud Brewster for his general managing, despite his glaring deficiencies in coaching).

Lets just hope the formula works because there is no clear and easy manner in which to revivie a prgram the way Wisconsin has.

 

[RedPoo]

Which years were these Red Poo? Other than the dreadful Morton years, UW has enjoyed consistent fan support as shown by the chart below and my own recollection of games since 1971. I will give you that early pre-season games may not be fully attended, but I defy you to find a game that was less than 1/3 full, with the possible exception of the Morton years. Even using the current capacity of ~80,000, 1/3 gives you 26,666.

I was obviously referring to those Morton years, given that I said specifically that I was a kid and 30 years old, and attendance was evidently way down in those years. And if average attendance was a little better than half capacity, I'd imagine those games were probably closer to 1/3 capacity. But if you want to quibble over the memories and crowd-sizing capacity of an 8 year old, I'll give you that there's a very good chance the games I remember were closer to 2/5, or maybe even 1/2 full.

 

[GopherGod]

throw michigan in with detroit. Cal in with San fran.

You could also throw in Colorado with Denver as well as LSU with New Orleans. These universities are close enough to their respective NFL cities that the large percentage of fans on Saturdays are coming from these NFL cities.

 

[WaterBoy]

....Until about 1950, Minnesota could have written a book on how to succeed at
football. From 1900-1950, Minnesota was in the elite group of colleges in the sport,
alongside Notre Dame, Michigan, Army, and perhaps Yale.

Things changed in the early 1950's......

The Ivy Group came along and created the Ivy League, creating an atmosphere
of de-emphasis in football. This wave caught on with many schools, and many major schools
dropped their football programs entirely, such as NYU and Fordham. Others de-emphasized
in a major way.

I believe that there were enough admins at the U who likewise believed that Minnesota
should de-emphasize, much in the way Chicago had. Not enough to make that happen,
but enough to cause resistance.

Bud Wilkinson showed interest in becoming coach at the U, and word was out that
Bierman was to be the AD. The combination of Bierman and Wilkinson could have produced
multiple national titles, but I believe there was resistance to such a dynamic duo,
and hence the U "settled" for coaches like Fesler and Warmath.

Once Warmath took over, he had to fight for support from the U. There had been enough
follow-through from their great seasons to enable him to succeed, but things were
wearing around the edges of the program.

By the time Cal Stoll arrived, it was run on a shoestring. Game films sessions were
conducted in hallways with film shown on the hall walls. Strength & conditioning
was woefully behind the times. He couldn't pay assistance competitively, and basically
Salem confronted the same problem.

Holtz gave the program a slight boost in support, but left for ND when he realized he
wasn't gonna get any more than what he had been. Gutey struggled with low U
support, as did Wacker.

I guess the part that stands out the most was Nils Hasselmo, who when U president
suggested that football be replaced by soccer! What does THAT tell you.

For 50 years Minnesota had the gameplan for success. Since then, the U has
no clue to what extent a program needs to be funded to succeed, and the years
spent at the Dome reflect that.

Hope that helps.

Metrolax. Very interesting post. But I was wondering if you have any insight into why Michigan which you name as one of the top football programs from 1900-1950 didn't follow the same trend even though they are regarded as a top academic institution?

 

[ruralgopher]

45% due to inferior talent (especially at the quarterback position and the defensive line. had we had a punishing/sacking DL during Mason years, we win the Big Ten at least once. And in the last 30 to 40 years, we haven't had a dominating NFL-to-be type quarterback. They can make all the difference in the world). Too many other exciting and enticing schools/coaches/legacies for kids to select.

10% - all this other kabuki-theatre, mumbo-jumbo, NFL blah-blah being spewed. the vikings could win 10 super bowls in a row and we would still fill a gopher stadium if we "invested" the money in a real football coach. so you are all correct, i guess. it's the school's simple unwillingness to get and pay for a coach who could get it done. period.

The NFL to be QB logic is flawed. NFL-to-be QB's don't have THAT much success at the college level, generally.

I don't think the argument needs to go much further than the other bolded point though. IF we committed to spending the money we would be a top 15 job nationally, easy. We would never be more attractive than some of the absolute elite, but we have enough advantages with the city and quality of life that if we paid market value we would not be a 'stepping stone' job.

 

[Go Gophers Rah]

When I started this thread, I purposely confined it to my years as a season-ticket holder (1998 - present), because I didn't want to get into ancient history like that we didn't hire Bud Wilkinson, etc.

No one here can objectively argue that Wisconsin was not that much of a success from 1967 to 1992 - yet they have become a consistent top 25 team. So it is possible for a team in our part of the world to shake off years of mediocrity.
If we are saying that the Gophers aren't any good because the Vikings moved here in 1961 and Malcolm Moos was a hippy lover, and those are things we can't change, then what hope will we ever have.
Its not that I disagree with Metrolax, I'd just rather focus on the things we can change.

Go Gophers!

 

[CentralGopher]

Before I graduated college I saw a total of maybe 3 gopher games on tv. The vikings however are on every single week and on network tv. I think this is the main reason for the drop in popularity. In the 60's nobody had cable anyway so fans went to the games or followed them in the paper. The vikings being on network tv quickly became a favorite since they were so accessable to fans and if you wanted to see the gophers you had to either go to the games or get cable which I never had until college and thus did not become a fan until after college when I had the time to watch them and also got cable for myself. This has got to be the primary reason why they are not as popular. It is as simple as accessability for fans. The big ten network is changing that some but they still are not in every single home every week so they will never be as popular as the vikings unless the vikings leave.

 

[dpodoll68]

I am inclined to agree with schnoodler.

For the large city list you can also throw Ohio State with Columbus.

Either way, I think data relating to the size of the market where a team is located is just noise. Universities are traditionally built where land is plentiful and thus rarely fall in large cities. However, a universities market is transitory; the market is generally alumni and their progeny that remain loyal to the school. You can live anywhere and cheer for Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota. Boundaries mean very little.

I also don't buy much into the NFL argument. Sure there is competition for the entertainment dollars, but it follows that the Gophers have a boundless market as well. Moreover, The NFL serves as a way to educate the populace on the sport; thus as any salesman worth his salt will tell you leads to increased understanding and appreciation for the game.

A related example: baseball owners thought the Cincinnati Reds insane for broadcasting games on the radio. That is until they found out it doubled the size of the fan base.

Moreover, this also assumes that people not living in NFL cities don't follow the NFL. I do not believe this to be the case as I can drive to Hudson, Eau Claire, or Ashland and find a rabid base of Packer followers. Or I can drive to Dubuque, IA, Worthington, or Grand Rapids and find people who are as equally passionate about the Vikings. Similar claims can be made in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Oklahoma.

The fact is there has to be bad programs. We are one because we haven't tried as hard from a top down perspective as others have. We are finally curing the administrative failures of the past...you cannot heal said ineptitude in a day. We find ourselves with a rare opportunity to succeed in the coming years. I.E. a perfect storm so to speak with the building of the stadium, Bruinks retiring (hopefully a new and even more supportive president is hired), a world class basketball coach (exposure, exposure, exposure), and a football coach that emphasizes program building measures over the watered down success (I take license with this last point as I laud Brewster for his general managing, despite his glaring deficiencies in coaching).

Lets just hope the formula works because there is no clear and easy manner in which to revivie a prgram the way Wisconsin has.

Can I be your friend?

A beacon of reasonableness in a sea of inanities.

 

[Mulligan]

When I started this thread, I purposely confined it to my years as a season-ticket holder (1998 - present), because I didn't want to get into ancient history like that we didn't hire Bud Wilkinson, etc.

No one here can objectively argue that Wisconsin was not that much of a success from 1967 to 1992 - yet they have become a consistent top 25 team. So it is possible for a team in our part of the world to shake off years of mediocrity.
If we are saying that the Gophers aren't any good because the Vikings moved here in 1961 and Malcolm Moos was a hippy lover, and those are things we can't change, then what hope will we ever have.
Its not that I disagree with Metrolax, I'd just rather focus on the things we can change.

Go Gophers!

If by "we' you mean people on this forum, then we can't change anything. The problems of administration support, mediocre coaches, fan support, budget, recruiting, the Vikings, sporting culture, bad luck, the media, etc. are so intertwined it's pointless to argue. If Brewster goes, there might be more money thrown in the pot for a new coach, but it's not like the public is suddenly going to demand the football budget be doubled. Extra money will increase the chances of getting the right coach, but it's no guarantee.

Someone is simply going to have to be smart enough and lucky enough to make the right hire. It's like we're in a hole in the sand trying to get out. Those problems have made the hole deeper, but I really believe the right guy can get us out. If he does, those other problems will start disappearing, some of them really quickly. I had hopes Brewster would be the guy, but it's not looking good. The disheartening thing is, if Brewster goes, it's like we're back at the bottom of the hole starting the climb all over. Since I started listening to Ray in the late 1950's I'd sort of like to get out of the hole sooner rather than later. It would be nice to walk into the Rose Bowl instead of being wheeled in.

 

[RodentRampage]

It doesn't MATTER what impact the Vikings have had on the Gophers. That is just throwing our hands up in the air and giving up. The Vikings aren't likely to go anywhere, and even if they did, another NFL team would move in. The important thing is how to do well even with the impact of an NFL team.

If the U could somehow drive out the Vikings, it would be the biggest disaster imaginable for the Gophers. Rather than gaining fans from people who used to follow the Vikings, the Vikings fans would quickly come to hate the Gophers. (I know someone will say "they already do!", but no, they don't).

What we need is a boring coach. Offense is exciting, but it will fail you. Defense is what wins. I'll eagerly take boring victories. Get someone here who makes defense a priority. You need an offense, of course, but the backbone has to be defense. An offense that can control the ball, and take advantage of opportunities that the defense gives you.

 

[howeda7]

If you don't think it matters you are delusional. NFL cities, Major College team and results:

1 Atlanta Georgia Tech 3 Conference Titles 0 National Titles in 50 years-Georgia has far more to do with that then the Falcons. If we had the U of Michigan playing in Duluth, then we'd have something to cry about.
2 Baltimore-U of Maryland is a few miles away.
3 Boston Boston College 1 shared CT, 0 Nt's in past 50 years
4 Buffalo -
5 Charlotte -
6 Chicago Northwestern 3 CT's 0 NT's in 50 years. Illinois hasn't done much either. Niether is the Bears fault.
7 Cincinatti Bearcats 5 Ct's (only 2 in major Big east conf) 0 NT's in 50 years
8 Cleveland-You don't think there's huge cross-over with the OSU fan base? Why dont' they whine about it?
9 Dallas - Everyone in Texas loves the UT and the Cowboys. Boy it's sure dragged UT down, huh?
10 Denver -The Broncos are the first love of everyone in Colorado. The Buffs managed to win a National title anyway and be a Big XII power for a long stretch.
11 Detroit - Poor UM has to compete with the Lions and MSU. However do they do it?
12 Indianapolis -
13 Jacksonville - The Gators and Jags have huge cross-over in season-ticket base. The poor Gators. In this economy many people are dropping one or the other.
14 Kansas City -
15 Miami Hurricanes 9 CT's and 5 NT's in 50 years-Proof it can be done, isn't it? The Dolpins are far more popular in Miami then the Canes. The Canes don't always draw well. But they still win.
16 Green Bay-The Cheese and UW are both universally beloved in Wisconsin. It's really no different then MN, they're just located in different spots in the state. I don't hear them crying.
17 Minneapolis Gophers 2 CT's and 1 NT in 50 years
18 Nashville Vandy 0 everything-UT is a far better example to use. Vandy sucks but not because of the Titans
19 New Orleans - LSU's an hour away. They compete for the same ticket-buyers and media
20 New York Rutgers 0
21 New York Rutgers 0
22 Oakland - Stanford and Cal have to complete with each other and the 49ers and the Raiders. How awful for them.
23 Philadelphia - PSU seems to be doing just fine, thanks.
24 Phoenix ASU 11 Ct's, 3 since joining the Pac 10, 2 since the arrival of the Cards
25 Pittsburgh 4 CT's (3 eastern, 1 Bigeast) 1 NT in 50 years
26 St Louis -
27 San Diego -
28 San Francisco - See Oakland
29 Seattle Huskies 10 CT's 1 NT in 50 years
30 Tampa South Florida 0
31 Washington -
32 Houston -

Only 12 of 31 NFL cities can even support major college football.

Of those twelve only 3 have significantly better results than Minnesota in the last 50 years, Miami, ASU, and UW.

Of course this isn't any excuse, it just makes us have to think outside the box...maybe we should be like Boise St. and paint our field Gold It's all about getting noticed.

This is arbitrary and such a weak argment. You don't think the Ravens effect the U of Maryland because College Park is a few miles from Baltimore or the Jags and Gators compete for season ticket sales? Just because most land-grant universities didn't spring up in large cities doesn't mean we're at some huge disadvantage. We're the only D-1 school in a fairly large state and we're crying because the NFL team stops us from winning? It's pathetic.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

This is arbitrary and such a weak argment. You don't think the Ravens effect the U of Maryland because College Park is a few miles from Baltimore or the Jags and Gators compete for season ticket sales? Just because most land-grant universities didn't spring up in large cities doesn't mean we're at some huge disadvantage. We're the only D-1 school in a fairly large state and we're crying because the NFL team stops us from winning? It's pathetic.

Connect the dots, howeday. There is no other DI program in the country that has a comparable situation that the Gopher's have with the Vikings. Since 1968 the Vikings have been one of the two or three most successful NFL teams. With very few exceptions the Purple has been an extremely competive team for that entire period of time. Since the mid 1970's the Gophers have been pretty much irrelvant to most people in Minnesota. Even though the majority of Minnesotans want the Gophers to do well it means almost nothing to them if they don't. That is because whatever happens to the Gophers on Saturday they have the Vikes game on Sunday to look forward to. The negative impact of the Vikings on the Gopher football program cannot be overstated.

 

[dpodoll68]

There is no other DI program in the country that has a comparable situation that the Gopher's have with the Vikings.

False. Hell, he even quoted over a dozen for you.

Since 1968 the Vikings have been one of the two or three most successful NFL teams.

What?!? I'm as big of a Vikings fan as there is, and this is patently and demonstrably false.

Because of the the the 40 plus years of success for the Vikings there is no other college/pro situation in the country that compares to it.

Again, quite demonstrably false. Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the Vikings have been more successful than, for example, the Steelers, Dolphins, or 49ers?

The negative impact of the Vikings and their impact on Gopher football cannot be overstated.

Sure it can. You and your ilk do it on this board nigh daily.

 

[RodentRampage]

Connect the dots, howeday. There is no other DI program in the country that has a comparable situation that the Gopher's have with the Vikings. Since 1968 the Vikings have been one of the two or three most successful NFL teams. With very few exceptions the Purple has been an extremely competive team for that entire period of time. e same stadium. Since the mid 1970's the Gophers have been pretty much irrelvant to most people in Minnesota. Even though the majority of Minnesotanse want the Gophers to do well it means almost nothing to them if they don't. That is because whatever happens to the Gophers on Saturday they have the Vikes game on Sunday to look forward to. Because of the the the 40 plus years of success for the Vikings there is no other college/pro situation in the country that compares to it. The negative impact of the Vikings on the Gopher football program cannot be overstated.

What dots? You claim that how well the Vikings have done has impacted the Gophers. Has support for the Gophers risen when the Vikings did poorly, and fallen when the Gophers did well? Regardless of any impact of the Vikings, it isn't important. It's like standing there in the rain, complaining about getting wet instead of getting an umbrella.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

False. Hell, he even quoted over a dozen for you.



What?!? I'm as big of a Vikings fan as there is, and this is patently and demonstrably false.



Again, quite demonstrably false. Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the Vikings have been more successful than, for example, the Steelers, Dolphins, or 49ers?



Sure it can. You and your ilk do it on this board nigh daily.

You are 0 for 4 with your comments. Your not going to be in the line up for the next game. I am seriously considering sending you down for the rest of the season. We need somebody that can get the job done when the game is on the line.

 

[dpodoll68]

You are 0 for 4 with your comments.

Nope. Try harder.

 

[RodentRampage]

You are 0 for 4 with your comments. Your not going to be in the line up for the next game. I am seriously considering sending you down for the rest of the season. We need somebody that can get the job done when the game is on the line.

He just wiped the floor with you.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

He just wiped the floor with you.

That depends on your perspective. He didn't address even one of the issues I raised. It is a well worn and not very creative debating technique. Ignore what your opponent says and stay on message. Most politicians learn to this very early in their careers. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see through it very easily.

 

[GopherGod]

False. Hell, he even quoted over a dozen for you.



What?!? I'm as big of a Vikings fan as there is, and this is patently and demonstrably false.



Again, quite demonstrably false. Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the Vikings have been more successful than, for example, the Steelers, Dolphins, or 49ers?



Sure it can. You and your ilk do it on this board nigh daily.

You could also add in the Broncos, Raiders, and Cowboys that have been more successful than the Vikings in that time period.

 

[RodentRampage]

That depends on your perspective. He didn't address even one of the issues I raised. It is a well worn and not very creative debating technique. Ignore what your opponent says and stay on message. Most politicians learn to this very early in their careers. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see through it very easily.

He directly addressed your claims.

On what basis do you claim that the Vikings are one of the most successful teams in the NFL?

 

[josh087]

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpnorthGo4 View Post
There is no other DI program in the country that has a comparable situation that the Gopher's have with the Vikings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpnorthGo4 View Post
Since 1968 the Vikings have been one of the two or three most successful NFL teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpnorthGo4 View Post
Because of the the the 40 plus years of success for the Vikings there is no other college/pro situation in the country that compares to it.


I am with you on the Vikings thing but these three statements above are totally false.

 

[Maximus]

Again, quite demonstrably false. Are you seriously going to attempt to argue that the Vikings have been more successful than, for example, the Steelers, Dolphins, or 49ers?

The Vikings have more playoff appearances than all three of them. For 40 years, the Vikings have been quite consistent in their competitiveness. Since 1966, the Vikings have the second most playoff appearances in all the NFL.