Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "marshallvike" #1087799
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.
    Yes, I included all of the games, including the formative ones from the 60's. I did not pick and choose any seasons - I included them all.

    There WAS a sharp decline in performance almost immediately after the Vikings moved indoors. However, there are some other things that had a pretty significant impact on the team - more so than the venue IMHO.

    Two seasons shortened by labor dispute, the retirement of Bud Grant, Free Agency...

    These things actually contributed more to the decline in the team's performance than anything else. Especially the retirement of Grant and hte introduction of FA. If it truely was the venue that hurt the team, then we wouldn't ahve seen the winning percentage rebound in the dome to pretty much the same state that it was in the Old Met.

    To claim that the outdoor stadium played as big of a role as some would suggest is lessing the contributions that some amazing players and coaches made for this team in teh 1970's.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #12
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797
    Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
    New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

    Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

    Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

    Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

    Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

    So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

    Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.
    Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums

  3. #13
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087804
    Quote Originally Posted by "marshallvike" #1087799
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    if you are including the early 60's, the Vikings formative years, after being given a franchise, the winning percentage will be skewed a bit.
    Yes, I included all of the games, including the formative ones from the 60's. I did not pick and choose any seasons - I included them all.

    There WAS a sharp decline in performance almost immediately after the Vikings moved indoors. However, there are some other things that had a pretty significant impact on the team - more so than the venue IMHO.

    Two seasons shortened by labor dispute, the retirement of Bud Grant, Free Agency...

    These things actually contributed more to the decline in the team's performance than anything else. Especially the retirement of Grant and hte introduction of FA. If it truely was the venue that hurt the team, then we wouldn't ahve seen the winning percentage rebound in the dome to pretty much the same state that it was in the Old Met.

    To claim that the outdoor stadium played as big of a role as some would suggest is lessing the contributions that some amazing players and coaches made for this team in teh 1970's.
    Yeah, And in the old Stadium they only got to 4 Super Bowls but since they moved inside they have been so many more.

    ooooooops, I guess not.

  4. #14
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

    And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

    And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

    ...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?

    Caine

  5. #15
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1087810
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

    And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

    And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

    ...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?

    Caine
    I agree that the Vikings don't NEED a roof. I honestly don't think that a roof would make a difference one way or another for the quality of the team. I want a roof because outdoor stadiums in Minnesota are horrible for the fans. Even in the 70's when the Vikes were super bowl favorites, they had a hard time selling out the much smaller Met in December.

    And I agree - Reusse's article, like usual, is shit.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #16
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    I think if we had Bud Grant.. PPE's.. Fran.. Etc in the dome we would have same success

    I don't think it helps us as much as others do

    And like many pointed out a room is benefit for FANS.. Mostly...

    I can't say one way or another if we would or ever will be good again outdoors.. We've sucked outdoors for years

  7. #17
    Minniman's Avatar
    Minniman is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,415

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087825
    Quote Originally Posted by "Caine" #1087810
    Quote Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087790
    Reusse has a long history being anti-stadium for the VIkings. I don't take any of his crap seriously.

    Caine - in response to your post, the Vikings have a BETTER home field winning percentage and have made the playoffs a HIGHER percentage of the time since moving indoors. The idea that the team lost something when they moved indoors is a myth, originated because in the 80's, shortly after moving indoors, the team sucked for a bit. But teams always go through highs and lows, it had nothing to do with the venue.

    Do the Vikings need a roof? I don't think that they need one. But like most fans I would prefer one. And I think that the Vikings should be responsible for 1/3 of the TOTAL cost, including the roof.

    JMHO
    Bear in mind that those statistics will be tainted somewhat by the fact that the Vikings entered the League in 61, and went through the initial "suck" phase outdoors.

    And, as Purple Floyd pointed out, it's also true that the Vikings went to four Superbowls while playing outdoors, and none after moving indoors.

    And while it MAY have nothing to do with the venue, it still remains true that the Vikings don't NEED a roof...which was my point. For Reusse to imply that they're simply trying to dodge paying for one is complete horseshit...

    ...but then, that describes a lot of his articles of late, doesn't it?
    I agree that the Vikings don't NEED a roof. I honestly don't think that a roof would make a difference one way or another for the quality of the team. I want a roof because outdoor stadiums in Minnesota are horrible for the fans. Even in the 70's when the Vikes were super bowl favorites, they had a hard time selling out the much smaller Met in December.

    And I agree - Reusse's article, like usual, is shit.
    Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.

    Fans want an indoor venue in November and December, and so will quite a few free agents. The Vikings did not have modern free agency to deal with in the 1960's and 1970's, and the league did not have 32 teams either.

  8. #18
    BloodyHorns82's Avatar
    BloodyHorns82 is offline Jersey Retired Feed The Frog Champion
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,691

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "Minniman" #1087837

    Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.
    Gotta call B.S. on this.

    Average December Temp:

    Minneapolis: 19 degrees
    Green Bay: 20 degrees

    Chicago is a bit warmer at: 26.6 degrees

  9. #19
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is online now Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "BloodyHorns82" #1087851
    Quote Originally Posted by "Minniman" #1087837

    Minnesota is the NFL's coldest market. Green Bay and Chicago have the advantage of having a water mass next to them. The east and west coastal teams are not even close.
    Gotta call B.S. on this.

    Average December Temp:

    Minneapolis: 19 degrees
    Green Bay: 20 degrees

    Chicago is a bit warmer at: 26.6 degrees
    Just did a comparison on weather.com of the two cities. They are pretty damned close. Green Bay is a couple degrees warmer on the high and low for the months of December and January and their precipitation is higher. Green Bay is a little cooler in the summer's than Mpls, no doubt partially due to the lake effect.

    In western MN where I grew up it's 7-8 degrees colder in these months than GB.

  10. #20
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278

    Re: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806
    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1087797
    Just did a little more checking to see what other states actually paid recently.
    New Meadowlands stadium 2010-zero taxpayer funding, each team covered half about 650million

    Cowboys stadium 2009-325million(including interest) paid by city, owner covered the rest of 1.15billion. Tax payers paid about 30%.

    Colts stadium 2008-620million(not including interest) paid by taxpayers. Owner paid 100million. Taxpayers paid about 86%. Also seems that the new stadium cost a lot more to operate than the old one and the taxpayers are on the hook for about 20million a year in operating costs.

    Cardinals stadium 2006- 312million paid by taxpayers, 143million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid about 69%.

    Eagles 2003- 212million paid by taxpayers, 300 million paid by owners. Taxpayers paid 41%

    So of the 5 most recently opened stadiums taxpayers have paid, 0,30,86,69,41 percent. Average 45.2%.

    Also of note is that the team collected the stadium naming rights. Which was over 100million in all cases. Not sure why this is when in most cases the team actually leases the stadium from the state.
    Just to be fair you might want to look up the terms for the patriots and Steelers stadiums
    To be fair, I just used the 5 most recent stadiums.
    Robert Kraft paid for 100% of Gillette stadium. Taxpayers paid zero.
    Taxpayers paid 83% of Heinz field.

    The trend seems to be that taxpayers pay less in larger markets than smaller markets. I suppose it makes more sense because the cities have more leverage. The NFL doesn't want to leave the largest markets in the US.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 45 lessons life taught me...
    By NodakPaul in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-08-2009, 12:54 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2007, 07:23 AM
  3. Souhan: Vikings could take lessons from Wolves
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 08:53 PM
  4. Jackson soaking up lessons
    By cogitans in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:06 PM
  5. a Short series: lessons for packer fans
    By casper in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 02:33 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •