Thread: Lessons of stadium diplomacy are lost on Vikings

Originally Posted by "marshallvike" #1087799

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.

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

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087804

Originally Posted by "marshallvike" #1087799

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.

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

Originally Posted by "Caine" #1087810

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.

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

Originally Posted by "NodakPaul" #1087825

Originally Posted by "Caine" #1087810

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.

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

Originally Posted by "BloodyHorns82" #1087851

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.

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1087806

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.