Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53
  1. #21
    shockzilla's Avatar
    shockzilla is offline PPO Ambassador
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    6,204
    Blog Entries
    29

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    Ned, chubby? NAAAWWWWWW!!!!

    Big-boned, MAYBE.

    ;D
    PPO Ambassador, Defender of the Purple Faith and Guardian of the Gates of Valhalla

  2. #22
    BadlandsVikings's Avatar
    BadlandsVikings is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26,572

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    stupid mall of america

  3. #23
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "i_bleed_purple" wrote:
    Although I would have loved to go watch the Purple People Eaters play there, compared to todays standards, and even comparing to the worst stadium in the NFL, that is one poohie stadium, especially for football.
    There are some parts where the lower level stands are 40 yards away from the field.
    Yup.
    And despite all the talk about the "hardy" people going to the games, that wasn't the case in the Old Met.

    Even during the height of Vikings greatness, during the Purple People Eater days, they had a hard time selling out regular season games in the winter.
    And that is something considering the Met was much smaller than the Metrodome.
    It only seated 48,446, compared to the Metrodome's 64,111.
    If we couldn't fill a 48k seat outdoor stadium when the Vikings were perennial super bowl contenders, how on earth do some people think we would fill a 68k outdoor stadium during slumps?
    We never came close to consistently selling out the Dome either until Moss came to town. For many years the team had to use the (Pillsbury?) money to buy up tickets so the game would be on TV. And those were successful years too.

    The idea that putting in a 1 billion dollar stadium where a hotdog will be 7 dollars, parking will require a mortgage and the ticket prices and gas over 4 dollars, you are sadly mistaken to think that a stadium like that will be sold out for any extended period of time. The difference is, instead of having a 68 million dollar investment that supports 2 pro teams and a college football program that doesn't sell out consistently, we will have a 1 billion dollar stadium for the Vikings and another 1 billion between the twins and gophers that won't sell out collectively between them. It is a fantasy to think building a new facility will change the culture of a population that really doesn't place a high value on that.

    Whether you like to admit it or not, the population in the region is just not big enough and the loyal fan base is not big enough to support all of these stadiums at a capacity level no matter what you build.

    If you want to fill it, put in a casino, those don't seem to have as much of a problem putting butts in the seats. ;D
    Of course the population can't support three stadiums at full capacity.
    I never said, nor implied, that.
    That is one of the big reasons that the Twins and Gopher stadiums are being built smaller than the dome.
    But whether or not the Twins or Gophers sell out really has nothing to do with it.
    We have shown over the 26 year life of the Metrodome that the Vikings will sell out a lot more often than not.
    Since '98 we have sold 60k+ tickets to every game, needing corporate help to snatch up the remaining for the first time in that streak last year.
    I am not expecting the culture to change at all - I expect it to remain the same, which would continue to fill the Vikings stadium to capacity.
    After the shiny new feel of the stadium wears off in a couple of years, the Vikings would be the only one selling out on a consistent basis - yet they are the ones without a stadium under construction.
    Good planning Minnesota.

    I do find it humorous that you project your own personal preferences for minimalistic approaches onto the entire Vikings fan base.
    Believe it or not, the fan base has changed considerably since the days of the old Met.
    The median age may be the same, but the age range is much greater.
    Part of that is due to the fact that all people, young and old, can enjoy a Vikings game.
    I would hate to see them throw that away just for a nostalgic idea of what outdoor football used to be, especially considering that 1/3 to 1/2 (if not more) of the season ticket holders never went to a outdoor game in frigid weather.

    It is good you posted since '98, which is basically the Randy Years. He is gone and for the last 2 years, if you remember, it was back to business as usual. Or did we have no problems selling tickets over the last 2 years? Refresh me on that one because I could swear there were deadline extensions and ticket buyouts in order to prevent blackouts.

    And I am not projecting my preferences to the Vikings fan base, I am reflecting the preferences of the greater public,which the team needs to tap in order to fill those seats beyond the core of fans who will buy tickets regardless like yourself.

    In your last point you pretty much sums it up even if it is hard for you to accept. If you look at the Packers and the Bears, they both have outdoor stadiums and have no problem with attendance even though their stadiums are not climate controlled. They have fans who will go to a game even if it is-30 degrees. Even in climate controlled comfort this state does not have the loyal base that will fill the stadium regardless of the amenities or the conditions. It may be a bitter pill but it is the case.

  4. #24
    Frostbite is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    966

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    Always admired the Vikings for being able to play there in the Winter Months! Only have seen it on TV as I'm a west coast Vikes fan. I can't tell you how pleasurable it was to watch Roman Gabriel and the rest of the LA Rams Freeze to death trying to play there. Actually remember a lot of great games on the tube from the Met. Loved it whenever we had home field advantage over the warm weather teams. I know it had to be hard on our players and our fans to sit out there in minus zero temps. My hats off to all of you that did it!! One of the reasons I love Football is because in my day (Old School) you played in any type of weather conditions. No room for whimps worrying about snow/rain/hail/wind/fog/cold/lightning/whatever.

    Cheers!
    Where is Frostbite Falls Minnesota?

  5. #25
    vikingivan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    I know there are several of us here at PP.O who have memories of the Old Met.
    Time has been gracious to those memories, and most remember the great teams that played there as opposed to the poohie conditions of the stadium.
    For people who never had the luxury, here is a video I recently saw on YouTube that does a GREAT job of showing the stands at the Old Met.

    The Met was a truly unique experience, colder than Green Bay ever was, dangerous (part of the third tier collapsed one summer, and instead of replacing it they just roped it off), and amazing.
    It is no secret that I preferred the Metrodome to the Old Met, but it is still fun to look back at what once was...

    [youtube=425,350]U_pXtetLNhM[/youtube]
    Paul prefers the Dome to the Old Met.
    How can it be?
    The Old Met was better just for the tailgating if nothing else.
    One sea of purple.
    The entire lot tailgating and having a good time.
    There is no sea of purple at the dome.
    Just small ponds of purple scattered around.

  6. #26
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "vikingivan" wrote:
    Paul prefers the Dome to the Old Met.
    How can it be?
    The Old Met was better just for the tailgating if nothing else.
    One sea of purple.
    The entire lot tailgating and having a good time.
    There is no sea of purple at the dome.
    Just small ponds of purple scattered around.
    The tailgating situation was much better at the Met, no arguments there.
    But that is the only place where the Met beat out the dome.
    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=

  7. #27
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    It is good you posted since '98, which is basically the Randy Years. He is gone and for the last 2 years, if you remember, it was back to business as usual. Or did we have no problems selling tickets over the last 2 years? Refresh me on that one because I could swear there were deadline extensions and ticket buyouts in order to prevent blackouts.

    And I am not projecting my preferences to the Vikings fan base, I am reflecting the preferences of the greater public,which the team needs to tap in order to fill those seats beyond the core of fans who will buy tickets regardless like yourself.

    In your last point you pretty much sums it up even if it is hard for you to accept. If you look at the Packers and the Bears, they both have outdoor stadiums and have no problem with attendance even though their stadiums are not climate controlled. They have fans who will go to a game even if it is-30 degrees. Even in climate controlled comfort this state does not have the loyal base that will fill the stadium regardless of the amenities or the conditions. It may be a bitter pill but it is the case.
    Silly UffDa, I did refresh you.
    Since '98 we have sold 60k+ tickets to every game, needing corporate help to snatch up the remaining for the first time in that streak last year.
    Also, how do you know that you are reflecting the preferences of the greater public?
    I would maintain that you are not.
    My evidence is thus:
    1) Attendance went up when the Metrodome was built - even in the lean 80's.
    2) The Metrodome was built with public input, and a majority of the public at the time supported an indoor stadium for the added use that it brought
    3) Surveys conducted by the Minnesota Vikings show overwhelming support for a retractable roof versus open air

    And finally, referencing Green Bay or Chicago and using it as a comparison to Minneapolis doesn't work.
    On average, Minny is a full 10 degrees colder than Chicago in November and December, and 5 degrees colder than Green Bay in both.
    http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Minneapolis+-+St.+Paul
    It may not seem like much, but 40 degrees in Chicago is a lot nicer for outdoor football than 30 in Minny.
    Since I believe you were familiar with the old Met, you know that it was by far the coldest field in the NFL.
    Yes, there are extreme days in both Chicago and Green Bay, but no where near the consistency that there was in Bloomington.
    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=

  8. #28
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    It is good you posted since '98, which is basically the Randy Years. He is gone and for the last 2 years, if you remember, it was back to business as usual. Or did we have no problems selling tickets over the last 2 years? Refresh me on that one because I could swear there were deadline extensions and ticket buyouts in order to prevent blackouts.

    And I am not projecting my preferences to the Vikings fan base, I am reflecting the preferences of the greater public,which the team needs to tap in order to fill those seats beyond the core of fans who will buy tickets regardless like yourself.

    In your last point you pretty much sums it up even if it is hard for you to accept. If you look at the Packers and the Bears, they both have outdoor stadiums and have no problem with attendance even though their stadiums are not climate controlled. They have fans who will go to a game even if it is-30 degrees. Even in climate controlled comfort this state does not have the loyal base that will fill the stadium regardless of the amenities or the conditions. It may be a bitter pill but it is the case.
    Silly UffDa, I did refresh you.
    Since '98 we have sold 60k+ tickets to every game, needing corporate help to snatch up the remaining for the first time in that streak last year.
    Also, how do you know that you are reflecting the preferences of the greater public?
    I would maintain that you are not.
    My evidence is thus:
    1) Attendance went up when the Metrodome was built - even in the lean 80's.
    2) The Metrodome was built with public input, and a majority of the public at the time supported an indoor stadium for the added use that it brought
    3) Surveys conducted by the Minnesota Vikings show overwhelming support for a retractable roof versus open air

    And finally, referencing Green Bay or Chicago and using it as a comparison to Minneapolis doesn't work.
    On average, Minny is a full 10 degrees colder than Chicago in November and December, and 5 degrees colder than Green Bay in both.
    http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Minneapolis+-+St.+Paul
    It may not seem like much, but 40 degrees in Chicago is a lot nicer for outdoor football than 30 in Minny.
    Since I believe you were familiar with the old Met, you know that it was by far the coldest field in the NFL.
    Yes, there are extreme days in both Chicago and Green Bay, but no where near the consistency that there was in Bloomington.
    Some points are valid, but others are not. As to the part about public input, do you remember when the dome funding passed in the legislature? they did it in a night session when people were in bed(midnight i think) because there was a great amount of resentment towards an indoor stadium. The reason that was used to justify it was that corporations would use the tickets as perks and business people would not want to sit in the cold so the indoor was necessary, but the legislature faced opposition by the public at large.

    As far as the temperature difference, you have to also consider 2 other things: Chicago is by a major lake and gets higher moisture from that,which makes you feel colder than the actual temp and the prevailing winds which give the city it's windy city name also contribute to a comfort level that is certainly no better than the metro area. green bay is also by the lake and gets lake effects snow and the same chilling winds which make it less comfortable than the metro area. I am not sure how many times you have been to soldier field or lambeau,I have been to both in late December and they are certainly the equal of any conditions you will find in Minneapolis.Their fans just don't worry about it.

    As we have discussed in the past, if the team wants to fold the roof back and build a stadium, I am fine with it as long as they foot the bill.

  9. #29
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,604
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    It is good you posted since '98, which is basically the Randy Years. He is gone and for the last 2 years, if you remember, it was back to business as usual. Or did we have no problems selling tickets over the last 2 years? Refresh me on that one because I could swear there were deadline extensions and ticket buyouts in order to prevent blackouts.

    And I am not projecting my preferences to the Vikings fan base, I am reflecting the preferences of the greater public,which the team needs to tap in order to fill those seats beyond the core of fans who will buy tickets regardless like yourself.

    In your last point you pretty much sums it up even if it is hard for you to accept. If you look at the Packers and the Bears, they both have outdoor stadiums and have no problem with attendance even though their stadiums are not climate controlled. They have fans who will go to a game even if it is-30 degrees. Even in climate controlled comfort this state does not have the loyal base that will fill the stadium regardless of the amenities or the conditions. It may be a bitter pill but it is the case.
    Silly UffDa, I did refresh you.
    Since '98 we have sold 60k+ tickets to every game, needing corporate help to snatch up the remaining for the first time in that streak last year.
    Also, how do you know that you are reflecting the preferences of the greater public?
    I would maintain that you are not.
    My evidence is thus:
    1) Attendance went up when the Metrodome was built - even in the lean 80's.
    2) The Metrodome was built with public input, and a majority of the public at the time supported an indoor stadium for the added use that it brought
    3) Surveys conducted by the Minnesota Vikings show overwhelming support for a retractable roof versus open air

    And finally, referencing Green Bay or Chicago and using it as a comparison to Minneapolis doesn't work.
    On average, Minny is a full 10 degrees colder than Chicago in November and December, and 5 degrees colder than Green Bay in both.
    http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Minneapolis+-+St.+Paul
    It may not seem like much, but 40 degrees in Chicago is a lot nicer for outdoor football than 30 in Minny.
    Since I believe you were familiar with the old Met, you know that it was by far the coldest field in the NFL.
    Yes, there are extreme days in both Chicago and Green Bay, but no where near the consistency that there was in Bloomington.
    Some points are valid, but others are not. As to the part about public input, do you remember when the dome funding passed in the legislature? they did it in a night session when people were in bed(midnight i think) because there was a great amount of resentment towards an indoor stadium. The reason that was used to justify it was that corporations would use the tickets as perks and business people would not want to sit in the cold so the indoor was necessary, but the legislature faced opposition by the public at large.

    As far as the temperature difference, you have to also consider 2 other things: Chicago is by a major lake and gets higher moisture from that,which makes you feel colder than the actual temp and the prevailing winds which give the city it's windy city name also contribute to a comfort level that is certainly no better than the metro area. green bay is also by the lake and gets lake effects snow and the same chilling winds which make it less comfortable than the metro area. I am not sure how many times you have been to soldier field or lambeau,I have been to both in late December and they are certainly the equal of any conditions you will find in Minneapolis.Their fans just don't worry about it.

    As we have discussed in the past, if the team wants to fold the roof back and build a stadium, I am fine with it as long as they foot the bill.
    As a former Chicago-land resident, I disagree with that completely.
    Chicago is in no way equal to the conditions in Minnesota in November or December.
    And for the record, on the extreme days, Soldier field does not sell out.
    Their fans DO worry about it.
    Green Bay is also not as cold IMHO (I have been there as well, but not in late december), and there is a different culture associated with it because tickets are hard to come by.
    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=

  10. #30
    vikingivan is offline Star Spokesman
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: Remembering the Old Met

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "vikingivan" wrote:
    Paul prefers the Dome to the Old Met.
    How can it be?
    The Old Met was better just for the tailgating if nothing else.
    One sea of purple.
    The entire lot tailgating and having a good time.
    There is no sea of purple at the dome.
    Just small ponds of purple scattered around.
    The tailgating situation was much better at the Met, no arguments there.
    But that is the only place where the Met beat out the dome.
    Plus, remember the nice warm Sundays in September watching football outside.
    In October it was perfect football weather many times.
    Temperature in the mid 50's and sunshine.
    It wasn't quite as nice in November and December, but it was still fun.
    I would rather watch a football game outdoors regardless of the elements.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Remembering Wally Hilgenberg-Purple People Eater
    By ConnecticutViking in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-03-2010, 08:56 PM
  2. Sports Stories Worth Remembering
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 05:35 PM
  3. Remembering the AFL
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 06:28 AM
  4. Remembering count no snap
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 12:59 PM
  5. Remembering MNF, 9/11
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 06:44 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
  •