Thread: Two interesting Vikings Stats

Ok, the first one, I'm sure many people here already knew, but I didn't notice it until someone mentioned it on NFL network.

So far this season (knock on wood ), the Vikings have given up 0 rushing touchdowns. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Awesome job by the defense. Especially on those goal-line stands in the past couple games.

The second stat I'm tempted to attribute almost entirely to Favre, and it should make our front office very happy. This is from an article about the Bengals avoiding a blackout this weekend:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/bengals/2009/10/16/its-a-sellout/ wrote:

Locally [in Cincinnati) ratings are up 23 percent with a 32.6 rating and 56 percent market share (it was 26.5/52 last year). That is the third biggest increase in the league with Arizona up 42 percent and Minnesota up 24 percent as the top two.

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I would say to a certain extent it is Favre.
Love him or hate him, but people watch him.

Also, we have a good team.
Favre makes it better, but we are good, and have explosiveness.

Now, hopefully they stay here

"josdin00" wrote:

...So far this season (knock on wood ), the Vikings have given up 0 rushing touchdowns. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Awesome job by the defense. Especially on those goal-line stands in the past couple games....

Awesome statistic.
Didn't realize that, pretty damn good after 5 games.

"josdin00" wrote:

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I don't think that we would have seen that kind of ratings boost without Favre.
Not because everyone is tuning in to see Favre (there is some of that too), but because this year people actually believe in the Vikings.
Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

"NodakPaul" wrote:

... Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

I like having a real QB, regardless of who it is.

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"josdin00" wrote:

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I don't think that we would have seen that kind of ratings boost without Favre.
Not because everyone is tuning in to see Favre (there is some of that too), but because this year people actually believe in the Vikings.
Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

The ratings are a result of the 'Sconnie effect

No rushing TDs, that's pretty impressive. I'd like to put a little astric next to that, as you've fased pretty bad running games, with Gore being out and that poor guys Jackson and Grant still running behind such porous O-lines. That said, even if you played the Browns 5 times, this'd be pretty impressive.

And Favre does indeed get the ratings up. We're not getting bombarded with all this Favre stuff for nothing, annoying as it might be from time to time.

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"josdin00" wrote:

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I don't think that we would have seen that kind of ratings boost without Favre.
Not because everyone is tuning in to see Favre (there is some of that too), but because this year people actually believe in the Vikings.
Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

The ratings are a result of the 'Sconnie effect

Agreed.

The Packer Viking game, a Monday night game at that, skewed the stats big time. I know our local ratings went up because of Favre, but what were those ratings before that game.

I can't agree that Favre will help the stadium push though. Once Favre is gone (2010? 2011?) so will the increased ratings & all the Favre bandwagoners that were fans of Favre & not the Vikings..

I don't think that the legislature will buy into building a stadium because of Favre pulling in viewers/ticket holders, becausee Favre will never be playing in it. Favre will be gone before the ground is ever broken for one.

We will eventually get our stadium, but not just because of Favre.

Also, last I heard 6,000+ season tickets remained unsold.

"singersp" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"josdin00" wrote:

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I don't think that we would have seen that kind of ratings boost without Favre.
Not because everyone is tuning in to see Favre (there is some of that too), but because this year people actually believe in the Vikings.
Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

The ratings are a result of the 'Sconnie effect

Agreed.

The Packer Viking game, a Monday night game at that, skewed the stats big time. I know our local ratings went up because of Favre, but what were those ratings before that game.

I can't agree that Favre will help the stadium push though. Once Favre is gone (2010? 2011?) so will the increased ratings & all the Favre bandwagoners that were fans of Favre & not the Vikings..

I don't think that the legislature will buy into building a stadium because of Favre pulling in viewers/ticket holders, becausee Favre will never be playing in it. Favre will be gone before the ground is ever broken for one.

We will eventually get our stadium, but not just because of Favre.

Also, last I heard 6,000+ season tickets remained unsold.

Way to look at the positive side.
:

Face it = having Favre certainly doesn't hurt ratings or stadium support.
And like I said, people are excited because we are winning (at least most people are).
That helps translate into both ratings and ticket sales increases (which we HAVE seen this year).

"singersp" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"josdin00" wrote:

So Minnesota's local ratings are up 24% over last year, a year when the team won the division. That's a whole lot more people engaged in what this team is doing, and represents a nice opportunity for revenue for the team (both advertising and merchandise), and a great way to build popular support for the stadium issue.

and I don't see that ratings boost happening, at least not to that extent, if this team didn't bring in Favre.

I don't think that we would have seen that kind of ratings boost without Favre.
Not because everyone is tuning in to see Favre (there is some of that too), but because this year people actually believe in the Vikings.
Last year with TJack and Gus, we were excited to win, but nobody really expected them to make it very far.
This year, with a real QB, we are suddenly a real threat - a real winning team.

Everyone said for a long time that the Vikings were a QB away from being great.
Well, we got a QB finally... And people are tuning in to see a great Vikings team!

The ratings are a result of the 'Sconnie effect

Agreed.

The Packer Viking game, a Monday night game at that, skewed the stats big time. I know our local ratings went up because of Favre, but what were those ratings before that game.

I can't agree that Favre will help the stadium push though. Once Favre is gone (2010? 2011?) so will the increased ratings & all the Favre bandwagoners that were fans of Favre & not the Vikings..

I don't think that the legislature will buy into building a stadium because of Favre pulling in viewers/ticket holders, becausee Favre will never be playing in it. Favre will be gone before the ground is ever broken for one.

We will eventually get our stadium, but not just because of Favre.

Also, last I heard 6,000+ season tickets remained unsold.

We better get our stadium or there will be alot of upset fans if the Vikings leave.
How are they going to pay for it?
That is the question.
In todays economy and the high taxes we are already paying no one is going to propose a tax to fund the
stadium.
I have heard slot machines at Canterbury Park.
Seems like a logical idea to me, let the gamblers pay for it.
Why not build a casino near the Mall of America?
Why because the native Americans will lobby hard against that.
Why should they have a monopoly on the casinos in Minnesota?
The checks each tribal member varies with tribal affiliation.
But, believe me my friends it is a large sum each month.