Jump to content

OnWis97

Members
  • Posts

    15,156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by OnWis97

  1. I like the side with the Lombardi Trophy, but I don't like how busy it looks with all those years squeezed in. The other side would be nice, but I hate that they used "New York Football Giants". I wish that term would go away. It's been nearly 60 years since that distinction was needed. Still a great ring overall though, because the top (the most important part) is beautiful.
  2. While that could keep some fan-based pressure down, I don't think it will scare the NFL off. I think a big part of the reason the NFL may not be big in LA is because it's been gone so long. But with USC no longer the undisputed darlings of college football, and most of the other things you cite quite fluid, I'd say the NFL would have no doubt that a team could be supported in LA. It seems generally believed that there will be two teams. Most two-team markets in NFL/other sports have some history (albeit fading history for Jets/Giants) have some general geographic ties for fan bases. If two teams come into the same stadium at the same time, it'll be interesting to see who become fans of each.
  3. I tend to agree with all of this. I am not certain to what degree the NFL really cares about having LA, but what I am quite certain they do care about is not getting team(s) to LA while there are still other teams out there with unresolved stadium situations. They want to get places like Minnesota, St. Louis, and San Diego with nice new shiny stadiums (preferably with almost no private financing). Having, say, Jacksonville and San Diego move to LA with unresolved stadium issues in Minnesota and St. Louis would have killed their big threat. True, but that's because the stadiums are pretty much ready to go forward, as soon as a team is ready. Obviously there are a multitude of details, but they've cleared the big hurdles. And as you note, that's exactly where the league wants them. The NFL is quite happy to keep those stadium proposals floating out there as leverage in their negotiations with existing municipalities. Worked very well in Saint Paul. So to what extent is the NFL trying to slow this down? I'd not be surprised if they are doing everything the can until those last couple of taxbases pony up...
  4. Except the off-campus Metrodome experience sucked for the Golden Gophers and the University doesn't like having to sell beer on campus. Are the Gophers good enough to demand a stadium of their own, I mean when is the last time Minnesota has been relevant in the NCAA? The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is the flagship university of a major public university system AND compete in one of the premiere athletic conferences in the country. That alone merits an on campus stadium. It's almost not a question of whether the Gophers are "good enough to demand a stadium of their own". It's that they are bad enough to demand a stadium of their own. When that Metrodome was built, they went to it because they thought it would help recruiting playing indoors (even though it's not often that cold when the season ends in November) and in an NFL stadium. Turns out that enhancing their status as second-fiddle to the more-beloved NFL did not work out. So to have any hope of being competitive in the B10, they needed to get back on campus and have an atmosphere that is not inferior to the other 10 (now 11) teams in the conference. FWIW, it's a great stadium. Totally appropriate to college football. I do question whether they'll ever be truly competitive...I could see them going the next 50 years with no B10 title game appearances...but playing off campus in the NFL's stadium was not going to get it done. Since I went away from MN to school (thankfully I have some teams that are competitive), I am OK with them stinking, but if I was a Gopher fan, I'd almost have been hoping for the Vikings to move. Minnesota was a premier college football program (5 or so National titles) until the Vikes came around. I guess in the 1980s, we'd have laughed at the idea of Wisconsin going to 5 Rose Bowls in less than a 20-year period. So you never know...this is a great facility and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'll turn the gophers around. The Vikings and Gophers have divergent needs. The Gophers need on-campus, smaller (so as not to have thousands of empty seats whenever non-Iowa/Wisconsin teams are in town), and "collegiate." The Vikes need more parking than campus has, and they need an NFL-esque ginormous monstrosity. So for each team, the respective new stadium makes sense. That said, it would have been WAY smarter to get them together and, as much as I prefer college football, let most things defer to the Vikes. The U of M could have made a contribution (though probably small if not on campus), the public could have been way more sold on its contribution (since it's more efficient than two stadiums...and the flagship university makes it more defensible), most importantly, a lot of money would have been saved. In my ideal world, it would have been on campus but constructed more for the NFL. This would have hurt the college atmosphere some, but the U of M deserves that. They tore their old stadium down almost immediately upon construction of the Metrodome, shortsighted to say the least. We act like we're "different" in Minnesota, but with XCel Center, Target Field and these two football stadiums, we shell out money for sports with the best of 'em.
  5. However, are retractable roof stadiums designed with weatherproofing in mind? I know that's always something that comes up when people suggest ripping the roof off Tropicana Field or Edward Jones Dome. I don't know, but I doubt it. You're right - they can't just simply pull off a roof, because the buildings generally aren't designed to handle any rain, there was no drainage pattern built into the structure. I know that used to come up from time to time about the metrodome and that was always the response. Whether it was the drainage, pipes or whatever...they could not just rip off the room and move on.
  6. It's pretty close to done. Both houses have passed a bill and the governor's been behind it all the way. It's been a strange saga that's been going on for years. And recently, there've been times when it has not looked good. I don't know that I'd call it a good sign that Commissioner Goodell can just come in and threaten and turn the thing around. But admittedly I sadly able to put "sports" ahead of "what's right". The gambling they are using to fund it will prey on the poor, but then again, gambling is a tax on stupidity. Better than taking it all out of general funds. http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_20593218/vikings-stadium-senate-debate-begins I just hope that with all the head issues that are coming out that football does not cease to exist before this thing is constructed...
  7. I like the design. Plus, if you don't like to wear a ring, you can use it as a paperweight.
  8. Things may get more dire in Minnesota today/tomorrow. Or they may start looking up. The House is currently debating on a stadium bill...rumors and guesses are rampant. Who the hell knows? Just wake me when it's decided.
  9. I tend to agree with your premise that the league wants the Vikings to stay in Minnesota. I don't exactly know why. Is it just the long-term rivalries of the NFC North? They've been together (with the Bucs for a while) for 50 years, but the Vikings are the least significant of those four teams. But yeah, he was there almost out of desperation. He was there to threaten, not cut 'em slack. Why's it not working? Simply put, the people don't want it, and that's cutting the political will. In order to get it done, they'll have to blatently step around laws that require a public referendum (which nobody thinks would have a chance of passing). So now we're looking to go all Target Field on it...open air to cut the cost. Won't go for a billion dollars? Maybe $600 million is the way. If you spend your Twin Cities days listening to sports radio, then it seems like a lot of people want this to happen...but in no other forum will you find much besides disdain for the league's arrogant demands and the notion of paying for most of a billion dollar stadium in bad economic times. In order for this to happen, some politicians are going to have to do a little spitting in the face of their constituents (but fear not, nobody ever gets voted out for this stuff). It's not looking good (if you feel that "good" is getting a stadium deal done), but somehow (like after a long battle for the twins), these things seem to find a way to get done; and that's what the haters (pessimistically) and the lovers (optimistically) seem to think.
  10. Just saw these on twitter. Very nice I must say. I agree. See what happens when it's not 100% covered in diamonds.
  11. Minnesota does have fan support, but if they don't geta stadium done that won't mean anything. I don't think they want the Vikes to move, but they'll let it happen if it must.
  12. Well, that's it. Time to load up the moving trucks... It's all but a done deal. These legislators carried out the will of the people. Good for them. This should be the last season of Vikings football in Minnesota. I'll be weird, but so be it. Almost a billion dollars for ten games a year? Not worth it.
  13. I totally agree. Actually, what I don't agree with is what you are almost implying: that it would make sense if he was the "undisputed" best ever. Even if he is, so what. That's no reason for a league-wide retirement. To me, Gretzky is the greatest. But Robinson's league-wide honor is about his cultural significance. Just retiring a number leaguewide for "the best player" is silly.
  14. Yeah not bad. I like the "color to diamond" ratio better in the 1980s and 1990s, but today, all you can ask for is this much color and not all diamonds. The blue around the logo at least gives it some "pop"
  15. Oh man, those stupid circa 2006-2007 gradient undershirts. Those were awful. Yup. They were so bad that the MLB passed a law that said that undershirts had to be all-one-color on the parts exposed or something. For awhile, I actually liked them, mostly because I was twelve when they first debuted. I think that pattern was the manufacturer's (Nike?) way of getting around the rule that their logo could not be shown. I suppose this was MLB's way of making sure manufacturers did not start making these designs, rendering the undershirts un-"uniform" as a Nike-sponsored teammate's pattern would greatly differ from reebok-sponsored teammate's pattern. Good idea, MLB.
  16. Vikes are pretty close now: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/141027143.html
  17. I absolutely agree. This was a great update. I wish they'd kept this through to today. But of course they decided to come out with practice jerseys for edge update, which probably hastened the desire to go back to the old. This is one of my top 10 all time NHL jerseys; maybe even top 5.
  18. Well if it was put to a vote, it would lose huge. But I guess I am losing any surprise (except how the SF Giants ballpark was done)...extortion works.
  19. The merry-go-round continues. I am not seeing the momentum. You have a populace that does not want to pay tax dollars for it and a team/league that wants more, more, more. It's time to let the Vikings go. Edit: I don't follow that closely (wake me up when it's decided), so I may have been a few days behind: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/02/17/vikings-stadium/ I still say it's time to let 'em go.
  20. Not if you've seen how horrendous NHL fashion sweaters can get. I've seen plenty of examples, thanks. Neither of the two Oilers knockoffs posted here come close to being "on par" with any NHL fashion sweater I've ever seen. yeah, you're talking about two different things. Yes, NHL has some ugly fashion jerseys (see the two above jerseys), but from a quality perspective, the Oiler knockoffs are comically bad, unlike the official jerseys. Those official fashion jerseys suck, in my opinion, but they don't display the poor quality of the Oiler ones.
  21. Some of your quality points are taken...but like with other poor-quality products, hopefully people send them the message by not buying them.
  22. My first thought was that the Kemp jersey looks OK, but look at the transition from the orange-ish color to yellow on the circle and compare to the real thing. Also note the outlines...looks like the real one has a way thicker yellow and thin red on the "40", whereas the ebay ones are the same width. The color of the ball looks gray on the ebay one and pretty much the dull orange of the real ball on the Kemp photo. There are a few other small things too.
  23. Not only do they know they are buying a fake, they brag and flaunt it. I have to disagree with you about this. The people on this site? Yes, they would know whether or not they're buying a fake. But almost any other sports fan would be clueless. People really underestimate how much the average fan knows about uniforms. Truthfully, they don't know anything about logos and uniforms. Most of the sales of counterfeit uniforms are fans that don't realize what they're buying is fake. People that know they're getting a fake but go ahead with it anyway, sure these people definitely exist, but they don't make up nearly the amount of people that buy counterfeits unknowingly. A large portion of my fans are Detroit sports fans and could careless about logos and jerseys. They all have fakes (Lions and Wings) They know they have fakes and are ok with it because they saved a few bucks. I suppose we all have anecdotal stories on this, but while I agree with -Dan on the issue in general, I tend to think that most people don't recognize that they are getting fake jerseys. Of course us "nerds" get it and most of us can pick 'em out. But it seems to me that most people don't notice some of the things we do. They don't notice "bubbly numbers" or even incorrect details. They don't remember that Player X was gone before that jersey even existed or that that old Twins wordmark should not match that current twins sleeve patch. I can only speculate the degree to which they would care if they did know...(Probably not alot) I'd say most fake jersey owners just think they found a good deal and that most that get their product with the big wordmark (MLB), wrong number font, slightly wrong color, etc. don't really notice it.
  24. I can... Wisconsin State Senator George Petak. He cast the deciding vote for Miller Park's public financing, and was recalled by his district over it. But your point is well taken, it's very rare. And I think you're right - the Vikings are in the end going to have to settle for a couple years of playing at the University of Minnesota and then take the downtown site. Parking be damned. Actually, I meant losing a seat in Minnesota (over the Dome, Target Field, etc...). People talk tough about it then forget it.
  25. The overall tone of this thread is that the Vikings are very close to a deal. That's just not true. You are correct about the church's site. That's dead. The Vikings want Arden Hills for the "Gameday Experience" (translation: parking revenue), but that requires a bunch of very costly highway improvements. I think most of the political powers prefer the Metrodome site. However, that would mean 3 years of playing at the U of M stadium, which apparently is not possible without putting a bunch of money into un-needed campus parking just to satisfy the NFL's criteria for 24 games. Add to it that the cost is WAY more than the Twins ballpark and the financial times are WAY worse than they were when the Twins deal was done...this area is generally weary of public financing (Of course stadiums get built and nobody has a recollection of anyone losing an elected seat over it). There are all sorts of undecided things right now involving funding (which would come through some gambling, which is drawing ire from the tribes). I am not saying it's not going to get done, but it's got a ways to go. I am a Vikings fan, but I think the best thing is probably to say to the team and league: "You can have the Metrodome. You can play there or you can tear it down and build something else. They can play at TCF Bank Stadium while building, but we will not ruin our campus with additional parking spaces; be less rigid on this requirement since it's a temporary situation. We will not pour 9 figures into highway improvements for the Arden Hills site. If you don't think this is adequate then move." I don't want the Vikings to leave, but I am sick of their greed and their feelings of entitlement. I know this is how it works nowadays, and I accept it. If we let 'em go, I'll be strangely proud of that, though it will be a sad day as well. They are not playing the "we'll move" card too hard now, but they obviously will. We'll survive without the NFL...without these 8 games per year. This is Minnesota, most of us will just forgive and become Packer fans (hell 20% of us are).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.