Vikes to share new Gopher Football Stadium - Permanently?

[illwauk]

If the Gophers do decided to share TCF with the Vikings, it should be with the understanding that the seating won't be expanded until the Gophers feel it's necessary.

Situations like these are why I don't like the NFL being in the same city as major D-1 football programs. One team always ends up stepping on the toes of the other. SMU was a national powerhouse before the Cowboys came along (although So Meth sped up their own undoing in the 80's), Pitt hasn't been they moved in with the Steelers and Temple got so bad that the Big East kicked them out of the conference. On the flip side, people used to joke that the only fans that showed up for the Cardinals games on Sunday were the drunks that passed out in the stands at the Sun Devils games on Saturday.

I like the idea of the Vikings moving to Blaine. The great thing about football stadiums is that people don't mind driving to the boonies on the weekend.

So because there are major D-I schools in cities such as Dallas, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the NFL should only go into cities that don't have'em? So, you think we need to relocate the Pittsburgh Steelers to Erie, PA and the Dallas Cowboys to Billings, MT? They don't have major colleges. Well, then LA shouldn't be whining about not having a team, either.

I wouldn't move the Cowboys now, but if it were up to me, I never would have put a team in Dallas to begin with. In fact, it's a pretty well known story that the AFL was started because the NFL refused to grant Lamar Hunt a team in Dallas (then ended up adding one anyway to be spiteful). Pittsburgh's a different story since pro football was a fringe sport when the Steelers first came to Pittsburgh. Over time, people just decided that they preferred the pro game, so it's just my preference (bias) for college ball speaking there.

But why does the NFL insist on cornholing franchises into markets that are so firmly behind the college game? After 40+ years the Falcons STILL aren't bigger than the Bulldogs and survive on the patronage of displaced northerners who go to see the team from "back home." And the only reason the Cardinals are still in Arizona is because Glendale has an Anaheim-like "Don't call us a suburb!" complex. It's clear that people in the Phoenix area still prefer the Sun Devils.

And to answer your question about LA... if they wanted a team that damn bad, they'd have one by now (LA is one of the few cities that conceivably has the money to spend on a stadium). Even as the "other" LA team at the moment, UCLA is drawing more people to the Rose Bowl than the Raiders did to the Coliseum in their last season in LA. Between the 60,000 people that go to the Bruins games and the 80,000 who see the Trojans at the Coliseum, there's up to 140,000 people every weekend who go to see football in LA as it is. It seems to me that the NFL wants LA to have a team more than anyone in LA does.

[McCall]

If the Gophers do decided to share TCF with the Vikings, it should be with the understanding that the seating won't be expanded until the Gophers feel it's necessary.

Situations like these are why I don't like the NFL being in the same city as major D-1 football programs. One team always ends up stepping on the toes of the other. SMU was a national powerhouse before the Cowboys came along (although So Meth sped up their own undoing in the 80's), Pitt hasn't been they moved in with the Steelers and Temple got so bad that the Big East kicked them out of the conference. On the flip side, people used to joke that the only fans that showed up for the Cardinals games on Sunday were the drunks that passed out in the stands at the Sun Devils games on Saturday.

I like the idea of the Vikings moving to Blaine. The great thing about football stadiums is that people don't mind driving to the boonies on the weekend.

So because there are major D-I schools in cities such as Dallas, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the NFL should only go into cities that don't have'em? So, you think we need to relocate the Pittsburgh Steelers to Erie, PA and the Dallas Cowboys to Billings, MT? They don't have major colleges. Well, then LA shouldn't be whining about not having a team, either.

I wouldn't move the Cowboys now, but if it were up to me, I never would have put a team in Dallas to begin with. In fact, it's a pretty well known story that the AFL was started because the NFL refused to grant Lamar Hunt a team in Dallas (then ended up adding one anyway to be spiteful). Pittsburgh's a different story since pro football was a fringe sport when the Steelers first came to Pittsburgh. Over time, people just decided that they preferred the pro game, so it's just my preference (bias) for college ball speaking there.

But why does the NFL insist on cornholing franchises into markets that are so firmly behind the college game? After 40+ years the Falcons STILL aren't bigger than the Bulldogs and survive on the patronage of displaced northerners who go to see the team from "back home." And the only reason the Cardinals are still in Arizona is because Glendale has an Anaheim-like "Don't call us a suburb!" complex. It's clear that people in the Phoenix area still prefer the Sun Devils.

And to answer your question about LA... if they wanted a team that damn bad, they'd have one by now (LA is one of the few cities that conceivably has the money to spend on a stadium). Even as the "other" LA team at the moment, UCLA is drawing more people to the Rose Bowl than the Raiders did to the Coliseum in their last season in LA. Between the 60,000 people that go to the Bruins games and the 80,000 who see the Trojans at the Coliseum, there's up to 140,000 people every weekend who go to see football in LA as it is. It seems to me that the NFL wants LA to have a team more than anyone in LA does.

Then where would you put teams? By your logic, there'd be no NFL at all. Or else they'd be being played in high school fields in Wyoming and Idaho (That is unless you count Boise State as a major program). These are major metro areas, thus the reason you put teams there.

[illwauk]

My quick math has 17 NFL teams in places that aren't in direct competition with "major" D1 programs. And that's not including teams in Tampa, Cincy, Chicago and Nashville whose NCAA teams' "major" status is (at-least) questionable. You could even question the status of the Gophers based on how terrible their program has been since they moved to the Metrodump.

Pretty much all of the NFL teams that are more popular than the local D1 team were there before the early 1960's (when the NFL became "mainstream"). The teams that were established in direct competition of a college program since then have struggled to find a fan base in those markets. The only exception (off the top of my head) is Miami, where the Dolphins had a string of titles within their first 10 years and the Canes didn't really come of age until the 80's.

[winghaz]

I'm all in favor of moving the Cowboys to Billings.

[Luigi74]

Pittsburgh's a different story since pro football was a fringe sport when the Steelers first came to Pittsburgh. Over time, people just decided that they preferred the pro game, so it's just my preference (bias) for college ball speaking there.

Pitt has been in pretty much the same standing in the Pittsburgh sports fans eyes since the 1920's, they have their core fans and then folks will jump on the bandwagon when they are good, a NFL team in the city isn't going to change that either way.

Wouldn't one of the big reasons the Falcons aren't "bigger" than UGA is due to the Falcons being one of the worst franchises in the NFL for most of their history.

[B-Rich]

My quick math has 17 NFL teams in places that aren't in direct competition with "major" D1 programs. And that's not including teams in Tampa, Cincy, Chicago and Nashville whose NCAA teams' "major" status is (at-least) questionable. You could even question the status of the Gophers based on how terrible their program has been since they moved to the Metrodump.

Pretty much all of the NFL teams that are more popular than the local D1 team were there before the early 1960's (when the NFL became "mainstream"). The teams that were established in direct competition of a college program since then have struggled to find a fan base in those markets. The only exception (off the top of my head) is Miami, where the Dolphins had a string of titles within their first 10 years and the Canes didn't really come of age until the 80's.

I think you're missing another NOTABLE exception, which is Tulane/New Orleans Saints. Tulane had been around for ages, and in fact was a football powerhouse in the thirties. It was, for all intents and purposes, "New Orleans' football team".

Then the Saints were awarded and began play in 1967, and since that time the two teams have always shared a stadium (Tulane Stadium, then Superdome). Tulane has in the years years since has had its fan base decline precipitously, even coming to point a couple of years ago of discussing the dropping of its football program, while the Saints have become the local team of choice, always featuring good crowds and now having a 35,000 or so waiting list for season tickets.

Of course, every situation is different, and requires its own explanation. The Tulane/Saints situation can be ascribed to three major things:

1. The racial situation at the time. Tulane, being a traditional private southern college, had few black students, essentially no black players, and for that matter NO black fan base other than those who may have gone to the games for "entertainment". Before the Saints came along in fact, Tulane Stadium was a segregated facility. It was local leaders like Dave Dixon, who in trying to acquire a pro franchise, got the state's laws regarding segregated sports facilities erased from the books (for pre-Saints NFL exhibition games). The Saints have never played in a segregated facility, and not surpisingly, garnered a rabid and large fanbase among the city's African-American community, who heretofore did not have any allegiance to a local college team.

2. Tulane's own decisions. Tulane's administration decided to "de-emphasize" atheltics in the early sixties, with perhaps the most telling move being their decision to leave the SEC. As a result, winning seasons have been few and far between, and so locals or casual fans don't come out to games.

Tulane over the same time period of their concurrence with the Saints changed the focus of the school in admissions and make-up of the student body. Tulane had traditionally been (for the most part) a prestigious academic institution but somewhat regional (southern) in nature, much like its counterparts Rice and Vanderbilt. Somewhere along the line, the school moved to become one of the most EXPENSIVELY high-priced institutions in the country, and concurrently broadened its geographic focus in searching for new students. Although the intent may have been to create a Stanford or Ivy League situation, instead what it has wrought is essentially this: a party-school for east-coast and midwesterners who couldn?t make it into the Ivy League.

Unlike as it may have been in the past (pre-Saints), locals don?t identify with Tulane anymore; instead of our city?s university, it?s ?that rich kids? school uptown?. Recent figures I have seen showed that over 85% of Tulane grads are not only from out of the state, but also from out of the region (Deep South). When they graduate, they tend to go back to Chicago, or Albuquerque, or Long Island. Tulane is lucky if they EVER come back, even for for a homecoming game.

3. The rise in "other" college attendees (and amount of colleges) in the baby-boom era. Around the time I was in graduate school in the late 80s, I saw a telling statistic. In the postwar years, about 5% (one in twenty) persons were college graduates, while in the 80s, the figure had jumped to one in 5 (about 20%) Just last week I saw a presentation that showed the number to be currently a little over 1 in 4 (26%). Here in the New Orleans metro area, most of those increases are coming from mostly public institutions. Some are about as new as the 60's pro teams (UNO, SUNO) while there was alos a good deal of expanding enrollment at LSU. Others go to nearby schools that have grown in size and focus since the baby-boom era (SLU, ULL, Nicholls State) often with their own athletic programs. These students and graduates have their own team to cheer for, not Tulane. just because it's "the local school"

[EatSleepJeep]

If the Gophers do decided to share TCF with the Vikings, it should be with the understanding that the seating won't be expanded until the Gophers feel it's necessary.

Situations like these are why I don't like the NFL being in the same city as major D-1 football programs. One team always ends up stepping on the toes of the other. SMU was a national powerhouse before the Cowboys came along (although So Meth sped up their own undoing in the 80's), Pitt hasn't been they moved in with the Steelers and Temple got so bad that the Big East kicked them out of the conference. On the flip side, people used to joke that the only fans that showed up for the Cardinals games on Sunday were the drunks that passed out in the stands at the Sun Devils games on Saturday.

I like the idea of the Vikings moving to Blaine. The great thing about football stadiums is that people don't mind driving to the boonies on the weekend.

1) It's Sid. He has no information besides his own fantasies and delusions. I think he's actually senile now.

2) If the Gophers were to share TCF with the Vikings I hope it would be a Bears/Illini situation where they're doing it while the Dome gets a needed facelift. Better lux boxes, more permanent signage, team identity, get rid of the bases/mound/moving seats, etc.

3) If they move the Vikings to Blaine, then the Goofs don't need to share at all as the Vikings will play at the Dome until they move. The Metropolitan Sports Commission will essentially be put out of business in this scenario.

[usahockeyrube]

I think the Vikes will eventually get their new stadium, somewhere out in Blaine.

Nothing ever happens in Blaine.

As a county employee I agree!

[quantum]

Considering the current economic environment, they should be sharing the same facilities. I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for two stadiums when they can get by with one.

As for the NFL being kept out of cities with major programs, that is ridiculous. Pro football, theoretically, displays the best of the best from what college offers. If it is about seeing your friends and family, then the college game falls to third behind high school. Fact is, there is room for both the pro and college game. If a team fails to gain a following, it is because said team fails to win on the field.

[Mings]

My quick math has 17 NFL teams in places that aren't in direct competition with "major" D1 programs. And that's not including teams in Tampa, Cincy, Chicago and Nashville whose NCAA teams' "major" status is (at-least) questionable. You could even question the status of the Gophers based on how terrible their program has been since they moved to the Metrodump.

Pretty much all of the NFL teams that are more popular than the local D1 team were there before the early 1960's (when the NFL became "mainstream"). The teams that were established in direct competition of a college program since then have struggled to find a fan base in those markets. The only exception (off the top of my head) is Miami, where the Dolphins had a string of titles within their first 10 years and the Canes didn't really come of age until the 80's.

I think you're missing another NOTABLE exception, which is Tulane/New Orleans Saints. Tulane had been around for ages, and in fact was a football powerhouse in the thirties. It was, for all intents and purposes, "New Orleans' football team".

Then the Saints were awarded and began play in 1967, and since that time the two teams have always shared a stadium (Tulane Stadium, then Superdome). Tulane has in the years years since has had its fan base decline precipitously, even coming to point a couple of years ago of discussing the dropping of its football program, while the Saints have become the local team of choice, always featuring good crowds and now having a 35,000 or so waiting list for season tickets.

Of course, every situation is different, and requires its own explanation. The Tulane/Saints situation can be ascribed to three major things:

1. The racial situation at the time. Tulane, being a traditional private southern college, had few black students, essentially no black players, and for that matter NO black fan base other than those who may have gone to the games for "entertainment". Before the Saints came along in fact, Tulane Stadium was a segregated facility. It was local leaders like Dave Dixon, who in trying to acquire a pro franchise, got the state's laws regarding segregated sports facilities erased from the books (for pre-Saints NFL exhibition games). The Saints have never played in a segregated facility, and not surpisingly, garnered a rabid and large fanbase among the city's African-American community, who heretofore did not have any allegiance to a local college team.

2. Tulane's own decisions. Tulane's administration decided to "de-emphasize" atheltics in the early sixties, with perhaps the most telling move being their decision to leave the SEC. As a result, winning seasons have been few and far between, and so locals or casual fans don't come out to games.

Tulane over the same time period of their concurrence with the Saints changed the focus of the school in admissions and make-up of the student body. Tulane had traditionally been (for the most part) a prestigious academic institution but somewhat regional (southern) in nature, much like its counterparts Rice and Vanderbilt. Somewhere along the line, the school moved to become one of the most EXPENSIVELY high-priced institutions in the country, and concurrently broadened its geographic focus in searching for new students. Although the intent may have been to create a Stanford or Ivy League situation, instead what it has wrought is essentially this: a party-school for east-coast and midwesterners who couldn’t make it into the Ivy League.

Unlike as it may have been in the past (pre-Saints), locals don’t identify with Tulane anymore; instead of our city’s university, it’s “that rich kids’ school uptown”. Recent figures I have seen showed that over 85% of Tulane grads are not only from out of the state, but also from out of the region (Deep South). When they graduate, they tend to go back to Chicago, or Albuquerque, or Long Island. Tulane is lucky if they EVER come back, even for for a homecoming game.

3. The rise in "other" college attendees (and amount of colleges) in the baby-boom era. Around the time I was in graduate school in the late 80s, I saw a telling statistic. In the postwar years, about 5% (one in twenty) persons were college graduates, while in the 80s, the figure had jumped to one in 5 (about 20%) Just last week I saw a presentation that showed the number to be currently a little over 1 in 4 (26%). Here in the New Orleans metro area, most of those increases are coming from mostly public institutions. Some are about as new as the 60's pro teams (UNO, SUNO) while there was alos a good deal of expanding enrollment at LSU. Others go to nearby schools that have grown in size and focus since the baby-boom era (SLU, ULL, Nicholls State) often with their own athletic programs. These students and graduates have their own team to cheer for, not Tulane. just because it's "the local school"

This is all very very true. I would say the vast majority of New Orleans, if they root for a college team, roots for LSU. I know I'm also one of the few that came down here for school and will be sticking around after graduation. Also, I could have gone to an Ivy League school, I just felt much more at home here.

Also, I think the Bengals played at Nippert Stadium (UC's stadium) for a year until Riverfront was completed.