NFC North Pissing Match

[ChicosBailBonds]

Doesn't matter who's favored. 

Sure it does....if you go to the Super Bowl as a heavy underdog because you're the inferior team, then why should they have been expected to win the game?  Whereas if you are supposed to win and choke it, that's a different story.  See New England last year.  See Green Bay vs Denver.

You do realize that some teams make it to the Super Bowl that shouldn't have, meaning it's a great feat.  They finally succumb in the title game but if it's too a vastly superior team I don't see the shame in that.

That's why I asked the question.

If the Vikings were supposed to win all 4 or half of them vs being the underdog in all 4, that does make a difference in my mind in what should have happened and how they should be viewed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/

Vikings favored by 12 over Chiefs
Dolphins favored by 6.5 over Vikings
Steelers favored by 3 over Vikings
Raiders favored by 4 over Vikings

The Chiefs victory in Super Bowl IV ranks as a tie for the third greatest upset ever behind the Jets over the Colts and the Patriots over the Rams.  It is tied with the Giants over the Patriots.  (To be fair, the Broncos victory over the Packers ranks just behind this.)

Thank you Sultan.

[NavinRJohnson]

See Green Bay vs Denver.

I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and  a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.

[Jay Bee]

Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and  a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter.

BS.  Betting lines are a great indicator.  For example, most every betting line says the Vikings are most likley to win the NFC North.  That's because it's the truth.  We are the best team. 

Although this Bobby Wade thing is very strange.  Always seemed like a great guy.  On the field, he led us in receptions in each of the last two seasons, but... that's not saying much.  He was well liked by his teammates and I hope this doesn't cause any significant problems on the field (if we lose any games this year, I blame it fully on the Bobby Wade matter). 

Rain keeps coming in and out of the forecast for tomorrow night when my Gophers take on Air Force in our new stadium... I may buy a poncho or something, but I need something that I can keep in my pocket if its not raining.  What do you guys do when you're at Lambro Field or Soldier Field 3000? 
PXI: "Nothing, I use the rain as an opportunity to take a free shower.  It's not too often I find time to clean up."
Navin: "A trash bag.  It's economic and after spending $7 on a big Miller Lite (yeah dude, I'm flippin ripped!!) it's good to save money."
wad'sworld: "Whatever daddi chris brings.  He is so thoughtful.  I get real chilly when its cold and snowy out, but my girlfriend keeps me warm.  Her 'extra layers' keep her warm n toasty" 

 

[GGGG]

I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and  a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.

I'm a Packer fan, and I will go to my grave thinking that the Packers should have won that game.  They were the better team.  I don't care what Denver did the next year, the Packers f**ked it up big time on the defensive side of the ball.

I have never seen a replay of the game, and when "highlights" come on the television, it makes me want to puke because the Packers simply f**ked it up.

Can you tell I'm still bitter???

[pillardean]

Sure it does....if you go to the Super Bowl as a heavy underdog because you're the inferior team, then why should they have been expected to win the game?  Whereas if you are supposed to win and choke it, that's a different story.  See New England last year.  See Green Bay vs Denver.

You do realize that some teams make it to the Super Bowl that shouldn't have, meaning it's a great feat.  They finally succumb in the title game but if it's too a vastly superior team I don't see the shame in that.

That's why I asked the question.

If the Vikings were supposed to win all 4 or half of them vs being the underdog in all 4, that does make a difference in my mind in what should have happened and how they should be viewed.

Ok that is your rational.

The point I made is that it doesn't matter if they were favorites or not, because the fact remains they haven't won a Bowl (I in fact did look up the odds before posting, "it doesn't matter," and didn't bother to retort because it really doesn't matter when looking at a franchise as a whole.)

In Super Bowls:

The Pack are 3-1 and favored in each.

The Vikings are 0-4 and favored in one. 

But still the only thing that truly counts are wins.

In my post I was knocking the franchise that was 0-4 in Super Bowls.  They main part of the critique was the "0." 

There is a flaw in the rational that favored/unfavored has anything to do with the franchise and super bowl wins. 

I'll begin by argueing that be an underdog is in fact worse than being favored, but at the end you will see why even this argument is unwarrented to your explanation why favored/unfavored matters.

If, in all the time that the Vikings were never really expected to win the Super Bowl (except in '70) then the team has not had a great season (1997-1998 being an exception).  In being a fan of that team, which hasn't won a Bowl and which hasn't been a favorite but one time, the outcome is still the same "0" bowls. 
You look at it as being a "feat" to win the game if one is an underdog compared to the favorite.  And I agree, it is a feat; however, it is also a feat just to win the SB if you are the favored team.  The discrepancy of favored/underdog is minuscule in the scheme of the whole--winning a Championship, because of the variables involved in a one and done Championship (injury, poor play by a significant contributer, exception or poor preparation for offensive/defensive schemes, etc. that would not present itself in a Series format like Baseball, Basketball or Hockey). 

I was critiquing the franchise base; a franchise, in which you poignantly point out, that has been favored only once in the Bowl--and that was '70.  If true, wouldn't that imply a greater ineptitude towards the Viking franchise than improving its quality?  For being the underdog says, "well you're here, maybe you shouldn't be here, maybe you should-but you're not good enough to win and we really don't expect a whole lot."  If one were to be the favored and win it shows the power and capability to achieve that power at the greatest height throughout the season, if a favored team lost it could be due to anyone of the multiple causes listed above or over-hype, which would still have the same result as a non-favored team--a loss. 

In fact when you ask who was favored in the argument of being "0-4" in Super Bowls it would be a deductive fallacy in that it really has nothing to do with not winning a Super Bowl.  But if you are hung up on that, I have provided an argument that would say that being the underdog most of the time would only heighten the "puceness"* of the franchise rather than relieve it.

*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color. 
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful. 

[Jay Bee]

*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color. 
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful. 

  Hey, thanks for the definition!  I'll return the favor and help you with some words, my Packer-backer buddy:

rationale - noun
rational - adjective

arguing - to argue
argueing - not a word

unwarranted - an actual word
unwarrented - not a word

...on and on.  Maybe you're just using your major of 'creative writing', whatever that is, and such style of writing allows for and is accepting of being incorrect.  I'm not sure - more of a numbers guy myself. 

Average IQ of fans that attend games in the NFC North?   I'd say it goes Chicago - Minnesota - Detroit - Green Bay.

[pillardean]

  Hey, thanks for the definition!  I'll return the favor and help you with some words, my Packer-backer buddy:

rationale - noun
rational - adjective

arguing - to argue
argueing - not a word

unwarranted - an actual word
unwarrented - not a word

...on and on.  Maybe you're just using your major of 'creative writing', whatever that is, and such style of writing allows for and is accepting of being incorrect.  I'm not sure - more of a numbers guy myself. 

Average IQ of fans that attend games in the NFC North?   I'd say it goes Chicago - Minnesota - Detroit - Green Bay.

Ahh, thank you.

one letter differences, needed that help. 
worry about those details, keep on worrying 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would say that one is actually counter to your argument...In retrospect, which was also proven out the following season when Denver had essentially the same team, Denver was the better team and probably should have been favored. At the very least they should not have been the heavy dogs they were. Betting lines are a function of evening out the money, and  a reflection of perception, not necessarily how good the teams actually are (although most of the time, they are in sync), so they really don't matter. Being an underdog does not always mean you are the inferior team, it simply means you are the underdog in the eyes of the people placing bets.

Green Bay should have been favored and they were favored heavily.  Favre played poorly, several costly turnovers turned the tide early and the Green Bay defense decided to mail it in.  It wasn't like they were a 4 point favorite...if I remember correctly it was a double digit point spread which means heavily favored to win.  Something like 12 points.

I don't see how Denver should have been favored, they couldn't even win their own division in their conference.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's fine Pillar, but I look at it from the perspective of expectations.


Minnesota went to 4 Super Bowls...that's a great accomplishment.  They lost all 4, that's not great...but they were supposed to lose 3 of them so the only I one I would say they underachieved in is the one they were supposed to win.

You are correct, that doesn't make them any less than 0-4.  But it's like the Buffalo Bills of the 1990's.  People joke around about their 4 losses, I don't view it that way.  Number one, they made it to 4 straight Super Bowls.  No one has ever done that and may never again.  Great accomplishment.  In at least two of those games, they played a vastly superior team in the Dallas Cowboys and lost (they played Dallas very tough in one of them). 

Just because a team has a goose egg for Super Bowl wins isn't the whole story in my opinion. 

[Jay Bee]

http://www.startribune.com/local/59027052.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUs

Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams won't be barred from playing this season under a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The appeals court affirmed U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson's rulings in the banned-substance case involving the players.

---------------------------
Could be a mess in Minneapolis tomorrow - Twins game at noon, Obama at Target Center at 12:30pm, Gophers game at 6pm (with festivities starting very early).

[NavinRJohnson]

I don't see how Denver should have been favored, they couldn't even win their own division in their conference.

LOL! They were 12-4 and finished second to the Chiefs who went 13-3. The following season they went 14-2. That also started a run of the AFC going 8-3 in Super Bowls and counting.

They should have been favored (at least the line should have been smaller) because more people should have bet on them because they were the better team. The Packers defense played bad...favre made mistakes...duh...maybe they just weren't that good. The line means nothing relative to which team is actually better. People thought the Packers were better (and obviously still do), even though actual on-field results in that game and those that came before and after, tell a decidedly different story.

[pillardean]

http://www.startribune.com/local/59027052.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUs

Minnesota Vikings Kevin and Pat Williams won't be barred from playing this season under a ruling today by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The appeals court affirmed U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson's rulings in the banned-substance case involving the players.

---------------------------
Could be a mess in Minneapolis tomorrow - Twins game at noon, Obama at Target Center at 12:30pm, Gophers game at 6pm (with festivities starting very early).

Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.

All NFL Federal Court cases are ruled upon in District 8.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Ok that is your rational.

The point I made is that it doesn't matter if they were favorites or not, because the fact remains they haven't won a Bowl (I in fact did look up the odds before posting, "it doesn't matter," and didn't bother to retort because it really doesn't matter when looking at a franchise as a whole.)

In Super Bowls:

The Pack are 3-1 and favored in each.

The Vikings are 0-4 and favored in one. 

But still the only thing that truly counts are wins.

In my post I was knocking the franchise that was 0-4 in Super Bowls.  They main part of the critique was the "0." 

There is a flaw in the rational that favored/unfavored has anything to do with the franchise and super bowl wins. 

I'll begin by argueing that be an underdog is in fact worse than being favored, but at the end you will see why even this argument is unwarrented to your explanation why favored/unfavored matters.

If, in all the time that the Vikings were never really expected to win the Super Bowl (except in '70) then the team has not had a great season (1997-1998 being an exception).  In being a fan of that team, which hasn't won a Bowl and which hasn't been a favorite but one time, the outcome is still the same "0" bowls. 
You look at it as being a "feat" to win the game if one is an underdog compared to the favorite.  And I agree, it is a feat; however, it is also a feat just to win the SB if you are the favored team.  The discrepancy of favored/underdog is minuscule in the scheme of the whole--winning a Championship, because of the variables involved in a one and done Championship (injury, poor play by a significant contributer, exception or poor preparation for offensive/defensive schemes, etc. that would not present itself in a Series format like Baseball, Basketball or Hockey). 

I was critiquing the franchise base; a franchise, in which you poignantly point out, that has been favored only once in the Bowl--and that was '70.  If true, wouldn't that imply a greater ineptitude towards the Viking franchise than improving its quality?  For being the underdog says, "well you're here, maybe you shouldn't be here, maybe you should-but you're not good enough to win and we really don't expect a whole lot."  If one were to be the favored and win it shows the power and capability to achieve that power at the greatest height throughout the season, if a favored team lost it could be due to anyone of the multiple causes listed above or over-hype, which would still have the same result as a non-favored team--a loss. 

In fact when you ask who was favored in the argument of being "0-4" in Super Bowls it would be a deductive fallacy in that it really has nothing to do with not winning a Super Bowl.  But if you are hung up on that, I have provided an argument that would say that being the underdog most of the time would only heighten the "puceness"* of the franchise rather than relieve it.

*puceness-stemming from Puce-a purplish brown color. 
Puce is awful to look at and can be used to describe many things awful. 

Ya know, the whole "you're team has never won a championship" thing is stupid, isn't it?

If you grow up in Chicago, and you know the Cubs haven't won in FOREVER, does it mean you shouldn't be a Cubs fan?

If you grow up in MN, and you know the Vikings went 0-4 in superbowls, should you chose NOT to follow the team?

Let's face it, in most cases our favorite teams are not "chosen", they are cast upon us by geography and family traditions.

OK, so the Vikes have never won a superbowl. Wow. Mind-blowing. I can't believe I wasted all of these years watching them. Thanks for setting me straight.

The Packers were HORRIBLE in the 1970s - 1980's. So what?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not a surprise in the least.
I would love to see that ruling in district 7 rather than 8.

Completely agree.

Those judges were probably wearing purple under their robes.

Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against the hallowed Green and Gold.

[wadesworld]

VaJay Jay, I'm do glad you've worked up the courage to once again make a fool of yourself after PXI so easily made you the laughing stock of MUScoop. Your posts make about as much sense as your SICK lyrics do. Any time someone says something you have no way to dispute it just goes back to you searching long and deep - to use your own words - to find the 2 mixed up letters in a person's full post and then making 3 year old personal attacks. You are really creative. And you're a numbers guy? Then you must not have a clue as to what the word consensus means. You had me fooled. I thought you were more of a music guy...your stuff is pretty fresh, brah

[pillardean]

All NFL Federal Court cases are ruled upon in District 8.

Yes.
That still doesn't change my curiosity.

Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy against the hallowed Green and Gold.

You're right.  
But it could be landmark, in its way for sports cases.  I am just curious if the Appeals would have heard it if the two weren't in the case or if the case was somewhere else.  

It's impossible to be completely objective.

Ya know, the whole "you're team has never won a championship" thing is stupid, isn't it?

If you grow up in Chicago, and you know the Cubs haven't won in FOREVER, does it mean you shouldn't be a Cubs fan?

If you grow up in MN, and you know the Vikings went 0-4 in superbowls, should you chose NOT to follow the team?

Let's face it, in most cases our favorite teams are not "chosen", they are cast upon us by geography and family traditions.

OK, so the Vikes have never won a superbowl. Wow. Mind-blowing. I can't believe I wasted all of these years watching them. Thanks for setting me straight.

The Packers were HORRIBLE in the 1970s - 1980's. So what?

Ohh I completely agree that being a fan is relative to birthplace.  I have been a Brewer fan all my life-and it's a struggle. (and being born in a small Westrn Wisconsin town I have hated the Vikings since birth)  

My initial post was in regards to why the Vikings haven't yet sold the season tickets not being an economic thing.  I made the point that if I were a Viking fan with no Super Bowls (although that doesn't really mean anything but I'm going to insert it every chance I get because it is a pissing match) and a crappy stadium I would rather watch the game at a local bar or at my house with friends rather than going to the game-which for me, I would do if the Packers weren't a great team as well-why drop the change on it unless I was going with a group friends?  

The part that you quoted was more of an argument against whether or not being an underdog while losing the SB game is different than being favored as to having an affect on the fanbase and the franchise.  I wanted to say that being favored would have been a boost to the fans (I say that in regards to buzz about the team, merhandise sales-I will use Yankees vs. Mets as an example with Yankees gear being soldly a great deal more than Mets.  You could say it is more of a "brand" thing with people not being Yankee fans purchasing the gear, but would that have happened if they weren't, despite a few dips, perrenial powers and favorites?).  I used the Vikings as the example rather than other teams without a SB because, well, this is an NFC North pissing Match at the Vikings are in the NFC without a SB.  

If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist.  Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times.  I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.

But have fun rooting for the Vikings. There is always hope for that first championship, as there is with me for the Crew.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

LOL! They were 12-4 and finished second to the Chiefs who went 13-3. The following season they went 14-2. That also started a run of the AFC going 8-3 in Super Bowls and counting.

They should have been favored (at least the line should have been smaller) because more people should have bet on them because they were the better team. The Packers defense played bad...favre made mistakes...duh...maybe they just weren't that good. The line means nothing relative to which team is actually better. People thought the Packers were better (and obviously still do), even though actual on-field results in that game and those that came before and after, tell a decidedly different story.

The following season, why do you keep bringing that up?  Every year is a different team.  Different key players, different injuries, different schedule, different conditions.  What they did one year to the next is a non-issue.

They were 12 point favorites, HEAVY favorites and laid a huge egg.  There is NO WAY Green Bay should have lost that game.  Favre was fast and loose with the ball (as would become the norm in playoff games) that gave Denver life and eventually the lead (confidence).  Plus the defense was terrible.

Let's also not forget that Green Bay were the defending champions.  You seem to be making a reverse argument here.  In one sense you are saying that Denver proved how great they really were because they went to the Super Bowl again the next year and won.  Yet, why isn't that same logic applied to Green Bay who was already in that same position of making it to the second straight Super Bowl, they were already a PROVEN great team but they simply played like crap that day.

[Moonboots]

BS.  Betting lines are a great indicator.  For example, most every betting line says the Vikings are most likley to win the NFC North.  That's because it's the truth.  We are the best team. 

Although this Bobby Wade thing is very strange.  Always seemed like a great guy.  On the field, he led us in receptions in each of the last two seasons, but... that's not saying much.  He was well liked by his teammates and I hope this doesn't cause any significant problems on the field (if we lose any games this year, I blame it fully on the Bobby Wade matter). 

Rain keeps coming in and out of the forecast for tomorrow night when my Gophers take on Air Force in our new stadium... I may buy a poncho or something, but I need something that I can keep in my pocket if its not raining.  What do you guys do when you're at Lambro Field or Soldier Field 3000? 
PXI: "Nothing, I use the rain as an opportunity to take a free shower.  It's not too often I find time to clean up."
Navin: "A trash bag.  It's economic and after spending $7 on a big Miller Lite (yeah dude, I'm flippin ripped!!) it's good to save money."
wad'sworld: "Whatever daddi chris brings.  He is so thoughtful.  I get real chilly when its cold and snowy out, but my girlfriend keeps me warm.  Her 'extra layers' keep her warm n toasty" 

 

Are these from the upcoming LP?  When and where can I find it?

You see, there's a certain level of entertainment in a pissing match when the jabs at a certain person are indicative of what that person actually represents.  That's what I'm doing. Understand?

Then there's this bull that you come up with.  They seem to be, forgive me, rather meek and feeble attempts at personal insults, all of which are of the "insert person you'd like to insult here" variety.  I must say, there was a time in this thread where you at least provided a mediocre challenge.  Those days are now over.  I expect better, and I'm consistently disappointed.  Kind of like you will be with the Vikings on a week to week basis this year.

Furthermore, your choice of topics have become increasingly disturbing.  I don't know what it is you want to know about my shower habits, but I'm really not planning on telling you.

At least you've moved up in the world to college-aged kids now.


We're past the high school stage.  It's a step in the right direction.


Now that's fresh.  Brah.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist.  Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times.  I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.
  

How soon we forget, for a fwe years the Packers struggled to sell out....games were played in Milwaukee to essentially save the team.  I went to several Packers games in the 1990's that were not sold out in time and thus blacked out locally (the 72 hour tv rule).  I'd have to look it up, but I don't even know if the Cowboys vs Packers game in 1991 at County Stadium sold out in time for the 72 hour rule.  That was Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek team that rolled in and if I remember correctly it was close to selling out but didn't.  It was fun to be at as a Cowboys fan, there were many of my fellow Pokes fans in the stands as the Boys won 20-17.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yes.
That still doesn't change my curiosity.

You're right.  
But it could be landmark, in its way for sports cases.  I am just curious if the Appeals would have heard it if the two weren't in the case or if the case was somewhere else.  

It's impossible to be completely objective.

Ohh I completely agree that being a fan is relative to birthplace.  I have been a Brewer fan all my life-and it's a struggle. (and being born in a small Westrn Wisconsin town I have hated the Vikings since birth)  

My initial post was in regards to why the Vikings haven't yet sold the season tickets not being an economic thing.  I made the point that if I were a Viking fan with no Super Bowls (although that doesn't really mean anything but I'm going to insert it every chance I get because it is a pissing match) and a crappy stadium I would rather watch the game at a local bar or at my house with friends rather than going to the game-which for me, I would do if the Packers weren't a great team as well-why drop the change on it unless I was going with a group friends?  

The part that you quoted was more of an argument against whether or not being an underdog while losing the SB game is different than being favored as to having an affect on the fanbase and the franchise.  I wanted to say that being favored would have been a boost to the fans (I say that in regards to buzz about the team, merhandise sales-I will use Yankees vs. Mets as an example with Yankees gear being soldly a great deal more than Mets.  You could say it is more of a "brand" thing with people not being Yankee fans purchasing the gear, but would that have happened if they weren't, despite a few dips, perrenial powers and favorites?).  I used the Vikings as the example rather than other teams without a SB because, well, this is an NFC North pissing Match at the Vikings are in the NFC without a SB.  

If you took offense to it, I do not apologize. I still hold to my claim that if the Vikings had ever done anything significant as a franchise these problems of selling seats would not exist.  Hell the Packers sold out all the games, or close to it, because they were at one time great and the rememberence carried over through the rough times.  I guess I wouldn't understand in regards to football the fandom of a team that has never had a "glory days" and I do pity you.

But have fun rooting for the Vikings. There is always hope for that first championship, as there is with me for the Crew.  

I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.

As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:

#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.

#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.

#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)

#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.

#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.

I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.


Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. 

[pillardean]

How soon we forget, for a fwe years the Packers struggled to sell out....games were played in Milwaukee to essentially save the team.  I went to several Packers games in the 1990's that were not sold out in time and thus blacked out locally (the 72 hour tv rule).  I'd have to look it up, but I don't even know if the Cowboys vs Packers game in 1991 at County Stadium sold out in time for the 72 hour rule.  That was Aikman, Smith, Irvin, Novacek team that rolled in and if I remember correctly it was close to selling out but didn't.  It was fun to be at as a Cowboys fan, there were many of my fellow Pokes fans in the stands as the Boys won 20-17.

Ohh I'll never forget those days!  Milwaukee family reuinions and my first Packer game! Great times. Don't know if they won or lost since I was 3.  

while attendance wasn't always sold out, they still had substantial attendance numbers--without corporate help.  When they did begin to do well you had to know someone in order to get tickets.  

The Vikings now are in a position where they will be up there for a potential playoff birth with the most dynamic running back of his generation, but no one is getting ready to pick up the tickets.  Odd, why?

One other thing, remember Green Bay is a very, very small market area.  The Twin Cities is no Chicago and a smaller market itself, but much larger than Green Bay--not to mention the wealth of the suburbs.  You are probably correct in saying that they began to play games in Milwaukee to keep attendances up and to save the franchise.  That makes sense considering it is a greater market and a lot of potential gamegoers would more readily go to a game down the road than making the journey up 43 to GB.  This is in opposition to the Dome being in the middle of the largest population density in Minnesota.  I wonder how many people would go to Viking games if they played in Duluth (which according to 2000 census have similar Metropolitan sizes)?  Probably not a whole lot.    

[Jay Bee]

I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.

As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:

#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.

#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.

#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)

#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.

#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.

I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.


Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. 

  Some of these do apply to every year, but the reality is this year for the Consensus Vikings, it's all about the economy.  115 sellouts in a row and being the Consensus pick to win everything this year proves it.  The economy is also why the NFL has changed how they do some things with regard to blackouts and video replays.  The NFL has flat out said the economy is an issue this year.  

  I think going to a Vikings game is like going to most football games - if you're ready to drink and be around a lot of loud people drinking, great.  If not, TV may be a better option.  

  Just a handful of games left in the Dome for the Twins... and tomorrow the Gophers are finally back outside.  Sad, but I think what it will take to finally get the Vikings into a new stadium is a Super Bowl Championship.  Fortunately, this year is a near-lock for that to happen.

  (PS - soon we will hear b1tching about the rain and cold at Gophers games, and the rainouts and weather conditions that are not ideal at Target Field).  

  Any stadium or arena can be made enjoyable if the team is great enough (see 87 and 91 World Series Champion Minnesota Twins, or every Marquette team at the Bradley Center).  

  Did any of you non-Vikings fans pick Cleveland this week?

[pillardean]

I'm not offended by the favorites vs underdogs thing. I don't really care about that argument.

As far as selling NFL tickets, I think it's a combo of the following things:

#1 Football almost as much fun to watch on TV as it is in person (it's better in a lot of ways). The NFL is becoming a victim of it's own television monster.

#2 Fantasy football and Sunday ticket are huge deals for hardcore NFL fans. I'm not saying it's preventing a lot of tickets getting sold, but it's certainly not encouraging people to go to the game. I know a lot more friends having "NFL parties" than actually go to a game. They talk fantasy smack, check scores, highlights, watch all of the games, etc.

#3 Economy (people are watching their entertainment dollars). Certain teams continue to sell tickets because they have a large fan base, or because the demand outweighs the supply, so when you get a chance for tickets, you take it (regardless of economy)

#4 (MN specific) The Metrodome "game experience" isn't a very good one. Nobody is going to romantically look back on their "first time in the dome". It's not a great place for football (could be remodeled to be decent), and the neighborhood is not really the center of nightlife/entertainment. There are certainly bars and restaurants to go to, but it's not a setting that naturally has a nightlife like Wrigleyville. Going to see the Vikes is like going to an NBA game. If you really like the team, you go. But, it's not a compelling experience that gets the casual fans excited about going.

#5 (MN Specific) You can make fun of this if you want, but people from MN (and WI for that matter) really enjoy their 3-4months of nice weather. It's hard to motivate a casual fan to go sit inside on a nice Sunday afternoon when they could be outside. The Twins have the same problem. The Gophers had that same problem.

I'm not going to pretend that any of these are the silver bullet answer, just all factors in how/why ticket sales can be explained.


Everybody feel free to take shots at me for trying to be rationale again. 

I agree with you on all points.

Except for one fact...
#3.

Everyone blames the economy.  The only thing the economy does is make us make a choice of what we desire.  My argument is (with a combination of the Dome, Fantasy hubbub-which is absurd by the way, why not check after the game?) is that the quality of performance, or past performance affects the fan's benefit factor.

If the Vikings had consistently, or even in stretches, produced quality as a franchise--the Dome decision as a place to play is included in the production of quality--then fans would weigh the benifets greater than the cost.  As it is now, it just isn't "worth it" to see the game at the Dome because of all the reasons you defined...

and....

the pathetic perfomance of the Vikings (which will happen once again be this year)