PDA

View Full Version : Remembering the Old Met



NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 02:40 PM
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 shitty 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...

U_pXtetLNhM

marstc09
06-03-2008, 03:37 PM
Never got a chance to experience the Met. When did they stop using it? I might not have even been born.

NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 03:50 PM
It was officially closed after the Vikings game on Dec 20, 1981.
I don't think it was demoed until a few years later though.

marstc09
06-03-2008, 04:00 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


It was officially closed after the Vikings game on Dec 20, 1981.
I don't think it was demoed until a few years later though.


I was 2 years old. It would have been cool to see it though.

gregair13
06-03-2008, 04:12 PM
I wasn't even alive when it closed.
That is such an old video. wow.

BloodyHorns82
06-03-2008, 04:23 PM
Old video, but neat step back in time.

Purple Floyd
06-03-2008, 04:33 PM
Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

BloodyHorns82
06-03-2008, 04:37 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.
;D

jmcdon00
06-03-2008, 05:06 PM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D

I'd be fine if they played in the parking lot. But the NFL is all about money.

i_bleed_purple
06-03-2008, 05:25 PM
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 Shitty stadium, especially for football.
There are some parts where the lower level stands are 40 yards away from the field.

NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 05:36 PM
"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?

NordicNed
06-03-2008, 05:37 PM
Never did get to see it myself, but I know I would have loved to sit at the Met and watch a Vikings game.
I do remember watching games played there on TV though, and yes, in black and white..LOL



I did get to watch the Giants and Vikings play in a big snow storm at the Yale Bowl though, in New Haven, CT....That was an open stadium and they played there because the meadowlands was being built at the time.




You guessed it, the Yale Bowl is where Yale University played sports...It was their home field..

Jimmymeboy
06-03-2008, 05:47 PM
Thanks for that little stroll down memory lane, Nokak!
I was only there for a handful of twins games, but I remember it fondly and will keep my fingers crossed that we get a new retractable roof stadium some day.

NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 05:49 PM
"Jimmymeboy" wrote:


Thanks for that little stroll down memory lane, Nokak!
I was only there for a handful of twins games, but I remember it fondly and will keep my fingers crossed that we get a new retractable roof stadium some day.


+1

NordicNed
06-03-2008, 05:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Jimmymeboy" wrote:


Thanks for that little stroll down memory lane, Nokak!
I was only there for a handful of twins games, but I remember it fondly and will keep my fingers crossed that we get a new retractable roof stadium some day.


+1


+2
;)

singersp
06-03-2008, 06:10 PM
The last time I was there it was for baseball, not football.

The twins still had Harmon Killebrew, Tony Oliva & Rod Carew. It had to be the early 70's

Purple Floyd
06-03-2008, 07:00 PM
"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

NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 07:56 PM
"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.

shockzilla
06-03-2008, 08:46 PM
I was at a Vikes/Rams playoff game when I was a kid, I think the one where Bobby Bryant blocked a FG and ran the ball back for a TD to ice the game and a trip to the Super Bowl.

NordicNed
06-03-2008, 08:53 PM
"singersp" wrote:


The last time I was there it was for baseball, not football.

The twins still had Harmon Killebrew, Tony Oliva & Rod Carew. It had to be the early 70's




Here's one I'll never forget Singer.... Rod Carew called me
" Chubby "
at the wall near third base in Fenway Park.
I was only maybe 12 years old, so it had to be around 1972.....LOL



It's a long story

;D

shockzilla
06-03-2008, 08:54 PM
Ned, chubby? NAAAWWWWWW!!!!

Big-boned, MAYBE.

;D

BadlandsVikings
06-03-2008, 09:24 PM
stupid mall of america

Purple Floyd
06-03-2008, 09:40 PM
"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.
;)

Frostbite
06-04-2008, 01:06 AM
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!

vikingivan
06-04-2008, 08:53 AM
"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...

U_pXtetLNhM


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.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 09:30 AM
"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.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 09:50 AM
"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.

Purple Floyd
06-04-2008, 12:56 PM
"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.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 01:02 PM
"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.

vikingivan
06-04-2008, 01:08 PM
"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.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 02:03 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


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.


Actually I just caught that last part.

The roof benefits the state more than the team.
If Zygi wants to fund a stadium himself, and he wants it to be open air, more power to him.
But if he expects any public money, which to me is the best solution, than it is imperative that it have a roof, retractable or otherwise.

vikingivan
06-04-2008, 02:27 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


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.


Actually I just caught that last part.

The roof benefits the state more than the team.
If Zygi wants to fund a stadium himself, and he wants it to be open air, more power to him.
But if he expects any public money, which to me is the best solution, than it is imperative that it have a roof, retractable or otherwise.


Without a roof there is no chance of hosting another super bowl.

Formo
06-04-2008, 03:04 PM
"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

Well, first off.. that $1 billion 'stadium' isn't just a stadium.
I don't think I've brought it up here, but I will now anyways..
$617 million of that billion actually would go towards that stadium.
So, if you want to use that argument, then please use the $600 million number, not the $1 billion.
The rest of the money would go toward a retractable roof (which could go on later) parking, the winter gardens, and neighboring urban development (including the streets).
Basically, overhaul the east side of downtown.
And if that's the case, then, explain again, why should Wilf foot the entire bill?

"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


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.


Actually I just caught that last part.

The roof benefits the state more than the team.
If Zygi wants to fund a stadium himself, and he wants it to be open air, more power to him.
But if he expects any public money, which to me is the best solution, than it is imperative that it have a roof, retractable or otherwise.


Without a roof there is no chance of hosting another super bowl.

Yup.
That would be the whole reason behind Ziggy gettin' a retractable roof new stadium here..
Would help bring money to the state, too.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 04:26 PM
"Formo" wrote:


"vikingivan" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


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.


Actually I just caught that last part.

The roof benefits the state more than the team.
If Zygi wants to fund a stadium himself, and he wants it to be open air, more power to him.
But if he expects any public money, which to me is the best solution, than it is imperative that it have a roof, retractable or otherwise.


Without a roof there is no chance of hosting another super bowl.

Yup.
That would be the whole reason behind Ziggy gettin' a retractable roof new stadium here..
Would help bring money to the state, too.


Not to mention the fact that without a roof, that vast majority of non-football/baseball events currently held at the dome could not happen.
Concerts, Monster Truck Shows, Rodeos, RV/Boat shows, Rallies, etc... none of the could take place without a roof.

NodakPaul
06-04-2008, 04:29 PM
"Formo" wrote:

$617k of that billion actually would go towards that stadium.
So, if you want to use that argument, then please use the $600k number, not the billion.



I am guessing you meant 617 million, not thousand.
But I understood your point.

Formo
06-05-2008, 02:02 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Formo" wrote:

$617k of that billion actually would go towards that stadium.
So, if you want to use that argument, then please use the $600k number, not the billion.


I am guessing you meant 617 million, not thousand.
But I understood your point.


Oops.
My bad.
lol
Good thing yer a smart guy, otherwise we'd be going in circles.
Haha


Aaaaaaand I fixed it.

singersp
06-05-2008, 04:57 AM
"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.
;)


So basically what you are saying is a team that fills their stadium 3/4 full does not deserve a new one, but a baseball team that does much less than that does?

Prophet
06-18-2008, 06:50 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1

Purple Floyd
06-18-2008, 08:07 AM
"singersp" 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.
;)


So basically what you are saying is a team that fills their stadium 3/4 full does not deserve a new one, but a baseball team that does much less than that does?


Nope, nothing of the sort.

I have never said that I don't want the team to get a new stadium, I have only stated that I do not believe in the general public financing a significant portion of it. I feel the same way about the twins stadium and after a few years when the newness of that stadium wears off and it isn't selling out the state is going to have to kick in extra money to float that one too.

NodakPaul
06-18-2008, 12:20 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?

Prophet
06-19-2008, 08:44 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.

NodakPaul
06-19-2008, 12:56 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


How many times were December games at the Old Met half empty?
Especially if it was a poor opponent or a game that had little impact?
And this was back in the day when the Vikings were a perennial power house and the only alternative was a shitty TV broadcast.
Yet even then the majority of fans stayed away in bad weather.

The Met was a much worse venue that the Metrodome ever was.
The only thing the Met had was tailgating.
Everything else just plain sucked.

I guess I don't understand what gave some of you the right to decide what "true" football is and isn't.
Why am I less of a fan just because I would rather have a roof in December?
At least I go to games and support my team.


To imply that your choice of football venue is somehow a measure of your toughness, or that I or anyone else would have a tough time "eeking out an existence outside out cubicles" just becaue we prefer a roof is stupid and narrow minded.
I am pretty sure that the time I spent "eeking out an existence" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc are a better indicator of my fortitude than the comfort level I prefer when sitting in seats that cost me almost a grand each.
How many times have you sat in a bunker in full chem gear while the Patriot missle batteries blew up Scuds overhead?
I also spent three years in Fairbanks, AK, going through Arctic Survival school and teaching Air Base Defense.
And while some of you were watching the 1998 NFC Championship from the comfort of your homes, I was watching it in a tent 26 miles south of the Iraqi border on AFN with a TV that we weren't supposed to have in county in the first place.
My fire team was there supporting anti-terrorism operations during Desert Fox.
When I was a cop, I've been shot at, pepper sprayed, bitten and spit on, all in the course of my duties.
For two years I taught cops at Grand Forks AFB how to effectively use Pepper Spray, ASP batons, and close combat fighting.


Don't give me any of this shit about whining and screaming like a pansy.
I've earned my right to be comfortable now.

Bkfldviking
06-19-2008, 05:04 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:




Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


How many times were December games at the Old Met half empty?
Especially if it was a poor opponent or a game that had little impact?
And this was back in the day when the Vikings were a perennial power house and the only alternative was a poohie TV broadcast.
Yet even then the majority of fans stayed away in bad weather.

The Met was a much worse venue that the Metrodome ever was.
The only thing the Met had was tailgating.
Everything else just plain sucked.

I guess I don't understand what gave some of you the right to decide what "true" football is and isn't.
Why am I less of a fan just because I would rather have a roof in December?
At least I go to games and support my team.


To imply that your choice of football venue is somehow a measure of your toughness, or that I or anyone else would have a tough time "eeking out an existence outside out cubicles" just becaue we prefer a roof is stupid and narrow minded.
I am pretty sure that the time I spent "eeking out an existence" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc are a better indicator of my fortitude than the comfort level I prefer when sitting in seats that cost me almost a grand each.
How many times have you sat in a bunker in full chem gear while the Patriot missle batteries blew up Scuds overhead?
I also spent three years in Fairbanks, AK, going through Arctic Survival school and teaching Air Base Defense.
And while some of you were watching the 1998 NFC Championship from the comfort of your homes, I was watching it in a tent 26 miles south of the Iraqi border on AFN with a TV that we weren't supposed to have in county in the first place.
My fire team was there supporting anti-terrorism operations during Desert Fox.
When I was a cop, I've been shot at, pepper sprayed, bitten and spit on, all in the course of my duties.
For two years I taught cops at Grand Forks AFB how to effectively use Pepper Spray, ASP batons, and close combat fighting.


Don't give me any of this pooh about whining and screaming like a pansy.
I've earned my right to be comfortable now.


+1
22 years military, cop in Manly Iowa, 7 years volunteer fireman (fireman to Lt), unit medic, medical section SGT, NBC NCO, etc..
My idea of "roughing it" is when the remote for the tv doesn't work at the Holiday Inn ;D

PacNWVike
06-19-2008, 06:25 PM
I have my seat from the Met and I will take my time restoring it for my den.
Thinking about chroming the metal parts.
What do you guys think?
Someday, when they blow up the Dome I'm getting a seat from there...
Another piece of history!

PacNWVike
06-19-2008, 06:32 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:




Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


How many times were December games at the Old Met half empty?
Especially if it was a poor opponent or a game that had little impact?
And this was back in the day when the Vikings were a perennial power house and the only alternative was a shitty TV broadcast.
Yet even then the majority of fans stayed away in bad weather.

The Met was a much worse venue that the Metrodome ever was.
The only thing the Met had was tailgating.
Everything else just plain sucked.

I guess I don't understand what gave some of you the right to decide what "true" football is and isn't.
Why am I less of a fan just because I would rather have a roof in December?
At least I go to games and support my team.


To imply that your choice of football venue is somehow a measure of your toughness, or that I or anyone else would have a tough time "eeking out an existence outside out cubicles" just becaue we prefer a roof is stupid and narrow minded.
I am pretty sure that the time I spent "eeking out an existence" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc are a better indicator of my fortitude than the comfort level I prefer when sitting in seats that cost me almost a grand each.
How many times have you sat in a bunker in full chem gear while the Patriot missle batteries blew up Scuds overhead?
I also spent three years in Fairbanks, AK, going through Arctic Survival school and teaching Air Base Defense.
And while some of you were watching the 1998 NFC Championship from the comfort of your homes, I was watching it in a tent 26 miles south of the Iraqi border on AFN with a TV that we weren't supposed to have in county in the first place.
My fire team was there supporting anti-terrorism operations during Desert Fox.
When I was a cop, I've been shot at, pepper sprayed, bitten and spit on, all in the course of my duties.
For two years I taught cops at Grand Forks AFB how to effectively use Pepper Spray, ASP batons, and close combat fighting.


Don't give me any of this shit about whining and screaming like a pansy.
I've earned my right to be comfortable now.


Grand Forks Air Force Base...
Know it well. OSI Det 1313/CC 1986-89.
Aim high Bro!

MaxVike
06-19-2008, 09:00 PM
I remember going to a game in 1980 when the Vikes and the Bucs combined for over 1000 yards.
Vikes were down at halftime and Bud opened up the passing game with Tommy Kramer.
Vikes won 38-30.
I was a freshman at he University of South Dakota; Dad and I were in one of the end zones, and drank at least a million Olympia beers (remember Olympia at the Met boys?).


I also remember tailgaiting as a young lad...eating brats, freezing my ass off, then screaming for our beloved Vikes.
I'm torn between outdoor and indoor, however, one thing is seemingly certain; the Vikes need a new lair.

NodakPaul
06-20-2008, 09:51 AM
"PacNWVike" wrote:


Grand Forks Air Force Base...
Know it well. OSI Det 1313/CC 1986-89.
Aim high Bro!


Very cool.
Have you been back since?
I was there 97-2000, although on deployment for much of the time.

i_bleed_purple
06-20-2008, 01:04 PM
"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.

;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


so lets pretend for a second that Wilf decides he wants a nice big outdoor stadium.
When the vikings aren't doing terrifically well, and theres a cold December game, how many people do you think will show up?
I would say MAYBE half.
so when that happens year in and year out, how long do you think the Vikings will keep playing in Minnesota?
Not too long.
Wilf will either sell the team to a new owner (who will likely move them) or he'll just move them again.
Then there's a bigass outdoor stadium that will get no use.
Like others pointed out.
If they couldn't fill half of the old tiny shitty Met stadium in cold weather, what makes you think they can fill a huge 65k+ stadium in the same conditions with a weaker team?

jargomcfargo
06-20-2008, 01:17 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PacNWVike" wrote:


Grand Forks Air Force Base...
Know it well. OSI Det 1313/CC 1986-89.
Aim high Bro!


Very cool.
Have you been back since?
I was there 97-2000, although on deployment for much of the time.


I drove by it 2 weeks ago on my way to and from Devils Lake. I don't see much for planes there the last few years. I used to see the tails sticking up behind the fence all over the place. What gives?

PacNWVike
06-20-2008, 01:34 PM
I haven't been back since 89.
They lost the nuclear lawn dart mission but I thought they stii had a tanker wing

NodakPaul
06-20-2008, 02:12 PM
GFAFB is still a tanker wing, but last I heard most of their planes were deployed.

Purple Floyd
06-20-2008, 06:25 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"BloodyHorns82" wrote:




Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.
;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


How many times were December games at the Old Met half empty?
Especially if it was a poor opponent or a game that had little impact?
And this was back in the day when the Vikings were a perennial power house and the only alternative was a shitty TV broadcast.
Yet even then the majority of fans stayed away in bad weather.

The Met was a much worse venue that the Metrodome ever was.
The only thing the Met had was tailgating.
Everything else just plain sucked.

I guess I don't understand what gave some of you the right to decide what "true" football is and isn't.
Why am I less of a fan just because I would rather have a roof in December?
At least I go to games and support my team.


To imply that your choice of football venue is somehow a measure of your toughness, or that I or anyone else would have a tough time "eeking out an existence outside out cubicles" just becaue we prefer a roof is stupid and narrow minded.
I am pretty sure that the time I spent "eeking out an existence" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc are a better indicator of my fortitude than the comfort level I prefer when sitting in seats that cost me almost a grand each.
How many times have you sat in a bunker in full chem gear while the Patriot missle batteries blew up Scuds overhead?
I also spent three years in Fairbanks, AK, going through Arctic Survival school and teaching Air Base Defense.
And while some of you were watching the 1998 NFC Championship from the comfort of your homes, I was watching it in a tent 26 miles south of the Iraqi border on AFN with a TV that we weren't supposed to have in county in the first place.
My fire team was there supporting anti-terrorism operations during Desert Fox.
When I was a cop, I've been shot at, pepper sprayed, bitten and spit on, all in the course of my duties.
For two years I taught cops at Grand Forks AFB how to effectively use Pepper Spray, ASP batons, and close combat fighting.


Don't give me any of this shit about whining and screaming like a pansy.
I've earned my right to be comfortable now.


Well, there's always arena football. The seats are closer to the action and everything. Maybe Bon Jovi can hook you up with some tickets ;D ;D

NodakPaul
06-20-2008, 10:39 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:






Boy I miss that place. If we still played football outside like that I would have season tickets to this day. That place was typical Minnesota- Nothing fancy, exposed to the elements and a place where only the hardy felt comfortable.

That would be great...all the pussys who whine about rain and cold weather in outdoor stadiums could sit at home and watch it comfortably from their living rooms.
The rest of us "hardy folk"
can be pretending to be warm and comfortable inside the stadium enjoying a fantastic game of football in the elements.
;D


+1


-1 ;D

All you "hardy folk" weren't hardy enough to fill a smaller stadium in the glory years of the Purple People Eaters.
What on earth makes you think it would happen now?


If you're not tough enough to watch a football game played in the elements, where it is supposed to be played, then it's a sad day indeed.
The contolled climate people have money counting hands and would have a tough time eeking out an existence outside of their cubicles.

Could there be a worse situation than the metrodome?
Crappy tailgating, marginal stadium, marginal and lackluster entertainment surrounding the stadium for pre- and post-activities.
It's a bad venue all the way around.

It will probably end up being a retractable roof, although I'm not so sure how well that would function in the Minnesota climate when the freezing rains, subzero temps hit.
I suppose they could hire Z to climb up there with a hair dryer to make sure all the parts function before closing the roof.
Maybe something like they have in Dallas where the weather is invited in, but most of the fans are under cover.


I prefer taking the approach of sticking to the core of the foundations of the game, play outside.
Let the economists whine and scream like the pansies they are.


How many times were December games at the Old Met half empty?
Especially if it was a poor opponent or a game that had little impact?
And this was back in the day when the Vikings were a perennial power house and the only alternative was a poohie TV broadcast.
Yet even then the majority of fans stayed away in bad weather.

The Met was a much worse venue that the Metrodome ever was.
The only thing the Met had was tailgating.
Everything else just plain sucked.

I guess I don't understand what gave some of you the right to decide what "true" football is and isn't.
Why am I less of a fan just because I would rather have a roof in December?
At least I go to games and support my team.


To imply that your choice of football venue is somehow a measure of your toughness, or that I or anyone else would have a tough time "eeking out an existence outside out cubicles" just becaue we prefer a roof is stupid and narrow minded.
I am pretty sure that the time I spent "eeking out an existence" in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, etc are a better indicator of my fortitude than the comfort level I prefer when sitting in seats that cost me almost a grand each.
How many times have you sat in a bunker in full chem gear while the Patriot missle batteries blew up Scuds overhead?
I also spent three years in Fairbanks, AK, going through Arctic Survival school and teaching Air Base Defense.
And while some of you were watching the 1998 NFC Championship from the comfort of your homes, I was watching it in a tent 26 miles south of the Iraqi border on AFN with a TV that we weren't supposed to have in county in the first place.
My fire team was there supporting anti-terrorism operations during Desert Fox.
When I was a cop, I've been shot at, pepper sprayed, bitten and spit on, all in the course of my duties.
For two years I taught cops at Grand Forks AFB how to effectively use Pepper Spray, ASP batons, and close combat fighting.


Don't give me any of this pooh about whining and screaming like a pansy.
I've earned my right to be comfortable now.


Well, there's always arena football. The seats are closer to the action and everything. Maybe Bon Jovi can hook you up with some tickets ;D ;D


LOL.
Nicely played.