Vikings Message Board.Com

I'm excited about it. I may even try to get up there to see a game!

Isn't most of Tcf upper deck bleacher seats?

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Eh. Not really. I prefer our Doooome field advantage.

Excited about the new stadium though, but that's years away. Blah.

I think you can say goodbye for two years to any sort of home field noise advantage. And I'd sure hate to see the current Vikings offense or defense try to operate in the snow. Nothing you can do about that now, though.

I am also old enough to remember us playing in the cold, snow everywhere, can't see the yard lines, field turning white during the game... and we usually kicked butt. However those are the memories of a kid. The dome was finished as I was starting high school ('80 I think?) and I remember my dad being disgusted at them naming it the HHH Metrodome. He was not a fan of that family.

I never have been to a home game. Never had the expendable cash when we lived up there. I will be very glad to see the Vikes play outside again. I think it breeds a different kind of player. We have too many whiney-butt prima donnas in the league now. Football is for men, not wimps. Now if our team would man up.

Jeffbleedspurple wrote: I agree, this topic he been argued a 1000 times, but all you have to do is look at the times when the Vikings played outside and when they went indoors. They became soft and sissified. I believe our purple of old prided themselves on it.

Don't you guys think that the main reason they were good back in the day is because...they were actually good?

Also, I think, in general, men have become a little soft since the 70s.

You'll never have those good ol' days back. It's time to move on. Noise is our advantage now.

MelanieMFunk wrote:Don't you guys think that the main reason they were good back in the day is because...they were actually good?

I'd venture to guess "cold" would be a better advantage than "sound." I'd bet majority of NFL players would agree. Just opining with the best of'em. Yes, I like the thought of outdoor games in Minnesota, if only owners could find a way to maximize stadium profits with Mother Nature breathing her cold winds on their necks!

...wisdom

indianation65 wrote:I'd venture to guess "cold" would be a better advantage than "sound." I'd bet majority of NFL players would agree. Just opining with the best of'em. Yes, I like the thought of outdoor games in Minnesota, if only owners could find a way to maximize stadium profits with Mother Nature breathing her cold winds on their necks!

...wisdom

This is true. But who do we have the advantage over? Packers? Nope. Bears? Nope. Steelers? Nope. Giants? Nope. Ravens, Bengals, Jets, Patriots, Broncos, Chiefs, etc? Nope. Oh, but we DO have a supposed advantage over teams like the Cards, Cowboys, Dolphins, Lions, Jags, Bucs, Saints, Rams, Niners, etc. Ooooh goodie. I can see how well that "cold advantage" would have worked out for us over the last few decades. Those teams are toouuuugh.

Come on. The Vikings were good because they were good. It being "cold" wasn't even a main reason. It might have helped them a time or two, but I don't think a game here or there with a "cold advantage" is enough to make a team that good, as long as the Vikings were. Besides, it's only cold (like extra cold to actually be considered a true advantage) in Minnesota in December and after. So, for one to three games out of the season and the playoffs? Pretty sure they had to be good the first few months of football to even make that "cold" count, right? They were a good team with darn good football players, and from what I've heard, a pretty solid coach. The snow, wind, and cold didn't make them good, much like the Dome doesn't make us bad now. We have other reasons.

MelanieMFunk wrote:Also, I think, in general, men have become a little soft since the 70s.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Viagra was invented after the 70's ... oh wait ... what were we talking about again?

Jeffbleedspurple wrote:As some one stated the only other place to have weather late in the season as like in Minnesota would be Green Bay, But what you say is true, not really much of advantage over teams that also play outdoors, but I would bet these teams consider it an advantage over the Vikings going to their turf late in the season, the Vikings road record is god awful and even worst visiting teams in outdoor stadiums.

You're right about that, our overall road record took a nose dive after we moved into the dome.

76-70-5 (.520) on the road during the Met era
101-146-0 (.409) on the road during the dome era

However we've had a much better home field advantage at the dome than the Met.

91-56-4 (.616) at the Met
159-89-0 (.641) at the dome

Not included, a home game played at Ford Field in '10 vs the Giants, and the London game this year.

Reignman wrote:Nah, I'm pretty sure Viagra was invented after the 70's ... oh wait ... what were we talking about again?

You dirty dog!

However we've had a much better home field advantage at the dome than the Met.

91-56-4 (.616) at the Met
159-89-0 (.641) at the dome

Not included, a home game played at Ford Field in '10 vs the Giants, and the London game this year.

Ah, well, there goes that cold weather/outdoors advantage theory. Hmm. Yeah. I'm just gonna go with: They were good because they were actually good.

MelanieMFunk wrote:Ah, well, there goes that cold weather/outdoors advantage theory. Hmm. Yeah. I'm just gonna go with: They were good because they were actually good.

Well there you go being all logical and junk. Although one could argue playing outdoors at home prepares you to play better on the road.

I for one am very excited for this brief return to the days of my youth watching the snow fall and clouds of breath from the defensive players as other teams cower at the thought of playing there . I know there is no longer any fear of playing the Vikings but hey as a thirty something years fan of the Vikings I can dream about the past and hope for a glimpse of those bygone days of yore ! I do plan on making the 12 hour drive to Minny to check out at least one game played outdoors in December !

Who would the Vikings have an advantage over besides NE and GB? Everyone if they played in the super cold! They were good in the 70s, and playing outdoors helped. As to today, every season there are 4 really bad teams, 4 really good teams and the rest are all in the middle. The Vikes could exploit with the advantage and move up. However, dreams and opining for a spot in the big game, it matters not. They will have two years and back to climate control. All in all, fans don't truly care about specifics when in the long run a championship, down any path, is what the Vikes long to have. Curse it be that blasted curse that be!

...wisdom through pulling for a win over the Seahawks! Yes, anything can happen in 4 quarters!

indianation65 wrote:Who would the Vikings have an advantage over besides NE and GB? Everyone if they played in the super cold! They were good in the 70s, and playing outdoors helped. As to today, every season there are 4 really bad teams, 4 really good teams and the rest are all in the middle. The Vikes could exploit with the advantage and move up. However, dreams and opining for a spot in the big game, it matters not. They will have two years and back to climate control. All in all, fans don't truly care about specifics when in the long run a championship, down any path, is what the Vikes long to have. Curse it be that blasted curse that be!

...wisdom through pulling for a win over the Seahawks! Yes, anything can happen in 4 quarters!

I agree... I was all for an indoor stadium and now I think it would be nice to see them play outdoors.