“What’s disturbing is how often we hear Goodell share his giddy excitement over the possibility of football in Los Angeles–a city that’s failed to sustain two previous franchises.”

So let me get this straight. You are against team moves, but it is OK for LA to lose a failing franchise but not OK for another city to lose its failing franchise?

When evaluating a team, as it pertains to wanting the team to move or not, you go back farther than just 10 years. Using your ridiculous choice of ten years means Packers fans would have been fine if the team wanted to move sometime in the 80s, you know, in the middle of their 20+ years of irrelevance, totally ignoring their historic success. Looking at the teams overall succes, not just recent short-term results, is the greater indicator of the teams value. 10 years is arbitary and quite frankly insane.

How exactly is a team’s winning percentage flawed? It’s fact! Or didn’t they really win all of those games? Do they take away wins if you don’t win it all? They’ve won numerous division titles as well as conferance championships, and while that isn’t the ultimate goal, it most certainly doesn’t constitute a loser.

I went back and read all of the comments and no one claimed the Vikings were more successful than the Steelers. Statements were simply made to contradict the claim that the Vikings were losers. Nothing more – nothing less.

Finally, if you would rather not have your hopes up over being tortured then truly you have a loser mentality. Give me a team that looks great (Vikings ’10, Patriots ’07) but doesn’t quite get the brass ring over the team that has constant years of a sub .500 record any day of the week. I’m sure most Viking fans would take last years tortured success over this years bungled failures.

My point is that if you go back 10 years, the Vikings look less promising, but going back 12 pads the stats in your favor. Regardless, even if you look at all time winning percentage, it’s a flawed way of looking at things. Using your numbers, the Vikings would be a more successful franchise than the Steelers and we all know that’s not the case. Now if you want to take that higher winning percentage and use it to rank the most tortured fanbases, Viking fans win in a landslide. At least the Lions are courteous enough to not get their fans’ hopes up.

Think of how much money can be raised on pull tabs and slots alone. If taxing us is the only way to get this thing done then tax us, and as soon as the stadium is built, then you can pay all the tax payers back with interest through tax credits.

A new stadium built by a guy like Wilf would be huge for this state. Not only would we collect a lot of income tax from the players who come through here, but with his plan not only would we would create a lot of new jobs, add more big business opportunites, but we would generate a lot of new money in the way of sales tax from all of us rubes loving on the new stadium.

The only thing I disagree with is the building of housing condos. We have plenty of housing, and really need to get that under control before we add more!!!

The surprising part of it really is the fact that the Vikings have been such a strong team through most of those 50 years. They are 5th all time in winning percentage and have basically packed a stadium for 50 years with very few exceptions. Of the teams without a super bowl, the Vikings are really the only good one historically.

And if you take away their first few expansion years, in which they were dreadful, the Vikings winning percentage is even higher.

Being a Vikings fan is good and bad. It is bad in the fact that we’ve never been at the top of the mountain. It is good in that more often than not they are fielding a good team and going to the playoffs.

Meh. The average team wins a superbowl every 32 years and that is a very small part of being a fan and enjoying the game. I pretty much don’t care at this point. It would be awesome if it happened but I’ll still enjoy any season in which they win at least a few games, even if it is disappointing.

supermariojosh says:
Jan 26, 2011 6:56 PM
Also the Dolphins and Browns in the AFC have better winning percentages, making the Vikings 7th all time.

——————————————

supermario -

Actually the Browns (@ .549) & 49ers (@ .548) winning percentage are both lower than the Vikings .551, so they are still 5th all-time, just not 2nd in the NFC.

I thought the winning percentage thing was since they’ve been in the league, meaning they had the 5th best since 1961,but I guess it is all-time.

Three of the four teams from the NFC North are three of the top five all-time best winning percentages – not bad representation.

12 seems like an arbitrary number to pad your stats. If you go back 10 years, the vikings actually have a .494 winning percentage and only 4 seasons with a winning record.

————————————-

Why is 12 (or a dozen) any more an arbitrary number than 10? Both are established and accepted incriments of measurement. Now if 7,8, 13 or 16 was used I could see your point. Wasn’t your use of 4 winning seasons in the last 10 years (leaving one to think the rest were losing seasons) just as arbitrary since they also had only 4 losing seasons as well during that time span?

Since the original post called the Vikings losers and said they should go to LA, shouldn’t we use more than just a decade to verify or disprove the statement? How about the last 25 years where the Vikings have experienced only 5 losing seasons? How about the 18 years before that where they had only 4 more losing seasons? Or maybe their entire existance (50 yrs) where they’ve had a total of 14 losing seasons, 5 of which were in their first 7 years (including the first three) of becoming an expantion team.

Over 70% of the Vikings’ seasons have been @ .500 or better. While they haven’t won the championship, 14 losing seasons over 50 years isn’t exactly the definition of a loser.

If you want to go that rout the Vikes have made it to 2 of the last 10 NFC Championships..the only team to make more has been the Eagles. Also the Vikes 8 appearances all time is 4th in in the NFC. All I’m saying is the Vikes might not be the best team but they do win a lot of games. All negative press and feelings aside, it would be hard for anyone biased or not to think it would actually be a good idea to move this team.

the green bay packers are this decades new england patriots or colts. they will win 11+ games a year until 2020. atleast 4 superbowl appearances, not including this one. they will win the division for the next 9 out of 10 years. Rodgers will break all the passing records.

the vikings are the new lions. this decade, they will be less than 8 wins per year every year. they gambled everything on this past year, and lost. big. teams never recover from that sort of greed and impatience.

peterson, rice, and harvin will not re-sign when that times comes. they will lose their veterans to retirement, or they will demand out.

the vikings deserve their collapse.

There are plenty of other NFL teams who do not have nearly the same fan support as the Vikings do so stop saying it will be the Vikes in LA and start saying one of them!!

This is good news the Mondale’s do have what it takes to get it going in the right direction!

Go LA Vikings, the purple and smog like color people eaters.

Ziggy Wilf is worth a funking fortune. Let him finance it himself.

You lose.

The NFC North wants the Vikings in Minnesota
___________________________________

With you 100% Vikes need to stay in MN–Never break upthe NFC North. Way too much tradition.

You like big strong Viking men, I thought you only liked Packers?

12 seems like an arbitrary number to pad your stats. If you go back 10 years, the vikings actually have a .494 winning percentage and only 4 seasons with a winning record.