Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Will a New Stadium Make the Minnesota Vikings a More Successful Franchise?

Bookmark and Share

50+ year analysis finds only modest increase in winning percentage for teams receiving new stadiums

With the Minnesota Vikings on track to perhaps tie their best ever regular season record, Brett Favre on pace to notch one of the best years for a quarterback in NFL history, and Vikings ownership getting more antsy each day about their current stadium, St. Paul is buzzing with the talk of how a new stadium deal with public funding can possibly be reached in light of a struggling economy and soaring state budget deficits.

While Vikings owner Zygi Wilf has not directly stated that a new stadium deal is required to keep the team in Minnesota, there are essentially only two reasons a franchise would want to move forward with a new stadium deal: 1) A new stadium would make the team more profitable for the Vikings ownership (and thus providing an incentive for the team to remain in Minnesota), or 2) A new stadium and facilities are needed to lure and retain top players to the franchise, and thus make the team better.

In the first part of a series of reports on the stadium issue, Smart Politics investigates the latter point and asks, "Will a new stadium lead to a more successful NFL team in Minnesota?"

A Smart Politics analysis of the impact of new stadiums on NFL franchises finds that while such facilities may have helped in some situations to keep teams from leaving their home towns for greener pastures, they have had only a slight positive impact on the team's ability to perform on the field. Overall, NFL teams have barely mustered a .500 winning percentage over the first five years after new stadiums were built.

Smart Politics examined the winning percentage over a five-year period before and after new stadiums were opened for 22 of the NFL's 32 teams dating back to the league's oldest stadium in operation, Lambeau Field, which opened in Green Bay in 1957.

Ten teams were eliminated from analysis due to insufficient "before" or "after" samples:

· The new stadiums for the Arizona Cardinals (2006), Indianapolis Colts (2008), and Dallas Cowboys (2009) all opened less than five seasons ago.
· The stadiums for the Jacksonville Jaguars and Houston Texans opened in the year the teams entered the league as expansion franchises (1995 and 2002 respectively).
· The St. Louis Rams' stadium opened in 1995, the year the team relocated from Los Angeles.
· The Tennessee Titans' new stadium (1999) opened just two years after the franchise relocated from Houston.
· The new stadiums for the Carolina Panthers (1996) and Baltimore Ravens (1998) opened just shortly after the teams began to play in those cities (one season and two seasons respectively).
· The Cleveland Browns were essentially an expansion franchise when the team returned with the opening of a new stadium in 1999 after a three-year absence from 1996-1998.

Overall, these 22 NFL teams compiled a .462 winning percentage (747 wins, 869 losses, 22 ties) across the five respective years before their new stadiums were built.

In the five seasons after the new stadiums opened, these teams notched a slightly better record, but only four games over .500. With 829 wins, 825 losses and 17 ties, the first five years brought these 22 franchises a collective winning percentage of just .501 in the first five years in their new respective facilities.

Thirteen NFL franchises improved during the five years after the opening of their current stadium: the Philadelphia Eagles, Chicago Bears, New England Patriots, Seattle Seahawks, Pittsburgh Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Washington Redskins, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, New Orleans Saints, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raiders, and Green Bay Packers.

The biggest turnaround occurred for the Oakland Raiders, who compiled a 26-41-3 mark (.393) in the five years before their new stadium in 1966 and a 53-13-4 mark (.786) including one Super Bowl appearance in the five years thereafter.

Nine franchises, however, recorded a lower winning percentage during the five years after the new stadium was built: the Detroit Lions, Denver Broncos, Cincinnati Bengals, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, New York Jets, Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego Chargers, and San Francisco 49ers.

The Vikings, of course, have been down this road before.

In the team's last five years at Metropolitan Stadium, the team recorded a 40-37-1 record (.519). In its first five years at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, the team only mustered a 32-41 record (.438).

If the Vikings ownership could somehow snare a new stadium deal at the Capitol, the team's 43-32 record (.573) over the last 4+ seasons would rank as the sixth best of teams receiving new stadiums - normally teams are performing worse on the field when ground is broken on new facilities. Only Indianapolis (.788), Miami (.746), Kansas City (.721), Denver (.700), and San Diego (.593) had better records in the five years leading up to the opening of their current new stadiums.

Of course, the regular season is but a means to an end - to make the playoffs and ultimately the Super Bowl.

In the five years before receiving new stadiums, these 22 franchises made 32 playoff appearances en route to four Super Bowl victories (the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl IV, Denver Broncos in XXXII and XXXIII, and the New England Patriots in XXXVI).

In the five years after receiving new stadiums, these 22 NFL teams made a nearly identical 35 playoff appearances en route to four Super Bowl victories (the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Super Bowl XXXVII, Pittsburgh Steelers in XL, and New England Patriots in XXXVIII and XXXIX).

Perhaps the only significant difference is that five additional teams during the "new stadium" period went on to appear in, but lose, the Super Bowl during the first five years with the new facilities - including four teams with new stadiums built this decade: the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX, Seattle Seahawks in XL, Chicago Bears in XLI, and New England Patriots in XLII. The Oakland Raiders also lost in Super Bowl II.

Just two teams went on to appear in and lose the Super Bowl during the last five years playing in their "old stadium" - the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowls XVII and XIX.

(Note: once the data for the three newest NFL data is folded in, that will add one Super Bowl victory to the "old stadium" tally, Indianapolis in Super Bowl XLI, and one Super Bowl loss to the "new stadium" column, Arizona in XLIII).

In sum, there appears to be a short-term trend of new stadiums correlated with greater success for NFL franchises that is bucking the long view and 50-year data sample: overall, there is only a very modest increase in winning percentage for teams with new stadiums.

NFL Franchise Record During the Five Years Before and After New Stadium Openings, 1957-2003

Team
Year
Before
%
After
%
Philadelphia Eagles
2003
42-38
.525
49-31
.613
Chicago Bears
2003
32-48
.400
43-27
.538
New England Patriots
2002
43-37
.538
59-21
.738
Seattle Seahawks
2002
40-40
.500
48-32
.600
Detroit Lions
2002
33-47
.413
22-58
.257
Denver Broncos
2001
56-24
.700
50-30
.625
Pittsburgh Steelers
2001
43-37
.538
55-24-1
.694
Cincinnati Bengals
2000
29-41
.363
28-52
.350
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
1998
34-46
.425
50-30
.625
Washington Redskins
1997
31-49
.388
40-39-1
.506
Atlanta Falcons
1992
26-53
.329
31-49
.388
Miami Dolphins
1987
53-18
.746
42-37
.532
Minnesota Vikings
1982
40-37-1
.519
32-41
.438
New York Giants
1976
21-48-1
.307
24-53
.316
New York Jets
1976
27-43
.386
26-50
.342
New Orleans Saints
1975
18-48-4
.286
24-50
.324
Buffalo Bills
1973
13-54-3
.207
31-39
.443
Kansas City Chiefs
1972
48-13-3
.721
30-38-2
.443
San Diego Chargers
1967
39-26-5
.593
36-30-4
.543
Oakland Raiders
1966
26-41-3
.393
53-13-4
.786
San Francisco 49ers
1960
30-29-1
.508
26-41-1
.390
Green Bay Packers
1957
22-37-1
.375
30-31-4
.492
Total
 
747-869-22
.463
829-825-17
.501
NFL team record data compiled by Smart Politics.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: On Eve of New Economic Forecast, Minnesota Prepares for Further Budget Strains
Next post: Inside the War in Afghanistan

6 Comments


  • It's not about the on-field performance, it's about franchise "market value" and Forbes Magazine is the scorekeeper.

    This year NFL franchises are valued at about 4.4X revenues. A new stadium will increase the Vikings revenues by about $50 million/y and the "market value" of the franchise will increase by well over $200 million.

    A chart a "market values" before and after new stadiums are built would be more informative.

  • I'm not knowledgeable enough about the specific figures presented above to pass judgment on them, but in general, I'm inclined to agree with Tony Spadafora's comment, which leads – logically enough, I think – to a fairly straightforward question: Why should the general public fund with its tax dollars a substantial increase in the "market value" of a privately-owned football team?

    If a new stadium is built, and the Vikings are sold at some future date to a new owner or owners, will the tax-paying public share in the $200 million increase in franchise value paid by the new owners? If a new stadium increases team revenue by $50 million annually, will that revenue increase be somehow shared with the public that built the new stadium?

    I think we all know the answers to those questions.

    There are few examples of corporate/business welfare more blatant than taxpayer-paid sports stadiums, and with virtually no tangible return to the public.

    I moved here from Denver, where the publicly-built "Invesco Field at Mile High" provides a shiny new facility while the team owner, whether the team's on-field performance is good, bad or indifferent, continues to line his pockets with the local public's revenue dollars.

  • I hate to break to you guys but your analysis appear flawed.

    Using a paired sample t-test, I rejected that the hypothesis that the winning percentage before the same stadium were the same as the winning percentage after the same stadium. That is, the difference between the winning percentages is due to the presence of a new stadium.

    The two-tailed t-value is 2.08, which exceeds the 1.96 cut off value at the .05 significance level. Thus, you must reject the hypothesis that there is no difference between two samples.

    This analysis does not mean that a new stadium will predict future success because that conclusion requires a different analysis.

  • > This analysis does not mean that a new stadium will predict
    > future success because that conclusion requires a different
    > analysis.

    No where in this report does it state (or advocate) that a new stadium will predict future success. All that is being reported here are the 5-year before and 5-year after records -- and there is only a a slightly higher (correlative) winning percentage after the new stadium is built.

    In fact, in the 'big picture' summation at the end of the report, the word "correlated" is specifically employed to describe the relationship:

    "In sum, there appears to be a short-term trend of new stadiums correlated with greater success for NFL franchises that is bucking the long view and 50-year data sample: overall, there is only a very modest increase in winning percentage for teams with new stadiums."

  • I'm a huge fan of Vikings and we always watch there game. I hope they win this season.

  • The increase of wins for a franchise after a new stadium is built can only have psycological source. It probably gives the players a push as there is more attention on them now than in their old stadium. However, the effect probably fizzles away and after a short period of time the team will (again) show it's true color.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Which States Have the Longest and Shortest Election Day Voting Hours?

    Residents in some North Dakota towns have less than half as many hours to cast their ballots as those in New York State.

    Political Crumbs

    No 100-Year Curse for Roberts

    Defeating his Tea Party primary challenger Milton Wolf with just 48.1 percent of the vote, Pat Roberts narrowly escaped becoming the first elected U.S. Senator from Kansas to lose a renomination bid in 100 years. The last - and so far only - elected U.S. Senator to lose a Kansas primary was one-term Republican Joseph Bristow in 1914. Bristow was defeated by former U.S. Senator Charles Curtis who went on to win three terms before becoming Herbert Hoover's running mate in 1928. Only one other U.S. Senator from the Sunflower State has lost a primary since the passage of the 17th Amendment: Sheila Frahm in 1996. Frahm was appointed to fill Bob Dole's seat earlier that year and finished 13.2 points behind Sam Brownback in the three-candidate primary field. Overall, incumbent senators from Kansas have won 29 times against two defeats in the direct vote era. (Curtis also lost a primary in 1912 to Walter Stubbs, one year before the nation moved to direct elections).


    The Second Time Around

    Former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez became the seventh major party or second place gubernatorial candidate in Colorado to get a second chance at the office when he narrowly won his party's nomination last month. Two of the previous six candidates were successful. Democrat Alva Adams lost his first gubernatorial bid to Benjamin Eaton in 1884, but was victorious two years later against William Meyer. Democrat Charles Johnson placed third in 1894 behind Republican Albert McIntyre and Populist incumbent Governor David Waite but returned as the Fusion (Democrat/Populist) nominee in 1898 and defeated GOPer Henry Wolcott. Gubernatorial candidates who received a second chance but lost both general elections include Democrat Thomas Patterson (1888, 1914), Progressive Edward Costigan (1912, 1914), Republican Donald Brotzman (1954, 1956), and Republican David Strickland (1978, 1986).


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting