nosidel

Hmmm, I've never actually heard anyone call NDSU "Aggies." Not sure what your point is.

That would only be hypocritical for those who have complained about UND's use of that nickname. For anyone else it's merely rude and offensive.

And your point is?

No, that's not naïve at all. It really isn't necessary to yell insults at a sport event. That doesn't mean I expect it to stop.

At least it's not hypocritical.

I don't agree that hypocrisy and hateful language is a mutual part of any great rivalry. Certainly not a necessary part.

Of course it's part of the history of the rivalry...an ugly part of it. But, part of the rivalry or not, using that nickname would be hypocritical. Not that I expect UND to use it.

Umm, that's kinda the definition of hypocrisy. Saying one thing when you really believe something quite different.

It might be a bit hypocritical to continue to make fun of NDSU's agricultural roots if you call yourselves the Sodbusters.

The Vikings have quietly assembled one the youngest and fastest teams in the league. Their speed in the defensive backfield is amazing. Zimmer is building a very good team. IMO, with AD the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years than the Cowboys.

You are engaging in the "Predetermined Outcome Fallacy." With hindsight, you know what happened in the game as it was played, and are expecting that a small change in the conditions under which the game was played would not have significantly affected the result. That reasoning is fallacious. For instance, let say that the underinflated footballs really do help Brady, if even just psychologically, and that with a properly inflated ball he throws a 1st half interception, or maybe has a drive-killing incompletion. Everything that happened in the game after that point would then change with unpredictable results. Perhaps that one play causes the Pats to call plays differently for the rest of the game, or maybe it inspires the Colts to greater efforts. The bottom line is that it's simply not possible to say that that change would not have affected the result of the game.

HGH and steroid use is a player health issue. Obviously, underinflated footballs are not. Treating the two forms of "cheating" differently is entirely appropriate.

Of course it can't be proven that the deflated balls affected the outcome of the game, but it can't be proven that they didn't either. Seemingly small changes in initial conditions can have a surprisingly large effect on results. Ask yourself this: if deflating the footballs is/was an insignificant factor in the outcome of the game why would anyone do it? The case of the Vikings game you mention is different because there was no intent to benefit either team at the expense of the other. Both teams wanted the footballs heated and were apparently unaware of the rules. IMO, there's no way to restore integrity to the outcome of the AFC championship game, and the Super Bowl, other than vacating the Patriot's championship. It's tainted forever.

In baseball, there are penalties for throwing spitballs. If a pitcher is caught throwing a spitball, those penalties will be enforced without regard to any effect that the spitball might actually have had on the game. For instance, If a pitcher is caught throwing a spitball and the batter hits a grand slam home run on that pitch, the pitcher is ejected and suspended anyway. And the team at bat gets to choose whether to keep the Grand Slam. The difference here is that New England WAS caught using deflated balls during the game, and yet no penalty was enforced at the time. So, whatever effect the cheating may have had on the game has been allowed to stand. Unfortunately, New England went on to win the Superbowl, which they could not have done had they not won the game in which they were caught cheating. So, we are now left with a situation that simply cannot be remedied short of taking away the SB win. Any other penalty will leave New England having benefitted from its cheating. I don't expect that the NFL will take away the SB win, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't.

In light of the fact that the Patriots won the Super Bowl. What punishment could possibly fit this "crime", other than taking away their tainted Super Bowl win? We can't know how much the deflated balls helped them win the Super Bowl. But, as long as that Super Bowl victory stands they will have benefited -- if only in a small way -- from their cheating. IMO, there's just no other punishment that can deter the Pats, and other teams, from engaging in this sort of behavior. Taking away draft picks, suspending or fining players and coaches, and so on still leaves the team with the NFL's ultimate prize -- a Super Bowl ring.

Except that the evidence says that the Vikings are consistently an above average team in terms of fan support. For instance, they only suffered a .6 point drop in TV ratings (33.4 to 32.8) between 2012 and 2013. You might recall that Vikings made the playoffs in 2012 and Peterson had one of the greatest seasons ever by a running back, while they were 5-10-1 in 2013 with Adrian ending the season on the bench injured. And they had a solid 31.3 rating (#11 in the league) in 2011 when they were 3-13. The idea that Viking fans are bandwagon jumpers is simply not supported by any facts. You can't say the same about a number of other teams.

The Vikings ratings have been remarkably stable. Despite the relatively poor record since 2010, their local ratings numbers have hardly changed at all ... 2.1 points or less, up or down, between any two years. During that same time period, the Seahawk's ratings are up 94% and the Saint's are down 16%. Those numbers are evidence of a bandwagon effect.

This is just utter nonsense. The Vikings actually have very stable support and far fewer bandwagon fans than most NFL teams. For instance, the Viking's 2014 local market TV ratings were 13th in the league at 32.3. Not great, but better than the league average, which is actually quite good considering that they were without Adrian Peterson from the 2nd game on, and they were coming off a 5-11 season in which they fired their head coach. Heck, the great Dallas Cowboy's only had a 31.6!

Back to the original topic. With the first day of the draft complete, and given Adrian's agent's comments, it does appear that no deal to trade Adrian will be made. He will be a Viking next year.

It's up to Adrian Peterson, he will only be a cancer if he wants to be. Again, the best thing for him to do is to simply report to training camp and work hard to rehabilitate his image. The Vikings should insist that he do exactly that.

Are you talking about 2003? If so, you really don't know what you're talking about. The Vikings ended up with 6-time Pro Bowler and 5-time first team All-Pro Kevin Williams at #9, the player they wanted anyway. He turned out to be better than Byron Leftwich or Jordan Gross, the players that Jacksonville and Carolina sneaked ahead of them to draft. That "mistake" worked out fabulously well for the Vikings. In any case, that was 12 years ago under completely different ownership. management, and coaching.

Wide receivers typically take a while to develop...usually three years. Cordarelle has great physical talent, we'll see whether he'd able to put it together this year, or not. I'm betting that he will. Anyway, the Vikings coming up with a great find like Charles Johnson is hardly evidence that they're not making progress.

Oh, you are right, those were bad picks. But every team has bad picks now and then. The NFL draft is a crap shoot, especially at the QB position. But then, if that's true, isn't that all the more reason to keep a known commodity on the team instead of letting him go for the crap shoot of the draft?

The Vikings have had more 1st round draft picks (7) over the last three years than any team in a three year period in the history of the NFL. They are building for the future, and Adrian is part of that future. He just needs to get on board.

Well, we are talking about a guy who ran for 2,000+ yards -- 9 yards short of the all-time NFL record -- a year after having major reconstructive knee surgery. I'd say that it is fair to say that Adrian Peterson is indeed different.