The last time I drank beer slurpees at SF was at the NHL Stadium Series on March 1st, 2014. The Hawks played the Pittsburgh Penguins. It snowed/rained about 8 inches of slush and I damn near got frostbite on my beer holding hand. Hawks won 5-1. Worth it. :haha::cool:

I highly doubt they are getting any other NFL franchise which would never be able to compete for fans against the Bears. Northwestern stadium i believe is about to get an upgrade so no dice there. Maybe some garbage like XFL, MLS and even Lacrosse but still not going to bring in enough. The only thing that could even make the slightest bit of sense would be the Whitesox.

Huh?? White Sox does not make any sense. No way Riensdorf will become a tenant of the CPD and they are not about to give up their parking revenues. Now a new NFL stadium down by the White Sox would merit a discussion.

I will quote myself from an earlier post:

Laser targeting of select NCAA games allows visiting teams to capitalize on SF unique attributes, like the lakefront, skyline, Alumni base and major media draws, cultural institutions and more. Major NCAA team are not going to forgoe their home games for a smaller draw. Notre Dame could already play at SF if they desired, but they do not. So target teams that will not be dismayed by the capacity issue. But will be attracted to expanding their brand into Chicagoland and the upper Midwest region. SF may not sell out but if 30K fans from 2 different colleges attend then it is still a win. And more hotels rooms would be sold than any current Bears games since Chicago home fans do not need overnight stays.

I disagree with Steely that SF needs any reno for soccer. I have attended 3 games this year and it is an excellent venue for viewing the sport. But if dismantling skyboxes and upper decks returns the colonnade's to prominence and still allows for 40K seats then fine. The games I have in mind would still be feasible.

The Bears play 10 games a year at Soldier Field, they can certainly fill those dates. The stadium could host big CPS, Chicago Catholic League, or state playoff/championship football games. They can have concerts, monster trucks, city events, college football, lacrosse, international soccer, college or NHL hockey, rodeos, etc.

In addition, today there's a bunch of restrictions on what they can have at the stadium during football season. For example, the Fire can't play at SF within 5 days of a Bears' home game. Maybe we can tear down the parking lot next door (since we don't need it for tailgating) and improve the park. That would likely benefit more people than 10 Bears games.

And a lot of this can already take place. But most of these don't bring anywhere near the crowds the Bears do, other than NCAA football and the Winter Classic. The Fire part is interesting did not know that. But that does not really matter since once the Bears leave the Fire were guaranteed to play there more anyway. Bringing more NCAA games is the best option people travel for that and will pack the place. But you probably could not get more than 1 or 2 a week. It is what it is, all the things we listed off are pretty much all they are going to be able to do. It will bring in some money and cover the cost of the place so i guess that has to be good enough and I am ok fine with that. But you are not going to get any major sports team playing there perm or college team either. That was my point. It is not the sky is falling in any way, i really do not see how the city could have given the Bears what they want in this.

The Packers will forever dominate the NFC North if the Bears become a fru fru dome team.

If you are cold at an NFL game then you haven't had enough to drink...

The Bears almost certainly aren't bluffing. NFL owners wants ways to make money from their teams that they don't have to share with the players or the league. That used to be concessions, then 25 years ago it was luxury boxes, now it's non football events in a dome and real estate plays nearby. If they can build an entertainment complex on land they own, they can drive revenue to those businesses that they don't need to pay out in profit sharing.

The Bears might stick around if the Arlington site wasn't so perfect. Right by a metra stop and highway, tons of development space and in the middle of half their fan base? The only way the city keeps them at Soldier Field is if they pay through the nose. Which they should definitely not do. It's just the way things are.

Soldier is a great site for football and for fans, but the Bears have a middling valuation despite having a rapid fan base in the third largest market, which is also the only one of the top four markets that doesn't have two teams. Moving to Arlington might add $1.5B to the organization's value. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I owned the Bears, even if I missed the views.

It’s too bad the Bears aren’t moving to Schaumburg. Then I could buy Steely Dan season tickets

The move to Arlington Heights is going to make the Bears a far more valuable team. I was just reading about this in Crains yesterday

what's the third media market with two NFL teams?

i can only think of NYC & LA.

I was thinking of the Niners and the Raiders, but of course the Raiders moved to Las Vegas. So forget what I said.

got it.

the raiders' move was pretty damn recent, so no worries.


i think NYC & LA are the only two markets legitimately big enough to really warrant multiple major league teams. and outside of MLB, they are the only two markets with multiple NFL, NBA, NHL, & MLS teams. yeah, chicago and the bay area both have two baseball teams each, but that's legacy holdover stuff from the olden days. if MLB were being laid out from scratch today in 2021, they probably wouldn't put two teams in those markets.

The Oakland A's are not long for their city. Having failed to extort their welfare stadium they are parading their availability like a whore at a debutante ball. Any suitor willing to let them suckle at the public teat will be considered.

the A's have always been antsy as an organization.

originally from philly, then to KC, then to oakland, and where to next?

vegas? portland? charlotte?

maybe they'll hit all 3 over the coming century?



it does make me wonder about the white sox staying put in chicago for the long haul.

a 1st place team all season long, but only 14th in attendance........

meanwhile, the cubs traded their entire team away half way through and are currently 21 games under .500, but they sit at 8th for attendance. go figure.

Arguably there's also Football Team + Ravens.

Both teams in the Washington/ Baltimore CMSA are successful also. I believe Greater Chicago could support two football teams even moreso than L.A, as Chicago has a much more avid football base than L.A. Matter of fact for years Los Angeles was without an N.F.L team as both the Rams and then the Raiders both departed. And even now the Chargers situation in L.A is very precarious at best, and also when you look at the N.F.L many of the cities have less than 3 million Metro populations. So Greater Chicago with 9 million to almost 10 million population depending on how it is measured, i believe should be more than capable of supporting two N.F.L football teams also.

You know I don't play that silly CSA game ;)

But in any event, DC and Baltimore are separate media markets.

Chicagoland is a single media market, and I don't ever see it getting a 2nd NFL team.

You're like one of the worst Chicago boosters in this forum lol ;) (j/k)

Hard to know. If there's enough NFL expansion, Chicago would be on the list with San Diego, St, Louis and London--which would probably get two at once. If the NFL adds six teams, I'd be on Chicago getting a second one. If they added four, it would be seriously discussed. If they added two, it's possible, but I think STL and London would be way out ahead.

London?? Really? I've never heard of that as a possibility before..