Back when Chicago's plans for the 2016 Olympics were sketchy and the chances of getting it apparently nil, Rich Daley threw out the possiblity of an olympic stadium that could serve as a home for a second NFL franchise after the games.

Since that time, many plans have come into focus and detail and our city's chances have improved considerably, while the thought of a permanent stadium and NFL usage has faded from view.

How ironic. It would seem that with Chicago's chances getting better and with the new for a stadium to be built (either temporary or permanent) that Daley's original suggestion should be revisited.

Chicago is a one team NFL today not because we didn't support the Cardinals, but due to the growing influence of TV in the 1950's and CBS's inability to broadcast both Bear and Cardinal games. If the Cardinals had stayed, Chicago being Chicago, we'd be packing them in for two teams today rather than one.

Chicago CAN support two NFL teams. No issue.

Meanwhile, with NFL broadcasting rights tied to two networks (CBS/AFC and Fox/NFC), both networks wish to maximize their revenue. LA is in line for the next NFL franchise (not an issue), but Chicago should be considered the best choice after that. I suspect that LA will end up in the NFC West (resurrecurting the old Ram-49er rivalry) with Fox as the beneficary. What better way to compensate CBS for Fox's gain of the LA market than offering it half of the Chicago market.

And for a new (or interested in moving) NFL franchise, what a great deal: a city willing to put into a new stadium for the Olympics, thus causing less money to come from the contributing NFL team.

I S THE NFL/OLYMPICS LINK DEAD OR COULD CHICAGO GET A 2ND FRANCHISE AND HOUSE IT IN A NEW (NOT ONLY THE LAKEFRONT) STADIUM?"

I say bring back the Cardinals......if in spirit only.....the McCaskey's need their bell rung and this would do it

The way the olympic plan is heading right now, I'd say the 2nd NFL team is dead for now.

They have an inexpensive temporary stadium that will sit a few feet away from Soldier Field. Unless these plans change and a new stadium sight is found (which could be possible because the two stadium opening/closing ceremonies is a bonehead idea), I don't think you'll hear much NFL talk.

Beyond that, I don't know if the NFL would consider Chicago the logical place for expansion after LA. San Antonio can support a team. Portland can support a team. OKC may be able to support a team after having a good showing hosting the NBA Hornets. There is talk of expanding into Mexico and maybe even Canada. The idea of Chicago having a 2nd team again has just really been talked about (outside of Chicago) since Daley spoke about it just recently. I don't think there was any serious thought of it before then.

I would love to see it happen. If a city can support two MLB teams, then I believe it can support two NFL teams. I would love to see a sight picked somewhere on the west side and become a hub for redevelopment. Gotta be a long shot right now though.

i don't see a second NFL team ever coming to chicago.

had the cardinals simply stayed put, i could see this town evolving into a two-team town, but with the bears now so firmly entrenched in the heart and soul of chicago, i don't see any potential second team owner wanting to challenge that dominance of the fan-base. cubs/sox works because they have both been around since the beginning MLB itself, but it's not a dynamic that could be created today in the current NFL landscape of chicago.

At one point does the possibility of attracting a Super Bowl (or Super Bowls), Final Fours, mega winter music concerts, or national conventions ect. come into play? If you spend 200 million on a tear down stadium how much more worth it be worth to spend the extra 300-500 million for a retracktable/dome converted stadium after the Olympics? Do those events (even if you only get them once or twice over a 10-20 year period would it at all justify the cost of spending the extra 300-500 million it may take to make the stadium permanent I wonder? I know there have been analysts who have studied the impact of Super Bowls, NCAA Final Fours on local economies and such.

I think the NFL might consider Chicago (and NYC If they built an indoor as the possible exception to the northern climate rule. Right now it seems any new indoor stadium gets at least one Super Bowl and then likely never again. If Chicago had one though one might think it might be given the game two or even three times possibly? How often do you think the NCAA would love to host the Final Four in a 50k indoor stadium in Chicago? I think Chicago would serve as one of the prime offerings to host March Madness (since neither NYC, LA, S.F., have large indoor stadiums).

Or you don't have to limit your search to looking for another NFL team. You could design a stadium so that part of it could be possibly turned into and used as a 20k-23k stadium for a new basketball or hockey team (or if the Hawks or Bulls wanted their own stadium).

The idea was tossed around that an olympic stadium can be built on the south side of McCormick and could become part of the convention center after the games. I would like to see this idea explored. I don't think the city would use this kind of stadium as a home for a 2nd NFL team, but, as Nomarandlee said there are plenty of events that a large indoor/outdoor stadium could hold.

In addition to the Super Bowl and Final Four, you could host a bowl game. If Detroit can have the Motor City Bowl then surely we can do the same. The Big Ten men's and women's basketball tourney. It can be a regional sight for NCAA final four. It can host track and field championships, motorcross, concerts, Dem and Rep. national conventions, etc. You can come up with a list of 50 realistic uses.

Large stadiums can serve the community in many ways without hosting an NFL team. Look at the Alamodome in San Antonio. The RCA dome in Indy will be this way as soon as the new Colts stadium is built.

In my own little dream world where money is never an issue, I'd like to see a new stadium with a retractable roof on the corner of Franklin and Sacramento. Right now it's an industrial area with a huge rail yard, but it would be an amazing location for the stadium especially with an NFL team in it.

Imagine driving east on Franklin(a boulevard with park space in the middle) with the stadium at the end the street and the skyline behind it. You can have the east side of the stadium open up to the skyline. Access from two Metra lines and the Green line (not to mention, once again my dream world, a Grand ave. line and circle line that I talked about in the My CTA thread). You could have a major transit hub built into the stadium.

But, (sigh) it is all just a dream and we will end up with just peices of a temporary stadium when the games are over.

Why wouldn't Chicago be able to support a second team? There are two MLB teams, and football has the least games of the big four sports.

In addition to the Super Bowl and Final Four, you could host a bowl game. If Detroit can have the Motor City Bowl then surely we can do the same. The Big Ten men's and women's basketball tourney. It can be a regional sight for NCAA final four. It can host track and field championships, motorcross, concerts, Dem and Rep. national conventions, etc. You can come up with a list of 50 realistic uses.

Large stadiums can serve the community in many ways without hosting an NFL team. Look at the Alamodome in San Antonio. The RCA dome in Indy will be this way as soon as the new Colts stadium is built.

I think a retractable dome over the long haul would make the most economical since. I have always though so.

BTW Chicago could easily handle two NFL teams.

Al Davis in his perpetual unhappiness would love to relocate the Raiders, again.
If there is any team that is made for Chicago it's the Raiders.

Why wouldn't Chicago be able to support a second team? There are two MLB teams, and football has the least games of the big four sports.

of course Chicago could support two football teams. and our metropolitan population is so large that you could split it in half and the half that wasn't for the Bears would still be biggger than San Antonio and Portland combined.

So why not dream: the Bears at Soldier Field. The Chicago AFC franchise in a new domed stadium, open for Final 4, Super Bowl, B10 b'ball championship, New Years Bowl, etc......paid for by city and team in partnership.

If an AFC team could get Chicago and split cost stadium, it would be getting one of the best deals in the NFL. Finding 60,000 fans unable to get Bears tickets but wanting to cheer for an NFL team would not be difficult in Chicagoland.

simpatico, you stole my thunder

Al Davis would move the team for the right stadium/revenue deal. The Chicago market could handle a second team easily, I think Raider Nation would love it. Black and silver in Chicago, I think its a better fit then Oakland.

of course Chicago could support two football teams. and our metropolitan population is so large that you could split it in half and the half that wasn't for the Bears would still be biggger than San Antonio and Portland combined.


Well if you use that argument then New York would be in line for a 3rd team and LA would get two teams before we got a second one.

Yes a second team can be supported in Chicago. But there is no Olympic gaurantee and a new stadium without the Olympics would be an impossible sell. Even if we do get the Olympics, the current plan is for the stadium to be right next to Soldier Field. It would be ridiculous for two NFL teams to play in stadiums next door to each other when you could just have them both play in Soldier Field with alternating home schedules a la Giants Stadium.

But, lets just say we do get the 2nd team. Where do you put the stadium? Will the Olympic commitee like the location? I like my choice for the site mentioned above because of it's proximity to downtown and to the outer lying neighborhoods and suburbs. It also has the potential to be an important transit hub. However, it is a rail yard and is occupied so you can't just go in there and plop down a stadium.

I have a hard enough time dealing with the summertime division of the city with baseball. We need football season to be harmonizing. I'm gonna say stick with Da Bears.

I dont like the idea of a two football team city. Like SteelyDan said...it would be hard just throwing in a new team and expecting massive love for it. The Bears are Chicago's team. A new team would cheapen it in my opinion. I am for the idea of putting teams in different cities, as opposed to bunching them up in certain cities and states...ie. NY, California, Texas,etc. If an NFL team was to go somewhere else...I would prefer to see it in Alabama, Toronto, Monterray, or some other larger American city.

My location pick for an Olympic stadium (and maybe future NFL team) serviced by two existing Metra lines, the Green Line and two proposed L lines.

Sorry, but I'm at home nursing a bum knee so I've got some time on my hands.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j63/creilmann/newstadcopy.jpg

Having said what I said, just splitting the population is a bit simplistic. Buffalo has a million people, and can support one team. That doesn't mean NY can support 18 teams.

Having said what I said, just splitting the population is a bit simplistic. Buffalo has a million people, and can support one team. That doesn't mean NY can support 18 teams.

my thought about "spliting the market" was related to more than city size. It was related to CBS and Fox, and necessarily so. A third NYC (NJ) team in the NFL would definitely create network problems since the two networks broadcast the AFC and NFC respecitvely.

Half of a Chicago market is worth far more to CBS as an AFC franchise than would either Portland, San Antonio, and any other city but LA.

Chicago could support the Bears and an AFC franchise as well as NY supports the Giants and Jets. Two franchises leaving LA at the same time suggest that that city, at least for the present, would be better served by one team.

simpatico, you stole my thunder

Al Davis would move the team for the right stadium/revenue deal. The Chicago market could handle a second team easily, I think Raider Nation would love it. Black and silver in Chicago, I think its a better fit then Oakland.

fascinating. that would give Davis the distrinction of owning the "other" (non-establishment, non-NFC, blue collar) franchise in the Bay Area, LA, and Chicago!

Maybe the winner of the 2016 Olympic derby gets the franchise!

Having said what I said, just splitting the population is a bit simplistic. Buffalo has a million people, and can support one team. That doesn't mean NY can support 18 teams.

not to mention Green Bay, which is in a city of 100,000---and it always sells out, wheter the team sucks or not.

You can put an NFL franchise ANYWHERE in the U.S. and it will always sell out or come close to it. Put an NFL team in Des Moines, Tulsa, Richmond, Portland, Birmingham, Honolulu, etc. and their stadiums will be packed. Of course they wont have the television market...but still, I am in favor of speading franchises out. If you put it in a smaller city, its likely the whole state and surrounding areas of that state will be tuning into games..making it a pretty sizeable market.

Toronto would be a great NFL market. People on their board are against the NFL because it would kill the CFL--but you all know that a Toronto NFL team would be lucrative and popular.

Chicago is a Bears city. Period. Any local fans they have would be bandwagon fans, meaning they'd be the Chicago NFL version of the White Sox: people will only go if they are winning. The Bears, on the other hand, are a part of the city, area, and a large region of the Midwest.

Green Bay doesn't just draw from Green Bay, it draws from all over Wisconsin. Upon until a decade or so ago, they played some of their home games in Milwaukee.

The way I understand it is L.A. automatically gets the next expansion team, anyway.

Chicago is a Bears city. Period. Any local fans they have would be bandwagon fans, meaning they'd be the Chicago NFL version of the White Sox: people will only go if they are winning. The Bears, on the other hand, are a part of the city, area, and a large region of the Midwest.

Green Bay doesn't just draw from Green Bay, it draws from all over Wisconsin. Upon until a decade or so ago, they played some of their home games in Milwaukee.

The way I understand it is L.A. automatically gets the next expansion team, anyway.

as a Bears fan (along with other Bears fans), I'd have to add "regrettably so" to Chicago being a Bears' town. Down through the years, we have put up with a misrun and underfunded franchise because there was no competiton in town.

a lot of people think Chicago is a Cubs' town. Whether you agree with that or not, the White Sox success has put pressure on the Cubs to turn out a better product. Maybe what Bears' fans truly need is an AFC team in town keeping the Bears on their toes.

That actually kind of makes sense. Just like New York and the Giants and Jets.

That actually kind of makes sense. Just like New York and the Giants and Jets.
and the Bay Area has the 49ers and Raiders.
and Chicago had the Bears and Cardinals.

I'll still go back to what I consider perfect logic:

Fox (NFC) gets Los Angeles and the LA market
CBS (AFC) is compensated with a half share in the Chicago market

From a financial point of view, there is no better NFL scenerio. Neither San Antonio nor Portland deliver large markets. Los Angeles is not capable (at this point) of supporting two NFL teams. New York is out of the picture on the basis of the two networks and their ability to cover games. Chicago has the size and passion for pro-football to fill up a second stadium and have t.v.'s tuned to two teams.

and since those two teams would have a number of games where they would not be playing at the exact same time, that is a winning scenerio for the NFL, Fox, and CBS. The same fan could watch both (i.e. Sunday night games, Monday night games, one team at home and other on west coast, etc.).

I could also see some great rivalries in a reconfigured AFC if the Chicago AFC franchise were grouped with any of the following: Colts, Browns, Bengals, Steelers

Does anyone disagree on the above from a financial perspective?

i hope chicago can find a good plan...SF seems to be the favourite now..

Green Bay doesn't just draw from Green Bay, it draws from all over Wisconsin. Upon until a decade or so ago, they played some of their home games in Milwaukee.
.

I have no doubt that this would be the same thing if a team was placed in Alabama, New Mexico, South Carolina, Maine, etc.

i hope chicago can find a good plan...SF seems to be the favourite now..


I would tend to agree with you but its still way too far off to give that conclusion any definative backing.

It all depends on what happens with the new 49er stadium in S.F. (lots of nimbys and details to be worked out which in S.F. isn't easy). If that gets done and the locales back the games there then I would give the nod to S.S. likely getting them.

It also depends largely on how great that Chicago can put together its idea for a stadium whether it be permanent, a tear down. or something in-between.

S.F. has the advantage that it tried for the games and might have a very usefull Olympic stadium after the games. Chicago has an advatnage of a rather condensed, tranist friendly, and downtown/lakefront proximit location (not to mention having the 1904 games taken from out under us).

I have no doubt that this would be the same thing if a team was placed in Alabama, New Mexico, South Carolina, Maine, etc.


What are you talking about? :bash:

What metros in Maine, Alabama, New Mex ect. can compete with the Chicagoland media market.

Add up all of the major markets in all of the states you mentioned.

Chicago is more wealthy, populus, ect, then all of them together.

It is just money and numbers, and I do not think Santa Fe has it, ect.

ReddAlert's point is that states without huge cities give massive statewide support to their teams. Essentially, that the team captures a bigger % of the population in rural markets.

SF residents have been as skitish on a new 49er stadium for years to the same degree they were on a new Giants stadium. AT&T was totally built by the team, although the city did kick in infastructure. The Giants had one step in any of a number of cities prior to the China Basin ball park being built.

Meanwhile the current 49er voter approved deal with the city involves a stadium and shopping complex at Candlestick Point. The plans and approval on this one are pre-2000 and the new plan (although still privately financed on the part of the 49ers) has dumped the shopping complex and has added other more urban features. It will still have to go back to the voters for approval and in SF, all bets ar off when that takes place. EVERYBODY has something to say on the issue.

ReddAlert's point is that states without huge cities give massive statewide support to their teams. Essentially, that the team captures a bigger % of the population in rural markets.

ardecila, what is more relevant here: the size of the city or the number of major cities within the state?

I think it is the later. It is easier for Georgia to get involved with support for Atlanta's stadiums since Atlanta is GA's only major city. The state of Texas has less reason to get involved with stadium issues because of all the large cities in that state.

^^ True. Besides it's not as if the Chicago Cubs don't own the fandom in the northern rural half of Illinois and the entire state of Iowa where Chicago isn't really even near.