[edsg25]

I realize that we have discussed many times the possiblity of an AFC franchise in Chicago. I certainly don't want to rehash the issue.

I did read on the skyscaper page forum a thread about a proposed LA stadium for NFL football. That one got me thinking:

What if the NFL awarded (or was in the process of awarding) Los Angeles both NFC and AFC franchises, what would be Chicago's approach to such actions? Would we ignore it and keep things the way they are here with the Bears being our only team or would we push for an AFC franchise?

Would an image conscious city like Chicago push for a second team as part of the acknowledgement and the gains that come from it of Chicago's status?

Would we be pitching CBS with the notion that they would be getting screwed if Fox had NY/LA/Chgo and they only had NY/LA?

I'm not talking about whether we want or even need a second team here as much as what Chicago's response would be to two new LA teams?

 

[prelude91]

i don't think Chicago would need to do anything. LA deserves to have two football teams, It is a huge city that has two teams in every other sport.
I can't think of any reason why we need another football team.

 

[mgk920]

Chicago once had two teams in the NFL - the Cardinals were the number one team while the Bears were an afterthought until the Cardinals bolted for Saint Louis.

The thing about Los Angeles is that there are so many things to do in that metro area that the presence (or lack thereof) of an NFL team seems to make little difference with the locals.

Mike

 

[cheeps]

Our response should be......hmmmmmm... who gives a shit?

 

[svs]

If Chicago wanted to have an AFC team, it should support LA getting two teams. Chicago has zero chance of picking up a second team while LA has none. Personally I kind of doubt either is likely to happen. LA will probably get its team by relocation from a smaller city eventually. I think the NFL likes the current number of teams as it is. Also there are some deserving cities like San Antonio that don't have a team either. Probably it would be better for the league to spread the wealth around as much as possible.

 

[Chitowner245]

Think about the health of our society here for a moment. I'm a Cubs fan, but I have friends who are sox fans. We are able to tolerate each other because we all share the same love for the bears, bulls and hawks. Ok, but anyone who would BETRAY the bears for some pos new team in the AFC? Forget about it- you are no longer my friend! That is unforgivable. However, the NFL I'm sure has thought about this before as well as a team in Milwuakee, but they know the people are just too loyal to these teams. You are born a bears fans, or packers fan, or cubs or sox fan. If you were brought up loving hockey, you learned from family and friends that the blackhawks are pure awesomeness. No REAL Chicagoan would ever raise their kids to love a new team, and if one did, they would be considered outcasts or are a bunch of judases

 

[svs]

Think about the health of our society here for a moment. I'm a Cubs fan, but I have friends who are sox fans. We are able to tolerate each other because we all share the same love for the bears, bulls and hawks. Ok, but anyone who would BETRAY the bears for some pos new team in the AFC? Forget about it- you are no longer my friend! That is unforgivable. However, the NFL I'm sure has thought about this before as well as a team in Milwuakee, but they know the people are just too loyal to these teams. You are born a bears fans, or packers fan, or cubs or sox fan. If you were brought up loving hockey, you learned from family and friends that the blackhawks are pure awesomeness. No REAL Chicagoan would ever raise their kids to love a new team, and if one did, they would be considered outcasts or are a bunch of judases

Actually intracity rivalries are a lot of fun if you keep it in perspective. I really enjoy the USC-UCLA rivalry out here. I am old enought to remember when LA had two football teams and Raiders-Rams was a lot of fun. Ducks-Kings would be fun if they ever managed to have decent teams at the same time. Dodgers-Angels, Cubs-Sox, Yankees-Mets adds a little flavor to the larger cities who are fortunate to have two major league teams in a single sport, the concept of subway/freeway series is always an exciting prospect even if it never happens (at least not since the Dodgers and Giant moved).

I am old enough to remember the old Chicago Cardinals. Even though the Bears were always the dominant team in the city, I still think the town was diminished a tad when they moved to Saint Louis.

 

[prelude91]

the concept of subway/freeway series is always an exciting prospect even if it never happens (at least not since the Dodgers and Giant moved).

Yankees/Mets played in the World Series in 2000

 

[mgk920]

Yankees/Mets played in the World Series in 2000

And the Giants/Athletics in 1989.

Mike

 

[edsg25]

And the Giants/Athletics in 1989.

Mike

with earthshaking results!

 

[edsg25]

I never intended this to be a "should Chicago have a second NFL franchise". For me, a dyed in the blue (and orange) Bear fan, the answer is: DAMNED RIGHT WE SHOULD. Our passion for football and our population base would make supporting such a team a no brainer.

But that wasn't the point of this thread.

My question was, looking at image as much as anything else, how would the powers-that-be in Chicago react to two teams being placed in LA?

Not how they should react, but how they would react.

Prelude tells me that LA deserves two teams more than Chicago. I completely disagree. This is far more of a passionate pro football town than LA is. And his ascersion that LA is this "huge city" and Chicago is not goes contrary to how Chicago chooses to project itself globally. We here in the Windy City have very much banked on a "Big Three" combo of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles in asserting ourselves as the global city we are.

If Chicago thought that it could get another NFL franchise and LA getting two NFL teams warranted consideration, why wouldn't we act...even if we don't succeed. Nobody says that we would even have to build a new stadium. The Bears and AFC Chicago can follow the route of the Giants and Jets in the Meadowlands and make Soldier Field home to both. And from strictly a PR move, it would make all the sense in the world. (and isn't PR a big big part of a far more expensive olympic bid for our city?)

A second NFL franchise would be a long shot. But it has merits. One of the greatest would be tv rights. NY, LA, and Chgo are the largest t.v. markets in the nation. A double LA expansion would make a very compelling argument for Fox that both CBS and Fox deserve a team in each of those three markets. No current non-NFL market (i.e. Portland, San Antonio) could offer equity in t.v. rights by filling out two teams each in NY and LA with two in Chicago.

Prelude, I'm not sure where you're coming from. It's almost as if the NFL would offer us a franchise and you'd say "no thanks. we don't need it." I can understand you not wanting to be an active part of such a quest for another team; I can't, however, see why you would want to oppose it.

 

[prelude91]

I never intended this to be a "should Chicago have a second NFL franchise". For me, a dyed in the blue (and orange) Bear fan, the answer is: DAMNED RIGHT WE SHOULD. Our passion for football and our population base would make supporting such a team a no brainer.

But that wasn't the point of this thread.

My question was, looking at image as much as anything else, how would the powers-that-be in Chicago react to two teams being placed in LA?

Not how they should react, but how they would react.

Prelude tells me that LA deserves two teams more than Chicago. I completely disagree. This is far more of a passionate pro football town than LA is. And his ascersion that LA is this "huge city" and Chicago is not goes contrary to how Chicago chooses to project itself globally. We here in the Windy City have very much banked on a "Big Three" combo of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles in asserting ourselves as the global city we are.

If Chicago thought that it could get another NFL franchise and LA getting two NFL teams warranted consideration, why wouldn't we act...even if we don't succeed. Nobody says that we would even have to build a new stadium. The Bears and AFC Chicago can follow the route of the Giants and Jets in the Meadowlands and make Soldier Field home to both. And from strictly a PR move, it would make all the sense in the world. (and isn't PR a big big part of a far more expensive olympic bid for our city?)

A second NFL franchise would be a long shot. But it has merits. One of the greatest would be tv rights. NY, LA, and Chgo are the largest t.v. markets in the nation. A double LA expansion would make a very compelling argument for Fox that both CBS and Fox deserve a team in each of those three markets. No current non-NFL market (i.e. Portland, San Antonio) could offer equity in t.v. rights by filling out two teams each in NY and LA with two in Chicago.

Prelude, I'm not sure where you're coming from. It's almost as if the NFL would offer us a franchise and you'd say "no thanks. we don't need it." I can understand you not wanting to be an active part of such a quest for another team; I can't, however, see why you would want to oppose it.

Im not saying LA deserves two teams and we don't. However, LA is twice the size of Chicago and they have two teams in every other sport, they even have two major college football teams. i just think that if the NFL was going to award a city two teams, they would pick LA over Chicago. I just don't see the need to have another team here. Cities like Boston and Philly could then make the same argument. If the top three markets have two nfl teams, why shouldn't 4, 5 6 have two as well?

 

[Chitowner245]

^ If chicago's city limits were as widespread as LA's, then we'd have twice as many people as LA. Chi has just under 3 million, LA has just under 4 million people. If Chicago was all of cook county, there'd be over 6 million people in the chi. Chicago has both the population and the sports passion to support a team, but like I said earlier- the bears are synonymous with chicago sports, and our Papa Bear Halas created the franchise in 1920. The roots just run too deep.

 

[prelude91]

^ Huh? What the hell are you talking about? Cook County has 5.2 million in 946 sq. miles. What do City Limits have to do with fan base? can a person living in Oak Lawn not cheer on the Bears. LA metro area is twice as large as Chicago's.

 

[svs]

Yankees/Mets played in the World Series in 2000

I stand corrected.

 

[svs]

And the Giants/Athletics in 1989.

Mike

I stand corrected twice. And the Bears played Indy which is close. This doesn't change my point. City series happen a lot less often mostly because there are so many additional teams out there. The potential for a city series does add to the fun, although since the site for a superbowl is selected way in advance, two championship teams from Chi could end up playing a Superbowl in New Orleans or Miami.

 

[svs]

Prelude tells me that LA deserves two teams more than Chicago. I completely disagree. This is far more of a passionate pro football town than LA is.
.

Oh Ed! While you guys can put 60,000 fans in the seats for a Bears game, you might manage to get 25,000 or so to a Northwestern game. We can put almost 200,000 football fans in the seats on a single weekend if both USC and UCLA are in town. There are plenty of football fans out here who would gladly support an NFL team if it were back in town. We support two professional teams in all the other major sports. LA lost its teams over a fight about who would pay for a new stadium. Obviously a lot of other cites were more willing to soak the local taxpayers than we were but it had nothing to do with fan support. You should have tried walking through the tailgate parties in the Colliseum parking lots back in the day before the Raiders left.

That said, I believe Chicago could easily support two teams as easily as it supports two baseball teams. However I also believe that Chicago will not get a second team before LA gets two. Chicagoans shold definitely back putting a team in LA, the same as Angelenos should support the Chicago 2016 bid for the Olympics.

 

[svs]

^ If chicago's city limits were as widespread as LA's, then we'd have twice as many people as LA. Chi has just under 3 million, LA has just under 4 million people. If Chicago was all of cook county, there'd be over 6 million people in the chi. Chicago has both the population and the sports passion to support a team, but like I said earlier- the bears are synonymous with chicago sports, and our Papa Bear Halas created the franchise in 1920. The roots just run too deep.

Not really. The Chicago metro is about 9.7 million. The greater LA metro is almost 18 million. You can easily make Chicago's case for a second team without shrinking LA. For instance the greater Jacksonville metro is about 1.3 million. Chicago is about seven and a half times greater than that.

 

[edsg25]

Oh Ed! While you guys can put 60,000 fans in the seats for a Bears game, you might manage to get 25,000 or so to a Northwestern game. We can put almost 200,000 football fans in the seats on a single weekend if both USC and UCLA are in town. There are plenty of football fans out here who would gladly support an NFL team if it were back in town. We support two professional teams in all the other major sports. LA lost its teams over a fight about who would pay for a new stadium. Obviously a lot of other cites were more willing to soak the local taxpayers than we were but it had nothing to do with fan support. You should have tried walking through the tailgate parties in the Colliseum parking lots back in the day before the Raiders left.

That said, I believe Chicago could easily support two teams as easily as it supports two baseball teams. However I also believe that Chicago will not get a second team before LA gets two. Chicagoans shold definitely back putting a team in LA, the same as Angelenos should support the Chicago 2016 bid for the Olympics.

You saw that as criticism for LA. You were wrong. You are obviously totally correct when you compare college football in LA with Chicago. Chicago and NU stand at the very edge of the shaddow of LA and USC and UCLA.

For all the Bulls' success in the NBA, LA is a far better pro basketball town than Chicago is. And Dodger attendance down through the years shows what a gold mine LA is for MLB.

LA is an excellent sports town. By saying that Chicago has a more passionate relationship with pro football than LA does takes nothing away from LA. You have got me so wrong here. I had absolutely no "you guys" and "we guys" in mind and I hate that very kind of thinking. Chicago is emphatically not better or greater than LA (nor is the reverse true either).

And for the record: I am TOTALLY supportive of NFL football being back in LA. It is absurd that it isn't there right now and in many ways, harms the NFL far more than it hurts LA. It is hard to believe the NFL can truly be "big league" when it doesn't field a Los Angeles team.

 

[svs]

You saw that as criticism for LA. You were wrong. You are obviously totally correct when you compare college football in LA with Chicago. Chicago and NU stand at the very edge of the shaddow of LA and USC and UCLA.

For all the Bulls' success in the NBA, LA is a far better pro basketball town than Chicago is. And Dodger attendance down through the years shows what a gold mine LA is for MLB.

LA is an excellent sports town. By saying that Chicago has a more passionate relationship with pro football than LA does takes nothing away from LA. You have got me so wrong here. I had absolutely no "you guys" and "we guys" in mind and I hate that very kind of thinking. Chicago is emphatically not better or greater than LA (nor is the reverse true either).

And for the record: I am TOTALLY supportive of NFL football being back in LA. It is absurd that it isn't there right now and in many ways, harms the NFL far more than it hurts LA. It is hard to believe the NFL can truly be "big league" when it doesn't field a Los Angeles team.

Clarification accepted. But LA fans are not nearly as dispassionate as the stereotype would have you believe. You ought to hear the crazy Laker fans today.