Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A little touch of Southern gentility on the North Side.
I would seriously question the existence of the NFL in the next generation. As someone mentioned to me last week, it might start to resemble the flag football that existed for many youth leagues some years back ( blocking, receiving, running, but no tackling).
I've actually lost interest in the NFL in the past 20-30 years. I have great historical interest in the NFL of the 60s and 70s, but once the domes and the mass hysteria of ESPN came in, my disgust started to rise. I just don't need to see the NFL on Sunday...and Monday...and Thursday....and Saturday. I don't need to see pre-game shows with 5 people endlessly discussing the ramifications of 3rd down plays. I can recite the entire starting lineup( both sides) of the 1969 Minnesota Vikings; today I only know one player on the entire squad, and I don't know the name of the coach...and I could care less. I'm just tired of the endless hype about every little thing in the NFL....
I'll ask you again, why has it been over half a century since an AFL/NFL team successfully moved into a market that already had another team? Why has it almost never even been attempted? Look what happened the last time it was tried, in a market even bigger than Chicago no less: both teams left the market a decade later and it remains an open market to this day (though perhaps not for long).
To be fair, the economic conditions from when teams coexisting with another team in a given city fanned out over the country to today are very different. California teams have relocated because it is darn near impossible to get a stadium deal done there thanks to state politics. It has very little to do with butts in seats or corporate ticket sales.
Niners-took them forever to get a deal done and they were stuck in decrepit Candlestick forever.
Oakland-traded one old stadium for another and then went back.
Rams-no stadium deal, left for STL
Chargers-still trying to get something done w/ replacing their venue and it is literally falling apart...pieces are coming off of it.
The modern problem with the NFL is that venues cost a ridiculous amount of money and they're only used 10 days a year (counting pre-season, no playoffs)...maybe a few more days if it is enclosed and attached to a convention center or for band/hs football games, bowl games, etc. Still, the places sit empty 95% of the time. This creates a tremendous tax burden for smaller markets. Example: the tax burden for LOS in Indy is higher per resident than any other venue in the league...by a considerable margin. It's nice, but the population is small by NFL standards. New venues in larger cities require a much lower fiscal burden per resident. Ticket prices have become cost prohibitive for an increasing number of fans when you track ticket increases vs. middle income growth over the last 25 years. Smaller markets have a smaller proportion of high income individuals/corporations capable of shelling out the cash.
It's no coincidence that the cities who have really felt the squeeze tend to be small to mid sized markets when the stadium needs to be replaced: Jax, Indy pre-LOS, St. Louis now, Buffalo now. The difference to date is that LA has always been the trump card the league plays to convince existing markets to splurge on new venues. The veiled threat of relo to LA has always been there. Now that it is looking more and more likely that a stadium will actually get built there, it is almost a complete certainty that a team will end up there.
If the economics continue the way they have, then the league will use LA#2 or Chicago#2 as the new threat. It is simply much more profitable (and feasible) to run a second fiddle major market team than it is to run a team in a smaller market...outside of a couple w/ regular success and decent fan bases like Pittsburgh, GB/Milwaukee/WI, Colts (if Luck pans out as Manning 2.0), Broncos (mid-market, but very loyal fans, so I tossed them in). The only exception to this rule to date has been CA, where as I said earlier, it is a royal pain to get a new venue built. The league will either end up expanding into global cities or it will be forced to fold some of the smaller markets back into larger ones if they want to keep growing the bottom line.
To be fair, the economic conditions from when teams coexisting with another team in a given city fanned out over the country to today are very different. California teams have relocated because it is darn near impossible to get a stadium deal done there thanks to state politics. It has very little to do with butts in seats or corporate ticket sales.
Niners-took them forever to get a deal done and they were stuck in decrepit Candlestick forever.
Oakland-traded one old stadium for another and then went back.
Rams-no stadium deal, left for STL
Chargers-still trying to get something done w/ replacing their venue and it is literally falling apart...pieces are coming off of it.
The modern problem with the NFL is that venues cost a ridiculous amount of money and they're only used 10 days a year (counting pre-season, no playoffs)...maybe a few more days if it is enclosed and attached to a convention center or for band/hs football games, bowl games, etc. Still, the places sit empty 95% of the time. This creates a tremendous tax burden for smaller markets. Example: the tax burden for LOS in Indy is higher per resident than any other venue in the league...by a considerable margin. It's nice, but the population is small by NFL standards. New venues in larger cities require a much lower fiscal burden per resident. Ticket prices have become cost prohibitive for an increasing number of fans when you track ticket increases vs. middle income growth over the last 25 years. Smaller markets have a smaller proportion of high income individuals/corporations capable of shelling out the cash.
It's no coincidence that the cities who have really felt the squeeze tend to be small to mid sized markets when the stadium needs to be replaced: Jax, Indy pre-LOS, St. Louis now, Buffalo now. The difference to date is that LA has always been the trump card the league plays to convince existing markets to splurge on new venues. The veiled threat of relo to LA has always been there. Now that it is looking more and more likely that a stadium will actually get built there, it is almost a complete certainty that a team will end up there.
If the economics continue the way they have, then the league will use LA#2 or Chicago#2 as the new threat. It is simply much more profitable (and feasible) to run a second fiddle major market team than it is to run a team in a smaller market...outside of a couple w/ regular success and decent fan bases like Pittsburgh, GB/Milwaukee/WI, Colts (if Luck pans out as Manning 2.0), Broncos (mid-market, but very loyal fans, so I tossed them in). The only exception to this rule to date has been CA, where as I said earlier, it is a royal pain to get a new venue built. The league will either end up expanding into global cities or it will be forced to fold some of the smaller markets back into larger ones if they want to keep growing the bottom line.
Great post. California is different as you noted. But, let's face it, the LA situation was bizarre from the start. It made no sense for both teams to leave that market the same year. The owner of the Rams (was it Frontiani?) inherited the team from her late husband and wasn't the most stable of people. the Rams, the oldest of LA's teams, gave fans the notion of abandoning the city in the move to OC. The fan base was affected (and the stadium in Anaheim was as bad as Candlestick...a converted baseball park into a multi-purpose stadium for the Rams to share with the Angels; the Colliseum was better). Al Davis was a mercurial personality himself so both owners didn't make the best decisions.
I'm not sure where the NFL is going. Yes, I'd like to see a second team in Chicago. Will it happen? No. It is just kind of fun to conjecture on the subject.
as far as trump cards which, as you note, LA is for the NFL in getting markers to build new stadiums to avoid losing their team: I'm not sure the size of LA is what is salient. What is is to have a trump card. For MLB, that trump card was at the opposite end of the population spectrum: Tampa Bay. A speculative stadium, sitting empty in St. Pete, gave rise to many a new ballpark in other cities, starting with one on the south side of Chicago.
as for the 49ers, sure, they struggled to get a stadium built. but let's no forget that Eddie DeBartalo had a deal with the city to build a new stadium around candlestick point with a shopping complex he would have owned. DeBartalo lost control of the team for legal issues and his relatives who controlled it did nothing to get the project on track due to the turmoil in change of ownership. SF didn't help much either. It sacked its bid for the 2016 olympics (which would have used a new stadium) which didn't help the situation. the new owners were so determined to build a new stadium where there was land (for tailgating, so they said) in santa clara they never took SF's offerings seriously again.
The modern problem with the NFL is that venues cost a ridiculous amount of money and they're only used 10 days a year (counting pre-season, no playoffs)...maybe a few more days if it is enclosed and attached to a convention center or for band/hs football games, bowl games, etc. Still, the places sit empty 95% of the time. This creates a tremendous tax burden for smaller markets.
This is why the idea of a 2nd Chicago team is ridiculous. Given public finances, why should any tax money go to building a 2nd football stadium for a private group that will be empty 95% of the time (and sell high prices tickets geared to a minute fraction of the public the handful of days a year the stadium is in use). All publicly financed stadiums are raw deals for the public, but football stadiums are in a class of their own.
As much as I would like to see a new stadium that could host final fours and super bowls and the like, I think in the short term, the only way Chicago could support a second NFL franchise would be if the city forces the Bears to share Soldier Field.
I also don't think the fan or corporate interest is there right away to routinely fill a 80-90K seat stadium right off the bat for a new AFC team.....but there is for a 62K seater.
I'll put it this way. Chicago can definitely support two NFL franchises. I don't even think this is debateable. According to Stub Hub, the Bears have the highest demand capacity of any team in the NFL (demand divided by supply). The average starting seat price just to get inside of Soldier Field for a Bears game this upcoming season is about $190 per seat. 190 divided by 62 (62,000 capacity) = a demand capacity score of about 3.06. The Packers have the next highest score at 2.74. Even teams that, like the Bears, have generations and legions of fans in large markets like the Giants, Cowboys, and Patriots have scores of 1.63, 1.25, and 1.84 respectively, more than a full point less than the Bears.
What does this all mean? I know tons of people that have been Bear fans their entire lives that might ever have the chance to attend one, maybe two home Bears games in their lifetime. The tickets are too expensive, and the season-ticket wait list is too exhaustive. A new team would have a herculian task of trying to win over some of these diehard Bear fans, but they could fill a 62K seat stadium on a routine basis if the following two conditions were met:
1) Tickets would have to be much, much lower than what the Bears command on the secondary market
2) They would have to win (playoffs) almost right away, and almost every season
I don't think condition 1 would be too much of a problem (starting prices for Jets, Raiders, and Redskins tickets are all significantly less than those of the Giants, Niners, and Ravens). Condition 2 is a total crapshoot. Ideally, people would eventually at least go and see the second team for the novelty of having a new team and for the affordability the new team would offer. If that team starts winning on a regular basis (and it pains me to admit this), Bears fans will jump ship in large numbers. Don't kid yourselves, Chicago, like any other sports city, has its share of bandwagoners. The Hawks are riding the wagon wave right now, and the Sox rode it for 3-4 years. You could probably even argue that the Bulls are riding it to an extent right now (how often did the Bulls come up in casual conversation with non-sports diehards before D Rose came to town?)
This isn't really a horrible thing. The Bears will still sell out each game, they'll just maybe drop a few fractions of a point on TV ratings. Think about it this way. How exciting would it have been if instead of moving to Baltimore a while back, the Ravens had moved to Chicago(land). Fan of the team or not, how fun would it be to have a Bears/Packers rivalry in town one week and a Ravens/Steelers rivalry the next? It would probably take a team of that sort of caliber to produce the kind of fervent fanbase that would make a second Chicago team really profitable, but it could be done. I think the population is there to support a lame duck NFL franchise (like the Bills, if the Bills were to move here and keep producing 6-10 seasons), but it would be more of a Raiders level of support with attendances in the 40/50K range per game, which is to say, not really worth it.
Of course all of this might be pointless when considering the fact that having a stronger AFC TV presence in Chicagoland might be reason enough to grant Chicago an AFC team. In any case, with enough success on the field, Chicago can do this.
As much as I would like to see a new stadium that could host final fours and super bowls and the like, I think in the short term, the only way Chicago could support a second NFL franchise would be if the city forces the Bears to share Soldier Field.
I also don't think the fan or corporate interest is there right away to routinely fill a 80-90K seat stadium right off the bat for a new AFC team.....but there is for a 62K seater.
I'll put it this way. Chicago can definitely support two NFL franchises. I don't even think this is debateable. According to Stub Hub, the Bears have the highest demand capacity of any team in the NFL (demand divided by supply). The average starting seat price just to get inside of Soldier Field for a Bears game this upcoming season is about $190 per seat. 190 divided by 62 (62,000 capacity) = a demand capacity score of about 3.06. The Packers have the next highest score at 2.74. Even teams that, like the Bears, have generations and legions of fans in large markets like the Giants, Cowboys, and Patriots have scores of 1.63, 1.25, and 1.84 respectively, more than a full point less than the Bears.
What does this all mean? I know tons of people that have been Bear fans their entire lives that might ever have the chance to attend one, maybe two home Bears games in their lifetime. The tickets are too expensive, and the season-ticket wait list is too exhaustive. A new team would have a herculian task of trying to win over some of these diehard Bear fans, but they could fill a 62K seat stadium on a routine basis if the following two conditions were met:
1) Tickets would have to be much, much lower than what the Bears command on the secondary market
2) They would have to win (playoffs) almost right away, and almost every season
I don't think condition 1 would be too much of a problem (starting prices for Jets, Raiders, and Redskins tickets are all significantly less than those of the Giants, Niners, and Ravens). Condition 2 is a total crapshoot. Ideally, people would eventually at least go and see the second team for the novelty of having a new team and for the affordability the new team would offer. If that team starts winning on a regular basis (and it pains me to admit this), Bears fans will jump ship in large numbers. Don't kid yourselves, Chicago, like any other sports city, has its share of bandwagoners. The Hawks are riding the wagon wave right now, and the Sox rode it for 3-4 years. You could probably even argue that the Bulls are riding it to an extent right now (how often did the Bulls come up in casual conversation with non-sports diehards before D Rose came to town?)
This isn't really a horrible thing. The Bears will still sell out each game, they'll just maybe drop a few fractions of a point on TV ratings. Think about it this way. How exciting would it have been if instead of moving to Baltimore a while back, the Ravens had moved to Chicago(land). Fan of the team or not, how fun would it be to have a Bears/Packers rivalry in town one week and a Ravens/Steelers rivalry the next? It would probably take a team of that sort of caliber to produce the kind of fervent fanbase that would make a second Chicago team really profitable, but it could be done. I think the population is there to support a lame duck NFL franchise (like the Bills, if the Bills were to move here and keep producing 6-10 seasons), but it would be more of a Raiders level of support with attendances in the 40/50K range per game, which is to say, not really worth it.
Of course all of this might be pointless when considering the fact that having a stronger AFC TV presence in Chicagoland might be reason enough to grant Chicago an AFC team. In any case, with enough success on the field, Chicago can do this.
good points. there really is owner one downer: Soldier Field. It is inadequate, arguably for one team, certainly for two. It is way too small for its market and its profitability is limited by its size and lack of dome when it comes to getting major events like a super bowl or final 4. and, of course, it is absolutely unexpandable.
i tend to look at the notion of an AFC team here as a pipe dream (just too many factors outside of Chicago's control to make it happen), but what would have been interesting at the time when the new Soldier Field was merely in the discussion stage would have been Chicago's ability to play hard ball on the issue.
arguably Chicago could have made an argument for a truly super stadium at the time, that would have required the NFL to put an AFC in team and the Bears to go along with it (arguably based on the type of stadium they would get). And that type of stadium would have been a blockbuster:
two teams, probably connected to McCPl for convention use, and that ability to attract big games like the Super Bowl that would have built on Chicago's prime destination as the showcase city it is (image the attraction of a dome in Chicago for these events, offering what domed stadiums can't offer in places like Indy or Detroit). This type of arrangement works well for the Giants and Jets. And, who knows, the Raiders may join the 49ers at some point at their new stadium.
of course, that's history. I have no idea how you could build such a stadium today for it just couldn't happen without private ownership and even Oprah couldn't afford that.
I think it's perfectly fitting for the Cardinals to be in Phoenix considering the sheer number of former Chicagoans who form the population of the Phoenix. It's like a home team eventually made it out there with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thanks. i'll take the personal reference for what it is; an admission that you know I was right.
