Rich Daley wants a 2nd NFL team in Chicago (Cicero: moving, stadium)

[RH3Flatlander]

I'm sure it fell on deaf ears and the City certainly has more pressing issues, but I wrote a suggestion on the City's webpage recently about how there is an opportunity afoot for Chicago (or some other city) to land a new NFL team within the next year.

I'm not sure how many of you are following the circus of NFL teams potentially relocating to LA, but there are three teams in the mix for essentially two spots. Bottom line, some team is going to be left out of LA having completely alienated its current local fanbase and having exhausted all of its current local revenue streams for a new stadium. This is a bleeping golden opportunity for Rahm to have discussions with leaders from each of the three teams to pursue Chicago as a potential backup option. Chicago already has a stadium (the city can force the Bears to share SF) and market demand that many unproven potential future NFL cities outside of London and Toronto possess.

And before the onslaught of Bears only fans come at me with rebuttals, let me explain how a second NFL team in Chicago(land) would benefit the Bears:

1) A second team in the market would put increased pressure on Bears ownership to field a competitive product

2) Barring a Super Bowl run by the Bears (hah) having a second team in the market would help decrease ticket prices on the secondary market, making attending a Bears game more affordable than the current gameday experience, which last I checked, only trails New England and San Francisco in terms of total price.

3) While Soldier Field could temporarily act as a shared home for both teams, eventually one team will probably want its own stadium, or at least a much nicer shared stadium. Using a second NFL team in the market as a catalyst for a domed/retractable roof stadium that can attract larger revenue producing events becomes a potential reality. Rahm is a fan of event driven economic development, which is why he is such a proponent of Chicago getting a Super Bowl. If he can find tens of millions of dollars for what will ultimately be a useless arena for DePaul, he'll find some $ for a stadium that can host a Super Bowl. If not Rahm, some suburb like Rosemont would gladly eminent domain its entire village for the opportunity.

[TheSunshineKid]

How about relocating the Chicago Fire stadium in the city's parameters instead.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by RH3Flatlander

I'm sure it fell on deaf ears and the City certainly has more pressing issues, but I wrote a suggestion on the City's webpage recently about how there is an opportunity afoot for Chicago (or some other city) to land a new NFL team within the next year.

I'm not sure how many of you are following the circus of NFL teams potentially relocating to LA, but there are three teams in the mix for essentially two spots. Bottom line, some team is going to be left out of LA having completely alienated its current local fanbase and having exhausted all of its current local revenue streams for a new stadium. This is a bleeping golden opportunity for Rahm to have discussions with leaders from each of the three teams to pursue Chicago as a potential backup option. Chicago already has a stadium (the city can force the Bears to share SF) and market demand that many unproven potential future NFL cities outside of London and Toronto possess.

And before the onslaught of Bears only fans come at me with rebuttals, let me explain how a second NFL team in Chicago(land) would benefit the Bears:

1) A second team in the market would put increased pressure on Bears ownership to field a competitive product

2) Barring a Super Bowl run by the Bears (hah) having a second team in the market would help decrease ticket prices on the secondary market, making attending a Bears game more affordable than the current gameday experience, which last I checked, only trails New England and San Francisco in terms of total price.

3) While Soldier Field could temporarily act as a shared home for both teams, eventually one team will probably want its own stadium, or at least a much nicer shared stadium. Using a second NFL team in the market as a catalyst for a domed/retractable roof stadium that can attract larger revenue producing events becomes a potential reality. Rahm is a fan of event driven economic development, which is why he is such a proponent of Chicago getting a Super Bowl. If he can find tens of millions of dollars for what will ultimately be a useless arena for DePaul, he'll find some $ for a stadium that can host a Super Bowl. If not Rahm, some suburb like Rosemont would gladly eminent domain its entire village for the opportunity.

The Raiders, Chargers, and Rams all want new stadiums, even if the Raiders and Chargers don't mind sharing said new stadium. It seems unlikely that any of them would be willing to share an already existing stadium with the Bears.

You also have Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis in the mix in terms of them trying to keep a team. I'm not fully aware of the situation in San Diego and Oakland, but St. Louis wants the Rams, and, if the city can't keep them, they want another team. St. Louis also already has a new stadium plan that hasn't been derailed as of yet.

[MassVt]

Shades of the Chicago Cardinals circa 1959..

It does look like the Rams are headed back to LA pretty soon, but I don't think that a 2nd team would work in Chicago. The Bears' history, along with inflated ticket prices, would make this impractical..

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Shades of the Chicago Cardinals circa 1959..

It does look like the Rams are headed back to LA pretty soon, but I don't think that a 2nd team would work in Chicago. The Bears' history, along with inflated ticket prices, would make this impractical..

Supporting an NFL team is far easier than supporting a MLB one. I don't have any doubt that an AFC franchise in Chicago could fill up a stadium for 8 home games fairly easily.

Chicagoland and the Bay Area are virtually the same size and the Bay Area manages to support 2 NFL teams, including one in what is by far the worst stadium in the league (obviously not in Santa Clara).

If LA gets, as suspected, two NFL teams, that will mean one will go to Fox (NFC) and the other to CBS (AFC). I think one could make a pretty compelling argument that it would be good for the network balance for CBS to have an AFC team here.

[Drover]

You keep saying the Bay Area supports two teams even as the Raiders are practically begging L.A. to take 'em back. And it was easier to put a second team in a Bay Area-sized market 50 years ago when the barriers to entry were much lower. If there were only one team in the Bay Area now, there's no way in hell a second, new team could horn in on the market today.

[pvande55]

Chicago can't afford it. Well, maybe we can but it's a poor use of public funds. Any team would want a new stadium, not the ability to use Soldier Field, and a guarantee that the City buy up any unsold tickets.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Drover

You keep saying the Bay Area supports two teams even as the Raiders are practically begging L.A. to take 'em back. And it was easier to put a second team in a Bay Area-sized market 50 years ago when the barriers to entry were much lower. If there were only one team in the Bay Area now, there's no way in hell a second, new team could horn in on the market today.

agreed on the fact the NFL would never put a second team in the Bay Area if the Raiders left; ditto, of course, for MLB if the A's departed.

and the Bay Area is a total mess on the stadium issue….for both teams. I just don't see it happening. But that lack of new facility hasn't hurt Raider attendance while it has decimated attendance for the A's: the Raiders still draw.

so, yes, IMHO the Bay Area is still supporting two NFL franchises and I have no doubt that Chicago could, too. And for that matter, I'm not sure it restricted to just these two markets. I suspect that cities like Philadelphia might indeed be able to support 2 franchises.

Drover, I'm basing what I say on the very nature of the NFL and how it differs from not only MLB, but NBA and NHL as well. my contention is that 8 home games is a preciously small number and filling a stadium for those 8 games in a metro area the size of Chicago (and with its obvious love of pro football) would not be difficult. Add to this the revenue sharing of broadcast rights by the NFL which is based on equality and levels the population of a New York and a Green Bay to basically the same size would add credence to the potential success of a Chicago AFC franchise.

from a marketing perspective, the NFL clearly would seek equity in its tv contract with Fox and CBS and I think it would benefit such a balance if both networks were able to claim the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Bay Area, and Baltimore/Washington markets.

I would like to add a comment about "If there were only one team in the Bay Area now, there's no way in hell a second, new team could horn in on the market today." Of course the 49ers are one of those gold plated franchises (no pun intended) and their dominance has much in common with the way the Cowboys own the Metroplex or the Steelers own Pittsburgh. That said, I have some reason to think that moving to Silicon Valley, so far off the beaten path from the heart of the Bay Area may have left the door open for that replacement franchise if the Raiders fled. There is no reason that replacement team needs to be called "Oakland" or even to play in the East Bay. It could be labeled "Bay Area" and even play within SF (not likely, just saying) in light of the that rather long drive down to Santa Clara that removes fans in SF, much of the East Bay, Marin, etc. from Levi's Stadium.

Look at the old LA situation: my contention is that if the Rams hadn't abandoned the city and the Colliseum and hadn't hightailed down to OC, there would have been no opening for the Raiders to have come to town…..and we still would have the Los Angeles Rams today.

[MassVt]

LA always has USC and UCLA, the local versions of "pro" teams, and support of any team in the past ( the Rams, later the Raiders) has always been a bit unpredictable.

Move the Rams back to LA, relocate the Cards back to St. Louis ( would Phoenix know the difference?), and bring the Colts back to Baltimore ( it's still awkward to say the "Indianapolis Colts"). if you really want to push the envelope, you could move the Titans back to Houston, and once again call them the "Oilers". (I'm not getting into the old Jets team originally being named the "Titans", though)...

[Ace Rothstein]

I think a second team would be a huge hit here. Chicagoans love football.