• join now
  • login
  • Login
1/25/09
Chicago Wants Two NFL Teams
Two NFL Teams in Chicago? Good Idea Or Bad Idea?
Whenever the Super Bowl comes around we think of the NFL's past and the great history that surrounds this game we love. We think of the Hall of Fame players, great teams, and historic performances. While thinking of that history you can’t ignore teams that either moved cities or simply dissolved. One of those teams that moved were the Chicago Cardinals, which moved to St. Louis and are now in Arizona, and in Super Bowl XLIII. Chicago Mayor Daley recently said “We should have a second team in Chicago”, but is it possible and is it even a good idea?

Before I make my case for whether Chicago should have two NFL teams or not, let’s look at both sides of this debate.

Arguments Against: Chicago Sun Times writer Neil Hayes contends that it would take generations, if ever, for Chicago to embrace a second NFL team. Here are the other questions that Neil Hayes has to add to this debate:

Who would invest in a stadium in Chicago? Would fans buy the tickets necessary to fill it? Even if the Bears were forced to share Soldier Field, would there be enough support from the corporate community to sell the luxury suites necessary to make such a team viable?

I agree with Hayes that the biggest problem surrounding a second windy city team would be gaining fan support in a die hard Bears fan haven. Whether Chicago acquired a current NFL franchise or started an expansion team, fan support would still be the biggest issue.

Arguments For: The Mayor of Chicago is behind it, and that’s a start. The Chicago Cardinals played at Comiskey Park, which could solve the temporary problem of a new team not having a stadium to play in. Chicago is thought of as, if not the best, one of the top football markets in the world. Chicago loves the Bears, and is hungry for more football. Population continues to grow, which is always a positive for new sports teams. New revenue for the city of Chicago and for the NFL would also be a positives for both parties.

Opinion: Yes, Chicago should have another NFL team. The Chicago sports market is a very lucrative one that should be taken advantage of by the city and the NFL. The Chicago Bears sell out every game and have a long waiting list for season tickets. There is no doubt in my mind that if Chicago brought in another NFL team, they would sell tickets and eventually gain support from the city and the state of Illinois.

To answer the questions raised by Neil Hayes; Investors for a new stadium would come with time. The new team would play their games either at Soldier field (sharing with the Bears obviously), or at Comiskey until there would be a demand and enough support to build a new stadium. Fans would immediately buy tickets for the new team. Even with the tough economy the NFL is at its best and fans are still coming to the games in high numbers. In a market like Chicago, I don’t think there would ever be a problem filling up seats for a NFL contest. As far as the luxury suites are concerned, those may need to be discounted for the first year or so, but the big wigs of Chicago would be sure to purchase suites for a NFL team in Chicago.

It might not happen anytime soon, but I think a second NFL team in Chicago is a good idea, and would benefit both the city and the NFL.
Advertisement
79 comments
Vote!
Comment!
Your votes determine top comment

1/25/09
37
I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first.

1/25/09
37
I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first.

1/25/09
8
Maybe Detroit needs a second team too?  Oh, and while we are at it, lets get a second team in Indy, and Cleveland, and Miami.  Hell, lets put a new second team everywhere. Why not?  The public for sure will want to fund all those shiny brand new stadiums, and pay the new taxes that go along with them.  Why not?  Were all rich enough to afford it.

1/25/09
16

LA should definately get a team before Chicago gets 2.


1/25/09
7

If there is demand for it, then why not, but I suspect an expansion team in London may come first


1/25/09
4
The popularity of the NFL is so widespread I fell they could successfully put an expansion team just about anywhere in the U.S. and still sellout games. For that reason it seems to make more sense to put any new team in a city that doesn't have a team like San Antonio, Portland, Toronto, Columbus, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, or you know, Los Angeles.

1/25/09
1
if they can afford to do it I say go for it, some states already have 2 teams like Pennsylvania and New york for example. Pennsylvania teams are on either end of the state but both are also southern which dont make it easy for the northern Pennsylvania people to see a Pennsylvania game.

1/25/09
2
18packabs wrote:
I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first.
Ouch pants on fire...ouch...

1/25/09
2
sorry dude, but it isn't like there has been a team there in quite some time. Maybe this year they can trade some draft picks for some wins?

1/25/09
1
as a bears fan, yes we want more football but not another team. and if mayor daley thinks its a good idea-its not

1/25/09
2
18packabs wrote:
sorry dude, but it isn't like there has been a team there in quite some time. Maybe this year they can trade some draft picks for some wins?
True that, It's sad when you start to miss players like Scott Mitchell and Charlie Batch...they've been the best QB's we've had in the last 20 years.  3 Draft picks in the first 33 overall picks has to do something for us...unless we draft horribly like always and blow it again.  (And I say we because I have season tickets...don't ask me why..but I still have them..)

1/25/09
1
I think this is a great idea! we Packer fans need another team to root against and another team for ours to decimate!

1/25/09
3
(Edited by socalthome)
why on earth would Chicago need another team?  We could use one here in Des Moines.  (Just Kidding..then we would have blackouts)

Los Angeles should be on the top of the list,but the NFL does not need any more expansion.  32 teams are enough.  The talent pool would be greatly diminished.  Geeze there arent even 32 QB's in the NFL that are top notch.  Maybe 5 or 6 at best.   I remember when there were 26 teams as a kid, then in 76 they added Tampa and Seattle, then Carolina and Jacksonville, then Cleveland (again) then Houston.  There are enough teams in the NFL, we do not need any more. 

1/25/09
5

Let's call the new team the White Foxes, and then when they win the Superbowl, they can still cry and moan about how much media attention the Bears get, and how their new stadium will never be as great as Soldier Field. Wait a second...


1/25/09
5
Wrong.  The reason there is no NFL team in LA is because LA refuses to fund a stadium for a team.  There have been prospective owners for one.  But none have either had the cash or desire to fund the bulk of a stadium themselves.  Until that impasse is dealt with, there will be no team in LA.  The Rams and Raiders left because of the stadium situations.  Not because they "HAD" to.

1/25/09
3
Second team in Chicago...   I am all for it if they take the Lions!   Let Ford move his team to Chicago and then maybe Detroit could get an expansion team with a real owner who cares...

1/25/09
4
Frankly, the NFL's current division and scheduling system is great, adding a team would just screw that up. 

1/25/09
1
Ok I am going to respond to a few posts at once here.  Expansion team in London?  A game here and there over seas is all in good fun, but I doubt teams are going to want to travel to London for a monday night game, then come back to the states to get ready for a sunday game.  Plus if London gets a team before Canada, those Canucks up there might just go crazy.  The LA team debate has nothing to do with this.  A second team in Chicago would bring revenue, it's not about what city deserves a team the most...c'mon people this is the NFL we're talking about.  You and I both know all they care about is money, not fans, not players (especially retired ones), and not coaches.  An NFL team in Des Moines!?? Let's just put one in Grand Rapids Michigan, Portland, and San Jose while we're at it.  This argument is directly targeted at a new expansion team, but possibly acquiring a failing one (which there are a few that might eventually sell (Miami, Minnesota etc.)

1/25/09
1
why does chicago need another football team when they have two baseball teams already this is unfare if they let this happen

1/25/09
0
hehehehe i just owned u and u know the BEARS STILL SUCK

1/25/09
0

DONT WE STILL NEED A DETROIT FOOTBALL TEAM I MEAN SERIOUSLY THE LIONS DONT COUNT Put one in detroit before a second in chicago


1/25/09
3
philadelphia154 wrote:
why does chicago need another football team when they have two baseball teams already this is unfare if they let this happen
Unfair to let it happen?  lol, they sell out every game.  You might as well say it's unfair that California has 4 teams, or that San Fransisco has 2 NFL teams (Oakland & the 49ers).  It doesn't matter what's fair, it's what sells

1/25/09
0

plus which division r they gonna be in becuz i dont think any division wants another playoff contender


1/25/09
0
OK HOW CAN U SAY THAT PHILADELPHIA154 IT MAKES NO SENSE

1/25/09
1
rarnold wrote:

DONT WE STILL NEED A DETROIT FOOTBALL TEAM I MEAN SERIOUSLY THE LIONS DONT COUNT Put one in detroit before a second in chicago

Have you read any of the comments in this post?  Look at the top comment by "pantsonfire" made hours before yours "I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first."

1/25/09
3
Michael_Luchies wrote:
Ok I am going to respond to a few posts at once here.  Expansion team in London?  A game here and there over seas is all in good fun, but I doubt teams are going to want to travel to London for a monday night game, then come back to the states to get ready for a sunday game.  Plus if London gets a team before Canada, those Canucks up there might just go crazy.  The LA team debate has nothing to do with this.  A second team in Chicago would bring revenue, it's not about what city deserves a team the most...c'mon people this is the NFL we're talking about.  You and I both know all they care about is money, not fans, not players (especially retired ones), and not coaches.  An NFL team in Des Moines!?? Let's just put one in Grand Rapids Michigan, Portland, and San Jose while we're at it.  This argument is directly targeted at a new expansion team, but possibly acquiring a failing one (which there are a few that might eventually sell (Miami, Minnesota etc.)
Regarding your San Jose comment...  The 49ers want to build a stadium in Santa Clara.  San Jose's smaller neighbor.  Since they want the city of Santa Clara to foot a great deal of the bill, you can bet it will not happen.  They will have to get by in their current location without their precious super luxury boxes.  Poor babies.

1/25/09
1
Two NFL teams in Chicago probably will never happen just because the new team would always be thought of as second-rate compared to the Bears.

1/25/09
0
frenchy62 wrote:
Two NFL teams in Chicago probably will never happen just because the new team would always be thought of as second-rate compared to the Bears.
Your right, but would that matter?  Would the NFL or Chicago care if the new team was "second rate" to the Bears if they are still selling tickets and getting support?

1/25/09
2
ML31 wrote:
Wrong.  The reason there is no NFL team in LA is because LA refuses to fund a stadium for a team.  There have been prospective owners for one.  But none have either had the cash or desire to fund the bulk of a stadium themselves.  Until that impasse is dealt with, there will be no team in LA.  The Rams and Raiders left because of the stadium situations.  Not because they "HAD" to.
Um...so she's RIGHT, then...not Wrong. If the city's populace doesn't want to fund a stadium through taxes, then those "fans" don't want a team. Simple as that. Before you jump on me, I'm not saying it's right or wrong but the people of L.A. have spoken with their wallets: we don't want an NFL team. Period.

1/25/09
1
As a Rams fan, I have this to say. The lack of Rams fans wasn't the problem when the Rams were here. The problem was the Rams owner. Georgia dismantled the team and everyone knew it. She wanted to go home to St. Louis. Knowing this why would fans show up anymore?

As for football teams not doing well in Los Angeles, I don't by it.

1/25/09
0
(Edited by kteacher)
MarkTheShark wrote:
Um...so she's RIGHT, then...not Wrong. If the city's populace doesn't want to fund a stadium through taxes, then those "fans" don't want a team. Simple as that. Before you jump on me, I'm not saying it's right or wrong but the people of L.A. have spoken with their wallets: we don't want an NFL team. Period.
Considering the last two owners we have had here, is it any wonder Los Angeles doesn't want to fund a new stadium? Throw in living in the state with the highest sales tax, and that is a no brainer. With this being said. There have been many groups willing to put their own money down to build a stadium. Whether or not residents want to spend tax money isn't really as big of an issue.

1/25/09
1
Michael_Luchies wrote:
True that, It's sad when you start to miss players like Scott Mitchell and Charlie Batch...they've been the best QB's we've had in the last 20 years.  3 Draft picks in the first 33 overall picks has to do something for us...unless we draft horribly like always and blow it again.  (And I say we because I have season tickets...don't ask me why..but I still have them..)
md, keep those Season tickets, cause when they do get good you will be the Smartest guy on this site. And besides, everybody loves a true fan, and by you proving it will make the victory lap even sweeter, Rock ON!!!!!!!

1/25/09
2
18packabs wrote:
md, keep those Season tickets, cause when they do get good you will be the Smartest guy on this site. And besides, everybody loves a true fan, and by you proving it will make the victory lap even sweeter, Rock ON!!!!!!!
haha thanks for the support!  At least the Tigers finally came around for one year in '06, so there has to be hope for the Lions....at least a playoff victory before I die...I hope

1/25/09
0
Michael_Luchies wrote:
Have you read any of the comments in this post?  Look at the top comment by "pantsonfire" made hours before yours "I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first."
I said the same thing 5 days ago in another thread.

1/25/09
0
Michael_Luchies wrote:
haha thanks for the support!  At least the Tigers finally came around for one year in '06, so there has to be hope for the Lions....at least a playoff victory before I die...I hope
you day will come, I have some teams that had long waits of success, if you look at my profile. I have learned through my days what goes around comes around. Eventually the stars will align and Detroit will find another Championship. Until then Good Luck bud.

1/25/09
2
If they have 2 teams in Chicago maybe between the both of them they might actually be able to find a QB

1/25/09
0
If the team is as good as the 1985 Bears then I'm all for it.

1/25/09
0
mathsys wrote:
I said the same thing 5 days ago in another thread.
sorry dude, didn't mean to steal your line, but I didn't see it.

1/25/09
0
I think its a good idea. But does the NFL need to expand even more? I love watching for football. But it will be a while before the team would be competive enough. Also stranger things had happened in the NFL before. Wait And see...

1/25/09
0
kteacher wrote:
Considering the last two owners we have had here, is it any wonder Los Angeles doesn't want to fund a new stadium? Throw in living in the state with the highest sales tax, and that is a no brainer. With this being said. There have been many groups willing to put their own money down to build a stadium. Whether or not residents want to spend tax money isn't really as big of an issue.
Where are these groups? I'm sure Czar Goodell would love to find these guys. They are willing to buy LA area land, then build a stadium with their OWN money? Hmmm, I hope they are young because even with the crazy kind of cash that the NFL generates that's a BILLION dollar investment up front. It's gonna take a while to see that turn around.

1/25/09
1
18packabs wrote:
sorry dude, didn't mean to steal your line, but I didn't see it.
No problem, great minds think alike.

1/25/09
0
(Edited by kteacher)
MarkTheShark wrote:
Where are these groups? I'm sure Czar Goodell would love to find these guys. They are willing to buy LA area land, then build a stadium with their OWN money? Hmmm, I hope they are young because even with the crazy kind of cash that the NFL generates that's a BILLION dollar investment up front. It's gonna take a while to see that turn around.

1/25/09
0

There are way too many cities that could use a team before a second in Chicago including:
Louisville
Los Angeles
Portland
Orlando
Albuquerque
Sacramento
San Antonio
Austin
San Jose
Memphis
Columbus
Oklahoma City
Omaha
etc


1/25/09
0
kteacher wrote:
Looks like lawmakers are still saying no...notice Roski wants to build it on the cheap...lol...Do I think LA could support an NFL team?, yes, I think Chicago could support another one as well...but, I think you might see some sort of NFL minor leagues before we see more than 32 teams.

1/25/09
1
MarkTheShark wrote:
Looks like lawmakers are still saying no...notice Roski wants to build it on the cheap...lol...Do I think LA could support an NFL team?, yes, I think Chicago could support another one as well...but, I think you might see some sort of NFL minor leagues before we see more than 32 teams.
I thought Los Angeles already had a minor league (and in some people's minds NFL calibur) NFL team called the USC Trojans.

1/25/09
0
kteacher wrote:
I thought Los Angeles already had a minor league (and in some people's minds NFL calibur) NFL team called the USC Trojans.
....in more way$ than one......burn

1/25/09
0
WhoDey wrote:

There are way too many cities that could use a team before a second in Chicago including:
Louisville
Los Angeles
Portland
Orlando
Albuquerque
Sacramento
San Antonio
Austin
San Jose
Memphis
Columbus
Oklahoma City
Omaha
etc

Would any of those teams have a chance to survive greater than a 2nd Chicago team?  It's not about who could use a team or who even deserves one...just in what market would an NFL team have the greatest chance of survival and sell out every game. 

1/25/09
1
Michael_Luchies wrote:
Would any of those teams have a chance to survive greater than a 2nd Chicago team?  It's not about who could use a team or who even deserves one...just in what market would an NFL team have the greatest chance of survival and sell out every game. 
I truly believe San Antonio could handle it. They did very well hosting the Saints a few years ago during the season following hurricane Katrina.

1/25/09
1
CMAC wrote:

LA should definately get a team before Chicago gets 2.

Why would anyone in LA who is a football fan want a team. They get wake up to games being played on the east coast and suffer no black outs ever.

1/25/09
0
I love the surper bowl and I think La should get it before chicago does.

1/25/09
0
i see the nfl going the way the nba did and try to make it international. i see londan toronto or mexico 1st getting a team

1/25/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
I truly believe San Antonio could handle it. They did very well hosting the Saints a few years ago during the season following hurricane Katrina.
You are absolutely right.  They made the Saints and their fans feel right at home.  But I think its a bit much to put a second team in Chicago when Los Angeles is without an NFL team. USC is basically their NFL team.

1/25/09
0
We already have a second rate baseball team with the Sox, so I could see Chicago getting a second football team. Before people get on me remember that the Sox won the World Series in 05 and still had a problem filling the stadium with jealous White Sox fans.

1/25/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
I truly believe San Antonio could handle it. They did very well hosting the Saints a few years ago during the season following hurricane Katrina.
San Antonio doesn't even get a lot of support for the Spurs on a regular basis and they are one of the best franchises in sports.. I can't see San Antonio being a hotbed for a new NFL Team.

1/25/09
0
Michael_Luchies wrote:
San Antonio doesn't even get a lot of support for the Spurs on a regular basis and they are one of the best franchises in sports.. I can't see San Antonio being a hotbed for a new NFL Team.
Football+Texas=$$$$$

1/25/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
Um...so she's RIGHT, then...not Wrong. If the city's populace doesn't want to fund a stadium through taxes, then those "fans" don't want a team. Simple as that. Before you jump on me, I'm not saying it's right or wrong but the people of L.A. have spoken with their wallets: we don't want an NFL team. Period.
No, she is wrong.  Those teams did NOT "have" to leave.  There was no one forcing the team to leave.  They left on their own.  Also, it is not necessarily true that not wanting higher taxes = not wanting a team.   People could very well want a team but not want to foot the bill for a stadium.  Who could blame them?  Especially for an NFL type stadium.  The most expensive sporting arena there is, and the kind that would have the least use.  There are many people in Santa Clara that would love to have the 49'ers in their town.  But have no desire to pay for the stadium themselves.  This is 100% reasonable.

I'm sure the entire Los Angeles fan base is pleased to have you speak for them.

1/25/09
0
JD88 wrote:
I think its a good idea. But does the NFL need to expand even more? I love watching for football. But it will be a while before the team would be competive enough. Also stranger things had happened in the NFL before. Wait And see...
Who says anything about expanding?  It could very well be an existing team.  I know the 49ers want a new stadium.  And they certainly aren't getting on anywhere in the Bay Area.  My theory is that LA will either get the Raiders or 49ers sometime in the next decade assuming they get a stadium built.

1/25/09
1
MarkTheShark wrote:
Looks like lawmakers are still saying no...notice Roski wants to build it on the cheap...lol...Do I think LA could support an NFL team?, yes, I think Chicago could support another one as well...but, I think you might see some sort of NFL minor leagues before we see more than 32 teams.
There already is a minor league for the NFL.  It's called the NCAA.

1/25/09
2
fourtime7 wrote:
i see the nfl going the way the nba did and try to make it international. i see londan toronto or mexico 1st getting a team
I don't.  The NFL has been trying to force their game on the rest of the world for quite some time.  It just isn't going to be popular enough.  Occasional games here and there will do well for the novelty of it.  But it will never be popular enough overseas for a full time team.  The NFL needs to be happy with being the most popular sport in the USA and let traditional football be the most popular sport world wide.

1/25/09
1
I am a Bears fan, but more importantly I am a Chicago fan, I say... 'hell yeah, more the merrier' .

1/25/09
0
(Edited by MarkTheShark)
ML31 wrote:
No, she is wrong.  Those teams did NOT "have" to leave.  There was no one forcing the team to leave.  They left on their own.  Also, it is not necessarily true that not wanting higher taxes = not wanting a team.   People could very well want a team but not want to foot the bill for a stadium.  Who could blame them?  Especially for an NFL type stadium.  The most expensive sporting arena there is, and the kind that would have the least use.  There are many people in Santa Clara that would love to have the 49'ers in their town.  But have no desire to pay for the stadium themselves.  This is 100% reasonable.

I'm sure the entire Los Angeles fan base is pleased to have you speak for them.
Well, of course this is a democracy. Tampa had the exact situation in 1996.

It's a round off to the majority but it's simple: LA doesn't want to pass tax referendums to fund a stadium (duh not 100% of them), Tampa did.

Only 53% did, but according to Hillsborough County by-laws a majority was all that was needed in tax related referendums. Obviously there were thousands of voters that didn't want to foot the bill for the Glazers and their new stadium.
I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people in LA and Orange Counties that would love to have the NFL, but until their government representation concurs...then LA doesn't want a team. And like you said, that's reasonable.

I know that you are trying to paint the owners and potential owners as bad guys here. I get that. But they are all the same.
What it comes down to for a taxpayer is: 'Is it worth it for your happiness, well-being, and quality of life to be sucked out of money that you may or may not be able to afford for the next xx amount of years?' Whatever the majority is, gets the stadium and the team. I can't knock anyone for their own personal answer to that question.

1/25/09
0
LA first, then Chicago, then SF since the Niners are basically bolting for San Jose.  After that, I'd say Oklahoma City

1/25/09
0
ML31 wrote:
There already is a minor league for the NFL.  It's called the NCAA.
How much $$$ does the NCAA give to the NFL each year?

1/25/09
0
 they would also need another team via nfc (if the new team is chosen to be AFC)

Then again they would basically screw up the divisions with the new team =.=

1/25/09
1
18packabs wrote:
I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first.

I think it would be a fantastic idea to have another team here in Chicago. We are a football town, and whose known for the best tailgating food. We need fresh blood pumped into our city.


1/25/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
MarkTheShark wrote:
Well, of course this is a democracy. Tampa had the exact situation in 1996.

It's a round off to the majority but it's simple: LA doesn't want to pass tax referendums to fund a stadium (duh not 100% of them), Tampa did.

Only 53% did, but according to Hillsborough County by-laws a majority was all that was needed in tax related referendums. Obviously there were thousands of voters that didn't want to foot the bill for the Glazers and their new stadium.
I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people in LA and Orange Counties that would love to have the NFL, but until their government representation concurs...then LA doesn't want a team. And like you said, that's reasonable.

I know that you are trying to paint the owners and potential owners as bad guys here. I get that. But they are all the same.
What it comes down to for a taxpayer is: 'Is it worth it for your happiness, well-being, and quality of life to be sucked out of money that you may or may not be able to afford for the next xx amount of years?' Whatever the majority is, gets the stadium and the team. I can't knock anyone for their own personal answer to that question.
No, this is not a democracy.  It is a representative republic.

Your mistake is in thinking that because someone doesn't want to pay for something it means they don't want it.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  I'd like a 65" LCD TV.  But I don't want to pay for one.  Even if I had the money for one, maybe things are such that it would be irresponsible to pay for something frivolous when there are more important things that need the money.  My guess is that LA would like to have a team.  They just don't want to pay for a stadium.  those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not trying to paint anyone as bad guys.  I was just saying what the LA situation is.  If you see it as owners being bad guys, that's your assessment. 

1/25/09
1
spankyc14 wrote:
LA first, then Chicago, then SF since the Niners are basically bolting for San Jose.  After that, I'd say Oklahoma City
Um...  You people that say San Jose should get a team first...  You ARE aware that San Jose is a mere 45 miles from San Francisco, right?  Aware that a team in SJ would be a 3rd team in the SF Bay Area?  It is like saying that Boston needs an NFL team.

1/25/09
0
MarkTheShark wrote:
How much $$$ does the NCAA give to the NFL each year?
Nothing.  The exact same amount the Pacific Coast League gives Major League Baseball.  What's your point?

1/25/09
0
Jubanator14 wrote:
Football+Texas=$$$$$
hmmm....the Texans though?  Are they a cash cow in Houston?...don't really think so...

1/25/09
0
Another NFL team in Chicago? C'mon! Aint gonna happen! That's like putting another NFL team in Cleveland! Get real Mayor Dayley!

1/25/09
0
This is ridiculous. They already got 2 baseball teams. Too many damn teams- you don't really know who's really "represntin".

1/25/09
1
Michael_Luchies wrote:
hmmm....the Texans though?  Are they a cash cow in Houston?...don't really think so...
Yep.  They make money.  The NFL has gotten to the point where they could have a team in North Platte Nebraska and still make a mint.  They get so much money from TV that they could play in empty stadiums and still rake in the bucks.

1/26/09
2
18packabs wrote:
I think it would be a good idea as well. but the NFL needs to put a Football Team in Detroit first.
My vote for greatest FanIQ comment in history.

1/26/09
0
(Edited by Variant)
I guess only if your local to LA / Orange County  you get to see the local news.... sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news

many people here in Southern California want an NFL team here, regardless if its a moving franchise or an expansion ( not sure how the expansion would work ) but I can tell you this,  your fooling yourself  if you think the NFL would allow another franchise in Chicago before it gets one in LA the most starved market in the country

personally I think the correct place for a stadium is Anaheim California smack between the Big A (Angels/Baseball)  and the Pond ( Ducks/Hockey ) 

1/26/09
0
Michael_Luchies wrote:
Ok I am going to respond to a few posts at once here.  Expansion team in London?  A game here and there over seas is all in good fun, but I doubt teams are going to want to travel to London for a monday night game, then come back to the states to get ready for a sunday game.  Plus if London gets a team before Canada, those Canucks up there might just go crazy.  The LA team debate has nothing to do with this.  A second team in Chicago would bring revenue, it's not about what city deserves a team the most...c'mon people this is the NFL we're talking about.  You and I both know all they care about is money, not fans, not players (especially retired ones), and not coaches.  An NFL team in Des Moines!?? Let's just put one in Grand Rapids Michigan, Portland, and San Jose while we're at it.  This argument is directly targeted at a new expansion team, but possibly acquiring a failing one (which there are a few that might eventually sell (Miami, Minnesota etc.)
I think the scheduling issues can be overcome - after all, you didnt hear the Giants complaining about it when they won the Superbowl (they didn't even complain at the state of the pitch).  The fact that London got a multi-year agreement to stage regular-season games before Canada suggests to me that the NFL may have more than a passing interest in expanding eastwards as well as north!  Also, the fact that a number of team owners were allegedly asking to play a game in London after the success of the Saints v Chargers game, and the teams for this year were announced earlier than in previous years also gives the impression that the UK experience is a good one.
In terms of logistics, I could see a London team play four weeks in the US, then eight weeks in London (so that teams travelling to the UK can tie in with the bye weeks), finishing with their last four games in the USA.  That way, the team is in the USA if it makes the play-offs.  Monday Night games wouldn't happen anyway - 7pm eastern time is midnight in London, and there's no way Wembley would stage a game starting at midnight and finishing at 3am !!!
Anyway, back to the question - If the Bears franchise has evidence that they are turning away tens of thousands of ticket requests for every game, then the demand isn't really there for a second team.

1/28/09
0
Michael_Luchies wrote:
Would any of those teams have a chance to survive greater than a 2nd Chicago team?  It's not about who could use a team or who even deserves one...just in what market would an NFL team have the greatest chance of survival and sell out every game. 
Not all of them, but some could.

1/31/09
0
LA has always been more a baseball and basketball town. only thing that LA is good in football is usc. College ball is bigger there. Kinda like the south,where i'm from. In the south college football is bigger than nfl. If the falcons play horrible the fans don't show up. If your're good they will come. For example your're a cubs fans, cub fans always show up no matter what. Down here nothing like that.

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine.
Preview


12,798,192+
PLAY NEVER-ENDING TRIVIA
Ty Cobb
Vince Coleman
Billy Hamilton
Tim Raines
 more

TAKE A QUIZ
 more

ANSWER TODAY'S POLL
 more
PREDICT THE SCORE
Soccer
Cricket
NBA
MLB
NHL
 more

MEET OUR FANS
Jodhvir
Narada
 more