Chicago Bears 2024-2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
#602      
Illiniaaron
EyeoftheIllini said:
If that first tweet is correct, why is AP reporting that Poles will be the point person for search and “Warren said Poles would have the “final say” if the two have differing opinions on who should get the job”?
Click to expand...
I think it was somewhat muddled messaging by Warren in the press conference. It’s just so odd to me that no matter who the Bears bring in the communication is always poor. The whole having Eberfluss address the media on Friday morning as the head coach and then firing him an hour and a half later was such an avoidable unforced error.
 
#603      
jjv0004
The common denominator in the disaster that has been the Bears since 1985 is the McCaskey's. This is arguably the worst run organization in the NFL.
 
#604      
Roundball Sage
Battle89 said:
If you had told me 20 years ago how little pro sports I watch now, I would not have believed you.
Click to expand...

Pro sports changed on us. The money involved for everyone got huge. It became more glamour and entertainment rather than sports oriented. In short... pro sports does not give the fans the enjoyment it once did.

Many of us watch because there is so little else on now that is worth even turning on any more. There still is the element of competition and seeing the unexpected and so we watch this out of lack of other viable choices -- or just habit.

In baseball, now a guy hits a home run and tosses the bat into the air like he just did something miraculous.

In football, a guy catches a ball for a first down and HAS TO signal it himself and act like he did something miraculous.

In the NBA, guys prance around like peacocks.

Pro sports has become a self-indulgent spectacle for guys who act like they are the greatest things to ever appear on the venues of play.

And fans? Get to pay higher ticker prices every year to fund all this.
 
#605      
Roundball Sage
ChiefGritty said:
Warren did get Arlington Heights to cave on the property tax issue the other week, in fairness.

I remain convinced that's where it will end up.
Click to expand...

Many years ago – when old Boss Mayor Daley was around – the Bears were already making threats to leave Chicago.

Daley told them... if you do... you had better not call yourselves the Chicago Bears or we will sue the hell out of you.

Now that’s the spirit!

If the Bears are foolish enough to move to the great and grand metropolis of Arlington Heights they should no longer be called the Chicago Bears.

‘The Arlington Bears!’ Now there’s a name that will strike terror into the hearts of NFL opposing teams.

Especially when they play against the Inglewood Rams!
 
#606      
the juiceman cometh
Roundball Sage said:
Many years ago – when old Boss Mayor Daley was around – the Bears were already making threats to leave Chicago.

Daley told them... if you do... you had better not call yourselves the Chicago Bears or we will sue the hell out of you.

Now that’s the spirit!

If the Bears are foolish enough to move to the great and grand metropolis of Arlington Heights they should no longer be called the Chicago Bears.

‘The Arlington Bears!’ Now there’s a name that will strike terror into the hearts of NFL opposing teams.

Especially when they play against the Inglewood Rams!
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is nonsensical.

Many NFL teams don't play in the cities they are named for. Suburbs are part of the city's metro area - its ok to claim that connection. Moreover the City of Chicago doesn't have copyright or trademark protection over the name of the city. I can start a company named Chicago Widgets Inc., incorporate it in Finland, and build its headquarters on the Moon if I want. Chicago has also allowed other teams based in the Suburbs to use the city's name without a peep (Fire, Wolves, Dogs, Red Stars).

And finally, why would the team dropping Chicago from its name be good for Chicago? Chicago is already the biggest city with only one team, does it really want to join the ranks of cities without an NFL team?
 
#608      
Illiniaaron
jjv0004 said:
The common denominator in the disaster that has been the Bears since 1985 is the McCaskey's. This is arguably the worst run organization in the NFL.
Click to expand...
Somehow it's gotten worse since George took over.
1733263197436.png
 
#609      
EllderIlliniFan
Roundball Sage said:
Pro sports changed on us. The money involved for everyone got huge. It became more glamour and entertainment rather than sports oriented. In short... pro sports does not give the fans the enjoyment it once did.

Many of us watch because there is so little else on now that is worth even turning on any more. There still is the element of competition and seeing the unexpected and so we watch this out of lack of other viable choices -- or just habit.

In baseball, now a guy hits a home run and tosses the bat into the air like he just did something miraculous.

In football, a guy catches a ball for a first down and HAS TO signal it himself and act like he did something miraculous.

In the NBA, guys prance around like peacocks.

Pro sports has become a self-indulgent spectacle for guys who act like they are the greatest things to ever appear on the venues of play.

And fans? Get to pay higher ticker prices every year to fund all this.
Click to expand...
Ticket prices have made it difficult for the average fan or family to attend,
 
#610      
Battle89
the juiceman cometh said:
Sorry, but this is nonsensical.

Many NFL teams don't play in the cities they are named for. Suburbs are part of the city's metro area - its ok to claim that connection. Moreover the City of Chicago doesn't have copyright or trademark protection over the name of the city. I can start a company named Chicago Widgets Inc., incorporate it in Finland, and build its headquarters on the Moon if I want. Chicago has also allowed other teams based in the Suburbs to use the city's name without a peep (Fire, Wolves, Dogs, Red Stars).

And finally, why would the team dropping Chicago from its name be good for Chicago? Chicago is already the biggest city with only one team, does it really want to join the ranks of cities without an NFL team?
Click to expand...
As an accountant I'd have to advise against a lot of that. The taxes and logistics will kill the widget business.

1733265930307.png
 
#613      
Bucktown
the juiceman cometh said:
Sorry, but this is nonsensical.

Many NFL teams don't play in the cities they are named for. Suburbs are part of the city's metro area - its ok to claim that connection. Moreover the City of Chicago doesn't have copyright or trademark protection over the name of the city. I can start a company named Chicago Widgets Inc., incorporate it in Finland, and build its headquarters on the Moon if I want. Chicago has also allowed other teams based in the Suburbs to use the city's name without a peep (Fire, Wolves, Dogs, Red Stars).

And finally, why would the team dropping Chicago from its name be good for Chicago? Chicago is already the biggest city with only one team, does it really want to join the ranks of cities without an NFL team?
Click to expand...
I think they would still be the Chicago Bears, but the Arlington Heights location is still not good. Another example of poor business sense by the McCaskeys.

Sure there are some stadiums are in the suburbs but that trend hit its peak in the 70's and has been reversing ever since. The newest stadiums across the country are in urbanized areas--Jacksonville, Nashville, Las Vegas, LA, Atlanta, Minneapolis. Buffalo's proposed stadium is not, but it across the street from their existing stadium. In the last 25 years only State Farm Stadium in Arizona has been built on a 'green grass' location in the suburbs. The rest are either in a dense (downtown) area of the region or on the site of the original stadium.

A stadium owner can't rely on 8-9 games a year to fund a dome without it being in a very densely populated area. The use of the stadium for alternative uses for the venue are less attractive in Arlington Heights. The Taylor Swifts of the future would still play downtown at Soldier Field if given a choice between that and Arlington Heights.

Much of the Bear's plan on the Lakefront has merit; it just can't rely on so much public money. The 78 near Clark & Roosevelt where the White Sox where looking would also work.
 
#614      
Roundball Sage
the juiceman cometh said:
And finally, why would the team dropping Chicago from its name be good for Chicago? Chicago is already the biggest city with only one team, does it really want to join the ranks of cities without an NFL team?
Click to expand...

A good question for more than one Chicago Mayor...

From CBS Chicago: “Proposal For Bears To Move To Arlington Heights Has Come Up Over And Over Again, Since Before They Moved To Soldier Field In 1971"

“The idea of the Bears moving to a site... in Arlington Heights... the idea has come up over and over again throughout the years, going back all the way to when the Bears were first looking for a new home after half a century playing at Wrigley Field... Arlington Heights was considered as an option for a new home for the team when they were looking to move from Wrigley Field in 1970.”

“By 1975, a move to Arlington Heights was being floated again... Bears owner George S. ‘Papa Bear’ Halas told the Arlington Heights Chamber of Commerce, "I hope and pray that 1977 will find the Bears contending for a title in a new stadium in Arlington Heights."

Mayor Richard J. Daley was not pleased. "Like hell they will. They can use the name Arlington Heights Bears, but they'll never use the name of Chicago if I'm the mayor," Mayor Daley Sr. was quoted in published reports.

... “then-Bears President Michael McCaskey: "My grandfather surveyed the whole Chicago area for a new (Bear) ballpark 10 years ago and put Arlington at the top of the list."

The idea of a move to Arlington Heights for the Bears kept coming up over and over again as the years went on... Like his father before him, the younger Mayor Daley was indignant at the idea. He said, ‘They can go to Alaska.’"

www.cbsnews.com

Proposal For Bears To Move To Arlington Heights Has Come Up Over And Over Again, Since Before They Moved To Soldier Field In 1971

The idea of the Bears moving to a site on or near the Arlington International Racecourse property in Arlington Heights may be a shock for Chicagoans, but it's far from new.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

(end article)

So... will it be Arlington... or Alaska? Maybe Caleb Williams would prefer... AZUSA. Or Anaheim? (SoCal)

Or will the Bears just continue to threaten to move out of Chicago for ANOTHER 50 years...
 
#616      
the juiceman cometh
Bucktown said:
A stadium owner can't rely on 8-9 games a year to fund a dome without it being in a very densely populated area. The use of the stadium for alternative uses for the venue are less attractive in Arlington Heights. The Taylor Swifts of the future would still play downtown at Soldier Field if given a choice between that and Arlington Heights.
Click to expand...
In her most recent tour (Eras Tour) she played at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ, AT&T Stadium in Arlington, TX, Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA, and Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, CA. She did not play a single venue within the city limits of NYC, Dallas, Boston or San Francisco.

My wife recently saw Mariah Carey at flippin run-down Allstate Arena in Rosemont. There's no way a state of the art venue right on the Metra line in Arlington Heights would not attract shows.
 
Last edited:
#617      
Bucktown
the juiceman cometh said:
In her most recent tour (Eras Tour) she played at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ, AT&T Stadium in Arlington, TX, Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA, and Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, CA. She did not play a single venue within the city limits of NYC, Dallas, Boston or San Francisco.

My wife recently saw Mariah Carey at flippin run-down Allstate Arena in Rosemont. There's no way a state of the art venue right on the Metra line in Arlington Heights would not attract shows.
Click to expand...
Yes. All of those locations except Gillette are well within the urban core of those metro areas unlike Arlington Heights. And, Gillette is the only option in Boston (New England). It is not name of the actual town where the stadium is located it is the location of the stadium near population centers and density. AT&T is midway between Fort Worth & Dallas, not on the edge of town.

If the Bears had were looking in Park Ridge or Oak Brook, I might agree with you.
 
#618      
mattcoldagelli
Bucktown said:
Yes. All of those locations except Gillette are well within the urban core of those metro areas unlike Arlington Heights. And, Gillette is the only option in Boston (New England). It is not name of the actual town where the stadium is located it is the location of the stadium near population centers and density. AT&T is midway between Fort Worth & Dallas, not on the edge of town.

If the Bears had were looking in Park Ridge or Oak Brook, I might agree with you.
Click to expand...
Levi's Stadium is not "well within the urban core"
 
#619      
the juiceman cometh
Bucktown said:
Yes. All of those locations except Gillette are well within the urban core of those metro areas unlike Arlington Heights. And, Gillette is the only option in Boston
Click to expand...
Levi's Stadium is 40 miles from San Francisco. Gilette is about 30 miles from Boston. And she could have easily played at Fenway or TD Gardens if she wanted to play IN Boston. She didn't.
Bucktown said:
If the Bears had were looking in Park Ridge or Oak Brook, I might agree with you.
Click to expand...
Oak Brook is 19 miles from downtown Chicago. Arlington Heights is 27. Who knew 8 miles carried such weight.
 
#620      
illinistephen
Bucktown said:
I think they would still be the Chicago Bears, but the Arlington Heights location is still not good. Another example of poor business sense by the McCaskeys.

Sure there are some stadiums are in the suburbs but that trend hit its peak in the 70's and has been reversing ever since. The newest stadiums across the country are in urbanized areas--Jacksonville, Nashville, Las Vegas, LA, Atlanta, Minneapolis. Buffalo's proposed stadium is not, but it across the street from their existing stadium. In the last 25 years only State Farm Stadium in Arizona has been built on a 'green grass' location in the suburbs. The rest are either in a dense (downtown) area of the region or on the site of the original stadium.

A stadium owner can't rely on 8-9 games a year to fund a dome without it being in a very densely populated area. The use of the stadium for alternative uses for the venue are less attractive in Arlington Heights. The Taylor Swifts of the future would still play downtown at Soldier Field if given a choice between that and Arlington Heights.

Much of the Bear's plan on the Lakefront has merit; it just can't rely on so much public money. The 78 near Clark & Roosevelt where the White Sox where looking would also work.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can compare smaller cities to the Chicago metro though. Maybe it is a worse location if you live in Bucktown or anywhere south/south east of soldier field, but for the 1.5 million who live in Mchenry, Kane, and Lake Counties it will be closer in Arlington Heights. Then add most of Dupage County and suburban northern cook county which is a few million more people that getting to AH is easier. AH might even be a better location for the SW suburbs like Joliet taking 355. The last problem for AH is not being in a populated enough area even if you assume people in Chicago won't come or take the train.
 
#621      
mattcoldagelli
Bucktown said:
The Taylor Swifts of the future would still play downtown at Soldier Field if given a choice between that and Arlington Heights.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. They will play in the largest available venue they can fill. They will not think a millisecond about where they are in relation to downtown, they will be told they are playing in an NFL stadium and that will be the end of the conversation.
 
#622      
band camp
mattcoldagelli said:
This is nonsense. They will play in the largest available venue they can fill. They will not think a millisecond about where they are in relation to downtown, they will be told they are playing in an NFL stadium and that will be the end of the conversation.
Click to expand...
100% true.
 
#623      
RockfordIllini
illinistephen said:
I don't think you can compare smaller cities to the Chicago metro though. Maybe it is a worse location if you live in Bucktown or anywhere south/south east of soldier field, but for the 1.5 million who live in Mchenry, Kane, and Lake Counties it will be closer in Arlington Heights. Then add most of Dupage County and suburban northern cook county which is a few million more people that getting to AH is easier. AH might even be a better location for the SW suburbs like Joliet taking 355. The last problem for AH is not being in a populated enough area even if you assume people in Chicago won't come or take the train.
Click to expand...
I actually think the Arlington Heights location will be convenient for everyone given that it’s right off 53.

LSD turns into a parking lot on game days. Even if you are in the south burbs, with no traffic 294 to 53 should be a breeze and I bet it will be about the same time door to door as solider field, even if it’s much farther as the crow flies.

And as far folks in the city, there’s already a metra stop in place at Arlington Park. There is no good public transit to get to solider field.

I think an Arlington stadium as the potential to be super nice. But I also don’t have any confidence the Bears won’t screw it up.
 
#624      
mattcoldagelli
Soldier Field is picturesque in aerial shots for broadcast. It is actually a great place to watch a game once you are in your seat.

By every other measure that matters when it comes to "being a modern NFL stadium" it is an abject failure, and what is being proposed in AH would blow it out of the water*

*agree with others that have said there is no reason to believe the Bears can successfully pull this off
 
#625      
Bucktown
mattcoldagelli said:
This is nonsense. They will play in the largest available venue they can fill. They will not think a millisecond about where they are in relation to downtown, they will be told they are playing in an NFL stadium and that will be the end of the conversation.
Click to expand...
...and they won't be able to fill a stadium in Arlington Heights. There is a reason why a store can afford to pay 10x or 20x the rent on Oak Street vs a suburban mall; the sales make up for it. This is no different with a stadium.

The Bears fans would go wherever it is built, but to get it built they need alternative revenue streams. They either have to create a new destination from scratch that makes the entire experience around the stadium appealing for Bears games and other events or build it in a location that is already desirable. I am sorry I just don't think the Bears have the capital (or skills) to make the Arlington Heights location a hot destination. I also think the lenders will see it that way too.

In my opinion, the McCaskeys are followers not leaders. They saw SOFI successfully built on an old horse racetrack and thought they could do the same with Arlington. Stanley Kroenke who is vastly more wealthy than the McCaskeys, and a real estate developer by profession, made SOFI work because he effectively built an entire new town with of over 1 billion square feet of space including office, residential, entertainment and retail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back