Chicago Bears 2026

#101      
Mr. Tibbs
Adam Schefter’s source inside Halas Hall says the move to Indiana is real and “barring anything very strange, it’s a done deal.”

my own personal needle for "move to Hammond" is now at 80% . I don't think there is any chance Pritzker and Illinois Dems offer any real estate tax breaks that the Bears feel are necessary to stay. I don't think it even gets called for a vote .

oh well. it doesn't really matter to me
 
#102      
Roundball Sage
If the Bears do relocate this is tough for Chicago but a great day for Northwest Indiana.

Northwest Indiana has suffered greatly since the closure of much of America’s industrial might. Northwest Indi needs an economic boost badly and the relocation of the Bears will be a great start to that... along with the related new development in the area that will no doubt follow.

Chicagoland has always been a Region and not just the city limits.

The Bears have been looking to move for 50 years already (at least since 1970) and the State of Illinois had all that time to work something out over the years.

The long-suffering people of Northwest Indiana get something to build around. And let’s not forget all these folks from Illinois who are relocating across the border that wont mind a Bears move that way.

The Chicago Cardinals are now a long way off in Arizona. The Bears will be right in The Neighborhood.
 
#103      
tatupu70
lstewart53x3 said:
No one”s disputing the project count. It’s what it measures that’s the problem.

Site Selection ranks metros by the raw number of projects across the whole region. The article says so itself: “Chicagoland counts 10,000+ square miles and 9.4 million people”, so of course it racks up a big number. Bigger footprint = more projects.

But that same article also looks at Chicago in Milken’s Best-Performing Cities report, which measures the stuff that actually tells you if a place is worth moving to: job growth, wage growth, and housing affordability. Chicago finishes in the high 100s. Milken ranks about 200 big metros, so that’s near the bottom. For comparison, Indianapolis is 17th, Charlotte 23rd, Dallas 35th.

So both things are true. Chicago is No. 1 at counting buildings going up across a giant region, and near the bottom on whether wages, jobs, and affordability are any good for the people who live there.

“We’re No. 1 in projects” tells you something got built somewhere across seven counties. It tells you nothing about where 15,000 new Arlington Heights residents are supposed to come from. And the ranking that does speak to that, from your own source, says Chicago is one of the weaker big metros on exactly the things that pull people in.
Click to expand...
I don't want to argue just to argue which I'm afraid we're doing now, but the Milken report is measure different things.

"The report does not measure facility investment, but such factors as wage and job growth, high-tech GDP, broadband access, housing affordability and economic inequality (via the GINI index)."

Job growth is definitely important--the other ones I find less impactful.

And from the article, Chicago was 2nd in per capita projects so it's not just a size effect.
 
#104      
pruman91
are they still gonna be called the Chicago Bears if they move ????...........don't the NY Giants play in NJ ??.............

asking for a friend..............I really really am.....................
 
#106      
hoopdog23
pruman91 said:
are they still gonna be called the Chicago Bears if they move ????...........don't the NY Giants play in NJ ??.............

asking for a friend..............I really really am.....................
Click to expand...
Yes they are still going to be called the Chicago Bears and you are correct the NY Giants and NY Jets both play in MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ.
 
#109      
Second place is 1st loser
pruman91 said:
are they still gonna be called the Chicago Bears if they move ????...........don't the NY Giants play in NJ ??.............

asking for a friend..............I really really am.....................
Click to expand...
Their headquarters are in Lake Forest. Their state of domicile is in IL and I'm sure that they plan on continuing to make millions in merchandise sales, meaning.....leave the brand alone. Ultimately, the brand is what sells and pissing off the 8M people in the Chicago/Chicagoland area would be bad for business.

Hammond is basically a South suburb of Chicago. The Chicago tollway isn't making money hand over fist because people aren't using it to get from home to work in Chicago. The Chicago South Shore Line feeds right into the area.

People need to chill TF out with where the stadium sits. They are going to do absolutely nothing to tick off the consumer. The majority of the season ticket holders are in the Northwest and Northern suburbs and as tough as people talk about getting rid of their tickets because of a longer drive....they won't. The entire fanbase will have 4 years to warm up to the idea as it comes to life. The Bears know it, thus will move in a heartbeat if Hammond is the best deal. Any smart business owner would. No big business owner wants to have to deal with Illinois politics. It's a headache. Keep the brand, move the finances across state lines and watch the money roll in.

Tell your friend...you really really should.
 
#112      
champaignchris
26 of the 32 NFL teams are named after a city and not a state or region.

Of those 26, 9 currently play in a city other than the one they’re named after - Dallas, Miami, Buffalo, Washington, San Francisco, both LA teams, and both New York teams. (And even if you want to say the New York teams are named after the state, they also don’t play in that state.)

Being named after a larger city and then playing in a suburb just isn’t that weird in the NFL.

And as far as suburbs go, this down-stater doesn’t really see any difference between Hammond versus Oak Brook or Cicero or Schaumburg or wherever. It’ll be a big, glitzy stadium surrounded by brand new parking lots, Dave & Busters, and Buffalo Wild Wings wherever they put it.
 
#113      
Grandpa
champaignchris said:
26 of the 32 NFL teams are named after a city and not a state or region.

Of those 26, 9 currently play in a city other than the one they’re named after - Dallas, Miami, Buffalo, Washington, San Francisco, both LA teams, and both New York teams. (And even if you want to say the New York teams are named after the state, they also don’t play in that state.)

Being named after a larger city and then playing in a suburb just isn’t that weird in the NFL.

And as far as suburbs go, this down-stater doesn’t really see any difference between Hammond versus Oak Brook or Cicero or Schaumburg or wherever. It’ll be a big, glitzy stadium surrounded by brand new parking lots, Dave & Busters, and Buffalo Wild Wings wherever they put it.
Click to expand...
Username checks out
 
Back