I'm reading a lot of fan reaction to the bid that the Chicago Bears put in to buy a potential stadium location in Arlington Heights. How do you feel about the Bears building a football stadium in AH?
Build their own, they are one of 3 out if 32 that dont own theirs, and it's the 2nd or 3rd smallest field, and there just isn't a good way to add another 20k seats.
Whether they want to sell the team in the near future or if they want to keep it, buying AH and building a Wrigleyville/LA like complex makes a ton of since for a family short on revenue streams outside the Bears.
I voted for the move. I love Soldier Field, but gotta admit it is a crappy stadium and has been for a long time. It's ugly. It's not a football stadium and never really was built to be one. The renovation that turned it into a space ship look, took away any iconic historic charm. In fact Soldier Field lost it's status as a national historic landmark due to the space ship reno.
The stadium was originally designed in 1919, over 100 years ago, as a Grant Park stadium. Over the years it's hosted countless non-sporting events - tractor and truck pulls, rodeos, ski jumping, stock car racing, circuses, a worlds fair, boxing matches and countless music concerts.
It's not a football stadium. It's a Chicago Park District stadium that can be rented out... and is rented out.
Hard to say, moving would be great and would allow them to have full control over their stadium. Most if not all new stadiums getting built sadly have domes included which in my opinion ruins the fun of football. Stats are not friendly to dome teams either. Super Bowls have only been won by Domed Teams 3 times (5.454% or 3/55 of Super Bowl Winners, ), Appeared in 8 total Super Bowls (7.272% or 8/110). The AFC has only been represented by a dome team in the Super Bowl twice (Colts), while the NFC has been represented 6 times.
but 2 of those dome teams were in this era, NO's, and Indy and honestly it's a bit of a poor stat, how many teams had dome's in the 50's-70's. In the modern era what really stopped them was a guy named Brady.
Most SB's are also played in warm weather states or in Domes so if you play in or outdoors it makes no difference once you get there.
but 2 of those dome teams were in this era, NO's, and Indy and honestly it's a bit of a poor stat, how many teams had dome's in the 50's-70's. In the modern era what really stopped them was a guy named Brady.
Most SB's are also played in warm weather states or in Domes so if you play in or outdoors it makes no difference once you get there.
That would be the case if there weren't playoffs in-between the Super Bowl and Regular season. The climate of said location is an advantage to the home team.
Look at the dolphins and how they structure their stadium. The visiting team has to deal with the sun.
Look at the great Peyton Manning who struggled to win games when the temperature was below 40 F.
Dome teams having a losing record playing in cold away playoff games
The wind has a big effect with us in Solider Field that teams have to plan around.
One sixth of the league plays in domes, and they have five of the nine worst winning percentages by franchise (Houston is the fifth). They are also underrepresented at the top. Excluding the Cowboys ( Which some argue isn't a dome ), Minnesota is the only franchise in the top ten by winning percentage that currently plays in a dome, and their golden age came outdoors. The Colts at 12th are the only definite dome team in the top half.
Build their own, they are one of 3 out if 32 that dont own theirs, and it's the 2nd or 3rd smallest field, and there just isn't a good way to add another 20k seats.
Whether they want to sell the team in the near future or if they want to keep it, buying AH and building a Wrigleyville/LA like complex makes a ton of since for a family short on revenue streams outside the Bears.
Yep, it's a no-brainer.
SF is obsolete. Yes the neo-classical architecture of the original structure (which like the old LA coliseum was built for track & field) is beautiful but much of the aesthetic has been marred by the "spaceship" addition and it simply doesn't meet the needs of a modern NFL franchise. People bitched and moaned about putting lights up at Wrigley Field too but time marches on and you have to adapt to change.
Ideal would be a ~ 75K capacity retractable dome stadium that can host events indoor and out year-round. And yes, you can have natural turf too. The Cardinals do here in AZ via a turf system that literally moves on tracks in and out for growing, maintenece, and use. When not in use, the stadium hosts concerts, expos, and events using the concrete floor beneath.
The new site offers way better access, parking, tailgating, and room for restaurants, bars, hotels, etc.
but 2 of those dome teams were in this era, NO's, and Indy and honestly it's a bit of a poor stat, how many teams had dome's in the 50's-70's. In the modern era what really stopped them was a guy named Brady.
Most SB's are also played in warm weather states or in Domes so if you play in or outdoors it makes no difference once you get there.
That would be the case if there weren't playoffs in-between the Super Bowl and Regular season. The climate of said location is an advantage to the home team.
Look at the dolphins and how they structure their stadium. The visiting team has to deal with the sun.
Look at the great Peyton Manning who struggled to win games when the temperature was below 40 F.
Dome teams having a losing record playing in cold away playoff games
The wind has a big effect with us in Solider Field that teams have to plan around.
One sixth of the league plays in domes, and they have five of the nine worst winning percentages by franchise (Houston is the fifth). They are also underrepresented at the top. Excluding the Cowboys ( Which some argue isn't a dome ), Minnesota is the only franchise in the top ten by winning percentage that currently plays in a dome, and their golden age came outdoors. The Colts at 12th are the only definite dome team in the top half.
Bears Home record in 0-45 degree weather from 2009-2020
18-23, below .500 (3 games a yr on average, or 1 a month during nov-jan)
Bears home record in any weather at or below 32 degrees from 2009-2020
9-8, 1 game over .500 (1 game a yr on average, or 1 game total during nov-jan)
Their home record for those years regardless of weather? 47-48
Subtract the below 45 degrees and they are 29 -25. That means they are better in better weather then they are better in poor weather, regardless of who they play.
Hurray for "bear weather"? Its a huge advantage in maybe 1-3 games a year; but it's really does nothing for them.
When away in 0-45 degree weather not in a dome, 09-20
7-9, below .500 (again average of 1 game a year, and below .500
When away in below 32 degree weather, not in a dome, 09-20
4-5 below .500 and less then 1 game a year.
Regardless of what other teams do, or have done in the recent past, the Bears have faired poorly in cold weather home or away.
Their Record in away games is 43-53, in dome games(always away is 15-16) so in 28-37 in non dome games, in any weather away, remove the 0-45 degrees and it's 21-26.
15-16 in domes is their best odds of beating a team unless it's cold, then it's basically even except they are guaranteed to play more games in a dome. And one can assume that if they played in a dome that they would have a better home record if they are better at home in none cold weather and in domes they have a .500 record.
Maybe if the weather got worse in Chicago then it actually does it might matter, but it really doesn't get terrible in Chicago anymore, not like NE and GB. GB had 37 games at 32 or below, the Bears had 9; the Bears didn't have 32 games at 0-45, it barely had 1/3rd of that.
And in reality if Brady had been drafted by Mia or NO's or Minny or any non cold weather or dome team, the ratio of SB's for outdoor to indoor or cold to warm would be reversed in the last 20 years. Your best teams just happen to be northern outdoor teams historically: NY, Pitt, GB, Chi, NE vs SF, LA, Dal, Mia and the northern teams have had more sustained success. I don't know that you can say that's b/c of the outdoor weather in Nov-Jan as much as they happened draft better, and be run better.
If weather had anything to do w/it DC, Cle, Sea, KC, Cincy, NJ, Balt would have far more sustained success
Build their own, they are one of 3 out if 32 that dont own theirs, and it's the 2nd or 3rd smallest field, and there just isn't a good way to add another 20k seats.
Whether they want to sell the team in the near future or if they want to keep it, buying AH and building a Wrigleyville/LA like complex makes a ton of since for a family short on revenue streams outside the Bears.
Yep, it's a no-brainer.
SF is obsolete. Yes the neo-classical architecture of the original structure (which like the old LA coliseum was built for track & field) is beautiful but much of the aesthetic has been marred by the "spaceship" addition and it simply doesn't meet the needs of a modern NFL franchise. People bitched and moaned about putting lights up at Wrigley Field too but time marches on and you have to adapt to change.
Ideal would be a ~ 75K capacity retractable dome stadium that can host events indoor and out year-round. And yes, you can have natural turf too. The Cardinals do here in AZ via a turf system that literally moves on tracks in and out for growing, maintenece, and use. When not in use, the stadium hosts concerts, expos, and events using the concrete floor beneath.
The new site offers way better access, parking, tailgating, and room for restaurants, bars, hotels, etc.
When looking at stadium rankings I found 5 or so lists, it never ranked higher then 16th, and got as low as 23rd. You cannot fix the problems w/that stadium w/out demolishing it, and if you do that, why not just build somewhere else anyways? Bears could have built a stadium along the lines of what AZ has right now for what they paid for that "renovation", and people would still be happy with it, and the team and city would have made far more money off it.
Knowing the Bears, and their owners I have no doubt they'll stay put in SF b/c the methusela that owns them won't want to change where her daddy's team played. But it's really dumb and short sighted. They played in Wrigley until 1970, then at SF. In their time in SF, they are 357 363 1, in Wrigley they were 365 184 41. Their entire legacy in SF is losing outside of 1 SB, there is 0 reason to stay.
And in reality they should have moved instead of renovated; what they paid for that shitty reno they could have build a new stadium w/more seats. they could have profited greatly, even IL residents would have been better off if you consider that the debt would have been paid off quicker if you consider the state would have paid for it also.