(01-05-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Thinking about it make it a B1G vs. B12 bowl game.

That would have a ton of regional appeal.

I don't disagree but Indianapolis has a domed/inside stadium. Chicago does not.

(01-05-2017 09:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Can Notre Dame still enter bowl agreements on their own or are they committed to the ACC lineup at this point?

ACC

(01-05-2017 05:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  The more the NFL pushes games into cold weather months, the more midwest teams need indoor stadiums.

Who has an indoor stadium besides the Lions and Colts (both of whom have for 30 plus years)? No one has indoor stadiums besides those two and a few Southernish teams. St. Louis did but not for the cold weather but for exhibition space.

Wrigley? Fuhgettabout it! Nothing like snow and freezing temperatures to help out with attendance.

(01-05-2017 06:49 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Hope that's addressed, I can't imagine they'd sanction a bowl game if they knew they'd have to do that every year.

The more northern bowls, the better imo. Strategically locating games in large, fun cities like New York and Chicago is a good idea from an attendance and bowl excitement standpoint compared to another ho-hum southern game in a redundant location like the Arizona or Cure bowls. Ideally, I'd like to see those two locations replaced with Wrigley and Indianapolis (nice indoor stadium, up and coming downtown area), maybe even swap Miami Beach for St. Louis (indoor stadium and a very accessible location for northern and southern schools). But the tie-ins and money behind these games are always the big question, although if the Cubs are behind this they should be able to if they're given the chance.

New York and Chicago are fun when you aren't freezing your ass off. I'd take a bowl in Birmingham over Chicago.

(01-05-2017 06:50 PM)p23570 Wrote:  It's currently 12 degrees in chicago with a 12 mph wind. Nobody in thier right mind would want to sit outside in that crap to watch a exhibition game. There might be some things to do but I can guarantee you that fans and students would rather be somewhere warm. If there was a dome I would agree about potential but not outside in a baseball stadium.

Beat me to it...

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 05:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  The more the NFL pushes games into cold weather months, the more midwest teams need indoor stadiums.

Who has an indoor stadium besides the Lions and Colts (both of whom have for 30 plus years)? No one has indoor stadiums besides those two and a few Southernish teams. St. Louis did but not for the cold weather but for exhibition space.

Minnesota has a pretty nice facility. But no ski resorts, kids will just have to get drunk in a ice fishing shack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Stadium

Syracuse and NDSU have domes as well.

(01-05-2017 10:33 PM)chess Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Thinking about it make it a B1G vs. B12 bowl game.

That would have a ton of regional appeal.

I don't disagree but Indianapolis has a domed/inside stadium. Chicago does not.

On the flip side, though, Wrigley Field is totally unique. I think that's being underestimated here. A December bowl at Soldier Field wouldn't work. The fact that it would be at Wrigley Field is a totally different proposition. Just look at how packed Wrigleyville is on an average weekend even outside of baseball season regardless of how cold it is - this is a one-of-a-kind destination. (Literally every pea-brained publicly-funded stadium proposal in the country makes pie-in-the-sky promises that it will create a local version of Wrigleyville. It's the gold standard of a stadium neighborhood.) This specific location is what can make a cold weather bowl work (and once again, this would likely take the place a lower tier Detroit or Dallas bowl as opposed to a Florida or California bowl). If the Pinstripe Bowl can work (and it does), a Wrigley Field bowl can *definitely* work considering the larger Big Ten alumni base directly living in Chicago plus the relatively close proximity of most of the Big Ten schools themselves... and Wrigleyville is a vastly more attractive neighborhood compared to the Bronx around Yankee Stadium.

(01-05-2017 10:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 05:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  The more the NFL pushes games into cold weather months, the more midwest teams need indoor stadiums.

Who has an indoor stadium besides the Lions and Colts (both of whom have for 30 plus years)? No one has indoor stadiums besides those two and a few Southernish teams. St. Louis did but not for the cold weather but for exhibition space.

Minnesota has a pretty nice facility. But no ski resorts, kids will just have to get drunk in a ice fishing shack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Stadium

Syracuse and NDSU have domes as well.

Them too, so that's three for the past 35 years.

(01-05-2017 10:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:33 PM)chess Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Thinking about it make it a B1G vs. B12 bowl game.

That would have a ton of regional appeal.

I don't disagree but Indianapolis has a domed/inside stadium. Chicago does not.

On the flip side, though, Wrigley Field is totally unique. I think that's being underestimated here. A December bowl at Soldier Field wouldn't work. The fact that it would be at Wrigley Field is a totally different proposition. Just look at how packed Wrigleyville is on an average weekend even outside of baseball season regardless of how cold it is - this is a one-of-a-kind destination. (Literally every pea-brained publicly-funded stadium proposal in the country makes pie-in-the-sky promises that it will create a local version of Wrigleyville. It's the gold standard of a stadium neighborhood.) This specific location is what can make a cold weather bowl work (and once again, this would likely take the place a lower tier Detroit or Dallas bowl as opposed to a Florida or California bowl). If the Pinstripe Bowl can work (and it does), a Wrigley Field bowl can *definitely* work considering the larger Big Ten alumni base directly living in Chicago plus the relatively close proximity of most of the Big Ten schools themselves... and Wrigleyville is a vastly more attractive neighborhood compared to the Bronx around Yankee Stadium.

I completely agree with you Frank.

New York is great, but no one goes there to spend time in the Bronx - and it's pretty isolated from the rest of the city anyways. Wrigleyville, on the other hand, is very easy to get to from downtown (and it's a tourist destination in its own right).

Yeah but no one would spend much time in Yankee Stadium and the Bronx if they went to New York unless they know someone there. Most of the time would be spent in Brooklyn, Manhattan and maybe North Jersey.

(01-05-2017 03:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Frankly, if you just took the Big Ten vs. ACC matchup that's currently in Detroit and just move it over to Wrigley Field, that would probably suffice. The Big 12 might actually work as a partner instead of the ACC, as well. We're not seeing the Chicago Cubs organization propose this in order to invite the MAC (outside of possibly being a backup). This is all about getting a Big Ten team playing another P5 team.

I love the Detroit (Motor City) Bowl --- I've been to about a dozen of the 20 match-ups over the years.

But the stupid scuttling of the MAC to instead tie-in with the ACC is going to kill the game. Boston College vs. Maryland??? Unbelievable. As if there wasn't a Cherry Bowl for the Detroit folk to learn from (the last ever Cherry Bowl was Syracuse vs. Maryland).

Anyway --- I agree with your idea. Just move the Detroit game to Chicago. B1G vs. BXII would be ideal. The B1G already plays the ACC in the Pinstripe, so a tie-in with the BXII would be nice.

(01-05-2017 03:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise is like Hawaii for vacation. They have ski resorts in the Boise area. You will get snowbirds going there to ski, and would take in a game. I could see a bowl game being placed in Denver, Fort Collins or anywhere in Colorado as well. Chicago does not have the mountains for skiing.

What the hell are you talking about?

(01-05-2017 03:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boise is like Hawaii for vacation. They have ski resorts in the Boise area. You will get snowbirds going there to ski, and would take in a game. I could see a bowl game being placed in Denver, Fort Collins or anywhere in Colorado as well. Chicago does not have the mountains for skiing.

I love you.

(01-05-2017 04:08 PM)goofus Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dnainfo...tmobile-us

Lets hope it has better attendance than the NIU game played at White Sox Park on a weeknight in November. What an awful, awful idea.

Wrigley Field and the stadium the White Sox play are in different stadiums, in different areas, and have a different vibe.

NIU attempted to bring the game to the city because Tues and Wed night made-for-television football games killed their home attendance. NIU averages 12K fans a game. NIU is about 75 miles from Chicago proper and has satellite locations around the suburbs. NIU took a chance and it did not work out. No foul. The athletic department is trying.

(01-05-2017 11:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but no one would spend much time in Yankee Stadium and the Bronx if they went to New York unless they know someone there. Most of the time would be spent in Brooklyn, Manhattan and maybe North Jersey.

But with the ease of getting around NYC, it's still fair to compare Wrigleyville with Wrigley right there to staying in Manhattan/Brooklyn and the game in Yankee Stadium. Plus getting on the trains in Chicago to the north loop, Michigan Ave, etc.

The city attractions, plus the historic stadium on people's bucket lists ... both seem reasonably similar in being able to attract people to the bowl game.

(01-05-2017 04:08 PM)goofus Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dnainfo...tmobile-us

Lets hope it has better attendance than the NIU game played at White Sox Park on a weeknight in November. What an awful, awful idea.

Yep.

Wrigley would draw better but as someone mentioned, something would have to change as it was already tried and there wasn't enough room, both teams had to go the same direction on offense.

This is more about the hotel going up next door and perpetuating a use for it year round.

(01-06-2017 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  it was already tried and there wasn't enough room, both teams had to go the same direction on offense.

Early in this thread, some speculated that the ongoing renovations may have shifted things such that this problem is eliminated.

Can't tell if that's correct, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Fi...renovation


Truth be told, it shouldn't really affect the game that much to only have one end-zone. If you have a defensive recovery and run-back ... you only need to cross the goal-line to score the defensive points. Everything else can be transposed and shifted so that when the offense comes out, it's going in the singular offensive direction towards the singular end-zone.

(01-06-2017 01:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 12:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  it was already tried and there wasn't enough room, both teams had to go the same direction on offense.

Early in this thread, some speculated that the ongoing renovations may have shifted things such that this problem is eliminated.

Can't tell if that's correct, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Fi...renovation


Truth be told, it shouldn't really affect the game that much to only have one end-zone. If you have a defensive recovery and run-back ... you only need to cross the goal-line to score the defensive points. Everything else can be transposed and shifted so that when the offense comes out, it's going in the singular offensive direction towards the singular end-zone.

Even if that's true, I think not too many people will sit in the cold in Wrigley Field on a weeknight (probably) in December.

Although Indianapolis isn't an exciting place for a bowl game, that would at least be indoors and drive-able for many people. I would prefer that.