Well shouldn't Detroit be the same thing?? But the Big Ten - ACC game there isn't exactly standing room only.


Me personally, I'd go to Chicago or NYC a hundred times before going to a place like Indy or Detroit, even if it has a dome. For that matter, Dallas too. Everything is so dang spread out. Same I imagine with Atlanta. I'd take New Orleans over those two a hundred times, as well.

(01-06-2017 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well shouldn't Detroit be the same thing?? But the Big Ten - ACC game there isn't exactly standing room only.


Me personally, I'd go to Chicago or NYC a hundred times before going to a place like Indy or Detroit, even if it has a dome. For that matter, Dallas too. Everything is so dang spread out. Same I imagine with Atlanta. I'd take New Orleans over those two a hundred times, as well.

Detroit is similar, and the bowl there was fine until Ford Field and the Big Whatever kicked the MAC out of there. Detroit is a bit dismal, when I was there for the MAC championship game in years past. I never went to the bowl game since that bowl game never picked NIU - obviously they wanted a closer MAC school, for good reason.

(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.

That was me. It was purely speculation on my part, but I would assume they would fix it as it is probably a relatively easy fix that they didn't realize was a problem until they tried the game a few years back.

But as you mentioned, I almost kind of like it as is. Reminds me playing football as a kid, where the team that got scored on, had to walk to the other end for the kickoff.

Well, I'm just saying ... move the Big Ten - ACC bowl game from Ford Field to Wrigley, and I think it would be a better experience overall for fans. That's all I got.

(01-06-2017 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, I'm just saying ... move the Big Ten - ACC bowl game from Ford Field to Wrigley, and I think it would be a better experience overall for fans. That's all I got.

I think that's the proper attitude toward this game. The naysayers aren't putting it into perspective. Once again, we're not talking about replacing the Rose Bowl, Citrus Bowl or Outback Bowl here. Instead, the target Wrigley Bowl matchup would be a Detroit-level or, at most, a Pinstripe Bowl-level matchup. A higher tier warm weather game isn't getting dropped at all by the Big Ten.

Plus, the inherent advantage that Chicago has over Detroit or Indianapolis is the broad cross-section of alums that actually live there from ALL of the Big Ten schools (except for maybe Rutgers and Maryland). Certainly, for the 10 schools in the "original Big Ten", Chicago is the #1 location for alums outside of their own home states.

(01-06-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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.

Agreed. While Chicago isn't quite NYC, it does have plenty of attractions, and Wrigley Field is analogous to Yankee Stadium in novelty appeal.

The one thing that gives me pause is the weather. NYC is cold around the first of the year, but not like Chicago.

Chicago can be like Siberia at that time. Very cold with whipping winds, etc.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-06-2017 03:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, I'm just saying ... move the Big Ten - ACC bowl game from Ford Field to Wrigley, and I think it would be a better experience overall for fans. That's all I got.

I think that's the proper attitude toward this game. The naysayers aren't putting it into perspective. Once again, we're not talking about replacing the Rose Bowl, Citrus Bowl or Outback Bowl here. Instead, the target Wrigley Bowl matchup would be a Detroit-level or, at most, a Pinstripe Bowl-level matchup. A higher tier warm weather game isn't getting dropped at all by the Big Ten.

Plus, the inherent advantage that Chicago has over Detroit or Indianapolis is the broad cross-section of alums that actually live there from ALL of the Big Ten schools (except for maybe Rutgers and Maryland). Certainly, for the 10 schools in the "original Big Ten", Chicago is the #1 location for alums outside of their own home states.

Idk, I live in Chicago burbs and I think I would rather watch my team play indoors at Lucas oil stadium. But I am old. 20 somethings would probably rather party in wrigleyville.

(01-06-2017 03:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, I'm just saying ... move the Big Ten - ACC bowl game from Ford Field to Wrigley, and I think it would be a better experience overall for fans. That's all I got.

I think that's the proper attitude toward this game. The naysayers aren't putting it into perspective. Once again, we're not talking about replacing the Rose Bowl, Citrus Bowl or Outback Bowl here. Instead, the target Wrigley Bowl matchup would be a Detroit-level or, at most, a Pinstripe Bowl-level matchup. A higher tier warm weather game isn't getting dropped at all by the Big Ten.

Plus, the inherent advantage that Chicago has over Detroit or Indianapolis is the broad cross-section of alums that actually live there from ALL of the Big Ten schools (except for maybe Rutgers and Maryland). Certainly, for the 10 schools in the "original Big Ten", Chicago is the #1 location for alums outside of their own home states.

People forget that before bowl deregulation if you couldn't convince the NCAA to grant you a bowl license your other option was to find a bowl game that was struggling and convince the operator to move to your town.

The Aloha Bowl moved to San Francisco and the license was being transferred there but because the game had some debts to deal with the NCAA agreed to treat it as a new license. The Oahu Bowl moved to Seattle.
The California Bowl license was moved to Las Vegas.
The Cactus started as the Copper Bowl in Tucson and later moved to the Phoenix metro.
The Blockbuster (etc.) game in the Miami metro area moved to Orlando.
Liberty moved to Memphis from Atlantic City after moving there from Philadelphia.

Wrigley folks are serious, they aren't going to piddle around trying to be game #41, they are going to pursue an existing game.

(01-06-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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.

What are you talking about? Chicago is easier to get around than New York. New York doesn't even have trains to its airports (Chicago has trains to both of its airports).

It's 20 minutes, tops, from the Loop to Wrigley Field. By train or car.

It's 30 minutes from Midtown Manhattan to Yankee Stadium by subway. From Brooklyn it's almost an hour. And driving will probably take longer unless it's 3 in the morning.

(01-07-2017 04:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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.

What are you talking about?

It's 20 minutes, tops, from the Loop to Wrigley Field. By train or car.

It's 30 minutes from Midtown Manhattan to Yankee Stadium by subway. From Brooklyn it's almost an hour. And driving will probably take longer unless it's 3 in the morning.

I'll go on record as strongly prefering NYC's public transportation system to Chicago's.

(01-07-2017 04:19 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 04:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(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.

What are you talking about?

It's 20 minutes, tops, from the Loop to Wrigley Field. By train or car.

It's 30 minutes from Midtown Manhattan to Yankee Stadium by subway. From Brooklyn it's almost an hour. And driving will probably take longer unless it's 3 in the morning.

I'll go on record as strongly prefering NYC's public transportation system to Chicago's.

In terms of overall access to more of the city, NYC has a more comprehensive public transportation system than Chicago.

However, for this specific scenario (a tourist who wants to stay in the center of the city and then travel to a ballpark), the Loop to Wrigley Field is about as easy of a public transportation trip even for someone that has no knowledge of the city (get on the Red Line north to Addison) as you can get.