(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Also, Chicago is 9.4 million people. NY is just under 20 million. LA is right around 13 million, but 18 when you throw in Riverside. NY and LA are just a lot bigger.

(02-20-2026 04:21 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

If the Bears stayed at Soldier Field and they tried to put another NFL team in Soldier Field, I would totally agree with you.

But if the Bears move to a new stadium in Arlington Heights, and Northwest Indiana builds a new NFL stadium for, let's say, the Bengals to move into, I could totally see the south suburbs embracing the Chicago Bengals.

I grew up in the South Suburbs.

My local pizza place was the Pope’s favorite pizza place (the original Aurelio’s in Homewood).

The answer is NO. They will not support someone other than the Bears. The South Suburbs are as hardcore Bears territory as anywhere else in the region. This is a total non-starter. If anything, our closer proximity to Indiana causes the South Side to have way more disdain for crossing the state line. Unlike much of the rest of the Chicago area, we *experience* their inexplicably awful traffic gridlock on I-80 that occurs even in the dead of night and which is the worst in Chicagoland (which is saying something) and the instant feeling of “grey” when you enter the Northwest Indiana industrial area while dodging potholes that will explode your tires.

It is the equivalent of some college team moving into Columbus, Ohio (if you could just move college teams) and thinking that the new team could pull any interest from Ohio State.

Don’t people understand that the Bears are to Chicago as Ohio State is to Columbus or Alabama is to Tuscaloosa? This whole discussion is nuts.

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Frank is too young to remember the South Side Chicago Cardinals at his beloved Comiskey.

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

Well there's a reason the Cowboys have been in Irving and Arlington. They don't want a Ft. Worth team. Now the Texans and Cowboys shared the Cotton Bowl before the Texans became the Chiefs.

(02-20-2026 07:29 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Frank is too young to remember the South Side Chicago Cardinals at his beloved Comiskey.

I loved Comiskey too. There was a bar right across the street (I forget the name) where they were more vocal when the Cubs lost than when the Sox won. True hate. Cubs fans don't like the White Sox, but the Sox fans really really hate the Cubs. They're a smaller more united group imo.

The Bears already have an amazing rivalry with the Packers. It's the oldest in the NFL. We hate each other. I mean really hate each other. We're the one's that named them the Cheeseheads. There's no way a new team that came to Chicago would have any kind of rivalry with the Bears like that one. The NFL would be stupid to even try. Just not going to happen.

I agree with Frank. If the Bears build a complex similar to SoFi in Chicago metro, it could be the richest franchise in all of sports. Bigger than the Cowboys. Heck the Cowboys weren't even a franchise until 1960. Bears fans hate the Cowboys with their self anointed "America's Team" mantra. You've got to remember Dallas was the only team in the south with an NFL team. They carried that whole region because of it.

By 1960 the Bears had 8 championships. They were the "Monsters of the Midway". To this day the Packers and the Bears still have the most championships, 12 and 9 respectively. History means everything.

"The pride and joy of ILLINOIS" is in the fight song they sing at every game. Moving The Chicago Bears out of Illinois would be heresy.

This isn't anything like the Chiefs moving to Kansas. This is historical. It would be like Alabama moving to Tennessee.

(02-20-2026 07:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 04:21 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

If the Bears stayed at Soldier Field and they tried to put another NFL team in Soldier Field, I would totally agree with you.

But if the Bears move to a new stadium in Arlington Heights, and Northwest Indiana builds a new NFL stadium for, let's say, the Bengals to move into, I could totally see the south suburbs embracing the Chicago Bengals.

I grew up in the South Suburbs.

My local pizza place was the Pope’s favorite pizza place (the original Aurelio’s in Homewood).

The answer is NO. They will not support someone other than the Bears. The South Suburbs are as hardcore Bears territory as anywhere else in the region. This is a total non-starter. If anything, our closer proximity to Indiana causes the South Side to have way more disdain for crossing the state line. Unlike much of the rest of the Chicago area, we *experience* their inexplicably awful traffic gridlock on I-80 that occurs even in the dead of night and which is the worst in Chicagoland (which is saying something) and the instant feeling of “grey” when you enter the Northwest Indiana industrial area while dodging potholes that will explode your tires.

It is the equivalent of some college team moving into Columbus, Ohio (if you could just move college teams) and thinking that the new team could pull any interest from Ohio State.

Don’t people understand that the Bears are to Chicago as Ohio State is to Columbus or Alabama is to Tuscaloosa? This whole discussion is nuts.

Sure, but not everybody grew up in Chicago. The loyalties of the younger generation and new residents are open. And if you have a choice to drive 30 minutes and pay $100 for tickets or drive for 2 hours and pay $200for tickets, a new fan is going to pick the closer, cheaper option.

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana then grabs a new team? Sure.

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

No offense, but you may be too emotionally close to see the value in a Windy City Rivalry.

If the Bears take the obvious no-brainer deal in the Indiana suburbs, and the extremely powerful City of Chicago goes bananas and brings in a franchise like the Bengals (or an expansion) to a restored Lakefront playground, what can the privately owned Bears really do about it?

C'mon, you're a smart guy. If the NFL decides to Vince McMahon this situation in order to squeeze that rivalry JUICE, you have to admit, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint. City vs 'burbs sells. Greasers vs Socs.

Moving to Arlington Heights or Indiana will put even diehard fans off. It's already happening! The City of Chicago is powerful and you know this.

(02-20-2026 10:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana then grabs a new team? Sure.

Don't you have a new Cignetti thread to attend to?

(02-20-2026 08:33 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:29 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Frank is too young to remember the South Side Chicago Cardinals at his beloved Comiskey.

I loved Comiskey too. There was a bar right across the street (I forget the name) where they were more vocal when the Cubs lost than when the Sox won. True hate. Cubs fans don't like the White Sox, but the Sox fans really really hate the Cubs. They're a smaller more united group imo.

The Bears already have an amazing rivalry with the Packers. It's the oldest in the NFL. We hate each other. I mean really hate each other. We're the one's that named them the Cheeseheads. There's no way a new team that came to Chicago would have any kind of rivalry with the Bears like that one. The NFL would be stupid to even try. Just not going to happen.

I agree with Frank. If the Bears build a complex similar to SoFi in Chicago metro, it could be the richest franchise in all of sports. Bigger than the Cowboys. Heck the Cowboys weren't even a franchise until 1960. Bears fans hate the Cowboys with their self anointed "America's Team" mantra. You've got to remember Dallas was the only team in the south with an NFL team. They carried that whole region because of it.

By 1960 the Bears had 8 championships. They were the "Monsters of the Midway". To this day the Packers and the Bears still have the most championships, 12 and 9 respectively. History means everything.

"The pride and joy of ILLINOIS" is in the fight song they sing at every game. Moving The Chicago Bears out of Illinois would be heresy.

This isn't anything like the Chiefs moving to Kansas. This is historical. It would be like Alabama moving to Tennessee.

You're touching on exactly the type of rivalry that exists with the White Sox/Cubs, Yankees/Mets, A's/Giants, Giants/Jets, Rams/Raiders etc.

It's that underlying City Rivalry. It's a different layer. It's a depth that's always there, but not always concentrated on. And there's room for it if the Bears move to the 'burbs, and that's what terrifies the fans of both the City of Chicago and the Bears.

Joe Schmo Bears fan from Iowa who has never been to a game won't care. But the kid growing up in the South Side absolutely will. And that's how history's made.

(02-20-2026 10:46 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana then grabs a new team? Sure.

Don't you have a new Cignetti thread to attend to?

I’m just glad to see you provoking somebody else.

(02-20-2026 10:45 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

No offense, but you may be too emotionally close to see the value in a Windy City Rivalry.

If the Bears take the obvious no-brainer deal in the Indiana suburbs, and the extremely powerful City of Chicago goes bananas and brings in a franchise like the Bengals (or an expansion) to a restored Lakefront playground, what can the privately owned Bears really do about it?

C'mon, you're a smart guy. If the NFL decides to Vince McMahon this situation in order to squeeze that rivalry JUICE, you have to admit, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint. City vs 'burbs sells. Greasers vs Socs.

Moving to Arlington Heights or Indiana will put even diehard fans off. It's already happening! The City of Chicago is powerful and you know this.

As a current Arkansas resident and former Peoria, IL resident who several times saw live White Sox and Bears I can say Frank isn’t too emotionally close. From my experience there he is telling it like it is. This is reality in the Chicago metropolitan area. I can’t fathom why people who have no experience with the area want to argue and disagree with Frank who has been there for decades. Good grief.

(02-20-2026 11:14 PM)Windsor Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:45 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I grew up in the South Suburbs that grew up as a White Sox fan and then lived on the South Side of the city, North Side of the city, North Suburbs, and now West Suburbs. I know better than anyone how that works. No lesson needed there for me.

This will not work with the Bears whatsoever. It’s like saying that Dallas can support another team like the Cowboys, which is a market that may overtake Chicago as the #3 media market within the next decade or two. On paper in terms of sheer population, someone from the outside might think it’s workable. In terms of actual reality, zero chance. The Bears are *DOMINANT* in this market. We are a Tier 1 pro sports market across the board (far better than any Southern market by a multiples in terms of fandom) where all of the Bears, Cubs, Bulls and Blackhawks are near the top in sizes of fan bases for their respective sports… and even in that context, the Bears are dominant.

Think of it this way: the ratings for the Cubs World Series locally were about as close to 100% share as you’ll get in a market in the size of Chicago and a nationwide cultural event… and that’s what the Bears typically get in just your average weekly regular season game locally. They are *DOMINANT* (can’t emphasize that enough) and why any new stadium would likely make the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the world besides the Cowboys.

My man, I know every nook and cranny of the Chicago area as much as anyone. Having a 2nd Chicago NFL team is every bit as laughable as thinking a 2nd NFL team in Dallas would somehow work with the Cowboys there. (Or maybe you think a 2nd NFL team would also work in Dallas, in which case I can’t help you.)

Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

No offense, but you may be too emotionally close to see the value in a Windy City Rivalry.

If the Bears take the obvious no-brainer deal in the Indiana suburbs, and the extremely powerful City of Chicago goes bananas and brings in a franchise like the Bengals (or an expansion) to a restored Lakefront playground, what can the privately owned Bears really do about it?

C'mon, you're a smart guy. If the NFL decides to Vince McMahon this situation in order to squeeze that rivalry JUICE, you have to admit, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint. City vs 'burbs sells. Greasers vs Socs.

Moving to Arlington Heights or Indiana will put even diehard fans off. It's already happening! The City of Chicago is powerful and you know this.

As a current Arkansas resident and former Peoria, IL resident who several times saw live White Sox and Bears I can say Frank isn’t too emotionally close. From my experience there he is telling it like it is. This is reality in the Chicago metropolitan area. I can’t fathom why people who have no experience with the area want to argue and disagree with Frank who has been there for decades. Good grief.

I've been everywhere, man. Money is green and things change. I really think you all are underestimating the City of Chicago on this one.

(02-20-2026 11:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:46 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:27 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  We just saw LA get two teams. I guess I'm not sure what makes Chicago special. In fact, Chicago is a city with a clear divide: North and South Side. That's exactly the type of situation that fuels rivalries; Cubs vs White Sox being the obvious example.

I don't see that with LA, but I do with NYC: Bronx/Manhattan vs Brooklyn/Queens

Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana then grabs a new team? Sure.

Don't you have a new Cignetti thread to attend to?

I’m just glad to see you provoking somebody else.

If not for me, the fire would die.

yo frank you tink you know chicago better than saul bellow? that's the second time i've evoked his name today. i drive thru chicago a few times a year. depending on where i'm going in wisconsin, i'll either go thru or around the city but where hammond's at is always the worst stretch coming home. heading into the city always seems fine to me. always on the return. this'll be a cluster for a while. i'm surprised nobody's mentioned yet three floyds in nearby munster

(02-20-2026 11:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:14 PM)Windsor Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:45 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:28 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Yet, the Cubs and the White Sox have existed for over a century—many decades not even playing—and the rivalry exists.

I could 100% see the Bears move to Indiana and the city of Chicago bring in a new team. What would stop them? That’s the exact type of situation that would create a divide and fuel a rivalry which already exists within the city.

LA supports two teams—has previously—and has nowhere near the distinction Chicago has. What makes a Chargers fan vs a Rams fan? I don’t think anyone has to set foot in the Windy City to tell you the difference between Cubs and White Sox fandom. It’s similar to the Yankees vs Mets—the Mets having inherited more of the Bums stereotypes than the tepid NY Giants.

Bringing up Dallas is laughable. There isn’t near any history to build on in Dallas. San Antonio could support a team, and I think Houston might be able to support another team if they were called the Oilers.

Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

No offense, but you may be too emotionally close to see the value in a Windy City Rivalry.

If the Bears take the obvious no-brainer deal in the Indiana suburbs, and the extremely powerful City of Chicago goes bananas and brings in a franchise like the Bengals (or an expansion) to a restored Lakefront playground, what can the privately owned Bears really do about it?

C'mon, you're a smart guy. If the NFL decides to Vince McMahon this situation in order to squeeze that rivalry JUICE, you have to admit, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint. City vs 'burbs sells. Greasers vs Socs.

Moving to Arlington Heights or Indiana will put even diehard fans off. It's already happening! The City of Chicago is powerful and you know this.

As a current Arkansas resident and former Peoria, IL resident who several times saw live White Sox and Bears I can say Frank isn’t too emotionally close. From my experience there he is telling it like it is. This is reality in the Chicago metropolitan area. I can’t fathom why people who have no experience with the area want to argue and disagree with Frank who has been there for decades. Good grief.

I've been everywhere, man. Money is green and things change. I really think you all are underestimating the City of Chicago on this one.

two teams in chicago is stupid and the bengals ain't going there. the bears already have the best rivals in football and they wouldn't even play each other very often as they'd be in different divisions or leagues. you didn't think this through very well; caught up in passion

(02-20-2026 11:48 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:14 PM)Windsor Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:45 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 08:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Can you please stop trying to tell me how Chicago sports work (out of all things to argue with me about)? Yes - I wasn’t alive when the Cardinals left the city because that was over 65 years ago, so anyone that even has a working memory of their existence has to be at least 70. They are irrelevant. I have been to over 100 games each at both Wrigley and new Comiskey/Rate Field plus dozens of games at Old Comiskey. I sat in negative windchill at Soldier Field for the Bears-Rams playoff game last month. I was at Michael Jordan’s last game at the United Center. I have my picture with the Stanley Cup after the Hawks won their first of 3 championships last decade. Come on, man! I know what I’m talking about here.

And no, bringing up Dallas isn’t laughable whatsoever. The Bears own the Chicago market every bit as fully as the Cowboys own the Dallas market. That is my point.

No offense, but you may be too emotionally close to see the value in a Windy City Rivalry.

If the Bears take the obvious no-brainer deal in the Indiana suburbs, and the extremely powerful City of Chicago goes bananas and brings in a franchise like the Bengals (or an expansion) to a restored Lakefront playground, what can the privately owned Bears really do about it?

C'mon, you're a smart guy. If the NFL decides to Vince McMahon this situation in order to squeeze that rivalry JUICE, you have to admit, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint. City vs 'burbs sells. Greasers vs Socs.

Moving to Arlington Heights or Indiana will put even diehard fans off. It's already happening! The City of Chicago is powerful and you know this.

As a current Arkansas resident and former Peoria, IL resident who several times saw live White Sox and Bears I can say Frank isn’t too emotionally close. From my experience there he is telling it like it is. This is reality in the Chicago metropolitan area. I can’t fathom why people who have no experience with the area want to argue and disagree with Frank who has been there for decades. Good grief.

I've been everywhere, man. Money is green and things change. I really think you all are underestimating the City of Chicago on this one.

two teams in chicago is stupid and the bengals ain't going there. the bears already have the best rivals in football and they wouldn't even play each other very often as they'd be in different divisions or leagues. you didn't think this through very well; caught up in passion

Well I would say you didn't think, but I could tell that by your post.

(02-20-2026 08:33 PM)Memphis Yankee Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 07:29 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Frank is too young to remember the South Side Chicago Cardinals at his beloved Comiskey.

I loved Comiskey too. There was a bar right across the street (I forget the name) where they were more vocal when the Cubs lost than when the Sox won. True hate. Cubs fans don't like the White Sox, but the Sox fans really really hate the Cubs. They're a smaller more united group imo.

The Bears already have an amazing rivalry with the Packers. It's the oldest in the NFL. We hate each other. I mean really hate each other. We're the one's that named them the Cheeseheads. There's no way a new team that came to Chicago would have any kind of rivalry with the Bears like that one. The NFL would be stupid to even try. Just not going to happen.

I agree with Frank. If the Bears build a complex similar to SoFi in Chicago metro, it could be the richest franchise in all of sports. Bigger than the Cowboys. Heck the Cowboys weren't even a franchise until 1960. Bears fans hate the Cowboys with their self anointed "America's Team" mantra. You've got to remember Dallas was the only team in the south with an NFL team. They carried that whole region because of it.

By 1960 the Bears had 8 championships. They were the "Monsters of the Midway". To this day the Packers and the Bears still have the most championships, 12 and 9 respectively. History means everything.

"The pride and joy of ILLINOIS" is in the fight song they sing at every game. Moving The Chicago Bears out of Illinois would be heresy.

This isn't anything like the Chiefs moving to Kansas. This is historical. It would be like Alabama moving to Tennessee.

Maybe they could sell the team to Mark Cuban.