I wonder if the Bears have looked into each site's potential for attracting mega events like the Super Bowl, Big Ten CCG, CFP NCG and NCAA final 4's.

You would think the Arlington Heights location has a big advantage being closer to OHare.

I guess northwest Indiana would be a shorter drive for some Eastern Big Ten teams but that's the only advantage I could possibly think of.

(02-24-2026 11:29 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 10:09 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 09:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-23-2026 09:43 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  You just keep saying “stupid” and “dumb” as if it’s an actual argumentative point. It’s not. It’s actually dumb in itself.

I never mentioned transplants.

What I posed was the Bears moving to Indiana and the City of Chicago being a powerful enough force to revamp the Lakefront and bring in a homeless team like the Chargers.

That’s not “dumb”; it’s two disenfranchised entities coming together.

Your complete tripling down on what you clearly don’t understand about Chicago sports is what is ridiculous. You don’t seem to understand true hardcore pro sports fan cities like Chicago, either, where people care about the Bears as much or more than a UNC grad cares about UNC basketball and saying that they’d just switch teams is like telling that UNC grad that they would certainly cheer for Duke if the UNC basketball program somehow moved like a pro team to South Carolina. I would think that would be insulting on its face for an outsider to suggest such a thing. I intimately understand the White Sox vs. Cubs rivalry more than you will ever know, so I’m the last person that needs a lecture or some argument about the value intra-city rivalries. That will not work with the Bears and NFL and it’s insanity to suggest otherwise. We have the biggest rivalry in the NFL already with Bears-Packers an entire 9.5 million person market is watching in unison at one time. The NFL cares far more about THAT than splitting it up and creating a fake intra-city rivalry when the NFC North already has a century full of rivalries.

All that being said, even if you had all of the Chicago sports knowledge in the world, the entire premise of a second team in the Chicago market fails because of one simple thing: any 2nd team is going to insist upon a stadium deal that the Bears wanted or better. The City of Chicago suddenly isn’t going to find money to pay for a stadium that an NFL team would want even if they could find a plot of land that a team would want within the city limits. Teams want full mixed use developments beyond the stadium and that straight up cannot happen on the lakefront by *law* as it’s protected by ironclad language that for various reasons is held up stronger by the courts these days compared to the actual US Constitution. George Lucas was going to build a museum just south of Soldier Field and that got killed by “Friends of the Park” activist lawsuits. A similar park activist group tied up the Obama Center constitution for years even with Obama’s political power here. (To be clear, the law is an overwhelming overall positive as it is the reason why the Chicago lakefront is clear and open with parks and beaches as opposed to having the ugly closed down factories and other industrial development that you see across the border in Indiana and many other Rust Belt cities. It was just the activists really stretched the law to the limits in the cases of the Lucas and Obama museums.)

That is the greater financial point whether you want to foolishly believe that the Chicago market could support a second NFL team or not (and to be clear, it is 100% foolish with a total lack of understanding of Chicago sports fans). If the City of Chicago had the money and location to build a new stadium that would satisfy an NFL team, they would have already done it for the Bears. They don’t have either the money or location, so the point is moot.

I get it, you're passionate about this. Your frustration is coming from a place of fear. You could see your favorite team and your favorite city really go at it.

Between the insults, your argument has consistently been Chicago can't support two franchises, yet the White Sox and Cubs have coexisted for over 100 years. On that point, Chicago is home to fans of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Wisconsin etc.—and they all do just fine filling up stadiums.

Another point you make is the aversion of the NFL to splitting markets, yet we have seen the Giants/Jets, Rams/Chargers, Rams/Raiders, 49ers/Raiders all coexist. Yet, somehow Chicago is a no-no because you say so.

The Chargers are a great hypothetical because they don't have a stadium and they are in the AFC. So, they wouldn't necessarily be a direct competitor of the Bears, and wouldn't even need to get in the middle of the Packers rivalry. They would simply exist as an alternative option to folks in Chicago who would rather watch pro football in Chicago. As new first-generation Chicagoans are born, they would have a choice.


This would look scary good on the Lakefront

Of course, the Chargers situation is just an example and they appear to be locked in LA until 2040, at least from what I have read.


• • • 

But one point you make—and I agree with and my argument is dependent upon—is the City of Chicago would have to want to make this happen. That's a hypothetical for sure. But you attempting to big-time me because you grew up there doesn't overshadow the size of the market, the will of the city, nor the choice of people living there who are feeling jilted—and that is happening. I don't have to be from Chicago to watch WGN reports.

Also, if we're only allowed to talk about sports related to where we're from, I'm going to need you to please stop talking about everything outside Chicago.

There’s no “fear”.

Personally, if another NFL team stupidly wanted to move to the Chicago market to compete with the Bears and someone wanted to build a stadium for them, by all means do so as long as it’s not being done with my tax money. I’m a pretty big supporter of all things to improve the Chicago area even if they are competitive with my own favorite teams - e.g. Cubs improving the area around Wrigley Field, Northwestern building a new stadium, Loyola moving to the A-10, etc.

Sure, there are lot of different sports fans from different colleges here, but that is what’s different with a place like Chicago (or Philly or Boston or arguably NYC) compared to a place like Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham where the pro sports teams are who bind multiple college allegiances together as opposed to the other way around. The Bears have been in existence for over 100 years - that is a totally and completely different multigenerational and deeper connection to this market compared to markets that didn’t get NFL teams until many decades later. That is also the point with the Cubs-White Sox rivalry that you keep pointing out - it’s not some noveau riche artificial creation, but rather something that has been deeply engrained in our local culture for over 100 years. My issue with your posts isn’t about that you’re talking about Chicago sports, but rather being *insistent* about the inner *culture* of the place in a way that pretty much everyone that has lived in Chicago for any decent period of time can see is totally wrong.

The Chargers are not a great hypothetical at all because they came into a situation where LA didn’t have any team for over two decades. They were effectively starting fresh with the Rams at the same time (despite the Rams longer historical ties to LA) and LA wasn’t ever a great NFL market in the first place (which is why they lost 2 teams in the 1990s). In contrast, Chicago is a Tier 1 mega-NFL market. The ratings for the entire league literally move up nationally whenever the Bears are playing well because Chicago is the largest market with effectively 100% devotion to one team. As I’ve stated repeatedly, the real comparison is would be trying to put a second NFL team in the Dallas market: they are close in size with Chicago (with Dallas growing much faster where it will likely be the bigger market within the next decade or two) but the NFL team there essentially has 100% control with a massive fan base. It would be (or at least should be) instantly insane to think it would be a good idea to have a 2nd NFL team competing with the Cowboys in the Dallas market. That is where the Bears are with respect to intensity and depth of fandom in the market - at the Cowboys in Dallas level as opposed to the much more fairweather NFL fans in LA and many of the Southern markets (save for Dallas and New Orleans).

That’s the macro level NFL view: they don’t want Chicago, Dallas, Philly or Boston fans being split up among multiple teams. That doesn’t serve their interests at all. The fact that Chicago is still a 2-team MLB town is based on history - unfortunately, if the White Sox were to move, we won’t be getting a second MLB team back again. The economics for that don’t make sense for 2 team markets in pro sports outside of NYC and LA if you had a choice in today’s world in the exact same way that college conferences actively *don’t* want schools in the same market or state in today’s world (whereas conferences used to be based on geography). That’s where we bring it back to conference realignment - if we think that conferences don’t want multiple teams in the same market or state unless it’s a mega-market, then you can state that 100-fold for the even more limited universe of pro sports franchises. When the NFL is talking about expansion, they’re talking about London and Spain or maybe Toronto. The domestic side is already maxed out as the growing domestic regions already have regional ties to other teams (e.g. San Antonio and Austin with the Cowboys or, to a lesser extent, Texans, or Orlando with its proximity to 3 Florida NFL teams) where they don’t even want to impede those existing ties in those areas, much less doubling up directly in an existing market.

Yet in the last decade we’ve seen the NFL encourage LA to host two teams with the Rams moving, and the Chargers and Raiders given the second and third option respectively.

I didn’t say anything about culture other than I can point to examples of Chicagoans supporting multiple teams. 9.4 million+ people can absolutely support two football teams. Heck, even the guys at Madden agree with me as both Chicago and Houston are relocation options. I say that somewhat in jest, but there is truth in sheer numbers.

The real comparison is to the Bay Area due to the distinct identities of fans. I may not be as familiar with the North/South Side rivalry as you, but you should recognize that it’s not some hidden secret only Chicagoans are aware of. The Raiders only moved because Oakland obviously cannot get their stuff together, not because they didn’t have distinct fan support.

From what I have seen, many Chicagoans are not happy about the Bears moving. I understand your POV is they’ll adapt and move along. BUT in my hypothetical scenario a rivalry similar in nature could develop due to the jilting and identity if a new franchise were to take a gamble on the market.

Look at Nashville. Red Wings and Blackhawks fans populated the area and now their kids are Predators fans. It happens.

I agree that the Bay Area is a more relevant comparison. As with the Chicago market, my point there is that they had a multi-team market for both MLB and the NFL under a different business universe. It’s similar to why the Big Ten has both Indiana and Purdue or the ACC has 4 schools in North Carolina - no one would actually choose those moves *today*.

Oakland might have been able to keep the A’s and/or Raiders with the right stadium deals, but now that they’ve left, no one is moving *to* Oakland or the Bay Area in general to be team #2 in any of the pro sports league again in today’s world. Like I’ve said even in the case of my White Sox, if they were to move to Nashville or somewhere else (as threatened), we’re simply not getting a 2nd MLB team in this market again. It was a product of a totally different business environment. MLB would rather just make the Cubs extra super powerful with their nationalized fan base.

I’m not saying that because I personally *like* it. I’d love to say that Chicago can support multiple teams or other franchises would want to move here, but that’s just as unrealistic as a Cincinnati fan thinking that they’ll get into the Big Ten (when Ohio State is there) or a slew of Southern teams that would love to get into the SEC but already have an existing SEC team in their home state. The doubling up in markets is a product of a different time. The NYC and LA markets are twice as large as even #3 market Chicago, so they’re the pro sports equivalents of the States of Texas and Florida when it comes to supporting multiple power college sports teams. You can’t bank on any other market to have multiple teams in a sport if they lose their existing ones.

(02-24-2026 01:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 11:29 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 11:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 10:09 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 09:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Your complete tripling down on what you clearly don’t understand about Chicago sports is what is ridiculous. You don’t seem to understand true hardcore pro sports fan cities like Chicago, either, where people care about the Bears as much or more than a UNC grad cares about UNC basketball and saying that they’d just switch teams is like telling that UNC grad that they would certainly cheer for Duke if the UNC basketball program somehow moved like a pro team to South Carolina. I would think that would be insulting on its face for an outsider to suggest such a thing. I intimately understand the White Sox vs. Cubs rivalry more than you will ever know, so I’m the last person that needs a lecture or some argument about the value intra-city rivalries. That will not work with the Bears and NFL and it’s insanity to suggest otherwise. We have the biggest rivalry in the NFL already with Bears-Packers an entire 9.5 million person market is watching in unison at one time. The NFL cares far more about THAT than splitting it up and creating a fake intra-city rivalry when the NFC North already has a century full of rivalries.

All that being said, even if you had all of the Chicago sports knowledge in the world, the entire premise of a second team in the Chicago market fails because of one simple thing: any 2nd team is going to insist upon a stadium deal that the Bears wanted or better. The City of Chicago suddenly isn’t going to find money to pay for a stadium that an NFL team would want even if they could find a plot of land that a team would want within the city limits. Teams want full mixed use developments beyond the stadium and that straight up cannot happen on the lakefront by *law* as it’s protected by ironclad language that for various reasons is held up stronger by the courts these days compared to the actual US Constitution. George Lucas was going to build a museum just south of Soldier Field and that got killed by “Friends of the Park” activist lawsuits. A similar park activist group tied up the Obama Center constitution for years even with Obama’s political power here. (To be clear, the law is an overwhelming overall positive as it is the reason why the Chicago lakefront is clear and open with parks and beaches as opposed to having the ugly closed down factories and other industrial development that you see across the border in Indiana and many other Rust Belt cities. It was just the activists really stretched the law to the limits in the cases of the Lucas and Obama museums.)

That is the greater financial point whether you want to foolishly believe that the Chicago market could support a second NFL team or not (and to be clear, it is 100% foolish with a total lack of understanding of Chicago sports fans). If the City of Chicago had the money and location to build a new stadium that would satisfy an NFL team, they would have already done it for the Bears. They don’t have either the money or location, so the point is moot.

I get it, you're passionate about this. Your frustration is coming from a place of fear. You could see your favorite team and your favorite city really go at it.

Between the insults, your argument has consistently been Chicago can't support two franchises, yet the White Sox and Cubs have coexisted for over 100 years. On that point, Chicago is home to fans of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Wisconsin etc.—and they all do just fine filling up stadiums.

Another point you make is the aversion of the NFL to splitting markets, yet we have seen the Giants/Jets, Rams/Chargers, Rams/Raiders, 49ers/Raiders all coexist. Yet, somehow Chicago is a no-no because you say so.

The Chargers are a great hypothetical because they don't have a stadium and they are in the AFC. So, they wouldn't necessarily be a direct competitor of the Bears, and wouldn't even need to get in the middle of the Packers rivalry. They would simply exist as an alternative option to folks in Chicago who would rather watch pro football in Chicago. As new first-generation Chicagoans are born, they would have a choice.


This would look scary good on the Lakefront

Of course, the Chargers situation is just an example and they appear to be locked in LA until 2040, at least from what I have read.


• • • 

But one point you make—and I agree with and my argument is dependent upon—is the City of Chicago would have to want to make this happen. That's a hypothetical for sure. But you attempting to big-time me because you grew up there doesn't overshadow the size of the market, the will of the city, nor the choice of people living there who are feeling jilted—and that is happening. I don't have to be from Chicago to watch WGN reports.

Also, if we're only allowed to talk about sports related to where we're from, I'm going to need you to please stop talking about everything outside Chicago.

There’s no “fear”.

Personally, if another NFL team stupidly wanted to move to the Chicago market to compete with the Bears and someone wanted to build a stadium for them, by all means do so as long as it’s not being done with my tax money. I’m a pretty big supporter of all things to improve the Chicago area even if they are competitive with my own favorite teams - e.g. Cubs improving the area around Wrigley Field, Northwestern building a new stadium, Loyola moving to the A-10, etc.

Sure, there are lot of different sports fans from different colleges here, but that is what’s different with a place like Chicago (or Philly or Boston or arguably NYC) compared to a place like Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham where the pro sports teams are who bind multiple college allegiances together as opposed to the other way around. The Bears have been in existence for over 100 years - that is a totally and completely different multigenerational and deeper connection to this market compared to markets that didn’t get NFL teams until many decades later. That is also the point with the Cubs-White Sox rivalry that you keep pointing out - it’s not some noveau riche artificial creation, but rather something that has been deeply engrained in our local culture for over 100 years. My issue with your posts isn’t about that you’re talking about Chicago sports, but rather being *insistent* about the inner *culture* of the place in a way that pretty much everyone that has lived in Chicago for any decent period of time can see is totally wrong.

The Chargers are not a great hypothetical at all because they came into a situation where LA didn’t have any team for over two decades. They were effectively starting fresh with the Rams at the same time (despite the Rams longer historical ties to LA) and LA wasn’t ever a great NFL market in the first place (which is why they lost 2 teams in the 1990s). In contrast, Chicago is a Tier 1 mega-NFL market. The ratings for the entire league literally move up nationally whenever the Bears are playing well because Chicago is the largest market with effectively 100% devotion to one team. As I’ve stated repeatedly, the real comparison is would be trying to put a second NFL team in the Dallas market: they are close in size with Chicago (with Dallas growing much faster where it will likely be the bigger market within the next decade or two) but the NFL team there essentially has 100% control with a massive fan base. It would be (or at least should be) instantly insane to think it would be a good idea to have a 2nd NFL team competing with the Cowboys in the Dallas market. That is where the Bears are with respect to intensity and depth of fandom in the market - at the Cowboys in Dallas level as opposed to the much more fairweather NFL fans in LA and many of the Southern markets (save for Dallas and New Orleans).

That’s the macro level NFL view: they don’t want Chicago, Dallas, Philly or Boston fans being split up among multiple teams. That doesn’t serve their interests at all. The fact that Chicago is still a 2-team MLB town is based on history - unfortunately, if the White Sox were to move, we won’t be getting a second MLB team back again. The economics for that don’t make sense for 2 team markets in pro sports outside of NYC and LA if you had a choice in today’s world in the exact same way that college conferences actively *don’t* want schools in the same market or state in today’s world (whereas conferences used to be based on geography). That’s where we bring it back to conference realignment - if we think that conferences don’t want multiple teams in the same market or state unless it’s a mega-market, then you can state that 100-fold for the even more limited universe of pro sports franchises. When the NFL is talking about expansion, they’re talking about London and Spain or maybe Toronto. The domestic side is already maxed out as the growing domestic regions already have regional ties to other teams (e.g. San Antonio and Austin with the Cowboys or, to a lesser extent, Texans, or Orlando with its proximity to 3 Florida NFL teams) where they don’t even want to impede those existing ties in those areas, much less doubling up directly in an existing market.

Yet in the last decade we’ve seen the NFL encourage LA to host two teams with the Rams moving, and the Chargers and Raiders given the second and third option respectively.

I didn’t say anything about culture other than I can point to examples of Chicagoans supporting multiple teams. 9.4 million+ people can absolutely support two football teams. Heck, even the guys at Madden agree with me as both Chicago and Houston are relocation options. I say that somewhat in jest, but there is truth in sheer numbers.

The real comparison is to the Bay Area due to the distinct identities of fans. I may not be as familiar with the North/South Side rivalry as you, but you should recognize that it’s not some hidden secret only Chicagoans are aware of. The Raiders only moved because Oakland obviously cannot get their stuff together, not because they didn’t have distinct fan support.

From what I have seen, many Chicagoans are not happy about the Bears moving. I understand your POV is they’ll adapt and move along. BUT in my hypothetical scenario a rivalry similar in nature could develop due to the jilting and identity if a new franchise were to take a gamble on the market.

Look at Nashville. Red Wings and Blackhawks fans populated the area and now their kids are Predators fans. It happens.

I agree that the Bay Area is a more relevant comparison. As with the Chicago market, my point there is that they had a multi-team market for both MLB and the NFL under a different business universe. It’s similar to why the Big Ten has both Indiana and Purdue or the ACC has 4 schools in North Carolina - no one would actually choose those moves *today*.

Oakland might have been able to keep the A’s and/or Raiders with the right stadium deals, but now that they’ve left, no one is moving *to* Oakland or the Bay Area in general to be team #2 in any of the pro sports league again in today’s world. Like I’ve said even in the case of my White Sox, if they were to move to Nashville or somewhere else (as threatened), we’re simply not getting a 2nd MLB team in this market again. It was a product of a totally different business environment. MLB would rather just make the Cubs extra super powerful with their nationalized fan base.

I’m not saying that because I personally *like* it. I’d love to say that Chicago can support multiple teams or other franchises would want to move here, but that’s just as unrealistic as a Cincinnati fan thinking that they’ll get into the Big Ten (when Ohio State is there) or a slew of Southern teams that would love to get into the SEC but already have an existing SEC team in their home state. The doubling up in markets is a product of a different time. The NYC and LA markets are twice as large as even #3 market Chicago, so they’re the pro sports equivalents of the States of Texas and Florida when it comes to supporting multiple power college sports teams. You can’t bank on any other market to have multiple teams in a sport if they lose their existing ones.

I totally understand that reasoning and I agree. What my fantasy was banking on was 1) the Bears moving to Indiana (different government) and 2) the City of Chicago pulling a Boss-like political move out of spite and disrupting the harmony of Bears fandom in the process. It’s totally based on different governing bodies rather than market. This scenario can only exist in cities on the border of states.

This reads more “sports entertainment” in the vein of professional wrestling for sure.

(02-24-2026 01:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if the Bears have looked into each site's potential for attracting mega events like the Super Bowl, Big Ten CCG, CFP NCG and NCAA final 4's.

You would think the Arlington Heights location has a big advantage being closer to OHare.

I guess northwest Indiana would be a shorter drive for some Eastern Big Ten teams but that's the only advantage I could possibly think of.

Whatever people might think of my opinions or personal fandom, I do try to present the view of what I would do if my own actual money or job was on the line in making a decision.

The fact that Arlington Heights is still even being discussed when Indiana is offering effectively a free stadium for the Bears shows that Arlington Heights is a *far* superior location.

The access to people from out-of-town isn’t as relevant as the more immediate demographics surrounding Arlington Heights compared to Hammond. A 30-mile radius from Arlington Heights still covers downtown Chicago and the affluent North Side, O’hare, and the higher income North Shore, Northwest and West Suburbs. It is effectively smack dab in the middle of “Upscale Chicago”. In contrast, a 30-mile radius from Hammond still gets downtown Chicago, but otherwise the generally more economically downscale South Side, South Suburbs, and Northwest Indiana (at least compared to the Arlington Heights radius).

Add on that the Arlington Heights site specifically has the size to support a massive multi-use development - effectively a Bears Town - with its own existing Metra train station means that it is legitimately the single best location that the Bears could ever possibly have in the suburbs. It’s not even a contest.

However, Indiana is offering a straight up free stadium. That is why their bid is competitive and taken seriously. If all things were equal financially, then it’s not even a question that Arlington Heights blows Hammond away from a location standpoint. The fact that the Bears are still willing to spend $2 billion on a stadium in Arlington Heights provided that they get the property tax deal in place with the State of Illinois that they want when Indiana is offering a free stadium in Hammond just shows how much more valuable that Arlington Heights location is by comparison.

(02-24-2026 02:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 01:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if the Bears have looked into each site's potential for attracting mega events like the Super Bowl, Big Ten CCG, CFP NCG and NCAA final 4's.

You would think the Arlington Heights location has a big advantage being closer to OHare.

I guess northwest Indiana would be a shorter drive for some Eastern Big Ten teams but that's the only advantage I could possibly think of.

Whatever people might think of my opinions or personal fandom, I do try to present the view of what I would do if my own actual money or job was on the line in making a decision.

The fact that Arlington Heights is still even being discussed when Indiana is offering effectively a free stadium for the Bears shows that Arlington Heights is a *far* superior location.

The access to people from out-of-town isn’t as relevant as the more immediate demographics surrounding Arlington Heights compared to Hammond. A 30-mile radius from Arlington Heights still covers downtown Chicago and the affluent North Side, O’hare, and the higher income North Shore, Northwest and West Suburbs. It is effectively smack dab in the middle of “Upscale Chicago”. In contrast, a 30-mile radius from Hammond still gets downtown Chicago, but otherwise the generally more economically downscale South Side, South Suburbs, and Northwest Indiana (at least compared to the Arlington Heights radius).

Add on that the Arlington Heights site specifically has the size to support a massive multi-use development - effectively a Bears Town - with its own existing Metra train station means that it is legitimately the single best location that the Bears could ever possibly have in the suburbs. It’s not even a contest.

However, Indiana is offering a straight up free stadium. That is why their bid is competitive and taken seriously. If all things were equal financially, then it’s not even a question that Arlington Heights blows Hammond away from a location standpoint. The fact that the Bears are still willing to spend $2 billion on a stadium in Arlington Heights provided that they get the property tax deal in place with the State of Illinois that they want when Indiana is offering a free stadium in Hammond just shows how much more valuable that Arlington Heights location is by comparison.

I agree that the Indiana deal sounds like a better deal financially although its not clear to me what the Bears would be paying in rent to Indiana per year. My guess is the rent for the Indiana site would be about the same what the Bears would pay in property tax for the Arlington Heights site. Sounds like the Bears are trying to lock in a max of $10M per year property tax.

My AI may be lying to me, but its telling me the Indiana deal is a $5B deal with the Bears still contributing $2B to the project. But I have also heard other people say the Bears are getting the whole thing in Indiana for free. So I dont know what's true, honestly.

(02-24-2026 02:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 01:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if the Bears have looked into each site's potential for attracting mega events like the Super Bowl, Big Ten CCG, CFP NCG and NCAA final 4's.

You would think the Arlington Heights location has a big advantage being closer to OHare.

I guess northwest Indiana would be a shorter drive for some Eastern Big Ten teams but that's the only advantage I could possibly think of.

Whatever people might think of my opinions or personal fandom, I do try to present the view of what I would do if my own actual money or job was on the line in making a decision.

The fact that Arlington Heights is still even being discussed when Indiana is offering effectively a free stadium for the Bears shows that Arlington Heights is a *far* superior location.

The access to people from out-of-town isn’t as relevant as the more immediate demographics surrounding Arlington Heights compared to Hammond. A 30-mile radius from Arlington Heights still covers downtown Chicago and the affluent North Side, O’hare, and the higher income North Shore, Northwest and West Suburbs. It is effectively smack dab in the middle of “Upscale Chicago”. In contrast, a 30-mile radius from Hammond still gets downtown Chicago, but otherwise the generally more economically downscale South Side, South Suburbs, and Northwest Indiana (at least compared to the Arlington Heights radius).

Add on that the Arlington Heights site specifically has the size to support a massive multi-use development - effectively a Bears Town - with its own existing Metra train station means that it is legitimately the single best location that the Bears could ever possibly have in the suburbs. It’s not even a contest.

However, Indiana is offering a straight up free stadium. That is why their bid is competitive and taken seriously. If all things were equal financially, then it’s not even a question that Arlington Heights blows Hammond away from a location standpoint. The fact that the Bears are still willing to spend $2 billion on a stadium in Arlington Heights provided that they get the property tax deal in place with the State of Illinois that they want when Indiana is offering a free stadium in Hammond just shows how much more valuable that Arlington Heights location is by comparison.

FWIW, I think that the State of Illinois legislators don’t think that the Bears will actually move, and we’ll look up in a few years with a Bears Stadium in NW Indiana. The joy way it doesn’t happen at this point is if enough legislators fear for their job safety if they fumble away the Bears.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/02/2...tent=alert

According to the resolution that passed the Indiana house today, the cost of the stadium itself to be built in Indiana would cost around $3B total. The Bears would provide $2B for stadium construction and Indiana would pay $1B.

If this is true, I assume a new stadium in Arlington Heights would also cost around $3B now, of which the Bears would have pay all $3B.

So really we are talking about a $1B difference in cost for the Bears if the can get the property taxes capped and all the infrastructure payed for by the government.

(02-19-2026 02:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I could write a whole book on my thoughts here, but here’s how it’s broken down:

(1) For anyone looking at this from the outside, staying in Soldier Field is “not an option”. I put that in quotes because by normal free market business standards, of course the Bears don’t *need* to leave Soldier Field. However, the Bears are looking at the universe of other NFL business standards and particularly those located in large markets and they are at a huge disadvantage in terms of stadium revenue, which in turn impacts the value of the franchise. A new stadium likely makes the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the *world* (not just the NFL) besides the Cowboys, but their value has been limited with the Soldier Field deal (where they don’t have control over concerts or other non-NFL events there or any land surrounding the stadium as that’s public park land protected by law).

It sucks because those aerial shots of the Chicago skyline and Lake Michigan behind Solider Field are stunning, but it’s also weirdly like a Las Vegas Strip casino where it looks way closer when trying to walk to it from downtown than it actually is (e.g. it’s over a mile from the nearest El station because of the convoluted path that you need to take to get to the stadium) and effectively on an island with only one way in and one way out (as the East side of the stadium is Lake Michigan).

(2) Arlington Heights, a Northwest suburb on the Illinois side, is where the Bears have owned land for a new stadium and mixed used development district for several years. It used to be the site of the Arlington Park horse racing track (which was a beautiful facility). This is large enough that they can effectively build a “Bears City” there. (You can fit all 4 pro sports Chicago stadiums and their parking lots on this site. It is HUGE.) There is actually a Metra station located on the site and multiple interstates are close to the location, so as far as the suburbs go in terms of size and location, it’s as good as it will ever get. This is also a really good location for any affluent suburban ticketholders that predominantly live in the North, Northwest, and West suburbs. The intended model is to have what the Braves have with Truist Park and the Battery district on steroids.

The Bears will spend the money to build the stadium itself on their own. They’re not asking the State of Illinois to build the stadium per se, but they are looking to secure infrastructure funding (e.g. roads, utilities, etc.) required for the stadium and property tax “certainty” where the state will allow a deal that the Bears and the City of Arlington Heights and other applicable governmental units (most notably the public school district, which have totally different boundary lines than towns and counties in Illinois).

The infrastructure costs aren’t the issue - the State is fine with those as that area needs road improvements, anyway. Instead, it’s the property tax issue. The Bears claim that not having such certainly would cause them to have a $200 million per year property tax bill. As a comparison, the current highest property tax bill for an NFL stadium is SoFi Stadium in LA County with around $7 million per year. Once again, the Bears and local government entities have a property tax deal, but it can’t go into effect without the State allowing for it, so that is where the tension is. Needless to say, the Bears won’t be staying in Illinois if they have a $200 million annual property tax bill.

(3) Hammond is directly adjacent to the southeastern edge of Chicago across the state line in Indiana. I know a lot of people might think Indiana is an entire universe away from Chicago, but similar to how Jersey City and Hoboken in New Jersey are actually closer to Manhattan than most of the Bronx or Queens or even many parts of Brooklyn, this part of Indiana is closer to downtown Chicago than Arlington Heights or frankly most suburbs on the Illinois side. What Hammond doesn’t have is the affluent ticket holder base or realistic ability to make a true mixed use site because the demographics of the area simply aren’t as favorable for other businesses. The trade-off, though, is that Indiana is effectively offering a free stadium to the Bears, and regardless of what the financials look like in Arlington Heights, nothing beats free.

My understanding is that the Illinois talks are still going and the headlines this morning are being alarmist. I personally think the property tax issue will get resolved, but who knows with some of the egos involved. (I think it’s less about the Governor and more of the stonewalling of the legislators from the Chicago city limits that seem to rather lose the Bears entirely from the State if they aren’t in the city going forward.)

Also, any new stadium will 100% be a dome. They want Super Bowls, Final Fours, CFP games and other high profile events as additional revenue generators. It’s one thing to see high profile events go to LA, but it’s another thing to see Indianapolis really clean our clocks on that front as a smaller Midwestern market.

Great summary of the situation. Would also add for the unaware that the McCaskey family’s ownership is poor by NFL standards, and fragmented across Halas/McCaskey descendants.

Imo if/when the Arlington Heights dome gets off the crowd it’s getting the B1G title game if it’s still around in its current form. It’s too lucrative and convenient to play in a new stadium there compared to Indy, it’ll probably get some neutral site college games as well.

Chicago’s chance at being a two-team NFL left when the Cardinals did. The only way the Sox have been able to survive so long is carving out a cultural and geographic niche, a new NFL franchise wouldn’t have that and would be an active afterthought. Moot point too, it’s not happening.

(02-24-2026 10:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 02:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I could write a whole book on my thoughts here, but here’s how it’s broken down:

(1) For anyone looking at this from the outside, staying in Soldier Field is “not an option”. I put that in quotes because by normal free market business standards, of course the Bears don’t *need* to leave Soldier Field. However, the Bears are looking at the universe of other NFL business standards and particularly those located in large markets and they are at a huge disadvantage in terms of stadium revenue, which in turn impacts the value of the franchise. A new stadium likely makes the Bears into the most valuable sports team in the *world* (not just the NFL) besides the Cowboys, but their value has been limited with the Soldier Field deal (where they don’t have control over concerts or other non-NFL events there or any land surrounding the stadium as that’s public park land protected by law).

It sucks because those aerial shots of the Chicago skyline and Lake Michigan behind Solider Field are stunning, but it’s also weirdly like a Las Vegas Strip casino where it looks way closer when trying to walk to it from downtown than it actually is (e.g. it’s over a mile from the nearest El station because of the convoluted path that you need to take to get to the stadium) and effectively on an island with only one way in and one way out (as the East side of the stadium is Lake Michigan).

(2) Arlington Heights, a Northwest suburb on the Illinois side, is where the Bears have owned land for a new stadium and mixed used development district for several years. It used to be the site of the Arlington Park horse racing track (which was a beautiful facility). This is large enough that they can effectively build a “Bears City” there. (You can fit all 4 pro sports Chicago stadiums and their parking lots on this site. It is HUGE.) There is actually a Metra station located on the site and multiple interstates are close to the location, so as far as the suburbs go in terms of size and location, it’s as good as it will ever get. This is also a really good location for any affluent suburban ticketholders that predominantly live in the North, Northwest, and West suburbs. The intended model is to have what the Braves have with Truist Park and the Battery district on steroids.

The Bears will spend the money to build the stadium itself on their own. They’re not asking the State of Illinois to build the stadium per se, but they are looking to secure infrastructure funding (e.g. roads, utilities, etc.) required for the stadium and property tax “certainty” where the state will allow a deal that the Bears and the City of Arlington Heights and other applicable governmental units (most notably the public school district, which have totally different boundary lines than towns and counties in Illinois).

The infrastructure costs aren’t the issue - the State is fine with those as that area needs road improvements, anyway. Instead, it’s the property tax issue. The Bears claim that not having such certainly would cause them to have a $200 million per year property tax bill. As a comparison, the current highest property tax bill for an NFL stadium is SoFi Stadium in LA County with around $7 million per year. Once again, the Bears and local government entities have a property tax deal, but it can’t go into effect without the State allowing for it, so that is where the tension is. Needless to say, the Bears won’t be staying in Illinois if they have a $200 million annual property tax bill.

(3) Hammond is directly adjacent to the southeastern edge of Chicago across the state line in Indiana. I know a lot of people might think Indiana is an entire universe away from Chicago, but similar to how Jersey City and Hoboken in New Jersey are actually closer to Manhattan than most of the Bronx or Queens or even many parts of Brooklyn, this part of Indiana is closer to downtown Chicago than Arlington Heights or frankly most suburbs on the Illinois side. What Hammond doesn’t have is the affluent ticket holder base or realistic ability to make a true mixed use site because the demographics of the area simply aren’t as favorable for other businesses. The trade-off, though, is that Indiana is effectively offering a free stadium to the Bears, and regardless of what the financials look like in Arlington Heights, nothing beats free.

My understanding is that the Illinois talks are still going and the headlines this morning are being alarmist. I personally think the property tax issue will get resolved, but who knows with some of the egos involved. (I think it’s less about the Governor and more of the stonewalling of the legislators from the Chicago city limits that seem to rather lose the Bears entirely from the State if they aren’t in the city going forward.)

Also, any new stadium will 100% be a dome. They want Super Bowls, Final Fours, CFP games and other high profile events as additional revenue generators. It’s one thing to see high profile events go to LA, but it’s another thing to see Indianapolis really clean our clocks on that front as a smaller Midwestern market.

Great summary of the situation. Would also add for the unaware that the McCaskey family’s ownership is poor by NFL standards, and fragmented across Halas/McCaskey descendants.

Imo if/when the Arlington Heights dome gets off the crowd it’s getting the B1G title game if it’s still around in its current form. It’s too lucrative and convenient to play in a new stadium there compared to Indy, it’ll probably get some neutral site college games as well.

Chicago’s chance at being a two-team NFL left when the Cardinals did. The only way the Sox have been able to survive so long is carving out a cultural and geographic niche, a new NFL franchise wouldn’t have that and would be an active afterthought. Moot point too, it’s not happening.

One clarification to Frank's excellent analysis. The Indiana site is not essentially "free" for the Bears. Based on the measure just passed by the Indiana legislature, the Bears will still contribute $2B to stadium construction and the Indiana government will pay $1B for a $3B stadium. Its not clear to me who would pay an extra cost if the Indiana stadium ends up costing more than $3B total.

(02-24-2026 01:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  I wonder if the Bears have looked into each site's potential for attracting mega events like the Super Bowl, Big Ten CCG, CFP NCG and NCAA final 4's.

You would think the Arlington Heights location has a big advantage being closer to OHare.

I guess northwest Indiana would be a shorter drive for some Eastern Big Ten teams but that's the only advantage I could possibly think of.

Gary /Chicago airport a stones throw away. All kinds of room for private jets or team planes for visiting teams

(02-24-2026 03:51 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  FWIW, I think that the State of Illinois legislators don’t think that the Bears will actually move, and we’ll look up in a few years with a Bears Stadium in NW Indiana.

Like in MO; Welcome, Chiefs, to KCKS!

While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

(02-25-2026 08:53 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(02-24-2026 03:51 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  FWIW, I think that the State of Illinois legislators don’t think that the Bears will actually move, and we’ll look up in a few years with a Bears Stadium in NW Indiana.

Like in MO; Welcome, Chiefs, to KCKS!

I have a brother who lives on the Kansas side of KC and he’s not happy about what’s going on. He believes the tax payers are going to be fleeced. Kansas City MO’s gain is Kansas City, KS’s loss. These stadium scams are getting out of hand.

Why not make it a double stadium complex in East St. Louis for the St. Louis Cardinals and the Cincinnati Bengals, Roll ‘ em up ?

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

(02-25-2026 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

I don't think the NFL will expand again anytime soon. I think 32 is the sweet spot for that league. If the NFL does ever expand again, I think 36 is the next number, so they'll need to add four teams.

Where St. Louis does potentially enter the picture, however, is as follows: there are more markets at least arguably capable of supporting a NFL franchise than there are available NFL franchises. So the owner of a NFL franchise looking for a sweetheart stadium deal can shop his team around to prospective NFL markets in the hope of getting the best deal available. We're going back a few years here, but that's how the original Cleveland Browns wound up in Baltimore, and how the old Houston Oilers wound up in Nashville. And this is only my opinion, but I think it's why the Buffalo Bills got a new stadium deal done as quickly and as quietly as they did.

(02-25-2026 02:59 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

I don't think the NFL will expand again anytime soon. I think 32 is the sweet spot for that league. If the NFL does ever expand again, I think 36 is the next number, so they'll need to add four teams.

Where St. Louis does potentially enter the picture, however, is as follows: there are more markets at least arguably capable of supporting a NFL franchise than there are available NFL franchises. So the owner of a NFL franchise looking for a sweetheart stadium deal can shop his team around to prospective NFL markets in the hope of getting the best deal available. We're going back a few years here, but that's how the original Cleveland Browns wound up in Baltimore, and how the old Houston Oilers wound up in Nashville. And this is only my opinion, but I think it's why the Buffalo Bills got a new stadium deal done as quickly and as quietly as they did.

Exactly, and my scenario is based on the possibility of Illinois not housing an NFL team. Therefore, they may attempt to capitalize on a different market.

(02-25-2026 03:06 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 02:59 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I don't see the NFL ever revisiting the St. Louis market again. Outside of the Greatest Show on Turf years, the Rams were in the bottom third of attendance in the late 1990's, late 2000s and early 2010s, before bottoming out before moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Cardinals football also never hosted an NFL playoff game, and they were restricted attendance wise playing in old Busch.

It is a baseball/hockey city, with no professional basketball or football franchise (which is different reason I remain so high on SLU as a BE candidate, as there are limited competitive alternatives in the winter; and they are getting 9/10k at their home games this year).

I don't think the NFL will expand again anytime soon. I think 32 is the sweet spot for that league. If the NFL does ever expand again, I think 36 is the next number, so they'll need to add four teams.

Where St. Louis does potentially enter the picture, however, is as follows: there are more markets at least arguably capable of supporting a NFL franchise than there are available NFL franchises. So the owner of a NFL franchise looking for a sweetheart stadium deal can shop his team around to prospective NFL markets in the hope of getting the best deal available. We're going back a few years here, but that's how the original Cleveland Browns wound up in Baltimore, and how the old Houston Oilers wound up in Nashville. And this is only my opinion, but I think it's why the Buffalo Bills got a new stadium deal done as quickly and as quietly as they did.

Exactly, and my scenario is based on the possibility of Illinois not housing an NFL team. Therefore, they may attempt to capitalize on a different market.

I don’t think getting another pro franchise would benefit the state of Illinois right now. I think they’d be better joining Missouri as states without the NFL and get their college athletic programs strengthened. I met a ton of Illinois people out west over the years and they rarely go back to the games when they go back to visit family. They will go back to watch Illinois hoops and fb if a big name like Michigan or Ohio State is coming to town. Just my thoughts as an outsider originally from the Iowa side of the Mississippi.

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

(02-25-2026 04:05 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-25-2026 09:36 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  While everyone thinks of the Bears-Packers as the oldest NFL rivalry, it was in fact Bears-Cardinals.

The Chicago Cardinals were the White Sox (South Side) equivalent in Chicago. So all those blue-collar fans in the SNL skits would have been Cards fans in an alternate universe. Hard to imagine!

• • • 

I'll pose this question again: if the State of Illinois loses all that NFL tax revenue, could there be a movement to build a multi-purpose dome east of St. Louis across the Illinois border? The NFL looks to have some stability for the time being, but St. Louis is an interesting case. They only lost their team because the owner wanted to move to LA; it wasn't due to lack of support or success.

It appears high ranking political officials in Missouri support the idea. So could this hypothetically open the door for Illinois to pull the ol' okie-doke if the state loses the Bears?

I take it you've never been to East Saint Louis, IL?

lol. That would probably explain his enthusiasm for it. That place is rough.