(02-20-2026 09:46 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 02:01 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 11:27 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 02:06 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  They already demolished the horsetrack, whats preventing them from building the stadium as planned?

They want complete exemption from property taxes and the state is telling them to pound sand

Oh yeah, the Bears obviously prefer the Arlington Heights location, and what they want in the form of tax breaks is no different from what any other NFL team gets right now. But Indiana will either help them get Illinois on side, or in 30 years, a future generation of Illinois legislators will be begging the Bears to come back.

Yes, this is all about the Bears seeking leverage in discussions with Illinois legislators. Indiana is helping, but it seems like a long shot that they get the stadium. For the leverage to work, the Bears need a realistic alternative. The NY Giants and Jets moved to the Meadowlands, NJ…it worked because of logistical convenience and opportunities for long term growth. On the other hand, the Washington Commanders move to PG County, MD was awkward and never took-off.

I always thought that the Kansas vs Missouri discussions were just being used as leverage by the Chiefs, until one day they were no longer leverage and the Chiefs were moving across town. I suspect that the State of Indiana was encouraged by that and they've decided to channel their inner Will Wade and make the Bears a strong-*** offer. How much will the Bears really lose if they're in far NW Indiana instead of an hour away on the other side of Chicago? They're still in Chicagoland, their fanbase is still exactly the same, and there is no credible threat that Illinois could fumble away the Bears and then attract some other team to swoop in and take their place. This is a purely zero sum game between 2 States, exactly like the Chiefs situation was, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the smaller/"weaker" State win this battle, too.

When I was a student at Notre Dame, it seemed like there must have been a state law that if you lived in Indiana, you had to be a Bears fan. From that angle, at least, it's hardly surprising to me.

(02-19-2026 11:27 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 02:06 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  They already demolished the horsetrack, whats preventing them from building the stadium as planned?

They want complete exemption from property taxes and the state is telling them to pound sand

NO that’s not true. They have never asked to be exempted from property taxes.

See the Kansas City Kansas Chiefs.

Bring back the Cardinals

(02-20-2026 10:31 AM)Windsor Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 11:27 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 02:06 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  They already demolished the horsetrack, whats preventing them from building the stadium as planned?

They want complete exemption from property taxes and the state is telling them to pound sand

NO that’s not true. They have never asked to be exempted from property taxes.

Correct.

As I noted above, the Bears aren’t asking for a complete property tax exemption at all. They negotiated a tax rate with the local governmental authorities already, but that can’t go through without the State of Illinois authorizing it.

I hate defending special deals, but I get it in this instance. The Bears are facing an annual property tax bill of $200 million on the property under the current assessment. To be sure, that includes the whole site that may be commercial development other than the stadium itself, but everyone agrees that even just the stadium alone would have the highest property tax bill in all of pro sports by far (and we’re talking multiples). The highest property tax bill for any NFL stadium right now is SoFi Stadium in LA County is $7 million per year. Even using Illinois standards, Wrigley Field and United Center - both privately owned - have annual property tax bills of around $7-8 million per year. So, that’s totally out of whack for comparable facilities.

I don’t want the Bears to move to Indiana, but there’s no owner of any sports team that’s sticking around when there’s a $200 million annual property tax bill and every other sports team in America that owns their own stadium has a property tax bill of under $10 million. I get it.

(02-20-2026 10:59 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Bring back the Cardinals

(02-20-2026 12:32 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  If the Bears move to Indiana, could a 2nd NFL team move to Arlington Heights?

Not sure if its true, I think I heard there is a rule that NFL teams within 60 miles of each other are considered within the same market.

Distance from Soldier field to Arlington Hts, IL -30 miles
Distance from Soldier field to Hammond, IN - 31 miles
Distance from Arlington hts to hammond - 62 miles

So a 2nd NFL team could not move into Soldier Field because that is only 30 miles away from a new Bears stadium. But a new stadium in Arlington Heights would be 62 miles from a new stadium in Hammond. So in theory a 2nd NFL team could move to the alternative site. Even if the Bears end up moving to Arlington Hts, that could still open NWI for another team.

When Al Davis beat the NFL in federal court and won the right to move wherever he wanted, the league determining moves was deemed an illegal antitrust action. But of course the NFL has spent the last 40+ years putting the genie back in the bottle. The Bears wouldn’t want another team in the market, other owners wouldn’t want to set a precedent they could face a second team, so it would really take another renegade owner to practically make a move like that. There aren’t any renegades left, not like Al Davis.

The Chicago market isn’t getting a second team. First, the NFL doesn’t want to split that market at *all*. Second, the Bears would block it. Third, even if a team tried to move there, the whole point is that they would need a stadium deal as good or better than what the Bears are asking for from the State of Illinois, in which case the State is better off dealing with the Bears.

The mileage rule that goofus is referring to isn’t about multiple teams in markets. Instead, what he is likely referring to is the concept of “secondary markets” for TV purposes. The rule is that if *any* part of a TV market (which is different than a metro area) is within a 75 mile radius of a team’s stadium, than that team can claim that market as a secondary market. If a team claims that secondary market (and it’s their choice - they don’t *have* to do so), then the CBS/FOX TV stations in the secondary market must show all of that team’s *road* games when their network has them. (When that team is at *home*, then the station and network can choose whichever game that it wants subject to the NFL having veto power.)

The most famous (infamous?) market where the secondary market rule comes into play is Orlando. The Bucs claim Orlando as a secondary market, which makes sense since the Orlando TV market starts around the Lakeland area and is clearly within that 75 mile radius. Heck, even Disney World is in that 75 mile radius. No one should be surprised by that one.

However, the eastern side of the Orlando TV market (once again distinct from the Orlando metro area) extends farther east and north than you think to where a sliver of it is within 75 miles of the Jags stadium. Thus, the Jags immediately claimed the Orlando market as a secondary market, too. As you can imagine, this irked the generations of Dolphins fans living in the Orlando market because which station had the AFC games would *have* to show every Jags road game and push the Dolphins off of TV in the Orlando market altogether whenever there’s a conflict. To this day, Dolphins games still generally get higher viewership than Jags games in the Orlando market (exceptions might be the most recent season where the Jags were a playoff team while the Dolphins were a week car wreck). You can see the Orlando stations generally will show a Dolphins game over a Jags home game (which aren’t required to be shown under the secondary market rule).

Note that there is an exception that if the primary market of a team is within a 75 mile radius of another team’s stadium, then the secondary market rule doesn’t apply. This exception notably applies in the cases of Washington/Baltimore and the New York teams and Philly.

This is the type of dorky thing that I studied as a child and led me to a life of following conference realignment down the road.

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

(02-19-2026 02:06 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  They already demolished the horsetrack, whats preventing them from building the stadium as planned?

Illinois property taxes are the second highest in the nation behind New Jersey. 80% of that is going towards paying pensions from the 1970's to today. Most of those pensions are for teachers. My sister a retired high school Spanish teacher is getting around 65k a year in pensions alone. Her husband who she met at that high school is getting the same. My sister was able to retire at 59. They live two miles from Arlington Park race track in Arlington Heights. Their home is 2700 sq. ft. They're paying more than 15k a year in property taxes. Compare that to property in Indiana.

The state is going broke. Caterpillar has been in Illinois for 100 years just announced they're moving to Texas because of Illinois taxes. Illinois is #3 in the country for most businesses moving out of the state since 2023. All for the same reasons.

Arlington Heights tax rate is 2.15. Indiana's average tax rate is 0.74. Alabama with the lowest property taxes are 0.36-0.41. Average home in Arlington Heights is 450k, Indiana is 245-260k, and Alabama is 230k on average (Zillow). With the land cost doubled and the property taxes almost tripled, It's effectively going to cost the Bears almost six times as much to go to Arlington Hts., as it will to go to Hammond.

I don't want to get political, so I'll let you guys figure it out from here.

(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.)

Bears fan and Chicago resident. Frustrations surrounding this process all around, and blame can be directed at all parties. On one hand: Citadel. Boeing. Caterpillar. Guggenheim. And, now, possibly the Chicago Bears. It does not take the world's top economists to conclude why the state of Illinois is losing billion dollar organizations (and jobs) to other states. Our state's property tax and regulations (and red tape bureaucracy) not only do not attract, but encourage these types of businesses to look elsewhere (especially in the market of other states willing to make concessions to bring their business over). Illinois has one of the most significant budget deficits in the country (I believe it is over $200 billion financial hole, last I read) and that Indiana over well over a billion in reserves. This issue is far deeper than a valuable NFL franchise seeking a new home in the state. How our state spends money, how it collects it from taxpayers and how it seeks to remedy the substantial gap in the near and long-term are all at the feet of current Illinois politicians (and felt by taxpayers, who in noticeable numbers continue to depart the state in recent years).

On another hand, Kevin Warren - the former B1G Commissioner that many of the Presidents were happy to see leave, is running this show based on his experience with the Vikings and their new stadium not too long ago. The public relations component of this entire process (by the Bears) has been nothing short of as a disaster. Failed promises of "shovels into the ground", as well as news about pursuing other options (I.e. Indiana) during a home playoff game against our biggest rival speaks not only to an inexperienced executive that is not in tune with the fan base, but also a so-called leader that also does not know how to politically get things done in this state. Oh, they also announced yet another 13% ticket increase the same week they promote they have a close deal with another state (Indiana). All of this occurs, meanwhile, with the owners of the franchise, with one of the most dedicated fan bases in the NFL (yes, especially with the many seasons where the product was abysmal) sit and watch this all play out - continuing to take the fans and supporters for granted.

Having said all that, I still have a sneaking suspicion that the IL lawmakers will push this through. No one (IL politicians or Bears ownership) wants the permanent stain of losing the franchise to another state. If that does happen, however, there will be drastic effects within the city and state that will felt for generations to come.

/rant

(02-19-2026 03:06 PM)e-parade Wrote:  I definitely read this wrong at first and thought this was about literal actual bears and not the NFL team. Was wondering why IU would want to steal some, and how KU managed to already do it without me hearing about it before.

This might end up in a similar way to when Connecticut tried to get the Pats to move there from Foxborough. Where it was newsworthy for a while and then nothing came of it.

Well that’s better than my first take on the headline.

I had it as the Hoosiers borrowing the playbook of the Jayhawks by hiring away coaches and players from Missouri State. But that didn’t make sense, cause they already did that to the Dukes, and it already worked out for them once, why mess with it again? Maybe the Jayhawks should borrow the Hoosiers Dukes-stealing playbook and steal Missouri State’s dudes.

(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

What makes Chicago “special” (actually, “normal”) is that it already has an established team.

Not long ago LA had zero teams and the league was trying to fix that ASAP. No new LA team was going to get exclusivity (veto power over a second team in town). Now those two can probably veto a third LA team, but really LA was the “special” situation

(02-20-2026 02:01 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 11:27 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 02:06 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  They already demolished the horsetrack, whats preventing them from building the stadium as planned?

They want complete exemption from property taxes and the state is telling them to pound sand

Oh yeah, the Bears obviously prefer the Arlington Heights location, and what they want in the form of tax breaks is no different from what any other NFL team gets right now. But Indiana will either help them get Illinois on side, or in 30 years, a future generation of Illinois legislators will be begging the Bears to come back.

Arlington Heights is perfect if you're not going to build in the city. They have the Metra train (2) from Downtown which is only 30 minutes. It also takes you to O'hare Field. During rush hour, taking the Kennedy expressway can take you two hours. You don't have to worry about parking either.

To Hammond coming from the north you're going to have to go on the 'Dan Ryan' expressway, which I once heard somewhere is the busiest stretch of road in the country. I always avoided that stretch like it was a plague.

In both places they're planning on building a stadium and the surrounding area like SoFi, but Arlington Hts. is a lot better area than Inglewood.

(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.

(02-20-2026 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 12:32 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2026 05:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  If the Bears move to Indiana, could a 2nd NFL team move to Arlington Heights?

Not sure if its true, I think I heard there is a rule that NFL teams within 60 miles of each other are considered within the same market.

Distance from Soldier field to Arlington Hts, IL -30 miles
Distance from Soldier field to Hammond, IN - 31 miles
Distance from Arlington hts to hammond - 62 miles

So a 2nd NFL team could not move into Soldier Field because that is only 30 miles away from a new Bears stadium. But a new stadium in Arlington Heights would be 62 miles from a new stadium in Hammond. So in theory a 2nd NFL team could move to the alternative site. Even if the Bears end up moving to Arlington Hts, that could still open NWI for another team.

When Al Davis beat the NFL in federal court and won the right to move wherever he wanted, the league determining moves was deemed an illegal antitrust action. But of course the NFL has spent the last 40+ years putting the genie back in the bottle. The Bears wouldn’t want another team in the market, other owners wouldn’t want to set a precedent they could face a second team, so it would really take another renegade owner to practically make a move like that. There aren’t any renegades left, not like Al Davis.

The Chicago market isn’t getting a second team. First, the NFL doesn’t want to split that market at *all*. Second, the Bears would block it. Third, even if a team tried to move there, the whole point is that they would need a stadium deal as good or better than what the Bears are asking for from the State of Illinois, in which case the State is better off dealing with the Bears.

The mileage rule that goofus is referring to isn’t about multiple teams in markets. Instead, what he is likely referring to is the concept of “secondary markets” for TV purposes. The rule is that if *any* part of a TV market (which is different than a metro area) is within a 75 mile radius of a team’s stadium, than that team can claim that market as a secondary market. If a team claims that secondary market (and it’s their choice - they don’t *have* to do so), then the CBS/FOX TV stations in the secondary market must show all of that team’s *road* games when their network has them. (When that team is at *home*, then the station and network can choose whichever game that it wants subject to the NFL having veto power.)

The most famous (infamous?) market where the secondary market rule comes into play is Orlando. The Bucs claim Orlando as a secondary market, which makes sense since the Orlando TV market starts around the Lakeland area and is clearly within that 75 mile radius. Heck, even Disney World is in that 75 mile radius. No one should be surprised by that one.

However, the eastern side of the Orlando TV market (once again distinct from the Orlando metro area) extends farther east and north than you think to where a sliver of it is within 75 miles of the Jags stadium. Thus, the Jags immediately claimed the Orlando market as a secondary market, too. As you can imagine, this irked the generations of Dolphins fans living in the Orlando market because which station had the AFC games would *have* to show every Jags road game and push the Dolphins off of TV in the Orlando market altogether whenever there’s a conflict. To this day, Dolphins games still generally get higher viewership than Jags games in the Orlando market (exceptions might be the most recent season where the Jags were a playoff team while the Dolphins were a week car wreck). You can see the Orlando stations generally will show a Dolphins game over a Jags home game (which aren’t required to be shown under the secondary market rule).

Note that there is an exception that if the primary market of a team is within a 75 mile radius of another team’s stadium, then the secondary market rule doesn’t apply. This exception notably applies in the cases of Washington/Baltimore and the New York teams and Philly.

This is the type of dorky thing that I studied as a child and led me to a life of following conference realignment down the road.

Well yeah, my point was that technically there's not a prohibition: Al Davis proved that if an NFL team wants to press the issue they can go wherever they want, league approval be damned. The league has enacted certain proposed penalties since then if a team moved without approval of the other owners but they've never been tested and wouldn't likely hold up legally.

In practice, yeah it's not happening, because even if the desire was there from the city/county/state governments in Illinois, the NFL owners move much more in lockstep than Al Davis did and no one is going to touch the issue.

Maybe Indiana should have made a play for the Bengals, that could have given them three teams. The I-275 beltway around Cincinnati has a portion in Indiana.

(02-20-2026 05:57 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Maybe Indiana should have made a play for the Bengals, that could have given them three teams. The I-275 beltway around Cincinnati has a portion in Indiana.

And then maybe Indiana should build another stadium in Fort Wayne and have the Lions and Browns both move there. Then Indiana could have 5 NFL teams.

(02-20-2026 06:32 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 05:57 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Maybe Indiana should have made a play for the Bengals, that could have given them three teams. The I-275 beltway around Cincinnati has a portion in Indiana.

And then maybe Indiana should build another stadium in Fort Wayne and have the Lions and Browns both move there. Then Indiana could have 5 NFL teams.

And if they had just pulled the Rams to Evansville, Indiana would have an NFL Empire of 6.