What if you look at it like this. If the Bears did not exist, there would be a huge void between Indianapolis and Green Bay for NFL fan bases.

Arlington Heights is 3 hours from Green Bay and 3.5 hours from Indianapolis.

Hammond is 2.5 hours from Indianapolis and 4 hours from Green Bay.

Arlington Heights represents more of a middle point for NFL fans to fill that void than Hammond.

Of course Soldier field is 3 hours from Indianapolis and 3 hours from Green Bay but Soldier is not currently an option being considered.

(02-21-2026 08:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(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.

Cuban already has the best team in Indiana, not sure that would change if the Bears move to NW Indiana tbh.

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

(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.

Hell, I'm 61, and even I'm too young to remember that except in what I've read. It does strike me as a little odd, though, that they were in different divisions -- the Cardinals in the East and the Bears in the West.

(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.

There are some pretty hardcore Bears fans in Indiana as well. I know that for a fact, in that I've met several of them.

(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.)

Since you brought it up, in the interests of full disclosure, I always thought that after Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys, the NFL should have given him the full Baltimore Ravens treatment: forced him to move the franchise, change the team colors, nickname and logo, and give an expansion Cowboys franchise to Dallas. Nobody ever did more to try to distance a franchise from its history than Jerry Jones did when he bought the Cowboys. It would have been poetic justice.

(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.

We need FCS to move their season to the Spring, so we'll all have actual football games to yell and argue over instead of trying to tell actual Bears fans about Chicago football.

(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.

I'll tell you a reason that Chicago won't get a 2nd team, and it has nothing to do with the Bears. It's b/c the city and State are both shrinking. The 50 States are up more than 10m in population since 2020, but Illinois has lost about 93k. Chicago recently hit its lowest population since 1920. Why in the world would an NFL owner wanna double down on that, plus have to jump in and compete h2h with the Bears for the hearts and minds of NFL fans? The idea of it is just plain silly. San Antonio/Austin is one of the fastest growing regions in the country as a % and in total, it currently has over 5.3m rabid football fans, any NFL owner would prefer that to Chicago. London. San Diego (if they actually decide that they want a team at some point). St Louis. Salt Lake City. There are tons of desirable and rapidly growing places that NFL owners with a focus on long term profits would prefer. Now, I'll admit that if the NFL grows to 50 teams, like so many here seem to think the SEC and B1G are headed towards, sure, 2 teams in Chicago make sense at that point. But it would take something extreme like that to get the league and/or owners to consider it.

(02-20-2026 11:21 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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.

(02-23-2026 03:20 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(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.

There are some pretty hardcore Bears fans in Indiana as well. I know that for a fact, in that I've met several of them.

There's some pretty hard core Bears fans in southern Wisconsin where I live now too. We could put them in Kenosha. Why not? They commute to the loop on the Metra every day. Just sayin'.

Chicagoland hits all three states. I'm sure you're familiar with the Tri-State Expressway. My father drove an 18 wheeler on it from the Gary area to Milwaukee and back as a steel hauler every day.

He let me drive his tractor-trailer (empty) from Milwaukee to where he parked. I was 21. I'm 71 now. A White Freightliner cab-over with a flatbed 48 foot Ravens split axle trailer.

I looked about 18 so he gave me a cigar to look older when I went through the toll booths. He said don't make eye contact with them. Just hand them the money and go through. A day I'll never forget. I backed that sucker into the parking spot perfect.

The Bears belong in Illinois. They're not going to Indiana or Wisconsin or wherever you think they could get shoehorned into.

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(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.

Cuban already has the best team in Indiana, not sure that would change if the Bears move to NW Indiana tbh.

I think Terry D is on line one

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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.

(02-23-2026 09:43 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:48 PM)Lush Wrote:  

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

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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 a law made 150 years ago that the public still immensely benefits from to this day. 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.

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

(02-23-2026 09:43 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:48 PM)Lush Wrote:  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.

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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.

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

(02-23-2026 09:43 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 11:48 PM)Lush Wrote:  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.

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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 a law made 150 years ago that the public still immensely benefits from to this day. 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.

You nailed it.

(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:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 12:17 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Well I would say you didn't think, but I could tell that by your post.

nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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.

(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:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)Lush Wrote:  nonsense. your premise is, no offense, dumb for the simple reason that you aren't going to grow organic fans of an expansion franchise in chicago. you cited the millions of transplants and think they just won't follow their backhome team. they've got a cincinnati bar in chicago they've got everywhere sportsteam bar in chicago. they'd be as popular as a wnba franchise and i'm sure the bears would have a strong voice in the matter; i probably should have started with that

who the hell would want two chicago football teams anyway? further, why would the nfl want even more of chicagoland when it already has all of chicagoland? you didn't think this thru. i could see a franchise in minot before another in the windy. why not minot?

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.

(02-23-2026 09:39 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(02-22-2026 11:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(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.

Cuban already has the best team in Indiana, not sure that would change if the Bears move to NW Indiana tbh.

I think Terry D is on line one

Nah, he is right about it......for last year.

Anyway, I’ll just concede another Chicago franchise isn’t realistic today however interesting it may be to parallel the baseball rivalry.

If the state of Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana, could a push happen for a franchise in Southern Illinois outside St. Louis?

(02-24-2026 11:59 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Anyway, I’ll just concede another Chicago franchise isn’t realistic today however interesting it may be to parallel the baseball rivalry.

If the state of Illinois loses the Bears to Indiana, could a push happen for a franchise in Southern Illinois outside St. Louis?

IMHO, regarding Bears and NFL expansion, I think the following is inevitable:

1) Illinois agrees to concessions to the Bears to allow them to select and proceed with a new stadium project in Arlington Heights.

2) As already announced this week, Soldier Field will evolve into a full-time concert/event space, able to hold more events yearly and chip away at much of the long-term debt.

3) When, not if, the NFL expands, the season schedule will grow to 18-games, and all teams will be guaranteed an international game over the course of a season. Annual locations will feature London, Germany (Munich/Frankfurt/Berlin), Sao Paulo, Madrid, Dublin, Mexico City, Australia, France, among other growing American football international markets. Sorry, St. Louis, Memphis, San Antonio, Orlando and any other U.S.-based market - you are not getting an NFL franchise unless a team seeks to move. St. Louis has already lost two franchises in the NFL, and they aren't Los Angeles so they aren't getting a third.

4) The Super Bowl will be moved to President's Day weekend, allowing a federal holiday to be permanently placed after the day of the game.

5) There will eventually be an international division in the NFL, with franchises housed overseas. This will not be for at least a decade, though.

6) A Super Bowl will eventually take place outside the United States. I would wager London gets the first international Super Bowl (as well as the first international NFL franchise - would make sense to have these both happen in the same year).

I think #5 and #6 will happen after Goodell retires and passes the baton to a successor. However, much of the groundwork and legacy will be attributed to him.