OT: Bears Talk - Justin Fields era begins

[fleet]

Biggs has a league source indicating that Goldman could be weighing retirement.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/04/eddie-goldmans-future-remains-in-question/

[Leslie Forman]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

[nitetrain8603]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

I wouldn't use California spots, especially Southern California, as it's a huge sprawl. It's like saying "What's there to do in LA?" Well people go to Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills (all different cities) as an example.

[Leslie Forman]

I wouldn't use California spots, especially Southern California, as it's a huge sprawl. It's like saying "What's there to do in LA?" Well people go to Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills (all different cities) as an example.

The point stands, though. Inglewood isn't a hot spot. Nobody's going there for the restaurants and nightlife.

If anything it is more proof of how little we really care about having to drive or be driven to a different place than where the main event is. Many entire American metro areas are literally built on that concept.

[nitetrain8603]

I wouldn't use California spots, especially Southern California, as it's a huge sprawl. It's like saying "What's there to do in LA?" Well people go to Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills (all different cities) as an example.

The point stands, though. Inglewood isn't a hot spot. Nobody's going there for the restaurants and nightlife.

If anything it is more proof of how little we really care about having to drive or be driven to a different place than where the main event is. Many entire American metro areas are literally built on that concept.

Not really. California is all about driving to the spot. Legit, unless your stadium is in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Santa Monica or Beverly Hills, you can say that about anyone according to that concept. The Lakers were in Inglewood and now are in downtown LA. LA Live is a very small place and players don't stick around there.

Dodger Stadium is in Echo Park. I could argue the same there.

Inglewood is actually closer to the westside. The Lakers were trying to go back there in the past couple of years for a reason.

[Leslie Forman]

Not really. California is all about driving to the spot.

Right. I don't know what you're trying to argue here. You're not disagreeing with my point.

Susan is trying to make it sound like Arlington Park is a total nonstarter because it would require taking a car from there to the parts of the city people would want to hang out in. That's literally exactly what most people do in most metro areas in most of America, especially LA, like you're saying.

[nomorezorro]

here's the thing: do i want to make a post about how automobile-centric civic planning is one of the biggest problems in america today? do i want to go on about how cars are a destructive force in a variety of ways, how sprawl is fueling the climate change that will soon render much of the planet uninhabitable and how we need to act urgently to dismantle the system that created this status quo? do i want to do all that in an off-topic football thread in a basketball web forum in 2021 when my primary motivation in this conversation more or less boils down to "getting out to the suburbs from the city is annoying"? not really, no.

will i make that post? absolutely

[nomorezorro]

begging a newspaper to run my opinion column "the bears should build a new stadium with no parking lots"

[HotelVitale]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

It might be the standard in some super sprawling places but definitely not everywhere, and it’s become less and less popular over the last decade. In the Midwest, Detroit moved first its football then basketball team back to the city center from the northern suburbs, and Cleveland, Cincy, St Louis, Indy, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee all have downtown/center city arenas for almost all (if not all) of their sports teams. At this point it’d be totally against the local trend to move into the suburbs, pretty much every city around is trying to keep those teams part of the centralized downtown experience.

[dice]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

It might be the standard in some super sprawling places but definitely not everywhere, and it’s become less and less popular over the last decade. In the Midwest, Detroit moved first its football then basketball team back to the city center from the northern suburbs, and Cleveland, Cincy, St Louis, Indy, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee all have downtown/center city arenas for almost all (if not all) of their sports teams. At this point it’d be totally against the local trend to move into the suburbs, pretty much every city around is trying to keep those teams part of the centralized downtown experience.

is that due to a backlash by fans or cities being more active in marketing themselves? regardless, it's all market driven

[Leslie Forman]

It might be the standard in some super sprawling places but definitely not everywhere, and it’s become less and less popular over the last decade.

Nope, it's actually the complete opposite. It is exactly the standard now for cities similar to Chicago which are already heavily built up and dense.

New York
LA
SF
Boston
Washington
Philly
Miami

These are the cities closest to Chicago in development and density levels and only Philly has a stadium in the city. That is 8/9 teams in the country's densest cities/metros. The Bears moving would make it 9/10.

What they're doing in relatively undeveloped, cheap cities desperate for anything to help their sorry downtowns like Detroit or Cleveland is irrelevant to a dense, built up city like Chicago.

[HotelVitale]

It might be the standard in some super sprawling places but definitely not everywhere, and it’s become less and less popular over the last decade.

Nope, it's actually the complete opposite. It is exactly the standard now for cities similar to Chicago which are already heavily built up and dense.
New York
LA
SF
Boston
Washington
Philly
Miami
These are the cities closest to Chicago in development and density levels and only Philly has a stadium in the city. That is 8/9 teams in the country's densest cities/metros. The Bears moving would make it 9/10.

What they're doing in relatively undeveloped, cheap cities desperate for anything to help their sorry downtowns like Detroit or Cleveland is irrelevant to a dense, built up city like Chicago.

Hmm what standard are you following for ‘density’ and ‘development’ here? I live on the east coast now and Chicago doesn’t compare as a particularly dense city, it’s fairly sprawling and has the same miles and miles of single family homes that other Midwestern cities have. It’s a big city but it’s also geographically huge and not particularly dense in my read.

More importantly almost all of those cities (if not all) have most of their stadiums in the center of town, and happen to have football stadiums outside of town because of history. New York’s basketball, hockey, and baseball teams are all fully urban, they just happen to have had their football teams playing way out in jersey for decades and decades. Same exact thing with Boston and DC, and SF is a weird case since their metro area includes San Jose and Silicon Valley. Not sure about Miami but I’d guess it’s the same there too. The Bears already have a spot and a tradition of playing in the city so they’d be uprooting that intentionally.

Also you plucked out the two most rotting urban cores to blast as pathetic, but cities like Minneapolis-St Paul don’t have desolate downtowns. (Besides wouldn’t that make them less appealing as destinations? Hence less wise/profitable of places to put the stadiums.)

[Susan]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

in before the next 60 year old NW suburban guy says "I live 15 minutes from there, I like this" in a meatball Chicago accent.

[dougthonus]

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

Sounds like if the Bears built in AH the idea is that they'd be financing it largely themselves and the reason they are considering moving away from Chicago is the lack of funding to make necessary improvements there.

The current commute to soldier field is pretty awful for most people anyway, I don't see why AH is any worse on aggregate, and the current area of soldier field adds nothing to the experience. I don't think many people go to Bears games and do a lot in the area before or after. Soldier Field isn't in a good location for that now either.

Again, I don't really care where they build it, and most people will probably still drive to the game, but those close to the metra can probably take it conveniently, and they can easily scale the number of trains for the number of people taking it (probably no more than a few thousand though).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

I'm not sure what you mean by travel destination. Are you worried about the Bears getting less out of towners to visit games because staying in AH is worse than staying in the city? Or are you talking about aggregate time to get there for all fans? In the first case, I think that's sort of irrelevant. If you are a tourist and doing a weekend downtown, you can stay in AH and then take the train downtown and probably do it for a lot less than if you stayed down town in the past.

For the second group, maybe it's better, maybe it is worse, but I don't know that it's all that different. The commute to Soldier field sucks now.

Again, no idea why you are so emotionally invested in the location. I'd be pretty surprised if they end up in AH, but if they do, I see little reason it wouldn't work.

You haven't really brought up what I view as the biggest problem which is if the Bears finance this stadium (which I'm sure they could afford if they want) then being in the stadium owning business they have to find ways to utilize it for things other than Bears games to make it work as a business decision. I would think finding a co-tenant or getting a reliable amount of concerts or other things there would be their biggest stumbling block towards making this a great decision for them.

As for the city, the city should do whatever makes sense for it. Chicago doesn't have so much money around that they should give up tons of it to finance the Bears if it isn't a good deal for them too. The Bears should do the same. If htey come out ahead in AH, then they should move. They're still going to sell out all the games regardless.

My guess is both the Bears and the city find its better to work together than apart, but if either side goes nuts with their demands than this is a viable alternative.

[fleet]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

in before the next 60 year old NW suburban guy says "I live 15 minutes from there, I like this" in a meatball Chicago accent.

Guaranteed some hedge fund or Cellular networks etc will be lined up to partner on a new stadium in Chicago or the suburbs. I can visualize a GEICO lizard plastered right now on the retractable dome roof.

[Susan]

So we're really out here thinking that people who are going to come here for the Super Bowl/Final 4 are going to stay out in Rosemont, Arlington Heights and Schaumburg for the week leading up to it?

This isn't to say the current Soldier Field setup is ideal and doesn't need work, but man - there's some serious delusional thinking going on here. We're talking about Arlington Heights in February and March as a travel detestation?

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

in before the next 60 year old NW suburban guy says "I live 15 minutes from there, I like this" in a meatball Chicago accent.

If self financing stadiums was such an easy process, more than 5 stadiums would be privately owned and the Bears would have made it happen at some point over the past 40 years of threatening to leave the city.

I brought up travel destinations because the State/the Bears/the City/whoever would own this thing would 100% be doing it to also be an attraction for major events like the Super Bowl, the Final Four, WrestleMania and whatnot.

Nothing personal about this but there's just some seriously bad takes in here. You know it's a mess driving to the city, you take the Metra yourself daily so all of a sudden it wouldn't be the case when driving to a Taylor Swift concert?

[Susan]

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

in before the next 60 year old NW suburban guy says "I live 15 minutes from there, I like this" in a meatball Chicago accent.

Guaranteed some hedge fund or Cellular networks etc will be lined up to partner on a new stadium in Chicago or the suburbs. I can visualize a GEICO lizard plastered right now on the retractable dome roof.

Cool, that's a payment per year and the largest deal ever was for the Toronto hockey stadium at 20 years/$800m.

Where's Virginia getting that $3B to build this thing? It's all a bluff. Sign Allen Robinson so you don't ruin Justin Fields.

[Michael Jackson]

Do you think Miami Gardens is a real tourist hotspot? Or Santa Clara? Or Inglewood? Or Glendale?

It is strange how hung up you are on this idea of a suburban location being so impossible to succeed when it's literally the NFL standard now.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

The state's broke, it's cold as hell here in the winter, the NW suburbs suck in terms of actually being a travel destination/infrastructure wise for something like this and the Bears don't have the money to do this themselves and have been a Mickey Mouse organization for the past 40 years trying to get this very thing accomplished,

in before the next 60 year old NW suburban guy says "I live 15 minutes from there, I like this" in a meatball Chicago accent.

If self financing stadiums was such an easy process, more than 5 stadiums would be privately owned and the Bears would have made it happen at some point over the past 40 years of threatening to leave the city.

I brought up travel destinations because the State/the Bears/the City/whoever would own this thing would 100% be doing it to also be an attraction for major events like the Super Bowl, the Final Four, WrestleMania and whatnot.

Nothing personal about this but there's just some seriously bad takes in here. You know it's a mess driving to the city, you take the Metra yourself daily so all of a sudden it wouldn't be the case when driving to a Taylor Swift concert?

I have no idea of the actual analytics are on it being a travel destination vs say local convenience of season ticket holders so I can’t say what is the better financial motivator for making the decision, but when I go and work trade shows being close to the stadium is always a plus. In Atlanta, I had gone to Thrashers games when they were there because I could walk there. Same with the Hawks. Even just a falcons game being in town makes the town and the trade show better for that day. So for me personally with out of town travel, I prefer it to be a close metro location. I caught a Knights game in Vegas. Actually saw CP3 return from injury against Lebron in NO and got half court tickets 10 rows back for $50. Like I said not sure that those pennies add up to enough to sway the decision one way or the other but I am far from the only person attending shows who like to catch a game after the show in a different city. Even if it is not the game it’s generally more interesting to be by the stadium at least for the “hostage downtime” around trade shows. Having the stadium close to McCormick helps Chicago get trade shows too as an offering. Maybe it really adds up to nothing in the actual financial value, but there surely is something there.

[Leslie Forman]

Hmm what standard are you following for ‘density’ and ‘development’ here? I live on the east coast now and Chicago doesn’t compare as a particularly dense city, it’s fairly sprawling and has the same miles and miles of single family homes that other Midwestern cities have.

Frankly it sounds like you've never been here. Chicago is four times the area of DC yet has similar density. It is nothing like the rest of the rust belt cities. This may just be flyover country but this ain't Milwaukee or Indianapolis or whatever. No city but New York has a bigger dense, built up central urban area in this country.

Weather?

I don't care about impossible to succeed in the NFL (business wise ESPECIALLY), I care about what's good for the area. Arlington Heights would be a mess and the state would have to do so much infrastructure for it to even be serviceable (don't bring up METRA, there's 1 line going into AH, 11 into the city and half of the lines are not even in the same station meaning people would have to walk outside in the cold during the winter, after an hour or so train ride to get onto another 30-40 minute train ride and then do that again on the way back home).

I know you've never been to Arlington Park…but now it sounds like you've never even been to Soldier Field.

[MalagaBulls]

OT - Biscuit got married.

Read on Twitter