Jump to content

The name of Chicago's 2nd NFL team


doctorpeligro

Recommended Posts

I have little doubt that an AFC team could thrive in Chicago, especially if it was placed in the same division as the Indianapolis Colts.  By the way, there are 3 markets that currently have 2 NFL teams; two of them (Washington/Baltimore and the San Francisco Bay Area) are smaller than "Chicagoland."

Numbers aside, your examples overlook a very important psychological/sociological point. Specifically, despite their relative proximity and the federal government's classification of them as part of common markets, Baltimore and Oakland think of themselves as very different and distinct cities from Washington and San Francisco. I think it comes from the perception, real or imagined, in those cities of being the Number Two city in each of the pairings. Within Chicago, you may the North Side/South Side distinction when it comes to rooting for the Cubs and Sox, but those distinctions would mean nothing with regard to a new football team.

I cannot speak for Oakland, but I know from experience that after the Colts left Baltimore, very few fans embraced the Redskins despite being fed a steady diet of Redskins, Redskins, Redskins in the media. This happened during the Gibbs I era, during which the Redskins were very successful and offered a ready bandwagon for anyone willing to jump aboard. I think that says a great deal about the very real divide within the Baltimore/Washington market (though it is countered by many Washingtonians' affection for the Orioles before the Nationals arrived). I suspect the same was true in Oakland, though someone from the Bay Area would need to confirm my suspicions.

That divide simply does not exist within the Chicago market, where the Bears are entrenched. A new team would inevitably draw some interest simply because of the power of the NFL, but there is no separate identity upon which to draw as there is in Baltimore and Oakland. That would doom the new team to live in the shadow of the Bears in perpetuity.

A closer parallel to Chicago would be New York's NFL experience. Ever since college (where I was engulfed in New Yorkers and New Jerseyites), I have sensed that the Jets remain second class citizens in town and probably always will (feel free to correct me if this is incorrect). They are able to more or less succeed in New York, but only because that market is so incredibly large (21,199,865 per the US Census Bureau -- more than twice the size of the Chicago CMSA). A second team in Chicago would have a very hard time making it while fighting the Bears' established support.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I know I'm jumping in a little late, but here is how I see NFL relocation in the next generation:

Raiders---back to LA once Al Davis goes to see the "Big Raider in the Sky".

Vikings--It could happen, but it really would turn into another Cleveland, and another team would end up there. Don't think the NFL wants to deal with that.

Jaguars--They were put there on the potential that Jacksonville would be a big league town eventually. I've been there and think it's a real stretch. But San Antonio is really not that much more attractive, so where else could they go?

Bills-- Intriguing with an aging owner, and a slightly declining population in Western NY. They could consider a move to Toronto and perhaps keep a part of the fan base, but the NFL would then ruin the CFL (or so the story has gone). SkyDome isn't exactly a great football venue either (I speak from experience, I saw the Argos in 2000.

Now the cities on the table:

San Antonio--Median income is low, not a huge population base, would be the third team in Texas. Remember being the second team in Texas cost Houston their franchise, and Houston I believe is 2-3 times the size of San Antonio. Another Jacksonville.

Las Vegas--Still growing metro area. Due to having only 8 home dates could easily sell out. Would be a mecca for fans of other teams coming to town to see their home team. It would definitely work, but the NFL would have to swallow the gaming pill, which they have been averse to do.

Los Angeles--Willing to wait out the Raiders, in my opinion. It's just a matter of time. They are a perfect match for LA.

Chicago--Uh, no. First off, if you wanted to root for a team other than the Bears, you had the Packers playing 2 or 3 home games 90 miles north every year until several years ago. Second, the city is solid Bear country. A new team would face an uphill battle to get airtime. With the Jets and Giants, remember they came from two different leagues--there was no plan to have two teams in New York, it just happened that way. I'd list a third, but I don't need to--the first two reasons are enough.

Bring back the Whale!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After listening to y'all, this is my amended take:

THE BILLS AND JAGUARS WON'T MOVE: Buffalo has shown too much support for the team, and the league would have little justification to allow the team to move, even if the Wilson family sells the team. In regards to Jacksonville, the owners seem committed to the town, even with a history of poor attendance.

THE SAINTS FRANCHISE WILL MOVE TO LOS ANGELES BY 2008 (albiet with a different name): In spite of its good intentions, the NFL doesn't have the power to repair the economy of New Orleans. The Saints will spend another year or two in Louisiana, do poorly at the gate, and then move to the New L.A. Coliseum. The league will make some vague promise of giving a team back to New Orleans in the future when the state can afford to build a new stadium (a la Cleveland).

THE CHARGERS WILL EITHER STAY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY OR MOVE TO ANAHEIM IN 2009: This has been reported by both ESPN's Chris Mortensen and by Sam Farmer in the LA Times, and there seems to be logic behind it. Apparently, the Chargers already have fans in Orange County. For what it's worth, I live in OC and have never sensed this to be true.

THE RAIDERS AND VIKINGS ARE THE "WILD CARDS" IN THIS WHOLE THING:

The Vikings will NEVER, ever get significant public financing in Minnesota for a new stadium. Anyone who suggests this hasn't been paying attention to what has been going on in Minnesota in the last decade. Minnesotans are notoriously stingy when it comes to giving billionaires handouts. Subsequently, the Vikings' options will be the following:

1. Build a new stadium in Minnesota at their own expense

2. Renovate the Metrodome at their own expense

3. Move to another city

Ziggy Wilf said in May that he wouldn't move the team; only he knows how honest that statement was.

The Raiders will leave Oakland when their lease is up after the 2011 season. Period. The Coliseum is already one of the worst stadiums in the NFL and their attendance has been disappointing (PSLs or not). The Bay Area sports media is so convinced of the Raiders' impending departure that they've started discussing the possibility of the Cal football team becoming the stadium's primary tenant. True, the Raiders may not go very far: Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, and Las Vegas will probably be on the short list, but who knows for sure what's going on in Al Davis' mind.

I agree that Chicago will not get a 2nd team, not because it couldn't support one, but because the timing isn't going to work. Chicago will have to submit its Olympic bid to the USOC some time in 2007; there's no way they'll have a commitment from the NFL for another team in such a short time. Therefore, they're going to have to come up with another way to finance the main olympic stadium.

8557127226_fbd001ef58_n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago Fire. Too obvious?

there was a Chicago Fire:

The Chicago Fire was a football team in the short-lived World Football League for one season 1974. Founded in late October of 1973 by building magnate Thomas Origer, he was the first owner to purchase a franchise, for around $400,000. Chicago was the first franchise to sign a player, wide receiver Jim Seymour, and the first to sign a "name" player, quarterback Virgil Carter. Carter has played in Chicago for the NFL Bears as well as the Cincinnati Bengals and San Diego Chargers.

Another Second City WFL team, 1975, the Chicago Winds replaced the Fire, though the team was evicted from the second WFL after five games.

Of course, there's also:

http://www.chicagotheband.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.