-
Chicago Fumbled Chance For Super Bowls Long Ago...........
Did Chicago botch Super Bowl chances with McDome fiasco?
1 critic blames politicians for scuttling plans for large multi-use stadium
Fred Mitchell 6:50 p.m. CDT, June 15, 2012
Most longtime Bears fans think their team should have won more than one Super Bowl by now.
Marc Ganis, president of the Chicago-based consulting firm SportsCorp Ltd., tells me Chicago should have been host to multiple Super Bowls by now if the idea of a domed stadium hadn't been treated like a political football.
"Had Chicago and Illinois built the McDome (in 1996), the original domed stadium planned for next to McCormick Place, I suspect we would have had at least two Super Bowls already," Ganis said.
"It was extremely short-sighted; it was extremely narrow focus. … It would have cost (less than what it eventually) cost simply to upgrade Soldier Field. It would have been a terrific financial and tourism boost for the city."
The reported estimated cost was $500 million. The cost for renovating Soldier Field in 2002-03 was $680 million, according to Ganis, and the capacity was reduced to a league-low 61,500. A domed stadium also might have attracted NCAA Final Fours and other events of national significance.
"You have a Republican governor (James Edgar) and a Democratic mayor (Richard M. Daley). (They) didn't always see eye-to-eye, especially on McCormick Place," Ganis said. "There was always this issue that McCormick Place was jointly controlled (by the city and state), but the park district was controlled by City Hall entirely. That turf battle was the key reason the McDome plan didn't go forward."
Ganis said he spoke to NFL officials last month about the feasibility of Chicago being host to a Super Bowl. Super Bowl XLVIII will be at MetLife Stadium (capacity 82,566) in East Rutherford, N.J., on Feb. 2, 2014.
"The capacity is a big issue … so whenever they go (down to around 70,000 capacity) it is a real problem," Ganis said.
I asked Ganis, who has been involved in many projects, such as the new Yankee Stadium, about the feasibility of expanding Soldier Field to accommodate a Super Bowl.
"Very expensive, but with enough money, anything is do-able," he said. "The problem of increasing the capacity is that one of the strengths of Soldier Field is its intimacy. It's great for Bears fans who go to the games. But because of the compactness … the columns being where they are, the scoreboards in the two end zones, it leaves very little space for even temporary seating expansion.
"If New York goes very well, then I think the league will be open to looking at more (Northern) open-air Super Bowls. My guess is Washington (would be next) with a stadium that could be 100,000-plus seats, 300-plus suites.
"(A Super Bowl) would be great for Chicago," Ganis said. "I travel internationally a great deal (for business) and when people see Chicago, they are impressed by it. So what Chicago needs is visibility."
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked during a recent visit to our city about the possibility of Chicago being host to a Super Bowl.
"Let us get to the point of submitting a bid and taking a look to see what needs to get done to make it a winning bid," Goodell said.
fmitchell@tribune.com
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap.
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
-
I know it's not popular, but I've always preferred a dome (either like Houston's but more like Dallas' which is ****** amazing) because sloppy, muddy football just isn't as interesting, especially with the way the rules are now.
-
As long as it wasn't called McDome I could have lived with it.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-

Originally Posted by
The Benjamin
As long as it wasn't called McDome I could have lived with it.
If that would've made them think that drafting McClown would be cheesy afterwards(Like Joe Theismann changing the pronunciation of his last name for his Heisman campaign), I'd do it!!!
-
-
-
Not as much a question of a dome but rather that of seating capacity. That's where they dropped the ball. Chicago will never see a S.B. as long as they have the smallest stadium in the league IMHO.
-

Originally Posted by
omc1969
Not as much a question of a dome but rather that of seating capacity. That's where they dropped the ball. Chicago will never see a S.B. as long as they have the smallest stadium in the league IMHO.
Yeah the guy from the NFL made that pretty clear when he said that anywhere near 70,000 or below is a real problem and I can see that. Didn't they pack 100,000 into Dallas' stadium and still have problems accommodating people because of obstructed views.
If the event was limited to just football fans maybe smaller stadiums would work but it's not. It's one of those sporting/social events of the year just like The Kentucky Derby where it's the place to see and be seen. The average football fan can't afford to go so it becomes part week for the rich and famous.
Given what a couple of Super Bowls might have meant economically in hindsight it was pretty stupid not to have had that as a consideration but as I recall if it wasn't for Ted Phillips finally getting the deal done the Bears might be playing in Schaumburg (Benji would like that), Joliet, or Northwestern Indiana.
Typical Illinois politics. It's like two kids fighting over a toy. The toy breaks and neither of them get what they want. I've never been in the new Soldier Field but from the looks of it it's great for spectators. But unlike Lambeau Field, which is also a great place to see a game, I can't see how they could ever expand it to any great degree.
So Goodell becomes the NFL's version of the Jerry Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi". "No Super Bowl for you!"
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap.
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
In addition to factors already mentioned , the possibility of a giant snowstorm has to be a huge negative. I don't think there will ever be a SB in Chi ( unless enough plams get greased well enough ) but still .... too many hurdles.
What should you call any : Fumble , Hold , Interception , Three and out , or Sack ?
A " F.H.I.T.S " ? or a J'Marcus ?
-

Originally Posted by
soulman
Yeah the guy from the NFL made that pretty clear when he said that anywhere near 70,000 or below is a real problem and I can see that. Didn't they pack 100,000 into Dallas' stadium and still have problems accommodating people because of obstructed views.
If the event was limited to just football fans maybe smaller stadiums would work but it's not. It's one of those sporting/social events of the year just like The Kentucky Derby where it's the place to see and be seen. The average football fan can't afford to go so it becomes part week for the rich and famous.
Given what a couple of Super Bowls might have meant economically in hindsight it was pretty stupid not to have had that as a consideration ...
Forgetting a possible SB, the small capacity was stupid just for the Bears alone. The Bears could EASILY sell 80,000 tickets to every game, and maybe 85-90,000. That they settled for 60 something, and a design where it is extremely difficult to add seats in the future, was not a good choice. However, they had to go along with what Daley wanted or they wouldn't have gotten a stadium built in Chicago.