Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

23 Dec 2005

Daley Floats Plan for Second Chicago Team

In the time I've lived in Chicago, I've engaged a lot of football fans in a lot of conversations. And do you know something I've never heard anyone say? "We need a second NFL team." But Mayor Daley wants to build a domed stadium that would attract the Olympics to Chicago in 2016, and he thinks the way to get financing for the stadium is to bring another NFL team to the Windy City. I think this is about as likely as the Cubs moving to Albuquerque and changing their name to the Isotopes.

Posted by: Michael David Smith on 23 Dec 2005

32 comments, Last at 12 Jan 2006, 12:53am by Tim


by David A. (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 8:21pm

Colts. AFC. Want to move. Already relatively nearby.

by The Wes (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 8:22pm

Hear that folks? He said Gooooo Topes!

by Sean (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 8:23pm

I've always thought Chicago could easily support a second team. It might take a while to get going, but I'd give a second team in Chicago a better shot than a new team in Los Angeles.

by noahpoah (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 8:25pm

Well, if the Colts go there, the TV scheduling here in Indiana won't change a bit - Colts on CBS, Bears on Fox.

I do think that 'LA Colts' has a nice ring to it, though.

by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 8:52pm

The Colts got their new stadium from the nice peeps in Indiana (story linked); they're not moving.

Didn't the Vikings want to move? It's been a while since LA took a Minnesota team.

As for Chicago, meh. Any team owner that really wants to be a complete second fiddle to the Bears, probably shouldn't be running an NFL franchise.

by J.S. (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 9:16pm

You can always count on the Saints owner to go second fiddle thogh.

He dosen't care as long as he gets a new stadium out of it


The Chicago Saints?

Don't know it kind of leaves a bitter taste in my mouth

oh wait....
that is all the bile coming up because this whole situation with the saints ownership makes me want to puke!!!!!

by NF (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 9:22pm

One thing that mystifies me about the leagues quest to return the NFL to LA is that it is obviously all about revenues, but I've read that the Raiders, notwithstanding Al Davis' two lawsits with the NFL about not being allowed to moved to LA and being forced to leave LA, were not popular at all in LA and had most of their home games blacked out. And the Rams enjoyed the lucrative location so much that they decided to head out to a city called St. Louis, whose last football team left for Arizona, the same year the Raiders left. The Chargers were started in Los Angeles but lasted only a year there before moving to San Diego.

by Theo (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 9:32pm

The US will never get the Olympics if that brainless government keeps blocking Cuban athletes.

by B (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 9:34pm

I still think we should use the Onion's plan and move all 32 teams to LA.

by big_adventure (not verified) :: Fri, 12/23/2005 - 9:46pm

8 -

Theo, what's a little blocking of one banana republic (note - it's a JOKE, I'm from South Florida and it's significantly more bananesque than Cuba)? China got 08 and they most certainly violate more international law and commit more human rights violations than any other country outside of perhaps North Korea.


by Tecmo Bo (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 12:26am

The Albequerque Cubs-Isotopes... that's a perfectly cromulent idea

by Bob (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 12:30am

"The US will never get the Olympics if that brainless government keeps blocking Cuban athletes."

Ummm do the cities Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, and Lake Placid mean anything to you? Last I checked the US has had an embargew against Cuba for 40 years, hasnt stopped the Olympics before.

by Richie (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 12:37am

#7 - Many people didn't want to go to Raiders games in the early '90s because the team was bad and fans were getting attacked in the stadium. Los Angeles never supports a losing team, except the Dodgers. The Rams were a very popular team in Los Angeles, but they moved to Anaheim in about 1980 and that turned a lot of LA fans off. Then, by the early '90s, the team was horrible and Georgia Frontiere appeared to be sabotaging the team so that she could justify a move to St Louis. From 1983 through 1992 the Rams were averaging well over 50,000 per game, and I don't think Anaheim Stadium held more than about 60,000. In 1998, the Rams' last sucky season in St Louis they were averaging about 53,000. So, it's not like the St Louis fans were any more supportive of a crappy team that had only been there for 4 seasons.

My point is that Los Angeles will support a team if it is well run and competitive.

by Zac (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 12:53am

Re: Cuba. Theo probably saw the same articles I did regarding the World Baseball Challenge. For example, http://foxsports.foxnews.com/mlb/story/5168070

"It's for baseball to decide, but if they don't make a stand on something like that, then they will have big problems down the road," said Dick Pound, an International Olympic Committee member from Canada.

If not reversed, he said "it would completely scupper any bid" by the United States for the Summer or Winter Games.

by Joe (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 1:43am

#12 -- Bob, previous administrations didn't enforce the embargo when it came to international sports competitions, and allowed Cuban teams to come to the US.

The whole point of the Olympics, World Cup, etc, is that politics are put aside for a time. If one country can unilaterally decide to not let another compete, then the whole idea goes out the window.

by Basilicus (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 1:48am


by Basilicus (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 1:52am

To expand upon my last comment, no - you have never heard a Chicago sports fan say we/they (I moved to Portland, but I grew up in Chicago) need a second football team. However, if you asked any fan if the chance were there they would all enthusiastically say yes and be excited about the idea. And as for playing in the Bears' shadow, yes they would always be playing without a history as long as the Bears - and while that would always be respected, it would cease to matter as soon as they made the playoffs in a year in which the Bears didn't.

by peachy (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 2:06am

regarding #14 - Mr Pound is of course also the head of WADA, and there's no more appropriately named sports administrator in the world today.

by NF (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 2:44am


"My point is that Los Angeles will support a team if it is well run and competitive."

Which describes none of the teams that are talked about in discussion of a move to LA. Nor does it describe the early years of the Browns 2.0 or the Houston Texans. This is why moving a team to LA or starting a team in LA will not work out.

The team with the most popularity in LA was the LA Rams, but that team chose to move to Anaheim, and then decided to be mediocre in St. Louis. Why?

by ChrisFromNJ (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 3:56am


Moving the Jaguars to LA could work. Jacksonville is a ridiculously small market, after all. I think I also remember some rumblings about having attendance trouble and being in danger of defaulting on the stadium or something (I'm very hazy about the details), but it hasn't come up in a while, so maybe it's been fixed.

But, yeah, the NFL is doing just fine without anyone in LA, and given the state of UCLA and USC (as well as the city's apparent fair-weather apathy with regards to football), LA seems to be doing fine as well.

by Bright Blue Shorts (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 10:33am

Ref: earlier point about LA supporting teams that are well-run and successful.

To my knowledge, no team in the history of the NFL has had more than 20 years success at any time.

While you can buy a football team, you can't buy success.

If LA has an attitude that it will only support winning teams, should the NFL mandate that their team are allowed to win the Super Bowl every three years as part of the expansion process?!!

BBS :-)

by dryheat (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 11:43am

Give 'em back the Cardinals.

by Peter (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 1:28pm

Dangit, was scrolling down thinking why doesn't anyone suggest a return of the Cardinals until dryheats post :)

by Drew (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 1:48pm

I wonder if the NFL's powers-that-be would really like to see any more 2-team cities beyond New York. If I were Tagliabue, I'd want my league to have the biggest footprint possible, and not to have teams competing for fans in their own territory. There are more than 32 cities that want teams. Seems like a big waste to put 2 in one city.

by CA (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 2:02pm

If I am remembering correctly, there was some talk a few years back of bringing a second NFL team to Soldier Field to generate additional revenue. I think a second team in Chicago would work, but I see no reason to tie the effort to an Olympic bid that is likely to fail. By the way, MDS, I've heard several people from the Chicago area say that Chicago should have a second NFL team.

by beedubyuh (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 3:12pm

As a long time Chicagoan I can tell you that not only could the city support a second team, but there are still bars on the south side that sport Cardinals paraphenelia for those who honor the historic link from that franchise to it's birthplace. You won't hear it these days, but whenever the Bears are in the midst of a decade-long stink-fest, something that happens surprisingly often, people talk about how a second franchise would push the Bears to be more competitive. I don't think it is going to happen, though.

by Catfish (not verified) :: Sat, 12/24/2005 - 4:38pm

re: 5

That's thanks to our new governor, who seems to think that a stadium for the Colts and fixing daylight savings time are the biggest problems facing our state. Nevermind pointless junk like education.


by Paul (not verified) :: Sun, 12/25/2005 - 9:19pm

Before we give Chicago a second team, why not give New York a second team? Or, if you prefer to think of the J-e-t-s as a team, give us a third, as we have shown we support teams no matter how poorly run or unsuccessful.

by dryheat (not verified) :: Mon, 12/26/2005 - 12:04pm

And Daley may want to talk to Bears ownership first. They may not take kindly to another team infringing on "their" turf, see also Angelos, Peter; Davis, Al; and Allen, Paul.

by Tom Kelso (not verified) :: Mon, 12/26/2005 - 2:22pm

Daley, a South Sider who grew up a Cardinals fan, has been squabbling with the Bears for years. He rarely misses an opportunity to tweak them when he can.

Building a dome somewhere along the lakefront would be primarily to attract the Olympics or other major events. I'm guessing he added the reference about a 2nd franchise more to annoy the McCaskeys than anything else.

by Dick Pound (not verified) :: Mon, 12/26/2005 - 6:19pm

I have the coolest name, ever.

by Tim (not verified) :: Thu, 01/12/2006 - 12:53am

Daley should try to get a local college to make a full blown Football program. If a college would pay for part of it, it would be cheaper, and it would be used more than and NFL team (Soccer, etc.) Maybe DePaul would spring to become a football member of the Big East