If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC Chicago)   NFL hears Rahm Emanuel pitch Soldier Field as a future Super Bowl site. NFL: Get some real grass that isn't dead by November and then we'll talk   (nbcchicago.com) divider line 27
    More: Unlikely, Soldier Field, Super Bowl, NFL, Roger Goodell, Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, NATO summit  
•       •       •

447 clicks; posted to Sports » on 10 Jun 2013 at 9:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-10 09:05:52 AM  
RG3's knee would like a word with you...
 
2013-06-10 09:07:27 AM  
You mean, like that soft Superdome grass?
 
2013-06-10 09:18:51 AM  
Sorry Rahm, they only hold Superbowls in outdoor northern cities after a major terrorist attack in order to heal the city.
 
2013-06-10 10:01:32 AM  
Unfortunately, the Rolling Stones are scheduled to be playing that night, so the Super Bowl will have to be held on Monday.
 
2013-06-10 11:06:19 AM  

snowshovel: Sorry Rahm, they only hold Superbowls in outdoor northern cities after a major terrorist attack in order to heal the city.


Rahm knows a guy who knows a guy who can get some false flag operation started.  Dont worry, this is in the bag.
 
2013-06-10 11:31:23 AM  
how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)
 
2013-06-10 11:34:35 AM  
It's a fun idea as a Chicago fan/frequent visitor to think about but logistically I don't see it, I think Soldier Field is the smallest NFL stadium by far and while it's really nice I think the capacity hurts more than the park district issues. That and the risk of 18 inches of lake effect snow or subzero temperatures.
 
2013-06-10 12:11:43 PM  
 
2013-06-10 12:23:57 PM  
Looks like Oakland has the smallest stadium with 53,200 capacity (63,132 expanded/SRO). Soldier Field is #31 with 61,500 (62,871 expanded/SRO).

And let me just say that in my never-humble opinion, having the Super Bowl in an open stadium/cold climate is a bad idea. I know people are going to get all Neanderthal and pound their manly chest and say that the game is supposed to be played in the snow (whatever), but we are talking about 100,000 people visiting that city & having to get around. Chicago is fairly good for that, thanks to a reliable public transit system, but you can't put everyone plus the teams on the Metra.

Anyway. Just going off of what Dallas went through. We're a "warmer climate" with a retractable roof & we got hit with a week-long blizzard/ice storm. It was a nightmare, but that sort of thing maybe happens once a decade down here. I guess what I'm trying to say is, let's get through the NY thing in 2014 & see how it goes before any more open/cold stadiums are given a SB.
 
2013-06-10 12:44:50 PM  

p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)


Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.
 
2013-06-10 12:44:56 PM  

p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.


Lucas Oil is a little bigger and can expand out to 70K apparently.  Soldier is the second smallest in the NFL both in regular capacity and expanded.  Soldier does have an absurd number of suites now though as well as the other seating on the east side of the stadium being essentially all club seating.  Some of those levels have heaters installed above the seats.

Still, ain't happening even if they finally figure out how to grow grass, or install the hybrid system that Lambeau has.
 
2013-06-10 12:51:23 PM  

Di Atribe: Looks like Oakland has the smallest stadium with 53,200 capacity (63,132 expanded/SRO). Soldier Field is #31 with 61,500 (62,871 expanded/SRO).

And let me just say that in my never-humble opinion, having the Super Bowl in an open stadium/cold climate is a bad idea. I know people are going to get all Neanderthal and pound their manly chest and say that the game is supposed to be played in the snow (whatever), but we are talking about 100,000 people visiting that city & having to get around. Chicago is fairly good for that, thanks to a reliable public transit system, but you can't put everyone plus the teams on the Metra.

Anyway. Just going off of what Dallas went through. We're a "warmer climate" with a retractable roof & we got hit with a week-long blizzard/ice storm. It was a nightmare, but that sort of thing maybe happens once a decade down here. I guess what I'm trying to say is, let's get through the NY thing in 2014 & see how it goes before any more open/cold stadiums are given a SB.


I'm sorry but Chicago doesn't deserve anything with a stadium that small.  I mean the old Soldier Field sat about 66,000...that still was small but at least manageable.

But hey, they wanted those sweet, sweet Corporate seats and PSLs never thinking that a Super Bowl could be involved...so screw 'em. XD
 
2013-06-10 12:53:32 PM  

redmid17: p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)

Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.


I wonder how many of you will complain about NYC getting the game if the game time temps are around the upper 40s/mid 50s by kickoff.  We've had those conditions before; in fact, we had a couple of January days that went into the 60s a few years ago.
 
2013-06-10 01:09:28 PM  

Rwa2play: redmid17: p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)

Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.

I wonder how many of you will complain about NYC getting the game if the game time temps are around the upper 40s/mid 50s by kickoff.  We've had those conditions before; in fact, we had a couple of January days that went into the 60s a few years ago.


That's basically what the weather was like in Indy for the SB a few years ago. It was unseasonably warm all week. My biggest complaint isn't necessarily the location as much as the possibility of inclement weather. I don't really want weather to be a deciding factor. I'm sure I will get flamed by all the "real" football fans who think 8 turnovers and a battle for field position is riveting, but I am watching the game to be entertained. I put up with that when watching the Colts and to a lesser extent the Bears.
 
2013-06-10 01:12:53 PM  

redmid17: Rwa2play: redmid17: p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)

Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.

I wonder how many of you will complain about NYC getting the game if the game time temps are around the upper 40s/mid 50s by kickoff.  We've had those conditions before; in fact, we had a couple of January days that went into the 60s a few years ago.

That's basically what the weather was like in Indy for the SB a few years ago. It was unseasonably warm all week. My biggest complaint isn't necessarily the location as much as the possibility of inclement weather. I don't really want weather to be a deciding factor. I'm sure I will get flamed by all the "real" football fans who think 8 turnovers and a battle for field position is riveting, but I am watching the game to be entertained. I put up with that when watching the Colts and to a lesser extent the Bears.


Hey, you're a Colts fan, you got the win you wanted AND the greatest halftime show ever!
 
2013-06-10 01:17:38 PM  

redmid17: p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)

Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.


Indianapolis is also a town that has been engineered for the last twenty years to host conventions.  They've got a metric ass-ton of hotel rooms within a short trip of the stadium and the convention center.
 
2013-06-10 01:41:03 PM  

Di Atribe: Looks like Oakland has the smallest stadium with 53,200 capacity (63,132 expanded/SRO). Soldier Field is #31 with 61,500 (62,871 expanded/SRO).


The Bears screwed themselves when "renovating" Soldier Field and making it so small.
 
2013-06-10 01:49:48 PM  

UNC_Samurai: redmid17: p the boiler: how about the fact that the stadium is tiny (seating-wise) by NFL standards. I do think Lucas Oil is smaller, and I know they hosted it - but to deal with horrible playing surface, unpredictable weather and a smaller gate - I don't know why the NFL would do it.

I live in this city and I hate going outside in February (especially near the lakefront)

Lucas Oil is bigger than Soldier Field normally, but it was also expanded to hold 70K for the SB. It gets expanded to 70K for hosting the NCAA tourney as well. I would hate a SB in Chicago in February, but the NFL doesn't really have a leg to stand on if NYC got one.

Indianapolis is also a town that has been engineered for the last twenty years to host conventions.  They've got a metric ass-ton of hotel rooms within a short trip of the stadium and the convention center.


That they do. One of the things I love about downtown when I come home is how walkable it is. It's really compact and that really played into how well the SB presentation and environment played out. That said, Chicago has plenty of hotel rooms and convention style space to accommodate a super bowl. I'm not gonna lie though, I might leave the city during that week though as it would tie up traffic something fierce.
 
2013-06-10 02:14:50 PM  

mjohnson71: The Bears screwed

Illinois taxpayers themselves when "renovating" Soldier Field. and making it so small.
 
2013-06-10 02:22:38 PM  

greggm59: mjohnson71: The Bears screwed Illinois taxpayers themselves when "renovating" Soldier Field. and making it so small.


All the public money came from the Chicago hotel tax, so rather than Illinois taxpayers they've been soaking the tourists and convention attendees. Whether that tax could then be used for something else is a different matter, but that tax was initiated for the public component of New Comiskey and then was continued to pay for Spaceship Soldier.
 
2013-06-10 02:36:52 PM  
GQueue:
All the public money came from the Chicago hotel tax, so rather than Illinois taxpayers they've been soaking the tourists and convention attendees. Whether that tax could then be used for something else is a different matter, but that tax was initiated for the public component of New Comiskey and then was continued to pay for Spaceship Soldier.

No, that's the whole point.  The tax could have gone somewhere else.  So yes, Illinoisians were screwed.
 
2013-06-10 03:59:19 PM  
I thought Soldier Field was beautiful when I was there. Such a great area around the stadium too - so many attractions and a nice park. Actually sounds like a pretty good spot for a Super Bowl.
 
2013-06-10 04:43:43 PM  
If Heinz Field could be rebuilt after a masked lunatic destroyed it with concrete bombs, Solider Field has hope to host the superbowl.
 
2013-06-10 04:52:59 PM  
I don't see this happening without major bribes to the right people.  I guess Rahm qualifies in that regard.  I did too many Patriots games in sub-freezing temperatures and on a few occasions walked out unable to feel my legs.  It's basically using your torso to swing two stumps and hoping you don't fall.  I don't care if it's the Superbowl - I wouldn't go.  Now think about that happening to someone important or a corporation that paid tens of thousands.
 
2013-06-10 05:15:21 PM  
I think it will be the new stadium in Minneapolis before Chicago.

/Vikings!
 
2013-06-10 06:13:12 PM  
If the team will tear down that toilet bowl monstrosity and build an addition big enough to hold a Superbowl without destroying the architecture of Soldier Field, I'd be for it. Of course, I want it to be on the Bears' dime.
 
2013-06-10 10:05:44 PM  
Better keep it in Chicago so there's never a perceived "home field advantage."

/obligatory
/bleeds green & gold
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report