Would Chicago support a 2nd NHL/NFL/NBA team? I could imagine a new team in Soldier Field getting fans.

A NFL team is really the only one that makes sense, but that's more so to get the Bears a new stadium at half price as they'd be sharing it with another team.

The NBA might work, but I have a hard time seeing it unless of the Bulls move north or south to leverage a similar dynamic to the Cubs/White Sox.

I have a hard time seeing this for the NHL.

I agree charger. I ask because awhile back someone here wondered why Boston didn’t have 2 NBA teams, and I had to explain how absurd that idea was. But Chicago OTOH, they MAYBE could support 2 teams.

I have always thought the Bengals would be a good team to move to Chicago as a 2nd team. The Chicago Bengals could be a good mirror team in AFC North, paired with old northern industrial towns like Cleveland, Pitt, and Baltimore.

As a semi-related note, if the NWSL forces the sale of the Chicago Red Stars, it will be nothing short of criminal if they don't move every home game to Soldier Field. The one game there drew over 20,000 fans - while it pales to the capacity of the venue, it was actually miles ahead of the 3,000 or so on average who showed up at SeatGeek (20,000 capacity) for most Red Stars home games.

What cities are big enough for 2 teams in any one league? I mean.... NY has done it with Giants/Jets, Mets/Yankees and Rangers/Islanders...but not really... only really Giants Jets are NYC.

LA used to have Raiders/Chargers... and well they do have Lakers/Clippers....

I just don't see Chicago big enough to do that split.... but what was the time/era it was the Bears and the Cardinals? early 1900s right? Because the Cardinals moved to St Louis ( I believe, without googling it up).

(10-06-2022 08:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  What cities are big enough for 2 teams in any one league? I mean.... NY has done it with Giants/Jets, Mets/Yankees and Rangers/Islanders...but not really... only really Giants Jets are NYC.

LA used to have Raiders/Chargers... and well they do have Lakers/Clippers....

I just don't see Chicago big enough to do that split.... but what was the time/era it was the Bears and the Cardinals? early 1900s right? Because the Cardinals moved to St Louis ( I believe, without googling it up).

Cardinals were the original NFL franchise. Their location on the Southside let them be eclipsed by the Bears.

Due to TV blackout/territory rules, the Cardinals moved to St. Louis in 1960, so the NFL didn't have two teams in ANY market.

I guess New York got its 2nd team through the AFL-NFL merger but it makes you wonder how the Raiders got away with moving to Los Angeles in the 1980's when the Rams already owned the LA market. Then the Raiders got to move back to the SF bay area in the 90's even though the 49er's now owned that marker.

But then I remember Al Davis had to sue the NFL in order to move to LA. After that the NFL let Davis and other owners do what they wanted in the 80's and 90's. The Cardinals, Colts, Oilers, Browns, Rams, Raiders, etc. All ended up moving to new cities.

Then the NFL owners got control back in the 2010's or so it seemed until they buckled again and let the Rams and Chargers abandon St. Louis and San Diego to once again add 2 teams in LA, which included a relocation fee. Followed by the Raiders moving again, this time to LV, which also included a relocation fee.

In the end Oakland and San Diego let their teams leave without a fight, but the $700M lawsuit won by St. Louis against the NFL suggest owners will be very careful the next time a NFL franchise tries to relocate.

All this does not mean Chicago will never get a 2nd team, but whatever happens, there is always a potential lawsuit. Chicago Bears will need to be well compensated for giving up a share of the Chicago market. If an expansion team is located there, that will cost a new NFL owner probably $4B. If any NFL team wants to relocate to Chicago, the relocation fee could be substantial, possibly as much as $2B.

The answer is yes. Yes, Chicago can support two teams like New York. -A team in the city and a team in the suburbs.

The Raiders considered Comisky (Guaranteed Rate) 25 years ago (?) and sharing the stadium with the White Sox.

An NBA and NHL team playing in suburbs (for example- Rosemont) would work fine.

The real question is- Are there enough businesses in the area to support a second team? For Chicago, the answer is yes.

(10-06-2022 08:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  What cities are big enough for 2 teams in any one league? I mean.... NY has done it with Giants/Jets, Mets/Yankees and Rangers/Islanders...but not really... only really Giants Jets are NYC.

LA used to have Raiders/Chargers... and well they do have Lakers/Clippers....

I just don't see Chicago big enough to do that split.... but what was the time/era it was the Bears and the Cardinals? early 1900s right? Because the Cardinals moved to St Louis ( I believe, without googling it up).

New York could support more. The New York City market is so much bigger than any market. If the Giants and Dodgers relocated back to New York, the city could support them.

Also-- The Rangers, Islanders, and New Jersey Devils can be argued to share the same market.

(10-03-2022 09:49 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  As a semi-related note, if the NWSL forces the sale of the Chicago Red Stars, it will be nothing short of criminal if they don't move every home game to Soldier Field. The one game there drew over 20,000 fans - while it pales to the capacity of the venue, it was actually miles ahead of the 3,000 or so on average who showed up at SeatGeek (20,000 capacity) for most Red Stars home games.

I am a Chicago Fire FC season ticket holder. The Bridgeview, IL stadium is SO FAR from where I lived. Moving the games to Soldier Field is so much closer for me. I travel from the western suburbs.

Bridgeview killed the Fire's attendance. The Red Stars should play at Soldier Field, too.

NHL definitely not. Blackhawks too big. The Original 6 mystique is hard to overcome.

NBA & NFL more likely.

Some people think Toronto could support another NHL team. They'd run into the same problem as a 2nd Chicago team would. It may be a little easier in Toronto tho b/c the Blackhawks were recently dominant, & it's been while since the Leafs have.

Some people think Dallas could support another NHL team as well.

(01-05-2023 10:11 PM)chess Wrote:  

(10-06-2022 08:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  What cities are big enough for 2 teams in any one league? I mean.... NY has done it with Giants/Jets, Mets/Yankees and Rangers/Islanders...but not really... only really Giants Jets are NYC.

LA used to have Raiders/Chargers... and well they do have Lakers/Clippers....

I just don't see Chicago big enough to do that split.... but what was the time/era it was the Bears and the Cardinals? early 1900s right? Because the Cardinals moved to St Louis ( I believe, without googling it up).

New York could support more. The New York City market is so much bigger than any market. If the Giants and Dodgers relocated back to New York, the city could support them.

Also-- The Rangers, Islanders, and New Jersey Devils can be argued to share the same market.

I think NYC itself is tapped out.

But it's extremities are not. Teams could play anywhere from extreme SW Connecticut, Newark and Northern NJ, the Five Boroughs themselves and Long Island. This is why the NHL setup works so well, three separate parts of the metro are represented.

New Jersey needs baseball and an NBA team. It could work.

(01-06-2023 01:19 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Some people think Toronto could support another NHL team. They'd run into the same problem as a 2nd Chicago team would. It may be a little easier in Toronto tho b/c the Blackhawks were recently dominant, & it's been while since the Leafs have.

Some people think Dallas could support another NHL team as well.

Hockey in the South/Southeast/Southwest takes a very particular market and duplication is really, really hard. Two in Texas would be tough but I'd like to see the Houston Aeros resurrected in the NHL. Arizona/Vegas seems to indicate only 1 will survive in the Desert. Tampa Bay/Florida also seems to indicate only 1 will survive long-term in Florida.

Dallas has a very transient population base so it works really well. Tampa Bay has success so that helps. Atlanta has flopped twice. The Panthers and Coyotes need to relocate. Carolina has some financial struggles. Nashville had a good base.

(01-10-2023 05:22 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 04:42 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-06-2023 01:19 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Some people think Toronto could support another NHL team. They'd run into the same problem as a 2nd Chicago team would. It may be a little easier in Toronto tho b/c the Blackhawks were recently dominant, & it's been while since the Leafs have.

Some people think Dallas could support another NHL team as well.

Hockey in the South/Southeast/Southwest takes a very particular market and duplication is really, really hard. Two in Texas would be tough but I'd like to see the Houston Aeros resurrected in the NHL. Arizona/Vegas seems to indicate only 1 will survive in the Desert. Tampa Bay/Florida also seems to indicate only 1 will survive long-term in Florida.

Dallas has a very transient population base so it works really well. Tampa Bay has success so that helps. Atlanta has flopped twice. The Panthers and Coyotes need to relocate. Carolina has some financial struggles. Nashville had a good base.

If the Panthers, Coyotes and Hurricanes do relocate, what markets would best suite them? Milwaukee, Portland, Kansas City, Hartford CT and Quebec City could be viable options.

If it were up to me:

Arizona Coyotes > Houston Aeros
Carolina Hurricanes > I would love for them to stay but, if not, then back to being the Hartford Whalers
Florida Panthers > Quebec Nordiques

That's 32. If the NHL ever expanded to 36, then I'd like to see Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Portland plus a 2nd team in Toronto.

Quebec City is far too small for a major pro sports franchise, even with a somewhat sizeable core hockey fan base.

(01-07-2023 12:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2023 10:11 PM)chess Wrote:  

(10-06-2022 08:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  What cities are big enough for 2 teams in any one league? I mean.... NY has done it with Giants/Jets, Mets/Yankees and Rangers/Islanders...but not really... only really Giants Jets are NYC.

LA used to have Raiders/Chargers... and well they do have Lakers/Clippers....

I just don't see Chicago big enough to do that split.... but what was the time/era it was the Bears and the Cardinals? early 1900s right? Because the Cardinals moved to St Louis ( I believe, without googling it up).

New York could support more. The New York City market is so much bigger than any market. If the Giants and Dodgers relocated back to New York, the city could support them.

Also-- The Rangers, Islanders, and New Jersey Devils can be argued to share the same market.

I think NYC itself is tapped out.

But it's extremities are not. Teams could play anywhere from extreme SW Connecticut, Newark and Northern NJ, the Five Boroughs themselves and Long Island. This is why the NHL setup works so well, three separate parts of the metro are represented.

New Jersey needs baseball and an NBA team. It could work.

I would predict in the future that some of these mega markets like NY and LA will have additional pro soccer franchises. That's one thing you see in Europe...the clubs represent neighborhoods more so than cities. I think the growth in soccer popularity is the most untapped sports market in the country. It's slowly but surely growing.

To the original question, I think Chicago probably could support 2 teams although I don't know which one the other would be. There aren't a lot of candidates to move right now. That and the St. Louis market is wide open. If you're a team looking to move, would you rather have half of Chicago and compete with the Bears' legacy or take all of St. Louis and no local competition?

With the City of Chicago pushing the idea of a 2nd NFL team playing in a renovated Soldier field, I could see the NFL allowing a 2nd team moving into the new Bears stadium for now. Then 10 years later the city can tear down Soldier field and build a new indoor stadium for the 2nd team.

Another idea is to have the 2nd NFL team play at Soldier Field each season until Thanksgiving week, then they can move indoors into the new Bears stadium for the rest of the season.