Chicagoist: 2009 NHL Winter Classic Ticket Prices Announced

Ward Up

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:35:37 -0600

Regarding the Bears at Wrigely, they played with the football field snugged up against the third base wall. That was the long side of the field on west. Then, temporary stand were put up each year along the east sidelines. Thus, deep right field was BEHIND these temporary stands. Temporary stands worked just fine.

Chuck Sudo

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:23:45 -0600

Also consider: Black Hawks President John McDonough is a former Cubs team president, so he has history between the organizations. From the moment he became Hawks prez he lobbied for Wrigley. I agree that Sox Park would have been a better choice, given the sight lines. Having been to enough Sox games watching that upper deck, trust me when I say those would have been killer views. Almost like sitting atop the ice. Wrigley also has a history of hosting games other than baseball. It was the longtime home of the Bears until they moved to Soldier Field in 1969. In fact, when the field was redone last winter (using the expertise of Roger Bossard and the Sox grounds crew), they dug up the old concrete pylons that anchored the goalposts for Bears games.

Marcus Gilmer

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:31:59 -0600

@pins - +1 for beating me to it.

Marcus Gilmer

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:31:09 -0600

Last year's Winter Classic was held at Ralph Wilson Stadium or whatever the place is called where the Buffalo-Soon-To-Be-The-Toronto Bills play. Which makes perfect sense. The only thing I can think of for the Wrigley set up over Soldier Field is that the Bears play there the Sunday before and have a decent chance of playing a playoff game at home the following Saturday or Sunday, just a few days after the match. So maybe they're worried about damage to Soldier Field? Otherwise, I gotta agree with everyone else. Lord those bleacher seats are going to suuuuuuuuuuuck. will you even be able to see the ice from there? And I mean that seriously. I can't imagine the ice even being visible from there.

pins

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:29:30 -0600

With a possible wild card game Jan. 3 or 4 at Soldier Field for the Bears, there would have been a huge problem in reverting the field back to football playing shape in two days, and everything I've heard said the Park District put Soldier Field offlimits for the game. Also, last year the NHL crews had to work through Christmas in order to get the rink ready in time due to the tight schedule, which is something they were trying to avoid this time around. Make no mistake, this game is not for the fans attending as much as for the images you'll see on TV. Wrigley's makeup is ill suited due to its flat seating arrangement. Comiskey would have been a better option since there are more seats at a higher level (possibly too high up) and more luxury suites to sell, but it wouldn't provide the vantage of the old scoreboard and brick walls.

Ward Up

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:24:54 -0600

That is absolutely the wrong place for the rink. The rink is WAYYYYYY too far from the stands. They should have snugged the rink up against the wall in the home plate corner. They could have then built temporary stands on two sides of the rink that face the field. With the current arrangement, fans will not be able to follow the action well. What a stupid mistake.

Von Erich

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:41:06 -0600

When the Bears played at U of I, they gave ground level end zone seats to special groups, and a lot of those special groups had wheels on the bottoms of their chairs. There was no barrier between them and some super-egoed player in a fit of his own greatness. One over thrown pass or over-attended revival meeting after a touchdown would toast those people. I agree that the game should be at Soldier Field. Makes sense all the way around.

mike_thoms

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:40:43 -0600

also, i never realized how small a hockey rink was, at least in comparison to a baseball field. seeing that just makes me think this is even more of a bad idea. does McDonough have illicit photos of gary bettman or something, how did he get pushed into agreeing to hold this game at Wrigley?

mike_thoms

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:37:58 -0600

I'm a Cubs fan, I love Wrigley, but based on what I'm seeing a baseball stadium is all wrong for this. I'm surprised, based on how much control the NHL has over this event, that they're even having it at Wrigley. I can't imagine paying $225 to sit in the upper reaches of Wrigley in the dead of winter.

jongo919

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:07:08 -0600

Yeah, I had to do a double take when I saw those prices too. It still doesn't make sense to me. At those prices they better not stop selling beer in the 7th inning...

Stealth

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:41:00 -0600

Oh, and looking at the configuration, yeah, I second that vote for Soldier Field. Wrigley's alleged "mystique" only works for baseball... well some of the time.

Stealth

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:39:20 -0600

Yeah, they said on the news this morning that sitting close to ground level will provide a really crappy view of the action. They also said that the would be giving some of those seats away free to area youth hockey teams, so that should tell you how crappy the view is from the box seats.

xlprq

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:34:24 -0600

That pricing structure seems wrong. $75 for lower-level seats and $325 for upper-deck? I understand the view may be better, but something doesn't seem right.

ThisGuy

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:27:02 -0600

I still don't understand why they're doing this at Wrigley instead of Soldier Field.