The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
Could Chicago have become a routine host of the Super Bowl and the Final Four? Crain's Ed Sherman seems to think so, saying the city should have built a new stadium with a retractable roof rather than renovating Soldier Field.
Instead of building the Space Ship by the Lake, the city should have constructed a domed (preferably retractable) stadium. A Super Bowl and a few Final Fours would have helped pay for the extra expense.Sherman sorta has a point: if Detroit, Houston, and Jacksonville could land a Super Bowl, why not us? Of course, the thing he forgets is that the NFL has begun the asinine policy of "rewarding" teams who build new, plush stadiums with a Super Bowl. We stand with ESPN's Bill Simmons on this matter: the Super Bowl has to be held in a location you would want to go. Does Chicago fit this mold? Sure. But would people from Phoenix want to go to watch their team play in Chicago in February, domed stadium or no? (We also agree with Simmons on this point: a rotation of Miami, New Orleans, and the Rose Bowl in Pasadena is the perfect way to go for Super Bowls.) As for the Final Four? Anyone who has attended a basketball game in a large domed stadium not meant for that purpose can tell you how atrocious the views are. Even the players have issue with depth perception at these larger venues.Yes, Chicago definitely would have received a Super Bowl with a domed stadium. Cold-weather cities such as Detroit (twice) and Minneapolis have staged the big game. And Chicago is much better than those towns.
But what about the general idea of a domed stadium in Chicago? It's not a bad idea, given the absolutely brutal cold teams and fans have to endure every December (and occasionally January). But we totally understand why they stay in the open air Soldier Field: that cold is part of the experience of Chicago Bears football. Sherman misses this point when he says, "If they built a retractable dome, they always could leave the roof open for 'Bears weather.'" Then what's the point of the retractable roof? So you can close it up for the three home games in September and early October when it might be kinda warm? Isn't the point of a domed stadium to shield fans and players from unpleasant weather? Sherman's heart is in the right place, but it's still not a good idea.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It's a great idea.
Let the teams and their corporate sponsors pay for it. Every...fucking...dime.
The cubs just sold for what, just shy of a billion? I'd rather not hear any pleading for public funds from the jock-sniffers for a few years.
Though it does strike me as quite funny that the NFL has to hold it's championship game in a domed stadium. Thus proving once and for all that American football is a sport for whining little man-babies.
Albanyparkour...good point. It is not a requirement for the Super Bowl to be played in a dome stadium. The last two were outside in Arizona and Florida.
If a city with bad weather in January/February wants to host the Super Bowl then they have to have a dome stadium.
I agree 100% with ya...I love watching football, but it does come off as if they are whining little man-babies.
Give me rugby. Where mutated convicts beat each other to death over a ball and a "cup" is considered "too bulky".
domes suck!
Having sat through four hours of rain in Miami watching the Bears lose to the Colts in Super Bowl XLI, I can tell you that the NFL does not have a rule requiring that the Super Bowl be played in a dome. I still don't think I've dried out from that experience.
At the end of the day, I think most Bears fans are happy with the remodeled Soldier Field. It's a good location for the fans (relatively close to transportation, hotels, restaurants, bars, etc) and is a great advertisement for the city when the cameras capture the skyine on television. It is much, much better than a generic domed stadium built along side an expressway, and surrounded by acres of parking lots. Can we host a Final Four or Super Bowl in Soldier Field? No, but who cares...
Great idea Ed Sherman. You're only a few years behind everyone else who said that...
The other point of a domed stadium is that you don't pay extra cash for a state-of-the-art drainage system or the lawn care in the case of inclement weather, which again defeats the purpose of leaving the roof open in those less than ideal "Bears weather" conditions.
Having been to the new stadium in Indianapolis, there's no way that roof will be open more than twice a season. Then again, it did get them the 2012 Super Bowl. I'm already looking forward the massive amount of columnist whining that will be coming from that.
Political conventions are another thing which could be easier to obtain with a dome as well, although there are no Republicans here and Blago has removed any chance of the Dems coming for a while, but still. And the UC wold do all right I guess.
Soldier Field better than a generic domed stadium? Lets see.
Alongside an expressway?
Check
Acres of parking lots?
Check
Similar looking to other stadiums, except not being smart enough to build it outside the old one?
Check
This year's Super Bowl should be played in beautiful East Rutherford, NJ. It should always go to the city that won it the year before. Knowing how difficult it is to repeat, the defending champion should have some sort of advantage if they have made it this far!
The NFL should ban all domes, not reward teams for building them. Awful weather is not marketable, but it is an essential part of the game. It'd be like saying the NHL should switch to roller skates because the arenas are too cold!