Could Chicago have handled two NFL teams?

[Guest The Czech Republic]

I was just thinking about this, for some odd reason. What if the Cardinals stayed at Comiskey Park, like they did until 1960? Right now, the only sport the Windy City has two teams for is baseball. New York technically has two football teams, two baseball teams, two basketball teams, and three hockey teams, if you count New Jersey as part of the market. Los Angeles has two for three counting Anaheim, and of course, no football. I think it would've been interesting if you had the Chicago Bears AND the Chicago Cardinals both in town, with the Cards probably getting shunted to the AFC in 1970.

 

There was talk of a second basketball team a few years ago, that would probably play in Rosemont while the Bulls did their thing, but that never happened.

[Guest starvenger]

With a metropolitain population of about 10 mil, you'd think that they could. They definitely have the media to handle it well.

 

But looking at their records, the Chicago Cardinals really sucked, so realistically a change of city was probably a good thing for them.

 

Or maybe not, seeing as they STILL suck. They've got about 30 .500+ seasons TOTAL since their inception in 1920, and 1/3 of those came before WWII.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

It probably wouldn't have been too interesting, as the Cardinals probably would not have ammounted to much there, and any "cross-town rivalry" wouldn't have ammounted to much, except maybe in the Bears' lean years when it would've been a battle of Who Could Suck Less.

 

By the way, to further underscore their traditional ineptitude, The Cardinals have won exactly ONE postseason game in their 83 year history (came into existence in 1920, same year as the Decatur Staleys, who quickly became the Chicago Bears). That was the game in '98 against Dallas.

An interesting side question is that if the Cardinals had never moved from Chicago to St. Louis, would anyone have? When, if ever, would the NFL have expanded to St. Louis or moved a team there. Would it be thought of as a viable NFL market (maybe the Colts move there instead of Indy? Maybe the Rams never move from L.A. to the "unproven" St. Louis market, or then again, perhaps they move there sooner?)

 

Yes, Chicago could have supported two NFL teams over the past 40 years (irrespective of success: Chicago fans are known for showing loyalty to long-struggling franchises. The Cardinals utter lack of success or even competence wouldn't necessarily alienate them to a fan base that still ardently supports the Cubs (last championship 1908), White Sox (last championship 1917), and Blackhawks). I suppose the question is SHOULD Chicago have supported the Cardinals?

 

Or was it in the best interests of the city, the NFL, and the Cardinals to let them try somewhere else?

[Guest The Czech Republic]

I think Jordan should have moved the Milwaukee Bucks to Rosemont, and give us an alternative to the now-pathetic Bulls.