I’ve been a Bears fan for more decades than I’d like to admit. That said…Will Bears fans ever stop attending games, watching game broadcasts and stop buying Bears clothing/memorabilia? Like millions of others, I would like nothing more to see Da Bears consitantly field a respectable team. IMHO, I think the odds against of doing so are pretty steep as long as current ownership remains in place. As a business, I’m sure it’s well run. However, if the goal of a sports franchise is to win games, it’s a total failure, a real embarrassment. Short of an ownership change, only a fan/media revolt will lead to any meaningful change. I would like nothing more than to see a half empty Soldier Field for. Packers game. Maybe then McCaskey would get the message.
The Bears have been to a Super Bowl in the last 10 years - I wouldn’t call them a complete failure (especially when they’re in the same division as the Detroit Lions).
McClasky has been the owner for more decades than you have been alive. Have you forgot the 3-peat Bears? They are having a hard time now, but it’s because of their coach (Fox) who was a failure with the Panthers and their QB who has been vastly over-rated, at least in his mind.
The Cubs finally changed ownership and the present owner has gotten the personnel to acquire good players and develop a great farm system. The many years of Cub failure has been due primarily due to a terrible farm system. I’m not old enough to remember when they last won the World Series, but I am old enough to remember when they last lost the World Series (and Andy Pafko losing a fly ball in the sun). For many decades they attempted to acquire established players by trading, purchase, etc., and resulted in getting players over the hill, such as Ralph Kiner and Hank Sauer, great sluggers as they were they were no asset to their pitching staff (which had always been anemic as it was). Ernie Banks was acquired from the Monarchs and not from a farm system. In more recent years, they did acquire some great players but not good managers and coaches. But that’s a different thread.
It’s the NFL. People still come to Browns and Lions games, so they’ll come to Bears games.
[quote=“barbitu8, post:3, topic:766721”]
McClasky has been the owner for more decades than you have been alive. Have you forgot the 3-peat Bears? They are having a hard time now, but it’s because of their coach (Fox) who was a failure with the Panthers and their QB who has been vastly over-rated, at least in his mind.[g/QUOTE]
I could be mistaken, but I believe Virginia McCaskey inherited the team when her father died in 1983. Considering I was born in 1948…
As much as I enjoy the pain of Bears fans, I’ve never understood why the ownership gets blamed.
Isn’t the issue that they are a very poorly run franchise? They have the smallest stadium in the NFL, one they don’t even own, and they are run by a family with no other business besides the team?
Apparently a lot of the family work for the Bears.
I’ve been a Cleveland Browns fan all my life. You whiner.
“3-peat Bears”? To what are you referring? The Bulls had a pair of “3-peats” in the 90s, but the Bears have only been to the championship game three times, in total, in the past 55 years, and have two titles to show for that (1963 – in the pre-Super Bowl era, and 1985).
I’m a Packer fan who’s lived in Chicago since '89. There’s definitely a sense that management has made bad decisions over the years, though, since Mike McCaskey (who was pretty widely disliked) stepped down from his role running the team, I don’t get a large sense of dissatisfaction with the McCaskey family themselves.
When John Fox was hired, there was a fair amount of excitement (since he had been successful in both Carolina and Denver), but three games into the season, sentiment is pretty bad. I think that the only reason there isn’t more of an uproar now is that Chicago sports fans are largely focused on the Cubs.
Also, note that, when they sacked Marc Trestman after the 2014 season, it was revealed that Virginia McCaskey was, in fact, really sick of the Bears losing.
"She’s pissed off. I can’t think of a 91-year-old woman that that description would apply, but in this case, I can’t think of a more accurate description.‘’
Apparently when she does pass then the team might be sold to a different owner.
Since Soldier Field is no longer protected (is that right?), I for one hope that they build a retractable domed stadium.
It’s not at all clear, I don’t think. It does look like the NFL’s rules on ownership have shifted over the past few years, making it easier for families to retain ownership of a team in that sort of circumstance:
It’s true that, in the wake of the renovation, the stadium lost its Landmark designation. That said, the city’s finances are a disaster (and the state’s are no better), and the only way I could see a new (or re-renovated) stadium in the foreseeable future is if a very deep-pocketed new owner (a la Jerry Jones) built it himself.
Nooo!
Football should be played in the snow and rain. You need guys shoveling off the lines. That NFC North football!
As only played in two of the four NFC North cities these days.
That’s my impression also. It’s not like the Bears are owned by a Jerry Jones or an Al Davis, owners who actively screw up their team or get rid of talent because of personal conflicts. Or by Stan Kroenke, Art Modell, or Al Davis who move teams to maximize revenues and sucker cities into paying for it. The McCaskeys, since Mike was gently asked to step down, have been hands off owners, who hire a GM and that’s about it. They’re not threatening to move the team or deciding their ego is more important than wins. Sure they’ve made bad decisions in who they hire to run their franchise (Heh. Jerry Angelo…), but it’s not like they are actively screwing over the team. And they spend the money in free agency (for example last year they spent $38.7 million to try and bring in talent, the 8th most in the NFL), so they’re not skinflints out to minimize spending. Maybe I’m missing something, outside of poor decisions in who to hire to run their team, but I don’t see why the Bears owners should bear the brunt of the blame for their current situation.
If anything, I think that the Bears organization has a tendency towards loyalty. It’s absolutely not a bad trait, as it can help to build lasting success (see the Rooneys in Pittsburgh, the Maras in New York, and the Packers’ management team)…but it only works if you’re able to find the right people in which to place that trust.
In the case of the Bears, it’s sometimes felt to me that their loyalty has led them to stick with people like Angelo and Mike McCaskey for longer than they should have.
By the standards of professional sports franchises, that doesn’t qualify as being especially bad. It’s not great, but there’s way worse.
If you asked me “Name ten unsuccessful sports franchises” there’s no way I’d have named the Bears.
I don’t disagree with you; certainly, fans of, say, the Lions or Browns (see The Stainless Steel Rat’s post above) would be envious for that track record. OTOH, I know more than a few Bears fans who are tired of having to look north to Wisconsin with envy over the past 20-odd seasons.
I was trying to understand what barbitu8 was referring to with “3-peat Bears”.
Isn’t part of the issue though that they are routinely relatively low on the pay-roll scale despite being the second biggest market?
And a dome makes all sorts of sense including letting Chicago bid for a Superbowl.
Market size isn’t nearly as big of a driver of team revenue in the NFL as it is in other pro sports, because the lion’s share of team revenues (the TV contract, merchandising) are split evenly across all teams.
Income streams that teams has under their direct control are more typically related to amenities at their stadiums – that’s why Jerry Jones put the money he did into his stadium, it’s why the Packers have greatly expanded Lambeau, and it’s undoubtedly an area in which the Bears are relatively weak.
Back when George Halas was alive, he was notoriously cheap. But, in the modern era, I don’t know that the Bears have been cheap, so much as paying big money for the wrong players (Cutler, Jared Allen, etc.)
Hell, they could bid for a Super Bowl now (given that New York hosted an open-air Super Bowl), but the current configuration of Soldier Field actually falls below the NFL’s recommended minimum capacity for a Super Bowl (70,000, IIRC).
The idea of a dome comes down to this: who’s going to pay for it? I will guarantee you that there is no gain to be had for any Chicago / Illinois politician to fight for a publicly-funded stadium right now.