Skip to content

Consultant says Chicago would have hosted Super Bowls with dome

Forbidding-Fields-F_707850c AP

Marc Ganis, the president of consulting firm SportsCorp Ltd., said Chicago should have hosted multiple Super Bowls by now with a domed stadium, if the project hadn’t gotten lost in the mire of politics.

The project was referred to locally as the “McDome” in reference to its proximity to McCormick Place, the sprawling convention center.

“Had Chicago and Illinois built the McDome (in 1996), the original domed stadium planned for next to McCormick Place, I suspect we would have had at least two Super Bowls already,” Ganis told Fred Mitchell (not that one) of the Chicago Tribune.

“It was extremely short-sighted; it was extremely narrow focus. … It would have cost (less than what it eventually) cost simply to upgrade Soldier Field. It would have been a terrific financial and tourism boost for the city.”

Instead, Solider Field was renovated to a league-low 61,500 seats. That lack of inventory probably has more to do with Chicago not getting a Super Bowl than the obvious weather concerns, even though local officials have expressed interest.

 But the simple fact remains, Chicago is one of those places where football simply should be played outdoors. And having that giant domed facility next to the convention center might seem like a good idea to tourism experts, but in Atlanta (another place with no excuse for indoor football) they’re doing everything they can to replace the Georgia Dome with a new retractable roof facility.
Permalink 23 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Home, Rumor Mill
23 Responses to “Consultant says Chicago would have hosted Super Bowls with dome”
  1. gacanefan says: Jun 17, 2012 8:12 AM

    There is nothing wrong with the GA Dome, besides the location. If Blank want a new done, then he can go to Home Depot and build it himself.

  2. tim1999 says: Jun 17, 2012 8:23 AM

    Football is the ultimate outdoor all-kinds-of-weather game.
    NFL football should never be played indoors. Completely diminishes the “feel” of the game and skews the legitmacy of passing and rushing #’s for the players toiling under the roof for all their home game.
    QB’s like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees should have an * next to their passing records.

  3. joetoronto says: Jun 17, 2012 8:35 AM

    Of course Chicago would have had Super Bowls if there was a dome.

    Chicago is a major city, 3rd biggest in the States, if I’m not mistaken.

  4. f0rem4n says: Jun 17, 2012 8:37 AM

    As a Lion fan

    a) Screw them. Pansy indoor football is not worth hosting a super bowl.

    b) Who cares if you host a Super Bowl? The goal is to play in one.

    c) Ford Field has just over 60,000 seats and that didn’t stop a super bowl stop here.

  5. essentialsausage says: Jun 17, 2012 8:59 AM

    I like to see how teams play in inclement weather. I hope Chicago doesn’t get a dome.

  6. pencepost says: Jun 17, 2012 9:16 AM

    With Detroit and Minnesota already having domes, I wouldn’t like it if Chicago became the third NFC North team with one. I wish they had better turf and more seats, but I’m glad they kept it open to the sky.

  7. jimmysee says: Jun 17, 2012 9:19 AM

    Marc Ganis suffers from extreme tunnel vision, and maybe temporary insanity.

    Soldier Field is home to the Monster of the Midway.

    This dome stuff is out of place for football.

    Especially in the Windy City.

    Bear down Bears!

  8. tommytd says: Jun 17, 2012 9:41 AM

    a) Screw them. Pansy indoor football is not worth hosting a super bowl.

    b) Who cares if you host a Super Bowl? The goal is to play in one.

    c) Ford Field has just over 60,000 seats and that didn’t stop a super bowl stop here.
    ********************************************
    Open air or not, look for the Bears to HOST a SB way sooner than they’ll ever play in another one, and I’m a Bears fan! LOL

  9. allnightdwight says: Jun 17, 2012 9:53 AM

    Can you picture Papa Bear Halas stalking an Astroturf sideline? Sacrilege.

  10. daaabears says: Jun 17, 2012 9:58 AM

    Team with the best record should host the SB.

  11. illiniftw says: Jun 17, 2012 10:01 AM

    The NFL would be happy if every stadium was a dome made up entirely out of luxury boxes…. Once they price out the normal fan entirely how are they going to convince the corporate owners it’s fun to sit outside in Chicago in December just to watch a football game??

  12. santolonius says: Jun 17, 2012 10:04 AM

    chicago should host a SB at soldier field anyway, as is, outside, soon. it would be great! and i am saying that as person who could care less about the bears.

  13. maddoc2054 says: Jun 17, 2012 10:15 AM

    most of the above must be watching the games on TV; the future of football is in Dallas-style domes. Otherwise the NFL will become a TV sport with stadiums half-filled. Who wants to pay $300 for a decent seat to bake or freeze?

  14. lks311 says: Jun 17, 2012 10:33 AM

    Let Chicago host a SB–it’ll be great to watch on my 60 in. Having played competitive football into my early 20′s, playing in the cold, snow, rain, mud is a riot. You’re not cold while running around and it’s a heckuva time. HOWEVER, sitting and watching other people perform in subzero temps is not my idea of fun—though if you have an extra slot in your Suite, I’m all in.

  15. 1historian says: Jun 17, 2012 10:57 AM

    FYI – I am a (certified) old fart

    REAL men play football outside. Ever seen those old B&W pictures of the games back in the 60s – they players are just caked with dirt and sweat. They look like warriors. There should be at least one game in every season where the weather is just atrocious and the REAL men just go to war and that’s FOOTBALL.

    The CHICAGO damned Bears playing in a domed stadium – ridiculous.

  16. peytonsneck18 says: Jun 17, 2012 10:58 AM

    Unfortunately alot of celebrities go to SB and the nfl doesnt want those guys in inclimate weather for the SB, thats why itll always be in a warm state or in a dome stadium,

  17. 1historian says: Jun 17, 2012 11:01 AM

    maddoc2054 – REAL men play football outside and REAL fans would pay $300 (total) to watch them.
    And it looks like serious fun when the clowns in the stands start throwing snowballs at the bad guys, and when the bad guys (like the indy team) seem to shrivel up when it gets good and cold.

  18. stevenfbrackett says: Jun 17, 2012 11:37 AM

    Sports are always way more interesting when there is weather.

  19. skolvikesskol says: Jun 17, 2012 12:47 PM

    Anyone who disses domes has no idea what the weather is like here in mn. We have the WORST weather. We are MUCH colder and snowier than gb. Ever hear of the alberta clipper or as denny ‘take a knee’ green called it the calcutta clipper. Dangerously frozen fielda wld b common. And 2 winters ago we had snowmaggedon. U cldnt even see further than 10 feet in front of u. There is no science that cld beat mother nature… Sorry guys, a dome in minny just makes sense.

  20. oilman989 says: Jun 17, 2012 12:55 PM

    Chicago football should be played outdoors, but Detroit and Minnesota get a pass??

    Kudos to the Bears for carrying on a forlorn tradition.

  21. rolandsloan says: Jun 17, 2012 1:05 PM

    Domes suck. Football is an OUTDOOR sport.
    NFL Films must cringe everytime a new dome stadium opens. Some of their best footage is of players and fans dealing with the elements. No elements in a dome. Except in Minnesota that is.

  22. thevza says: Jun 17, 2012 7:11 PM

    “Solider Field was renovated…”

    Solider? Was it less “solid” before renovation?

  23. maddoc2054 says: Jun 18, 2012 9:31 AM

    @1historian: I doubt there are enough real fans left to fill these stadiums, either in miserable weather or baking heat. I love my football but it is far better to sit in a crowded bar or home in front of the big screen than to suffer in a stadium at $300 a seat. I’ve been there and didn’t renew my tickets!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!