Per Tom Silverstein @ JS Online

 

"Have been told that NFL officials are monitoring field at Soldier Field and are in charge of potential changes. Will work with stadium crew"

 

Per Tom Silverstein @ JS Online

 

"Have been told that NFL officials are monitoring field at Soldier Field and are in charge of potential changes. Will work with stadium crew"

potential changes? like resodding?

potential changes? like resodding?

I don't think you could do that 5 days in advance in the dead of winter without making things worse.

I don't think you could do that 5 days in advance in the dead of winter without making things worse.

what else could they do if the field is crap? You cant field turf it in 5 days. Moving it to another field would bring the wrath of god.

Never trust a Milwaukee paper!

 

 

The NFL probably has to at least say they are looking at it. I don't think they do anything.

 

Break out the spray paint!

The Super Bowl doesn't really get strong ratings overseas though. The networks love quoting that "1 billion people are watching" number because it sounds good, but it's an outright lie, most people overseas who receive the game aren't watching. American Football just isn't that big outside of with Americans.

 

 

It's big in Canada isn't it, not like hockey of course but they even have a pro league so I bet it gets good ratings...it's kinda big in Mexico too, I've seen it first hand.

It might be the homer in me but I like our chances against GB...Rodgers, as good as he is, will not have a game like he did against ATL, it's just not possible taking into consideration that the weather will be cold and windy, the field will be crappy (recievers slipping) and our pass rush is really good.

 

It'll be a close defensive game IMO, the lack of a running game for GB will hurt them. 21-17 Bears

 

I'm 6 fer 8 in the playoffs so far, only misses were the Saints/Seahawks and Ravens/Steelers...

Edited January 17, 201115 yr by MexSoxFan#1

Maybe it's because I just can't stand the Patriots, and I'm sick of hearing the announcers swoon over the likes of Brady, Manning (both of them), and the normal media favorite teams, but I'm glad to see the Steelers, Jets, Packers, and Bears in the finals. No matter what happens, there are going to be two teams in the Superbowl that the media typically do not like. I'm sure being a fan of the Steelers and Bears amplifies it, but it seems that there is always talk of a bad call or cheap shot or missed call when they win big games.

 

Are you kidding? The media loves the Steelers.

Looks like I'll be hoping the Bears win it all now due to the fact I hate the two AFC teams and not really a Packer fan.

I think Fox has to be thrilled with the GB/Chicago matchup, but I think most of the rest of the country would have liked to see someone other than the Bears in the NFC title game. Maybe New Orleans-Packers or Philly-New Orleans.

 

As for CBS, I am sure they knew coming in to the playoffs that any matchup, perhaps with the exception of one with the Chiefs involved, was going to be a solid one. That being said, I'm pretty sure they would have rather had New England or Indianapolis involved somehow. As much as the Jets are entertaining, I don't think they bring in the casual fan the way Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can.

 

I think Fox has to be thrilled with the GB/Chicago matchup, but I think most of the rest of the country would have liked to see someone other than the Bears in the NFC title game. Maybe New Orleans-Packers or Philly-New Orleans.

 

As for CBS, I am sure they knew coming in to the playoffs that any matchup, perhaps with the exception of one with the Chiefs involved, was going to be a solid one. That being said, I'm pretty sure they would have rather had New England or Indianapolis involved somehow. As much as the Jets are entertaining, I don't think they bring in the casual fan the way Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can.

Right on point with everything here.

 

 

Right on point with everything here.

Really though, historically, there's not that huge of an impact of "Who's playing" on the NFL viewing audience, at least not as much as "Is it a good game".

Bears are generally one of the most viewed teams.

 

Packers-Bears match up will be generally one of the most viewed, Bears v anyone is generally highly rated. Bears have the largest undivided market, if you want money you want the Bears on your tv.

It might be the homer in me but I like our chances against GB...Rodgers, as good as he is, will not have a game like he did against ATL, it's just not possible taking into consideration that the weather will be cold and windy, the field will be crappy (recievers slipping) and our pass rush is really good.

 

 

Did you not watch the Patriots come into Chicago on the worst day weather wise of the year and dominate on offense? To say it's not possible is silly, it is very possible.

Did you not watch the Patriots come into Chicago on the worst day weather wise of the year and dominate on offense? To say it's not possible is silly, it is very possible.

 

For real. And it's not like the Packers are from Hawaii.

I imagine Dallas has to be thrilled. They've got 4 teams with fanbases that travel extremely well. In 06', when the Bears were in the SB in Miami, I went down there with a bunch of friends, and it was like Chicago Beach instead of South Beach. A ton of Chicago money was in town spending money, and there were very few fans from Indianapolis there in comparison. The Packers and Steelers fans are notoriously well-travelled, and the money in Chicago and New York is great enough and the fanbases are large enough that those teams would please Dallas too.

I imagine Dallas has to be thrilled. They've got 4 teams with fanbases that travel extremely well. In 06', when the Bears were in the SB in Miami, I went down there with a bunch of friends, and it was like Chicago Beach instead of South Beach. A ton of Chicago money was in town spending money, and there were very few fans from Indianapolis there in comparison. The Packers and Steelers fans are notoriously well-travelled, and the money in Chicago and New York is great enough and the fanbases are large enough that those teams would please Dallas too.

 

No doubt. It's also a reminder of what an epic fail on what could have been had they made the decision to make a retractable roof here.

Edited January 17, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

Bears are generally one of the most viewed teams.

 

Packers-Bears match up will be generally one of the most viewed, Bears v anyone is generally highly rated. Bears have the largest undivided market, if you want money you want the Bears on your tv.

I don't think the general public or networks wanted New Orleans or Atlanta in before Chicago. NFL has to be excited as well. Best possible matchup for them and the Jets being in over the Patriots isn't a negative either (probably a wash, both are huge markets with large fan bases). NFL is going to have a great matchup for the superbowl no matter what happens (from a pure public interest perspective).

what else could they do if the field is crap? You cant field turf it in 5 days. Moving it to another field would bring the wrath of god.

 

Isnt that what the Pats did in 06 the week before they played the Bears?

I imagine Dallas has to be thrilled. They've got 4 teams with fanbases that travel extremely well. In 06', when the Bears were in the SB in Miami, I went down there with a bunch of friends, and it was like Chicago Beach instead of South Beach. A ton of Chicago money was in town spending money, and there were very few fans from Indianapolis there in comparison. The Packers and Steelers fans are notoriously well-travelled, and the money in Chicago and New York is great enough and the fanbases are large enough that those teams would please Dallas too.

 

Plus as big as that place is, there ought to be enough tickets to stop them from going to epic price levels. There are like 30,000 more seats than most Super Bowl venues.

Seriously though, the most common thing I hear about this coming game is something to the effect of "Rodgers is going to torch the Bears." It's like nobody has ever seen a Packers-Bears game or even saw one 3 weeks ago. That is not going to happen.

 

Also another common thing to do seems to be comparing Rodgers to Cutler i.e. Rodgers > Cutler. Yeah that's great but seeing as how Cutler hasn't played safety since high school, Rodgers won't be playing him.

first volley comes from Ryan Grant:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6030476

Grant tweeted Saturday: "1st n last tweet.Pack Fans might want 2 start booking flights 4 feb. Not looking ahead but u c we just have better players than other teams."

gz it's only monday and i'm already sick of the overconfident packer fans

Seriously though, the most common thing I hear about this coming game is something to the effect of "Rodgers is going to torch the Bears." It's like nobody has ever seen a Packers-Bears game or even saw one 3 weeks ago. That is not going to happen.

 

Also another common thing to do seems to be comparing Rodgers to Cutler i.e. Rodgers > Cutler. Yeah that's great but seeing as how Cutler hasn't played safety since high school, Rodgers won't be playing him.

 

 

Rodgers is completing 71.6 of his passes vs The Bears this year. So its not out of the question that he has a good day.