Why a Dome Is Dumb Idea for New Bears Stadium

The Chicago Bears have made a lot of questionable decisions lately ... like taking a tight end at No. 10 overall when they already had a good one in Cole Kmet. But deciding to build a suburban domed stadium might be the worst move in franchise history.

Even worse than drafting Mitchell Trubisky over Patrick Mahomes.

It’s a slap in the face to team history, puts them at a disadvantage competitively and leads a disturbing NFL-wide trend of teams putting up fixed roofs.

The Bears announced their latest stadium plans this week in a letter to fans. While acknowledging that an outsider like myself can’t fully understand Chicago politics, the team likely has more options than they would have everyone believe. Putting a roof over the Bears is a true football crime.

Certain teams should never play in a dome. If the Green Bay Packers tried to enclose Lambeau Field, no one would stand for it. Why is Chicago different? Some of the toughest players in league history wore a Bears uniform ... Dick Butkus, Mike Ditka, Walter Payton. The Bears have been a more defensive-oriented team over the last two decades than the Packers. This is not a franchise that should choose comfort over seeing plumes of condensed moisture when the players exhale on a cold December day.

Did Caleb Williams play so poorly in Week 1 that they need to put a roof over his head so he can become the first Bears quarterback to reach 4,000 passing yards? Did they promise new head coach Ben Johnson that he’d get to finish out his contract in a more offense-friendly environment? Do they believe they need a radical change to win at a higher level? Or is the new plan more about corporate goals like getting a Super Bowl so the owner and top executives can show off?

The great indoor teams are centered around offense – think of the 1998 Vikings, the ‘99 Rams, the Colts of the 2000s or the ’09 Saints. That’s not the kind of team that should be playing in the city of big shoulders. The Bears should be constantly trying to recreate the famous 1985 Super Bowl team. A team that was respected and feared even though no one on the roster other than Payton would have helped your fantasy squad.

From a strategic perspective, playing inside automatically puts teams at a disadvantage in the postseason. Only three domed teams have won the Super Bowl — the Rams, Colts and Saints — and none of them had to win a cold-weather playoff game. Peyton Manning and Indy did travel to Baltimore in 2006 but got lucky to play on an unseasonably warm afternoon. Depending on what you consider the open air but covered SoFi Stadium, the ’21 Rams would be a fourth. Meanwhile, dynasties like New England and Kansas City have taken full advantage of drawing indoor or warm-weather teams into the elements.

Chicago should be using the cold weather to its advantage and manage the roster accordingly. Right now, the front office is pouring resources into the pass game. The ’85 Bears were maulers, ranking first in rushing offense and 20th in passing. The current team’s last three first-round picks were QB, WR and TE. They’re building a finesse team. That will only get worse once there’s a roof over their heads.

Playing outdoors in cold weather doesn’t negate the possibility of developing a generational passer. Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady won a lot of cold playoff games. Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers won seven MVPs in Green Bay. All it takes is toughness, something this franchise used to pride itself on. Maybe Williams doesn’t fit that profile, in which case he’s not the guy for Chicago.

Not a great business decision, either

Even the Bears’ business reasons for putting up a dome are dubious. Yes, they’ll get a Super Bowl, which will be amazing for anyone lucky enough to attend. Chicago sports business expert Marc Ganis explained why a dome would be an economic loser for the franchise.

“There’s no chance they’ll recoup [the cost],” he told WGN Radio. “[With] the Super Bowl, the NFL keeps the revenue. ... [Stadium] concerts don’t come to the northern Midwest in the fall and winter. During the summer, fans want to be outdoors to watch the big concerts. ... It’s going to cost $1 billion-plus to build ... operationally it will add $25-$30 million a year.”  

There’s a temptation to label the Bears’ stadium issues as simply a Chicago problem. The Browns are also building a domed stadium outside of the city. The Titans are going indoors in Nashville soon. The Broncos will build a new stadium with a retractable roof, which means come playoff time it will be closed. The Jaguars’ new stadium will be enclosed and the Chiefs reportedly are exploring the idea as well.

The indoor trend isn’t good for football. While more offense is entertaining and some cities like Las Vegas have compelling heat reasons, the elements are a distinguishing factor for NFL football. Distinctive stadium experiences are valuable both to the teams and the league as a whole.

What are the odds that there’s a single memorable element in the Arlington Heights building? The Bears should strive to be iconic, not just the third NFC team with a roof. If they’re not careful, their new home will feel like a watered-down version of Detroit and Minnesota.

The current Soldier Field appears to be far from ideal and no one faults the Bears for wanting to move. Their approach just feels wrong. They are the oldest team in the NFL and their past is deeply intertwined in the fabric of the league. They’re different than the Titans and even the Browns.

The details around the Arlington Heights stadium have already changed many times, so maybe it’s not too late to rethink the roof. Let’s hope the franchise finds its courage and keeps football outside, where it belongs in Chicago.