football wrigley fieldNorthwestern University is going to make an announcement at Wrigley Field on Tuesday, and it’s expected to be about a long-term partnership with the Chicago Cubs.

According to a Tribune source, the two entities will announce a “broad partnership,” which will see a variety of sports played at Wrigley Field in the coming years. That year could include 2013 for some sports, but not football. Some of the Wrigley Field renovations will need to be completed first.

The Cubs, you may recall, already put in the paperwork with the Landmarks Commission to make a section of their field-level seats movable, which will allow them the space necessary to host football games at Wrigley without the embarrassing “you can only go in one direction” thing.

So this was always in the works.

We’ll see on Tuesday what shape this partnership takes, but it’s just one step of many in ensuring that Wrigley Field is put to a greater use beyond the baseball season. It’s a hell of a venue – one of the best in the world – so we may as well take advantage for more than just the Cubs, right? And if the proceeds ultimately help the Cubs, that’s even better, eh?

  • MJ

    Not a surprise at all. Maybe this could lead to a return of the Bears to Wrigley for a pre-season game or, better yet, a regular season game. That would be even cooler.

    • Dougy D

      I’d guess that the Bears returning for a regular season game is unlikely due to less seating at Wrigley than Soldier.

      • Spencer

        They’ll do it if the ticket prices are higher.You should take an econ 101 class

        • Tom A.

          You should not be nasty to Dougy D, as he is closer to the likely answer than you are Spencer ! Sorry, but this is not as simple as Econ 101, as the Bears have a large number of season ticket holders that have to be accomodated with seats (likely many more season ticket holders than Wrigley can even hold).

          What you are trying to say is that Wrigley Field holds 42,000 (let’s say it is 48,000 for football) and Soldier Field holds 61,000 (let’s use 60,000). That means at least a increase in ticket prices of 20% (but let’s use 40% to compensate for selling less concessions to the smaller crowd) would put them at about the same total on game revenue.

          I will tell you that in my opinion the bigger issue might be trying to accomodate the season ticket holders with seating, than charging them 40% more for every seat.

        • TNN2

          What do you tell all the season ticket holders that can’t get in? And then you are going to tell the rest that they can get in but they have to spend twice as much as normal? Yeah, that will play well with everybody. Not to mention the locker room problems and general facility issues. College games are one thing, NFL games are something totally different. There’s far more to it than simple economics.

        • Jim L

          To add what the others posted about prices, the NFL has a minimum seating capacity of 60,000.

          • Pat

            Not only that, but there is zero chance today’s players union allows a game where there is a brick freaking wall within even ten years of the field.

            • MJ

              There’s no hard and fast rule that an NFL team MUST play in a 60,000 seat stadium. The Buffalo Bills signed on to play a regular season home game for 5 years in Toronto’s Rogers Centre, which seats 54,000.

              And about the brick wall, certainly Wrigley would be close quarters. But, there’s a brick wall at Ford Field, if you want to get technical. I’m sure it’s highly unlikely, but the idea was floated out there last year about the Bears possibly playing an exhibition game at Wrigley, depending on the renovation situation.

              • frank

                Depends on how you define “hard and fast” — the NFL does require a team’s stadium to hold 60,000–that’s why the Bears were forced out of Wrigley to begin with. The Toronto situation could have been accommodated for a couple of reasons, such as the fact that the stadium in Toronto is not the Bills’ home stadium, or the NFL could’ve granted a waiver in an effort to create more exposure and to expand the NFL audience into Canada. But your point that a game might be played in a smaller capacity venue is well-taken.

  • Internet Random

    [W]e may as well take advantage for more than just the Cubs, right?

    So long as they can keep the field from looking like it’s had kerosene and salt dumped on it, yes.

    • Rich H

      Wow talk about a total go off the deep end comment.

      • Hansman1982

        This guy has posted here before. Las time her came around Brett was about 12 hours away from digging into who this guys was and filing charges for harassment.

        I’m guessing he just used the remaining 12 hours. Please sweet Jesus no one pay any attention to him.

        • fromthemitten

          how do you know it’s goldfinch?

  • Vulcan


  • DarthHater

    What are you guys talking about? 😉

    • Whiteflag

      Seems like they are commenting on an invisible message. :)

    • college_of_coaches

      Nothing to see here folks. Move along!

  • Serious Cubs Fan

    I think a bears game would be sick if they could some how come up with a enough seating for 60,000 people. Maybe if they add some removable seats on the field. I know they will be adding a couple more seats to wrigley also when they finish some of the renovations at wrigley. Also if you include rooftops, and if they could maybe add another 5,000-7,500 temporary seats.

  • @cubsfantroy

    I’m so lost by the last few comments.

    Guess I will go back to watching Die Hard.

  • Leroy

    yay! as a huge Northwestern fan, I am psyched!!!

  • Die hard

    I believe that the other MLB owners can veto such agreement and MLB can nix it cause involves amateur athletes

  • cubzforlife

    The reason the Bears moved from Wrigley was the NFL put a minimum seat requirement. Wrigley can never be used for a NFL game.

    • Shuck

      Wasn’t it safety concerns? The wall? Just too small?