The Cincinnati Bengals turned some heads over the past week with comments about the possibilities regarding the upcoming expiring stadium lease.
Said comments, meant to throw out some urgency in negotiations, got direct, multiple responses from those within Hamilton County.
Those comments have also garnered massive overreactions from outside, perhaps highlighted best by Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio suggesting that the Bengals could solve the stalemate by... partnering with the Chicago Bears on a stadium.
The argument stems from the fact that there is more widespread backlash than ever for support around $10 billion or more stadiums, so two teams sharing a field to generate 20ish games of revenue each year, plus other events, would solve the problem.
It's a nonsensical solution, of course. The Bengals effectively moving to Chicago isn't going to happen, making it "theoretically" impossible, too. Joe Burrow's Bengals are closer geographically to other teams, for starters, no matter how feasible a super-Chicago venue might be.
When the Bengals talk about the ability to "move" away from downtown if talks collapse, they're talking greater tri-state area at worst.
And when anyone discusses this stadium standoff, failure to mention that the Bengals can exercise up to five rolling two-year extensions (starting June 30 this year) is worth dismissing. Yes, the Bengals could choose not to exercise that this June and "leave" in June of 2026, but the odds are astronomically low, and what we're seeing now is normal public posturing, sort of like what players, say, Trey Hendrickson, do with teams while seeking new contracts.
The point about teams needing to get creative on new stadium deals is a good one. Suggesting a Cincinnati team play home games in Chicago, not so much.
RELATED: Bengals provide update on Hendrickson, Pratt trade requests
This article originally appeared on Bengals Wire:
Topics in this Story
