The others are about twice what they should be.

… but I don’t think anyone expected it to be THAT expensive.

What they may have accomplished with this is to keep a lot of the $325 tickets off the secondary market.

Most of the bleachers won’t be good seats — but the CF bleachers, which are higher, might.

but I wish they would. Recreate the seats like they were for da bears in the 60s and 70s. It shouldn’t hurt the field that much, since it will be dormant, and it is just the turf, which is easily replaceable. Remember, da bears seats were in for several months, and the field survived, and this was in a day before the obsession with a perfect field.
As for the ice, the NHL will be installing cooling pipes under the field, so a warmer day shouldn’t be that bad. Remember, it is the middle of winter, so it won’t get that warm(watch it be 80 on Jan 1).

………….could be REALLY brutal on a roof top in January.

Some of those terrace reserved seats won’t be able to see much at all — that’s why the back rows are overpriced.

Some of the upper deck seats — the ones in the corners — are overpriced, too. There are some $75 seats that may have better views than the corners of the upper deck. They should have made more price tiers.

… may be decent seats too, and the price is right. Those would be behind each goal.

People, for the most part, aren’t going to watch the game. They are going for the experience (sound familiar?).

First off, The Cell wouldn’t have been any better, and Soldier Field wouldn’t heve been much better. Hockey is designed to be played in a building with seating along the glass all the way around, and steep inclines. As soon as you get farther away from the puck, it’s tough to see. These outdoor games are a gimic, and they are drawing attention to the sport, which is all the NHL wants. They get ESPN to talk about the sport, which they don’t do the other 364 days of the year.

So, put an up-and-comming team in one of the most iconic ballparks in the country (with a built-in beer garden-of-a-neighborhood), and folks will have a good time. Who cares if they can see the puck? 99% of the people will leave happy. Those that can’t get in, will watch on TV, and wish they were there. That’s what happened last year in Buffalo. Do you really think most of those people could see the game, let alone the puck through the snow at that game?

Bottem line, it all about the experience. As a hockey fan, I’d love to be there. I don’t live in Chicago, so I won’t be there, but I’ll watch and wish I was…

Moose

The NHL and the Cubs to a secondary affect are running things. Actually the Blackhawks brass doesn’t have that much of a say about things overall.

I won’t care about the sight lines. As stated earlier, I’m shooting for field box 137/138 area. I may consider club boxes right in front of that but either way, it’s behind the nets for me.

that the Stanley Cup Finals are played every year, and that you’d have at least two chances (if not three or four) to see them (if your team makes it, in a given season). This is a one shot deal (‘Hawks at Wrigley). If you miss it, it isn’t happening the next day, let alone next year, or ten years from now.

With that said, if you chose not to go, there are people who will, just for this reason.

Moose

that there aren’t half as many seats for this game as there were for the game in Buffalo. Ralph Wilson holds 74,000, and Wrigley holds 41,000. Now subtract all the club box infield seats at Wrigley (plus the CBOE and Front Row seats), since those are being “given away” to yocal youth hockey teams because of poor visibility, and what kind capacity are we talking about here? 35,000 at best?

It’s called supply and demand, and while you folks may sit and say it’s overpriced, I’d be shocked it this wasn’t sold-out. Go back and re-check my post about the “experience” this will be. People will pay.

Moose