Oklahoma City . . . Sonics?

[McCall]

Sonics move to Oklahoma City closer.

"My hope is that we'll find a settlement with Seattle that will give them the opportunity to have a replacement team. Seattle should have an NBA team, and I think David expressed that in the meetings. We all feel that way. My guess is you haven't heard the end of the Seattle story."

[mfoster]

The Ad Age article was bi-coastal perspective at it's worst. No perspective or historical background here. Everything the people in that article know about Oklahoma they got from Rogers & Hammerstein and Steinbeck.

Here's the thing... even with the Sonic Drive-Ins aside, OKC is more deserving of the name than Seattle, and here's why:

Seattle named their team because Boeing got the SST contract. But the SST was scrapped and never got off the ground. Why? Well in part due to the results of Operation Bongo II, where OKC was subjected to 400+ sonic booms over a 6 month period. Meanwhile, OKC has plenty of planes out at Tinker AFB capable of Mach 1.

OKC had sonics before Seattle, kept Seattle from getting the SST's that were the team's namesake, and to this day still have supersonic aircraft kept in the city.

But at this point the name is simply a bargaining chip. A bone tossed to the Seattle city dogs so that they'll let go of the team.

The idiocy of the comments on the ESPN article there is bordering on obscene. No hoops history in this state? Ever heard of the Phillips 66ers? They were better than most NBA teams in the 1950s, and were actually offered NBA membership at one point (the idea that Bartlesville could have been in the NBA in 1953 is an interesting one, but the 66ers paid better than most NBA teams). Ever heard of Hank Iba (and his TWO NCAA hoops titles at Oklahoma A&M)? Ever heard of Abe Lemons? Marques Haynes? Alvin Adams? Wayman Tisdale? Bob Kurland? Cripes I'm leaving lots of people out, but the point is the ignorance of other never surprises me.

[/rant]

[Ez Street]

Excellent points as usual Mr. Foster.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Excellent points as usual Mr. Foster.

Definitely, but you still have to get over the "It's...Oklahoma" factor. I'm sure OKC is a lovely place, but unlike almost every other NBA market (I think Sacramento is the other exception), I can't think of a single distinguishing characteristic of the city. The NBA is leaving a top-level, growing city (of which there are few left in the US) for a city in flyover country. If they're happy with that, so be it.

[DDR]

I think when you're talking about relocating out of a city like Seattle, you'd have to be moving to a city that you would consider for an expansion franchise on its own merits. Is that OKC? I really don't know, but my uneducated assumption is "no." Seattle is the kind of city that if it lost its team work would immediately begin on bringing in a new team. Seattle is the #14 TV market in the country, and the 15th largest metropolitan area. You don't leave Boston for Richmond or Battle Creek, MI, do you?

[Mac the Knife]

It depends, Duderino.

In Seattle, the SuperSonics have to compete with the Mariners, Seahawks, and local minor league hockey, pro soccer for entertainment dollars.

In Oklahoma City, they'll not only be the only game in town for now, but should other teams relocate there, they'll still be the FIRST to do so, which will breed loyalty.

With NBA economics, those of the NHL or to some extent perhaps MLB, I'd rather be in a market where mine is the only game in town, without too much regard to its size, than to have to compete for local discretionary income with other pro sports enterprises.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

With NBA economics, those of the NHL or to some extent perhaps MLB, I'd rather be in a market where mine is the only game in town, without too much regard to its size, than to have to compete for local discretionary income with other pro sports enterprises.

That's a good argument, but I think the prestige factor has to come into play as well. Sure, the NBA is the preeminent basketball organization in the world for the foreseeable future, but if they start cornering markets in the 25 to 50th largest cities in the US, doesn't that make the league look a little busch compared to the rest?

They have the big three markets in LA, New York, Chicago (and have twice the representation the NFL has in one of those), but I would be very hesitant to put those cities on the same level as Sacramento, Memphis, and OKC. And to a point, you hurt the competitive viability of those markets; given similar dollars, would a marquee player choose a world-class city on the coast? Or a town that's far more likely to look forward to college football scrimmage games than an NBA contest.

(Can my bias be any more apparent?)

[Jigga]

That's a good argument, but I think the prestige factor has to come into play as well. Sure, the NBA is the preeminent basketball organization in the world for the foreseeable future, but if they start cornering markets in the 25 to 50th largest cities in the US, doesn't that make the league look a little busch compared to the rest?

They have the big three markets in LA, New York, Chicago (and have twice the representation the NFL has in one of those), but I would be very hesitant to put those cities on the same level as Sacramento, Memphis, and OKC. And to a point, you hurt the competitive viability of those markets; given similar dollars, would a marquee player choose a world-class city on the coast? Or a town that's far more likely to look forward to college football scrimmage games than an NBA contest.

(Can my bias be any more apparent?)

No, but at least you admit it. Gotta respect that.

I have a problem with certain markets being abandoned because they refused to be taken for hundreds of millions of dollars.

I also think it's a bit simplistic to assume that just because their is but a single pro sports franchise in a particular market that said franchise's financial viability is assured. OKC did a good job in supporting the Hornets, but I'm still worried about the long term prospects. Everyone knew that it was a temporary situation. Hell, the full-court press was on from the jump. The community and basketball fan base knew they had a "trial run" and did well with their opportunity to show the NBA what they were made of, but will the novelty eventually wear off in a non-pro sports town? I don't even claim to know the answer so please don't take it as a criticism of OKC. I had the same concerns about Norfolk when there was talk of moving the Expos to that area and I will have an even greater concern when the talk heats up about putting a MLB or NBA franchise in Vegas.

[Ez Street]

flyover country

Sorry, but that term is the epitome of ignorance.

I'm not claiming OKC is as "great" as Seattle, but to dismiss an area of the country as "Flyover" (as if it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things) is ridiculous.

That term unfactual.

[DEAD!]

flyover country

Sorry, but that term is the epitome of ignorance.

I'm not claiming OKC is as "great" as Seattle, but to dismiss an area of the country as "Flyover" (as if it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things) is ridiculous.

That term unfactual.

Ok... what about "drive by"?

[mfoster]

EZ's just upset cause he's adjacent to another major league flyover market, one that sabermetric genius Bill James once said "has a world class inferiority complex." I don't blame him, as I grew up there and agree that the generic flyover comments from the coasts is a load of crap.

I haven't lived in OKC since 2000. Sure, it's a nice place to live, but has those quirky provincial flyover idiosyncrasies that drive some of us nuts. I left not because of that, but because there was better job prospects in DFW (which is nearly twice the population of ALL or Oklahoma, BTW). Then there's what celebrities look like if they're in Oklahoma: http://www.wintrest.com/if-celebs-moved-to-oklahoma/

I just get tired of people who don't know what they are talking about. OKC went through the same crap in the NHL expansion. State has had pro hockey since the 1920s.

If I had my druthers, if I had to choose between OKC and KC I'd move back to Kansas City. Then again, Tampa's looking really nice right now (if Oren Koules can get his financing in order and get the Bolts bought)...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Part of the fun in using the word "flyover" is that it makes people crazy. It's a simple pleasure on my end, and I don't mean any harm by it. I lived in flyover country for two years -- it wasn't so bad.

The coasts are better though. By a lot.

[mfoster]

Part of the fun in using the word "flyover" is that it makes people crazy. It's a simple pleasure on my end, and I don't mean any harm by it. I lived in flyover country for two years -- it wasn't so bad.

The coasts are better though. By a lot.

Well now I'm in Fort Worth, which is more of a fly-through town...

[Ez Street]

Part of the fun in using the word "flyover" is that it makes people crazy. It's a simple pleasure on my end, and I don't mean any harm by it. I lived in flyover country for two years -- it wasn't so bad.

The coasts are better though. By a lot.

Classify better? J/K

Anyways, I'm not busting your chops per se, just the term in general.

Stuff like that gets old.

Hell, I am in no means claiming Kansas (or Flyover Central if you will) is better. I sure as hell know it's not the most ideal place for someone too chose.

But it's not an empty wasteland of insignificance...

[McCall]

Part of the fun in using the word "flyover" is that it makes people crazy. It's a simple pleasure on my end, and I don't mean any harm by it. I lived in flyover country for two years -- it wasn't so bad.

The coasts are better though. By a lot.

Classify better? J/K

Anyways, I'm not busting your chops per se, just the term in general.

Stuff like that gets old.

Hell, I am in no means claiming Kansas (or Flyover Central if you will) is better. I sure as hell know it's not the most ideal place for someone too chose.

But it's not an empty wasteland of insignificance...

If your referring to Kansas as flyover country, that's cool. Actually, it's more of "fly-the-hell-outta-here-as-fast-as-you-can-or-shoot-yourself-from-the-absolute-boring-wasteland-that-it-is" kind of country. If you're referring to the entire midwest, then we got a problem here. J/K

(Could I be any more of an obvious Missourian? )

[mania]

That's a good argument, but I think the prestige factor has to come into play as well. Sure, the NBA is the preeminent basketball organization in the world for the foreseeable future, but if they start cornering markets in the 25 to 50th largest cities in the US, doesn't that make the league look a little busch compared to the rest?

Should the NFL, for the same reasons, move out of Buffalo, Indianapolis, Green Bay, and New Orleans? 3 of those markets are at present smaller than OKC and Memphis, and Indy's not much bigger.

[KevinMcD]

That's a good argument, but I think the prestige factor has to come into play as well. Sure, the NBA is the preeminent basketball organization in the world for the foreseeable future, but if they start cornering markets in the 25 to 50th largest cities in the US, doesn't that make the league look a little busch compared to the rest?

Should the NFL, for the same reasons, move out of Buffalo, Indianapolis, Green Bay, and New Orleans? 3 of those markets are at present smaller than OKC and Memphis, and Indy's not much bigger.

But the NFL has been in all of those cities for decades. The NBA has been in Memphis for 5 years or so. They are moving out of one of the largest cities in the country for a smaller city in the middle of Oklahoma. However if NFL considered moving the Seahawks to Oklahoma City I believe that many people would complain too, just like they are now with the Sonics. Its about moving to those cities not keeping the teams there.

[mania]

the argument was that second tier markets make the league look second tier.

And, given time, the Oklahoma City (whatevers) could become a staple in the NBA much like smaller teams are in the NFL, like Green Bay and Buffalo (at least until Ralph Wilson dies).

[Gothamite]

The difference is that Buffalo and Green Bay are part of the foundation of the NFL. Those teams are woven throughout the very history of the league from its earliest days. That's their value to football, and it overcomes any other considerations such as market size. The League would never expand or relocate into either of those markets now.

I think the argument that "second tier markets make the league look second tier" is a pretty strong one. Not that it's necessarily a bad business plan - MLS seems to have mined them pretty well, and the NHL has decided that it'll work for them - but it is a sign that the NBA has decided not to compete directly with MLB and the NFL.

If the NBA abandons a market like Seattle without being able to immediately present an plan to replace the team, it speaks to the health of the sport. The NFL wasn't willing to let Seattle go. MLB wasn't willing to let Seattle go. If the NBA does (and I'm not yet convinced that they are), that'll tell us something.

[B-Rich]

A few points:

1) It's not like the NFL hasn't had occasions where franchise shifts were from larger metro areas to smaller ones. Houston Oilers to Nashville, TN comes to mind, as does Los Angeles' 2 franchises moving to St. Louis and Oakland. If you go back even further, there are two solid examples of a 'shaking out' of NFL/AFL franchises from a larger "double" market into a smaller markets (similar to what happened to baseball in the early fifties): Chicago Cardinals to St. Louis, Los Angeles Chargers to San Diego. And it's a bit different in scenario (two expansion teams vying for a newly pro city), but you could conceivably add Dallas Texans to Kansas City Chiefs along with those two.

2) Historically, the NBA has been an "entry" league for cities to gain "major league" status. Look at this list to see who first became a member of the 'big leagues' via the NBA:

- Seattle Supersonics (other than the 1-year run of the MLB Pilots, only team in town until Seahawks in 1976)

- Phoenix Suns (only team in town until NFL Cardinals arrived in 1988)

- Indiana Pacers (only team in town until Colts arrived in 1984)

- Charlotte Hornets (only team in town until Carolina Panthers arrived in 1995)

- Portland Trailblazers (still only team in town)

- Sacramento Kings (still only team in town)

- San Antonio Spurs (still only team in town)

- Utah Jazz (still only team in town)

- Orlando Magic (still only team in town)

- Memphis Grizzlies (still only team in town)

* Although they certainly weren't Milwaukee's first entry into the "big leagues", between 1968 and 1970 the Milwaukee Bucks were "the only game in town".

3) That being said, the NBA seems to be turning into a two-tier league: teams in big major markets (Chicago, Philly, 2 in metro NY, 2 in LA, etc.) and teams in smaller 'virgin' markets where they're the only game in town (Utah, OKC, Memphis, Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, etc.). Not that it is unbalanced on a competitive level. Interestingly enough, look at the presence of those 'smaller, only game in town' markets in championships-- Orlando, Utah, Portland, San Antonio have all been in (and sometimes won) championship series in the last 15 years or so.

This list, assuming on the Sonic franchise being in OKC, may show what I mean:

NBA teams in larger (3 or more teams) markets:

New York

New Jersey

LA Clippers

LA Lakers

Chicago

Philadelphia

Boston

Miami

Atlanta

Washington

Phoenix

Golden State

Dallas

Detroit

Minnesota

Denver

Toronto

Cleveland

Houston

NBA only game in town:

OKC

Memphis

Portland

Sacramento

San Antonio

Utah

Orlando

NBA team in mid (2 team) market:

Indiana

Charlotte

Milwaukee

New Orleans