Sign in to follow this  
rams80

Was letting the Hornets go back to New Orleans a good idea?

Recommended Posts

So anyway, in a rare attempt on my part not to completely threadjack a concepts post, I have decided to start a separate thread asking this question. As we are approaching the halfway point of the season, it is a good time to ask these questions.

The facts are this.

New Orleans has the best team (record wise) in the Western Conference at this moment (so the "this team is a dog" argument does not apply.

New Orleans' attendance average of 12,159 is good for 29th in the NBA. Their percent capacity of 70.7% full is 28th in the league.

New Orleans' attendance is 2500 below the baseline of 14,735 that was set as providing them an out in the lease after the 2008-2009 season. It is also roughly 2000 below their attendance averages the last two full seasons in New Orleans.

Sooo....is this going to work out, or are we going to see the Kansas City Hornets or Las Vegas Hornets in a couple of years?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and.....

Not feeling the unis and besides the hornets belong to NOLA and will end up staying.

uNI'S are terible and arttendence is growing in a city abandoned by that franchise for two years...go steal someone elses team.....

1) Your sentiment is quite hilarious considering how this franchise started out in Charlotte.

2) Going off of the official numbers....the Hornets are 29th in the NBA for attendance average at 12,159, 29th in total attendance, and 28th in percent of capacity. Unless they are seriously underreporting, I sense that the attendance isn't "growing". Bear in mind this is for a team that presently is on the top of its division, first in its Conference, and second in the league. If that's the best New Orleans can do for a team that good....perhaps you protest too much.

Oh...and its down from the last 2 years in New Orleans as well.

Talking with your internet courage you have no clue the leaps and bounds this community has made to get back on it's feet. The attendance has been growing and considering that we are a fickle people who watched "our team" play in another city for two years....oh and the fact that entire communities here were destroyed. Right we sold the several games last year...on weekends.... Next time you want to get courage when you type about the people of New Orleans or judging the "best" we can do feel free to come down here so I can educate you. I can't wait for Jim Haslett's stellar defense next year..

For the bolded sections.....This is a business! If the people in a market are too fickle to show up, and indeed have far more important things to do such as rebuilding their city, then the business should and will set up shop somewhere else. If the best you can do is well below 14,000 in the attendance department...the business is going to seek better opportunities elsewhere. That said....when it was "your team", it was 19th, 28th, and 30th in the attendance standings.

Oh...and if you want to drag up the NFL....37-29. @ New Orleans. Seems like Jim Haslett's defense was enough that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's last? The Knicks? ^_^

Seriously, though, I honestly can't provide a concrete answer to this. I'd like to think that since NO has been such a staple in Pro Sports(Well, at least the Saints and Jazz, but mostly Saints I guess), that the Hornets should stay there. However, you are right, it's a business. I know that the people down there are some of the best people you will ever meet, but if thy don't show up, rebuilding or not(though I think that's a pretty good excuse), the team loses money. However, the team only moved from Charlotte, what, 6 years ago? They must have seen something in the NO market to move there.

I certainly hope they stay. I think NOLA is deserving of this team, but the facts are, nobody's supporting them. All I can say is good luck, NOLA, but you're gonna have to turn it around fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's last? The Knicks? ^_^

Believe it or not, Indiana.

I will mention that it was fairly empty when I went to see a game there a couple of weeks ago. I guess that now that they traded away the "scary" African American players, the team isn't that good, and Indianans are too elitist to watch the team regularly. :rolleyes:

I've also heard the sentiment expressed that folks won't support the Pacers if the players keep making the news for the wrong reasons, which apparently they still do even after the trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons are still tied to Katrina, folks. New Orleans lost a tremendous amount of its population and wealth, and a lot of the people representing that sector of the city simply didn't return for one reason or another. Depending on the reports you read, anywhere from 10% to half of the city's population hasn't moved back even now. That's a big chunk of any city, and I'm not at all surprised it'd have an impact on attendance figures. People who live there have bigger fish to fry at the moment. They'll be back, but there are other things that need to be addressed as a community first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the team should stay, even if it might be bad for business. The city has gone through too much and are not deserving to lose their NBA as well. If the hornets go, wouldnt NO be one of the biggest cities with only one pro sports team?

Who's last? The Knicks? ^_^

Believe it or not, Indiana.

I will mention that it was fairly empty when I went to see a game there a couple of weeks ago. I guess that now that they traded away the "scary" African American players, the team isn't that good, and Indianans are too elitist to watch the team regularly. :rolleyes:

I've also heard the sentiment expressed that folks won't support the Pacers if the players keep making the news for the wrong reasons, which apparently they still do even after the trades.

You have just started a brand new topic. We were reading an article in my English class about how teams were 'whitening' their rosters, and the Pacers were a prime example. Needless to say, they still have found ways to get into the news in stories that dont involve basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who's last? The Knicks? ^_^

Believe it or not, Indiana.

I will mention that it was fairly empty when I went to see a game there a couple of weeks ago. I guess that now that they traded away the "scary" African American players, the team isn't that good, and Indianans are too elitist to watch the team regularly. :rolleyes:

I've also heard the sentiment expressed that folks won't support the Pacers if the players keep making the news for the wrong reasons, which apparently they still do even after the trades.

It's 'Hoosiers'. People from Indiana are called 'Hoosiers'. Not just the ones who represent Indiana University. All of them. ^_^

And I don't attend Pacers games because they suck. Well, that and the fact that I live almost two hours away from Indy. If I lived closer, I'd probably go, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the team should stay, even if it might be bad for business. The city has gone through too much and are not deserving to lose their NBA as well. If the hornets go, wouldnt NO be one of the biggest cities with only one pro sports team?

Portland, Sacramento, Orlando, and San Antonio all have roughly a million more in their statistical metro area.

For some weird reason San Jose gets it's own metro area, and is larger. Columbus, Jacksonville, Memphis, OKC (for the purposes of this thread), and Salt Lake City (barely, but still) is bigger. Shoot....Birmingham's bigger.

Indeed, only Raleigh and Green Bay (duh) are smaller markets.

So in other words....no.

Yes they only have 100,000 fewer people than Buffalo-but there are rumors that the Bills may just move to Toronto or someplace else once Ralph Wilson dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense, but from a core-population and corporate-base standpoint, New Orleans was a borderline major professional sports market before the Katrina tragedy. The 2006 United States Census figures indicate that the New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa Metro Area lost nearly a quarter of its population (- 22.17% to be precise). Corporate presence mirrored that decline. There is no telling when - or, if - the entirety of the displaced population will return to the area. That is not a recipe for modern major-pro sports success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please get away from the sympathy card when making this argument? I'm getting sick of always hearing "they deserve a team" or "don't take them away! That would be unpatriotic and mean!" The bottom line is that the attendance figures don't lie, and there's no way that the city is viable as an NBA market. The Saints are a different story, since you're comparing a team with an 8 game home schedule to one with a 41 game home schedule. The bottom line is that you can't expect a team to wait around, losing money due to some civic duty. Oklahoma City showed that they would support a team, selling out games even though they knew that the move was temporary. Plus, any sellouts in NOLA last season are irrelevant, since there were only select games played there, and not an entire schedule. So, if we would just look at this without getting all emotional, it's clear that a move is the only logical choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No offense, but from a core-population and corporate-base standpoint, New Orleans was a borderline major professional sports market before the Katrina tragedy. The 2006 United States Census figures indicate that the New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa Metro Area lost nearly a quarter of its population (- 22.17% to be precise). Corporate presence mirrored that decline. There is no telling when - or, if - the entirety of the displaced population will return to the area. That is not a recipe for modern major-pro sports success.

I spoke with a head of a fairly large telecom firm that's based in Mandeville (on the other side of Lake Pontchartrain for those unfamiliar with the area) and based on his work and the word on the street, the folks who are back are all that's coming back, 30 months afterward. That doesn't include who may be moving out over the next couple of years. As he put it, half of the city's area will never return to pre-August 2005 development levels (Granted, that's the famous/infamous Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East, areas that weren't exactly cutting edge before then) because there is no incentive to redevelop there. Keeping that in mind, why try to keep a team in a city that in its current economic condition (regardless of the reasons behind said conditions) simply can not support it?

For the record, I have no clue how this hasn't hit the press, but ChevronTexaco bought a 400 acre piece of land just north of I-10 in the Lafayette area about 90 days ago. A corporation like ChevronTexaco doesn't just buy 400 acres that close to urban development and major transportation arteries for no apparent reason.

-----

Regarding the Hornets, if I was running the Hornets, I'd have it in writing with Oklahoma City officials that the day after the NBA's imposed deadline for attendance growth passes, the team is on the move to OKC. The city welcomed them with open arms and supported them all that time knowing that thy would move back. Personally, the best reward for such hospitality would be giving them the team, rather than Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say move them. Since the area is in a detrimental decline in population and it looks like they're not going to get back most of the people who lived there before. Move it to an area like OKC(if Sonics do not) or a viable market where this team can thrive. If people do not go to games the team cannot survive. Reasons why most teams move in the first place. Economic purposes just make the situation worse. Move the team to make the team better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding the Hornets, if I was running the Hornets, I'd have it in writing with Oklahoma City officials that the day after the NBA's imposed deadline for attendance growth passes, the team is on the move to OKC. The city welcomed them with open arms and supported them all that time knowing that thy would move back. Personally, the best reward for such hospitality would be giving them the team, rather than Seattle.

Barring a major development in Seattle, the SuperSonics have the inside track on a move to Oklahoma City. After all, the fact that SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett is an Oklahoma City native is going to trump the fact that the Hornets played 71 NBA games in OKC.

That said, Anschutz Entertainment Group is still looking for an anchor tenant for Kansas City's 18,500-seat, state-of-the-art Sprint Center. Unless a major miracle takes place regarding the Hornets' attendance in New Orleans, I'm sure that George Shinn would be more than amenable to discussing a relocation to Missouri.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think New Orleans should have EVER been considered a viable market for an NBA franchise - before Katrina. This really has nothing to do with corporate support or who's left the city or any of that. It's proven to be a football-first region, and basketball was never a big draw - before the whole hurricane and flood and when the newness of the franchise was still there.

All they had was a spankin-new arena that was sittin' empty. Shinn needed a quick exit, and lo and behold, there it was. It was the same thing the T-Wolves were going to do with they were (almost) sold to the Bob Arum consortium.

New Orleans was like the Tampa region was for baseball - a leverage piece for teams angling for new deals in their respective cities, and wholly mediocre as a market when they finally do land their team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad the NBA can't get rid owners instead of moving teams. George Shinn needs to go.

In the not to distant future (speculation):

Seattle to Oklahoma City

New Orleans to Kansas City

Sacramento to Las Vegas

Memphis to ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So anyway, in a rare attempt on my part not to completely threadjack a concepts post, I have decided to start a separate thread asking this question. As we are approaching the halfway point of the season, it is a good time to ask these questions.

The facts are this.

New Orleans has the best team (record wise) in the Western Conference at this moment (so the "this team is a dog" argument does not apply.

New Orleans' attendance average of 12,159 is good for 29th in the NBA. Their percent capacity of 70.7% full is 28th in the league.

New Orleans' attendance is 2500 below the baseline of 14,735 that was set as providing them an out in the lease after the 2008-2009 season. It is also roughly 2000 below their attendance averages the last two full seasons in New Orleans.

Sooo....is this going to work out, or are we going to see the Kansas City Hornets or Las Vegas Hornets in a couple of years?

Yea, but are they losing money? That's really what it comes down to. Also isn't really New Orleans owner that makes the decision. If he's not losing money nor thinks he could do better in any other market, why would he move?

It's too bad the NBA can't get rid owners instead of moving teams. George Shinn needs to go.

In the not to distant future (speculation):

Seattle to Oklahoma City

New Orleans to Kansas City

Sacramento to Las Vegas

Memphis to ?????

Baltimore is supposed to approve a plan for a new arena this spring. Right now its unsure how big it will be. Ed Hale, the owner of First Mariner Bank and the Baltimore Blast minor league indoor soccer team (current tenants of the Baltimore Arena), claims that we will never be able to attract a NBA and/or NHL team so we should just build an arena with a capacity of 15,000 (I think he may just be saying that so his soccer team will be the main tenants of a new arena). There is also a concern that not enough luxury suites will be sold to local business if a "major league" arena is built. Anyway, I would think we'd move pretty high up the list if we had a place big enough for a team to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's too bad the NBA can't get rid owners instead of moving teams. George Shinn needs to go.

In the not to distant future (speculation):

Seattle to Oklahoma City

New Orleans to Kansas City

Sacramento to Las Vegas

Memphis to ?????

As crazy it sounds, from what I've heard about the popularity of basketball there, how about Vancouver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBA basketball failed in Vancouver already, why try again especially with the same team that originated in Vancouver?

If anywhere, I would think Memphis moves to St. Louis or maybe Cincinnati. I know it's a stretch, but hey why not?

As for the topic in hand: BaltimoreFan is right. Are they losing money in New Orleans? If not, then unless attendence has fallen to crap, then there is no reason to move this team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBA basketball failed in Vancouver already, why try again especially with the same team that originated in Vancouver?

If anywhere, I would think Memphis moves to St. Louis or maybe Cincinnati. I know it's a stretch, but hey why not?

As for the topic in hand: BaltimoreFan is right. Are they losing money in New Orleans? If not, then unless attendence has fallen to crap, then there is no reason to move this team.

I'm not sure about the money thing, but IIRC Shinn only went back to New Orleans this year because 1) he legally had to under the lease, 2) Stern laid on him real hard about it being "the right thing to do" under the circumstances.

That said, given the general state of the New Orleans economy, and their attendance, I doubt he's making money.

Oh....and keep the Grizzlies in Memphis, or at least out of St. Louis. The city has enough trouble trying to support the 3 teams it has now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that the Hornets shouldn't have moved back to New Orleans full-time. They should've played 30 home games in Oklahoma city, and 11 in New Orleans. The city of New Orleans just can't support a team over the course of an extended season, unlike the NFL which has only 8 home games. I think that they should've eased back into the market, but that's impossible now, as is moving back to Oklahoma City (Sonics are going to move there).

Personally I see the Hornets moving to St. Louis or Kansas City, the Sonics moving to Oklahoma City, and the Kings moving to Las Vegas. Memphis will probably move over to Nashville, or at least that's what I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this