# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Tulsa & Suburbs >  Tulsa hates you.

## CuatrodeMayo

I like Tulsa.   It's a nice city with a impressive skyline in a scenic landscape.  However, Tulsans in general have been fairly snobby regarding their more blue-collar big sister down the pike.  But ever since OKC has experienced it's renaissance, man Tulsans turned up the negativity about our fair city.  

Now the NBA will be permanently locating in OKC, and much to the chagrin of Tulsa, bearing the name of our city.

TulsaNow Forum - Let's Name the Oklahoma NBA Team!

Funny stuff

----------


## OKCMallen

Gawd those people irritate the crap out of me.  They're about as delusional as the Seattle forums.

----------


## sroberts24

hahaha, sounds like a lot of jealousy... i don't know why they have a problem with it, its our tax dollars, we are the bigger city... and as far as i'm concerned, the ones who are bitching about it (which are a vocal minority) we don't need or want their support, b/c they will be the first ones to jump ship when things look bad!

keep bitching tulsa!  (not all you guys, just the minorty that is)

----------


## sgt. pepper

OKC tulsalittlesisters???????
ford center in the middle of bricktown??????????
these people are stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!!!!
i have never seen so many jealous cry babies!
ha ha ha ha
get over it you bunch of okc wanta be's
lets name the team the OKC oilers....tulsa would love that.

----------


## traxx

I guess I'll never understand why they feel they're in competition with OKC.  Don't they understand that what's good for OKC is good for the state and what's good for the state will ultimately be good for them.  We're all in the same state!  But instead of acting like Oklahomans they're acting like misplaced Seattlites (if that's the word).

----------


## OKCMallen

They always wished they were in the South and we were in the Midwest.  It's just like when southern states complaining about the classless, barbaric, industrial northern states mainly because they got their collective ass whipped in the Civil War.  Same principle here.

And if we're stealing one of their team names: the Drillers.  :Smile:

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

We could always make their D-league our farm team.

----------


## OKCMallen

I think they did do that, actually, Cuatro

----------


## sgt. pepper

i heard something about them getting some kind of minor basketball team and the name will be the 66'ers

----------


## progressiveboy

As a former resident and native of OKC I am proud of the accomplishments that OKC continues to make. It really is quite obvious that Tulsa is jealous of our sucess in so many areas. OKC is more metropolitan, better airport, much better zoo, more things to do. It is also the state hub of government and is the capital of OK so Tulsa suffers from capital envy!! However, in Tulsa's defense, it is much more greener and hilly than OKC. Tulsa is more cleaner. OKC needs to step up to the plate and clean up its city. OKC has made great strides in cleaning up downtown and midtown, however, the rest of the city for the most part is very outdated and not so clean. It is time for OKC to clean up all over city wide and get rid of the numerous slum lords that abound there. After all, what makes a city is it's people. People in OKC either want a clean city or a dirty city. Which one will it be? The choice is yours!!!

----------


## UnFrSaKn

According to someone, this thread was created by 'insulted OKCers'.

----------


## Karried

We can't really blame them for being a little envious can we? 

Our headlines are screaming 

"OKC - We Did It" and "NBA Coming to OKC!" 

Their's are screaming: 

"Dog Sex Tapes Lead to Arrest in Tulsa"

"TV Anchorman Gets Arrested DUI - Tulsa" 

Anyway, we shouldn't be too hard on them... I hope they can come down and see some games and enjoy the team.

----------


## OKCMallen

> According to someone, this thread was created by 'insulted OKCers'.


I didn't create the thread, but I'm insulted.  Having lived in Tulsa, I experienced this attitude firsthand.  Trust me, not everyone being derogatory in their thread is joking or typing tongue-in-cheek.  Some of them really do want things to do poorly here.

----------


## bigjkt405

> I didn't create the thread, but I'm insulted.  Having lived in Tulsa, I experienced this attitude firsthand.  Trust me, not everyone being derogatory in their thread is joking or typing tongue-in-cheek.  Some of them really do want things to do poorly here.


I usually stay out of these type of threads, but this is the truth.  I am born and raised in OKC, but lived for 3 years in Tulsa before moving back here in 2006.  It was hilarious, but frustrating to hear the attitude from some Tulsans....

----------


## FFLady

Funny stuff.......Oh SNAP - the OKC Noodlers???? 

AS IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

**

----------


## sroberts24

tulsa has little man syndrome, haha

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I really have mixed feelings about getting an NBA team. So much negativity to be all that pumped up about it. Seattleites call us collective thieves (the whole state), the national sports media thinks the team is a joke and Tulsans are jealous and trash talk the city. There's too much division surrounding the whole thing.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

But isn't Tulsa (well actually just outside Tulsa) getting a giant Indian statue? Is anyone here going to be jealous of that? Does anyone here even know about it?

----------


## BabyBoomerSooner

We "got the girl", so to speak, and Tulsa and Seattle are both trying to figure out how a "guy like us" could score when they couldn't.  Consider it a compliment!

----------


## bigjkt405

They can have the statue..... I'll take the Cultural Center....

----------


## BFizzy

If Tulsa had gotten an NBA team instead of OKC, I'm sure OKC forum members would have posted equally ridiculous remarks.

Both cities are great in different ways.  Both cities have people that make ridiculous statements.

----------


## jbrown84

> Tulsa is more cleaner. OKC needs to step up to the plate and clean up its city. OKC has made great strides in cleaning up downtown and midtown, however, the rest of the city for the most part is very outdated and not so clean. It is time for OKC to clean up all over city wide and get rid of the numerous slum lords that abound there. After all, what makes a city is it's people. People in OKC either want a clean city or a dirty city.


I have to disagree.  Both cities have slums.  Have you ever been to North Tulsa?

----------


## AFCM

Man, if Tulsa had half the leadership OKC has enjoyed recently, they'd be the jewel of the Great Plains.  Tulsa has so much natural and structural beauty to offer, but the city leaders are too busy looking down on others to learn from their success.  I really hope Tulsa gets it together.  I'm not bashing them in any way.  I really do want to see Tulsa mirror OKC's accomplishments.

----------


## circuitboard

I was born and raised in Tulsa, I will tell you, this is majority opinion of most Tulsans. Everytime I go back to visit, people still ask me when I am going to move away from the ghetto and come back to Tulsa. I look at them and say, umm when Tulsa actually has something to do, besides Church. TULSA is DEAD everytime I visit.....it is quite sad.

----------


## AFCM

> I have to disagree.  Both cities have slums.  Have you ever been to North Tulsa?


...but, Tulsa's slums are contained within a geographical area while OKC's are scattered in pockets throughout.  I don't know which problem I'd rather have, but at least they can get away from their crapholes.  The minute I hit paradise in OKC, I know a landfill is just around the corner.  Sometimes, I don't understand how two completely different styles can coexist so closely together.

----------


## BDP

> I'm sure OKC forum members would have posted equally ridiculous remarks.


True that.




> Both cities are great in different ways.


Both cities aren't that different, really, at least not when compared to most other cities. Tulsa's prettier, but in terms of economy, stuff to do, quality of life, cuture etc., it's hard to tell them apart, imo.




> Both cities have people that make ridiculous statements.


Especially in their respective internet forums.




> Man, if Tulsa had half the leadership OKC has enjoyed recently, they'd be the jewel of the Great Plains. Tulsa has so much natural and structural beauty to offer, but the city leaders are too busy looking down on others to learn from their success. I really hope Tulsa gets it together. I'm not bashing them in any way. I really do want to see Tulsa mirror OKC's accomplishments.


Agreed.

----------


## solitude

I agree with all of your comments, BDP.

As for Tulsa city leaders, they also have suburbs to actually compete with. I mean - _really_, not in the way Edmond "competes," with OKC. The Tulsa burbs are pro-active in so many ways that force Tulsa into making tough choices and sometimes without the backing of the public because of the, "it's all Tulsa," attitude. The many Tulsans I know don't care whether it's in Broken Arrow or Jenks or wherever -- it's "all Tulsa." But unfortunately, when it comes to financing Tulsa _proper_ that attitude backfires.

Tulsa is a great city in many ways. So is Oklahoma City. Tulsa is a better city in some ways - Oklahoma City is better in others. We should all feel good to have two great cities in our state.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

"AgentOrange
Newbie


Posted - 07/07/2008 :  15:46:11  Show Profile  Send Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm sure OKC boards would LOVE to hear this discussion...they think Tulsans are a bunch of *jealous* stuck-up snobs."

Well, I think this guy just picked his own nose!  They're smart too!!

----------


## roboticbrad

I'm a Tulsan and I'm just excited about OKC getting a team as you are. The same goes for every Tulsan I've talked to. I hate this stupid Tulsa vs OKC rivalry. I think majority of Tulsans (including myself) have nothing against OKC and vice versa.

----------


## Saberman

> We could always make their D-league our farm team.


The 66ers have been in Tulsa for several years, they were just made the D-Leage team for Oklahoma City in the last few of weeks.  We also share them with a couple of other NBA teams

----------


## UnFrSaKn

_Sonic Skeptics_

NewsOK.tv

Oh, here's a look at the jerseys.

ESPN - Stripped of Sonics colors, logo, OKC starts over in summer league - NBA

----------


## MsProudSooner

I've lived in Tulsa since 1969, but I'm originally from western OK.  I've lived in both cities.  I like Tulsa, but if my job allowed, I would be living in OKC or Norman.

You have to understand some things about many Tulsans.  For many, many years, Tulsa was considered by many to be the 'elite' city in Oklahoma - if they thought we had one at all.  They had great public schools through the 1950's and 1960's and Tulsans generally considered their city to be much better in every way than Oklahoma City.  Over the past 13 years Oklahoma City has benefited from some leaders who had vision and were able to convince the voters to support their vision at the polls.  During the same time frame, Tulsa has had little or no leadership or vision.  Most Tulsans didn't even realize how OKC was forging ahead of them until the last 5 years or so.  Too many had the attitude that Tulsa was 'prettier' than OKC, so they didn't need to do anything to improve their city - especially if it was going to cost them any money.  I think the truth began to dawn when Tulsa could no longer attract big concerts etc.  Now, they find themselves many years behind OKC, who is competing with Dallas and Kansas City for concerts, professional sports and Big XII events.

I think that most Tulsans are excited about the NBA coming to Oklahoma.  They might be a little jealous, but if they are smart, they are getting ready to support whatever needs to be done to improve Tulsa.

My only reservation is how the NBA will impact the Sooners.  Sooner fans, if there is a scheduling conflict, head to LNC or give your tickets to someone who will use them!

----------


## HOT ROD

I think there is enough people to support OU Basketball and Oklahoma City's NBA team. I mean, this isn't Lawrence KS you know - OKC does have over 1.3M people in its metro.

And Im sure OU can work around days when OKC __ is hosting a game downtown. That's the way it WAS here in Seattle, the UW made it's games as opposite of the former Sonics as possible.

Just imagine how MUCH BETTER Oklahoma City is going to be now that there's a permanent NBA team!!! Talk about having stuff to do... And the team is JUSt the beginning - major league sports brings lots of incidental benefits to a city.

The NBA is JUST the Beginning! Get ready OKC.

----------


## windowphobe

The 66ers (which, incidentally, migrated from the East Coast) are affiliated with the Bucks and with the OKC Team To Be Named Later.

And this fall, they apparently won't be playing in Tulsa; they'll be in Bixby.  Let 'em complain about that.

Tulsa World: 66ers likely moving to Bixby arena

----------


## Pete

MsProudSooner is exactly right.

I was in college in the late 70's and early 80's and was surrounded by Tulsa kids that constantly looked down their nose at OKC and took every opportunity to claim superiority.

And now they are having a very hard time dealing with the fact that OKC has passed them up and moved on to another level.  I also think that most there realize they don't have the proper leadership and therefore don't necessarily believe they will be closing the gap any time soon.


There will always be competition between the two towns and that's a good thing in many ways, a little internet rhetoric and hyperbole notwithstanding.

----------


## bornhere

They'll learn to fear us after they see our mighty, throbbing, erect chrome-plated observation tower.

----------


## jbrown84

> ESPN - Stripped of Sonics colors, logo, OKC starts over in summer league - NBA


I have to say, that is the first time I've read an article where the team was called Oklahoma City.  It was rather nice.  And it seems the national media is already over the Sonics drama.  Time for everyone but Seattle to move on.

----------


## soonerfever

I actually ran across this thread over the weekend and thought about posting it.  I read a lot on TulsaNow.  It is much like this site which is very informative.  You know for the longest time I couldn't stand OKC and never even wanted to visit the city.  I grew up just south of Tulsa and it seemed so much nicer and cleaner.  This was during the 80's and we all know what OKC looked like back then.  Now that I have been living in the OKC metro for the past four years my mind has certainly changed.  I will always be partial to Tulsa just because I have found memories of visiting the city, but I will be the first to admit that OKC is running off and leaving them.  OKC has been very fortunate to have people in powerful positions that want to make things better.  I think what many Tulsans are upset about is that Tulsa has reigned supreme in the state pretty much since state hood.  While Tulsa is improving it has been passed by OKC.  Everyone hates to lose the top spot.  Tulsa will probably always be the prettiest of the two cities and probably the cleanest.  Tulsa is currently working on a project that will bring the Drillers downtown.  If I am not mistaken they have already secured funding and have picked a location inside the downtown loop.  I always hate to see things like this.  I think it is bad for everyone.  Competition on the other hand is good.  Oklahoma is very fortunate to have two great cities.  There arent too many states that can say that.  Anyway that is just my opinion.

----------


## HOT ROD

I don't get why Tulsan's keep trying to portray that they are paying for things in OKC. 

They keep saying that the Tax breaks come from state coffers. Excuse me, the money doesn't currently exist. ... There are no NBA players in OK right now, so there's no money coming from them right now. The only thing the tax break does, is CAP the NEW Money that would come in. So, the state still gets some NEW money, just not as much.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. Oklahoma City (and I mean CITY) residents are paying for this team - through the temporary MAPS 2.5 tax and certainly OKC residents will make up the bulk of the daily attendance. OKC metro will make up MOST of the rest, then followed by Tulsa, then Wichita, then the rest of the state, then the region.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Tulsan's want to think of OKC as blue collar (when Tulsa has WAY more blue collar jobs than OKC, which is predominantly White Collar).

I also don't get why they think they should be entitled to some regular season games. In all honesty, I think having one reg game in Tulsa would be a great act of kindness for this first year, but it is not required nor should it be. In fact, I think having that as a permanent fixture actually does OKC more harm than good.

I definitely think Tulsa should get some preseason game(s), add Wichita as well - once they get their new arena. The Sonics used to have preseason games in Spokane, and Boise IIRC - so this explains why they had a large geography for their market. But nobody in Spokie or Boise mentioned that the Sonics should have a regular season game.

No doubt about it though, Tulsa should get at least one preseason home game; absolutely. Im thinking Lawton and/or Enid as well. I also think Wichita is a natural (you guys just may not realize how much wichita supports OKC now days), Ft. Smith or Amarillo are also possibilities. 

Of the 6 preseason games, I'd say Tulsa 2, Enid or Lawton 1, Wichita 1, Ft Smith or Amarillo 1, OKC 1 (and it should either be the first or last, not one in the middle). That should do fine to suffice our region and make sure there's support.

----------


## Pete

Even the "Tulsa is prettier" argument can be debated.

Certainly, when discussing the areas within the respective city limits, Tulsa has more hills and trees.

However, Edmond is every bit as nice as south Tulsa and certainly nicer than Broken Arrow, Jenks or Owasso.  Same can be said about Norman.

----------


## MsProudSooner

> I don't get why Tulsan's keep trying to portray that they are paying for things in OKC. 
> 
> They keep saying that the Tax breaks come from state coffers. Excuse me, the money doesn't currently exist. ... There are no NBA players in OK right now, so there's no money coming from them right now. The only thing the tax break does, is CAP the NEW Money that would come in. So, the state still gets some NEW money, just not as much.


That reminds me of another complaint I've read from Tulsans.  I've often heard some complain that they always get the short end of the stick from the State Legislature.  My reply is always that if that is true, they need to elect better legislators.

----------


## soonerfever

> No doubt about it though, Tulsa should get at least one preseason home game; absolutely. Im thinking Lawton and/or Enid as well. I also think Wichita is a natural (you guys just may not realize how much wichita supports OKC now days), Ft. Smith or Amarillo are also possibilities. 
> 
> Of the 6 preseason games, I'd say Tulsa 2, Enid or Lawton 1, Wichita 1, Ft Smith or Amarillo 1, OKC 1


Don't know about Fort Smith.  They would probably have to play at the Stubblefield Center at UA Fort Smith but I think it holds less than 5,000 people.  They might have better luck playing in Fayetteville at Bud Walton Arena which is about the same size as the Ford Center.  However I guess Lawton and Enid are in the same boat as Fort Smith.

----------


## Floyd

Hi.  I'm a Tulsa poster.  I know at least one of you from college (hey Mallen!).  Just thought I'd get in on the discussion and try to keep it good natured.  This is what I posted over there on the Tulsa board:




> Here's the opinion of a rabid sports fan as well as a Tulsa fan:
> 
> Sports are geographic. Club names are associated with geographic areas, and the geographic areas are where the fans generally come from. The old, established clubs have regional or national fans because they have history and tradition and people grew up watching them play and have an affinity for them.
> 
> Expansion franchises and franchises that move, more often than not, have to build a fan base from scratch. To help this, they seem (more often than not) to have chosen state names rather than city names, at least where it was available or made sense, and particularly in smaller markets. 
> 
> So in this case, the whole state pitches in to given them tax breaks, and the Commissioner suggests the team be named after the whole state, and the Tulsa mayor shows up to back up the OKC mayor. We're thinking, hey, looks like this really is a statewide effort. 
> 
> And then, inexplicably, once the team is secured Bennett and Cornett do a 180 and name the team after a city, and not the state--but expect the whole state to get on board. 
> ...


I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state.  I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended.  It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be."  Anyway, that's where the snark comes from.  It's not a jealousy issue--we are quite aware who has more population, who has more interstate highways, and who has more entertainment venues in the central business district.  

It's really comes down to the perception that Tulsa has been getting the short end of the stick pretty regularly lately, and when there was the chance to get together as a "Major League State," petty differences intervened at the last minute and submarined the whole thing.

I know the whole issue of "team name" might seem trivial, but then again, you have to realize, like Jerry Seinfeld says--all we're really rooting for is clothes.  So what those clothes say matters.  Think about it.

----------


## mecarr

The real difference between Tulsa and OKC is that Tulsa has a very active anti-tax base which stifles any sort of progressive legislation, hence, they are where they are. OKC on the other hand decided to invest in itself and it has paid dividends. Hopefully Tulsa heeds this as a lesson. 

I do have to hand it to Tulsa though, they do have a prettier environment with more greenry and trees. However, that's more to do with the environment than with the acutal people...

----------


## Thunder

Ford Center in the heart of Bricktown?

Quick, put the Tulsans back in grade school!

----------


## ddavidson8

Here's the number one reason why it should be the OKC _____s.  We voted for and passed a sales tax (more than once) to fund MAPS. All of that money was raised in OKC. Sure the sales tax was supported through tourism, but the average everyday OKC citizen contributed more money to this team than Tulsa can dream of.

Sorry to disappoint you. It's going to be the OKC something or others.

----------


## CrueJones

I am a Normanite.... and I was a BETA @ OU with Mallen.

I echo the sentiments of the poster above who stated what is good for one city is good for the other.  In fact I root for Tulsa/OKC/ENID/LAWTON/ANADARKO etc.... to all better themselves. What is good for anyone one of these places is good for the state.  Far too long have we been seen as a blemish and not a contributor.  The addition of this franchise will do wonders for the entire state...  

It will show people that we are an amazing state with the best people on the planet.  It will bring about a tremendous economic growth to the entire state (OKC immediately and then Tulsa soon after).  Our schools will become more respected, your houses will be worth more money, you won't have to driuve to Dallas to shop etc.... The impact will go along way.  I am terribly proud for the entire state of OKLAHOMA to have its first professional franchise.

Lastly, if this NBA team can be supported the next time an NHL team or dare I say MLB team is in available someplace like Tulsa may receive mention or serious consideration (which is an enourmous first step in the right direction).  Again, these advances begin and end in the immediate future with the OKC TBDS...

For the record... I too wanted "Oklahoma" as the location rather than OKC.  


Boomer Sooner.

----------


## HOT ROD

Guys, please dont get too caught up in the name of the team. I think it rightfully should be called Oklahoma City __ because OKC took all of the risk and tax. Sure, the state is contributing a tax break but that does not take from anything nor does it mean anyone else is paying for the team. Please understand this and let's move on.

This will be a state team. The Sonics were the state team of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and even Alaska; yet it was named Seattle. Ditto that for the Mariners and Seahawks - and add in Oregon for those teams. Yet, all teams based in Seattle are/were named SEATTLE ___.

I honestly think if we were to name the team Oklahoma ___ that it would interfere SIGNIFICANTLY with the University of Oklahoma (you know, OU SOONERS...), arguably a top 5 marketed football school and near top in most other sports as well. Face it, Oklahoma is a top NCAA brand. ... That's in fact nothing to be ashamed of - but you MUST recognize that.

Sure there are states used in major-league teams. But is Utah a top NCAA school? No. Is Indiana? Nope. Is Arizona? Sort-of but no. Minnesota? Heck no. The ONLY team I can think of that is a top school but also a major league name is Florida, and the Marlins are a very recent addition. But even Florida is not a top 5 NCAA football school year after year like OU is. This is why it works there but would NOT work here.

I can tell you, that OKC officials set out to get a major-league team with the sole purpose of 1) bring top entertainment to THE CITY and 2) bring a marketing vehicle for THE CITY to get exposure to the world. Oklahoma City officials took this risk and Oklahoma City taxpayers agreed and have fronted the bill (as was aformentioned). Portland did the same thing with their Trailblazers - despite that team being the ONLY major-league franchise in that state.

It doesn't have anything to do with city officials now strutting their stuff or whatever, not at all. It is they always wanted a team to make OKLAHOMA CITY better - and the ONLY way to do this is to wear the city's name. Don't be offended, most other cities do it as well.

I, for one, am hoping that Tulsa can get their act together and possibly get a MLS or even an AFL team for BOK. I honestly don't think NHL would work - as it would be weird to have NHL in Tulsa and CHL in OKC (yet OKC is the bigger draw). But if it were to happen, or regardless of what team Tulsa were to get - I'd expect them to use their name. It's their team.

And while Im on this note, I can not understand - for the life of me - why the NBA-DLeague team Tulsa 66ers are NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THE NEW BOK CENTER..... I can NOT understand this. What is going on in TULSA???? Do they just sit on their asses complaining and don't even take care of what they have??????? You have a new arena and yet you don't even seat your TOP ENTERTAINMENT DRAW there? 

Come on Tulsa guys, take care of YOUR house first - then worry about what others have. This is what OKC has done - and look at the benefits.

And sure, Tulsa will benefit by Oklahoma City's NBA team just like Tulsan's will support the team. But recognize that Tulsa will offer tangental support, not the prime support that OKC city residents will are and have. For this reason, I don't see any reason why the team shouldn't bear the name of it's owners - Oklahoma City.

Don't get mad.

----------


## soonerguru

I usually step up to defend Tulsa in such discussions, but I can honestly say that after spending a lot of time there on business during the last year, it is a city in decline. Pretty? Only midtown. Even parts of Southern Hills are getting run down. 

Don't kid yourselves, Tulsa has become much more of a blue-collar town than OKC. It is the strip bar capital of the world, a haven of crime, poor roads, and decrepit, rotting strip shopping centers. 

Utica Square is nice, and so is Brookside, but the vast majority of Tulsa is going downhill. 

And they shouldn't criticize us for sprawl, they are sprawling all the way to Muskogee. They have done nothing to improve their inner city, which is falling apart. 

They have one semi-decent downtown hotel and another one that has been a dump for years but is finally undergoing a modest renovation. They got all excited about a Residence Inn locating downtown.

They have less than 10 percent of the downtown housing we do.

When I was there a couple of weeks ago, I was reading with incredulity the bitterness and hostility displayed between their council members and mayor. They can't even come to agreement on road projects.

Tulsa is on life support right now.

----------


## onthestrip

> I honestly think if we were to name the team Oklahoma ___ that it would interfere SIGNIFICANTLY with the University of Oklahoma (you know, OU SOONERS...), arguably a top 5 marketed football school and near top in most other sports as well. Face it, Oklahoma is a top NCAA brand. ... That's in fact nothing to be ashamed of - but you MUST recognize that.


I dont really understand how the hell this would be true, or where this idea even came from.  What about Texas Rangers/Texas Longhorns.




> And while Im on this note, I can not understand - for the life of me - why the NBA-DLeague team Tulsa 66ers are NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THE NEW BOK CENTER..... I can NOT understand this. What is going on in TULSA???? Do they just sit on their asses complaining and don't even take care of what they have??????? You have a new arena and yet you don't even seat your TOP ENTERTAINMENT DRAW there? 
> 
> Come on Tulsa guys, take care of YOUR house first - then worry about what others have. This is what OKC has done - and look at the benefits.


None of those D-league teams play in big arenas.  They cant pay what is cost to use something like the BOK Arena.  And surely that cant be Tulsa's top entertainment draw, nobody goes to those D-league games.

----------


## Architect2010

Are you saying that they're moving to Bixby because they can't afford the BOK Center? Theres no other venue for them in Tulsa? Thats ridiculous.

Of course, I'm not saying that you are. Just asking.

Also. I think it should bear OKLAHOMA CITY. OKC has taken the brunt of this all. We are the ones that passed taxes, we are the one that really went for this. Sure, the rest of the state helped. But we did a majority of it by ourselves. It should be "Oklahoma City". And to think that other towns get mad because its not "Oklahoma" is stupid. We can't win for losing. Everyone should be glad that the capital of OKLAHOMA has a NBA Team. ONE OF OKLAHOMA CITIES just got a major league franchise, but you don't wanna support them because "City" is added onto Oklahoma. Its just plain ignorant.

----------


## soonerguru

I will be outraged if the team name does not begin with "Oklahoma" and end with "City." It would be the biggest squandering of international brand development this city ever did. I know we've shot ourselves in the foot repeatedly over the years, but I don't think the owners are dumb enough to pass this opportunity for OKC to grow in the public consciousness....at least I hope.

----------


## Pete

The "Oklahoma City" vs. "Oklahoma" thing has been settled for months.  The ownership group said the name will start with OKC, and it's already being called that in the summer league that started today.

----------


## HOT ROD

I know this Pete, I just don't know why some Tulsan's keep trying to pick on anything OKC to make themselves feel better.

And as for the Texas Longhorns vs. Texas Rangers - Texas has a HUGE brand that Oklahoma can Never have. You've heard of Texas - its like a whole other country. Well it's true.

In all honesty, I don't think of Texas Longhorns as a top 5 football draw like OU is. Top 10, sure - but not perinneal top 5.

Those two points being said, I think Texas is sort of like Florida - LOTS of people know those states and the cities inside (the major ones at least). So it doesn't matter whether the city uses the state name for those BIG states.

Oklahoma is NOT a big state. 4M people - yes. But Texas has how many times that? Florida has what 15M at least. ...

And like I said, I don't think Florida Gators or Texas Longhorns carry as much international prowess in the NCAA Football as OU Sooners does. I mean, aside from Notre Dame and USC, who are both private schools by the way, OU has got to be a NCAA Football program that almost everybody knows about, and thinks of highly.

I don't see Texas or Florida in the same league, sure they have good teams and recruitment - but OU has better, definitely in Football. So why destroy what 'little' name recognition Oklahoma has - especially when Oklahoma City is DYING for some recognition and went through hoops and hurdles of over 15 years to do so. ...

We tried the AFL, it was major-league but didn't get OKC anywhere. We tasted the NBA with the Hornets, and our second major-league team sealed the deal for OKC. The league also loved OKC, and that was BEFORE Tulsa was even mentioned.

Including Tulsa in the marketing of the team was icing on the cake - it was NOT what closed the deal though. What did was 1) Oklahoma City's metropolitan population (largest metro in the world without a pro team) 2) OKC doing well day in and out with the Hornets 3) Oklahoma City's humble nature (something Tulsan's need to learn about). OKC accepted and rallied behind a team that was most likely going to leave - just imagine how well OKC will support thier permanent team. Would Tulsa do the same? Or just use a team to add to their elitist attitude against OKC. ... 4) OKC has been through WAY MORE tragedy and turmoil than Tulsa (or probably any other major city really) YET OKC still has a growing economy that is the biggest in the state, has the most people and still rapidly growing, and is the centre of every economic and entertainment sector in the state (OK, Tulsa has ballet, but that's it).

Of course, people in OKC know this - so there's no need to brag. In fact, that is what sets OKC apart and more attractive than Tulsa; OKC doesn't have to brag.

Like I said, Humbleness and Action speaks much louder than HATE!

----------


## Dave Cook

To be honest, I've never understood this incessant hostility ('rivalry' as you call it) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. 

Oklahomans claim to be the nicest people in the country......but act like imbeciles in regards to their fine cities. 

And let's be honest.....we're talking about Oklahoma City and Tulsa, for Christ's sakes. Do people in North Dakota bicker between Fargo and Bismarck? Who cares!

Enjoy life.

----------


## dcsooner

I agree this supposed rivalry is ridiculous.  It does neither city justice and certainly continues to make the State look like the Hatfields and McCoys.  I was really pleased to see Tulsa leaders rally around the State team regardless of the name.  The citizenry of both cities would do well to follow suit and stop this petty feud and comparisons.

----------


## okcustu

yeah as far as the prettier argument goes I don't see it the art-deco buildings downtown are beautiful but the downtown closes at like 9. While utica area is nice its no better than Nichols hills and the Arkansasmight be a real river but how many regottas have they hosted?

----------


## AFCM

While I think the rivalry is taking a bitter direction, I think the unrest in Tulsa can finally lead to some changes for the better.  Tulsa is a city with a lot of potential.  Suppose they take a page out of OKC's book, assuming they can humble themselves enough to do so, they'll be on their way to putting up a fight as a regional powerhouse.

----------


## okcustu

> To be honest, I've never understood this incessant hostility ('rivalry' as you call it) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa. 
> 
> Oklahomans claim to be the nicest people in the country......but act like imbeciles in regards to their fine cities. 
> 
> And let's be honest.....we're talking about Oklahoma City and Tulsa, for Christ's sakes. Do people in North Dakota bicker between Fargo and Bismarck? Who cares!
> 
> Enjoy life.


Perhaps but the entire state is seeing a major renassiance and both cities want to have the spotlight. While we're all one there's real competition (Tulsa would've killed to have the Hornets and now the Sonics). Everytime there is a company or a restuarant/retail outpost looking to build one location in the state it breeds pride and jealousy. There be no infighting in ND but, nothing is happening there for them fight over

----------


## sgt. pepper

i just don't like how tulsa bad moths OKC, but they are always copying us. we get a bass pro, they get one. we get an arena, they get one. we get a downtown ballpark, they get one. we get a skyscraper, they will get one.

as far as tulsa being blessed with lots of green trees and hills, OKC can't do much about that now can we? i think OKC has done a good *#@ job over the last 100 years of turning a flat prarie field into what it is today.

----------


## TStheThird

The Tulsa vs. OKC rivalry is crazy.  It divides people almost as much as bedlam.  You can get on OU and OSU message boards and watch Tulsa and OKC go at it.  It is funny how certain topics can divide the most united people.

----------


## Pete

In fairness, the rivalry is only bitter on message boards and is somewhat the nature of Internet discourse, where everything is taken to the extreme and made personal.

In the real world, Tulsa politicians and leaders helped entertain the NBA selection committee and openly campaigned for OKC to get a team.  And also in the real world, plenty of people from Tulsa will come to town for NBA games and spend their money at local restaurants and hotels.

I think the average Tulsa citizen is glad to see OKC doing so well and the average person in the Metro hopes Tulsa can get their act together.

----------


## BDP

> I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state. I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended. It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be."


OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.

While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.

In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.

Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.

Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City. 

Now, you and others in Tulsa seem to be suggesting that that event completely undoes everything else the city of Oklahoma City, its local businesses, leadership, and tax payers have done over the past several years to the extent that you think it justifies demanding that the Oklahoma City owners not name the team after the city in which the team will play? You think that its petty that our current mayor felt that everything that had been done up to that point by those who went before him should be honored by the team being named after the city for which they worked? You are telling us that the tax breaks afforded by the expansion of an already in place tax break to include the NBA team along with the public appearance of your mayor and other Oklahomans matches the hundreds of millions of dollars invested, the financial risk taken, and the thousands of hours worked by Oklahoma City leaders, businessmen, and tax payers to get to this point? You now want to say that every once of support that your mayor, the Governor, and all the other respected Oklahomans pledged before the NBA relocation committee was contingent on the team NOT being named after Oklahoma City?? 

Now, seriously, who is being petty?

----------


## Jesseda

UMMM Thre really is no comparing tulsa with okc, okc has moe hands down.. It is sad that tulsa gets upset when we get something they dont have, but hey just think we now know for a fact other cities look up to us and are jealous, that should give okc something to feel proud of.. I rather have a top 50 city talking about us (even if it is out of jealousy) then not taking about us at all.. Wow seattle is jealous of us and tulsa whose next, okc is becoming the popular one lately it seems

----------


## sgt. pepper

> OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.
> 
> While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.
> 
> In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.
> 
> Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.
> 
> Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City. 
> ...


EXACTLY!

----------


## Swake2

I for one am very glad that Oklahoma City got a team. Its exciting and will do great things for your city. You want to name the team Oklahoma City, fine, that is what is best for Oklahoma City. But to do that while acting like its the states team and then going and grabbing between $60 and $100 million in state tax dollars for the team while some very basic needs are unmet in Tulsa and that changes everything.

Its not about the name, its about the money and disparity of state support.

Tulsa is the largest metro without non-toll interstate access (OKC has two)
Tulsa is the largest metro without a public four year college (OKC Metro has two)
Tulsa is the third largest without Amtrak access (OKC is about to add a second line)
Tulsa is the largest city without a public hospital, one has actually been offered to be donated but the deal cant be completed because the state wont provide any ongoing funding for operations (OKC has one of the largest in the nation)
Tulsas main interstate through the middle of the city is in middle of what was supposed a five year widening project that began in 1984, 24 years ago. There is currently no construction happening on the project and none scheduled so that funding could be moved to the Crosstown, despite the section that is still not done being called by ODOT the most dangerous stretch of highway in the state. The lowest rated major bridge in the state isnt the Crosstown, its the I-244 bridge in downtown Tulsa over the Arkansas river and no one is even talking about replacing that. 
Oklahoma City has the third highest percentage of government jobs of any metro in the nation, Tulsa is one of the lowest. Oklahoma City has more government jobs than the entire workforces of the capitals of Missouri and New Mexico and if you include indirect government employment you can also include Kansas in that list. Thats half the states surrounding Oklahoma.

I know some are going to claim that the state taxes going to the Sonics are new taxes, but thats false. These taxes are generated from entertainment spending that would have been spent somewhere in the Oklahoma economy. If you dont believe me, check out the Sonics own testimony about the impact of the team on the Seattle economy. That money was enough to bring Amtrak service to Tulsa, it was enough to fix the OSU Medical Center deal saving the OSU School of Medicine and ensuring that the state has enough rural doctors. It was almost enough money to complete funding for I-44 in Tulsa. But where did the money go? To pad the bottom line of the sport team owned by the son in law of the Gaylords. Its not jealousy you are seeing, its anger over very real needs not being met while the NBA is funding for OKC. 

I saw that Tulsa should be more humble and elect better representatives. Thats a great attitude. Oklahoma City reps fight Tulsa tooth and nail for everything and simply outnumber Tulsa reps. At some point its Oklahoma City that needs to wake up and see that supporting Tulsa is good for the state, because whats really happening is that Oklahoma City is succeeding due in no small part by using the state as its personal piggy bank. Oklahoma City gets funding from the state for luxuries like NBA teams and heritage centers while Tulsa goes without basic levels of state support for education, roads, health care and transportation.

----------


## Floyd

> OK, this seems to be the crux of the anti-Oklahoma City name argument. So, let's explore this a bit.
> 
> While your statement is factual as it applies to final steps of getting approval for relocation by the NBA BOG, it completely ignores the preceding 15 years of preparation that was done by the city of Oklahoma City which led to relocation of Supersonics to that city. Oklahoma City taxed itself to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to improve the city's core, which included both the building of the Ford Center, without which the Hornets never even would have come to Oklahoma, as well as its upcoming improvement AND the building of the practice facility. And while the Ford Center itself is the one thing the NBA could not do without, every other aspect of MAPS as it contributed to the improvement of life in the city has played a role as well in the elevation of the city to a point where it would be considered for such a prestigious organization.
> 
> In addition, it took a succession of several mayors, business leaders, city council members, and local Oklahoma City businesses years of courting the NHL and the NBA, while being passed up more than once, to get to the point where the city was the first thought when David Stern needed a temporary home for the Hornets. It was then the city that gave up a significant sales tax windfall by excusing the tax on the sale of Hornets tickets. People came from all over the state to those games and we did not tax them on those tickets.
> 
> Then it was a group of Oklahoma City businessmen that shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars more in purchasing costs, arena proposals, relocation fees, and legal fees to make it a reality. That fact alone should mitigate any beef anyone has with the naming of the team after the city in which they reside and in which it will play.
> 
> Then came the event to which you refer. The Governors, the mayor of Tulsa, and other important state leaders and personalities graciously came before the NBA's relocation committee and said they think it's a great thing for the state and that everyone in Oklahoma will play a part in supporting the team and making it work in Oklahoma City. 
> ...


You're justifiably proud of what your city has accomplished.  But don't get upset when Tulsans sees it as YOUR team, not OUR team.  There are two large cities in this state, and suddenly Tulsa feels treated like a suburb.  Folks were sure acting like Tulsa was very important to the effort to land the team, and this got Tulsans interested in said effort.  But then we realized it was just for expedience--so, you're welcome for our support in your efforts.  Enjoy your NBA team.  Hopefully there will be enough fans statewide to support it.

----------


## Pete

I doubt very seriously if any significant number of people will stay away from games because of the name of the team.

On the other hand, having "Oklahoma City" said and written thousands of times every time a game is played is priceless.

And since the state name is also part of the city name, the whole state benefits from that exposure as well.

----------


## okcpulse

> _--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Even the "Tulsa is prettier" argument can be debated.
> 
> Certainly, when discussing the areas within the respective city limits, Tulsa has more hills and trees.
> 
> However, Edmond is every bit as nice as south Tulsa and certainly nicer than Broken Arrow, Jenks or Owasso. Same can be said about Norman._


Personally, I feel that far northwest Oklahoma City blows the state away.  It is covered by lakes, a nature park, gorgeous real estate and the best views of downtown OKC and the sunset that no one in Oklahoma can compete with... except for Mt. Scott in the Wichitas.  But that is just my opinion.

Swake2, the state funding issue between OKC and Tulsa is a debate that can be thrown in every direction.  Looking at the big picture, OKC has the biggest grab of the pie.  But does Tulsa's dollars physically go to OKC banks to pay for our ongoing renaissance?  One could argue that rural Oklahoma pitches in for OKC's projects.  One could argue that OKC holds its own when it comes to the tax dollars the OKC metro generates for itself.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Swake, you have a good case.  I'm just saying it's good to approach this from other directions.  The best way to figure out where the money is really going is to do the following:

Research state and federal funding for the past 20 years (we need a good window) for OKC, Tulsa and rural Oklahoma.

Find out  how much state and federal taxes each area generated over the last 20 years.

Create per capita figures on each area based on taxes received.  Set a baseline and run the comparisons (I am writing an analysis tool for Windows that will do this on the fly and map the results).  

Only then can we physicaly see if Tulsa is getting more or less than it should vs. OKC.

That being said, I have to ask, Swake, where are Tulsa's reps?  Anytime the budget passes, I don't see them pitching a fit over any projects in OKC.  Why?

----------


## Karried

A side note, just got off the phone with my nephew who came to Tulsa a month ago.. he told me he can't take it and has a flight booked home to California on July 25th.  He said he likes OKC and Edmond but Tulsa is soooo boring.  I've never really been for more than a day but I thought that was sort of telling.

----------


## Swake2

Here's some numbers, these are Oklahoma Employment Commission numbers I looked up last year.

Oklahoma City metro had an estimated 2005 (the year I have both real job and population numbers) population of 1,156,812 with 574,800 people employed. But only 458,200 of those are employed privately outside of government. Non government service jobs for Oklahoma City were a shocking 383,300. Total government/service industry jobs were 499,300. Total government Jobs were 116,600. That leaves only 75,500 jobs in non-service or government jobs out of nearly 575,000 workers. That is your private business workforce. That also means that with contract jobs and employment roll-over, 60.7% of Oklahoma Citys jobs are directly or indirectly related to government. Thats a stunning  348,903 employed people.

As comparison, Tulsa (metro) has 887,715 estimated for 2005 with 417,400 people employed (in November 06). 374,200 people were privately employed with only 12,300 people employed by the federal or state governments, a mere fraction of Oklahoma City's total. With local government that makes for 55,500 government jobs. Non government service jobs for Tulsa was 297,400. Total government/service industry jobs were 352,900. Tulsa with only 77% of the population of Oklahoma City actually has more non-service jobs than OKC. Tulsa has 76,800 jobs in non-service or government jobs in November 06 compared to Oklahoma City's 75,500.

And then there's Tinker with approximately 27,000 military and civilian employees, Tinker is the largest single-site employer in Oklahoma. The installation has an annual statewide economic impact of $3.4 billion, creating an estimated 30, 865 secondary jobs.

These 30,685 secondary jobs arent even counted as government jobs, but they are outside support jobs and indirect employment of the base. So knock another 31,000 jobs out of Oklahoma Citys private industry total. That lowers direct private employment not in the service sector and not related to government from 75,500 jobs a minuscule 44,500 jobs compared to Tulsas 76,800.

So, of Oklahoma Citys 191,500 non service sector jobs 77% are supported by tax money. Compare that to Tulsas 120,000 non service sectors jobs with only 36% support by taxes.

Business are corporate taxes are going to follow the exact same pattern. Now you tell me which city is SUPPLYING the tax revenue for the state and which city SPENDING the tax revenue?

Oklahoma City has more people employed directly or indirectly by the state than Jefferson City Missouri has total residents, and Jefferson City is the capital of our neighbor to the northeast with twice as many people as Oklahoma.

Oklahoma City has more employees that rely on government (direct and indirect) than the entire workforce of Topeka Kansas, our neighbor to the north.

Oklahoma City has more state workers than the entire workforce of Santa Fe, NM, our neighbor to the west.

Add to that the fact the average income is 10-15% higher (with subsequent higher tax contribution) you tell me which city pays more (per-capita and overall) and which city gets much more tax money back. Even taking into account the capital being in Oklahoma City the disparity is egregious.

----------


## jbrown84

Topeka and Santa Fe are tiny cities.

----------


## Swake2

And yet they are the capitals of states that have only slightly smaller populations than Oklahoma

----------


## jbrown84

> And while Im on this note, I can not understand - for the life of me - why the NBA-DLeague team Tulsa 66ers are NOT GOING TO PLAY IN THE NEW BOK CENTER..... I can NOT understand this. What is going on in TULSA???? Do they just sit on their asses complaining and don't even take care of what they have??????? You have a new arena and yet you don't even seat your TOP ENTERTAINMENT DRAW there?


Wichita has the same problem.  They are building a downtown arena, but their arena football team will play in a new arena way out in the boonies on the north side.  There is not cooperation.

----------


## AFCM

Tinker, which has been in operation since 1941, has a lot to do with those figures.  Why fault OKC for decisions made at the federal level, especially when they benefit the surrounding communities so well?

Suppose BRAC helps Tinker gain more jobs.  Is that OKC's fault?  

I didn't favor the GM aquisition under the proposed vote, but here's something else to consider: Suppose, as a result of the GM aquisition, Tinker _does_  add more positions.  Wouldn't that be the effect of the OK county voting public?  

As for the state jobs, that's a different story.  All I can say is, be careful throwing Tinker around in those numbers.  The federal government chose the site over 60 years ago and OKC has embraced and supported the base in every way.  If, as a result of BRAC or the GM aquisition, Tinker does gain new jobs, it's not because the state is choosing OKC over Tulsa.

----------


## Swake2

Oklahoma City has sucked and grabbed every state and federal job and tax dollar that it possibly could. And continues to do so. In no other state are all state and federal jobs so concentrated in a single area. The only other cities that rival OKC are are Washington, which is not relevant and Charleston, WV which is much smaller and has been at the receiving end of an endless line of pork from Senate patriarch Robert Byrd.

----------


## Laramie

Tulsans are jealous, and they will just have to get over it!

----------


## Pete

And regarding Tinker, remember that OKC voters just agreed to tax themselves yet again to acquire the former GM plant and thus retain/create lots of government jobs.

The bottom line is that OKC continues to be proactive on all fronts.  That's a much more productive use of energy than worrying/complaining about other cities.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Uh oh...somebody better call the...


Sorry...couldn't resist.

----------


## Decious

I don't think that Tulsa hates OKC.  Is there a little jealousy regarding the NBA and such? Probably. Then again, that's just part of being human. I read the Tulsanow thread and that s*** isn't anywhere near as bad as the stuff I say about Texans during the fall months. Hell, one of my girlfriends is from Dallas! God bless Texas. Anyway. All in good fun if you ask me. Some of the comments may be laced with some existential venom but that's the issue of one individual and shouldn't be seen as the attitude of an entire city.

Any Tulsan who really believes that OKC metro residents give a rodent's behind about what goes on in Tulsa is delusional. People have a full enough plate dealing with their own lives. That includes voting via their convictions whether they be altruistic or selfish. I voted yes on Ford Center renovations because I wanted a damn team. I didn't consider Tulsa and don't feel that I should have. Tulsa has almost a million folk to worry about Tulsa. 

IOW I've never seen a hot girl at a club and thought to myself "Ooo I wanna get to know you better, but first lemme check the room and see if any of these other guys like you".  Mick Cornett's job was to get us a team.  He did a good job. Kathy Taylor's ambition is to better Tulsa and I for one think that she's doing a pretty good job. 

I don't think there is much sense in disputing the numbers that Swake laid out. He usually does good research and I'm sure that they're sound. I don't agree that state funding is the reason that Tulsa is in such dire straights because I don't think that Tulsa is in dire straights. You can't boast about all of the great attributes that Tulsa enjoys and then cry poor mouth. I agree that I-44 needs to be completed, but Tulsa citizens can't even agree on a way to improve their city streets. Some Tulsans feel that they were slighted in regards to the team moniker, but Tulsa's NBDL team was stolen by one of it's suburbs. You are what you are. Play the hand you're dealt. Everyone else has to.

The way I see it OKC has four of a kind and a wild card. The four of a kind is comprised of energy money, cost of living, the city government, and metro citizens. The wild card is the state.  Tulsa has the same hand save replacing the state w/ natural beauty. Unfortunately, they're all of a different suit. Mayor Taylor should fly in Rodney King to give a speech at the BOK Center. Tulsa keeps its "OKC would be nothing w/o our tax dollars" wild card in it's pocket and pulls it out whenever something good happens down here. IOW, Tulsa has all these bad ass endowments, but can't seem to put them all together into a winning hand. Oops...they are doing that with PLANiTULSA, but the Tulsa peanut gallery is already sabotaging it.

Tulsa's suburbs view Tulsa the same way that some Tulsans view OKC. That, more that anything, is what "holds Tulsa back". To see for yourself go to Tulsanow.org and read a while. While you're at it go to batesline.com.

----------


## AFCM

> Oklahoma City has sucked and grabbed every state and federal job and tax dollar that it possibly could.


As we/they should.  A city leader's objective is to fight to ensure their respective city comes out on top.  That's like a person from Kansas getting upset about Oklahoma leaders fighting for and landing federal dollars/jobs.  It's the same concept, just on a different echelon of government.

Back in the day, the railroad determined which city would survive or eventually become a ghost town.  The major cities we know today exist because those leaders did what it took to do what was best for their city.  Tulsa has been the beneficiary of similar consequences, so I guess other cities have the same gripe.

----------


## Swake2

Im not saying it was wrong for the state to support Tinker, but it is wrong to say it was just Oklahoma City buying the GM plant, $10 million in state taxes also went to Tinker:

State to help in purchase of GM plant

And to act as if Tulsa hasnt done anything for itself is to ignore the more than a billion dollars in new taxes and improvements that Tulsa has passed in just the last five years. Its way past time for the state to provide a more level playing field for support between the cities. The state needs to fund Amtrak service to Tulsa, needs to fund the OSU Medical Center, needs to fund I-44 widening and repairs to I-244, needs allow OSU Tulsa to offer any classes that the market will support and needs to remove the tolls from I-44 or at the least upgrade US-75 to be an Interstate between Tulsa and Dallas. 

Nice comments by the way, way to keep the level of the conversation up. Heres a name for the team, Oklahoma City Tax Hogs. Honestly thats a joke. I hope the team does well and I will probably go to a couple of games. I personally think its fine that the team is called Oklahoma City, I think if the team really wants Tulsa to support them then more important than the name would be to play a couple of regular season games in Tulsa. And you are going to need Tulsas support once you get that NBA ticket price sticker shock. The Hornets were at a discount. I dont think the Sonics will be. Go with the Barrons name too instead of something cheesy like Thunder or Boomers.

That said, Tulsa certainly needs more support from your side of the state because we really arent getting it.

----------


## traxx

Swake I've read your posts on these boards before and for the most part your usually pro tulsa and anti OKC.  It sounds like you just want to use the NBA issue to blame OKC for all the things that are wrong with Tulsa.

As far as the name of the team, I think it needs to be Oklahoma City.  And I don't say that to cut out Tulsa.  I like Tulsa, I think it's a cool city and I hope the best for it.  But I think naming the NBA team after the state reaks of smalltime.  It makes it sound like a college team.  The big cities and the good teams have teams named after them and not the state.  

Someone brought up the Texas Rangers earlier.  Compare that to the Dallas Cowboys.  The Rangers play like a college team and haven't won crap.  Have they ever been relevent?  The Cowboys have played in more Super Bowls than any other team and own 5 superbowl trophies and are considered one of the all-time best NFL teams.

Tulsa should go out and get them an MLB team and name it Tulsa something.  I'll support them and get to Tulsa when possible to see games.

----------


## AFCM

Read my posts from earlier regarding how I feel about Tulsa.  I agree Tulsa needs more support.  I would like to see Tulsa succeed like OKC, but I believe it has to start with the citizens and leadership of Tulsa, not OKC.

----------


## edcrunk

> That said, Tulsa certainly needs more support from your side of the state because we really arent getting it.


hmmmm... reaping what tulsa has sewn for years isn't fun, eh? perhaps if your city hadn't shat on okc for years... there'd be more incentive to lend some support.

----------


## OKC74

Having spent a lot of time in both cities, my opinion has done a complete 180 over the last several years.  I grew up in eastern Oklahoma, and we always thought going to Tulsa was the best!  We went there to shop, eat, and be entertained.  We never came to Oklahoma City...with the exception of maybe a time or two.  I knew nothing about it, but what I had heard, which was mostly negative because the people I was hearing it from were more familiar with Tulsa.  However, after attending OSU in Stillwater, and then spending more and more time in OKC before finally moving here in '98, I was able to form my OWN opinion.  I had an internship in Tulsa one summer, downtown, and I have to say that I was not at all impressed.  As was mentioned in a previous posting, it seems Tulsa's downtown closes at 9...if not EARLIER!  Can we say...6-ish...?  At any rate, after OSU I moved to OKC and have loved every minute of it.  What a turnaround a few years makes!  The couple of times I've been back to Tulsa in the last 10 years, I must say that it seemed FAR dirtier than what I remember from years past.  It's almost like the two cities did a flip-flop.  I bear no ill feelings toward Tulsa, but I agree with what's being said here...If you want to reap the benefits of things the way OKC has done, you have to get out and make it happen.  Sitting idly by and merely complaining that Tulsa feels inferior instead of doing something about it will get Tulsa nowhere fast.  I'm proud of OKC and all of its efforts to do the things we've done, and I feel we're entitled to every bit of success it brings!

----------


## sgt. pepper

> needs to fund I-44 widening and repairs to I-244,


i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?

----------


## BigTulsa

> i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?


Please make sure and READ what was said about 244.  We have no problems with width, it's the BRIDGE over the Arkansas that we have a problem with.

Land has been bought and cleared, but it's taken 10 years to get this done with dealing back and forth in OKC.  It should have been repaired/widened 10 years ago!

----------


## AFCM

Sgt, he mentioned the repairs to I-244, but not widening.

Out of curiosity, are you a current/former NCO or is it just a nickname?

----------


## sgt. pepper

just a Beatle fan :Smile:

----------


## AFCM

How did I miss that one?

----------


## Swake2

I-244 does not need to be widened, but it is literally descending into being a gravel road in many places. The bridge over the Arkansas is the lowest rated long span bridge in the state (actually its two bridges, one for each direction) and there are no plans on replacement. These two bridges are rated substantially worse than both the Crosstown and the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis. And the I-244 bridges on the inner loop downtown are rated even worse than that. There is a bridge that is a major downtown street over the highway that fire trucks based at the station next door are not allowed to use as they weigh too much.

As for I-44 there are promises of work and the residential buildings have been taken. But theres no schedule, theres not even a final design. Land that people would like to develop along the new highway cant be because the state doesnt even really have a design. It was five years from when the buildings on the Sheridan to Yale stretch were taken to when construction began on the Yale interchange. The interchange was done a year ago but this section still isnt done. Today its getting close to ten years since the buildings from Yale to Sheridan were taken and the section between the completed part at Sheridan and the new Yale interchange still isnt even STARTED. I heard maybe next year. Im not holding my breath. The interchange on US75 near my house has been due construction next year every year since 2003. Its on the ODOT schedule again for next year again, year six of being next year. 

In Tulsa you cant base a time line on construction on when the state starts removing buildings. You cant base it on the next years schedule either. Its so bad that on the other end of I-44 the Cherokee Nation is going to pay to rebuild the 193rd E Ave exit (where their Casino is) because the state wont, and the bridges on that end of I-44 regularly give way with holes all the way through the deck and traffic backs up on I-44 for miles to get to the Casino.

But that Crosstown certainly is chugging along, isn't it? Or was until the state was caught breaking the law by rushing things going over the rail-road.

----------


## OKCMallen

> i have family in tulsa and travel there more than i would like. imo, there is nothing wrong with I-244, it's already a 6-8 lane highway north of downtown. As far as I-44 is concerned, it most definitely needs to be widen, and it has been widen on the east side and i thought the widening of the south part is on it's way. I know land has been bought and cleared. Am i wrong?


Some of it will be difficult to widen, esp the elevted parts- there's just not much room in Tulsa at all to widen their interior streets.

----------


## okcustu

I'm still marveling at the stupidity of city planners let's ressttict downtown growth by sorrounding it on all sides with highway 
but again they've got us on art-deco architecture

----------


## sgt. pepper

> and the bridges on that end of I-44 regularly give way with holes all the way through the deck


OKCers...does this sound familiar?




> Some of it will be difficult to widen, esp the elevted parts- there's just not much room in Tulsa at all to widen their interior streets.


you're not a kiddin, that strech arong lewis, i think, is really narrow!...and it is always really busy with heavy traffic. i'm almost scared to drive thru it.

----------


## NativeOkie

I lived in both.
It is like SOONERS and cowboys.
One wins National Championships, Has nationwide name recognition, the other wants it and claims great victory when the beat you every decade or so.
I live now in California. Most have never heard of OSU they think you are talking about Ohio State. They KNOW who OU is. They can name things about OKC good and bad. They think of Tulsa as where Oral Roberts is from.
It is painful but it is the fact.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> I lived in both.
> It is like SOONERS and cowboys.
> One wins National Championships, Has nationwide name recognition, the other wants it and claims great victory when the beat you every decade or so.
> I live now in California. Most have never heard of OSU they think you are talking about Ohio State. They KNOW who OU is. They can name things about OKC good and bad. They think of Tulsa as where Oral Roberts is from.
> It is painful but it is the fact.


Hey Noob:

 :Backtotopic:  

As an OSU alum, I find that unecessary.  What does that have to do with this thread?

----------


## OKC74

Good point Cuatro - I was thinking the same thing!!   :Smile:

----------


## BDP

> You're justifiably proud of what your city has accomplished. But don't get upset when Tulsans sees it as YOUR team, not OUR team. There are two large cities in this state, and suddenly Tulsa feels treated like a suburb. Folks were sure acting like Tulsa was very important to the effort to land the team, and this got Tulsans interested in said effort. But then we realized it was just for expedience--so, you're welcome for our support in your efforts. Enjoy your NBA team. Hopefully there will be enough fans statewide to support it.


I wasn't trying to convey pride in what the city has done. I was just trying to show you how stupid and irrational it is that anyone would have any problem with the team being named after Oklahoma City given that it was by far contributions by people and leaders in Oklahoma City that made it happen, not to mention that IT'S WHERE THEY WILL BE PLAYING.

Will the rest of the state play a part in supporting the team? Of course it will. Just like the 100% of all teams named after a city draw from beyond that city's borders. It is important, but why, seriously, why does that mean it shouldn't be named after the city. How does that trump everything the city has done to put itself in a position to host the team? It just doesn't make any sense. And when you say "folks" were acting like Tulsa was important, you mean to say that Oklahomans from all over the state were pledging their support.

What's funny is that this is clearly not about the name of the team, because you can't justify it based on that. It's about highway funding, capitol jobs, and perceived favoritism from Oklahoma City, which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION ON WHAT TO NAME THE TEAM. It just doesn't. And for the tax thing, what's funny is that the same tax legislation is available to Tulsa and has been used for Tulsa companies. I didn't even agree with the expansion of the measure to include the team, but it is not in any way exclusive to that team and is sitting right there waiting and ready for Tulsa to use to lure its next big company with a fat payroll. Seriously, go ahead, use it and I promise not to demand that the company be named after the state, less I use their products or services, even if our mayor and Governor are used in the campaign to land that company. Sheesh.

----------


## Nawfside OKC

I'm Born and Raised in OKC. I Joined the U.S Air Force in 1998 i've been to great cities all around the world, but only been to tulsa twice. I went once for a rodeo another for a concert.  I went with a open mind but the only thing I could find is that their malls have more to offer than ours and they have a greener city other than that sorry OKlahoma City all the way...


p.s when the hornets relocated to OKC for those 2 seasons, and we actually got so caught up in them we thought that they were gonna stay or at least hoped they would did they call them the OKC/New Orleans Hornets  or the OKC/TUL/N.O Hornets ?

----------


## NativeOkie

Point taken Cuatro.
Bad example on  my part.
Was not taking a shot at OSU.
I was trying to give an outside the state perspective on the Tulsa OKC thing.
Better example would have been Dallas and Fort Worth.
Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Both of which are much closer.
than Tulsa and OKC.
Point is one will be out front than the other.
That is the Fact.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

----------


## Tom-S

Some of my Tulsa friends know OKC based on what they see driving I/44/I35. And I agree  with them -  that  driving experience is depressing and shouldn't be representative of us. 

Lot's of overnighters just want a safe, clean, hotel/cafe for the family while driving THRU Okc.  They don't care about bricktown, have time for a canal ride, NBA game, Bombing memorial, etc.

----------


## okcpulse

_Some of my Tulsa friends know OKC based on what they see driving I/44/I35. And I agree with them - that driving experience is depressing and shouldn't be representative of us._

You mean I-40 and I-35?  I-44 does OKC more justice than the other two interstates.  That being said, I-44/I-244 through Tulsa is depressing.  Lake Hefner Parkway and Broadway Extension/Centennial Parkway are OKC's best bets for sight seeing from a freeway.  It sounds like your Tulsa friends drive thru OKC, not to OKC.

Swake2, if the argument is over government jobs, then why doesn't Tulsa fight for more government jobs?  Seems to me, at least from a Tulsa leader's perspective, they don't want government jobs.

And, you didn't answer my question concerning Tulsa's leadership.  In OKC, we put our leaders in office to work hard to insure our city's future.  And they do their jobs.  Where is Tulsa's leadership?

----------


## jbrown84

> The state needs to fund Amtrak service to Tulsa, needs to fund the OSU Medical Center,


Amtrak doesn't want their service to go to Tulsa, they want it to go to Newton.  That makes much more sense because that's one third the right of way that would be required to connect OKC to Tulsa and then to KC.

And this state can only support one medical school.  Why should we water down what OU Med has to offer just because OSU and Tulsa are jealous?

----------


## jbrown84

First of all, I will say that no one here is defending ODOT.  They have been just as slow and made just as many mistakes in OKC as they have in Tulsa.

Secondly, the things you mention Swake--the government jobs, the location of Tinker, the amount of interstates and turnpikes, etc--have all been true for decades, but supposedly until the last 15 years Tulsa was so superior.  What changed that you are now begging for support from the very state many of you say you want to secede from?

----------


## Swake2

See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.

And that is why there is anger on the Tulsa side. And it's nothing new, it's been that way for decades.

----------


## soonerguru

What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade. 

Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.

Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.

Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?

Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.

Not to mention, what do you ask of your elected representatives in OKC and Washington? Why do you continue to elect nimrods like John Sullivan and expect things to change?

Tulsa is also extremely segregated, one of the most segregated cities I've even seen. Now, it's a city in three parts: North Tulsa, Midtown, and 'Burbs, and no one in these areas even agrees what the city should do. The Burbies don't even think they should have to pay a shiny red penny to help the city since they don't live there (despite the fact they wouldn't have a job and shiny burb if the city weren't there).

Tulsa has deep problems that cannot and will not be solved by whining about OKC's relative success.

----------


## onthestrip

> And this state can only support one medical school.  Why should we water down what OU Med has to offer just because OSU and Tulsa are jealous?


That is just a retarded statement.  And whats with the OU lovefest in this thread?

----------


## okcpulse

> _See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.
> 
> And that is why there is anger on the Tulsa side. And it's nothing new, it's been that way for decades._


That's a load of crap, Swake, and you know it.  Who backed you guys in the Vision 2025 election?  Who helped bring the Whirlpool Plant to Tulsa in the late 1990s?  Who frequented Tulsa in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s before OKC revived itself?

When proposals come from Tulsa, we do back you up.  That is of course, WHEN proposals come from Tulsa.  As far as roads go, ODOT has the upper hand now as far as which roads get attention first.  

We can sit here and debate all night the needs of I-40's Crosstown Bridge, but when it collapses, what will your words be?  Didn't ODOT JUST repair a big hole in the Crosstown recently?

----------


## edcrunk

one thing everyone has failed to mention is that tulsa's also upset that we're getting a new skyscraper (which may end up as the tallest in the state too). 
that combined with the nba and no longer being the cultural center of the state is obviously fueling this animosity. 
and just for the record... i've gone round and round with swake on the okc vs. tulsa nonsense on another forum. (that is why i say what i do to him) 
however, i do like having tulsa right down the road. i have tons of friends there and have spent an a$$load of time there. 
i no longer feel it's prettier tho. the skyscrapers are a tad snazzier. however, the public, civic & govermental buildings are old and boring. with the exception of one new portion of I 44 and BA expressway... the highways are old and gross. the nightlife is no comparison to okc either and they are stuck in the 90's rave scene. i do know a lot of okc dj's (and even one's in dallas) that turn down bookings in t-town and many of the parties they throw don't have very good turnouts. i did hear about a party recently (that i no-showed at) that had a decent crowd.
however, i do love playing at d*fest (and am looking forward to this upcoming festival) and noticed how the younger (hipster) crowd was aching at not having decent dance parties. the kids went off... i felt sorry them.

----------


## sgt. pepper

> their malls have more to offer


what do you mean by that? one of there malls is closing.




> one thing everyone has failed to mention is that tulsa's also upset that we're getting a new skyscraper


they will get a new skyscraper sooner or later. if OKC gets one, they have to get one.

----------


## BDP

> See, when Tulsa needs your support for issues, it's "elect better people", "fight for it" but when you want support for something you want, keeping an airbase or winning an NBA team, then we hear "lets all work together, we're all one state", you only want to get along when it helps your side of the turnpike. Hypocrites.


WHAT!? That is so weak. Sorry, but it is. This has nothing to do with all of that stuff. People worked their ass off in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City has footed the vast majority of the bill on this deal, Oklahoma City is taking most of the risk, and, last but certainly not least, people from Oklahoma City own the team and that's where they will play.

To sit here and say that people from Oklahoma City have a huge animosity towards Tulsa and that people in Oklahoma City never support Tulsa in anything is just complete BS. The naming of the team after Oklahoma City in no way supports that contention, as it has nothing to do with it in the first place. Besides, if your posts and the posts of other Tulsa forum users are any indication, the source of animosity is almost completely on the Tulsa side here and has been consistently for a long time. I mean, sometimes it seems you're registered here almost for the sole purpose of running down OKC and to make endless comparisons of Tulsa to Oklahoma City.

Anyway, I have never bought into this whole rivalry thing. I have lived in other states, and in the broader perspective of it all, it just seems so foolish and this is a great example of it. You're taking the naming of a team after a city, over 80% of which all teams are, and paralleling it to political injustices at our state capitol. You think that because you don't always get what you want, that it's Oklahoma City's fault. You are blaming the inadequacies of your leadership on the people of Oklahoma City, using the naming of a basketball team as evidence of it, and then trying to tell us it's irrational to suggest you get better leadership? That's straight out of fantasyland. I can't vote for your representatives, but if you have some that I should support through money or leg work, please let me know who and why. I unfortunately don't have the money and resources to buy you a team and name it after Tulsa, as it most definitely should be in the event one plays there and is owned there, but I will buy a ticket and come party on the club level with you and will never suggest that the name is some grave injustice.

I don't know what else to say, because I just can't grasp how any of this is about anything but who paid for all of this and where they will play. But if it helps, think of it this way: hopefully, Tulsa will be in the position very soon to compete for a permanent tenant for its awesome new arena. You now have some political equity in that endeavor. If Tulsa is a part of Oklahoma City's NBA team's success, then Tulsa will gain more leverage by saying to any league or team owner, "Oklahoma City is part of your potential market as well, just look at the NBA". You have to realize that you gain nothing if you get all pissy about the name and walk away. On the other hand, you stand to gain a butt load of leverage if it is shown that market demographics can be considered across both Tulsa and Oklahoma City when evaluating the markets for new industry and entertainment. 

Yeah, so Ill say it, lets work together. And I mean it, because the reality is that Tulsa and Oklahoma City arent competing for this stuff. Tulsa and Oklahoma City are competing with the Chicagos, Kansas Citys, Seattles, and the other 30 some odd markets that outrank us both. And if Tulsa pulls it off through their recent and future investments, who would I be to tell anyone what it should be named?

----------


## Floyd

No.  You're putting words in our mouths.

Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon.  Your city, our state.

End of discussion.  It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality.  If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name.  Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.

----------


## sgt. pepper

> It's not intercity jealousy


yes it is....period.

----------


## FritterGirl

> No.  You're putting words in our mouths.
> 
> Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon.  Your city, our state.
> 
> End of discussion.  It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality.  If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name.  Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.


So, I guess it's still okay for Tulsans to jump on any of the other regional city bandwagons:

St. Louis Cardinals
Dallas Cowboys, Mavericks
Houston Texans, Astros, whatever the NBA team is (Rockets?)
San Antonio Spurs
Kansas City Chiefs
NYC Yankees
Chigago Bears, Bulls, Cubs

but, throw OKC into the mix, a new pro team that will be within your own STATE, and suddendly you couldn't support that?  

So if that's not jealousy, then what would you call it?

----------


## AFCM

What if the team's nickname was "Thundercats"?  Would you still want the "Oklahoma" geographical designation, or Oklahoma City?  Food for thought.

----------


## Pete

> End of discussion. It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality. If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name.


Since 1990, 12 major league teams have changed cities and only three did not take the name of their host cities.  And two of those started off playing in other towns while their permanent home was readied.



NBA
2001: Vancouver Grizzlies moved to Memphis. 
2002: Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans.

NHL
1993: The Minnesota North Stars moved to Dallas and became the Stars. 
1995: The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver and became the Colorado Avalanche.  
1996: The Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix and became the Coyotes. 
1997: The Hartford Whalers moved corporate offices to Raleigh, North Carolina and became the Carolina Hurricanes. For two years they played home games in Greensboro while an arena was under construction in Raleigh.

NFL
1995: Los Angeles Rams moved to St. Louis. 
1995: Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland.
1996: Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Ravens. 
1997: Houston Oilers moved to Memphis and became the Tennessee Oilers. The team originally planned to play both 1997 and 1998 in Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium in Memphis before moving to their intended destination of Nashville. However, due to poor attendance, the team moved to Nashville in 1998, playing in Vanderbilt University's stadium. The team was renamed the Tennessee Titans in 1999, when their new stadium was opened.

MLB
2005: Montreal Expos moved to Washington, D.C. and became the Washington Nationals.

MLS
2006: San Jose Earthquakes moved to Houston and became the Houston Dynamo.

----------


## Floyd

Didn't say I couldn't support an OKC team.  Probably will.  But I still feel you're telling Tulsans to get on excited about the Oklahoma CITY team as opposed to the Oklahoma STATE team.  You don't think that might make some difference in whether I want to go buy an $80 jersey?  Really?

This thread started because people got in a huff about some Tulsa internet types picking silly names for your team, and interpreting that as snobbery/jealousy.  I'm trying to explain to you that it doesn't make sense to get so upset that Tulsans don't feel included in your joy, when your mayor and team owner pretty much explicitly excluded them.

After all, we're really just rooting for laundry.   :Wink:

----------


## AFCM

Oklahoma City and the taxpayers built the arena.
Oklahoma City investors purchased the team.
Oklahoma City taxpayers, with a little help from the state, have agreed to upgrade a facility owned by OKC.

It were the citizens of OKC who got the ball rolling.  The state is helping out because it realizes the potential marketing power having a major league franchise will bring.

----------


## sgt. pepper

a little off the subject, but have you seen the latest pictures of the BOK center? that place blows the ford center out of the water. it may be smaller, but what a building. leave it to tulsa to copy OKC and build something better.

----------


## AFCM

> that place blows the ford center out of the water. it may be smaller, but what a building.


Temporarily.  Wait until next year when the renovations are completed.  Until then, I'll take the big diamond ring and let someone else have the nice-looking, empty black box in which it came.

----------


## traxx

> No.  You're putting words in our mouths.
> 
> Tulsans are less likely to jump on the Oklahoma City Whatevers bandwagon than if it was the Oklahoma Whatevers bandwagon.  Your city, our state.
> 
> End of discussion.  It's not intercity jealousy; it's geographic marketing reality.  If you don't think it's real, check all relocated franchises over the last 10 years and compare whether they took on a regional name or a city name.  Or just ask David Stern--marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.


Why don't you read the thread before posting?  It's been said before in this thread marketing is part of the reasoning behind naming it Oklahoma City instead of Oklahoma.  Naming it after the state makes the team sound small time and like a college team.

If Tulsa went out and got an MLB team and named it the Tulsa Whatevers, I'd support them and I don't live in Tulsa or OKC.

----------


## Pete

> But I still feel you're telling Tulsans to get on excited about the Oklahoma CITY team as opposed to the Oklahoma STATE team. You don't think that might make some difference in whether I want to go buy an $80 jersey? Really?


Whatever small amount of difference that may make in the sale of a few tickets or jerseys will be eclipsed exponentially but the positive PR for Oklahoma City and the resulting financial benefits.

The owners (and taxpayers that are investing in the arena) stand to gain greatly by promoting the city in which they live, work and are heavily invested.

This is an easy call if you want to bring economics into it.

----------


## NativeOkie

Here is a thought and solution for the  the friction between two great communities.
Stop the competing. 
Every year the High School football championship tries to place a Tulsa team with an OKC team. When I was in High school PC West 1979 we palyed a state championship game against PC. No political correctness. The best two teams were in. Back then no Tulsa team ever made it to the championship and people complained. The roles are now reversed.
The Hockey teams compete. The Baseball teams thankfully do not.
We have Bedlam, one part of the state against another.
I love what Colorado has, CU and CSU are in different leagues. the Big 12 and the Mountain West. That allows everyone in the state to root for both teams.
Just a thought.
What do you think.

----------


## edcrunk

> marketing is being ignored in favor of politics.


politics?? did you even listen to our mayor??? when people around the world or nation hear tulsa, what comes to mind...  HANSON or NOTHING COMES TO THEIR MIND AT ALL. 

unfortunately, okc brings to mind huge F5 tornadoes or the largest act of domestic terrorism. we need something that is not a tragedy associated with our name. we need something positive. so until you have a big a$$ bomb go off in your town or your city is devastated by a big ol' twister... you really need to shut your mouth.



(and no longer being the kingpin city in oklahoma is not a tragedy.... it's comedy)

----------


## Pete

> When I was in High school PC West 1979 we palyed a state championship game against PC. No political correctness. The best two teams were in.


Not to get off track here but that was in December 1977.

I organize all the PC Class of '78 reunions (just had one in June) and created a comprehensive website that features some highlights and all the press coverage from that year.  You might find it interesting:

PC78.com - Pirate Football

----------


## Floyd

> politics?? did you even listen to our mayor??? when people around the world or nation hear tulsa, what comes to mind...  HANSON or NOTHING COMES TO THEIR MIND AT ALL. 
> 
> unfortunately, okc brings to mind huge F5 tornadoes or the largest act of domestic terrorism. we need something that is not a tragedy associated with our name. we need something positive. so until you have a big a$$ bomb go off in your town or your city is devastated by a big ol' twister... you really need to shut your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> (and no longer being the kingpin city in oklahoma is not a tragedy.... it's comedy)


Okay dude.  How's that rave scene going?  lol . . . you sure burned Tulsa there.

Thanks for being so welcoming.

Regarding politics, the only reason I brought it up was because David Stern did - 




> Stern brought up the idea that the team could be called just Oklahoma, because of the inclusion of Tulsa in the market size and the fact it would be considered a "state franchise."
> 
> Stern said it's interesting that "if you drive fast in Oklahoma, and most people apparently do, how close Tulsa is and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the Hornets when they were there, to be a state franchise," Stern said. 
> 
> *"I'm going to leave that to the politics of Oklahoma. I would guess that the current group would be under significant incentive and pressure to make it an Oklahoma franchise, and that would be a good thing."*


Cornett says team name will include 'Oklahoma City' | NewsOK.com

RAVE ON!

----------


## sgt. pepper

> I love what Colorado has, CU and CSU are in different leagues. the Big 12 and the Mountain West. That allows everyone in the state to root for both teams.
> Just a thought.
> What do you think.


i personaly like the idea of ou and osu not playing each other. it would make my marriage a lot more manageable. and please someone tell me what is the deal with osu nad ou always playing tu every year? i wish ou and osu would stop the nonsense and play somebody more competitive. why waste your time playing a pathetic team like tulsa, when you can play much better teams. i just heard that ou signed like two more years playing tulsa. and another thing, why is tulsa named the hurricanes? how many hurricanes has hit oklahoma besides the leftovers? my two cents.

----------


## NativeOkie

1977 was the year Pete.
I meant I graduated 1979.
Nevertheless, Sgt.Pepper is correct TU is a throw away game, for OU anyway.
Hurts your BCS rankings, Does not help with recruiting (most players are from out of state) fuels the division in the state.

----------


## NativeOkie

Hey Pete thanks for the memory.
It was the greatest. I have replayed it many times.
It was greta to be suited up for that one.
Wish we could have taken kelly out sooner. (just kidding)
We certainly focused on Vann going in to the game.
That part worked.
I still say donleys pass was out of bounds  on the line back of end zone.
Thanks for sending back into therapy.
lol

----------


## CrueJones

We play Tulsa b/c we like Tulsa and we would like to see TU get some good exposure... Also, TU was pretty good last year epecially with Malzahn running the offense.

Swake-  OU produces far more primary physicians in this state than osu does... in every population range.  I will provide a link when I get my computer back (I am getting my Masters in Hospital Administration right now and my computer is fried).

I would love for Tulsa to get a pro anything and I would treat it as if it were my own (b/c it would be... I root for everything Okahoma less osu).

----------


## sgt. pepper

tulsa stinks, ou beats them 50 to 0 every time they play them. tulsa does not deserve exposure. that university needs to rid of the football program. all thier good for is someone to practice with untill ou/osu plays a real team. good grief

----------


## edcrunk

> Okay dude.  How's that rave scene going?  lol . . . you sure burned Tulsa there.
> 
> RAVE ON!


why would i know how the rave scene is...  tulsa is the one who's nightlife is stuck in the 90's. 
kids in okc are on the cutting edge of the dance scene. electro clash, dance rock, baltimore breaks... our dj's play on both coasts quite often and in other countries. however, i did notice a tulsa dj played in stillwater the other night. oh, i forgot... tulsa djs do make it to fayetteville, arkansas and springfield, missouri as well (hey, at least those are out of state gigs).


www.myspace.com/dancerobotsdancedotcom

----------


## Pete

This is kind of cool...  The NBA site now says "Oklahoma City" rather than Supersonics:

Seattle SuperSonics


By the way, we won today.   :Smile:

----------


## spraycan

Many of those remarks in that thread were indeed tongue in cheek. Most Tulsan's understand the importance of any improvement in OKC radiating out to the rest of the state and intend on attending games. Even our mayor was involved I believe. However, there is a snobbery infecting a few in Tulsa that just won't wash off...

----------


## BigTulsa

> Many of those remarks in that thread were indeed tongue in cheek. Most Tulsan's understand the importance of any improvement in OKC radiating out to the rest of the state and intend on attending games. Even our mayor was involved I believe. However, there is a snobbery infecting a few in Tulsa that just won't wash off...


Kinda like that same snobbery exhibited by the great mayor of OKC, Mick Cornett.

I've said this once before; I dont' care what they name it.  What I do care is that they snubbed it but sure did ask Tulsa for help in justifying why and how it could work.

Don't expect me and many others to support this franchise at all.  You can thank your mayor and his attitude for that.

----------


## AFCM

I'm pretty sure the season tickets have been sold out without you and the many others so I think they'll be fine.  As long as you live in Tulsa, you're included in the TV market and every head in the count helps.  It doesn't matter if you watch, enough people will and the sponsors will follow.  

You're better off just enjoying the NBA, regardless of what the name or who the mayor is.  I'm not trying to come off as a d*ck, but last time I went to Tulsa there wasn't a whole lot to do;  this is going to add another entertainment option to the state so just enjoy and quit fighting it.  What's been done is done.

----------


## sroberts24

U and a handfull of others, your arrogance is the reason u will miss one of the great moments in OUR STATES history!  

And as far as our "great mayor" i would go to war for that man any day of the week for what he has done for our city and state!!!

And for the most part this is a stupid thread i like everybody i know from Tulsa, don't like the city too much, just a personal thing.... not really any reason.  But for all of us Oklahomans to be attacking eachother and where we choose to live of all things is ridiculous.  This is a great time to be from this STATE so stop all the bitching at eachother and enjoy the fact the we all have a major league franchise, no matter if it says OKC or not... the fact of the matter is it says Oklahoma one way or another.

We have enough people around the country attacking our state and our integrity, and we're going to fight among eachother?  Stupid and childish :Texas-Sucks2:

----------


## solitude

I hate these pissing matches between two great cities; or, more accurately, between posters on an Internet forum. In my opinion it's juvenile.

_[Any issues with board moderation and our policies are to be handled in the form of a personal message to me or one of the moderators.  Thanks, Pete.]_

----------


## spraycan

The title of the thread explains a lot of the bile. Tulsa does not hate you. Tulsa hates that we didn't get a pro-anything team and that we may have been snubbed. Most of us hate the fact that alot of what's been said about us in this thread is true. We have a well entrenched anti-anything  group that has been strangling the city for the last decade while your city overcame the same type of groups.

A change in the title would have been advisable.

----------


## AFCM

How is discussing a heated topic juvenile?  Is it juvenile just because the debate is held on the internet?  To ask in a different manner, is it juvenile if the discussion is held in person, via satellite hookup, phone, etc?  Does the media in which the discussion take place make a difference in whether or not the exchange is juvenile?

It is just your opinion and I'll respect that, but I'm just hoping you articulate your reasoning?

----------


## Pete

As I've stated a couple of times on this thread, I think the average citizen of each community is generally pulling for both cities.

Internet discussion does tend to take people to the extreme opposite sides of an issue and things often get personal.

Having said that, many things raised in this thread are on the minds of a lot of people and for the most part, discussion is healthy.  Just try and be respectful and debate the post, not the poster.

----------


## OUGrad05

> If Tulsa had gotten an NBA team instead of OKC, I'm sure OKC forum members would have posted equally ridiculous remarks.
> 
> Both cities are great in different ways.  Both cities have people that make ridiculous statements.


Correct.

----------


## crouchingliger

I'm telling you, name the team Oklahoma City Slickers, and it solves the problem for Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Tulsans are happy the team is the Oklahoma "_City Slickers_," and Oklahoma City residents are happy the team is the Oklahoma City "_Slickers_."

----------


## Chicken In The Rough

I'm afraid the comparisons of OKC to really small towns is lost on me. I'll bet Tulsa has waaay more government employees than Pawhuska _and_  Broken Bow combined! Again, need I even say it, the comparison to Jefferson City is obviously flawed. Following this logic, I imagine you'll also find more government jobs in Washington DC, Denver, Minneapolis, Atlanta, or Boston than in OKC. 

I also am missing the math in the opening paragraph. Why are non-government service jobs not counted as part of the private employment base?

There is no doubt OKC has a huge governmental workforce. Afterall, it is the State Capitol, the home of two major state universities & a couple medium-sized state universities, the site of Tinker and the FAA. These large installations tend to have lots of workers.

All this only strengthens my belief that many in Tulsa suffer from extreme envy. I have always found it odd how most people in OKC like Tulsa, support it, enjoy visiting it, and genuinely wish it well. However, many Tulsa despise OKC, actually find pleasure in OKC's troubles, and enjoy insulting it whenever possible.

----------


## HOT ROD

> Oklahoma City and the taxpayers built the arena.
> Oklahoma City investors purchased the team.
> Oklahoma City taxpayers, *with a little help from the state,* have agreed to upgrade a facility owned by OKC.
> 
> It were the citizens of OKC who got the ball rolling.  The state is helping out because it realizes the potential marketing power having a major league franchise will bring.


actually, the state aint helping upgrade the Ford Center at all.

the state is just extending tax breaks to the Sonics. And Swake, that IS new tax dollars. These NBA players dont currently live here YET - so who is currently making (and paying) payroll taxes on million dollar salaries right now who will be displaced when Clay Bennett starts paying it?

AGAIN, so you Tulsa people will understand - the STATE IS OFFERING A PAYROLL TAX REBATE on the top portion of PAYROLL TAXES that WILL BE PAID on NBA SALARIES!!!!!!

1) ARE THERE CURRENTLY ANY NBA SALARIES IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA? NO - so it is NEW TAXES!!

And, since it is NEW TAXES, Tulsa has nothing to worry about their tax money being diverted to OKC.

2) WHO PAYED FOR THE FORD CENTER? Oklahoma City residents. 

In fact, wasn't it Tulsa residents who were trying to compare the BOK as a better facility recently? Oh, you forgot that OKC always was going to upgrade the Ford Center WITH OKC MAPS MONIES. The STATE is contributing nothing to the Ford Center, it's OKC residents. You Tulsan's dont have to worry about it unless you shop/eat in OKC.

3) WHO JUST FORKED OVER HALF BILLION DOLLARS? Clay Bennett and Oklahoma City investors.

Are there any Tulsa investors? Anybody from Tulsa willing to take a risk - or was everyone up there saying OKC couldn't support it without them.

4) Does OKC NEED Tulsa to support the NBA? NO.

Tulsan's were 'invited' to attend so that the NBA could see what OKC's market is. Truth be told, Tulsa is the 2nd city and is part of OKC's market. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it is reality. OKC has more venues, gets more things to do, is a bigger city and market - so it only makes sense. This is JUST the same way that OKC is a tertiary market for Dallas (although OKC is really starting to hold its own and not rely on dallas as much).

Again, people mentioned that back when Tulsa was arguably more superior 15+ years ago, OKC people would drive up if/when they wanted to experience those amenities. What did Tulsan's do? They rubbed it in OKC's face - snobby, and made sure OKC people "knew where the CITY was in the state". And this despite OKC being the capital and largest city.

Well, those two facts are the same, but OKC is not rubbing it in Tulsa's face - nor is OKC even asking Tulsa for any money. I didn't hear Clay asking for tulsa investors. I didn't see the Ford Center vote extended to Tulsa voters. And, the payroll tax rebate would have passed even if all Tulsa pols had voted no (because the rest of the state would have voted yes since they can see the tertiary benefit of having NBA salaries in this state).

AGAIN SWAKE - TODAY THERE ARE NO NBA SALARIES IN OKLAHOMA, SO THERE TODAY IS NO PAYROLL TAXES BEING ASSESSED. THESE ARE NEW JOBS TO THE STATE, WHICH WILL HAVE THE TOP PORTION OF THEIR PAYROLL TAXES ABATED!

The state still gets 5%, which IS NEW DOLLARS THE STATE ISN'T GETTING TODAY. 

Get it?

So now, you can stop being jealous or ignorant to what the State is doing.

Oh, did I mention that OKC is the largest city and metro in the state? So, you should also conclude that IF there was a state contribution - that OKC would be fronting most of it anyways! But I digress, because I have just written so many times that THESE ARE NEW TAXES WHICH A PORTION WILL BE ABATED!!!!!!!!


I hope you will NEVER ever say the STATE is paying for OKC to have the NBA - ever EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!

THE STATE IS NOT PAYING FOR THE FORD CENTER
THE STATE IS NOT PAYING FOR THE NBA TEAM
THE STATE IS NOT PAYING CLAY BENNETT ANYTHING

OKLAHOMA CITY HAS BUILT AND IS EXPANDING THE FORD CENTER
TULSA IS NOT

OKLAHOMA CITY INVESTORS SPENT A HALF BILLION ON THE NBA TEAM
TULSA DID NOT

NOBODY IS PAYING CLAY BENNETT ANYTHING, DEFINITELY NOBODY FROM TULSA
SO CLAY CAN NAME HIS TEAM WHAT HE WANTS (AND CERTAINLY IT WONT BE TULSA OR OKLAHOMA - HE IS VERY PRO OKC YOU KNOW)

Stern mentioned that Tulsa was part of Oklahoma City's market ONLY because most people probably didn't realize that. It is the SAME WAY Spokane is considered part of Seattle's market (yet NOBODY has to point that out anymore) - Seattle has had major league sports for 41 years.

So, since the state of Oklahoma (and Tulsa) is riding on OKC's coat tails and recent successes - stop being bitter about it and be happy that somebody is finally lifting up the state (instead of how Tulsa did in the 80's - using it only as a battering ram against OKC).

Don't get mad that Oklahoma City's mayor is making sure his city is recognized. Perhaps you should vote such a mayor for Tulsa, then maybe you won't be so jealous.


Continue the Renaissance Oklahoma City!

----------


## HOT ROD

> why would i know how the rave scene is...  tulsa is the one who's nightlife is stuck in the 90's. 
> kids in okc are on the cutting edge of the dance scene. electro clash, dance rock, baltimore breaks... our dj's play on both coasts quite often and in other countries. however, i did notice a tulsa dj played in stillwater the other night. oh, i forgot... tulsa djs do make it to fayetteville, arkansas and springfield, missouri as well (hey, at least those are out of state gigs).
> 
> 
> MySpace.com - Dance Robots, Dance! - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - Electro / Indie / New Wave - www.myspace.com/dancerobotsdancedotcom


Ed, I can vouch for what you're saying by the way.

a few months ago, here in Seattle on our local dance music station c-89FM; 

there was a dj from OKLAHOMA CITY who was cutting it up. He was so good, I was quite surprised (as im sure most in seattle who were listening were). I dont rememmber who it was, but the mc kept saying he was from OKC. lol.

Actually, I was surprised nobody called in and started complaining about the Sonics. Then again, Im not surprised since nobody really cares up here anyways - it was just a hit to the pride chops to most people.

anyways, yep - OKC dj's are pretty well known or at least getting there. OKC needs a Dance Music station, BAD!!!! The flava is good now with all of the hip hop and what not (much better than Seattle by the way) but OKC needs a house/techno/hi NRG dance station like c89fm.


 :Yourock:

----------


## JWil

> Man, if Tulsa had half the leadership OKC has enjoyed recently, they'd be the jewel of the Great Plains.  Tulsa has so much natural and structural beauty to offer, but the city leaders are too busy looking down on others to learn from their success.  I really hope Tulsa gets it together.  I'm not bashing them in any way.  I really do want to see Tulsa mirror OKC's accomplishments.


I don't. Their arrogance and rude comments about OKC has made me pretty much me dismissive toward them ever getting their crap together.

Tulsa was the oil capital of the world. We get it. But it's not the 1930s anymore. OKC is the king now and has a future and Tulsa has the past. 

They need to worry less about what we do and worry more about what places like Wichita, Amarillo, Little Rock and Springfield do. Those are their rivals.

----------


## JWil

> Hi.  I'm a Tulsa poster.  I know at least one of you from college (hey Mallen!).  Just thought I'd get in on the discussion and try to keep it good natured.  This is what I posted over there on the Tulsa board:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my point is, the thing was pitched as a statewide effort, but then your mayor came out, shook his finger at the camera, and stated in no uncertain terms that it was Oklahoma City's team and, by God, the name would reflect the city, not the state.  I was totally on board until then, and suddenly incredibly repulsed and offended.  It was like, "Oh, so that's how it's going to be."  Anyway, that's where the snark comes from.  It's not a jealousy issue--we are quite aware who has more population, who has more interstate highways, and who has more entertainment venues in the central business district.  
> 
> It's really comes down to the perception that Tulsa has been getting the short end of the stick pretty regularly lately, and when there was the chance to get together as a "Major League State," petty differences intervened at the last minute and submarined the whole thing.
> 
> I know the whole issue of "team name" might seem trivial, but then again, you have to realize, like Jerry Seinfeld says--all we're really rooting for is clothes.  So what those clothes say matters.  Think about it.


Oh please... physician heal thyself!

This "Sonics in OKC" deal was never billed like the Korea/Japan World Cup or something. Tulsa was never in the conversation until the Relocation Committee came to town. That's when we told them that OKC is a de-facto regional capital and that the population numbers of Amarillo, Wichita and Tulsa could definitely be a factor for this franchise. 

Tulsa is like part of that old fable... OKC is the hen who is growing and harvesting the grain... but the others (Tulsa) doesn't want anything of the hard work (bettering their city) and when we bake the wheat into bread, y'all come down to our place expecting a handout. Guess what -- it's OUR loaf. There was never a chance this team would be named anything but Oklahoma City. 

I hope people from Tulsa, Wichita, Amarillo, Lawton, Ft. Smith and Springfield come to Oklahoma City to see the Oklahoma City NBA team play. But the fact remains... OKC earned this team on its own. I think that's what burns them up most.

And oh, as for the beauty thing... Nashville has y'all nuked in that category. Hills and Trees make for a nice national park but is sand for a city's foundation. Phoenix is ugly as sin out in the desert and it's huge and bustling.

----------


## JWil

> What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade. 
> 
> Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.
> 
> Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.
> 
> Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?
> 
> Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.
> ...



Uhhhh really? I don't know how you can say that when OKC has seen its rise from the ashes under three straight GOP Mayors. And oh, our congressional district has been GOP since Goldwater/LBJ, soooo.... yeah. 

If anything, the current Tulsa mindset is of the liberal, Democrat "I need handouts and the government to do it for me." I mean, OKC has to support Tulsa so Tulsa can get stuff done? Why can't Tulsa get up off the floor like OKC did and just get to work? Tulsa is nothing more than a giant welfare case wanting someone else to come in and prop them up. 

And yeah I replied to three different things in a row... oh well. That's what I get for not being on this site for a few weeks! lol

----------


## JWil

I'll close this by saying that if it weren't for the states of Oklahoma and Sequoyah being joined together, OKC and Tulsa would be in two different states.

----------


## okcpulse

> Post by JWil:
> _Uhhhh really? I don't know how you can say that when OKC has seen its rise from the ashes under three straight GOP Mayors. And oh, our congressional district has been GOP since Goldwater/LBJ, soooo.... yeah._


Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label.  It is a non-partisan government.  Nice try, though.

----------


## solitude

> Oklahoma City's mayor-council government cannot run or serve their terms with a party label.  It is a non-partisan government.  Nice try, though.


While that's true, Pulse, the last mayor of Oklahoma City who was a registered Democrat and had Democratic ties was *Andy Coates*. Norick,  Humphreys and Cornett are all registered Republicans, all used their GOP contacts and the usual Republican donors financed their campaigns. The whole non-partisan thing is a tad disingenuous if you ask me.

----------


## soonerguru

JWil,

You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.

In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools. 

In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.

----------


## Saberman

The thing to remember is that the taxes collected were used for public projects(not private), to make the city as a whole more enjoyable for all.

There was not a single group that was not effected by these improvements. Sports, Arts, Education, and entertainment were all included in the original MAPS package.  

Current MAPS is improving the schools infrastructure, which was deplorable.

And this add on for the Arena were improvements that were talked about during the original MAPS.  The only addition is the practice facility, which would not have been built if the team did not come to OKC.

These are all legitimate city projects no matter what your political  affiliation.

----------


## soonerguru

Saberman, 

I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.

Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.

----------


## OUGrad05

> JWil,
> 
> You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.
> 
> In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools. 
> 
> In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.


Tulsa taxes are higher though, so thats why their "anti tax hysteria" is worse than OKC's.  

For example if my house were in OKC my annual property tax would be 1950 bucks, in Tulsa its 2112 dollars.  Sales tax in Tulsa is already 8.65% they've wanted to tack on another half cent sales penny to that a couple of times since I moved up here in 2005.  

Also, dont forget OKC has a pretty good history of spending tax dollars wisely.  That helps bolster the public confidence in their government officials.  I think Tulsa could easily turn a corner for the positive but its going to take solid leadership and someone willing to take a stand on some core issues and be honest with the people of Tulsa.

----------


## OUGrad05

> What swake fails to mention in his overall sound arguments is the overriding political culture of Tulsa. Remember, Tulsa is all about "don't tax me" and traditional GOP politics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the success of Vision 2025 is an aberration; Tulsa has voted down five separate proposals in the last decade. 
> 
> Also, most of its suburban residents couldn't give a rat's patootie about the City of Tulsa, let alone the inner city. Swake paints a picture of Tulsa being victimized, but Tulsa citizens have had the chance to change things and they've chosen otherwise.
> 
> Blame what you will, but the State of Oklahoma did not help OKC crawl out from the doldrums, MAPS and dedicated leadership from elected officials and citizens did. Swake fails to acknowledge this.
> 
> Let's face it, Tulsa is nice, but it's also the home to extremely conservative religionists, bigots, and me-first oilies -- many of whom have bolted the city for Houston. How is that the fault of OKC or state government?
> 
> Please, the victim thing is taken too far. If most Tulsans agree with your thesis, your city is screwed, as it will never be able to overcome its problems -- it's not even recognizing what they are.
> ...


Not sure how I missed this, but this is an excellent post.  I've noticed the rather odd political nature of Tulsa since moving up here.  It seems there isn't much middle ground.  There's a TON of far right wing, no tax for anything kinda people and then there's a bunch of pretty far left individuals that think the city/state/federal government should rebuild the north tulsa area as well as other areas of town.  

It's kinda wierd actually seeing the two extremes.  I've noticed it in discussions with people I work with too.  Don't get me wrong, there's quite a few moderates and level headed people but it seems like there's far more at both extremes than I remember when I lived in OKC.  Just makes for an interesting experience and it probably makes it difficult on city government as well since the city is divided.

----------


## Saberman

> Saberman, 
> 
> I don't take issue with your post. However, it could be argued that many private interests benefited directly from this public investment, chiefly property owners in Bricktown.
> 
> Also, though it was not part of MAPS, both the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies.


I understand, but the Bricktown  investments were a direct by product of investment from MAPS, they weren't financed by MAPS.

Granted  the Skirvin and Bass Pro were partially financed by public monies, but...

1) the Skirvin was a landmark that the people of OKC did not want to loose, where it may have been questionable, we did do something right on this one.  We lost a lot of great buildings in downtown because of Urban Renewal, this one felt like the last straw.

2) Bass Pro - leaders felt that they had to bring in a major business that would get the ball rolling in Bricktown, right or wrong, we did it.  Would Bricktown have grow as fast without Bass Pro, that's going to be debated for a long time....

I could also bring up some bad moves OKC made in the past, Urban Renewal in the '60's and '70's, or even the String of Pearls along the N. Canadian ditch.  Just to name 2.  That's why we have the last 3 mayors to thank for bring in the public to monitor MAPS projects, to insure quality and spending.

----------


## JWil

> JWil,
> 
> You are correct that we have had three "nonpartisan" Republican mayors, all of whom have done a great job in OKC. My point was that these three mayors all proposed, gasp, TAXES, to pay to improve our city, and the citizens supported this liberal, big government solution.
> 
> In Tulsa, the anti-tax hysteria is much stronger. There are people there in positions of leadership who actually believe we should shutter the public schools. 
> 
> In Tulsa, it doesn't seem to matter if they have an R or a D as mayor, the citizens simply do not support tax-funded initiatives to improve their city (Vision 2025 being the exception, not the rule), and Oklahoma City residents do.


I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though. 

As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base. 

The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.

----------


## OUGrad05

> I know that Republicans are generally against raising taxes, but I think they're okay with it when it's a project like MAPs, where it's a solid plan with defined results and not just the typical liberal taxing, where it's all just dumped down the never-ending hole of social programs or the welfare state. MAPs was clearly defined and its ancillary offshoots were very pro-business, so I think that's why Republicans spearheaded this plan: It has really helped OKC on the business side of things. That's just my take on it, though. 
> 
> As a Republican, I don't want to raise taxes every UNLESS there is a clearly-defined proposal and we see results over time. We got/will get that with MAPs, MFK and MAPs-Ford. It's not the typical "Hey let's raise taxes to help the poor" and then just having that money vanish into some hole. We've seen great success with MAPs, increased business with MAPs and that creates more jobs and a better tax base. 
> 
> The jokers in Tulsa are just that... jokers. Those people are living in the past ("Tulsa is the Oil Capital of the world!") and until they lose that mindset, they'll never improve their city.



I'm a republican and I am ok with taxes on a local level when they are defined and goals are achievable.  I do not like federal tax increases because we almost never see the money and it adds numerous layers of government bull crap that you do not have to deal with on a local level.  Local governments are the best at providing and performing vital services, like police and fire as well as infrastructure maintenance.  

That doesn' tmean there isn't a place for federal funds, there is, but not for everything.

----------


## soonerguru

Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.

Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.

----------


## solitude

> Not to be political, but I am NOT a Republican, and the republican way seems to be spend whatever money in whatever national rathole they want, giving out billions in contracts to their friends, and not raising enough revenue to pay for them, leading to huge deficits.
> 
> Social Security and other programs are very specific in what they are intended for. Welfare accounts for less than 1 percent of the federal budget, so JWil, you must ask yourself what we are currently paying for.


Oh yes. Like the projected 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS for an unnecessary war with Iraq. In perspective, a full-blown manned mission to Mars from scratch to finish is estimated at 450 billion dollars.

There's even a book out about what we could have done with the money we've already spent in Iraq:

----------


## BigTulsa

> tulsa stinks, ou beats them 50 to 0 every time they play them. tulsa does not deserve exposure. that university needs to rid of the football program. all thier good for is someone to practice with untill ou/osu plays a real team. good grief


I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.

Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...

 :Tiphat:

----------


## AFCM

> I hate bumping an old thread, but got a kick out of this reply.
> 
> Now, remind us who was the only state university to win a bowl game in 08-09...


First of all, Tulsa is not a state university.  Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game.  Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games.  FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well.  A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered.  I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice.  It seems that observation has already been addressed.

However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa.  I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.

----------


## soonerfan_in_okc

> First of all, Tulsa is not a state university.  Secondly, more than one "state university" won a bowl game.  Lastly, with 68 teams out of 119 meeting in bowl games, one is certain to recognize the imbalance among the many teams and match ups in bowl games.  FAU managed to pull off a victory in their respective bowl game as well.  A "W" is only relative to the competition to which the "L" is administered.  I suppose, if one were to compare Oklahoma vs. Tulsa, a simple head-to-head weighing would suffice.  It seems that observation has already been addressed.
> 
> However, with all of that expressed, I don't really care about what happens between OU or Tulsa.  I just reject your premise and reasoning for resurrecting a buried thread.


winner.  end of thread.

----------


## okcpulse

_"Hi, I'm Tulsa."_  "And I'm Oklahoma City."    

_"We have hills."_  "We have growth, momentum, and plenty of opportunity."

_"We have trees."_  "We enjoy lakes and a river that is an Olympic Training Venue, right in our back yard."

_"We have the Gilcrease and Philbrook museums."_  "We have art museums, art districts and an increading number of art galleries."

_"We have a fair."_  "We have a theme park, the state's largest water theme park, all in addition to a fair."

_"We have a river."_  "Tulsa, didn't I already mention water recreation?  I guess you can safely walk across the Arkansas River.  We have to swim across the Oklahoma River."

_"But we have those boats that scoot across sandy banks AND water."_  "And Oklahoma City has actual BOATS on the river."

_"We have TU sports."_  "And we have the NBA, Big 12 Tournaments and Triple A baseball.  Don't forget OU and OSU are closer.  Ahh, the choices."

_"But we have trees and hills."_  "Tulsa, you mentioned that already.  What do you do with your trees and hills?"

_"Well, we look at them."_  "Oh.  I thought your relationship with nature was more interactive."

_"Ummm... we have a zoo."_  [sighs and pats Tulsa on the shoulder]"We get it, Tulsa."

----------


## SoonerQueen

I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I  will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?

----------


## okcboy

Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.

----------


## Midtowner

> Me too. State of the art Amphitheatre in Maps 3?
> 1/3 the cost of an arena and could be an outdoor
> summer home to the OKC Philharmonic. I say no brainer.


As a violinist, let me just mention this -- playing large ensemble music outside is absolutely miserable.  Most serious symphonic pieces have fairly long parts to them -- lots of page turns.  Those page turns become a big pain in the ass when you're having to use clothes pins to keep your music from blowing off the stand (and one good gust and your whole stand might be blown over).  Then, string instruments and woodwinds to a lesser extent have HUGE tuning issues when exposed to temperature and humidity changes.

----------


## Bunty

> I have noticed one thing, OKC doesn't seem to get concerts any more now that we have the NBA here. I  will be going to my 4th concert in Tulsa in June, and although i don't mind going up there, I didn't have to travel for music before the NBA got here. I love The Thunder but I like my music too. Can't we have both?


Well, people are gonna get tired of George Strait, Allan Jackson, or whoever always coming in for a concert in OKC, sooner or later.  The big names or old big names that the casinoes put on also provide competition.

----------


## okcpulse

Notice how Bunty mentions only country music artists.  Forget about all of the other non-country music acts that tour Oklahoma regularly.

It doesn't matter anyway.  Today's music from every single genre absolutely sucks.

----------


## Steve

How did this thread get revived? Geez, let's talk about something original... I know what, let's talk about how OU and OSU are rivals. Or maybe OU/Texas... 
BTW: You're not seeing many concerts being booked at Ford Center because it's shutting down after NBA season is over for an expansion and remodeling.

----------


## okcboy

Check out Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre at Encore Park :: Atlanta, GA

----------


## Generals64

Man, you guys are on a roll....I'm going back to the nostalgia group and remember how much fun we have.....Sheesh....when you quit arguing come see us....

----------


## nik4411

I live in Norman, but OKCpulse, to be fair, tulsa has a much better selection of lakes to go and enjoy.

----------


## okcpulse

> I live in Norman, but OKCpulse, to be fair, tulsa has a much better selection of lakes to go and enjoy.


a)  That still doesn't make Tulsa better than us, nor us better than them.  I am merely trying to emphazise the beauty of both worlds.

b)  Those lakes are not Tulsa assets, they are state assets, but Tulsa is lucky to be so close.

c)  You have to drive OUT of Tulsa to get to any lakes.  Hefner, Draper and Overholser are right in our backyard, Hefner being the best of the three.  You don't need to drive far to get to any of these lakes.  If I want to go on a weekend lake trip, I'll drive to any one of our major reservoirs.

----------


## bombermwc

Tulsa sees OKC and Tulsa has weiner envy.

Oh did I say that?

----------


## Mr. K

The mentality is just different in the two places. I grew up in Tulsa and have a brother that lives in Norman. I think OKC is a lot more open to becoming a modern city. It will never be a sprawling metropolis like NYC but the city is always willing to make improvements. The people of Tulsa frown on new things and only want to help expand things like churches. They don't want it to become a modern city at all. They would prefer less things to do over more.

----------


## In_Tulsa

Mr. K When was the last time you were in Tulsa 1981. YOU CRAZY!!!!!!

----------


## soonerguru

Mr. K, I believe you're right that OKC is currently more "wide open," but the under-40 set in Tulsa is working very hard to change things there. They have an awesome music scene and arts scene, a cool downtown neighborhood (Blue Dome) and lots of progressive thinkers. Tulsa is AOK in my book, but OKC is still home.

The problems they do have their is that their suburbanites haven't figured out what Mick Cornett told our suburbanites: "You can't be a suburb of nothing." Up there, many Owassoans think, foolishly, that they don't "need" Tulsa. 

When they put public projects up for vote, the Broken Arrowheads and Owassoans vote them down.

----------


## soonerguru

Oh, and one more thing: Tulsa is more racist and segregated than OKC.

----------


## circuitboard

As a Tulsa native, and now living in OKC for the past 4 years. I can contest, Tulsa is not as diverse or open minded as OKC, the art scene and music makes people from the outside think it is open and diverse, but if you live there, you will get bored real fast. Tulsa has alot of race tension as well and  white people are obsessed with living in the suburbs. Tulsa has alot of old thinkers, and in order for Tulsa to change, they need some new ideas. Everytime I go back, I think man this place is still the same.

----------


## okclee

The Race factor is a major problem in Tulsa.

----------


## BG918

> The Race factor is a major problem in Tulsa.


And it's not in OKC?  IMO, it's pretty equal.

I also think the two are equally diverse but with OKC having a higher Asian population.

----------


## fromdust

> And it's not in OKC?  IMO, it's pretty equal.
> 
> I also think the two are equally diverse but with OKC having a higher Asian population.


and black population.

----------


## Architect2010

Are you crazy?

Hecks no its not near as problematic here as Tulsa. I have never experienced anything remotely racially degrading my whole life as an inner Northeast side resident and now as inner Southside resident, and I'm White! I went on a BPA trip to Tulsa my freshmen year and I was stared down along with my friends when we stopped at a convenience store that consisted of all black customers.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> it's not in OKC? IMO, it's pretty equal.
> 
> I also think the two are equally diverse but with OKC having a higher Asian population.


I did a little research on this very subject. (I posted this on on okmet.org a while back.)

Cosmopolitan.

This word has been thrown out many times in reference to OKC and Tulsa. I decided to do a little research to find which city truely was cosmopolitan.

*1. What does the work mean?*
_cosmopolitan [ kzmə pllit'n ]_ 
_adjective_ 
_Definition:_ 

_1. made up of diverse peoples: composed of or containing people from different countries and cultures_

_2. showing cultural diversity: showing the influence of many countries and cultures_

Cosmopolitan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*2. Which city more closely matches the definition?*

American FactFinder

NOTE: colors do not represent the same percentages from map to map (i.e. the darkest blue might represent 50% black in Tulsa and the same color might represent 20% black in OKC).
Percentage of Whites alone - Tulsa

Percentage of Whites alone - OKC

Percentage of Native Americans - Tulsa

Percentage of Native Americans - OKC

Percentage of African Americans - Tulsa

Percentage of African Americans - OKC

Percentage of Hispanics - Tulsa

Percentage of Hispanics - OKC

Percentage of Asians - Tulsa

Percentage of Asians - OKC


Cosmopolitan

----------


## Floyd

Congratulations on demonstrating the severity of white flight in the greater OKC metro area.

----------


## BDP

> They have an awesome music scene and arts scene


Can someone give me the music and art scene highlights from Tulsa, i.e. top local bands, top art shows/artists, etc.

----------


## soonerguru

BDP,

They have many "underground" parties, and others that aren't, like the New Genre Festival in March. 

As for music, they have Cain's Ballroom, Brady Theatre and Dfest.

We have the Zoo with concerts like REO Speedwagon. At the Brady, they get Tom Waits.

At the Brewery and places like that, we get Stoney Larue. Up there, they get Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, etc.

We do have the Conservatory and Opolis in Norman, but right now, they have better venues and a better regular rotation of music. 

Dfest has made itself into a huge event. 

OKC also has a great art scene and many great musicians and bands, but our venue situation is a little behind.

----------


## BDP

Thanks guru.

No doubt they get some better acts coming through. I was just wondering what their local scene is like, which is what I think of more when I think of music "scene".

My experiences with their local stuff hasn't been anything special, or at least I haven't been to anything up there on the scale of Momentum here, Girlie Show, or even the IAO stuff in terms of art scene. So, I was just wondering what I should check out. I am sure there is a lot to offer, but maybe a Tulsan can steer me in the right direction. I'm always down for a road trip to see good music or art.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Congratulations on demonstrating the severity of white flight in the greater OKC metro area.


I sense a sarcastic put-down, but I'll take you at face value and say "thanks".

----------


## Floyd

> I sense a sarcastic put-down, but I'll take you at face value and say "thanks".


Not a put-down, just pointing out that this demographic aspect of OKC you describe as "cosmopolitan," and insinuate makes OKC superior, is in fact a result of the fact that white people have fled the core of the city for outlying areas and the suburbs over the last 40 years.  

But hey--whatever makes you feel special.  Every city has the problem.  It's an issue in Tulsa as well, although not as stark judging by your maps.  But to imply that what you describe is a virtue is disingenuous to say the least.

----------


## okcpulse

> Not a put-down, just pointing out that this demographic aspect of OKC you describe as "cosmopolitan," and insinuate makes OKC superior, is in fact a result of the fact that white people have fled the core of the city for outlying areas and the suburbs over the last 40 years.  
> 
> But hey--whatever makes you feel special.  Every city has the problem.  It's an issue in Tulsa as well, although not as stark judging by your maps.  But to imply that what you describe is a virtue is disingenuous to say the least.


I don't believe he was claiming OKC was superior.  What needs to stop happening is elitist Tulsans (not all Tulsans are like that) need to stop thinking they are superior to OKC.  No one is superior to another.

----------


## okcpulse

> BDP,
> 
> They have many "underground" parties, and others that aren't, like the New Genre Festival in March. 
> 
> As for music, they have Cain's Ballroom, Brady Theatre and Dfest.
> 
> We have the Zoo with concerts like REO Speedwagon. At the Brady, they get Tom Waits.
> 
> At the Brewery and places like that, we get Stoney Larue. Up there, they get Sonic Youth, Yo La Tengo, etc.
> ...


Yes, our venue situation is in need of creativity.  However, what is a "local" music scene?  To me, the bands Oklahoma City produces makes up our true local music scene.  From The Flaming Lips to Hinder and the like, that is a true "local" music scene.  Not a bunch of touring bands in venues.

----------


## Floyd

> I don't believe he was claiming OKC was superior.


There's no question that his elaborate set of maps was attempting to show that OKC was more "cosmopolitan" and therefore superior.

There also should be no question that this argument is ridiculous.  Racial diversity is a good thing, but not when it's a result of white flight to the suburbs.

----------


## okcpulse

> There's no question that his elaborate set of maps was attempting to show that OKC was more "cosmopolitan" and therefore superior.
> 
> There also should be no question that this argument is ridiculous.  Racial diversity is a good thing, but not when it's a result of white flight to the suburbs.


Again, he wasn't claiming OKC was superior.  But it is more cosmopolitan.  Facts are facts.

And as far as white flight, name what city where that didn't happen.  White flight in Oklahoma City happened over 30 years ago, as it did everywhere else.  Let go of the past.

And his 'elaborate set of maps' are nothing more than facts.  Is OKC having a positive something that is unacceptable?

Indeed, this argument is ridicilous.  But so attacking someone who is just merely sharing information.

----------


## Floyd

> Again, he wasn't claiming OKC was superior.  But it is more cosmopolitan.  Facts are facts.
> 
> And as far as white flight, name what city where that didn't happen.  White flight in Oklahoma City happened over 30 years ago, as it did everywhere else.  Let go of the past.
> 
> And his 'elaborate set of maps' are nothing more than facts.  Is OKC having a positive something that is unacceptable?
> 
> Indeed, this argument is ridicilous.  But so attacking someone who is just merely sharing information.


First, learn to spell.

Second, you're just wrong about "facts."

The kid throws out a definition of the adjective "cosmopolitan" that reduces the meaning to "diversity." 

He does so because he found some maps that show that OKC has a higher percentage of minorities in its city center than Tulsa does.  He also insinuates that because of this, OKC is more cosmopolitan than, and therefore superior to, Tulsa.

Uh, what do you think the reason is for OKC having a high concentration of minorities in the city center?  Is it because OKC is so incredibly cosmopolitan?  Or is it because all the scared white people moved as far as they could from downtown?  

Facts are facts?  Then the fact is, white people in OKC have fled the center at a far faster rate than Tulsa.

So "cosmopolitan"!  So "positive!

Conclusion:  *You're clearly wrong and you sound very stupid.  Stop talking **** on Tulsa.  Both cities are fine.  The ignorance of certain members of the forum does not make either city look any better.  But it makes you look terrible.*

----------


## soonerguru

> Yes, our venue situation is in need of creativity. However, what is a "local" music scene? To me, the bands Oklahoma City produces makes up our true local music scene. From The Flaming Lips to Hinder and the like, that is a true "local" music scene. Not a bunch of touring bands in venues.


Yikes, I wouldn't recommend using Hinder to bolster your argument!  :Smile:  You make good points, and i largely agree with you. I actually think OKC has better bands right now: Uglysuit, Samantha Crain, Evangelicals, etc., but that was not my point. 

To be a great music city we need both a thriving scene of local artists and solid venues with many great touring artists. We can have both here. Tulsa is just a little better organized for whatever reason.

----------


## okcpulse

> First, learn to spell.
> 
> Second, you're just wrong about "facts."
> 
> The kid throws out a definition of the adjective "cosmopolitan" that reduces the meaning to "diversity." 
> 
> He does so because he found some maps that show that OKC has a higher percentage of minorities in its city center than Tulsa does.  He also insinuates that because of this, OKC is more cosmopolitan than, and therefore superior to, Tulsa.
> 
> Uh, what do you think the reason is for OKC having a high concentration of minorities in the city center?  Is it because OKC is so incredibly cosmopolitan?  Or is it because all the scared white people moved as far as they could from downtown?  
> ...


Pardon me?  No need to be childish.  I never talked **** on Tulsa.  Nor did I ever say OKC was superior.

You can say I am wrong and deny the facts all you want, but even percentage-wise, OKC has more Asians, African Americans and Hispanics than in Tulsa.  I wouldn't even contribute that to white flight, especially since every ethnic group in OKC proper has seen a population gain.  Not to mention that whites in OKC are actually returning to the core of the city, which makes your argument a moot point.

I agree with you, both cities are fine.  Both cities are actually not far off from one another in every single category.

But I will say this... why is it that when someone points out Tulsa's positives we are supposed to agree, but if Oklahoma City's positives are mentioned we are all supposed to keep our mouths shut?  Since when did this become the standard?

P.S., I don't see any misspelled words in my last post.

----------


## BG918

Which metro has the worst sprawl?  I think you can make convincing arguments for both.  Which has the best urban areas, the highest density?

----------


## BDP

> To be a great music city we need both a thriving scene of local artists and solid venues with many great touring artists.


I'm not sure if you need touring bands to be a great music city, but it certainly is an added bonus and often one leads to the other. You do need solid venues, I agree, but I think it comes down to what talent is the community producing and cultivating. In then end, I really think it comes down to support of local music. I can guarantee you that cities of both OKC and Tulsa's size have good musical talent, but the scene is created by the consumers of music. If no one is going to local shows, you don't have a music scene, no matter how good the music being played to empty rooms is. And once you have a scene that actually becomes a destination for talent, then you have a real scene. Hopefully, the Academy of Contemporary Music will help our scene in that respect, but, again, people will have to get out and support the talent when it arrives.

Anyway, I didn't really mean to hijack the bashing spirit of this thread, I was just trying to find out what bands and art shows may be worth driving up to Tulsa to check out.

----------


## okcboy

BDP, 
You nailed it. Support local live music and art. Go see a show.
Keep in mind true live music venues rarely turn a profit. Major touring 
artist are always going to have their support of some kind. It just 
seems that Tulsa rallies out more for the smaller localized stuff. In turn,
creates more money and more shows and venues.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> First, learn to spell.
> 
> Second, you're just wrong about "facts."
> 
> The kid throws out a definition of the adjective "cosmopolitan" that reduces the meaning to "diversity." 
> 
> He does so because he found some maps that show that OKC has a higher percentage of minorities in its city center than Tulsa does. He also insinuates that because of this, OKC is more cosmopolitan than, and therefore superior to, Tulsa.
> 
> Uh, what do you think the reason is for OKC having a high concentration of minorities in the city center? Is it because OKC is so incredibly cosmopolitan? Or is it because all the scared white people moved as far as they could from downtown? 
> ...


You should probably read the percentages on the maps.  That might shed some light.

But I don't suppose you have any sort of clue.  The "kid" reference was quite the giveaway.

----------


## Floyd

You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties.  Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.

This means . . . nothing.  Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless.  But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything.  Keep bragging about white flight, dude.

----------


## okcpulse

> You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties.  Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.
> 
> This means . . . nothing.  Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless.  But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything.  Keep bragging about white flight, dude.


From the 2000 census on Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and www.census.gov

Tulsa MSA


Total Population 803,235, 100.0%
White Alone 610,244, 76.0%
Black Alone 70,867, 8.8%
AIAN Alone 55,772, 6.9%
Asian Alone 9,926, 1.2%
NHPI Alone 318, 0.0%
Other 56,108, 7.0% 
White and AIAN* 26,783, 3.3% 
Hispanic (of any race) 38,570, 4.8%
*Total Minority 231,561, 28.8%*

OKC MSA

Total Population 1,083,346, 100.0% 
White Alone 819,624, 75.7% 
Black Alone 114,351, 10.6% 
AIAN Alone 45,382, 4.2% 
Asian Alone 27,204, 2.5%
NHPI Alone 750, 0.1% 
Other 76,035, 7.0% 
White and AIAN* 21,734, 2.0% 
Hispanic (of any race) 72,998, 6.7%
*Total Minority 336,720, 31.1%*

Yeah, manuipulating statistics, alright.  I am willing to bet that if the numbers were in Tulsa's favor you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties. Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.
> 
> ....statistics can be manipulated to show anything. Keep bragging about white flight, dude.


The how about YOU run the MSA numbers and show me the error of my ways?

Besides, there is no denying the extreme segregation that existing in Tulsa, which is the premise of my response here.

----------


## Oil Capital

> You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties.  Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.
> 
> This means . . . nothing.  Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless.  But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything.  Keep bragging about white flight, dude.


Wow.  Way to make a complete fool of yourself, Floyd.  (See above posting of MSA numbers proving the exact opposite of your delusional claim.)

And a Tulsan deriding another city for white flight?   ROFLMAO

----------


## bombermwc

Wow, so this thread is really off topic.

----------


## Floyd

> Wow.  Way to make a complete fool of yourself, Floyd.  (See above posting of MSA numbers proving the exact opposite of your delusional claim.)
> 
> And a Tulsan deriding another city for white flight?   ROFLMAO


About those numbers--try including Norman.  But I guess I'm delusional . .  .

"Complete fool?" 

No.  Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless.  If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa.  Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?

I'm not deriding OKC for that.  Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem.  Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn.  Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa.  They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.

I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am.  But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> About those numbers--try including Norman. But I guess I'm delusional . . .
> 
> "Complete fool?" 
> 
> No. Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless. If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa. Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?
> 
> I'm not deriding OKC for that. Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem. Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn. Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa. They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.
> 
> I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am. But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.


 
Lol.

----------


## sgray

Just like theater baby...only it doesn't cost anything and you don't have to leave your house.

 :Rock On:   :Rock Guitar:   :Banana:   :Smiley233:   :Smiley051:   :Drunk:   :Smiley204:   :Smiley199:   :Smiley112:

----------


## Oil Capital

> About those numbers--try including Norman.  But I guess I'm delusional . .  .
> 
> "Complete fool?" 
> 
> No.  Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless.  If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa.  Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?
> 
> I'm not deriding OKC for that.  Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem.  Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn.  Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa.  They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.
> 
> I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am.  But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.


Ummm, the numbers posted are for msa's .  OKC's msa includes Norman.  Yeah, you are delusional, and a fool.

----------


## okcpulse

> About those numbers--try including Norman.  But I guess I'm delusional . .  .
> 
> "Complete fool?" 
> 
> No.  Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless.  If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa.  Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?
> 
> I'm not deriding OKC for that.  Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem.  Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn.  Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa.  They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.
> 
> I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am.  But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.


I am in my 30s, well-educated and well-traveled.  And, OKC's MidTown/Downtown area is returning to life, bringing people back to the city.  Did I not mention that in one of my previous posts?

And, as mentioned before, those numbers include Norman.  Are you saying you don't know what OKC's metro area encompasses?  How can you dispute numbers when you are unsure of the metro area's geographical make-up?

Those maps posted by Cuatro are legitimate.  He didn't make those up.  Several different sources, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Commerce back up his sources.

----------


## TastyThaiRibs

now you need to list out all the places you've been and compare that list to floyd's - then we'll see who's the most coolest-est.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Wow, so this thread is really off topic.


Let's get back on track....

The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.

Except for my grandma, who lives there.

----------


## circuitboard

> Let's get back on track....
> 
> The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.
> 
> Except for my grandma, who lives there.


Grow up and stop using that word to call something stupid.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Yes, everybody knows it "ghey", not "gay" except you apparently.

lol.

----------


## bunchakids

Tulsa has more trees.

----------


## soonerguru

> The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.


We could use more gay here.

----------


## okcpulse

> Tulsa has more trees.


Did you take a head count?  :Smile: 

Let's get numerical.  OKC has WAY more trees.  We have 608 square miles, half of which is forested.

----------


## sgt. pepper

tulsa has more hills.

----------


## kevinpate

Only thing wrong with Tulsa is there isn't enough of it ... thus far.  It's a beautiful city, with many fine natural and added features, and it is growing again, as is OKC.  

Absent a desire to escape all things urban, both OKC and Tulsa have much to offer as destinations, for touristas and locals alike.  

Put either on your day trip or weekend list, you won't get bored, or go hungry.

----------

