OKC still has to prove it's viability as a pro sports franchise, for that to happen, attendance has to remain good and corporate sponsorship has to stay there even when they're not at the top of the league. Selling the cheap seats is really the least important part of it, the expensive seats and boxes are far more a factor. Making any statements about our status as a pro city before then is premature, IMO. Anyone will support a good team.

Which is why I think the NFL would kibosh any new ownership attempts that they think would try to move a team here (and they have the power to do this). We still have to prove we're a viable market, we haven't yet.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I believe the NBA has the most expensive average tickets of the 4 major leagues. So...if OKC is able to sellout 41 home games a season, with many during the week, why couldn't this city support 8 NFL home games...most of which are played on SUNDAYS??? Just like so many other things, the naysayers are always underestimating everything about this metro area, whether it's income, population growth, or even popularity now and in the future. How is it that Nashville can support both NFL and NHL and they are not a whole lot larger than OKC. I've lived in Nashville and they don't really have that many Fortune 500 companies. I doubt there's more than 4 or 5 headquartered there. They also DON'T have in excess of 2 million in their MSA. Also...the NBA recognized the combined OKC-Tulsa market as a top 25 market when combining population. Just like how Tulsans come down to OKC for Thunder games, they will also help buy tickets to any future OKC NFL team. Not to mention, OKC has been, and will most likely continue growing exponentially for many years to come. Just remember, NO ONE expected this city to land an NBA team a short 8 years ago. ANYTHING is possible, especially with all the momentum this city is experiencing, in addition to the city rapidly gaining national and international popularity.

I've never seen anything that says that NBA tickets are the most expensive. I did a little searching for prices last year, and the prices I found said otherwise, with the NFL being far and away more expensive on average. That makes complete sense, seeing that the least valuable NFL franchise is still worth a significant chunk of money more than the most valuable NBA franchise. Now, some of the numbers were from third parties, but they were similar enough in most places I looked.

Average MLB ticket price - $26.98
Most expensive average MLB ticket price - $101.11 (Boston)
Least expensive average MLB ticket price - $33.21 (Pittsburgh)

Average NBA ticket price - $48.48.
Most expensive average NBA ticket price - $117.47 (New York)
Least expensive average NBA ticket price - $22.95 (Memphis)

Average NHL ticket price - $57.10
Most expensive average NHL ticket price - $123.77 (Toronto)
Least expensive average NHL ticket price - $29.95 (Dallas)

Average NFL ticket price - $78.38
Most expensive average NFL ticket price - $117.94 (Jets)
Least expensive average NFL ticket - $54.20 (Cleveland)

And that's only taking the ticket itself into account and not everything else that goes along with the ticket.

And if we're talking fortune 500 companies, CNN lists two in Oklahoma City and two in Tulsa, in between OKC and Tulsa, and 4 in the immediate Nashville area. Now, that's not taking Memphis (2) or Chatanooga (1) into account because they're so far away, but for an NFL game, you'd probably be more likely to have people make a trip and support those teams, compared to OKC, where three hours gets you to cities that already have die hard NFL fanbases.

I've never seen anything that says that NBA tickets are the most expensive. I did a little searching for prices last year, and the prices I found said otherwise, with the NFL being far and away more expensive on average. That makes complete sense, seeing that the least valuable NFL franchise is still worth a significant chunk of money more than the most valuable NBA franchise. Now, some of the numbers were from third parties, but they were similar enough in most places I looked.

Average MLB ticket price - $26.98
Most expensive average MLB ticket price - $101.11 (Boston)
Least expensive average MLB ticket price - $33.21 (Pittsburgh)

Average NBA ticket price - $48.48.
Most expensive average NBA ticket price - $117.47 (New York)
Least expensive average NBA ticket price - $22.95 (Memphis)

Average NHL ticket price - $57.10
Most expensive average NHL ticket price - $123.77 (Toronto)
Least expensive average NHL ticket price - $29.95 (Dallas)

Average NFL ticket price - $78.38
Most expensive average NFL ticket price - $117.94 (Jets)
Least expensive average NFL ticket - $54.20 (Cleveland)

And that's only taking the ticket itself into account and not everything else that goes along with the ticket.

And if we're talking fortune 500 companies, CNN lists two in Oklahoma City and two in Tulsa, in between OKC and Tulsa, and 4 in the immediate Nashville area. Now, that's not taking Memphis (2) or Chatanooga (1) into account because they're so far away, but for an NFL game, you'd probably be more likely to have people make a trip and support those teams, compared to OKC, where three hours gets you to cities that already have die hard NFL fanbases.

Probably was the average cost of purachasing full season of tickets some year(s): MLB has more games than any of the others, NBA/NHL has the same, NFL has far fewer games. Either way it does not look like that would hold for this year.

Average ticket price X regular season home games
MLB: 26.98 X 81 = 2185.38
NBA: 48.48 X 42 = 2036.16
NHL: 57.10 X 42 = 2398.20
NFL: 78.38 X 8 = 627.04

By looking at the total spent on each sport per season, it does clearly show that NFL only accounts for roughly 1/3 of the cost of the other 3 sports. Admittedly, I was incorrect about the NBA having the most expensive ticket on average. I know that when OKC was trying to get an NHL expansion team in the 1990's, I remember hearing Mayor Norick and Clay Bennett saying that NHL was the priciest, and then NBA. Made me wonder why we were going for the most expensive sport at the time. I just believe that OKC has much more wealth than people realize, and the NFL is not too far-fetched of a possibility for this city.

I can see that point, but if we're talking sellouts, then we're going to have to look for single game tickets because, honestly, no one sells an entire stadium of season tickets in any sport. On average, it still holds true that the NFL is a lot more expensive per game than any other major sport. There's also a question of value, you may pay more for NBA season tickets, but you also get 5x as many games at home. So is it a better value to pay 1/3 of the cost for 1/5 of the number of games? Well, that just depends on how much you like the respective sports.

And if we were talking total costs for going to a game, I'd still bet the NFL would be more expensive than that even, since most people have to pay for parking and concessions and the like as well, and I'd wager that that's more expensive in the NFL than the other leagues as well.

By looking at the total spent on each sport per season, it does clearly show that NFL only accounts for roughly 1/3 of the cost of the other 3 sports. Admittedly, I was incorrect about the NBA having the most expensive ticket on average. I know that when OKC was trying to get an NHL expansion team in the 1990's, I remember hearing Mayor Norick and Clay Bennett saying that NHL was the priciest, and then NBA. Made me wonder why we were going for the most expensive sport at the time. I just believe that OKC has much more wealth than people realize, and the NFL is not too far-fetched of a possibility for this city.

Some interviews implied the NHL was seen at the time as the most likely to be possible to get a team from. At the time the NBA did not have any team considering a move, expansion was not going to happen and we would not have been first on the list at the time to move to anyway. They may be more fan ticket dollar expensive but the NFL stadiums cost more as do the teams and trying to to get into MLB as the smallest team is asking to be a doormat.


And if we were talking total costs for going to a game, I'd still bet the NFL would be more expensive than that even, since most people have to pay for parking and concessions and the like as well, and I'd wager that that's more expensive in the NFL than the other leagues as well.

Some owners do turn the screws to fans for parking and concessions but since the real money for football is in the TV rights it does not all have to be made up at the stadium.

Some owners do turn the screws to fans for parking and concessions but since the real money for football is in the TV rights it does not all have to be made up at the stadium.

except that with the NFL and the TV rights deal, you have to look at shared revenue streams versus non-shared revenue streams... concessions and parking is 100% for the ownership/stadium... the TV rights is all shared revenue. so a team can make a lot of money on concessions and parking, and other items like that and not have to give that money to anyone else.


I'm just curious how many of the people on this discussion have A) been to an NFL game, and B) have regularly gone? Not trying to brag or anything, but i make atleast 1 game each season, and have been to 22 of the 32 stadiums over the past decade. I have experienced a lot of different atmosphere's that surround the NFL, and I think that is why i just don't see OKC as a NFL city, and like i have said before, not sure if i really want it to be an NFL city.

I was thinking...about the people who say the NFL will never work in OKC...why do you think that?

New Orleans has a metro population the same as OKC. New Orleans is of course a much bigger tourist market if that means anything, but they easily support both an NBA and an NFL team. Jacksonville is the size of OKC and has the NFL. Charlotte is a bit larger and supports both the NBA and NFL. I think its conceivable that OKC could support an NFL team in addition to the Thunder, especially as sports crazy as this city is. If it can't now, it definitely will be able to within a decade.

It seems that the typical answer to "why couldn't OKC support a NFL team?" is "OKC is a college town!" I don't know about you, but I am pretty tired of that old response. I don't believe it to be true. I remember them saying that about the NBA also. What is likely to happen is the non-graduate fans of Oklahoma State and Oklahoma will overtime begin to shift their "fandom" from the universities to the pros. Which would mean less money for the two major universities from sales of shirts, stickers, cups, and all the other junk with either the OSU or OU logo plastered on the side. The greatest benefit of OKC having a NFL team is not the professional athletes, notoriety for the city, high level of competition, or the beautiful stadium I am sure OKC citizens would approve, the greatest benefit would be less 45 year old men wearing Sam Bradford jerseys! Let’s (by let's I mean, someone who is rich should) buy the Bills, and move them to OKC. We could even keep the same logo!

I was thinking...about the people who say the NFL will never work in OKC...why do you think that?

New Orleans has a metro population the same as OKC. New Orleans is of course a much bigger tourist market if that means anything, but they easily support both an NBA and an NFL team. Jacksonville is the size of OKC and has the NFL. Charlotte is a bit larger and supports both the NBA and NFL. I think its conceivable that OKC could support an NFL team in addition to the Thunder, especially as sports crazy as this city is. If it can't now, it definitely will be able to within a decade.
The examples you use are not very persuasive. New orleans has struggled to support the NBA while the Saints have been there. Before the Hornets the Jazz were there for 5 years in the 70's before bolting to Utah. The Hornets would have left had Shinn had his way. As it was, the league owned the team before finally finding a buyer. The jury is still out on viability of this team making it there. Jacksonville has one pro team. While Charlotte is larger, the Hornets failed there as well and the Bobcats now only average 15, 6 a game, 24th in a 30 team league.

One must also keep in mind the media market. OKC is not top 30 and Jerry Jones would be sacrificing a little of his market should OKC get a team. Not to mention the fact that the NFL loves public financing, think the public in Oklahoma would go for it? NFL stadium costs more than a NBA/NHL arena with only a fraction of the dates.

I was thinking...about the people who say the NFL will never work in OKC...why do you think that?

New Orleans has a metro population the same as OKC. New Orleans is of course a much bigger tourist market if that means anything, but they easily support both an NBA and an NFL team. Jacksonville is the size of OKC and has the NFL. Charlotte is a bit larger and supports both the NBA and NFL. I think its conceivable that OKC could support an NFL team in addition to the Thunder, especially as sports crazy as this city is. If it can't now, it definitely will be able to within a decade.

Jacksonville is a lousy analogy to use for support of an OKC NFL franchise. Jacksonville is regarded as one of the ongoing flops in the NFL, and their lack of attendance and support is why so many of their "home" games are slated for London. To compare New Orleans to OKC in terms of tourist appeal is a non-starter - to say nothing of the fact that the Saints weren't exactly stuffing the stands until their run a couple of years ago.

Seems this discussion gets stirred up every few months, and while I as a football fan love to imagine the idea of the NFL in OKC, there's absolutely no basis on which any such effort should be started. We do not have the corporate base, the financial base, or the media base necessary for an NFL franchise. We just don't.

The NBA is a perfect fit for OKC, and it came here only because of the perfect storm (no pun intended) of circumstances unfolded and landed the Hornets here temporarily. The NFL is a league of an entirely different financial order, and there's no way I would expect the taxpayers to fund what would be in the range of a $500 M to $1 BILLION expenditure for an NFL-caliber stadium.

Dreaming is great. Dreaming big is great. But to try and pigeonhole those dreams into a reality that ignores the financial disasters that have become the NFL's Jaguars or the stadium bill being footed by Cleveland taxpayers (see story here (http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2012/01/the_cleveland_browns_stadium_i.html), is to jump from dreaming to insane fantasy. We have a legitimate, championship caliber NBA franchise in a completely paid-for arena in a small-market city. There are cities that would beg to be in such a position. To suddenly start lusting for the NFL is to ignore financial realities, and rapidly becomes the very essence of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Why on earth would we want to imperil OKC financially on a venture for which there is ample evidence from current franchises that the risk is real, and the downside immense?

the reason that the NFL will not work in OKC is because a vast majority of your fan base is already loyal to another team. The Dallas Cowboys is why an NFL team would not work in OKC. I am a Raiders fan, and while i would probably buy season tickets, it would be difficult for me to just jump allegiances. And since a large majority of people who would be the target market for an NFL team would not just switch because there is a new team in town, i don't see it as a viable sports option.

The NBA was different, because no team had such a massive hold over this market (even though Mark Cuban would like to think differently), and the signs of my previous statement are still there as well. the people i know who were big time Lakers fans are still big time Lakers fans, and the Celtics fans are still Celtics fans, there was just a vast majority of the residents who might watch the NBA but were not fans of any specific teams (just really had their teams they liked and disliked).

I was thinking...about the people who say the NFL will never work in OKC...why do you think that?

New Orleans has a metro population the same as OKC. New Orleans is of course a much bigger tourist market if that means anything, but they easily support both an NBA and an NFL team. Jacksonville is the size of OKC and has the NFL. Charlotte is a bit larger and supports both the NBA and NFL. I think its conceivable that OKC could support an NFL team in addition to the Thunder, especially as sports crazy as this city is. If it can't now, it definitely will be able to within a decade.

Easily? You do realize that the NBA had to buy the Hornets/Pelicans recently because the ownership staff wanted to get rid of it and no one had been stepping up, right? The league owned the franchise for two seasons, and they're not exactly blowing the league away in attendance either, they were bottom third of the league 4 of the last 5 years.

The reason why I don't see the NFL in OKC is two fold. I think OKC is fairly low on the list of potential expansion/relocation destinations, and there's not going to be enough movement anytime soon for OKC to enter the conversation. Like it or not, OKC hasn't proven itself as a pro town yet. OKC has proven that it can support a new team pretty well, and that it can support a good team pretty well, but being a good pro market is about how you perform when the chips are down, if you still have the money to support a team then. We haven't had that challenge yet, and we won't until the Thunder slump. You could respond with "Rich guy could buy ______ and go anywhere, just like Al Davis did!" but that'd ignore that the Al Davis experiment was a failure and he quickly retreated back to Oakland. The league approves sales of new teams, and I'd bet that they don't have OKC in the list of the best relocation destinations so any owner with on overt attempt would probably not get approved. After the way that the Thunder came here, any Oklahoma buyer would be suspect.

Secondly, I just don't think we have the money here for two pro franchises right now. Our biggest money holders are all tied up in the Thunder right now, and those are almost all in an energy market that is, quite frankly, pretty volatile. The cheapest NFL franchise is still a bigger money commitment than the most expensive NBA franchise,and the Thunder aren't close to being that. People like to trot out population figures, and that's fine and dandy, but what you really need is money to fill the luxury boxes and sponsorships. As of now, I don't think we have that, and I don't think that's going to change in the next 10 years, at least. New Orleans has the tourism advantage that we couldn't dream of, and Jacksonville is a mess right now.

I go to new Orleans all the time to see family and esp for Saints games. No one there cares about the NBA, except when the heat or lakers are in town

the reason that the NFL will not work in OKC is because a vast majority of your fan base is already loyal to another team. The Dallas Cowboys is why an NFL team would not work in OKC. I am a Raiders fan, and while i would probably buy season tickets, it would be difficult for me to just jump allegiances. And since a large majority of people who would be the target market for an NFL team would not just switch because there is a new team in town, i don't see it as a viable sports option.

The NBA was different, because no team had such a massive hold over this market (even though Mark Cuban would like to think differently), and the signs of my previous statement are still there as well. the people i know who were big time Lakers fans are still big time Lakers fans, and the Celtics fans are still Celtics fans, there was just a vast majority of the residents who might watch the NBA but were not fans of any specific teams (just really had their teams they liked and disliked).

If it was fifteen to twenty years ago I could see loyalty to the cowboys being a bump to get over but they have been mediocre for long enough that most of the people I know that we're cowboy fans have moved on to watching good game or following teams based off who plays on them.

I was thinking...about the people who say the NFL will never work in OKC...why do you think that?

New Orleans has a metro population the same as OKC. New Orleans is of course a much bigger tourist market if that means anything, but they easily support both an NBA and an NFL team. Jacksonville is the size of OKC and has the NFL. Charlotte is a bit larger and supports both the NBA and NFL. I think its conceivable that OKC could support an NFL team in addition to the Thunder, especially as sports crazy as this city is. If it can't now, it definitely will be able to within a decade.

If you are only looking at population, consider the population of the area/state of those locations. Oklahoma only has 3.8 million total state population and OKC is a fair distance away from other out of state population centers that are not already located within driving distance of an NFL franchise. Charlotte draws from NC and SC; New Orleans from MS, AL, and TX; Jacksonville is struggling and it can draw from AL, GA, and northern FL. I think OKC and OK is a perfect small market for the NBA. MLS might work with the right ownership group, but I think OKC/OK is quite a while away from being a consideration for the NFL.

bchris02,

Try researching corporate presence between New Orleans and OKC. I think that overall, you will find N.O. has more Fortune 500 companies than OKC. I wouldn't expect the Big 3 (Chesapeake, Sandridge & Devon) to sponsor both professional leagues. The financial strain with the NFL is much more than with the NBA. Now as far as the Green Bay model goes, I don't know what to tell you. Green Bay is only a difference of 2 miles further to Chicago than OKC is to Dallas and both those franchises were born in 1919. I guess their model works because they've won 13 championships and they're a forefather of the league. I just don't think OKC can birth a new franchise and expect the same scenario.

bchris02,

Try researching corporate presence between New Orleans and OKC. I think that overall, you will find N.O. has more Fortune 500 companies than OKC. I wouldn't expect the Big 3 (Chesapeake, Sandridge & Devon) to sponsor both professional leagues. The financial strain with the NFL is much more than with the NBA. Now as far as the Green Bay model goes, I don't know what to tell you. Green Bay is only a difference of 2 miles further to Chicago than OKC is to Dallas and both those franchises were born in 1919. I guess their model works because they've won 13 championships and they're a forefather of the league. I just don't think OKC can birth a new franchise and expect the same scenario.

The Green Bay ownership model is not allowed any more, they can keep it since it was grandfathered in. But they also get help from the proximity to Milwaukee to draw fans from.

It was made known to me that New Orleans only has one Fortune 500 company (Entergy @ #261 (thank you Green Country)). I did a search via Wikipedia and both cities are about even. As of 7 months ago (the last update), OKC has 2 500s, 1 1000, 35 headquartered and 28 with significant presence for a grand total of 66 and I'm sure there are other smaller companies that didn't make the list. For New Orleans, the one top 500 and 62 other companies either headquartered or with significant presence for a total of 63 +/- the local businesses that the updater didn't know about (updated 2 months ago).

It was made known to me that New Orleans only has one Fortune 500 company (Entergy @ #261 (thank you Green Country)). I did a search via Wikipedia and both cities are about even. As of 7 months ago (the last update), OKC has 2 500s, 1 1000, 35 headquartered and 28 with significant presence for a grand total of 66 and I'm sure there are other smaller companies that didn't make the list. For New Orleans, the one top 500 and 62 other companies either headquartered or with significant presence for a total of 63 +/- the local businesses that the updater didn't know about (updated 2 months ago).

True. The only thing New Orleans really has above OKC is the cultural heritage and tourist draw. In terms of economics, I would say OKC is about even with if not ahead of the Big Easy. Wouldn't it be the raw economics that would determine if teams can be supported, or does tourism/national image play a part?

Image is everything when it comes to actually getting a team. And I again I think the image on OKC just isn't settled yet, and won't be until the Thunder are still viable despite not being a title contender.

As far as economics is concerned, I still think OKC in general has all of it's largest eggs in a very shaky basket, and we shouldn't be predicting sustained long-term growth on just the energy market, which is highly competitive and has had the bottom fall form it in the past. But even then, you can't prop up New Orleans as an example because of how much turmoil their NBA franchise has been in. The league had to step in to keep the team viable there. The league is just reaching where there's not a great market right now, and when it comes time to move franchises, New Orleans is probably going to be in a short list of possible franchises to get cheap.

Funny the way the world works these days. Im certain national image was phenomenal for Buffalo New York when the Bills were born. Or that the LA Clippers franchise was actually in San Diego first. That might be a team/city where the tourism aspect came into play. I just don't think tourism, nowadays, has nearly enough to do with it as national image (which should easily be corrected with the world being as interconnected as it is).

I think if a city has an actual tourism market then that means it has it's own unique identity that is recognized outside of the immediate area. It means that it has an actual charm that people want to go to and see. That doesn't necessarily translate to a sports franchise on it's own, since the Pelicans aren't in a good place and we dont' have pro sports in, say, Hawaii, but I don't think you can discount what tourism actually means in terms of national image.

Funny the way the world works these days. Im certain national image was phenomenal for Buffalo New York when the Bills were born. Or that the LA Clippers franchise was actually in San Diego first. That might be a team/city where the tourism aspect came into play. I just don't think tourism, nowadays, has nearly enough to do with it as national image (which should easily be corrected with the world being as interconnected as it is).

You know what is weird - the LA Clippers actually started out in Buffalo. They moved to San Diego after the '77-'78 season.

As a Dallas Cowboys fan, JJ is making it easier day-by-day to jump allegiances. That being said, I still don't see OKC as a viable NFL market anytime soon. Let's take care of the Thunder before we start biting off more than we can chew.

Do we really want to be an NFL city? the city of St. Louis just refused to put up $700 Million in public money for upgrades to Edward Jones Dome, and now the Rams are free to leave the arena and the city at the end of the 2014 season. The NFL is a cut throat league.

I wonder what happens when no city wants an NFL team. It isn't like a NBA or NHL team that can play in a multi-use facility that can be switched out in 90 minutes. These are super expensive stadiums that are single-use for a large part of the year.

I wonder what happens when no city wants an NFL team. It isn't like a NBA or NHL team that can play in a multi-use facility that can be switched out in 90 minutes. These are super expensive stadiums that are single-use for a large part of the year.

Interesting notion.

I don't think that the likelihood of no city wanting a franchise is very high; however, it may well occur that at some point (who knows when or if this will ever occur) no city can or will be willing to offer an "ante-up" in the "arms race" of nicer, more "wow-factor" stadiums. It may be that cities back down to simpler, less expensive, thus less risky, such facilities. It takes a Jerry Jones to build JerryWorld, so its a bit of a unique animal, but there may come a time in the not-so-distant future where neither the risk nor the capital for the more monstrous stadiums will be available.

Do we really want to be an NFL city? the city of St. Louis just refused to put up $700 Million in public money for upgrades to Edward Jones Dome, and now the Rams are free to leave the arena and the city at the end of the 2014 season. The NFL is a cut throat league.

I think "can" and "should" are two very different issues here. Right now I'm quite happy with the NBA and feel that while we can or could support a team, I'm not sure we should at this point in time.

Do we really want to be an NFL city? the city of St. Louis just refused to put up $700 Million in public money for upgrades to Edward Jones Dome, and now the Rams are free to leave the arena and the city at the end of the 2014 season. The NFL is a cut throat league.

When the most recent owner bought the team it seemed like the odds were fair that his intentions were to move it elsewhere, looks like he may just be following the script for how to move the easiest team possible.

You know what is weird - the LA Clippers actually started out in Buffalo. They moved to San Diego after the '77-'78 season.

That is weird...I randomly selected an NBA team from the same city I was speaking of the NFL team, lol...

Interesting notion.

I don't think that the likelihood of no city wanting a franchise is very high; however, it may well occur that at some point (who knows when or if this will ever occur) no city can or will be willing to offer an "ante-up" in the "arms race" of nicer, more "wow-factor" stadiums. It may be that cities back down to simpler, less expensive, thus less risky, such facilities. It takes a Jerry Jones to build JerryWorld, so its a bit of a unique animal, but there may come a time in the not-so-distant future where neither the risk nor the capital for the more monstrous stadiums will be available.

Thanks SoonerDave - that is more what I was thinking. The new stadium in Atlanta is supposed to cost over a billion dollars and the Falcon's owner wants the city to help pay for it. I have no idea why Atlanta civic leaders are even entertaining the thought of that. Like I said earlier, even here in Jax we are spending $60 million on stadium enhancements when we are making cuts everywhere else. It has just stopped making sense to me.

So are we saying that we think a stadium smaller than that of OU Gaylord Memorial Stadium would be better suited for the future of NFL and a new model in OKC?

So are we saying that we think a stadium smaller than that of OU Gaylord Memorial Stadium would be better suited for the future of NFL and a new model in OKC?

Having stadiums larger than OU's in a smaller market would be a new model for the NFL. There are only two NFL stadiums with a larger seating capacity than OU's stadium, one of those two with more seats is below the highest recorded attendance at an OU game, the rest have between 10,000 and 20,000 less seats than it. The money at the stadiums is not made in the seats far away from the field; it is made through TV, luxury boxes, higher end sections near the field and the services that can be sold to them. Avoiding TV blackout is a bigger issue than getting a bigger stadium for smaller markets.

The perfect NFL stadium would be 25,000 seats. This is a lesson MLB is just learning. The NFL is a bit slower on the learning curve (probably from all the head injuries :))

The perfect NFL stadium would be 25,000 seats. This is a lesson MLB is just learning. The NFL is a bit slower on the learning curve (probably from all the head injuries :))

i think you are a little low on your number, but the idea is still correct. the NFL is going to learn that a smaller stadium with more amenities that can't be offered at home is the way to go.

The perfect NFL stadium would be 25,000 seats. This is a lesson MLB is just learning. The NFL is a bit slower on the learning curve (probably from all the head injuries :))

Hmmmm...I think that number is low - the new number may be closer to the range of 50-60K seats. In fact, Heinz Field up in Pitt may be a very rough forerunner of what we're talking about - a rough Google of its capacity indicates it's about 65K. Jerryworld can hold up of 100K, but I think JJ built that place knowing up front he wanted it as sort of a pseudo-multipurpose venue, which he's been very aggressive about realizing.

MLB's problem isn't from stadiums that are too large. I think its from having just too many cotton picking games. I say that with the proviso that I'm not a big baseball fan, but thinking how you even begin to populate a 40-50-60K stadium for 81 home dates boggles the mind. I know they'll never do it, but I think MLB would suit themselves well if they considered shortening their season just a bit. The NFL is in serious danger of expanding their season into the same oversaturation range - 18 games is too many in my opinion....sorry, getting off topic :)

Until attendance stops dropping (which peaked in 2007) I am going to stick with the 25,000 number.

After peaking in 2007, NFL attendance steadily has declined | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/08/after-peaking-in-2007-nfl-attendance-steadily-has-declined/)


Despite unprecedented growth of TV audiences, attendance at NFL games reached an all-time high in 2007. It has consistently dropped ever since.

Until attendance stops dropping (which peaked in 2007) I am going to stick with the 25,000 number.

After peaking in 2007, NFL attendance steadily has declined | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/08/after-peaking-in-2007-nfl-attendance-steadily-has-declined/)

Actually, it has rebounded. And the avg. is about 65,000.... A far cry from the wishful 25,000. Lol. Imagine that attendance went down during the worst recession in modern history. That is so hard to understand why that would happen. Wow.

2012 Attendance

Dallas Cowboys: 708,249 (tops in the NFL)
Stadium Cost: $1.3 billion

Oklahoma Redhawks: 399,965 (9 highest in the PCL)
Stadium Cost: $32 million

If the NFL has a positive 'intangible' factor, it isn't in their stadium cost per fan. For the most part, people watching on TV don't care what the 'stadium experience' is, which probably explains why teams want giant televisions AT the game.

Like I posted in the MAPS for Suburbia thread, it is a different game business wise now, what worked in the 60's to get a team doesn't work now. If it weren't for the NFL and NBA Commissioners and public sentiment New Orleans wouldn't have either team, the Hornets would be in OKC and the Saints would be in San Antonio.

MAPS IV in 2017 is going to determine if Oklahoma City is "ready" for a future in the NFL or immediate pursuit of a Major League Soccer franchise. There will be some type of facility on MAPS IV.

Do with begin with a forty to fifty thousand seat facility capable of being expanded to 65,000 - 70,000-seats? You're talking about a start up price of about $400 millions without all the bells and whistles.

Whether or not we attempt to bring the NFL to OKC in 2020; we would like to have some type of facility with expansion possibilities. OU would allow use of Gaylord Family Memorial Stadium as a temporary facility; however, it would not be in their best interest to house a team beyond 3 years.

MAPS IV in 2017 is going to determine if Oklahoma City is "ready" for a future in the NFL or immediate pursuit of a Major League Soccer franchise. There will be some type of facility on MAPS IV.

Do with begin with a forty to fifty thousand seat facility capable of being expanded to 65,000 - 70,000-seats? You're talking about a start up price of about $400 millions without all the bells and whistles.

Whether or not we attempt to bring the NFL to OKC in 2020; we would like to have some type of facility with expansion possibilities. OU would allow use of Gaylord Family Memorial Stadium as a temporary facility; however, it would not be in their best interest to house a team beyond 3 years.

I've said it many times on this thread. i am a huge NFL fan, and i hope that there is NOT a stadium in Maps IV. the NFL is a pipe dream. those teams do not sell often, and expansion is not likely soon, and there are several markets who would get one before us (San Antonio, or St Louis, since they are going to lose the Rams in 2 years)

I've said it many times on this thread. i am a huge NFL fan, and i hope that there is NOT a stadium in Maps IV. the NFL is a pipe dream. those teams do not sell often, and expansion is not likely soon, and there are several markets who would get one before us (San Antonio, or St Louis, since they are going to lose the Rams in 2 years)

NFL is a pipedream? I heard this about the NHL and NBA in the 1990s. Naysayers said that we would never get an NHL team and that an NBA franchise was an impossibility.

Well, the NBA is here and the NHL was what we were targeting. We grabbed a bigger fish to fry with the NBA than the NHL; yet, this was the city in 1997 that finished tied with Houston in the 1997 NHL expansion as we took a back seat to Nashville, Atlanta, St. Paul and Columbus.

Don't get me wrong; I respect your opinion--you might be right.

If we hadn't went right ahead and built the Indoor Sports Arena (ex Ford/Chesapeake Energy Arena), you are correct, the NBA would not be here.

We do need some type of stadium; let's get one in place, just in case the opportunity affords itself...

Had we left the Indoor Sports Arena off the original MAPS project in 1993; there would definitely be no NBA or the remote possibility of getting one.

San Antonio? The Alamo Dome will be outdated by the time an NFL team becomes available.

St. Louis? If they lose the Rams; I doubt if they will get an NFL team anytime soon. When Houston let the Oilers leave for Nashville, it took a new stadium and an expansion franchise to get back into Houston.

NFL is a pipedream? I heard this about the NHL and NBA in the 1990s. Naysayers said that we would never get an NHL team and that an NBA franchise was an impossibility.

Well, the NBA is here and the NHL was what we were targeting. We grabbed a bigger fish to fry with the NBA than the NHL; yet, this was the city in 1997 that finished tied with Houston in the 1997 NHL expansion as we took a back seat to Nashville, Atlanta, St. Paul and Columbus.

Don't get me wrong; I respect your opinion--you might be right.

If we hadn't went right ahead and built the Indoor Sports Arena (ex Ford/Chesapeake Energy Arena), you are correct, the NBA would not be here.

We do need some type of stadium; let's get one in place, just in case the opportunity affords itself...

Had we left the Indoor Sports Arena off the original MAPS project in 1993; there would definitely be no NBA or the remote possibility of getting one.

San Antonio? The Alamo Dome will be outdated by the time an NFL team becomes available.

St. Louis? If they lose the Rams; I doubt if they will get an NFL team anytime soon. When Houston let the Oilers leave for Nashville, it took a new stadium and an expansion franchise to get back into Houston.

There is a big difference between the NFL and the NBA. The Thunder in the 2011-2012 season, according to Forbes Brought in $126 Million in revenue. during the 2011 NFL season, the worst team in their league brought it $226 Million (My Oakland Raiders). The Thunder was the 10th best team in the League, with only the Knicks have more in revenue than an NFL team. Even the Lakers did not bring in more revenue than a single NFL team.

The economics to support something like that is much greater than i think people realize. The NBA is is a Millionaires League... the NFL is a Billionaires League, and i just don't see OKC having even the remote chance of being able to support such an entity.

I know i know, everyone brings up the Packers, but the whole state of Wisconsin and their almost 6 million people are their Market... that extra 2 million people makes a difference.

I also am still of the belief that if Seattle had approved a deal for a new arena, we still wouldn't have an NBA team.

NFL is a pipedream? I heard this about the NHL and NBA in the 1990s. Naysayers said that we would never get an NHL team and that an NBA franchise was an impossibility.

Well, the NBA is here and the NHL was what we were targeting. We grabbed a bigger fish to fry with the NBA than the NHL; yet, this was the city in 1997 that finished tied with Houston in the 1997 NHL expansion as we took a back seat to Nashville, Atlanta, St. Paul and Columbus.


Yes, it's a pipedream - one that entirely too expensive to undertake speculatively. We since realized that the NHL had no real intention of giving OKC a franchise; we were leverage among other cities with whom the NHL was negotiating.



Don't get me wrong; I respect your opinion--you might be right.

If we hadn't went right ahead and built the Indoor Sports Arena (ex Ford/Chesapeake Energy Arena), you are correct, the NBA would not be here.

We do need some type of stadium; let's get one in place, just in case the opportunity affords itself...


There's got to be some perspective here. We enjoyed the perfect storm of circumstances to get the NBA here.

We built Chesapeake (nee Ford Center) on the extreme cheap for $80M. An NFL-caliber stadium under current dynamics would cost something on the order of one billion dollars. A "cheap" facility which likely wouldn't get a second look would cost at least half that much - $500M. I can't fathom any responsible businessman, politician, or taxpayer that would endorse the idea of a speculative expenditure in the form of sales taxes, bonds, or some other mechanism of that magnitude would be a responsible use of money. And that expenditure only gets a facility built - it doesn't even begin to cross the bridge of getting and keeping an NFL team here. And it doesn't address the costs of maintaining this facility until a tenant arrives.

Get frustrated with the current salary cap dynamics that make the Thunder look like a constipated kid in the draft or during free agency? That's because OKC is, despite all the success, a small-market NBA team. We're every bit the same thing, only magnified 10-fold, 20-fold, maybe 100-fold, when measured against the NFL's yardstick. Now think about NFL player salaries in that context. See the problem?

And let's not even begin to explore the fact that there's at least two huge NFL priorities way ahead of anything here, even assuming we had this speculative stadium - first, the LA area is fighting hammer, tooth, and nail to get a franchise back in their area. Second, the NFL is looking to expand internationally - to London perhaps - and one candidate to move there is Jacksonville - a small market team that is struggling to find support.

Green Bay is the NFL's monument to small market teams - one they love so much that they forbid any future franchise from structuring its ownership the same way.



San Antonio? The Alamo Dome will be outdated by the time an NFL team becomes available.

St. Louis? If they lose the Rams; I doubt if they will get an NFL team anytime soon. When Houston let the Oilers leave for Nashville, it took a new stadium and an expansion franchise to get back into Houston.

And if two cities that have or have had NFL franchises are struggling to keep them, or to regain them, what possible leverage could Oklahoma City offer that would propel them to the top of the NFL's interest list??

I know I sound like a wet blanket, naysayer, whatever. But we are seeing more and more cities discover after the fact that a huge speculative expense for a stadium often boomerangs into a horrendous financial albatross later. We have a wonderful situation with the Thunder, one we can manage, one where the team is playing in a paid-for facility. We have the benefit of the lessons other cities have learned the hard way about stadium financing. Let's not look that gift horse in the mouth for something that, quite frankly, we just don't have the economic base to support.

I'm all for dreaming big. I'm just as much about dreaming smart.

While The arena was built with pretty much just the core components originally. Wasn't the initial buildout closer to 80m, not 20m.

While The arena was built with pretty much just the core components originally. Wasn't the initial buildout closer to 80m, not 20m.

Absolutely right. My mistake. Fixed.

Building a $500m stadium on spec would be a stupid idea. With the arena, if we didn't get an NBA or NHL team, the faciltiy still had uses. If we built a football stadium and didn't get a team, what would we do with that stadium? And some of you might answer "soccer." But 20K people watching soccer (which I think is a generous figure) would make the stadium feel big and empty.

Building a $500m stadium on spec would be a stupid idea. With the arena, if we didn't get an NBA or NHL team, the faciltiy still had uses. If we built a football stadium and didn't get a team, what would we do with that stadium? And some of you might answer "soccer." But 20K people watching soccer (which I think is a generous figure) would make the stadium feel big and empty.

That's what I've been saying all along; start with the bare bones minimum of a stadium. We proposed this by the Oklahoma State Fair board as reported by the Oklahoman in late 1960s (67/69); a 100,000-seat stadium then would have cost $5 to 7$ million. Now its $500 - $700 million for a stadium half to 3/4 that size. Stadiums aren't getting any cheaper.

The NFL is a pipedream; as was the NHL and NBA in 1997 & 2004. We are going to build something for the future (2020) and we have to start at step one. Who knows what out population is going to be in 2020? Could be anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million. The Zoo Amphitheater is outdated; Taft Stadium will shrink in size and we need to build for the future (high school football playoffs, outdoor concerts, large religious gatherings, NFL exhibition football games, OU or OSU non conference football games and I could go on and on...)

We're not Texas; but I can say that the Long Star State builds for the future; as Oklahomans we have a tendency to talk and watch opportunities go by before we act--take a page from the Texas 'build for the future playbook."

The Indoor Sports Arena which cost $89 million initially was a bargain. Whether or not we got an NHL or NBA franchise, we would still have needed this facility.

I understand that the NFL scares some people and the city might be used as a pawn. You think that it hasn't happen before with other cities. Nashville thought Houston was using it as a pawn? NFLs market minimum is 3 million in a 150-mile radius.

Oklahoma City needs a sports stadium; as to the size and how much we want to put into it will be up to the voters. What will be its primary use; a feasibility study could determine that.

I realize the NFL is a mammoth in comparison to the NBA & NHL; however, I recalled the 'naysayers' on the Oklahomans' & Oklahoma Own (forums) taking about that same pipedream hysteria in 1992.

We've got to start building somewhere...

ENOUGH SAID!

What will be its primary use; a feasibility study could determine that.

This is the first thing you have said that i agree with over this issue. What would the primary use of this facility be? The first thing we need to do, is a feasibility study... we don't need to vote on anything until that is done.

That's what I've been saying all along; start with the bare bones minimum of a stadium. We proposed this by the Oklahoma State Fair board as reported by the Oklahoman in late 1960s (67/69); a 100,000-seat stadium then would have cost $5 to 7$ million. Now its $500 - $700 million for a stadium half to 3/4 that size. Stadiums aren't getting any cheaper.

The NFL is a pipedream; as was the NHL and NBA in 1997 & 2004. We are going to build something for the future (2020) and we have to start at step one.

The Indoor Sports Arena which cost $89 million initially was a bargain. Whether or not we got an NHL or NBA franchise, we would still have needed this facility.

I understand that the NFL scares some people and the city might be use as a pawn. You think that it hasn't happen before with other cities. Houston thought Nashville was using it as a pawn?

Oklahoma City needs a sports stadium; as to the size and how much we want to put into it will be up to the voters. What will be its primary use; a feasibility study could determine that.

I realize the NFL is a mammoth in comparison to the NBA & NHL; however, I recalled the 'naysayers' on the Oklahomans' & Oklahoma Own (forums) taking about that same pipedream hysteria in 1992.

We've got to start building somewhere...

No disrespect, but no.. We don't have to just build for the sake of building. We at least had a plan for an achievable goal when we set out to build the Ford/Chesapeake center. We had a plan when we built the Bricktown Ballpark. But what's the plan for this NFL-to-be destination? How are you financing it? Which franchise are you targeting? How do you appeal to the NFL to expand if you're not acquiring an existing one? And how do you overcome the built-in obstacle of avoiding the small-market stigma that is every bit the reason why Jacksonville is struggling as an NFL city?

So if you insist that we "have" to start "somewhere," what specifically are you suggesting? That we build some sort of a 25K seat "starter" stadium, but hope someday we can expand it to 100K? And build the 25K seat facility on a site capable of supporting four times that much? Keep in mind, too, that your 2020 NFL future is only 6.5 years away, and if your "starter" place broke ground tomorrow it'd be at least a year - possibly two - before it could be ready, but we'd have to be ready to turn the shovels and expand it to NFL-caliber in less than three more years - assuming we find an ownership group that's even financially capable of holding a NFL franchise?

The point is there's a critical, critical difference between a dream and a plan. We have no NFL plan, because I believe most of the business people who know a lot more about the dollars and cents side of that business know that an NFL franchise in OK is a very tough idea to float. I remember just a few years ago when Arena Football was big, and some investors thought about bringing a team to OKC. They didn't, and I remembered reading very clearly that the reasons they didn't were because, quite simply, the numbers didn't add up. Another group tried it, got an AF2 team, and guess what - it didn't work. The numbers tell us that population areas like a large city can support about one major sports franchise per million residents - and that's exactly what we have now. One great franchise, about one million greater central OK residents. We've realized that dream. We've got it in our hands. Now we're wanting more. At some point you go from dreaming big to overdriving your headlights.

As someone who enthusiastically voted for the original MAPS, and someone who loves football (although college moreso than pro) its frustrating to be equated with a "naysayer" merely because there's an insistence that we bring some rationality to the notion of dreaming big. Getting the NFL in OKC is a drastically larger financial project and long-term commitment, both from the civic side in terms of the prospect of financing a stadium, and on the corporate side in terms of buying and operating a franchise, than our NBA situation is or ever has been.

Sorry, but I just can't get behind it.

No disrespect, but no.. We don't have to just build for the sake of building. We at least had a plan for an achievable goal when we set out to build the Ford/Chesapeake center. We had a plan when we built the Bricktown Ballpark. But what's the plan for this NFL-to-be destination? How are you financing it? Which franchise are you targeting? How do you appeal to the NFL to expand if you're not acquiring an existing one? And how do you overcome the built-in obstacle of avoiding the small-market stigma that is every bit the reason why Jacksonville is struggling as an NFL city?

So if you insist that we "have" to start "somewhere," what specifically are you suggesting? That we build some sort of a 25K seat "starter" stadium, but hope someday we can expand it to 100K? And build the 25K seat facility on a site capable of supporting four times that much? Keep in mind, too, that your 2020 NFL future is only 6.5 years away, and if your "starter" place broke ground tomorrow it'd be at least a year - possibly two - before it could be ready, but we'd have to be ready to turn the shovels and expand it to NFL-caliber in less than three more years - assuming we find an ownership group that's even financially capable of holding a NFL franchise?

The point is there's a critical, critical difference between a dream and a plan. We have no NFL plan, because I believe most of the business people who know a lot more about the dollars and cents side of that business know that an NFL franchise in OK is a very tough idea to float. I remember just a few years ago when Arena Football was big, and some investors thought about bringing a team to OKC. They didn't, and I remembered reading very clearly that the reasons they didn't were because, quite simply, the numbers didn't add up. Another group tried it, got an AF2 team, and guess what - it didn't work. The numbers tell us that population areas like a large city can support about one major sports franchise per million residents - and that's exactly what we have now. One great franchise, about one million greater central OK residents. We've realized that dream. We've got it in our hands. Now we're wanting more. At some point you go from dreaming big to overdriving your headlights.

As someone who enthusiastically voted for the original MAPS, and someone who loves football (although college moreso than pro) its frustrating to be equated with a "naysayer" merely because there's an insistence that we bring some rationality to the notion of dreaming big. Getting the NFL in OKC is a drastically larger financial project and long-term commitment, both from the civic side in terms of the prospect of financing a stadium, and on the corporate side in terms of buying and operating a franchise, than our NBA situation is or ever has been.

Sorry, but I just can't get behind it.

What he said!

I know i know, everyone brings up the Packers, but the whole state of Wisconsin and their almost 6 million people are their Market... that extra 2 million people makes a difference.
As I have stated in a few threads, if Green Bay had no pro football history and were trying to get a relocation or expansion team in the current NFL environment they would have no shot at getting a team, neither would Buffalo. That is why people who hold up those markets as an example of "it is possible" are fooling themselves.

No disrespect, but no.. We don't have to just build for the sake of building. We at least had a plan for an achievable goal when we set out to build the Ford/Chesapeake center. We had a plan when we built the Bricktown Ballpark. But what's the plan for this NFL-to-be destination? How are you financing it? Which franchise are you targeting? How do you appeal to the NFL to expand if you're not acquiring an existing one? And how do you overcome the built-in obstacle of avoiding the small-market stigma that is every bit the reason why Jacksonville is struggling as an NFL city?

So if you insist that we "have" to start "somewhere," what specifically are you suggesting? That we build some sort of a 25K seat "starter" stadium, but hope someday we can expand it to 100K? And build the 25K seat facility on a site capable of supporting four times that much? Keep in mind, too, that your 2020 NFL future is only 6.5 years away, and if your "starter" place broke ground tomorrow it'd be at least a year - possibly two - before it could be ready, but we'd have to be ready to turn the shovels and expand it to NFL-caliber in less than three more years - assuming we find an ownership group that's even financially capable of holding a NFL franchise?

The point is there's a critical, critical difference between a dream and a plan. We have no NFL plan, because I believe most of the business people who know a lot more about the dollars and cents side of that business know that an NFL franchise in OK is a very tough idea to float. I remember just a few years ago when Arena Football was big, and some investors thought about bringing a team to OKC. They didn't, and I remembered reading very clearly that the reasons they didn't were because, quite simply, the [I]numbers didn't add up. Another group tried it, got an AF2 team, and guess what - it didn't work. The numbers tell us that population areas like a large city can support about one major sports franchise per million residents - and that's exactly what we have now. One great franchise, about one million greater central OK residents. We've realized that dream. We've got it in our hands. Now we're wanting more. At some point you go from dreaming big to overdriving your headlights.

As someone who enthusiastically voted for the original MAPS, and someone who loves football (although college moreso than pro) its frustrating to be equated with a "naysayer" merely because there's an insistence that we bring some rationality to the notion of dreaming big. Getting the NFL in OKC is a drastically larger financial project and long-term commitment, both from the civic side in terms of the prospect of financing a stadium, and on the corporate side in terms of buying and operating a franchise, than our NBA situation is or ever has been.

Sorry, but I just can't get behind it.

The Oklahoma Wranglers (formerly Portland Forest Dragons) were in the AFL in 2001-2002 for two seasons. The AFL (big league) relocated here after moving from Memphis to Portland and then to OKC.

This was our first taste of arena football; we were in the big league of indoor football. The team averaged around 10,500 the first season and 8,900 (Myriad) before disbanding after the 2002 season right before we completed the Ford Center. Later an af2 franchise (minor league of the AFL) was brought to the Cox Convention Center (Old Myriad); the team was a disaster at the gate.

There is a big difference in arena football and American Football. Oklahomans did not take to the arena league as did markets like Phoenix, Orlando and San Jose.

We do need to evaluate a need for some type of outdoor facility. It doesn't have to cost $500 million. Explore the possibility of building something soccer-american football specific. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 40,000 seats; build something with the option and flexibility for expansion.

MLS's Real Salt Lake (Utah) plays in a surburb (Sandy, Utah) of Salt Lake City in a facility which seats around 21,000; built around 2002 -- the cost of Rio Tinto Stadium was initially around $125 million.

I did a locker room design for the Wranglers in the Ford Center, the league folded before construction started. I think that was before the NFL got involved in the AFL.

I did a locker room design for the Wranglers in the Ford Center, the league folded before construction started. I think that was before the NFL got involved in the AFL.

Thank you bludogok, I'm glad someone recalled that we had an AFL team in the city; that's not to say that the second time around a group didn't reject bringing the AFL back to the city.

Old 'homefries' (Mayor Kirk Humphreys) wanted to bring back the AFL pre-Katrina; the unfortunate disaster in New Orleans did give us the opportunity to be a test market for the NBA. Without the experience of test marketing the NBA; we wouldn't have a tean now. There were many cities in pursuit of the NBA, Louisville (former ABA member), Norfolk-Virginia Beach (largest metro w/o major league sport franchise) and Dallas wanted a second NBA franchise. All wanted the Hornets to temporarily relocate to their cities post Katrina.

Old 'homefries' (Mayor Kirk Humphreys) wanted to bring back the AFL pre-Katrina; the unfortunate disaster in New Orleans did give us the opportunity to be a test market for the NBA. Without the experience of test marketing the NBA; we wouldn't have a tean now. There were many cities in pursuit of the NBA, Louisville (former ABA member), Norfolk-Virginia Beach (largest metro w/o major league sport franchise) and Dallas wanted a second NBA franchise. All wanted the Hornets to temporarily relocate to their cities post Katrina.

While I would not be surprised if the experience with the Hornets greased some wheels with owners and staff of the NBA. Bennett had started working himself into the NBA's circle around the time MAPS passed, the state of things between the NBA and Seattle was so toxic that even without the Hornets if he could have still got an ownership team to buy the Sonics when they did and a similar arena package together then it seems like few roadblocks would have been put in the owners way of moving by the league.

While I would not be surprised if the experience with the Hornets greased some wheels with some owners in the NBA. Bennett had started working himself into the NBA's circle around the time MAPS passed, the state of things in between the NBA and Seattle was so toxic that if he could have still got an ownership team to buy the Sonics and a similar arena package together then it seems like few roadblocks would have been put in the owners way by the league to keep the team from moving.

Think this is a critically important point that is easily overlooked. Think things were souring and simmering negatively in Seattle for a while, and OKC was at the right place at the right time. That's what I meant when I referred to the "perfect storm" of circumstances. It's also what makes the Seattle fans' ire at OKC so preposterous - Stern was at odds with Seattle, I think, loooong before OKC entered the picture.