You are one big ray of sunshine.

At this point I'm pretty sure this poster is either Stephen Smith or Skip Bayless trolling small local forums testing out their material.

You are one big ray of sunshine. Our management had no control over 5 year contract options, salary cap, etc determined by the league. Lots of factors play into player movement.

We can thank the Thunder ownership for having a team in OKC.

Haha, right? Casual fans still don't and never will understand the money parts of the entire thing. All they can clamor is "ownership was cheap". At the time of our 2012 Finals run, zero people had any idea the cap was going to go up when it did. Without this future-telling knowledge, the only way to make decisions was based off of what the current CBA was at the time - which would have put OKC in a heavily compounding repeater tax for multiple seasons down the road. (Almost no teams go into this)

Then like the rug being pulled out from OKC, the CBA was renegotiated and the Harden trade now is a big "I told ya so!"

But wait, the entire thing isn't done biting our franchise yet. Instead of smoothing the cap rise, the players and other franchises voted to let the cap jump up for 2016 in one big leap. This allows multiple teams to magically have superstar-level capspace open up overnight. Cue the Golden State Warriors influencing KD and the combination of Klay Thompson going nuclear in game 6 to finally stick it to OKC and teach the franchise a lesson.

Again, the casual fans will clamor once more "But you had 8 seasons of KD/RW and couldn't win a ring" - yet again, the casualness often forgets that during that entire reign the team was riddled with major injuries and [perhaps] a lacking Scott Brooks.


If anything, the entire timing of everything for OKC has been [probably] the unluckiest scenario in professional sports history.

You are one big ray of sunshine. Our management had no control over 5 year contract options, salary cap, etc determined by the league. Lots of factors play into player movement.

We can thank the Thunder ownership for having a team in OKC.

I do I am a season ticket holder (5 years now)

All our castoffs are either Starting or contributing big time..

Agreed. I've really enjoyed watching Cameron Payne, Joffrey Lauvergne, Anthony Morrow, Mitch McGary, Randy Foye, DJ Augustine, Steve Novak, Grant Jerrett, Perry Jones, Jeremy Lamb, Hasheem Thabeet, Eric Maynor, and Byron Mullens ALL either Starting or contributing big time..

Agreed. I've really enjoyed watching Cameron Payne, Joffrey Lauvergne, Anthony Morrow, Mitch McGary, Randy Foye, DJ Augustine, Steve Novak, Grant Jerrett, Perry Jones, Jeremy Lamb, Hasheem Thabeet, Eric Maynor, and Byron Mullens ALL either Starting or contributing big time..

Rumors of even Reggie Jackson were circulating when the regular season winded down.

At this point I'm pretty sure this poster is either Stephen Smith or Skip Bayless trolling small local forums testing out their material.

No kidding. This is his M.O. He is the most negative and predictable person on the forum. But it's actually become hilarious to me because I can always (literally 100% of the time) predict what his response will be to certain posts.

Agreed. I've really enjoyed watching Cameron Payne, Joffrey Lauvergne, Anthony Morrow, Mitch McGary, Randy Foye, DJ Augustine, Steve Novak, Grant Jerrett, Perry Jones, Jeremy Lamb, Hasheem Thabeet, Eric Maynor, and Byron Mullens ALL either Starting or contributing big time..

Hahahaha. Love it.

And as Thomas alluded to, Reggie Jackson has become (always was?) toxic and probably won't be with the Pistons next year.

No kidding. This is his M.O. He is the most negative and predictable person on the forum. But it's actually become hilarious to me because I can always (literally 100% of the time) predict what his response will be to certain posts.

Nostradamus has returned (Lol)

I do I am a season ticket holder (5 years now)

You live in North Carolina, either giving your seats away to relatives or selling them on the TicketExchange or StubHub.

I'm going on my 8th year in club level, and attend most of the games.

James Harden was offered a great contract by the Thunder, but was limited to a 4 years deal. Russell already had the Thunders 5 year deal and Houston's 5 year contract is what lured him. And I don't blame him one bit. I also saw an interview last year with Harden where he offered up that he, at the time, regretted his move to Houston. Now that they are winning this year probably not anymore though....

Will be interesting to see how ESPN's troubles might impact the NBA. I read that the average cable package includes about $30 of NBA related costs per year.

If people continue cutting the cable cord, that's potentially a lot of missing revenue for ESPN, and by extension, the NBA.

So I've been watching some of the other series still going on in the NBA. And I honestly think Golden State could go 16-0. It is effortless for them right now. KD could legit chill on the bench until the WCF and they would still sweep.

So I've been watching some of the other series still going on in the NBA. And I honestly think Golden State could go 16-0. It is effortless for them right now. KD could legit chill on the bench until the WCF and they would still sweep.

Rockets may take 1 with TP going down. Sucks that Hill didn't play last night.

So I've been watching some of the other series still going on in the NBA. And I honestly think Golden State could go 16-0. It is effortless for them right now. KD could legit chill on the bench until the WCF and they would still sweep.

That was the whole point of them "recruiting" him - it was worth paying him whatever they needed to in order for him *not* to play for the Thunder. His contribution to *their* team was and remains entirely incidental.

That was the whole point of them "recruiting" him - it was worth paying him whatever they needed to in order for him *not* to play for the Thunder. His contribution to *their* team was and remains entirely incidental.

He's a complete upgrade in every way to Harrison Barnes too.

*edit*
Maybe Mike Brown read your post. KD carrying the team through the most of 3 quarters.

May 5th, 2017. So I've been watching some of the other series still going on in the NBA. And I honestly think Golden State could go 16-0. It is effortless for them right now. KD could legit chill on the bench until the WCF and they would still sweep.

1 win away. KD hit the biggest shot of his career last night with a transition 3 with about 45 sec to go. They're going to do it. They're actually going to go undefeated down the "hardest road" and KD gets his first ring.

KD got his ring and Finals MVP last night. It took Cleveland having an amazing game on Friday to keep them from 16-0. Crazy to think how good Cleveland is, and then the fact they basically got swept - really shows the lack of competition the Warriors have.

I don't know if it is just my own bias and emotion, but something odd about KD's celebration last night gave me a vibe that even he felt/knows how empty that championship is.

If KD stays in Oakland, the next few years of the NBA is going to be warriors planning annual parades, and Cleveland trying to collect every possible veteran in the league to even have a chance at taking a game. Wake me up in 2020. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz....

I don't know how the Warriors can keep that core together without dipping into the tax fairly deeply. They have to finally start paying Curry, Igoudala is going to be expensive on the open market, and Livingston ain't cheap either.

I don't know how the Warriors can keep that core together without dipping into the tax fairly deeply. They have to finally start paying Curry, Igoudala is going to be expensive on the open market, and Livingston ain't cheap either.

The Warriors will be good for the next two years and then it gets more complex. That KD is already talking about giving the Warriors a discount is depressing even if that can only help so much. As Zach Lowe points out in this excellent article, the logical solution in a few years is to trade Klay: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19591472/zach-lowe-golden-state-warriors-potential-dynasty-2017-nba-finals

Three superstars and trading Klay for cheaper role players would likely keep the championships rolling in. I honestly think this Warriors team is the most talented team in pro sports history and barring multiple massive injuries, I see them winning the next 3-5 titles without much competition. Unfortunately, the only way to compete with them is for another team to somehow assemble a super team and further gut other teams in the league. This will put pressure on players like Russ to form superteams, which likely would not be in OKC. Maybe The NBA will still be fun, but the conclusion is pretty much a guaranteed Warriors champtionship every year until something big changes.

"most talented team in pro sports history"

You need to look into the history of the Yankees.

Gotta tell you guys, this narrative about superteams and the NBA's general indifference toward them really gives me pause about how OKC is going to keep the Thunder going/viable. What happens in a few years when the grousing starts about the age/condition of the Peake, but it's no longer hosting a perennial title contender?

Said it when KD shafted OKC, and I'll say it again..I'm not sure the Thunder will exist in OKC in five years (well, now, four). Don't mean to be a debbie downer, but...esp with there being no guarantees about RW (and he can't be the whole team, either)

Gotta tell you guys, this narrative about superteams and the NBA's general indifference toward them really gives me pause about how OKC is going to keep the Thunder going/viable. What happens in a few years when the grousing starts about the age/condition of the Peake, but it's no longer hosting a perennial title contender?

Said it when KD shafted OKC, and I'll say it again..I'm not sure the Thunder will exist in OKC in five years (well, now, four). Don't mean to be a debbie downer, but...esp with there being no guarantees about RW (and he can't be the whole team, either)

I've had these same concerns. Sure hope we are wrong.

I've had these same concerns. Sure hope we are wrong.

Me, too. That Peake issue is a big deal, because we got that thing for *absurdly* cheap, whereas a comparable new facility would easily be a nine-figure proposition. I know we've done quite a few upgrades to it, but none of that will have the appeal of some city who has a brand new arena they need to fill. And let's not even talk about what might happen if RW doesn't see the roster changes to at least try to rebuild the franchise...then I think it might well be game over.

Lots of folks here warned everyone to enjoy the time we had with those great teams, because they're fleeting, and they wouldn't last forever. Welcome to the wrong side of that rear-view mirror.

The Peake has all the amenities that the brand new arenas have. Thinking OKC will not have a team in 4 years is absurd. Small market teams go in cycles, this is no different.

The Peake has all the amenities that the brand new arenas have. Thinking OKC will not have a team in 4 years is absurd. Small market teams go in cycles, this is no different.

I'm sure at some point the folks in Seattle thought the idea of their not having a team was "absurd." Just saying don't take it as a given. Because it isn't.

Me, too. That Peake issue is a big deal, because we got that thing for *absurdly* cheap, whereas a comparable new facility would easily be a nine-figure proposition. I know we've done quite a few upgrades to it, but none of that will have the appeal of some city who has a brand new arena they need to fill. And let's not even talk about what might happen if RW doesn't see the roster changes to at least try to rebuild the franchise...then I think it might well be game over.

Lots of folks here warned everyone to enjoy the time we had with those great teams, because they're fleeting, and they wouldn't last forever. Welcome to the wrong side of that rear-view mirror.

As devastating as it was for Durant to leave, loosing Westbrook at this point would be even worse. I'm hopeful as long as the ownership is truly committed to keeping the team here and competitive we have nothing to worry about. I just worry what happens if the worst happens and we lose Westbrook and becoming a cellar dweller in the West. Then I have a feeling people spend their money elsewhere then we have that whole debacle. This is part of the reason I'm honestly against things like getting the NFL or NHL.

Overall I'm just hoping for the best.

I'm sure at some point the folks in Seattle thought the idea of their not having a team was "absurd." Just saying don't take it as a given. Because it isn't.

We all know that the situation in Seattle was different. Key Arena is just over a 14 thousand seat venue for basketball. The taxpayers voted down any type of tax to expand or build new due to previously funding the Mariners and Seahawks facilities. I was up there last week when one of the partners within a group of two investors pulled out of a contract to develop a new arena. The media was amiss as to what was going on ?

"most talented team in pro sports history"

You need to look into the history of the Yankees.

I understand the history of the Yankees. IMHO, It's easier for a 5-man game to be dominant than one that relies on 9-batter rotations in addition to a rotation of pitchers. The Warriors can trot out 4 top 20 players with a Finals MVP and all-star (Iggy). I don't think the Yankees can compare. Also, if we're talking about pre-integration Yankees we have a whole other issue of considering that many of the best players in the world played in a different league.

It's certainly a good historical debate. I thought about it before making the claim.

Said it when KD shafted OKC, and I'll say it again..I'm not sure the Thunder will exist in OKC in five years (well, now, four). Don't mean to be a debbie downer, but...esp with there being no guarantees about RW (and he can't be the whole team, either)

The reason OKC will be here in 5 years is people have no other choice... it's the only show in town and great players will always show up. Also, young teams can be a lot of fun too. It's why Utah and Portland and similar cities have great fan support. The OKC metro has more than enough people at 1.5 million to support the Thunder. I am not worried about OKC unless the economy absolutely crumbles.

I'm sure at some point the folks in Seattle thought the idea of their not having a team was "absurd." Just saying don't take it as a given. Because it isn't.

In that context it is absurd unless some major new revolution in arena revenue generation pops up over the next 5 years and it is possible to add that new revenue generator to every NBA arena but ours. The Key Arena situation developed over 15-20 years as a result of it's inability to generate revenue at the same level as newer arenas in the league. The main cause of that disparity was that Key Arena's design made it impossible to add luxury boxes and loge boxes in high enough numbers to keep up with newly built and newly renovated arenas. Howard Shultz/the NBA said they needed a new arena to compete, the city disagreed as they had ineffectively renovated Key Arena 10 years earlier, and he sold the team to Bennett who moved them. So unless structural limitations prevent the addition of a new revenue producing feature of that magnitude to the Peake...It will likely only need incremental updates for the foreseeable future to stay competitive. That's the point that I don't think everyone concerned about OKC potentially needing a new arena soon understands. If a new arena doesn't equate to a large and necessary revenue increase, then it makes no sense for the Thunder or the city to undertake building one...especially if, at most, a major overhaul of the current arena will get the job done.

Capacity may end up being an issue but with newer arenas in larger cities like the Barclay's Center (Brooklyn), Banker's Life Fieldhouse (Indianapolis), The Toyota Center (Houston), The Golden One Center (Sacremento), the FedEx Forum (Memphis), and Philips Arena (Atlanta) all having lower max capacities than the Peake, I don't envision that being a sticking point to force building a completely new arena in the near future.

I understand the history of the Yankees. IMHO, It's easier for a 5-man game to be dominant than one that relies on 9-batter rotations in addition to a rotation of pitchers. The Warriors can trot out 4 top 20 players with a Finals MVP and all-star (Iggy). I don't think the Yankees can compare. Also, if we're talking about pre-integration Yankees we have a whole other issue of considering that many of the best players in the world played in a different league.

It's certainly a good historical debate. I thought about it before making the claim.
^^^^^^^^^


"The Warriors can trot out 4 top 20 players with a Finals MVP and all-star (Iggy). I don't think the Yankees can compare."

Let's take a look at the '27 Yankees, who did not have any black players to supplement these players.
The roster included seven future Hall of Famers: Pitchers Herb Pennock and Waite Hoyt, Infielders Lou Gehrig and Tony Lazzeri, outfielders Babe Ruth and Earle Combs, and Manager Miller Huggins.
World Series titles (27)
1923 1927 1928 1932 1936 1937 1938 1939 1941 1943 1947 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1956 1958 1961 1962 1977 1978 1996 1998 1999 2000 2009

Only five players to dominate instead of 9 you say? Let's look at the Celtics.

NBA champs- 17. (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008)

That was a string of 8 consecutive titles and 11 out of 13 years. You do need to keep the accomplishment of 2 out of 3 in perspective.

I'm also familiar with the Celtics and their string of success and I would take these Warriors over them without question. Basketball just wasn't where it is today. The sport was far less popular, there was not three-point line, there were two competing pro leagues, the league was still integrating, and athletes were in far inferior shape to today.

Also, I didn't make the claim the Warriors would have the longevity of success that the Celtics enjoyed or that they will be a better dynasty, which is incredibly impressive, but also a completely different argument. I said the Warriors were the most talented team in pro sports history and I think they are.

I guess i don't take the factors of popularity of the sport, lack of a three point line, as being relevant to the measure of team greatness. The NBA was integrated in the 60's so that is a non starter. The "competing league", the ABA did not begin play till 1967 and did not have a major league product till the early '70's. Believe me I saw the Nets play in 69 and on. They weren't competitive till they picked up Rick Barry in 1970 or so. Most ABA teams had but one star.
But at the end of the day, isn't this why sports are great to discuss?

But at the end of the day, isn't this why sports are great to discuss?

Absolutely, and discussing different eras is so dependent on the factors we deem important. There's no right answer, which makes it interesting. And, again, we may still be discussing different things. The term I used wasn't "great," but "most talented." There's no question the Celtics dynasty is one of the greatest achievements in sports history. I just don't personally think they ever had as much talent as this current Warriors team. But that time period is just so tough to evaluate. Off the top of my head, I'd put the '80s Lakers and Celtics, '90s Bulls, early '00s Lakers, and the current Warriors teams at the top of my list of all-time teams. I'm not sure where those '60s Celtics teams fit, but I tend to think the '80s Celtics teams were a bit better. Having said that, anything pre-'90s I've just read about or seen on ESPN Classic so what do i know? ;)

I'm ancient and don't think past greats get enough respect. I was a Knicks fan for years and those Willis Reed and company teams that beat the Lakers were the "best' in my heart as a fan. When Latrell Spreewell was picked up I lost a lot of respect for them. "Zeke" did not help me comeback either the way he ran the team.
Have a good one.

The reason OKC will be here in 5 years is people have no other choice... it's the only show in town and great players will always show up. Also, young teams can be a lot of fun too. It's why Utah and Portland and similar cities have great fan support. The OKC metro has more than enough people at 1.5 million to support the Thunder. I am not worried about OKC unless the economy absolutely crumbles.

If only it were purely a function of OKC's interest level. You have to think of other cities that could offer the NBA something attractive in perhaps a bigger market. It may not happen, but it isn't impossible. At all.

^^^^^^^^^


"The Warriors can trot out 4 top 20 players with a Finals MVP and all-star (Iggy). I don't think the Yankees can compare."

Let's take a look at the '27 Yankees, who did not have any black players to supplement these players.
The roster included seven future Hall of Famers: Pitchers Herb Pennock and Waite Hoyt, Infielders Lou Gehrig and Tony Lazzeri, outfielders Babe Ruth and Earle Combs, and Manager Miller Huggins.
World Series titles (27)
1923 1927 1928 1932 1936 1937 1938 1939 1941 1943 1947 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1956 1958 1961 1962 1977 1978 1996 1998 1999 2000 2009

Only five players to dominate instead of 9 you say? Let's look at the Celtics.

NBA champs- 17. (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008)

That was a string of 8 consecutive titles and 11 out of 13 years. You do need to keep the accomplishment of 2 out of 3 in perspective.
The 1927 Yankees would have been the first one I referenced also.

Am I reading the GS salary charts wrong? It looks to me like Curry and Iggy are UFA now. And at least in Curry's case making half what he's worth. But I keep hearing that GS is fine for another year or two.

If only it were purely a function of OKC's interest level. You have to think of other cities that could offer the NBA something attractive in perhaps a bigger market. It may not happen, but it isn't impossible. At all.

There are obviously great markets, but that's not really relevant unless OKC's owners want to sell, which there's no indication they're interested in at all. The fact that OKC has local owners should give everyone a lot of comfort. Also, I think a lot of people have unrealistic expectations about what most markets look like. I've been to games in a lot of cities and most cities have pretty dead game environments with half filled arenas. OKC has a top 10 fan base right now. All this worrying with no evidence of a problem is kind of pointless.

+1

Why are we any different than New Orleans and Memphis with similar per capita incomes and smaller population? Those cities don't seem to fret. Why do we so much?

Why are we any different than New Orleans and Memphis with similar per capita incomes and smaller population? Those cities don't seem to fret. Why do we so much?I wonder that too. Maybe because we're new at it? Or maybe our track record of giving up on non-winning teams. In the space between Switzer and Stoops you could go to any OU home game and get tickets at or below face value outside the stadium. I went to a lot of home games then.

The Peake has all the amenities that the brand new arenas have. Thinking OKC will not have a team in 4 years is absurd. Small market teams go in cycles, this is no different.

Seattle
Vancouver
Kansas City
San Diego

The last four cities that lost their franchises. It can happen.

Well I guess we know who will win the title again next year if GS stays the same with no significant injuries. I just can't see how this is good for the NBA.

The "we got better every year and suddenly we ended up in the finals" run we had after the Thunder arrived might have gotten people some false expectations about consistently being a title contender every year.

I wonder that too. Maybe because we're new at it? Or maybe our track record of giving up on non-winning teams. In the space between Switzer and Stoops you could go to any OU home game and get tickets at or below face value outside the stadium. I went to a lot of home games then.

In 1998, the low point and deep into the Blake era, OU averaged over 70,000 fans a game. Not only is that not bad, it's really impressive. Any other examples? Average attendance never dipped below 66,000 at any time during the 1990s.

Seattle
Vancouver
Kansas City
San Diego

The last four cities that lost their franchises. It can happen.

Why did each of those cities lose their franchises? Does OKC have the same problems as those franchises?

Well I guess we know who will win the title again next year if GS stays the same with no significant injuries. I just can't see how this is good for the NBA.

Yeah, that's how we feel, but ratings were through the roof for the Finals. While this Golden State team is more extreme, viewers loved watching the Bulls when the title for 6 straight seasons with Jordan (not counting the two he was gone). Dominant teams tend to generate great ratings even if it stinks for markets like OKC in particular. Will people change their mind if Golden State wins 76 games, consistently blow out other contenders, and goes 16-0 in the playoffs next year? Is there a dominance limit? Maybe?

In 1998, the low point and deep into the Blake era, OU averaged over 70,000 fans a game. Not only is that not bad, it's really impressive. Any other examples? Average attendance never dipped below 66,000 at any time during the 1990s.Average paid attendance. But I guess that's what matters to the business end. There were lots of games actual attendance wasn't near that. I went to many.

Average paid attendance. But I guess that's what matters to the business end. There were lots of games actual attendance wasn't near that. I went to many.

Sure, but you're just measuring it by OU's very high standards. 6,000-8,000 empty seats looks like a lot, but there that still results in 66,000 in attendance. Even if you argue another few thousand bought tickets and didn't show, I don't think OU ever dipped below 60,000 average. Even today, OU's worst attendance in the '90s would rank third in the Big 12 last season (OSU was third with an average of 57,688).

My point is, if people in this thread have been to other NBA arenas, they'd realize that NBA arenas are half empty all the time. Like, literally half empty. A number of teams in small markets had an average of 4-5,000 seats that went unpaid on average for the entire season... OKC hasn't even had a single non-blizzard game like that ever. Yet, people are already talking about them moving with both great attendance and loyal ownership. The demand for new arenas was sparked by the move towards new suites so that's not really a factor yet either. The Peake is fine until there's some new money-making arena amenity. I don't understand this thread besides some kind of self-depricating woe-is-me attitude. There are just no signs OKC's franchise is in any danger at all.

I wonder that too. Maybe because we're new at it? Or maybe our track record of giving up on non-winning teams. In the space between Switzer and Stoops you could go to any OU home game and get tickets at or below face value outside the stadium. I went to a lot of home games then.

You can go under face *right now* to any home game. That's been possible for decades, even at the height of Stoops' run. Since I graduated OU back in 1986, I've paid more than face value for an OU home game exactly twice: 2000 Nebraska, bought a single for $70, and 2007 Miami, only because I had to buy four to accommodate some friends coming in from out of town. It just takes a little patience and a willingness to walk the campus/stadium area a bit.

Some folks refuse to believe this, and have bought into the scarcity rhetoric OU tries very hard to create. Yet when I tell them to give it a try, they come back to me and tell me "I got in for $20 (or whatever) a seat, and got great seats! You were right!"

This year's home schedule is one of the worst in a long time, so home tickets will be bargain-basement this year. ..

Why did each of those cities lose their franchises? Does OKC have the same problems as those franchises?

Absolutely not. We have a waiting list for season tickets. The franchise is making money. A better than average product. This franchise will be here in 20 years. It's the only professional show in the state.

In 1998, the low point and deep into the Blake era, OU averaged over 70,000 fans a game. Not only is that not bad, it's really impressive. Any other examples? Average attendance never dipped below 66,000 at any time during the 1990s.

And that is one of the single biggest pieces of fiction OU has ever produced, which I'm sure is tickets sold, not bodies in the seats. I went to games in that era and I remember walking in, fully ready to buy a ticket, and a guy hands me a 50-yard-line, upper deck, chairback seat, and there wasn't a soul around me. The north and south endzones were all-but empty on a gorgeous Saturday afternoon. 70K in attendance? Give me a physical break. Not even close. OU, insofar as that goes, really only cares about paid attendance, and there are undoubtedly plenty of ways to manufacture/bend/inflate those numbers for whatever PR purpose might be at hand, but as far as people actually there? No way.

Well I guess we know who will win the title again next year if GS stays the same with no significant injuries. I just can't see how this is good for the NBA.

As long as the ratings are going up for the finals, the NBA doesn't give a darn. The NBA is learning what the NFL learned, but forgot, from about 20 years ago - fans love dynasties. The NFL became what it is by virtue of dynasties like the Cowboys, the 49ers, and the Steelers. Right now, the Patriots are the love-em-or-hate-em franchise of the NFL for precisely the same reason, and the fact they've created this dynasty in the era of free agency is all the more phenomenal.

So if you look to the NBA for a solution to the "superteam problem," remember *they* don't see it as a problem. Their ratings are up, no matter how lopsided the quality of competition is.

Average paid attendance. But I guess that's what matters to the business end. There were lots of games actual attendance wasn't near that. I went to many.

Bingo.

Why are we any different than New Orleans and Memphis with similar per capita incomes and smaller population? Those cities don't seem to fret. Why do we so much?

Last I checked, New Orleans existed because the NBA wanted it to for political reasons, not because they were fiscally successful. Memphis is in a boat similar to OKC, but they have a natural draw as an entertainment region that OKC doesn't have...it's gotten *fantastically* better in the last decade, to be sure...

You're correct Dan.

Oklahoma City has a strong local Oklahoma ownership group headed by an Oklahoman who has had a dream since childhood to own a major league franchise and brand it with our city's name.

Seattle became venerable when they neglected the NBA for MLB & NFL. The Emerald City have top 5 facilities for MLB & NFL; KeyArena did not possess money-making amenities to sustain the NBA long-term.

The only cities that pose any threat for NBA relocation at this time are Seattle, Mexico City & Louisville. Louisville's demographics almost mirror those of OKC & Memphis, because it is a strong basketball market capable of NBA support with an NBA-ready city owned facility.

Below is a link with an index that rank markets according to:


Market Size
Fan Support (percentage of arena filled per game)
Future Market Growth
Team Heritage (franchise history, including years spent in market and playoffs/titles)
All-Time Winning Percentage
Fan Cost Index
Market Competition (considering other attractions and pro teams competing for dollars)


Link: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1325290-small-market-team-nba-power-rankings

Sure, but you're just measuring it by OU's very high standards. 6,000-8,000 empty seats looks like a lot, but there that still results in 66,000 in attendance. Even if you argue another few thousand bought tickets and didn't show, I don't think OU ever dipped below 60,000 average. Even today, OU's worst attendance in the '90s would rank third in the Big 12 last season (OSU was third with an average of 57,688).

My point is, if people in this thread have been to other NBA arenas, they'd realize that NBA arenas are half empty all the time. Like, literally half empty. A number of teams in small markets had an average of 4-5,000 seats that went unpaid on average for the entire season... OKC hasn't even had a single non-blizzard game like that ever. Yet, people are already talking about them moving with both great attendance and loyal ownership. The demand for new arenas was sparked by the move towards new suites so that's not really a factor yet either. The Peake is fine until there's some new money-making arena amenity. I don't understand this thread besides some kind of self-depricating woe-is-me attitude. There are just no signs OKC's franchise is in any danger at all.

Agree, I think Oklahomans are insecure. Support the Thunder as "our" team while winning big or losing ( which can and will at some point occur) and they will not leave. The value of the Thunder is not only in wins and losses but for me "pride" that MY home State is home to one of only 30 NBA teams that so many other cities covet.

Agree, I think Oklahomans are insecure. Support the Thunder as "our" team while winning big or losing ( which can and will at some point occur) and they will not leave. The value of the Thunder is not only in wins and losses but for me "pride" that MY home State is home to one of only 30 NBA teams that so many other cities covet.

+1

Listening to a podcast today about how owners are now a lot less likely to go over cap in the next years as the Warriors are so dominate they feel it isn't worth it to overpay for no chance at a title. Now thats a big impact of a league with little parity.

Seattle
Vancouver
Kansas City *
San Diego *

The last four cities that lost their franchises. It can happen.
* Same franchise. KC relocated to SD.