New Downtown Arena

[Bellaboo]

I would imagine that with the BB court in place the new arena would have practically zero exhibition space. That's not the function of the arena. How much does the Paycom have? I can't remember much if at all. Though I could be wrong.

I've been in conference rooms in the latest Southwest corner addition. Not a ton, but I'd think a new arena would have much more.

[April in the Plaza]

lol they don't need a rebrand

most people who know what they're talking about recognize that it's one of the worst logos in professional sports. and i think you would admit that it's bizarre that the ownership group would demand to play in a state of the art / BLC arena but would continue to rock non-BLC marks and logos. it's incongruent at best, imo. so they better fix it before 2029.

[Rover]

most people who know what they're talking about recognize that it's one of the worst logos in professional sports. and i think you would admit that it's bizarre that the ownership group would demand to play in a state of the art / BLC arena but would continue to rock non-BLC marks and logos. it's incongruent at best, imo. so they better fix it before 2029.

“Most”? lol.
Some people on gossip boards don’t like it and some designers would like to think they could do better. Most of the comments are based on preferences and not on objective results.

[Laramie]

What we don't know is how much sq ft of usable exhibition space the new arena might have ?

LOI said at least 750,000 sq. ft., or more - Urbanized mentioned this in an earlier post #2801 on this thread page 141.

[April in the Plaza]

“Most”? lol.
Some people on gossip boards don’t like it and some designers would like to think they could do better. Most of the comments are based on preferences and not on objective results.

I’m pretty surprised that you would go out of your way to defend Ackerman McQueen’s handiwork. That’s interesting.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/spor...g/60724735007/

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/r...-terrible/amp/

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41146&page=3

https://thunderousintentions.com/201...a-logo-change/

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...logo-rankings/

[Dob Hooligan]

I’m pretty surprised that you would go out of your way to defend Ackerman McQueen’s handiwork. That’s interesting.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/spor...g/60724735007/

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/r...-terrible/amp/

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41146&page=3

https://thunderousintentions.com/201...a-logo-change/

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...logo-rankings/

Did you notice your links are from 2015 and before, and most are recycling the same blog post?

[Urbanized]

LOI said at least 750,000 sq. ft., or more - Urbanized mentioned this in an earlier post #2801 on this thread page 141.

The 750K refers to the total building, which would include arena, concourse, premium and back-of-house. The arena is HIGHLY unlikely to have exhibit hall space, such as what is in the OKC Convention Center (200K sq ft) or the Bennett Event Center at the fairgrounds (201K sq ft). An expansion of the convention center (ultimately desired by the City, though probably a decade away) would take our downtown expo hall space to around 400K, which is only 100K off from SLC.

[bombermwc]

I don't personally understand the hate on the logo. It's hard to conceptualize thunder without including lightning, which we are not. I'm not sure what you're after in a new logo with that in mind. You want a cloud on the logo? Boring.

I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?

[Rover]

I’m pretty surprised that you would go out of your way to defend Ackerman McQueen’s handiwork. That’s interesting.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/spor...g/60724735007/

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/r...-terrible/amp/

https://www.jamesrobertwatson.com/thunderlogo.html

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41146&page=3

https://thunderousintentions.com/201...a-logo-change/

https://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...logo-rankings/

Lol. Guess I just don’t understand recycling very old opinions just to keep being negative. The logo has proved to be just fine.

What is your Objective fact driven personal analysis of the effectiveness of the logo that supports your opinion?

And, if you actually knew me you’d know that defending Ackerman McQueen is the last thing I would like to do. My direct experience with them goes back over 4 decades. But, my opinion doesn’t mean everything they did was wrong. I tend to analyze things objectively and not emotionally.

[Urbanized]

…I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?

Paycom does NOT have meaningful meeting space. And I doubt significant meeting space would be proposed for the new arena, either. That’s the job of the convention center.

[PhiAlpha]

No, because these numbers are completely made up and have no backing with reality. This is a firm hired by the Chamber of Commerce to produce a good report to justify the arena, not an actual, empirically backed study. There's a reason why none of these PR firms actually submit their "findings" to peer review. This is a pretty good takedown of studies like this by an actual economist: https://x.com/jc_bradbury/status/172...294628773?s=20

Yes and the studies you repost over and over again that were created with with the goal of showing how arenas don’t provide a positive economic impact by individuals who are massive anti-public funding for sports nerds and peer reviewed by the same echo chamber of nerds are definitely bias free, completely accurate, and objectively neutral representations of subjective data.

[floyd the barber]

I don't personally understand the hate on the logo. It's hard to conceptualize thunder without including lightning, which we are not. I'm not sure what you're after in a new logo with that in mind. You want a cloud on the logo? Boring.

I didn't realize the arena had any meaningful meeting space. I can't imagine why anyone would need to meet there compared to an actual convention space. What's it used for on a normal day with the arena?

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

[fortpatches]

Yes and the studies you repost over and over again that were created with with the goal of showing how arenas don’t provide a positive economic impact by individuals who are massive anti-public funding for sports nerds and peer reviewed by the same echo chamber of nerds are definitely bias free, completely accurate, and objectively neutral representations of subjective data.

I mean, at least there is some degree of peer-review. The alternative is the Chamber of Commerce Economic Impact "Study" which did not include even one validated method of study and only one "citation" implying validity - a citation stating that they were given Zip codes for ticket purchases.

[BoulderSooner]

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

i am not a thunder fan so i don't really care either way ... but their logo is fine ..

[Bill Robertson]

i am not a thunder fan so i don't really care either way ... but their logo is fine ..

I don't love it but I don't hate it. Saying it's the worst to me is a stretch. Between the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, MLS and colleges there are some really bad logos. The Cleveland Guardians and the Tennessee Titans for instance are much worse.

[PhiAlpha]

I mean, at least there is some degree of peer-review. The alternative is the Chamber of Commerce Economic Impact "Study" which did not include even one validated method of study and only one "citation" implying validity - a citation stating that they were given Zip codes for ticket purchases.

Sounds about like having a bunch of people who agree with you review your study and then calling it “peer reviewed”

[PoliSciGuy]

Sounds about like having a bunch of people who agree with you review your study and then calling it “peer reviewed”

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

[PhiAlpha]

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

No it just shows that I’m incredibly skeptical of "scholarly" articles and studies from any academic field, especially after reviewing the links you’ve used to support your position on this. A bunch of biased crap just as you suggest the chamber’s study is. That's what happens when there's no objective and specific data for large portions of what's being analyzed.

But this is the response I would expect from someone who has such a joke of a degree field as his user name.

#FakeThunderFan

[Rover]

No, because these numbers are completely made up and have no backing with reality. This is a firm hired by the Chamber of Commerce to produce a good report to justify the arena, not an actual, empirically backed study. There's a reason why none of these PR firms actually submit their "findings" to peer review. This is a pretty good takedown of studies like this by an actual economist: https://x.com/jc_bradbury/status/172...294628773?s=20

Most of these types of analysis is NOT academic and not "peer reviewed". I don't know that I've ever had any business analysis studies my competitors or I have done that have been "peer reviewed", just client reviewed . The numbers you refer to are estimates based on assumptions. They aren't bogus, but that doesn't make them spot on either. If you are looking for definitive economic data to move the needle on this decision, I doubt you will find it. This is here, and at other places where these types of decisions are being made, an emotional decision of the voters. Both sets of "studies", yours and theirs, are just emotional gas for the fire.

It amuses me that many who are transit fans claim all downtown development activity since the streetcar is to the credit of the streetcar, but then don't credit the Thunder for any of the increased status OKC enjoys and the business growth we enjoy.

[Dob Hooligan]

Man, this really shows how little you know about how economics (or any other scholarly field) actually works. Yikes.

I admit I don't know a lot about the structure and governance of academic studies and peer review. I did notice that when looking at some of the studies linked to upthread a couple months ago, that the authors seem to be adjunct, or associate, professors at universities I am not familiar with. My point being that a study that says "stadiums bad" is sure to gain notice from writers looking to get balance for their local new stadium stories. Then the author and school get increased publicity for their contrarian views.

So far as peer review goes, I assume there is large component that is comprised of "This is my study. These are my parameters. Does the conclusions in this study fit those parameters?" That would make me think it largely "garbage in-garbage out".

[BDP]

Most of these types of analysis is NOT academic and not "peer reviewed".

I'd say that they are academic, but they aren't scientific. And, as such, when they are peer reviewed, they're not peer reviewed in the same way that a scientific study is. A scientific review of a study will mostly focus on if the right controls were used to test the variable in question. In social sciences, like economics, a review will largely focus on what assumptions were made and if those assumptions were correctly applied to support the conclusion and a good one will fully acknowledge those assumptions.

As you pointed out, that doesn't make economic studies or their conclusions wrong or not useful. They're just not scientific, because that's impossible, and they can't be reviewed in the same way and should not be presented as such.

Essentially, any economic study presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious, because any "economist" claiming their study as such is not what they claim to be.

[caaokc]

Campaign is a full go. I’ve gotten about 3 mailers and see ads everywhere.

[Bellaboo]

I like the logo.

They should keep it.

Maybe I'm the minority.

I have no problem with the logo. Some on here thought it looks like a slice of pizza, but it looks like a basketball to me.

[fortpatches]

I'd say that they are academic, but they aren't scientific. And, as such, when they are peer reviewed, they're not peer reviewed in the same way that a scientific study is. A scientific review of a study will mostly focus on if the right controls were used to test the variable in question. In social sciences, like economics, a review will largely focus on what assumptions were made and if those assumptions were correctly applied to support the conclusion and a good one will fully acknowledge those assumptions.

As you pointed out, that doesn't make economic studies or their conclusions wrong or not useful. They're just not scientific, because that's impossible, and they can't be reviewed in the same way and should not be presented as such.

Essentially, any economic study presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious, because any "economist" claiming their study as such is not what they claim to be.

Any *study* presented as definitive should be viewed as dubious. That's way (almost all) study authors never make such a claim - "Journalists" reporting on the studies do.

Also, that's only part of the methodology. You also have to look at what methodologies have been used before, state why the methodology / scales you are using are validated for the variables you are interested in, use the correct statistical analysis based on the validated scales - or if you are developing a new scale, validate that scale, then use the correct statistical analysis.

The only reason they are not "scientific" is because they cannot be re-tested in the exact same context. Also, they are almost always looking in the past and no one wants to risk implementing the suggested changes because the suggested changes usually go against the all-powerful and all-knowing "common sense". But even then, you can still test the hypothesis on historic and unseen data, or new data, as a proxy for repeating test - once that is performed a significant number of times, there may be significance to the relationships tested for.

[PhiAlpha]

Was anyone in attendance at Joe Hamon's 20 person anti arena echo chamber tonight? Surely PoliSci was front and center