Is OKC Still Pursuing NBA/NHL Team

[TStheThird]

Vanderbilt is one of the largest Universities in the nation, and Nashville has two major league franchises which are making money.

Vanderbilt is a small school. It has an undergraduate enrollment of 6,272 and a graduate and professional enrollment of 5,022. The total enrollment is 11,294.

Besides that discrepancy, I do agree with your argument that we can support a professional franchise.

[floater]

Numbers can only tell us so much. Teams settle in and leave larger regions all the time. Besides population and corporate support, what's important is the team's ability to engage the potential fan base. Do they get out into the community? Are the players and coaches interesting? Do they show great skill? Any potential role models? Is there a sense of storyline? OU and OSU's teams have these in spades.

The community has to be willing to invest itself in its teams, financially and emotionally. I remember a few years ago, the columnist Jenni Carlson wrote after a Redhawks game, "where is the support?", when less than five thousand showed up. It was a PLAYOFF game. A letter writer insulted her knowlege of the community (she was new) and said that people are "getting ready for football season". Give me a break.

In other words, the team must be more than just entertainment. Going to the games must be part of what it is to be an Oklahoma Citian. If this happens, the fan base and corporate support will be there.

[HOT ROD]

The biggest reasons are apathy and image.

A large number of people are brainwashed into thinking Oklahoma City can not support major league sports because of our size, television market share, number of major corporate headquarters, and OU.

This is quite incorrect. We are ranked number 29 in metro and 45 in television market. If you factor in the outlining areas that are smaller markets, we can be number 25 or so in the media. Factor in the target markets (nearly all of Oklahoma and some surrounding areas outside Oklahoma) and we can have around a five million population base.

We have numerous possibilities for corporate sponsorship. Lowe's, Sonic, Express, Mackinburg-Duncan, just to name some. Three of those are based here. Lowe's is a major sponsor to two or three major league teams not located in their home state of North Carolina. So, if they have a large presence here, they are potential. A company does not need to be based here to sponsor something. Finally. If these people will pay $50.00 for a ticket to an OU game, then $25.00 or so is not out of the question for a major league game. Just look at Nashville, for example. Vanderbilt is one of the largest Universities in the nation, and Nashville has two major league franchises which are making money. There are other examples also.

Before you say anything, keep one thing in mind. Oklahoma City has money. A great deal of it. Some of the wealthiest areas in the nation are here. Nichols Hills and Chartaney, just to name two.

Image. The majority of the country thinks Oklahoma City is a cowtown full of redneck hicks, with stereotypical behavior. Yes. We have them. However, if you factor in the 1.3 million current population of the metro, a very small percentage are the stereotypes. However, since the press feels it is neccessary to put toothless Bubba on camera in front of what use to be his mobile home in the middle of a treeless five acres of land, saying "mah traylr just done blowed up. That don't happen harr," that gives the country the impression all Oklahoma Citians are like that. So, we get left out.

We CAN support major leagues. We just need to apply for them and fight for them. We did once, and would have won if the NHL had played fair and not allowed St. Paul to counter offer, or allowed us to counter offer as well. That proves we can do it.

I keep hearing everyone talking about TV market and that OKC is a medium market at 45th in the nation. this surprises me, as OKC is in the top 30 for city size.

So I have a question, does COX offer special offers for Cable Subscription? Out here in Seattle, Comcast Cable has a special offer for cable, digital, and/or internet just about every other week. In fact, right now - they have a double offer where you can get basic "expanded" cable for $14.99 per mo (plus 9.99 inst) AND internet for $14.99 per mo (zero instl) - rates effective through end of 2005.

Does Cox offer anything like this? I remember when I lived in OKC I almost NEVER saw a cable special offer from COX. I can think of at least three people here in metro Seattle that I know of - who are taking advantage of Comcast's offer. Hence the reason for our LARGE TV market - people get cable tv up here!!!

If Cox does not offer anything (or does not advertise), I think they should!! It's hard for me to believe that a 1.3 million metro only has less than 500,000 subscribers - that's ridiculios! It should be much closer to 750,000, as every NEW resident to the metro area should be targeted for cable or satt service.

If we had 750K subscribers or more, we could put that damn tv market crap to rest, as Im sure OKC would move much closer to the Top 30 (matching their rank in pop).

Any thoughts?

[mranderson]

"So I have a question, does COX offer special offers for Cable Subscription?"

Yes.

[windowphobe]

Not a chance. Nielsen measures markets by homes that receive television, regardless of the delivery system, and the Oklahoma City market covers thirty-four counties, only a few of which are showing actual population growth.

In fact, all the cities listed by BDP as having smaller populations are in larger TV markets, although New Orleans (#43) admittedly isn't that much bigger.

[HOT ROD]

[QUOTE=chrisok]

the NBA was NOT the only game in town in Vancouver. I think you meant Portland OR.

Absolutely I meant Portland. Yeah Vancouver was a miserable failure. Pretty bad mistake considering I didn't even get the country right.

It's tough to make it in Canada. They have to pay American dollars, and the taxes are higher so it's not the ideal place for players to go. It also didn't help matters that the Grizzlies were brutal.

No problem Chrisok, but the Grizzlies did not fail in Vancouver BC because of ticket prices. Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada and is truly the BIG CITY of the Pacific NW!

The Grizzlies got a brand spanking new arena in "the Garage" - GM Place, ticket prices were not far off from those charged in Seattle or Portland NBA markets, and given time - the Griz could have become a "fixture" in Vancouver just as the CFL Lions and (in greater emphasis) the NHL Canucks have (like the NBA Raptors did in Toronto)!

What caused the failure of the NBA Vancouver Grizzlies was overzelous ownership! The NBA thought an entry into Vancouver and Toronto would spread the sport up north and lead to exponential profits. They thought Vancouver would likely create an instant rivalry between the other two Pac NW teams. They thought Vancouverites would "naturally" embrace American sports.

Were they wrong on every count. The NBA was not successful in Vancouver because the talent was not there! There was nothing to get excited over going to a game where you were going to lose. How could that spread an American sport to Canada - especially when Canadians do not see American sports the same as we do. To Vancouverites, a PRO Basketbal team does not give it a "sense of identity" the same way as it would Oklahoma City or Portland! Vancouver is already a big prosperous international city (and has been for decades)!

They were wrong about the rivalry as well. A bit of rivalry almost happened, but there were too many problems/issues with the American teams - Sean Kemp in Seattle and those "rough" Portland boys! Those guys were/are idiots - and it did not help that they were "African American" and always in trouble for one thing or another. Bad news does not go very well in Canada and those "rogish" American teams were just not someone they wanted coming into town.

The final reason for the failure of the NBA in Vancouver has to do with the Americanization factor, or lack thereof in Canada. Oftentimes, we in the US are so arrogant in our view of the rest of the world. We think we are number one in everything and that everyone else wants to be like us. We even have this opinion for our best friend and biggest economic partner to the north - Canada. We think that the country is an "extension" of the US, given we do almost everything had in hand.

But the reality is, most Canadians go out of their way to avoid "American goods" or appear "Americanized." This is especially true in Vancouver, the most liberal city in North America. The US is seen as an imperialistic monolith whose companies and products should be avoided - or they will "take over" the country. Canadians have a very high sense of national pride - and they usually dont want to buy or deal with Americans. Toronto is an exception to this rule, as they have always been the most Americanized city in the nation - but Vancouver is far from it.

One thing I learned in International Business (MBA) was that to be successful in a foreign nation or situation you have to adapt to that nation and their customs. The NBA thought they could "dictate" to Vancouver aspects such as style, a definition of success, and culture - much in the same way they do through the media in this country. Well, that backfired in Vancouver because they did not want to be associated with that Americanization!

Had the NBA
*adapted the "Vancouver style and culture"
*brought in some international talent - given the fact that Vancouver is the most international city on this continent someone like Yao Ming would have surely been much more successful in Vancouver (given Chinese represent more than 40% of the population)! instead of the low totem and little known "African Americans" who could care less about culture in general or keeping clean/positive in the press. A big international star like Yao would have had instant following by the populace and the NBA should have put him in Vancouver!

The Vancouver Grizzlies would have had a chance. Hopefully next time, the NBA will learn from these mistakes and take a much more humble (and thoughtful) approach.

Now back to Oklahoma City -----

[HOT ROD]

[QUOTE=mranderson]
Image. The majority of the country thinks Oklahoma City is a cowtown full of redneck hicks, with stereotypical behavior. Yes. We have them. However, if you factor in the 1.3 million current population of the metro, a very small percentage are the stereotypes. However, since the press feels it is neccessary to put toothless Bubba on camera in front of what use to be his mobile home in the middle of a treeless five acres of land, saying "mah traylr just done blowed up. That don't happen harr," that gives the country the impression all Oklahoma Citians are like that. So, we get left out.
[QUOTE]

Actually, this statement is not true anymore. Most people in the US and world know about OKC and think pretty favourably about it as a big city. I have been to numerous cities and circles and have seen electronic media where Oklahoma City gets mentioned or used as a comparison for other cities. To my "surprise" OKC is seen as a positive city to model from. A true big American Southern city.

I really think that it is Oklahomans who have the identity problem!!!!! You all's self esteem is caught in the days of the "grapes of wrath" when most people these days dont even know the story. It also does not help when you have disgruntled expats spreading the wrong message.

In fact, I often see this apathy on this forum. Just look at the light rail thread!!

[mranderson]

Having traveled nearly every state in the country, I have heard countless people put down Oklahoma City as a backward, bubba filled, hickhole. This was even as recent as this past May. So, maybe you have not heard many people say it, however, in 47 states plus the District of Columbia (I did not include Alaska and Hawaii nor Oklahoma), I have. In fact, I rarely tell people where I am from anymore as a result.

[HOT ROD]

Having traveled nearly every state in the country, I have heard countless people put down Oklahoma City as a backward, bubba filled, hickhole. This was even as recent as this past May. So, maybe you have not heard many people say it, however, in 47 states plus the District of Columbia (I did not include Alaska and Hawaii nor Oklahoma), I have. In fact, I rarely tell people where I am from anymore as a result.

I always tell people Im originally from OKC and they often say they have never been but that's it. No one illustrates OK as eloquently as you did above. Those comments usually appear for Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa. Most people I meet think OK is like Texas (which is pretty accurate).

[flyingcowz]

I would rather be like all of them, then like Texas.

[BDP]

It's my firm belief that a city needs to take care of its more practical issues before worrying about the "luxury" issues like major league franchises.

I think you make some great points, Scribe. I think this discussion highlights that idea. Despite being comparable in population to some major league cities, we can not seem to reach a level economically that would justify such a luxury item. I think the size comparison just serves to remind us of that. It's not neccessarily how many people live in a market, but what kind of economic conditions exist in the market that drives these things.

[HOT ROD]

BDP,

your and scribes conservative viewpoints seem to echo throught the state of Oklahoma; not necessarily because you are right but more because people in OK are apathetic to the situation of progress and urban living/amenities (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard)).

by contrast, I and many on this forum wholeheartedly disagree with you and scribe. In fact, I think scribe would rather have OKC spend its dollars on "more pressing issues??" - well, give us an example, please???

Sounds to me like fear of progress, a fear that many had prior to MAPS. Well, MAPS got OKC on the map (excuse the pun), so now you say sit on your laurels and "spend money on more pressing issues?" - LIKE??? What???

On this forum, we have mentioned numerous initiatives that the city and state should attempt to accomplish. From city beautification to light rail rapid transit, from downtown housing to upscale downtown retail and WRWA expansion (that we were promised) - we have some great ideas, all of which are progressive and out-of-the-box.

To say that OKC can not support a light rail trolley downtown is ridiculous. You stated "look at the current transit system" - well, look at the current trolleys; arent they pretty full most of the time? Using your logic, doesnt that prove that a downtown light rail circular is warranted?

To say that OKC can not support a major league sport is also ridiculous. Many have mentioned the potential negative impact that a professional franchise will have on the local collegiate and vice versa. I tell you, ask anyone currently residing in OKC what would give them the most pride and they would tell you "a major league team!!" You can have all the MAPS in the world but if you fill it with minor league action, you just sold out. As a pure capitalist, I say - let's foster a business environment which encourages healthy competition in the sports arena. Give people a choice to see an NBA game or the OU Sooners - I bet both venues would be packed!

Keep in mind, that OKC's market is more than what is defined by the 608 square miles of disjointed land that make up the city limits; OKC's market is the state (and to a lesser extent, the region)! Want proof? Take a look at downtown during a major touring concert. Poll the patrons of the event and you will discover that a large percentage of them are from out of town - probably, the majority!

Its called TOURISM, and if OKC embraced it by offering major league facilities and attractions, it could be yet one more way to:

1) improve disposable income in the city
2) improve the public perception of the city
3) cement civic pride
4) advertise Oklahoma City in the national spotlight (for something positive for once)

do I think all of these could be accomplished by just one thing (like JUST a pro team, or JUST the airport expansion, or JUST the light rail circular in downtown)? NO - we need them all

And we need city beautification! And more downtown hotels! And downtown housing - upscale and "normal," highrise and medium rise high density! And the crosstown relocation!

None of these are conservative, but instead - add to the momentum created by MAPS! Its a slogun many of us say "Continue the Renaissance" which literally means, Keep Up the Good Progress!!

I think that is a much better post than "we need to spend our money elsewhere!"

(disclaimer: this is not a personal attack but rather a well constructed rebuttal to several posts offered mainly by scribe. Most have no real value IMO but seem to be apathetic and wholistically conservative. Usually, when you disagree with someone you help your case by offering an alternative to what was suggested - it facilitates dialog as well as the whole intent of this forum; brainstorming! Instead of offering an alternative to any suggestion, you seem to say that we should stop and smell the roses of reality. Well, if you were to take a moment and do this, you would realize that OKC is much bigger than you think and could really accomplish the status that all of us want if you give it a chance! Nothing personal, but had to comment.)

[mranderson]

Take a look at my enhanced version of the Bricktown video (in my gallery) and you will see what we can do if we just put our minds and attitudes toward it.

Think to yourself. What would Oklahoma City be like if we had not started Bricktown, the arena or the other tourist attractions? We took a glimpse into what it was like to NOT be apathetic and negative... And you know something? It feels really good.

Just imagine what we would be like if we continued that brain burp. (more positive outlook)

[PUGalicious]

Man, if this isn't a turn of events. Someone asking me to back up what I say with more information. It was not long ago that I was chastised and criticized for wanting people to back up their statements with facts, documenation and well-reasoned arguments; I was repeatedly told that such a standard was much too demanding for this forum.

Hot Rod, you have made some assumptions about me based on little more than a few comments I made about objecting to both a major league team and the light rail. You don't know what my true "vision" is for OKC. You don't know how conservative or progressive my ideas might be. You simply don't know me, so don't prejudge. I have not provided more analysis because there are some within this thread specifically that don't welcome such analysis.

I readily admit that I am not an expert in this area nor am I as well-versed in this area as in others. Frankly, I was just offering my comments to participate. I don't have enough of a dog in this fight to dedicate much time citing sources and documentation for what I've read on the subject and why I believe what I believe. I don't feel strongly enough about it to care enough to dedicate the time.

Unlike what you perceive, I was a strong proponent of MAPS. I saw the brilliant vision and recognized its tremendous potential. Just this weekend, I was in Bricktown with my family enjoying the progress thus far, appreciating how wonderful it is and envisioning even more exciting development. My perspective comes as someone who has lived in many cities, who has traveled to even more cities and who has discovered the unique personalities of each of those places. I agree that there are many conservative-minded people who have no vision for OKC's future nor want it to grow bigger and better. I am not among them. My objections are purely on a cost-benefit basis. I'm not opposed to a major league coming in; I just don't think it's economically or practically viable for our town. That's a perception on my part. I don't claim to have all the answers. I was simply offering "devil's advocate" comments.

I respectfully bow out to allow you to continue your dreamin' unimpeded.

[BDP]

BDP,

your and scribes conservative viewpoints seem to echo throught the state of Oklahoma...

Wow. I don't think I've ever read a more inaccurate interpretation of my philosophies or a grosser misrepresentation of my thoughts and posts.

In the end, though, if one does not understand the economic realties of the projects one proposes, then it is destined to fail before it begins. I've got no problems with your dreams, but find precedent. That's all I was trying to do. In fact, I was helping you make your argument. However, the argument does have a problem: household income.

All you need to do is find cities with similar market base in terms of population and tv market with the same average and median household incomes across that market. Then look at those cities and tell me if they have major league sports. Why or why not?

Or, maybe take the economic and demographic data of a typical season ticket holder of your chosen sport and see if OKC has a critical mass of that demographic.

If any league was looking to expand or a team was looking to move, what cities would we be competing with and what advantages would we have?

Basically, sell it to us. Sell it to an owner. "I want it". "Oklahoma City really needs this". "It would help us out greatly". "I have a great vision for OKC". None of these are convincing selling points to a league or an owner.

[PUGalicious]

That was my ultimate point as well, BDP... I just wasn't saying it correctly, I guess.

[BDP]

That was my ultimate point as well, BDP... I just wasn't saying it correctly, I guess.

I was with you. The best part about boards like these is that we can work these things out. The dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the pragamatics, and the pessimists can all get together and work some of these problems out. Whether it's 2 years or 20 years from now, I think OKC could be a major league city. It'll take some work (good leadership) and some luck (a developing industry gets hot), but it could happen. If we can work through what it takes to be a major league city, beyond just wanting to be one, then we'll know when we're ready and we'll be able to take advantage of it.

I think you have made a good point that major league teams are more or less the result of a city's good economic position more so than a catalyst to it.

[HOT ROD]

Man, if this isn't a turn of events. Someone asking me to back up what I say with more information. It was not long ago that I was chastised and criticized for wanting people to back up their statements with facts, documenation and well-reasoned arguments; I was repeatedly told that such a standard was much too demanding for this forum.

Hot Rod, you have made some assumptions about me based on little more than a few comments I made about objecting to both a major league team and the light rail. You don't know what my true "vision" is for OKC. You don't know how conservative or progressive my ideas might be. You simply don't know me, so don't prejudge. I have not provided more analysis because there are some within this thread specifically that don't welcome such analysis.

I readily admit that I am not an expert in this area nor am I as well-versed in this area as in others. Frankly, I was just offering my comments to participate. I don't have enough of a dog in this fight to dedicate much time citing sources and documentation for what I've read on the subject and why I believe what I believe. I don't feel strongly enough about it to care enough to dedicate the time.

Unlike what you perceive, I was a strong proponent of MAPS. I saw the brilliant vision and recognized its tremendous potential. Just this weekend, I was in Bricktown with my family enjoying the progress thus far, appreciating how wonderful it is and envisioning even more exciting development. My perspective comes as someone who has lived in many cities, who has traveled to even more cities and who has discovered the unique personalities of each of those places. I agree that there are many conservative-minded people who have no vision for OKC's future nor want it to grow bigger and better. I am not among them. My objections are purely on a cost-benefit basis. I'm not opposed to a major league coming in; I just don't think it's economically or practically viable for our town. That's a perception on my part. I don't claim to have all the answers. I was simply offering "devil's advocate" comments.

I respectfully bow out to allow you to continue your dreamin' unimpeded.

scribe, i did not intend to offend you - i too was offering a rebuttal . .. to your statement.

I agree that you have every right to voice your opinion but I wanted you to offer an alternative opinion. Thats all.

I have no doubt that you are a strong supporter of the renaissance but you did not offer any alternatives or reasons why you felt the way you did/do. Also, we have heard your arguments about light rail etc before, especially the "the money should be better spent elsewhere." ... OK, like where??....

That was my only point, please expand. .. Perhaps you have some great ideas that we overlooked? Perhaps you have some insight into light rail or pro teams or airports that we are too dreamy to consider. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, just as long as it is constructive.

I do hope that you (and others) are not offended by my post, but instead that you will take it as constructive criticism from an expat with an outside point of view. I believe strongly in OKC, as Im sure you do - or you would not be posting, its just I would like to hear more of your opinions.

That is healthy debate and the purpose of this forum. Otherwise, your post sounds apathetic which is not very constructive.

Take care and dont be shy.

[HOT ROD]

I was with you. The best part about boards like these is that we can work these things out. The dreamers, the entrepreneurs, the pragamatics, and the pessimists can all get together and work some of these problems out. Whether it's 2 years or 20 years from now, I think OKC could be a major league city. It'll take some work (good leadership) and some luck (a developing industry gets hot), but it could happen. If we can work through what it takes to be a major league city, beyond just wanting to be one, then we'll know when we're ready and we'll be able to take advantage of it.

I think you have made a good point that major league teams are more or less the result of a city's good economic position more so than a catalyst to it.

BDP, you're definitely correct here.

I do apologize if offended you as well. I do see much merit in your argument, if you consider OKC as just the city. Sure, a population of 535000 people would tire pretty quickly on a major league team day in and day out unless it was the Chicago Bulls of the Michael Jordan era.

But I challenge that argument with a counter that OKC's market is more than OKC, more than its Metro area, more that the OKC Frontier Country. In fact, I think OKC's market is more than this state. Dont believe me?

A few months back, I was in Wichita KS for business (Im in the Aviation business). While there, I was looking through some publications and newspapers and guess what I saw/who was there? Oklahoma City's publications and papers, moreso than any in Kansas. Even the OKC Trader?? classified paper was there, and the copy I picked up to investigate, was well written in and used.

Why would wichita ks care about OKC? Well, OKC is the biggest city in the region and is more of a draw than many of you realize.

Now just imagine if we took that momentum (of market presence) and put together a nice proposal for a major league team - the think I believe OKC truly needs right now for image!

We talk a lot about tv market, well why dont COX offer a subscription special (like we have all the time here in Seattle)?

Nonetheless, depending upon the sport the market for a major league team in OKC would extend from Albuquerque through Oklahoma to at least Ft Smith if not Little Rock and from as far north as Omaha (that might be stretchin' it as they rely on KC) but definitely the entire state of Kansas and SW Missu/NW Arkansas.

Cox could come up with a cable package (just like we have here in Seattle) which more than compensates for lack of attendance at the arena {yes, we in Seattle - a CMSA with Tacoma of over 3.6 million often do NOT sell out our arenas}. I think OKC would sell out because {as many have mentioned} the team would be the ONLY game in town, save OU.

I think we could put together an offer a franchise could not refuse, similar to Green Bay, where the team is publicly owned - since the rich of OKC dont have the guts to do something about it. Since the team would be publicly owned, we could stipulate salaries and so on and demand the team management aggressively pursue talent, nationally and internationally - so we avoid the mistakes made by the NBA Vancouver Grizzlies. Sure, we might have to have lower ticket prices, but the arena would be full!

I think it can be done, just look at MAPS - tell me who in 1990 could envision OKC being a tourist town in less than 10 years? We have long to go, but I think the Renaissance in OKC is alive but needs a bit of new blood to infuse new life and proposals.

Sure, Im a dreamer and yes this forum gets plenty of balance by realists and pessimists. But most of my dreams are not farfetched and are pretty doable and reasonable for Oklahoma City. If other cities can do it, so can OKC - but we can do it better!!!

That should be the motto of the Chamber and City Hall, in addition to : Continue the Renaissance!

[mranderson]

A publically held corporation is not really a bad idea to attract a major league franchise.

You would need to start with a licensed underwriter to create the initial stock offering. This after selecting the corporate officers and filing articles of incorporation. Then selling stock.

It is a bit more difficult than I decribed, however, it is a very elementry way of saying it.

We would need to raise close to, if not more than, 100 million. Tough to do. But possibe.

Any takers to get it started?

[PUGalicious]

scribe, i did not intend to offend you

I was not offended. I decided to bow out because I thought I was creating too much angst. Thank you for clarifying your position.

we have heard your arguments about light rail etc before, especially the "the money should be better spent elsewhere." ... OK, like where??....

To name just one area: streets, highways and bridges in the Oklahoma City area.

From The Journal Record, August 4, 2005:

City, state roads placed among worst in nation

Oklahoma City's roads and bridges received a failing grade from a study by Washington, D.C.-based transportation research group Trip.

"If it were a report card that your kids brought home, you'd probably send them to summer school," said Frank Moretti, director of policy and research for Trip. "Unfortunately, there is not a summer school for roads. What it really takes is going out there and making adequate investment to start to improve these grades."

Using information compiled from the federal government, Trip determined that 47 percent of the major roads in the Oklahoma City area are in poor condition, providing a rough ride and damaging the vehicles that pass over them. Furthermore, 44 percent of the bridges in the area are in need of repair, also earning a failing grade from Trip. Statewide, 33 percent of Oklahoma's bridges are structurally deficient, in need of major repairs or replacement. The national average for structurally deficient bridges is 13 percent.
…

"We here in Oklahoma City are at the crossroads of North America, so Oklahoma City is a very critical hub to the national transportation system," said Williams. "Deteriorating roadways and bridges translate into expenses, that automobiles get damaged as well as trucks for moving goods and services. In the effort of recruiting companies, one of the three critical factors that they evaluate in the selection process is market access, and in Oklahoma market access is via highways and roads."

Specifically to the matter of attracting a major league team, there was an academic study that examined some of the issues. Following are some excerpts from the Conclusion of the study, “Will Major League Sports Ever Come to Oklahoma?” by Jonathan C. Comer, Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University, and Tracy H. Newsome, Department of Geography, University of South Florida:

This paper has highlighted several distinctly geographic factors that make Oklahoma relatively unattractive to the major professional team sports leagues in the United States. In particular, three features stood out. First, Oklahoma City, the best bet for an expansion team in Oklahoma, is too near another city, Dallas, that already has teams in each of the four major leagues. Oklahoma City's nearness to Dallas, 335 km, is below the average nearest neighbor distance for all four major leagues. Second, although proximity is not strictly a limiting factor, the low population densities in the Great Plains require larger catchment areas than on either coast for adequate support of professional sports teams. Dallas is a major, regional-level metropolis and dominates the Oklahoma City market in several ways, including professional sports, thereby reducing Oklahoma City's attractiveness to the four leagues. Third, the present relationship between city size and number of teams indicates that both Oklahoma City and especially Tulsa are still too small compared to cities with existing teams. These three geographic characteristics, nearness to competing markets, low population density, and small population totals, have combined to block the entry of professional sports in Oklahoma in the 1990s. However, the growing trend toward smaller cities receiving expansion teams should keep Oklahoma City at the front of the competition until an expansion franchise is ultimately awarded.

Though beyond the scope of the analyses in this paper, there are at least two other important geographic aspects of Oklahoma City's possible emergence as a future expansion franchisee that need to be mentioned. First, the ability of Oklahoma City or Tulsa to demonstrate adequate support for team, and for a team in any league to draw regional fan support base, is a crucial factor in today's professional sports environment. Today's expansion franchises tend to target regional fan bases rather than relying solely on the metropolitan areas in which they are based. Team names consisting of state instead of city names are a good indicator of this regional approach. Examples from expansions since 1988 include the Carolina Panthers in the NFL; the Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, and Arizona Diamondbacks in the MLB; the Florida Panthers in the NHL; and the Minnesota Timberwolves in the NBA. Given the smaller sizes of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, any top-level professional sports teams in these cities will require the support of the entire state of Oklahoma to be successful. Very little work has been done on regional aspects of team support, and we intend to pursue this topic in future research.

Second, because of the necessity of demonstrating to the leagues that fan support will be strong, understanding regional patterns of sporting activities and cultural preferences can be a critical component for successfully winning an expansion franchise. Rooney and Pillsbury's compendium of American Sports (18) discusses and maps the major sports in the United States, but most significantly combines this material to construct 11 Sports Regions in the United States. Oklahoma falls into the Texas Southwest region, in which Rooney and Pillsbury proclaim "Make no mistake, this is football country." Other significant sports identified in Oklahoma were baseball, wrestling, golf, and tennis. In contrast, their summary of hockey activities noted the extreme concentration of players and teams centered in the Great Lakes region. Though hockey has spread to some Sunbelt cities with great success, Oklahoma has very little history in the sport and is far outside the core area of players, fans, and teams. Culturally and historically, hockey is a foreign sport to Oklahomans, and the recent NHL bid by Oklahoma City seemed a poor match for the state's traditional sporting interests.

Ultimately, Oklahoma will probably host a major league professional sports team within the next two decades. With steady expansion by all four leagues becoming the norm in the 1990s, smaller and smaller cities are winning expansion franchises due to the saturation of the upper levels of the United States urban hierarchy. However, this trend clearly needs to continue for Oklahoma City to become a strong-enough contender to win an expansion franchise. Major league sports could come to Oklahoma sooner, however, should Tulsa or Oklahoma City entice an existing team to relocate. Currently, smaller cities without teams often find themselves being used as bargaining chips by team owners using the threat of relocation to try to extract better deals from their host cities. Every so often, though, a team actually does pull up stakes and move. This could be Oklahoma's best chance at hosting a major league team in the very near future.

I have no opposition to a major league team coming to Oklahoma City — in fact, if it was NHL or NFL, I would be ecstatic. However, it's my opinion based on studies, articles and research (like the one cited above), that the likelihood is not very high in the foreseeable future. The NHL doesn't seem to be a viable prospect in the near future based on the leagues financial woes and recent labor crisis that has set the league back a bit. The NBA doesn't seem like a likely choice because my perception is that basketball isn't that big a sport in Oklahoma — at least not like it was in Indiana where I used to live years ago. (The study cited above addresses the issue of trying to bring in pro teams that may not be a good match.)

It's my belief that our energy and our financial resources should be focused on more realistic goals — like maintaining (and building upon) the momentum of development in Bricktown and improving the streets, highways and bridges that lead people to this area. I also believe in further investment in tax breaks for further development in Bricktown, for more hotel development around Cox Convention Center and the Ford Center to bring in more convention business (and corresponding out-of-state dollars), for more beautification around Bricktown and downtown to make the area more attractive, including cleaning up some of the eye sores on the periphery of Bricktown and downtown.

It's my personal opinion that light rail would have little support (either in backing the project or in the use of the system). I also believe, given the track record of attendance at minor league teams, that there is insufficient support for a major league team. Perhaps there would be good attendance initially, but I still contend we don't have the right population make-up to sustain a successful team.

Hot Rod, does this shed any light on where I'm coming from and why?

[TStheThird]

I will dig back into my Economics of Sports textbook and give a report in the coming days. I spent all last spring examing the economics of professional sports... I will see what I can find to add to the discussion.

[BDP]

I do apologize if offended you as well.

No offense taken, I just wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions of my position. I would love a pro team in OK, but I want to be convinced it has merit and is a viable option. I'm just not convinced, yet. But I do think we're headed in that direction and that is why I think exploring these variables has merits.

In fact, I think OKC's market is more than this state. Dont believe me?

Are these people coming here to shop and go to our minor league games? I think there is a possibility there. But I think even Wichita has a lot of what OKC and Tulsa has. I think we are beginning to move beyond that level (people seem to be saying we are moving from "tier 3" to "tier 2" city, but this is only significant if no one else in the region is moving up as well). I think as OKC continues to be known for offering unique attractions worthy of making the drive, this will continue and maybe reach a point of critical mass. I am not convinced this is currently the case and is why I think we really need to concentrate on getting stuff unique to the region, especially in downtown.

I think MAPS did a lot to get OKC up to speed and make it at least competitive with cities in its class, but I do not think it created a major league city per se. In most cases it leaped us to the forefront of the minors, which I think was a wise move.

Personally, I think hotel density is the missing link and I think at least one major hotel needs to be built to compliment the smaller projects currently proposed. Then you can say, "hey, we can draw beyond the metro and actually put them all in one area and possibly right next to where your team will play". Because even if we could draw 10k from outside the metro, we don't have anywhere to put them right now.

Basically, I think we are getting there, but I am not convinced that the check list is complete. Hopefully, TStheThird's forthcoming contribution will help better understand that checklist and where we stand on it. I do think it will be impossible to do this without public financing. It just doesn't happen any other way anymore. In that case, it will take a leader to work up a good proposal not just for an owner, but for the citizens of OKC as well.

The NBA doesn't seem like a likely choice because my perception is that basketball isn't that big a sport in Oklahoma — at least not like it was in Indiana where I used to live years ago

Maybe not like in Indiana, but OSU has one of the best basketball facilities in the country and they do well filling it. OU sells out a lot also and gets big crowds for big games. The talent which comes out of the state suggests that there are good high school programs and that our athletes are playing the sport. I don't know the numbers myself, but I think it would be easy to look at NHL vs. NBA TV ratings head-to-head for the Oklahoma market and see where there is more interest.

I think the success of the Blazers is not an indicator of NHL support. That's very low level hockey where they fight a lot and is a big part of the draw. I think most Blazers fans kind of see it as WWF on ice. It's also very cheap. Will OKC Blazers fans pay 4 times as much to watch 3 hours of hockey where they never fight? We almost had riots when it was suggested that we upgrade to the IHL. Granted the IHL was a poorly run league, which had financial problems operating in major league cities against major league products, but it was a higher level of talent.. The public’s opposition for the IHL was not based on its poor management, but more out of loyalty to the Blazers, despite the possible upgrade in talent.

Obviously, the NFL is the big fish, but we don't have the facilities for it now and that would take a major public investment. On the other hand, we can and do accommodate the NBA already. It's also a much more star studded product than the NHL. People would come to see Shaq play even if OKC's team sucked. I just think out of the the three, the NBA has the best cost/benefit possibilities and a much better image than the NHL.

Granted that's all mainly subjective perception. Hard data can always convince me that my perception is wrong. If we watch more NHL (when they're playing) than NBA, I'd have to concede that it might be a better fit for OK.

[mranderson]

People can spew all the "hard data" they want, however, that will not convence me that Oklahoma City can not support the major leagues. I know better.

1. 1.3 million metro with a potential fan base of five million (aprox)

2. among the top 50 cities in the country both in metro and in proper, thus being a major city.

3. The most central located major city in the nation.

4. Top 50 television market.

5. Among the largest cities currently with no major league franchise.

6. Large sports fan base.

7. Potential corporate sponsorship.

8. Oklahoma City has at least two of the highest income areas in the nation.

9. 73170 zip code is the third highest income area in the state.

10. Improving tourist city.

Any additions to this list? I see nothing that is a negative.

[TStheThird]

I have emailed the Sports Economics professor at OSU and am waiting for a response. Hopefully, he will respond soon.