NBA in Tulsa?

[Laramie]

Not to get off subject with the NBA but MLS might be more suited for Tulsa at this time. The MLS are in stadiums with grass fields and I think Skelley Stadium is artificial turf. Renovation of Drillers' Field would be a temporary option; however, Tulsa would have to commit to building a 22,000 - 25,000-seat soccer-football specific stadium which I don't think would fly with the tax payers unless a team relocated to Tulsa and keeping the team was contingent upon stadium approvial--much like MAPS for Hoops in OKC.

Oklahoma City on the otherhand could possibly get something of this magnitude done with the uncoming 2017 extension of MAPS III or in a separate MAPS IV initative.

[Laramie]

Getting back on subject:

Here is a recent study by Biz Journal on cities and how they rank for major professional sports:

Tulsa would be ripe for MLS or the NHL; Tulsa ranked ahead of Albany, Omaha, Tuscon and Albuquerque...

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...e=&CPIorderBy=

Full link: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...r-the-nhl.html

[Snowman]

Getting back on subject:

Here is a recent study by Biz Journal on cities and how they rank for major professional sports:

Tulsa would be ripe for MLS or the NHL; Tulsa ranked ahead of Albany, Omaha, Tuscon and Albuquerque...

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...e=&CPIorderBy=

Full link: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourna...r-the-nhl.html

I can see how already having a major pro team for a city our size makes OKC less attractive than Tulsa to move a team in but does anyone have an idea how the came up with Tulsa having $38.347 of "Available personal income (billions of dollars)" and OKC only having $15.063

[windowphobe]

does anyone have an idea how the came up with Tulsa having $38.347 of "Available personal income (billions of dollars)" and OKC only having $15.063

This is actually a fairly common metric in the business of sports: OKC's figure is lower because they've already subtracted out how much they thought was necessary to support the one major-league team that's already here. Note, for instance, that the San Francisco Bay area, far larger than OKC and Tulsa combined, can't support another NHL team: they have five major-league teams already.

[HOT ROD]

Tulsa would be a nice place for an NBA franchise; however, they are within 100-miles of Oklahoma City. It is highly unlikely that the NBA would put two teams in Oklahoma on a permanent basis. This is the only 'breakthrough city' (city with no major league sports) besides Louisville which has the facilities in place to house an NBA franchise.

As far as the Kings are concerned; Anaheim is down the road with the Honda Center which is home to the NHL Mighty Ducks. This team (Kings) will probably never leave California.

Kansas City has the Sprint Center which is nice. If the NBA were to relocate to Kansas City it would become an overextented market.

Louisville has the new KFC Yum Center leased out where the NBA can not come in at this time. Old Freedom Hall would have to be a temporary home for an NBA franchise. Memphis' market almost mirrors Louisville; the advantage NBA Memhis has is the fact that the Grizzlies and the Memphis State Tigers both share the new FedEx Forum. An NBA team in Louisville playing in an antique arena (Freedom Hall) would have too much competition from the Cardinals playing in the newer facility.

St. Louis has a lease in which the Blues has exclusive rights to Scottrade Arena.

Cincinnati doesn't have an NBA-ready arena and they are too close (100 miles ) to Indianapolis. An NBA franchise would overextend its market.

Seattle has to have commitments from both the NBA and NHL to build a privately funded proposed arena. Seattle would become an overextended market with four major league franchises.

You are missing Vancouver from your analysis, which has probably the most upside to all of the available cities.

Vancouver already has an NBA arena and an ownership group committed to reversing the 'experiment' of the Grizzlies. David Stern admitted his biggest mistake was with Vancouver, and the fact he/they let that team sit there and rot. By having the same ownership as the Canucks, Vancouver's corporate support would still flow into the same channel and both teams could be well marketed (as if the Canucks need any marketing). Vancouver has an amazingly large and diverse urban population and this could play into the NBA's expansion ideas for China/Asia moreso than any other city. It is the closest major city to Asia and its demographics are well within the ability to attend games (especially if the team is marketed properly, the biggest mistake of the past). Vancouver could become the Asian/Chinese pipeline for the NBA that Toronto is for European players, and Vancouver would be a nice alternative (again) for Canadians who hate everything Toronto. Vancouver also puts a team back in the Pacific Northwest, creating a local rivalry for Portland, and helps the NBA from placiating to 'Seattle' when there still is no plan for an arena here and the NBA would very likely fail again if the NHL is necessary to get an arena. The Seattle market could be split between the two, with Seattle likely allying with Vancouver (the way Vancouver supports Seattle's NFL and MLB teams). Vancouver has three major professional sports (NHL, CFL, MLS) and the return of the NBA would not extend the market as long as Alquini (Canucks owner) also owns the NBA team. The only thing holding back Vancouver is 1) if the Maloofs would sell at least majority control to Alquini and 2) if the NBA is really serious about the China/Asia strategy (which has failed in every city they have tried thus far). One of the biggest arguments for Vancouver could be the return of natural regional alignment of teams; with OKC moving to the same league as Dallas/San Antonio and Vancouver to the NW, reducing travel costs and player fatigue that currently likely exists having OKC still in the Pac NW league.

[Bellaboo]

One of the biggest arguments for Vancouver could be the return of natural regional alignment of teams; with OKC moving to the same league as Dallas/San Antonio and Vancouver to the NW, reducing travel costs and player fatigue that currently likely exists having OKC still in the Pac NW league.

Not really an argument - there was an article that statistically showed the air miles within the Northwest Division was at a shorter average distance between all teams in the Division when OKC replaced Seattle. Minnesota, Denver and Utah were closer to OKC than Seattle, which only Portland was close too in the Division.

[Snowman]

The main benefit we might get in a change of divisions would probably be less games starting after 9:00 PM central. I like the one we have now just due to it seeming like we may control it for many years. LA Lakers and Dallas have owners much more willing and ability to devote to teams than most teams in the west.

[BoulderSooner]

The main benefit we might get in a change of divisions would probably be less games starting after 9:00 PM central. I like the one we have now just due to it seeming like we may control it for many years. LA Lakers and Dallas have owners much more willing and ability to devote to teams than most teams in the west.

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

[BrettM2]

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

We had three division games start after 9:00pm central: Feb. 6 @Portland was at 9, Feb. 10 @Utah was at 9:30, Mar. 27 @Portland was at 9. All other games (8, total of 11) that started at 9 or later were against the Pacific division teams. Point is generally the same: We'll play all the Western Conference teams during the year, so there will always be some late starts. Only way to avoid that is to be in the Eastern Conference (not possible).

[Bellaboo]

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

Wrong, we had 2 starts after 9 central and 1 after 9:30 central just last week. Clippers at 9:30 and PHX and SAC at 9:00 cst.

[BoulderSooner]

Wrong, we had 2 starts after 9 central and 1 after 9:30 central just last week. Clippers at 9:30 and PHX and SAC at 9:00 cst.

thought he meant home games my mistake .... that being said .. the nba does not use a balanced schedule the only common theme is playing the opposite conf 2 times each (during the 82 game season this year was different) ... so what division you are in does not effect how many division games you play

[Laramie]

You are missing Vancouver from your analysis, which has probably the most upside to all of the available cities.

Vancouver already has an NBA arena and an ownership group committed to reversing the 'experiment' of the Grizzlies. David Stern admitted his biggest mistake was with Vancouver, and the fact he/they let that team sit there and rot. By having the same ownership as the Canucks, Vancouver's corporate support would still flow into the same channel and both teams could be well marketed (as if the Canucks need any marketing). Vancouver has an amazingly large and diverse urban population and this could play into the NBA's expansion ideas for China/Asia moreso than any other city. It is the closest major city to Asia and its demographics are well within the ability to attend games (especially if the team is marketed properly, the biggest mistake of the past). Vancouver could become the Asian/Chinese pipeline for the NBA that Toronto is for European players, and Vancouver would be a nice alternative (again) for Canadians who hate everything Toronto. Vancouver also puts a team back in the Pacific Northwest, creating a local rivalry for Portland, and helps the NBA from placiating to 'Seattle' when there still is no plan for an arena here and the NBA would very likely fail again if the NHL is necessary to get an arena. The Seattle market could be split between the two, with Seattle likely allying with Vancouver (the way Vancouver supports Seattle's NFL and MLB teams). Vancouver has three major professional sports (NHL, CFL, MLS) and the return of the NBA would not extend the market as long as Alquini (Canucks owner) also owns the NBA team. The only thing holding back Vancouver is 1) if the Maloofs would sell at least majority control to Alquini and 2) if the NBA is really serious about the China/Asia strategy (which has failed in every city they have tried thus far). One of the biggest arguments for Vancouver could be the return of natural regional alignment of teams; with OKC moving to the same league as Dallas/San Antonio and Vancouver to the NW, reducing travel costs and player fatigue that currently likely exists having OKC still in the Pac NW league.

Good point, Hot Rod, what's happening in Seattle? Great to know that you are still on many of the Oklahoma forums. Don't look for this team to leave California. Anaheim or San Jose would be the most likely destination if the Kings were to relocate.

I remember you from way back, I use my forum name Laramie, you knew me as Larry Fry.