National Basketball Association

[Bellaboo]

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 ?

[dankrutka]

"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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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?

[dankrutka]

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?

[Jersey Boss]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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.

[SOONER8693]

^^^^^^^^^


"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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[dcsooner]

+1

[dcsooner]

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?

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Eric]

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.

[OKCRT]

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.

[d-usa]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[dankrutka]

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?

[dankrutka]

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?

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[SoonerDave]

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. ..