Are there any NFL teams that share a stadium with a college team? Are there any NFL venues that prohibit beer sales?
As an aside, when the USFL was in business and when it was a summer league, OU would not let the OUTLAWS play there.
Are there any NFL teams that share a stadium with a college team? Are there any NFL venues that prohibit beer sales?
As an aside, when the USFL was in business and when it was a summer league, OU would not let the OUTLAWS play there.
Forgot about the Cardinals and Sun Devils. It's not common, but it's also not unheard of for NFL and College teams to share the same stadium. Not that that raises the chances of OKC/Norman getting an NFL team sooner (no pun intended) if ever, but it's fuel to the fire, for whatever that's worth.
and i think that both the Chargers and San Diego State play at Quialcomm
I think the question was more about NFL teams playing at college stadiums but you're correct.
Not really, MDot. A pro team being willing to use a college stadium is not the same as a college team using a pro stadium.
The issue is not filling the stadium. The issue is paying for the team. You have so many more players to pay for and only 8 regular season games to make it work. Your staff is also a lot bigger.
OKC could handle an NFL team in 2015 if Exxon and Wal-Mart relocated here and were the underwriters for the bulk of the financial stuff. OKC just needs the business climate to support the outlandishly priced tickets $15k/game suites and what not.
While there are threads in the Sports section dealing with the OKLAHOMA INDIANS baseball, the OU pressbox, Big 10 expansion, Penn State/NCAA sanctions, etc. there is nary a thread on the NFL playoffs or Super Bowl itself. It would not appear that there is much interest in these parts on the pro game based on the lack of discussion concerning the game itself.
WE WILL NEVER GET AN NBA TEAM!!! We aren't big enough or rich enough. Never going to happen.
Oh wait..... never mind.
I think most people thought that we had enough corporate support for something of the scale of an NBA team... at least here locally. But, to try to compare that to an NFL franchise, again, illustrates that you are another person in this thread that really has NO IDEA about the financial realities of the NFL vs. the NBA.
Since "Liking" isn't working right now, I'll just offer you a big hairy
THIS!!!
Remember that OKC made a strident effort to land an NHL team long before they even had a notion of snagging the NBA. That's why we built the arena, and its failure is why the baseball team is now named the Redhawks instead of the 89ers. So there most certainly was the idea that there might be enough support for a pro sports franchise of the proper scale. In retrospect, the NHL played us, but our city leadership played its cards perfectly to pursue the Hornets. I don't think most folks realize just how perfectly those dominoes had to be aligned for the Thunder to end up here the way they did.
Scope and perspective, folks: Pricetag for the Bricktown Ballpark: $40M (then). Chesapeake Arena: About $90M. A new NFL-caliber stadium: $325 MILLION-$1.6 BILLION (range for costs of Gillette Stadium, Ford Field, to Met Life Stadium, to Cowboys Stadium).
The bottom line? You're talking about a minimum of a ten-fold increase in expense just to build a stadium, one you don't even have a team to play in it. And that's another staggering pile of money.
Scope and perspective. There's dreaming, dreaming big, and then going straight to hallucination....
Just keep thinking small.
All stadiums don't cost. A billion. The Nets spent a billion on there new arena. Doesn't mean all new NBA arenas cost that.
BTW, Buffalo, Green Bay, Jacksonville, New Orleans....all not mega cities.
No, not all stadiums cost a billion. That's why I included a range of $325M-$1.6B to demonstrate a representative range, and then compare that to the cost of the Brick and the Chesapeake Arena. Whether you compare $90M for Chesapeake or $40M for the Brick, the jump from that range to a minimum stadium cost is 3x-8x. That's a cost element people are just too ready to ignore because we've "done" the NBA, so the NFL "can't be much different." Sad truth it is.
Yes, all those cities are small cities. And Buffalo is prime on the current list of franchises that may be moving. Green Bay exists due to its unique public ownership characteristic that is no longer possible in the NFL, and Jacksonville is a failing franchise by virtually any measure. There's even speculation the Jags could move to London.
I realize its next to impossible to sound like anything but a wet blanket on this NFL discussion. My heart tells me, "Oh, Boy, the NFL, let's do it!!", but when I see the way cities have run like moths to a flame and sold their financial souls to get a stadium, then find themselves on the wrong end of a bunch of red ink, I look at Oklahoma City and just beg the well-iintentioned people advocating an NFL effort to learn what these cities did not, to really look at the kind of financial obligation required of a city to make it happen, and realize it just isn't prudent. I don't want to see Oklahoma City suffering in hindsight from the mistakes other cities have already made, but chose not to learn from them.
Look at it like this. A small town somewhere is on the cusp of landing a WalMart, they know the market is there. WalMart arrives, opens and sure enough it's successful. Then some begin saying the town needs a Nordstrom, we just need to dream big! People try to reason with them that just because the community is a slam dunk for WalMart doesn't mean it could support a Nordstrom. The gulf and comparison is just about the same between an NBA arena and team and an NFL stadium and team. Leave some room for hyperbole in this analogy, but it's actually pretty much the kind of thinking that could doom a town, or a city in our case.
If "thinking small" is what you call reality. And I can't believe you brought up Buffalo and Jacksonville as your support argument, both cities are endanger of losing their teams to MUCH bigger markets, although it's not guaranteed either team will relocate. Green Bay is the third oldest franchise in the NFL, founded in 1919 and SoonerDave already explained the public ownership they have, so you can't really compare the two. New Orleans is the only real argument; the only time they were at the end of the relocation talk was during Katrina.
It's not about building a stadium, we could manage building a stadium if we really wanted to. Facilities are the easy part. It's about the corporate partnerships that are required to make any team realistic. We just don't have that, and it's probably not coming in the near future. We've got a few companies that are carrying the Thunder on their backs and, lo and behold, one of them isn't doing too well right now. A single market shift and what happens? Could Integris and NewsOK support the Thunder on their own if the energy market goes down? Probably not, and corporate ownership is more important for the NFL. We're not anywhere close to being able to support two teams.
Jacksonville (Who doesn't have any other big-4 sports franchise) and Buffalo could both very well lose their teams in the not so distant future, they're on such shaky ground. Green Bay is owned by the city in a manner that the NFL would never approve nowadays. So none of them make a very good comparison.
I think the primary issue preventing this type of arrangement would be the prohibition of alcohol sales in the stadium. Besides that, I'm not at all sure OU would be crazy about having to turn over their stadium in very short order after (as an example) a Saturday night game followed by a noon Sunday NFL game on a regular basis. Logistical headaches abound.
Not only logistical headaches, but a competitor for limited entertainment dollars. With the cost of OU tickets on par with some pro teams, I don't see OU agreeing to any arrangement that will impact their bottom line. If OU has a down season, they still have a captive audience. Bring in an alternative to a down OU team, you take a hit at the attendance. I believe OU would be cutting the baby in half. Why ruin a good thing they have going now?
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Bookmarks