Name the Oklahoma City......

[indeedproceed]

The OKC Madness
The OKC Faith
The OKC Intangibles.

Wow I like the intangibles one.

[celticsfan8591]

how about  as a compromise to Seattle fans, the Oklahoma City Sonics of Seattle?

[nickagneta]

So, let's see if I have this right.

Seattle loses the team but gets to keep the Supersonics name and gets to keep the NBA Championship and Western Conference Championship and Pacific Division winning banners hanging in an arena where only people going to watch minor league hockey, concerts and the circus can see them.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma City gets an NBA franchise and gets to call themselves a former NBA Champion and have Pacific Division winning banners hanging in the middle of the United States prairy lands.

All this while the following metropolitan areas with populations twice the size of Oklahoma City have no NBA franchise:

Seattle - pop. 3.3 million
San Diego - pop. 2.9 million
St. Louis - pop. 2.8 million
Tampa Bay - pop. 2.7 million
Baltimore - pop. 2.6 million
Pittsburgh - pop. 2.3 million

Can someone please explain the logic behind this other than, well David Stern says it will make tons of money for 30 partnership groups, so that's the way it is?

[quikblink]

How about the OKC 45th largest TV markets

[cordobes]

So, let's see if I have this right.

Seattle loses the team but gets to keep the Supersonics name and gets to keep the NBA Championship and Western Conference Championship and Pacific Division winning banners hanging in an arena where only people going to watch minor league hockey, concerts and the circus can see them.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma City gets an NBA franchise and gets to call themselves a former NBA Champion and have Pacific Division winning banners hanging in the middle of the United States prairy lands.

All this while the following metropolitan areas with populations twice the size of Oklahoma City have no NBA franchise:

Seattle - pop. 3.3 million
San Diego - pop. 2.9 million
St. Louis - pop. 2.8 million
Tampa Bay - pop. 2.7 million
Baltimore - pop. 2.6 million
Pittsburgh - pop. 2.3 million

Can someone please explain the logic behind this other than, well David Stern says it will make tons of money for 30 partnership groups, so that's the way it is?

Explain exactly what? It's the owners choice. Why shouldn't they establish their businesses where they want? Size matters that much? What's the population of San Antonio? One and half million? Let's just move them to Tampa Bay or San Jose.

If anyone think that a franchise in Seattle or San Diego would be profitable, buy one and relocate to there. That's what Seattle fans should have done: start a public company and buy the Sonics. Put your money where your mouth is.

[cordobes]

Robber Barons.

Oklahoma City Backstabbers
Oklahoma City Traitors
Oklahoma City Despicable Excuse For Franchise That Deserves To Rot In Hell

Any one of three suits me fine. I think it's important to pick something that represents their franchise.

Oklahoma City Theft

Oklahoma City Travesty of Justice

The OKC Sonic-stealers

But do you have cultivate this kind of feelings for every other franchise in the League that was once relocated or you just despise the guys in Oklahoma? Is it because it's a rural state in the Midwest?

[Donoghus]

I don't think you can necessarily use population as the end all, be all of determining who should have an NBA franchise.  One thing to consider is that the cities you named already have multiple professional sports franchises.  There may not be room in the marketplace or utter need in that marketplace to have an NBA franchise.  Oklahoma City will have one sole professional franchise.  If the public is basketball-crazy, they won't have a problem.  Look at Green Bay in the NFL.  One sports team and very small market but one of the healthier (and storied) franchises in the NFL.  Also, the local politics might not be so welcoming of a professional basketball franchise in those areas (for whatever reasons).  Also, look at Tampa Bay until this season with the Rays and the Lightening for quite some time.  Low attendence and an indifferent population towards it.  In Pittsburgh, the Penguins were on the brink of leaving (or folding) for quite some time.  San Diego had the Clippers at one point.  St. Louis had the Hawks.  Baltimore had the Bullets. All three teams left.  

High populations don't necessarily guarantee that a basketball franchise will thrive there.  Oklahoma City seemed to embrace the Hornets and the NBA during the time they were playing there.  

[indeedproceed]

So, let's see if I have this right.

Seattle loses the team but gets to keep the Supersonics name and gets to keep the NBA Championship and Western Conference Championship and Pacific Division winning banners hanging in an arena where only people going to watch minor league hockey, concerts and the circus can see them.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma City gets an NBA franchise and gets to call themselves a former NBA Champion and have Pacific Division winning banners hanging in the middle of the United States prairy lands.

All this while the following metropolitan areas with populations twice the size of Oklahoma City have no NBA franchise:

Seattle - pop. 3.3 million
San Diego - pop. 2.9 million
St. Louis - pop. 2.8 million
Tampa Bay - pop. 2.7 million
Baltimore - pop. 2.6 million
Pittsburgh - pop. 2.3 million

Can someone please explain the logic behind this other than, well David Stern says it will make tons of money for 30 partnership groups, so that's the way it is?

Well, I mean DC has a team so that kind of includes Baltimore. San Diego can't sell out their home playoff games in football so I don't know how they'd support a basketball team, plus they have the padres and a hockey team, right? Tampa has the lightining and devil rays, and Pittsburgh has the Pens, Pirates and Steelers....Oklahoma has the Sooners and the cowboys and thats it, right?

The banners thing is weird though no question

[amenhotep04]

The size of the market is only one part of the story (See Miami).  You have to take into consideration the allegiance of the fans.  They'll be all over the team there.  It's the first professional major sports franchise in Oklahoma, providing of course you don't count OU in football.  They'll sell-out like crazy. 

Regarding the name, they cannot be the Cowboys.  OSU is the Cowboys. 

What I do hope is that they do change the name.  I hate that the Lakers and Clippers are in L.A., and that the Jazz are in Utah.  Things like the Pistons in Detroit, the 76ers in Philly, or the Spurs in San Antonio are reflective of the location.  I hope they come up with something creative that goes beyond Tornado.

[cordobes]

Oklahoma Bison. Can't the "City" be disregarded in the name? There's no other franchise in the state. Also, Oklahoma Tornadoes or the Oklahoma Pioneers.

[indeedproceed]

I was just about to say that Cordobes. Feel my TP's of sarcastic wrath!

[ACF]

The Oklahoma Thunderbolts.

[nickagneta]

I don't think you can necessarily use population as the end all, be all of determining who should have an NBA franchise.  One thing to consider is that the cities you named already have multiple professional sports franchises.  There may not be room in the marketplace or utter need in that marketplace to have an NBA franchise.  Oklahoma City will have one sole professional franchise.  If the public is basketball-crazy, they won't have a problem.  Look at Green Bay in the NFL.  One sports team and very small market but one of the healthier (and storied) franchises in the NFL.  Also, the local politics might not be so welcoming of a professional basketball franchise in those areas (for whatever reasons).  Also, look at Tampa Bay until this season with the Rays and the Lightening for quite some time.  Low attendence and an indifferent population towards it.  In Pittsburgh, the Penguins were on the brink of leaving (or folding) for quite some time.  San Diego had the Clippers at one point.  St. Louis had the Hawks.  Baltimore had the Bullets. All three teams left.  

High populations don't necessarily guarantee that a basketball franchise will thrive there.  Oklahoma City seemed to embrace the Hornets and the NBA during the time they were playing there.  

I understand all that and completely agree with cordobes about the owners wanting to move their team whereever they want. I think the point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of metropolis' where basketball is not working and the NBA keeps trying smaller and smaller markets.

When are they going to learn that they just might have overextended themselves in regards to areas in the US that can sustain NBA franchises to the point of keeping them fiscally viable.

Perhaps a second franchise in Chicago makes more sense than a franchise in OKC. Maybe it's time to explore Montreal, Mexico City, San Juan, Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bogata, and Buenos Aires. Perhaps the American market is too saturated already and just moving franchises around every 5-10 years is just stupid. Perhaps Stern is right and international expansion is the way to go not domestic expansion and/or relocation.

[cordobes]

Perhaps you are right Nick, I really don't know.

But who else than the owners has more and better incentives to make good decisions to the business? Sure they can make bad decisions; but it's more probable that they make better decisions than anyone else: it's their money, their industry, their assets. Also, it's important to note that any relocation or extension has to be voted and approved by the ownerships of the other franchises. If they, including Wyc, are fine with moving a franchise to Oklahoma, well, so am I. Not falling in any kind of indifferentism, I just think that they are surely more prepared and better informed to make wiser decisions than I am.

Anyway, I hope they are pondering some of the ideas you explained, for the good of the game.

[Mean Gerald Green]

Oklahoma Chumps

Oklahoma Slugs

Oklahoma Disgrace

Oklahoma We Suck Without Durant in 3 Years.

Oklahoma Irrelevants

Oklahoma Teacups

Oklahoma Ballers

Okey Dokies