PDA

View Full Version : NBA Board votes 28-2



Civicus_Sooner
4/18/2008, 03:44 PM
In support of the Sonics move to OKC.

In other news, Clay Bennett was pretty clear that the team will be named something else and it will be called, The Oklahoma City _______ as opposed to the Oklahoma ________.

Yay, cheers.

Civicus_Sooner
4/18/2008, 04:29 PM
Seattle link

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/359651_sonicsvote19.html

Eielson
4/18/2008, 04:30 PM
They will be so good if they can add Derrick Rose this year to go along with Jeff Green and Kevin Durant.

r5TPsooner
4/18/2008, 04:34 PM
Another HUGE waste of tax payer money!

Civicus_Sooner
4/18/2008, 04:36 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.

Civicus_Sooner
4/18/2008, 04:38 PM
Another HUGE waste of tax payer money!Yeah, sure. Thanks for playing though.

I'm just so goddamn happy we didn't end up with some Bull**** NHL team a few years ago.

poke4christ
4/18/2008, 04:51 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.

Exactly, they've said he's concerned about it being in a smaller market, but I think the only thing he's concerned about is losing Oklahoma's maverics fans to an OKC team. I don't like the guy too much, so if someone was going to vote against it I'm glad it's him.

King Crimson
4/18/2008, 04:51 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.

Portland and Seattle is a big rivalry. i'd guess that's why.

Mjcpr
4/18/2008, 05:06 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.

They speculated on the SA yesterday that it was because Paul Allen owns the Blazers and he lives, works(?) and got rich in Seattle. I'm sure it was a PR vote on his part.

Mixer!
4/18/2008, 05:22 PM
I'm just so goddamn happy we didn't end up with some Bull**** NHL team a few years ago.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

tommieharris91
4/18/2008, 06:26 PM
So can I jump on the FIRE PJ CARLESIMO NOW!!!!! bandwagon?

CrimsonandCreamForever
4/18/2008, 06:35 PM
Seattle link

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/359651_sonicsvote19.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=359651

Wow, after reading this with all the delusional morons, I thought i was on OP there for a min.

Jimminy Crimson
4/18/2008, 06:42 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.

Besides taking away from Dallas' market, Cuban always likes to oppose league issues such as relocations. Still love the kid, though.

Paul Allen voted no, not only because of the PDX-SEA rivalry, but because of his relationship with Steve Ballmer (fellow Microsoft dude) who tried to put together a last ditch effort to buy the team from PBC, LLC.

tommieharris91
4/18/2008, 06:55 PM
So who will wear OKC ______ merch to our game against UW in Seattle?

MichiganSooner
4/18/2008, 07:14 PM
What are the possibilities that they would play a few games each season in Tulsa at the new BOK center?

stoopified
4/18/2008, 07:27 PM
Portland and Seattle is a big rivalry. i'd guess that's why.I heard it was a Pacific Northwest solidarity thing.As for Cuban,F HIM.Heis just a Jerry Jones,George Steinbrenner wannabe.

Dio
4/18/2008, 08:29 PM
Paul Allen owns the Seattle Seahawks, so voting against the city of Seattle would cause him problems.

The lease w/ OKC prohibits regular season games being played outside the city, so a split schedule w/ Tulsa won't happen.

r5tp- how does the Ford Center sitting empty 41 nights a year stimulate economic growth? What kind of property taxes do you think Durant, Collison, Presti, etc. will pay? Don't miss the forest for the trees on this.

King Crimson
4/18/2008, 10:17 PM
I heard it was a Pacific Northwest solidarity thing.

that's kind of how i meant it. like when Joe C. and Deloss Dodds wrangle with the Cotton Bowl and the City of Dallas. but, i could certainly be wrong.

poke4christ
4/18/2008, 10:23 PM
What are the possibilities that they would play a few games each season in Tulsa at the new BOK center?

I think it will happen and would be smart. I think 2-3 games a year would be appropriate. After all, this is the state's team, not OKC's.

Mixer!
4/19/2008, 12:50 AM
Now you've done it... long-assed BRJ rant in 3...2...1...








;)

OU Adonis
4/19/2008, 03:12 AM
I think it will happen and would be smart. I think 2-3 games a year would be appropriate. After all, this is the state's team, not OKC's.

Well it was confirmed today that it will be called the "Oklahoma City ____"

Jimminy Crimson
4/19/2008, 04:48 AM
What are the possibilities that they would play a few games each season in Tulsa at the new BOK center?

Maybe 2 preseason games...

poke4christ
4/19/2008, 08:03 AM
Well it was confirmed today that it will be called the "Oklahoma City ____"

Can you provide a source? I heard Bennette wanted the opposite to happen. Also, the commish talked about tulsa in the presser as well. I'm not saying your wrong, it would just be a surprise to me.

I'm an OKC guy myself. Born and raised in Edmond, but I think all of oklahoma should enjoy the team and so I think it would be better to call it the "Oklahoma ____" rather than the "Oklahoma City _____". It would also be better for gaining more fans.

OU Adonis
4/19/2008, 08:43 AM
Here ya go.

http://newsok.com/article/3232124

Youngsooner
4/19/2008, 09:51 AM
I like how they thinkk there there are no rich people in oklahoma only poor people and we don't even have enough people in the state to fill the stadium... I didn't realize Seattle was this delusional..

poke4christ
4/19/2008, 10:09 AM
Here ya go.

http://newsok.com/article/3232124

thanks, good to know.

silverwheels
4/19/2008, 02:47 PM
I like how they thinkk there there are no rich people in oklahoma only poor people and we don't even have enough people in the state to fill the stadium... I didn't realize Seattle was this delusional..

Stupidity often comes right after someone exhibits bitterness.

poke4christ
4/19/2008, 03:03 PM
Stupidity often comes right after someone exhibits bitterness.

wise words, more reason not to be bitter.

Frozen Sooner
4/19/2008, 03:23 PM
Stupidity often comes right after someone exhibits bitterness.

Hence Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania.

;)

stoops the eternal pimp
4/19/2008, 05:16 PM
Stern pwned the Seattle media at the press conference yesterday..Bennett did a great job as well

badger
4/19/2008, 05:45 PM
watch 'em b!tch and whine when the team name is Oklahoma City Tulsans :D

or perhaps, much like they've had to share the hornets... the Tulsa/Oklahoma City Sonics ;)

Even better, they pull an Angels in the Outfield move: The name starts off "Oklahoma Sonics," but then gets changed to "Oklahoma City Sonics" to favor the city they're in. Realizing that they need a better market for royalty money, they play off a city they're not from at all for better t-shirts and hats: THE TULSA SONICS OF OKLAHOMA CITY :eek:

thoughts?

Crimson Kid
4/19/2008, 05:54 PM
I'm just so goddamn happy we didn't end up with some Bull**** NHL team a few years ago.


I hate BB!! Give me hockey any fricking day over some fricking bull**** basket balll team.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 06:35 PM
Another HUGE waste of tax payer money!
I disagree.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 06:39 PM
Funny that Mark Cuban (Dallas Maverics) voted against it. I gues our little market will, in fact put a dent in his bottom line.

Why Portland voted against, I have no idea. It's only 1.5 hour drive from Seattle to Portland, so the Blazers will get another huge market to pull fans from.
Cuban claims it was more because he thinks this part of the country is becoming saturated with teams and doesn't have the overall television market to support it, especially as far as potential market growth. He said better for most of the teams to be where the bulk of the country's population is. I suspect it is more to do with the potential to lose Oklahoma fans of the Mavs, but that's just me. He also just likes to be a contrarian, and I sort of like that about him.

As for Paul Allen, like it has been mentioned, his roots are deep in Seattle, and he doesn't want to **** off his neighbors. Plus, I think some Seattle fans will likely gravitiate to his team (he needs all the help he can get right now), and he didn't want them to hate him for voting "yes." Allen also owns the SEATTLE Seahawks, and is trying to get an MLS expansion team for SEATTLE. Mostly a PR vote, I agree.

tommieharris91
4/19/2008, 06:53 PM
I disagree.

As do I.

birddog
4/19/2008, 07:05 PM
Here ya go.

http://newsok.com/article/3232124

that is great, great news. people sometimes assume that if they don't live in a franchise city, they won't support it. but after a few years you begin to identify with the team and not necesarily the location. there are tons of people who like the cowboys, mavs, kc chiefs etc, that live outside of those markets.

if the nbas team was in tulsa, i wouldn't reject it because i live in okc. i would support them if i liked the players, coach etc.

birddog
4/19/2008, 07:07 PM
Another HUGE waste of tax payer money!

:rolleyes:
i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were joking. but you haven't responded to back that up yet.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 07:23 PM
I think it will happen and would be smart. I think 2-3 games a year would be appropriate. After all, this is the state's team, not OKC's.
Uh... ...based on what? The team is owned wholly by Oklahoma City businessmen, plays in the Oklahoma City taxpayer-funded Ford Center in downtown Oklahoma City, is here almost entirely because the Oklahoma City mayor envisioned his city as an NBA market some years ago, and wouldn't take no for an answer when David Stern tried to brush him aside.

The team is coming here largely because Oklahoma City voters bought into a vision by Oklahoma City's leadership 15 years ago, and paid $370 million dollars (including $85 million for the Ford Center) out of their pockets to try to elevate Oklahoma City to major league status.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans 2 1/2 years ago, Oklahoma City, looking for a chance to prove itself, stepped up and embraced the Hornets, damn near selling out a season where there was only about a month for the team to mount a sales effort. Oklahoma City's corporate community gave the team more in corporate sponsorship than nearly any team in the league. Not a single one of those "Pioneer Partners" was located even as far away as Edmond or Norman.

Then, when the opportunity presented itself to embrace another team, and Oklahoma City voters were told that they needed to dig deep again and fund $125 million in improvements to the Ford Center, they didn't bat an eyelash and then lined up in unprecedented numbers to overwhemingly tax themselves, again.

NOW you want to say that this team "is... ...not OKC's?" That, my aggie friend, is downright offensive. How 'bout if people in Weatherford or Guymon were demanding that your pokies played part of their football or basketball season in that town instead of Stillwater, and that OSU's longsuffering fans (those that go to games), those who donate to the university and the athletic programs, had to give up their season tickets to accomodate the people in Guymon? Personally, I would think that was wrong. And heck, OSU truly IS a state institution.

Look, like I've said many times on here by now, I hope and believe that people from all over this state jump on board. There is room for everyone. Though the OKC metro provided the vast number of fans, fans did and will come from all over the state. I hope Tulsa gets some preseason games, since a number of those are typically travel games to build league fan support. I'd be happy if that was the only away city the team played at during the preseason.

But Oklahoma City is perhaps more DESERVING of an NBA team, and as a community has worked harder to get one, than any city in the history of the league. We have jumped through hoops that most cities have never even DREAMED OF to get to this point. Don't even think about saying that this is not OKC's team.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 07:25 PM
And yes, I know I'm wasting my breath, since the FC lease is already done, for all home games. Just wanted to vent a little.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 07:26 PM
Now you've done it... long-assed BRJ rant in 3...2...1...








;)
I agree.

Cam
4/19/2008, 07:41 PM
BRJ's spot on.

Ash
4/19/2008, 07:54 PM
I'd rather have the Hornets.

This Sonics team is going to suck for a long time.

BigRedJed
4/19/2008, 09:10 PM
I agree. And I'm pretty convinced that was the original plan. OKC Hornets, with these owners. All the city of Seattle had to do was play their role, and not be such arrogant dillweeds, and they'd still have a team. Of course, the Bees weren't supposed to be rallying NOLA support with such a strong regular season.

Anyway, it's in the past, and I for one welcome our new bedraggled, loveable losers.

birddog
4/19/2008, 09:36 PM
we've got 13 draft picks over the next 3 years. if we can make some good decisions, this team can be competitive sooner than might be expected.

Ash
4/19/2008, 09:42 PM
It would have to be a combination of draft picks and trading for some veteran players. It would have to be just the right mix. And PJ has to not **** everybody off so bad they want to choke him.

birddog
4/19/2008, 09:51 PM
sure, i don't expect them to use all 13 picks for the draft, but it sure gives them alot of leverage when looking to add some talent.

if you look at the squad, they need ALOT of help...

http://www.nba.com/sonics/roster/

Ash
4/19/2008, 10:00 PM
sure, i don't expect them to use all 13 picks for the draft, but it sure gives them alot of leverage when looking to add some talent.

if you look at the squad, they need ALOT of help...

http://www.nba.com/sonics/roster/

I agree. And I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's not common that a team as bad as the Sonics turns it around in two or even a few seasons.

GrapevineSooner
4/19/2008, 11:47 PM
The soon-to-be-former-Sonics' future seems to be brighter than the Mavs right now. :mad:

P.S. Fire Donnie Nelson.

Ash
4/19/2008, 11:58 PM
The Mavs needed some defensive muscle in the post, not an aged point guard.

tommieharris91
4/20/2008, 01:47 AM
I say just hope the ping pong balls fall the Sonics way and they get a top 3 pick for this draft. There's plenty of talent in this draft. And hope and pray no OJ Mayo.

stoops the eternal pimp
4/20/2008, 08:07 AM
sure, i don't expect them to use all 13 picks for the draft, but it sure gives them alot of leverage when looking to add some talent.

if you look at the squad, they need ALOT of help...

http://www.nba.com/sonics/roster/

Maybe Xavier McDaniel has a little bball left in him...and shawn kemp may have lost that 10 to 100 lbs he needed to lose

birddog
4/20/2008, 08:24 AM
detlef schrempf hates you.

Ash
4/20/2008, 08:25 AM
bring back the glove! :D

bluedogok
4/20/2008, 12:13 PM
I think the Sonics are positioning themselves well, they shed most of the big salary players that puts you in salary cap hell that is so hard to get out of.....like what Isiah did with the Knicks. The Sonics will rebound much, much quicker than the Knicks who probably won't be able to clear the cap before 2011. If they get a key team catalyst like Chris paul was with the Hornets their return could be much quicker than anyone expects.

badger
4/20/2008, 12:14 PM
Thoughts on Mark Cuban: Spoiled brat who had good ideas for the Mavs to start with, but now has become more of a hindrance and nuisance than a help. He's taken them as far as he can, but he will be another rich guy with a team desperate for a championship he can't buy (or complain) his way to. If Oklahoma has a brighter future than the Mavs, there goes some of his fanbase :D

Thoughts on Paul Allen: He once wanted to buy the Sonics, since he loved basketball. There is a fun article on him online somewhere that SI did. Check it out for his history of ownership with the Seahawks and almost Sonics. He is very dedicated to the Seattle area (bought the Seahawks out of civic duty) and I respect him for standing up for Seattle. It will be more profitable for him to expand the Trailblazers fanbase up to Washington, so it would have made sense for him to vote along with the other owners.

Thoughts on OKC vs. OK: So, the name's gonna be the Oklahoma City Somethings, not the Oklahoma Somethings. Perfect happy medium... the Oklahoma Citys.

Before the English language cops point out the obvious, might I remind you of the Toronto Maple Leafs? M'kay then :D

Eielson
4/20/2008, 12:16 PM
I don't really know if they're going to be terrible for too long. They already have Kevin Durant and Jeff Green. If they add somebody like Derrick Rose this team could be pretty good in a year or two. They even look like they have some cap space to add a decent player.

Big Red Ron
4/20/2008, 01:03 PM
I disagree.
And so do the vast majority of OKC residents. Thanks to us, we have an NBA team. No waste here.

I'm still of the beliefe that if Tolbert would have won that election, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;)

r5TPsooner
4/20/2008, 03:11 PM
Yeah, sure. Thanks for playing though.

I'm just so goddamn happy we didn't end up with some Bull**** NHL team a few years ago.


I would have much rather had an NHL than a NBA team. And if you think that tax payers aren't floating the bill to bring them here, then you are way delusional! They'll be wanting out of OKC within ten years when the attendance rate falls below the average number of fans that attend an OU basketball game.

r5TPsooner
4/20/2008, 03:14 PM
I disagree.


I'm shocked that you would disagree with me since the only thing we agree on is disagreeing.

Big Red Ron
4/20/2008, 03:55 PM
I would have much rather had an NHL than a NBA team. And if you think that tax payers aren't floating the bill to bring them here, then you are way delusional! They'll be wanting out of OKC within ten years when the attendance rate falls below the average number of fans that attend an OU basketball game.Nobody watches the NHL. Their rating are right up there with golf and tennis. Hate to disagree here but if we would have landed the expansion team that went to Memphis and then the NHL goes into it's year off, like it did, we'd be done.

Let's be honest here, the NHL is hardly even "Major League." Most people here don't know the difference between CHL and NHL.
The NBA only trails the NFL as far as popularity in the USA. We're better off.

Sure the taxpayers are footing the bill to get them here, THAT'S why they left SEATTLE. EVERY major league team plays in a stadium/arena paid for by taxpayers. It's the nature of the beast.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 04:03 PM
I'm shocked that you would disagree with me since the only thing we agree on is disagreeing.
That's funny, 'cause I don't recall you and I having a history of any kind, even in your past life. Overall, you've made very little impression on me.

Now, regarding this thread, I don't recall anyone suggesting taxpayers haven't been heavily involved in bringing this team here. We were only responding to your assertion that this is a WASTE of taxpayer dollars, and I obviously disagree with that.

And, while you and others (maybe even myself in the past) might have preferred hockey to hoop from a personal "fan" perspective, the fact of the matter is that NBA basketball has a much greater profile nationwide and even worldwide, and a much larger fanbase. A simple test is to ask the casual sports fan (not a huge fan of either sport) to name as many active NBA players as he can, and then to name as many active NHL players as he can. It's not even close.

Couple that with the vast differences in network agreements for the two leagues, and it would have been MUCH easier to make the case that incentivizing hockey over basketball would qualify as a taxpayer boondoggle.

Oklahoma City and Oklahoma will gain far greater national and international exposure from its association with the NBA than we ever would have from the NHL, and that is how I personally define whether taxpayer support is appropriate here.

Big Red Ron
4/20/2008, 04:17 PM
Hell, name one AMERICAN NHL player.

Mixer!
4/20/2008, 04:45 PM
Mike Modano.

Mixer!
4/20/2008, 04:47 PM
Keith Tkachuk.

Mixer!
4/20/2008, 04:52 PM
But that's most of the NHL's problem: Americans can't get behind watching a league dominated by foreign-born players - even Canadians.

Big Red Ron
4/20/2008, 04:57 PM
My point is the same. NHL is hardly "Big League" in the USA and world wide.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/20/2008, 05:25 PM
Does anyone else feel the tiniest bit of guilt about this whole damm thing, I want a team but the team being ripped out of Seattle just seems wrong.

badger
4/20/2008, 06:29 PM
Thoughts on having "loveable losers:" That was what everyone thought when we were Hornets. "Oh, the Hornets are so awful. We're getting the worst team in the NBA. Charlotte didn't want them and neither did New Orleans, so now they're getting dumped on us. Why can't we get a good team?" And then, we got the Hornets and their #1 pick, Chris Paul. :D And then, New Orleans wanted them back :mad:

Thoughts on NHL vs. NBA in Oklahoma: Dallas has a good concept with the Stars, whereas they have youth programs and cultivate an interest in the sport early on so that they are profitable. Unfortunately, the rest of the NHL (except maybe the Canadian teams and Canadian fans) is poorly managed and poorly fanbased and had to go through a shutdown. Shutdowns aren't good for teams or the markets they're in and I'm not convinced the NHL is fully recovered from that work stoppage and has a feasible product out there... yet. I love hockey and enjoyed the OKC Blazers games I attended. However, if Oklahoma and OKC were to put up a tax incentive vote to bring the NHL in, I'm sure it would get voted down because there's less guarantees of a return economically with the NHL, considering their own financial woes.

On getting the Hornets or the Sonics: If we weren't seen as racist thieves that were worse than Hurricane Katrina herself, I would love to take the New Orleans Hornets back, just because we loved them and supported them as our own for two seasons. However, because I don't want another notch in the "hate state" belt that seems to be gripping Oklahoma tighter theseadays, Sonics it is. Here's hoping that nothing bad happens to Seattle in the next few months so that they get to keep their team out of sympathy (crosses fingers)

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 06:31 PM
Does anyone else feel the tiniest bit of guilt about this whole damm thing, I want a team but the team being ripped out of Seattle just seems wrong.
Yep. I think it sucks for Sonics fans. Mostly the arrogant and spineless politicians in Seattle and in the Washington legislature are responsible for this.

The NBA didn't want to lose the Seattle market, either. And despite what most people now think, I don't believe Clay and Co. wanted to leave early on. I think the OKC guys and the league wanted to use the OKC stick to get a new building and stabilize the Seattle market, at which point they would wait out a bankruptcy in NOLA, sell the Sonics to Seattle investors for a substantial profit, and buy the Hornets cheap.

I would not have felt guilty getting a Hornets team if NOLA was given a fair shot to support that team and failed. I don't think anyone else would have blamed OKC at that point, either. Of course, the awesome season the Hornets are having this year would have thrown a monkey wrench into the works, anyway. I still have doubts about the long-term viability of that market, but a strong playoff showing would probably help right the ship down there for at least a few more years.

So if the other plan had played out, with Seattle getting a new building, it might have been another five years or more before OKC had another shot at a team.

That said, it sucks for Seattle Supersonics fans. I just hope their elected representatives do the right thing, stop being vindictive, allow the lease buyout, and get to work on getting a building and then a team for the fans, who are the people truly getting the shaft here.

badger
4/20/2008, 06:34 PM
Does anyone else feel the tiniest bit of guilt about this whole damm thing, I want a team but the team being ripped out of Seattle just seems wrong.
yes

r5TPsooner
4/20/2008, 06:37 PM
That's funny, 'cause I don't recall you and I having a history of any kind, even in your past life. Overall, you've made very little impression on me.

Now, regarding this thread, I don't recall anyone suggesting taxpayers haven't been heavily involved in bringing this team here. We were only responding to your assertion that this is a WASTE of taxpayer dollars, and I obviously disagree with that.

And, while you and others (maybe even myself in the past) might have preferred hockey to hoop from a personal "fan" perspective, the fact of the matter is that NBA basketball has a much greater profile nationwide and even worldwide, and a much larger fanbase. A simple test is to ask the casual sports fan (not a huge fan of either sport) to name as many active NBA players as he can, and then to name as many active NHL players as he can. It's not even close.

Couple that with the vast differences in network agreements for the two leagues, and it would have been MUCH easier to make the case that incentivizing hockey over basketball would qualify as a taxpayer boondoggle.

Oklahoma City and Oklahoma will gain far greater national and international exposure from its association with the NBA than we ever would have from the NHL, and that is how I personally define whether taxpayer support is appropriate here.


I'm thrilled that neither one of us had made any impression on each good or bad. My statement was meant from previous posts in which we openly disagreed on topics.

Regarding the NBA...I'd rather see OKC get national exposure from something more positive rather than of a bunch of millionaires from the NBA. I give it ten years before the owner of the team begs to leave OKC. Also, if you think that bringing an NBA team here is going to make big companies want to move here... then you're completely wrong. Most educated people with families, want to live where the education system is good, the economy is solid, and crime is low. If you think that by creating jobs for someone who sells peanuts, cotton candy, or hot dogs is gonna make OKC a better place to live, then we just disagree. I can see wanting to bring a company to OKC that brings GOOD jobs with it, but the jobs that are coming here are mainly **** and we both know it. Plus, I'd like to see my tax money go towards roads, schools, teacher pay, and infrastructure rather than a bunch of primadonnas and there bodyguards.

I'm glad that your excited about the NBA coming... but personally I'd like my tax dollars spent where they'd be useful... not just for the sonics, there front office, and the Bricktown big wigs who really put this stupid azz idea together. I'll be getting absolutely nothing back for my tax dollars which sucks.

Enjoy the NBA, I'd rather support OU basketball, OU football, and the Blazers personally.

BTW, I was pretty shocked when I heard that the NBA still existed. I thought that they pretty much were all in jail or in rehab?

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 06:44 PM
As for whether OKC should specifically feel guilty, I don't think so. I think the city itself acted in good faith throughout. Mick Cornett repeatedly refused to even say the words "Seattle" or "Supersonics" until after the relocation application was submitted. He and the rest of the city staff and Chamber worked really hard to stay out of things and just have their house in order for WHICHEVER team ended up here. If Seattle had come through for the Sonics, we would have just been ready for whatever other team opportunity there was, whether it be relocation or expansion.

But the fact of the matter is that this building problem in Seattle existed long before OKC ownership was involved. Had they not purchased that team, the Sonics would very likely be playing in Fresno right now. The crux of the matter is that the Sonics couldn't survive long term without a new building, and Seattle actively made the choice to not play along. It was sheer luck of the draw that the Sonics were the recipients of Seattle's building fatigue; it could have been the Mariners or the Seahawks leaving town had things worked out a bit differently.

As for whether the owners operated in good faith, I think for anyone to believe that they only intended to bring the team here and not to give the Seattle situation a real shot says that you believe these owners to be dishonest and scurrilous. I personally don't believe that. Besides, it would have been bad business, and I think they are nothing if not good businessmen.

bluedogok
4/20/2008, 06:54 PM
Nobody watches the NHL. Their rating are right up there with golf and tennis. Hate to disagree here but if we would have landed the expansion team that went to Memphis and then the NHL goes into it's year off, like it did, we'd be done.

Let's be honest here, the NHL is hardly even "Major League." Most people here don't know the difference between CHL and NHL.
The NBA only trails the NFL as far as popularity in the USA. We're better off.
I have been an NHL fan for many year but after the lockout the league profile in the national consciousness fell to about the level of the Arena Football league in profile, even MLS seems to have a higher profile now. I know my interest has not been as much since they came back, I have had NHL Center Ice for many years to watch Avs games and hardly watched any of them this season, I am going to drop it because it isn't worth it to me anymore. I watched hardly any basketball anymore (college or pro) but OKC is much better off in the NBA than the NHL.


But that's most of the NHL's problem: Americans can't get behind watching a league dominated by foreign-born players - even Canadians.
The same issue has affected all auto racing series not named Nascar in this country and the reason why AOWR fell apart and is now struggling to get back together. I don't understand that attitude, I could typically care less where someone is from to enjoy the racing.


Does anyone else feel the tiniest bit of guilt about this whole damm thing, I want a team but the team being ripped out of Seattle just seems wrong.

Yep. I think it sucks for Sonics fans. Mostly the arrogant and spineless politicians in Seattle and in the Washington legislature are responsible for this.

The NBA didn't want to lose the Seattle market, either. And despite what most people now think, I don't believe Clay and Co. wanted to leave early on. I think the OKC guys and the league wanted to use the OKC stick to get a new building and stabilize the Seattle market, at which point they would wait out a bankruptcy in NOLA, sell the Sonics to Seattle investors for a substantial profit, and buy the Hornets cheap.

That said, it sucks for Seattle Supersonics fans. I just hope their elected representatives do the right thing, stop being vindictive, allow the lease buyout, and get to work on getting a building and then a team for the fans, who are the people truly getting the shaft here.
Nope, if OKC fails to support them in the same way that Seattle has then they should relocate somewhere else as well. The difference is the NBA seems to do pretty well being the only major game in town and Seattle has many teams. The fact that the majority of Seattle citizens voted down a new arena 3 times after approving a new baseball and football stadium is an indication they didn't really care if they stayed in the market or not. When you have three major level franchises in your market, you have to treat them somewhat evenly. Polishing a 46 year old turd of an arena is not the same as a new one. Which is ridiculous because an arena is a true multi-purpose facility whereas a baseball or football facility are not. Look at how many other events have come to the Ford Center since it has been built that wouldn't have come to The Myriad. The Ford Center was an investment in the city even if a NBA or NHL team never came there. People also need to quit thinking like the teams "own" the arena, if a team leaves the arena still stays where it is and is useful for those other events. So it is truly an investment.


BTW, I was pretty shocked when I heard that the NBA still existed. I thought that they pretty much were all in jail or in rehab?
The NFL has pretty much supplanted the NBA for that type of news.


But the fact of the matter is that this building problem in Seattle existed long before OKC ownership was involved. Had they not purchased that team, the Sonics would very likely be playing in Fresno right now. The crux of the matter is that the Sonics couldn't survive long term without a new building, and Seattle actively made the choice to not play along. It was sheer luck of the draw that the Sonics were the recipients of Seattle's building fatigue; it could have been the Mariners or the Seahawks leaving town had things worked out a bit differently.
Seattle came close to the Seahawks moving to California and the Mariners threatened a move twice before they got new facilities.

Cam
4/20/2008, 07:29 PM
Also, if you think that bringing an NBA team here is going to make big companies want to move here... then you're completely wrong. Most educated people with families, want to live where the education system is good, the economy is solid, and crime is low. If you think that by creating jobs for someone who sells peanuts, cotton candy, or hot dogs is gonna make OKC a better place to live, then we just disagree. I can see wanting to bring a company to OKC that brings GOOD jobs with it, but the jobs that are coming here are mainly **** and we both know it.

That's interesting about the jobs that are coming here. I moved back here with a fortune 30 company and make a pretty damn good salary. There are quite a few people in my office who make 6 figure salaries. There are those that make $12/hr, $15hr, $20/hr. For somebody with very little, if any, post high school education, that's nothing to sneeze at. What's their alternative, $7,8/hr gigs at 7-11, waiting tables for $3/hr plus tips?

What exactly do you consider a "GOOD" job? Do you expect OKC to be the next Silicon Valley? It's just simply not going to happen, at least not over night.

And by the way, did you catch the piece in one of the articles that there are some 500 (I think) companies that get the same tax incentives that the Sonics are going to get? I may be off on the 500 number, but the point is that they're not the only ones getting the breaks. Want to take away the jobs from those Oklahomans as well?

The OKC school system sucks, that doesn't mean that all the school systems in Oklahoma do. The crime rate doesn't seem to be any worse that other places we've lived, so that's probably a wash.

Bottom line, not every city is right for everybody. I've lived in some of the largest cities in the world and am very happy to be back in OKC.


Plus, I'd like to see my tax money go towards roads, schools, teacher pay, and infrastructure rather than a bunch of primadonnas and there bodyguards.

I could have swore we voted last Fall for a $400MM road bond, so you can scratch that off your list. Don't disagree with you at all on the education pieces, it's been that way around here for too damn long.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 07:33 PM
...Also, if you think that bringing an NBA team here is going to make big companies want to move here... then you're completely wrong. Most educated people with families, want to live where the education system is good, the economy is solid, and crime is low. If you think that by creating jobs for someone who sells peanuts, cotton candy, or hot dogs is gonna make OKC a better place to live, then we just disagree. I can see wanting to bring a company to OKC that brings GOOD jobs with it, but the jobs that are coming here are mainly **** and we both know it...
This is absolutely ridiculous and a total bastardization of not only what I have said previously, but also of the reasons behind bringing a team here.

In previous threads and posts I have mentioned that sales taxes from games would indeed add to the tax base of the city and the state, and yes, that people would be employed, adding their income taxes to the mix. I also said, yes, that players and team staff would also spend money in the market, providing work for service people and other businesses.

But that is hardly what this is about. Those things are quite incremental, and the fact that you think this is what the team relocation thrust is about demostrates an inability to grasp the big-picture aspects of this move. Don't worry; you're not alone. A number of people have a hard time seeing the big picture.

But the big picture is this: one of the highest priorities companies have when looking to expand or relocate into a market is what type of quality of life their employees will be able to enjoy. A good quality of life allows them to attract and retain quality people with less effort. "Quality of life" ranges from cost of living (we have one of the lowest in the country) to parks and greenspaces (we have spent tens of millions in the past few years and have big plans for the future), trails (our trails system is going nuts), plus arts and entertainment opportunities.

"Entertainment opportunities," as defined by site relocation specialists, is often HEAVILY influenced by major league sports options. Additionally, corporations like to have major league sports options as a way to entertain clients. Therefore, getting a major league franchise is just another arrow in the quiver, and ostensibly will help us better compete for job expansion and retention.

If you don't believe that quality of life affects corporate relocation and expansion decisions, you obviously don't know the story of what sparked MAPS in the first place. Back in the early 90s, Oklahoma City and County passed a penny sales tax, contingent upon United Airlines locating a maintenance facility here. Talk about corporate welfare; it was basically a $100+ million bribe to the airline to convince them to bring the facility here, during the depths of the oil bust. Ultimately, it was down to Oklahoma City and Indianapolis. Airline officials throughout the process told OKC that their incentive package was by far the best, yet when the announcement was made they picked Indy.

Ron Norick, then OKC mayor, was crushed. He called United to find out why, when OKC had been willing to pay far more for the jobs. He was told, in a nutshell, that United simply didn't want its employees to have to live in Oklahoma City. Understandably ****ed, he got on a plane and went unannounced to Indy to see with his own eyes what he expected; Indy surely wasn't that much nicer than OKC.

Much to his surprise, he was wrong and United was right. Indy, who had recently spent a crapload of money and effort on its downtown, was indeed a nicer place. Incidentally, Indy had also built the Hoosier Dome (now known as the RCA Dome, and recently closed). The Hoosier Dome was built to barebones NFL standards with no tenant, much as the Ford Center was build. Very soon, the Colts relocated there.

But I digress. Norick was so blown away that he came back with an entirely new idea; that we needed to invest in ourselves, our downtown, our city and our quality of life and jobs would follow. Part of that original vision was to bring major league sports to Oklahoma City. So far, the plan has exceeded all expectations. So I'll the benefit of the doubt to Norick and successive mayors, plus the chamber, other cities' chambers and professional relocation experts when they suggest that the big picture plan we are following is the correct one.

BTW, in 2000 I had the pleasure of having a conversation with Bill Hudnut (http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Bill_Hudnut&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=124&ContentID=24046), the visionary mayor of Indy during their renaissance period, while we were both attending the International Downtown Association convention in Los Angeles, where he was keynote speaker. I had recently finished a book that he had written, and after discussing it for a few minutes, asked if he knew about what was going on in OKC, and how Indy had played a role. He had no idea, but was fascinated. He took a lot of pleasure in hearing how much of an influence Indy's experience had on OKC's.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 07:40 PM
bluedog, the only thing I'll disagree with in the response you made to me is that I don't think Seattle citizens overall "didn't really care" if the team left, I think they were just tired of being taxed for new arenas and arrogantly thought it was all a bluff anyway. I mean, who in their right mind would move from that great city to the dustbowl, anyway?

I think the things they failed to consider were the advantages of moving into a debt-free building with lots of opportunities for additional revenue vs. a dated, revenue-stream lacking building with a huge debt load. They also didn't consider the point you eloquently made regarding being the only game in town. A team that is in that situation has a number of advantages over a team sharing the spotlight with two others, even in a much larger city. It's the same reason Oklahoma City is a more tempting NBA market than Kansas City.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 07:48 PM
And finally, regarding the assertions made by "r5TPsooner" regarding companies looking for cities with good education systems and roads, he's correct. That's why OKC has ALSO been passing street bond issues like crazy doing substantial road and streetscape improvements and working to encourage inner-city revitalization, which reduces infrastructure needs caused by "donut (suburban) development."

Addtitionally, if you think OKC isn't pulling out all of the stops to improve the educational system, you haven't been paying attention. We are just now wrapping up the taxation period on MAPS for Kids, a three quarter of a billion dollar program, paid for by a combination of sales taxes and bonds, which will ultimately remodel or replace EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THE OKC SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Add to that the huge committment being made by the city to nurture and develop OCU and the Oklahoma Health Center, and we are certainly paying attention to having a well educated work force.

OF COURSE we need great roads and education. We're working on both at an unprecedented pace. But there is far, far more to the economic development picture than just those two items. The importance of quality of life, which includes entertainment options, is undeniable, at least to the informed.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 08:00 PM
During the "Big League City" push, the Mayor mentioned a really great point that distills my endless posting above into a simple paragraph. He said that currently companies like Devon, Chesapeake, Sand Ridge and others, when recruiting the best and brightest graduates from out of state, are often asked "do I have to live in Oklahoma City?" The Mayor said that what we are trying to do here, ultimately, is to change that question to instead be "you mean I get to live in Oklahoma City?"

r5TPsooner
4/20/2008, 08:05 PM
This is absolutely ridiculous and a total bastardization of not only what I have said previously, but also of the reasons behind bringing a team here.

In previous threads and posts I have mentioned that sales taxes from games would indeed add to the tax base of the city and the state, and yes, that people would be employed, adding their income taxes to the mix. I also said, yes, that players and team staff would also spend money in the market, providing work for service people and other businesses.

But that is hardly what this is about. Those things are quite incremental, and the fact that you think this is what the team relocation thrust is about demonstrates an inability to grasp the big-picture aspects of this move. Don't worry; you're not alone. A number of people have a hard time seeing the big picture.

But the big picture is this: one of the highest priorities companies have when looking to expand or relocate into a market is what type of quality of life their employees will be able to enjoy. A good quality of life allows them to attract and retain quality people with less effort. "Quality of life" ranges from cost of living (we have one of the lowest in the country) to parks and greenspaces (we have spent tens of millions in the past few years and have big plans for the future), trails (our trails system is going nuts), plus arts and entertainment opportunities.

"Entertainment opportunities," as defined by site relocation specialists, is often HEAVILY influenced by major league sports options. Additionally, corporations like to have major league sports options as a way to entertain clients. Therefore, getting a major league franchise is just another arrow in the quiver, and ostensibly will help us better compete for job expansion and retention.

If you don't believe that quality of life affects corporate relocation and expansion decisions, you obviously don't know the story of what sparked MAPS in the first place. Back in the early 90s, Oklahoma City and County passed a penny sales tax, contingent upon United Airlines locating a maintenance facility here. Talk about corporate welfare; it was basically a $100+ million bribe to the airline to convince them to bring the facility here, during the depths of the oil bust. Ultimately, it was down to Oklahoma City and Indianapolis. Airline officials throughout the process told OKC that their incentive package was by far the best, yet when the announcement was made they picked Indy.

Ron Norick, then OKC mayor, was crushed. He called United to find out why, when OKC had been willing to pay far more for the jobs. He was told, in a nutshell, that United simply didn't want its employees to have to live in Oklahoma City. Understandably ****ed, he got on a plane and went unannounced to Indy to see with his own eyes what he expected; Indy surely wasn't that much nicer than OKC.

Much to his surprise, he was wrong and United was right. Indy, who had recently spent a crapload of money and effort on its downtown, was indeed a nicer place. Incidentally, Indy had also built the Hoosier Dome (now known as the RCA Dome, and recently closed). The Hoosier Dome was built to barbones NFL standards with no tenant, much as the Ford Center was build. Very soon, the Colts relocated there.

But I digress. Norick was so blown away that he came back with an entirely new idea; that we needed to invest in ourselves, our downtown, our city and our quality of life and jobs would follow. Part of that original vision was to bring major league sports to Oklahoma City. So far, the plan has exceeded all expectations. So I'll give Norick and successive mayors, plus the chamber, other cities' chambers and professional relocation experts when they suggest that the big picture plan we are following is the correct one.

BTW, in 2000 I had the pleasure of having a conversation with Bill Hudnut (http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Bill_Hudnut&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=124&ContentID=24046), the visionary mayor of Indy during their renaissance period, while we were both attending the International Downtown Association convention in Los Angeles, where he was keynote speaker. I had recently finished a book that he had written, and after discussing it for a few minutes, asked if he knew about what was going on in OKC, and how Indy had played a role. He had no idea, but was fascinated. He took a lot of pleasure in hearing how much of an influence Indy's experience had on OKC's.

As far as the big picture goes I really don't know as I don't have a crystal ball. I for one am educated, have a wife who is educated and we have four children. When we left "the big city" to come to OKC, the discussion of whether OKC had a professional sports franchise wasn't even discussed, as only those with narrow minds and views would do so. We more concerned with the education system and what the cost of living here versus Wisconsin would be. It also had a lot to do with raising a family and our well being, as well as putting ourselves in a much better financial situation for generations.

As far as losing United goes.... that didn't have a damn thing to do with the NBA or not having a professional sports franchise but everything to do with education and infrastructure! You and I both know that.

Like I said previously, I'm glad that folks like you will be getting a professional sports team to make them feel complete as an Oklahoman. For me personally, my family and quality of life, and faith does that for me, and I hope that in the end, by bringing the Sonics here, will build OKC as a city... but it won't, and I think that down deep you know that too. And forever who posted that a $15/hr or $20/hr job is considered good... needs to have there head examined.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on. It's what makes SF.com so wonderful.

BTW, I have no issue with MAPS, my issue is wasting tax payer money on a bunch of spoiled millionaires who will live her seasonally then go back to Florida, New York, California or Arizona. I'm all for building OKC up, but not with the NBA who only a few percentage of people can or want to relate to.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 08:31 PM
...When we left "the big city" to come to OKC, the discussion of whether OKC had a professional sports franchise wasn't even discussed, as only those with narrow minds and views would do so...
See, your statement right there is actually an example of a "narrow mind" and "narrow views." I would agree that someone who made that their only priority for whether they came to a city would indeed be narrow minded. But when you refuse to accept that it might be ONE of MANY valid reasons that many people might want to live in a city, you reveal that YOU are the one who is in fact "narrow minded."

In fact, I think that people with broad minds (the opposite of narrow, right?) want to live in a city that offers LOTS of amenities, INCLUDING but not limited to nice streets and good schools.

We have to appeal to all sorts of people in making our city a great and inviting one, and facing the facts that sports is in fact an important part of Americans' lives these days, and that entertainment options help give us a competitive edge when appealing to outsiders is vital. To ignore this ignores the obvious, and Oklahoma City needs EVERY competitive advantage it can muster, not just one or two.

I for one want a well-rounded city, with a focus on education, saftey, the arts, AND etertainment.

As for your belittling of people who don't have the exact same set of interests or priorities as you, and labeling them small minded (that is what "narrow minded" or having "narrow views" means, doesn't it?), I'll let that speak for itself.

BlondeSoonerGirl
4/20/2008, 08:36 PM
Like I said previously, I'm glad that folks like you will be getting a professional sports team to make them feel complete as an Oklahoman. For me personally, my family and quality of life, and faith does that for me, and I hope that in the end, by bringing the Sonics here, will build OKC as a city... but it won't, and I think that down deep you know that too.

This is spectacularly rude. And dazzlingly condescending. The insinuations here are just awesome.

How long have you lived in OKC?

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 09:00 PM
A few more musings on this subject, "r5TPsooner": although I'm sure you are "educated," and so is your wife, as you felt compelled to point out, your condescending tone suggests that you don't believe people who enjoy sports or think they play a role in quality of life and economic development could possibly also be educated. You might click on that link I served up for Bill Hudnut, a Phi Beta Kappa Princeton graduate, summa cum laude theological graduate of Union Theological School, and a former professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He holds opinions similar to mine. Which makes me feel better, 'cause I'm mostly just a dumb, gap-toothed, sports lusting hillbilly.

Oh, and if you're going to get all braggy about how edumacated you are, you might want to learn the difference between "there" and "their." You might also work on phrases like "We more concerned with the education system and what the cost of living here versus Wisconsin would be." Don't go searching for my misspellings and grammatical errors; I already admitted I'm just a dumb hillbilly. You're the one bragging about your education.

Regarding "As far as losing United goes.... that didn't have a damn thing to do with the NBA or not having a professional sports franchise but everything to do with education and infrastructure! You and I both know that": no, we both don't know that. I know that United was very concerned with EVERY aspect of quality of life, and mentioned entertainment options specifically.

And also, taking personal shots at someone... ..."I'm glad that folks like you (narrow minded, right?) will be getting a professional sports team to make them feel complete as an Oklahoman"... ...and then saying "let's just agree to disagree and move on" is chicken****.

birddog
4/20/2008, 09:25 PM
"folks like you"? what exactly is that? someone who likes sports?

then i'm a folk like me, too.

Frozen Sooner
4/20/2008, 09:29 PM
$40,000 per year isn't a decent salary for someone with little or no post-high school education?

Wow, that shows a rather large disconnect with what the job and wage market actually looks like.

I mean, you're not rich or anything, but you're pretty solidly middle-class at that level.

birddog
4/20/2008, 09:34 PM
YES!!! I'm solidly middle-class. i knew i could do it!

as a poor middle class schlep, i don't mind a penny sales tax for the next year and a half. i'll manage somehow but i need to meet with my accountant to find out if i need to cut back on any luxuries such as baby diapers and formula.

bluedogok
4/20/2008, 09:56 PM
bluedog, the only thing I'll disagree with in the response you made to me is that I don't think Seattle citizens overall "didn't really care" if the team left, I think they were just tired of being taxed for new arenas and arrogantly thought it was all a bluff anyway. I mean, who in their right mind would move from that great city to the dustbowl, anyway?I know that it is a very small cross section of the population there but I am on a motorcycle board that started in the Seattle area so it has a large number of PNW residents. Most there could care less if ANY pro sports are there, they view it all as a waste. I do think that it a measure has failed three times, that sends a pretty big signal even if they are just fed up with taxes. It doesn't make you feel like it is a very welcoming market if you are an owner, whether in-town or out of state.


I think the things they failed to consider were the advantages of moving into a debt-free building with lots of opportunities for additional revenue vs. a dated, revenue-stream lacking building with a huge debt load.
It's also a large part of the reasons why the Rangers stayed and the Cowboys are moving to Arlington. The debt of the AAC made the City of Dallas wary on spending money to get the Cowboys to Fair Park.


Addtitionally, if you think OKC isn't pulling out all of the stops to improve the educational system, you haven't been paying attention. We are just now wrapping up the taxation period on MAPS for Kids, a three quarter of a billion dollar program, paid for by a combination of sales taxes and bonds, which will ultimately remodel or replace EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN THE OKC SCHOOL DISTRICT.
It also includes those schools in other districts that are in the OKC city limits like many Putnam City and Edmond schools.


As far as the big picture goes I really don't know as I don't have a crystal ball. I for one am educated, have a wife who is educated and we have four children. When we left "the big city" to come to OKC, the discussion of whether OKC had a professional sports franchise wasn't even discussed, as only those with narrow minds and views would do so. We more concerned with the education system and what the cost of living here versus Wisconsin would be. It also had a lot to do with raising a family and our well being, as well as putting ourselves in a much better financial situation for generations.

As far as losing United goes.... that didn't have a damn thing to do with the NBA or not having a professional sports franchise but everything to do with education and infrastructure! You and I both know that.

Like I said previously, I'm glad that folks like you will be getting a professional sports team to make them feel complete as an Oklahoman. For me personally, my family and quality of life, and faith does that for me, and I hope that in the end, by bringing the Sonics here, will build OKC as a city... but it won't, and I think that down deep you know that too. And forever who posted that a $15/hr or $20/hr job is considered good... needs to have there head examined.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on. It's what makes SF.com so wonderful.

BTW, I have no issue with MAPS, my issue is wasting tax payer money on a bunch of spoiled millionaires who will live her seasonally then go back to Florida, New York, California or Arizona. I'm all for building OKC up, but not with the NBA who only a few percentage of people can or want to relate to.
Talk about a narrow mind, most childless by choice couples could care less how good schools are, most non-religious people could care less about churches. You can always find a narrow minded approach. Many sports fans could care less about anything relating to the arts community, everybody has what they like and don't like, just because schools are important to you doesn't mean that it is important to everyone but it is needed for an overall good community and MOST people recognize that everything is a balance and you have to have something for everyone to make it a nice community.

Narrow minds here can't understand all the focus on Whorn athletics especially when most of the population here has no connection to the university or connections to other universities that they attended. The "intellectual elitists" like to think they are broad minded and open but I have found them to be among the most closed minded people there are.

I guess that you don't realize that the majority of Oklahoma residents make in that range, the median household income in Oklahoma (for 2006) was $37,109, that equates to $17.84 based on 40 hours/52 weeks (Census Quick Fact - Oklahoma (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html)). Most people that I knew would have been happy making in that range a few years ago and are just now getting past the median range. Oklahoma has traditionally been a low pay state because of the cost of living, one usually relates to the other.

Does having an NBA alone make a community? No, but I do think it makes a community better just like all of the other things that have been discussed. You need all of those things to make a community good.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 10:01 PM
Exactly.

Ash
4/20/2008, 10:29 PM
The hyperbole on here is really entertaining.

And I can't get over this one "schools aren't important to everyone." It's so depressingly true you just have to laugh.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 10:57 PM
The hyperbole on here is really entertaining.

And I can't get over this one "schools aren't important to everyone." It's so depressingly true you just have to laugh.
Well, they aren't important to everyone's personal situation; I think that's the point. Are they EXCEEDINGLY important for a the overall health of a city? Absolutely. But there are a large number of surprisingly smart, successful people who would never factor schools into their decision to live somewhere. Maybe they are young, unmarried professionals and see children as being something they may do one day in the distant future. Maybe they are childless couples who plan to stay that way. Maybe their kids are grown. Whatever.

Now me, I want schools to be great, even though I'm childless, because it's good for the economy, it's good for property values, it's good for the workforce. But not everybody has those same priorities, and we need to recognize that and still find ways to appeal to those people, providing they have something to offer our city.

I'm not much for ballet (I do love visual arts and the philharmonic; I'm not a complete Philistine), but I'm glad that we have a ballet. If we ever lost the ballet I would see it as a dramatic step backward and a negative for our city.

The fact that we have a ballet, and a philharmonic, and a brand new, amazing art museum with the world's most comprehensive collection of Chihuly glass, and have more accredited museums per capita than any city in America, all of these things are things that I am proud of, whether I personally make use of those amenities or not. Does anyone choose to relocate here because of any one specific thing on that list? Doubtful, unless they're coming here to work for one of them. But do those things assist mightily in bringing people to Oklahoma City, and in convincing people that this city is a place they'd like to be? You're damn right they do.

Good, healthy cities are diverse, and offer many outlets and personal pursuits for their citizens, recognizing that everybody has different goals, aspirations, passions, and ways they like to spend their free time. Diverse entertainment options are a part of that. If we only try to appeal to a single group and a single, narrow mindset, we will stagnate and ultimately fail.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 11:00 PM
By the way, we spent more than $50 million in taxpayer money to renovate the Civic Center, which houses the ballet and the philharmonic, and for which they pay a pittance of rent that will NEVER allow OKC to directly recover its investment.

Ash
4/20/2008, 11:06 PM
Equating education to liking the ballet. Again, laugh out loud funny.

The value of good schools and contributing to the educational system goes far beyond the immediate benefit to people with kids. It's amazing to me that people don't realize this or choose to relegate it to the same level as spending their disposable income.

Talk about elitist.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 11:12 PM
Uh, I said very specifically that I think schools are one of the most important things we can spend money on. That's why I eagerly spent time on the MAPS for Kids campaign, and voted for said $700 million dollar plus program, despite having no kids and no plans for kids.

Having great schools and still having other amenities in a city are not mutually exclusive.

bluedogok
4/20/2008, 11:19 PM
Equating education to liking the ballet. Again, laugh out loud funny.

The value of good schools and contributing to the educational system goes far beyond the immediate benefit to people with kids. It's amazing to me that people don't realize this or choose to relegate it to the same level as spending their disposable income.

Talk about elitist.
What is sad about that it is some of those "elitists" who are the ones that I know of who could care less about schools because they will never have children so why should their money go to schools. That was some of the "closed minded elitists" that I was talking about who think they are so "worldly" and superior. Most of these people have advanced degrees or have been career students...most of whom have also have taught at state universities.

Don't you just love the irony :rolleyes:

Ash
4/20/2008, 11:24 PM
Uh, I said very specifically that I think schools are one of the most important things we can spend money on. That's why I eagerly spent time on the MAPS for Kids campaign, and voted for said $700 million dollar plus program, despite having no kids and no plans for kids.

Having great schools and still having other amenities in a city are not mutually exclusive.

Glad to hear it. And I'm glad to know that this NBA deal, which you obviously have a personal stake in, succeeded.

And I'm just some dumb ol' dude on the innerweb, but I know one thing. The economy of this state hinges on something far removed from the entertainment industry (indcluding pro sports). What happens economically in the future is completely independent of the NBA.

Good for everyone involved. Hopefully the team will be better and fun to watch in the years to come.

Ash
4/20/2008, 11:28 PM
What is sad about that it is some of those "elitists" who are the ones that I know of who could care less about schools because they will never have children so why should their money go to schools. That was some of the "closed minded elitists" that I was talking about who think they are so "worldly" and superior. Most of these people have advanced degrees or have been career students...most of whom have also have taught at state universities.

Don't you just love the irony :rolleyes:

Hmmm...what circles do these people run in, because all of the softy liberal college educated elitists I know can't stress education at all levels enough.

BigRedJed
4/20/2008, 11:38 PM
I have no personal stake in the NBA being here, specifically. At all. Don't presume to reduce my argument to that.

Like all OKC taxpayers, I have a personal stake in seeing Oklahoma City grow economically and succeed. More specifically, as someone who has worked on downtown revitalization in a volunteer and professional capacity, I am interested in seeing us maintain the momentum so many people have worked so hard to create.

The NBA is a part of that overall picture, whether you or others believe that to be true. It is part of a road map laid out 15 years ago by some visionary leaders, many of whom I have had the pleasure of working with. It's not something that just "happened."

All I'm saying is that it is folly to say that "what happens economically in the future is completely independent of the NBA." What happens economically in the future is now intrinsically tied to the NBA. And to public education. And to parks. And to police and fire protection. And to public transportation. And to streets and roads. And to the ballet and the arts. It's all a part of the same package, and how Oklahoma leverages each those things to its advantage has the potential to make a HUGE impact on our economic future.

GrapevineSooner
4/21/2008, 12:00 AM
Does anyone else feel the tiniest bit of guilt about this whole damm thing, I want a team but the team being ripped out of Seattle just seems wrong.

Anticdote time.

One of my co-workers used to live in Seattle. He also knows about some of my Oklahoma roots and my desire for OKC to have a team. When I broached the topic of the Sonics' move, I expected him to side with the Sonics fans and to rant about how it's an injustice for Seattle to be losing them.

Instead, he told me that Seattle really doesn't care about the Sonics and they're whining about it just for the sake of whining. Now that having been said, I'm sure there are Sonics fans who have been diehards since Day 1. I feel for those fans.

But it's folly to think that the Clay Bennett and his ownership group are doing the wrong thing in moving them. He's currently in a lease that doesn't allow for revenue sharing on non-Basketball events at Key Arena. From a financial standpoint, that's an absolute killer.

I'm not a big fan on the idea of raising taxes to help fund sports stadiums and arenas. From that standpoint, I can respect the City of Seattle's decision to not want to fund another arena after they helped fund the construction of Seahawks Stadium and Safeco Field.

That having been said, when politicians say "we're not going to help fund your arena/stadium," and you're in a lease where you're losing 5 to 6 million dollars a year, the only decision you can make is to move the team to another location that's willing to help you build a new arena and will also give you a sweetheart deal of a lease.

Also back to the original question, I felt a twinge of guilt back in the spring of 1993 when Norm Green finalized a deal to move the Minnesota North Stars to Dallas. That is, until I found out that high school hockey games regularly outdrew the NHL team.

From a "Will hockey make it in Dallas?" question, it never was in doubt. This city has so many northern transplants that games against Chicago, Detroit, NY Rangers, and Boston were guaranteed to draw fans. From that standpoint, the Stars already had a built in fanbase. They certainly had the population base from which to draw additional fans and like Badger pointed out, they also made it a point to build rinks in the area to promote the game from the peewee level all the way up to the Junior Hockey level.

Anyway, I don't mean to get too off-track. The bottom line is sports is a business. To say they're stealing a team reeks of whining.

Gandalf_The_Grey
4/21/2008, 04:08 AM
There is a small portion of ignorant people in this state. I mean let's say the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) wanted to hold Wrestlemania in our state. A portion of these people would bitch and complain about how redneck and stupid this would make us look. However, they would totally overlook the billion dollars that it would bring to the local economy. If OKC is ever going to be on a National stage, we are going to have to get rid of a large group of people who think they are just too "damm good" for something that will bring their local community Billions of dollars.

BlondeSoonerGirl
4/21/2008, 08:00 AM
This thread is going to be awesome a few years from now.

badger
4/21/2008, 08:17 AM
I'm sorry, I just heard someone say "Wisconsin." :D

stoops the eternal pimp
4/21/2008, 08:23 AM
Good Lord...Who went and made BRJ start posting essays again?:D

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 08:47 AM
SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET AGAIN!!!

Dio
4/21/2008, 12:19 PM
Equating education to liking the ballet. Again, laugh out loud funny.

The value of good schools and contributing to the educational system goes far beyond the immediate benefit to people with kids. It's amazing to me that people don't realize this or choose to relegate it to the same level as spending their disposable income.

Talk about elitist.

So, you're taking the David Swank view that Academics and Athletics are mutually exclusive?

badger
4/21/2008, 12:35 PM
SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET AGAIN!!!

Even if something is 3/4s inakrut it's still worth readin'. The folks in Seattle must be without basketball, for them to come after one of our cities. Someday, when they get a team yanked away from them that they adopted for a few years, they'd understand. When Nawlins comes home cryin' because they dropped the ball and are called too violent, you'd understand. Here's all OKC's done - they built a world class arena, they have good attendance, they voted for their taxes, they're respectful to David Stern. THEY'RE RESPECTFUL... TO THE NBA, and they're a good city. COME AFTER CLAY! He's the owner! He's a billionaire! Where are we at in society today, when we go after a city that does all the right things? That's all I've got to say. White collar Seattle complaining makes me wanna puke.

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 12:39 PM
So, you're taking the David Swank view that Academics and Athletics are mutually exclusive?
Sounds like it. I, for one, gravitate to the David Boren view, which saw student enrollments and non-sports donations (plus athletic department donations, obviously) to the university increase sharply after the 2000 football national championship.

I also share Boren's view that the $50 million gift of French Impressionist art (Weitzenhoffer Collection) and the resulting new, multimillion dollar wing added to the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art actually increases the education options and quality of life for all OU students, despite the fact that only a small portion of them are fine arts majors, and despite the fact that non-students are also welcome at the museum.

Plus, it seems like both the success of sports on campus and the building/expansion of public-focused amenities such as the art musem, Sam Noble Museum of Natural History, and the Jimmy Austin University of Oklahoma Golf Course, while not strictly academic in nature, raise awareness of and respect for the university among the public, and increase the chances that bright students from both within and without Oklahoma will choose OU over other schools.

But maybe it's just me.

bluedogok
4/21/2008, 12:51 PM
But maybe it's just me.
Nope, it's not just you......

BigRedJed
4/21/2008, 12:52 PM
And no, I don't have a "personal stake" in OU's success, either. It's just that it's all a part of the same big picture that will ultimately make Oklahoma more competetive and successful.

Ash
4/21/2008, 12:57 PM
So, you're taking the David Swank view that Academics and Athletics are mutually exclusive?

Nope.

Swing and a miss.

Cam
4/21/2008, 04:49 PM
And forever who posted that a $15/hr or $20/hr job is considered good... needs to have there head examined.

If all you had was a HS diploma, you'd be all over that $15/20/hr gig like white on rice. Oh, don't forget benefits, they push those numbers up quite a bit.

Would I take a $15/20/hr gig today? Nope, wouldn't even think about entertaining it. I also have a couple of college degrees and a fair bit of experience on my side to justify earning more.

If you're going to try and put somebody down, at least be realistic about your arguments.

kevpks
4/21/2008, 09:24 PM
Dear r5TPsooner,

Posts with an elitist tone and typos are hilarious. That is all.

Ton Loc
4/21/2008, 09:49 PM
Dear r5TPsooner,

Posts with an elitist tone and typos are hilarious. That is all.

So keep them coming. Your ideas on salaries in their relation to education make me feel better about my current situation. :D

Mixer!
4/21/2008, 10:22 PM
Dear God,

Please help the mods, so they'll lock this thing up.


Yours,
M!

badger
4/22/2008, 08:21 AM
Yeah, this thread's worthless without pics, so unless you want to post pics of you all fighting, time to lock

the_ouskull
5/6/2008, 01:18 PM
I would have gotten banned for this thread.

:D

So, since homeboy quit spitting up onto his keyboard, is it safe to assume that a shoewhipping came flying in or what?

He's a prime example of someone who can get so lost in their own social "bubble" that everything that's going on outside of it becomes lost in either ignorance or apathy. If $40,000/year isn't a decent salary, then, as a teacher, I feel REALLY badly. If having a professional (major league) team makes Oklahoma City a WORSE play, then I'm going to go ahead and continue to feel really badly.

So, are you a religious nut, or a trust-fund baby? I'm just trying to figure out what manner of life or lifestyle could contribute to such a degree of societal disconnect. ...and from someone who posts on a message board to boot! I thought that these things were like a slice of life all on their own. I'm going to the fridge - anybody else need anything?

the_ouskull