OKC NBA team has a minor impact on Tulsa

[sgrizzle]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004471542_websoni11.html

I guess we can hope for an OKC vs Tulsa game like the Drillers vs Rockies baseball game.

[chlfan]

Yawn...

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by chlfan

Yawn...

Agreed...

Especially since the 66ers will be playing in Bixby now.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm afraid I agree.  The Tulsa 66ers of Bixby just don't interest me.  The games were fun, but I'm not driving to Bixby to watch them.  The entire idea of living in the city instead of the suburbs is that I don't have to drive 20 miles to go to events...

And nice pun, but there is no impact.  We just reassigned the Sonics instead of the Mavericks.

[Breadburner]

Double yawn on the Sixers....

[Gold]

This means nothing to me, other than a sign that the NBA is planning on the Sonics being in OKC next year.

As a wise man once said: "This means that it is further for me not to go to the game. I have been saving gasoline by not going to the fairgrounds for these games, now I can save twice as much by not going to Bixby."

[PonderInc]

I watched about 3 minutes of the Celtics vs. Lakers game the other night.  Couldn't figure out why professional basketball players couldn't hit wide open 3 pointers or free throws.  Aren't they supposed to be somewhat good at basketball to play in the NBA?

Guess they need to take some tips from the Tennessee women's team...

[Gold]

Wow, what a hater.

Kobe did miss some free throws, but non-basketball fan relatives of mine were mesmerized by the game.  Those are great athletes.  Kobe usually shoots better from the line.

Shooting 40% from three is considered fantastic.  It's not that easy, particularly since the NBA line is much farther out than the women's line in college.

[PonderInc]

I'm just old fashioned.  I like those two old basketball cliches: "hustle" and "fundamentals."  Neither one gets you on the ESPN highlights.  

I think that a bunch of guys who have dedicated their lives to a single sport and are paid millions of dollars to play it shouldn't miss that many open shots.  

The NBA is so boring, I don't know how they keep their fans.  Half the time, they look like they're not even trying.  In the college game, there's a lot more teamwork and passion.  Much more fun to watch...both men's and women's games.  OKC can have the NBA.  More power to 'em.

[Gold]

You aren't old fashioned, you are just not well informed.

Boston is one of the better defensive teams over the last few years.  No one is going to look pretty against them.  But, it's the right way to play basketball at any level.  There's nothing "old fashioned" about it.  Hell, if you think about it, there's nothing "old fashioned" about the three point shot, either.

If you want to talk really old fashioned, before there was a shot clock or three point shot, the games were really freaking terrible.

Boston shot 44% from three and 68% from the line Tuesday.  LA shot 43% from three and 62% from the line.  The free throw percentages are bad.  Boston shot 77% FT on the year and LA shot 77%, too.

For the year, the Lady Volunteers shot 30.2% from three and 83.3% from the line. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaw/teams/tag/stats;_ylt=AoT8wzjtMoBcUbvhnzeKl63n2LYF

Beyond that, the NBA, or at least this Lakers team, plays kind of Euro style ball, with all the shooters standing around the perimeter.  Several other teams played similar styles this year.

It's been a great playoffs and both teams really deserve to be there.  You have to not know a darn thing about hoops to complain about players like Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Kobe, Odom, and Gasol.  

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

You aren't old fashioned, you are just not well informed.

Boston is one of the better defensive teams over the last few years.  No one is going to look pretty against them.  But, it's the right way to play basketball at any level.  There's nothing "old fashioned" about it.  Hell, if you think about it, there's nothing "old fashioned" about the three point shot, either.

If you want to talk really old fashioned, before there was a shot clock or three point shot, the games were really freaking terrible.

Boston shot 44% from three and 68% from the line Tuesday.  LA shot 43% from three and 62% from the line.  The free throw percentages are bad.  Boston shot 77% FT on the year and LA shot 77%, too.

For the year, the Lady Volunteers shot 30.2% from three and 83.3% from the line. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaw/teams/tag/stats;_ylt=AoT8wzjtMoBcUbvhnzeKl63n2LYF

Beyond that, the NBA, or at least this Lakers team, plays kind of Euro style ball, with all the shooters standing around the perimeter.  Several other teams played similar styles this year.

It's been a great playoffs and both teams really deserve to be there.  You have to not know a darn thing about hoops to complain about players like Garnett, Allen, Pierce, Kobe, Odom, and Gasol.  

Thank you, Gold.

All this talk about Tulsa being so hip and progressive - or at least talk about how we ought to be more progressive - and there are so many people who talk about professional sports as though they have no value. This attitude seems distinctly Okie and in my estimation is very backward-thinking. Large cities and medium-sized cities yearn for a professional team.

A local professional team represents the city on a very large scale in respectable markets. It is a "professional" reflection on the city the team represents. It is free advertising for a city. Hours of national or regional programming is like a commercial for the city.

It is sad that Tulsa has aa-level sports only. It is even more sad that the citizens do not even see the value of local professional sports. I guess if the level of support we have for the 66ers, the Talons, and the Drillers is indicative of what would be expressed for the next level of professional sports - it will be a cold day in heck before someone would think about placing their team in Tulsa. (Or God forbid - outside the city limits!)

How lame!

I am more than a half-century old. I was born and raised in a city with 4 professional teams. NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL. Later it added a professional soccer team. I only lived there until I was 18. I still root for the MLB team (even though they suck). I have fond memories of going to the stadium, civic center etc. as a kid. It is impossible for me to separate my pride in the city with my pride in the teams.

It's also funny how people in Tulsa can support a regional college team - but get upset if a professional (66ers and Drillers) team leaves the city limits.

Guess I'm just one of those ferners that don't get it.

[cannon_fodder]

Restored...

I enjoy watching pro sports.  I watched the Celtics game last night.  I catch a few Tallons games, 66er and a Drillers games each year.

I also agree that it does wonders for the image of a city.  

BUT, they also suck millions of dollars from public coffers to transfer to multi millionaire players and billionaire owners.  I don't mean fans paying to see the team, I mean actual public funds.  This is done without my choice and by most studies to the financial detriment of the community.

quote: "Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city's economy," Humphreys and Coates wrote in a report issued last month by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The institute commissioned the professors to study the economic impact...

quote: As it turns out, claims of large tangible economic benefits do not withstand scrutiny."

That's because such impact studies often are based on skewed data. For instance, when citing multipliers – the ripple effect that each dollar spent on professional supports is projected to have on the community's wider economy – impact studies often overstate such contributions and fail to differentiate between net and gross spending. And, Humphreys added, such studies typically don't consider what economists call the "substitution effect."

"As sport- and stadium-related activities increase, other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending," Humphreys said. "If the stadium simply displaces dollar-for-dollar spending that would have occurred otherwise, there are no net benefits generated."

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/1117stadiums.html

In NET it loses jobs in the community, suppresses some wages, and mis allocates tax money (in both construction of infrastructure, support, security, and other ongoing services).  The study specifically calls out the practice of giving "job creation" money to sports franchises as a back door way to give tax money to sports teams (average job created pays less than the funds to create it).
http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~m_auguste/journal_page_files/journal_page.htm

If Tulsa wanted a pro team we would have to kick in tens of millions in tax payer money to subsidize it.  We won't get the state money to subsidize it some other cities get.  With roads & bridges failing, schools that could be better funded, no mass transit, a river to develop and economic packages that always need to be put together... I think the money could be better invested in the community elsewhere.

Essentially, the business model of pro-sports is to get as much from the tax-payer as possible.  It's not that they need it, it's that they can.     And that irritates me.

quote: In the end, Humphreys said, while a professional sports team may not be the golden goose that city leaders in the nation's capital and elsewhere may hope for, there are some benefits to having a home team.

Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local baseball fans.

I can get that satisfaction from my hometown college team without millions in tax payer money.  So I'll keep spending my money on college sports and fellow fans that want to can chip in.  If you don't want to contribute, you don't have to.

[restored2x]

CF -

Thanks for the info. Quite surprising to me. I didn't click and read all the links - but your reputation here is enough for me to trust that you're not quoting dubious studies in order to make a point.

How is it then OK - or beneficial to the city - to support the Drillers being downtown? Wouldn't the same factors come into play? How is AA baseball different from AAA or MLB? Is it that MLB demands huge salaries and expenses, etc. and there is no "big brother" footing the bill?

[cannon_fodder]

You are correct, to a large extent the factors are the same.  But the scale is different.  An AA team will get a beneficial lease on the Stadium, but will not get millions in aid.  It is unlikely that they will blackmail us for a new practice facility or other items and threaten to leave.

Also, I have accepted the fact that the Driller's are going to move from Expo square.  In my head I see it making more sense to try to utilize the ball park to draw people to downtown as well as utilize the ballpark for other things.  If it is a choice between seeing people go to Jenks for a game and stick around after words, or downtown Tulsa - I'd prefer downtown.

I fully recognize the hypocrisies involved here, as it probably does not make financial sense. There is a chance the lease terms with the ancillary uses, as well as development in the area will make it a good investment, but I doubt it.  More than likely the new stadium will be an entertainment and development subsidy for downtown.  I admit that, but hope the "private funding" they are talking about coupled with decent lease terms will make it as close to a wash as possible while helping to create the vibrant downtown I want to see.

I also admit that sports teams add more than economics to a city.  OKC will certainly gain from a larger reputation as a big-time city.  They will be on TV more, more people will visit, perhaps more will consider them for a vacation spot... sports fans from over seas will be more likely to know that there is a town called OKC.  For the community there can be a positive effect - help raise a sense of community and even pride.  I grant that, and that's why I don't fault OKC for trying to get a team... but selling it as a "jobs creation" program to get state money is BS.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


I can get that satisfaction from my hometown college team without millions in tax payer money.  So I'll keep spending my money on college sports and fellow fans that want to can chip in.  If you don't want to contribute, you don't have to.

While I agree that pro sports isn't something Tulsa really needs, I think you're wrong about the taxpayers not being on the hook to the tune of millions to keep college sports going. I know over in Fayetteville they like to claim that the football program funds the majority of the rest of the athletics programs, but they're forgetting about the millions they spend building venues, practice fields, and so on and so forth. (yes, some of those millions come from donors with big pockets..and most don't)

I doubt it's any different at any other school that likes to think of itself as being a top contender.