Let's Name the Oklahoma NBA Team!

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by BDP

quote: Tulsa is upset because they specifically said they had to use demographics from Tulsa to get the franchise but the idea of making it a state team was ludicrous even though something like 40% of the NBA teams are state teams.

I am assuming that you meant to say that only 5 teams (Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Golden State and Utah) in the NBA have state names, and not 40%, because that's all there is. That would actually be 17%.

In addition, the NFL, MLB, and NHL have 5 teams each that do not use city names, for 16-17% of those leagues, as well.

In any event, the reality is that 100% of the teams in all of those leagues depend on drawing from outside of the municipal boundaries of the city in which they play (in fact, some don't even play within the city they are named after) and a lot of them draw from farther away, in both distance and time traveled, than Tulsa is from Oklahoma City. The fact is that it's just not done that often and it doesn't seem like most teams have to worry about offending the ego of its surrounding markets to the point where they feel the need to not honor their host city. Many teams bearing the name of a city ARE in fact that state's team and it's a shame that many in Tulsa seem unwilling to enjoy this new entertainment option coming to the state because it bears the name 'Oklahoma City'.

Given what Oklahoma City has done in order to land this team over the last 15 years combined with the fact that it will play in Oklahoma City, it just makes sense that it would be named after that city. Granted, I guess there are some that have to feel included no matter what their contribution, and it would have been a nice gesture to appease those potential customers, but to insinuate that it is somehow owed to them is kind of bizarre, really.

Hopefully, Tulsa's new arena will attract a major league team and HOPEFULLY it will be named after Tulsa because that city will have earned it and including the name of the city would be the least any owner could do. I certainly know that, even if it gets a state tax break (which I don't think any team should), that having Tulsa in the teams name would be a non-factor in deciding whether I went to watch a game in the beautiful new facility up there. In fact, I think it would be weak to name a Tulsa team after the state. You don't need it and it wouldn’t be the proper thing to do, given your investment. And, honestly, I hope that it happens for Tulsa a lot quicker than it did for Oklahoma City, and, really, it should happen faster, given the better perception generally held of Tulsa than of Oklahoma City.

What's really stupid is how many people in Oklahoma actively root for and support teams in other cities, named after those cities, like Dallas, Kansas City, Houston, St Louis, Chicago, etc. that now say they won't support a team in Oklahoma just because it's named after its host city and not the state. Some here are even going to root against it, because they feel so burned and left out.

It's just so funny what a non-issue this should be, but not surprising when you consider that it stems from one of the biggest non-issues in existence: the Oklahoma City / Tulsa "rivalry".

Your first post shows your ignorance on the matter.

First off the STATE is subsidizing tax breaks to this team (which come from STATE coffers, by the way).

Second, the move was sold with Tulsa as part of the demographic.  If OKC had not included the Tulsa Metro, chances are it would not have gotten voted in.  Vis a vis, if OKC had gotten it without that help, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Hell, we probably wouldn't be having it either way had mayor 'Dick' Cornett not been such a D-Bag about the whole deal.

[Renaissance]

These are some insulted OKCers coming over from OKCtalk:
http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/13335-tulsa-hates-you.html

Here's a reminder of how things went down, so you know where the ill will comes from.  OKCers: please, be our guests and defend Cornett and Bennett aren't giving the rest of the state the shaft.

http://newsok.com/article/3232124
From the Daily Oklahoman, April 18, 2008:

quote:
The name of the new NBA franchise in Oklahoma is up in the air, but it will include the words "Oklahoma City."

Sorry David Stern.

Stern brought up the idea that the team could be called just Oklahoma, because of the inclusion of Tulsa in the market size and the fact it would be considered a "state franchise."

Stern said it's interesting that "if you drive fast in Oklahoma, and most people apparently do, how close Tulsa is and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the Hornets when they were there, to be a state franchise," Stern said.

"I'm going to leave that to the politics of Oklahoma. I would guess that the current group would be under significant incentive and pressure to make it an Oklahoma franchise, and that would be a good thing."

Oklahoma City already has covered their bases though, including in the letter of intent with the team that the "team shall formally include 'Oklahoma City' in its registered name.'

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett was fairly stern about his feelings on the subject, too: ""It will be the Oklahoma City whatevers. It will be Oklahoma City. I care much less about the second half of the name. I'll let other people determine the nickname of the team, but it will be Oklahoma City."

Sonics chairman Clay Bennett agreed.

"Our view is that the team should be named Oklahoma City. But it will be an Oklahoma asset. It will be marketed statewide and we believe it will be supported statewide."

Bennett said there is no pressure on ownership group to make the team Oklahoma as opposed to Oklahoma City.

And, a prior thread from a few months ago:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9739

[Renaissance]

Oh and to respond to the original point of the thread:

The OKC Whatevers.  Has a nice ring to it.

[breitee]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

They'll pick something like the "Boomers" or the "Bombers" or  "Thunderbirds" like every school mascot in OKC already is.

How about something REALLY original like "Cowboys" or "Indians" or "Sooners"?

[AgentOrange]

I'm sure OKC boards would LOVE to hear this discussion...they think Tulsans are a bunch of jealous stuck-up snobs.

[AgentOrange]

uhoh...looks like they already did.

[BDP]

quote:  Your first post shows your ignorance on the matter.  First off the STATE is subsidizing tax breaks to this team (which come from STATE coffers, by the way).

Actually, I mentioned that and that I was not in favor of it, but not because I was worried about what the name would be, but because I don't like this idea that it is sold as a financial booster for the city and state and then they eliminate a big part of what that boost would be. I wrote my corresponding leadership about my opposition to it and, as you can see, I don't have much influence. Maybe the representatives from every other district outside of Oklahoma City, which far outnumber the districts inside of Oklahoma City, felt that there was a significant benefit to the state that warranted that break and that wasn't contingent on the name of the team. I guess all of those opposed to the tax break outside of Oklahoma City's limits have about as much influence as I do.
 

quote: Second, the move was sold with Tulsa as part of the demographic. If OKC had not included the Tulsa Metro, chances are it would not have gotten voted in. Vis a vis, if OKC had gotten it without that help, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, we probably wouldn't be having it either way had mayor 'Dick' Cornett not been such a D-Bag about the whole deal.

I am in no way ignorant to how the team was sold. I guess you missed the entire point of my post. I was offering some perspective of how these things are done in the NBA and across all leagues. It is no anomaly. This is how ALL teams are sold and marketed, no matter what they are named. All accessible markets are considered in every possible relocation or expansion possibility, obviously, and in all teams’ marketing plans. However, this has led to the naming of a team after the state less than 17% of the time in each of the four major leagues. Why? Because the naming of a team after a city is usually a non-issue and doesn’t acknowledge the team’s host city, the benefit of which clearly out weighs any negative brought about by not being named after a region that includes all potential markets.

For example, do the 49ers market to and make money off the tangential market of the San Joaquin valley? Of course they do. Do people whine that it should be called the NorCal Niners? I've never heard of that. On the other hand, the Golden State Warriors are named after the state, sort of. Has that made any difference? Not much, it seems.

I am not ignorant because I do not agree with you or because I take a broader perspective of the issue than you. Did they use the access to the Tulsa market as a selling point? Yes. Why? Because it is a selling point. It is a part of the team's market (albeit a smaller percentage of their market than the Oklahoma City area), in exactly the same way that markets of similar distance are for just about every team in existence, yet less that 20% of all teams are named in an effort to include every market from which they may draw.

If you or anyone else chooses to make a principled stand against the tax issue, go right ahead. I would 100% respect that and maybe it will help rightfully overturn it. However, is your position really about the impact of the tax break on state revenue, or about what the team is named? If it's the former, then who cares what the team is named as that has no impact on state revenue and let’s work together to get it changed. If it's the latter, then who cares at all?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by BDP

quote:  Your first post shows your ignorance on the matter.  First off the STATE is subsidizing tax breaks to this team (which come from STATE coffers, by the way).

Actually, I mentioned that and that I was not in favor of it, but not because I was worried about what the name would be, but because I don't like this idea that it is sold as a financial booster for the city and state and then they eliminate a big part of what that boost would be. I wrote my corresponding leadership about my opposition to it and, as you can see, I don't have much influence. Maybe the representatives from every other district outside of Oklahoma City, which far outnumber the districts inside of Oklahoma City, felt that there was a significant benefit to the state that warranted that break and that wasn't contingent on the name of the team. I guess all of those opposed to the tax break outside of Oklahoma City's limits have about as much influence as I do.
 

quote: Second, the move was sold with Tulsa as part of the demographic. If OKC had not included the Tulsa Metro, chances are it would not have gotten voted in. Vis a vis, if OKC had gotten it without that help, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, we probably wouldn't be having it either way had mayor 'Dick' Cornett not been such a D-Bag about the whole deal.

I am in no way ignorant to how the team was sold. I guess you missed the entire point of my post. I was offering some perspective of how these things are done in the NBA and across all leagues. It is no anomaly. This is how ALL teams are sold and marketed, no matter what they are named. All accessible markets are considered in every possible relocation or expansion possibility, obviously, and in all teams’ marketing plans. However, this has led to the naming of a team after the state less than 17% of the time in each of the four major leagues. Why? Because the naming of a team after a city is usually a non-issue and doesn’t acknowledge the team’s host city, the benefit of which clearly out weighs any negative brought about by not being named after a region that includes all potential markets.

For example, do the 49ers market to and make money off the tangential market of the San Joaquin valley? Of course they do. Do people whine that it should be called the NorCal Niners? I've never heard of that. On the other hand, the Golden State Warriors are named after the state, sort of. Has that made any difference? Not much, it seems.

I am not ignorant because I do not agree with you or because I take a broader perspective of the issue than you. Did they use the access to the Tulsa market as a selling point? Yes. Why? Because it is a selling point. It is a part of the team's market (albeit a smaller percentage of their market than the Oklahoma City area), in exactly the same way that markets of similar distance are for just about every team in existence, yet less that 20% of all teams are named in an effort to include every market from which they may draw.

If you or anyone else chooses to make a principled stand against the tax issue, go right ahead. I would 100% respect that and maybe it will help rightfully overturn it. However, is your position really about the impact of the tax break on state revenue, or about what the team is named? If it's the former, then who cares what the team is named as that has no impact on state revenue and let’s work together to get it changed. If it's the latter, then who cares at all?

My point has NOTHING to do with the NBA; it has EVERYTHING to do with taxpayer money I contribute and everyone else on these forums as long as they are Oklahoma residents and pay Oklahoma taxes.  The state shouldn't be funding/subsidizing an entertainment venue without it going through a vote of the people.  Can you imagine what would have happened if MAPS or Vision 2025 would have passed without a vote of the people with the biggest stake in it?

Let OKC pay for it if they want their name on it so damned bad.  I for one am mad as hell that this was done.  I'm actually more mad at our shill of a mayor who pretends to give a plug nickel about our city's residents but instead sells them up the river.

[BDP]

quote: The state shouldn't be funding/subsidizing an entertainment venue without it going through a vote of the people.

I agree with you, except on the small technicality the money isn't going to the venue and it wasn't a new bill, but an expansion of a an older one, the legislative history of which is pretty cloudy in and of itself. Also, your beef shouldn't be with Oklahoma City then, because the state did it. They gave away too much.

But at least we agree that the name is petty stuff and is really irrelevant to the tax issue. And don't think that you'd be alone in your opinion in Oklahoma City. There's plenty of people that think the tax break was/is a mistake.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by BDP

quote: The state shouldn't be funding/subsidizing an entertainment venue without it going through a vote of the people.

I agree with you, except on the small technicality the money isn't going to the venue and it wasn't a new bill, but an expansion of a an older one, the legislative history of which is pretty cloudy in and of itself. Also, your beef shouldn't be with Oklahoma City then, because the state did it. They gave away too much.

But at least we agree that the name is petty stuff and is really irrelevant to the tax issue. And don't think that you'd be alone in your opinion in Oklahoma City. There's plenty of people that think the tax break was/is a mistake.

Where is the state capitol located?

My point exactly.  Tulsa got shunned on I-44 money for years.  Why do you think the majority of Tulsans hate OKC?  Because we see favoritism from state government regarding it.

I wonder what would have happened had the state capitol stayed in Guthrie....

[BDP]

quote: Where is the state capitol located?  My point exactly.

I don't know what to tell you there. I guess the rest of the state should elect people that will represent their district and not just Oklahoma City. It's not like all of these people are from Oklahoma City.

 

quote:  Why do you think the majority of Tulsans hate OKC?

Right now it sounds like it's because the NBA team that will be playing in Oklahoma City will be named after that city.

Honestly, I didn't know this was about I-44 money or where the state capitol is located. I thought it was about the team's name and maybe about tax breaks. I am sure there are a lot of "that's not fair" issues that can be latched on this, but it seems I have shortsightedly only included what I thought was immediately relevant. Admittedly, I can't really speak to how naming the team Oklahoma instead of Oklahoma City will right years of alleged favoritism at our state's capitol or improve I-44 in Tulsa, but I'd be interested in listening to some ideas.

quote:  I wonder what would have happened had the state capitol stayed in Guthrie....

Oh, you know those selfish bastards would have named their team after Guthrie and not the state. []

[Renaissance]

Here's the opinion of a rabid sports fan as well as a Tulsa fan:

Sports are geographic.  Club names are associated with geographic areas, and the geographic areas are where the fans generally come from.  The old, established clubs have regional or national fans because they have history and tradition and people grew up watching them play and have an affinity for them.

Expansion franchises and franchises that move, more often than not, have to build a fan base from scratch.  To help this, they seem (more often than not) to have chosen state names rather than city names, at least where it was available or made sense, and particularly in smaller markets.  

So in this case, the whole state pitches in to given them tax breaks, and the Commissioner suggests the team be named after the whole state, and the Tulsa mayor shows up to back up the OKC mayor.  We're thinking, hey, looks like this really is a statewide effort.  

And then, inexplicably, once the team is secured Bennett and Cornett do a 180 and name the team after a city, and not the state--but expect the whole state to get on board.  

Don't get in a huff because we don't like being treated like a suburb.  OKC wants to keep the team to itself, but wants the rest of the state to support these efforts.  In terms of fanbase, hopefully this franchise is going to be a lot more like the Tennessee Titans than the Memphis Grizzlies . . . um, but you see where I'm going with that.  Good luck.

[Breadburner]

Moisture Missles....

[Doug Loudenback]

quote:Originally posted by AgentOrange

uhoh...looks like they already did.

Not a problem, Agent. As for me, I just mainly lurk here on a fairly regular basis, and enjoy reading what Tulsans have to say.

[Doug Loudenback]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by okcpulse



Hey, how about you stop using state tax dollars to pad the bottom line on your team and we will all feel a little better about it. k?

Me???  I personally did not write the state legislature to extend tax breaks to the NBA team.    But go on and continue attacking all 1.2 million Oklahoma City and metro residents.  Because you know we are all in on the scheme.  Sheesh.

You guys are a bit hypersensitive these days.  Believe it or not, I've been defending the citizens of OKC and their attacks by Seattleites.  What I won't defend, though, is the complicity of said citizens with a jackass of a mayor who wants to include Tulsa in the demographic, but when it's time to name the team, all bets are off.

You guys thought we had a bad mayor?  My vote for 'Most Like Chicago Mayor Richard Daly' goes to Mick Cornett, World Class D-Bag.  I thought Humphreys was bad, but this guy makes Hump look like a Deacon.

Thanks for the defense, Hoss. As for my mayor, I have a different opinion than yours: http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-amigos.html