Ignore naysayers - city can attract free agents

[McG]

If someone can quantify "city vibrance" I'm ready to hear it. Allow me to restate my opinion on this whole thread. San Antonio is the shining example of what a small market team can do if the organization is run properly and both the city and the team are committed to winning. If we were talking in the summer of 1997 after the Spurs had gone 20-62 and David Robinson had missed the entire season, we wouldn't be talking about how they were an indomitable franchise that no one else could aspire to. They won the draft lottery, got Duncan, and the rest is history. Market size is negligible (38th to 45th) and the whole talk of market size is ridiculous because how many championships in the last twenty years have the New York Knicks (1st largest market), Los Angeles Clippers (2nd), Dallas Mavericks (5th), Golden State Warriors (6th), Atlanta Hawks (8th), and Washington Wizards (9th) combined to win?

While I concede that the idea of city vibrance isn't readily quantifiable, there are certainly statistics that can capture the essence of this. I would argue that the most basic of these is the simple economic impact from tourism. I hope I don't have to explain how these two relate, but if you don't understand the concept tell me and I'd be more than happy to outline it for you. Getting down to business, the economic impact of tourism in San Antonio was $8.7 billion in 2007, while the economic impact in ALL of Oklahoma was $5.3 billion in 2006. Take into account the downturn in the economy in mid-2007 and I think the numbers are more than readily comparable. I hope this clears up "city vibrance" for you.

And I don't know why you're arguing for a relationship between market size and championships. We're talking about attracting FA's, my friend. While the teams you've listed above obviously haven't had much success winning championships, they have at attracting FA's. Also please stop it with the overwhelming confirmation bias. Somehow you failed to mention that over the past 30 years the only team outside of the Top 11 markets to win a championship has been San Antonio. The others? LA (2), Chicago (3), Houston (6), Detroit (11), Boston (10), Philadelphia (5).

Any more questions?

[mnkinga23]

While I concede that the idea of city vibrance isn't readily quantifiable, there are certainly statistics that can capture the essence of this. I would argue that the most basic of these is the simple economic impact from tourism. I hope I don't have to explain how these two relate, but if you don't understand the concept tell me and I'd be more than happy to outline it for you. Getting down to business, the economic impact of tourism in San Antonio was $8.7 billion in 2007, while the economic impact in ALL of Oklahoma was $5.3 billion in 2006. Take into account the downturn in the economy in mid-2007 and I think the numbers are more than readily comparable. I hope this clears up "city vibrance" for you.

And I don't know why you're arguing for a relationship between market size and championships. We're talking about attracting FA's, my friend. While the teams you've listed above obviously haven't had much success winning championships, they have at attracting FA's. Also please stop it with the overwhelming confirmation bias. Somehow you failed to mention that over the past 30 years the only team outside of the Top 11 markets to win a championship has been San Antonio. The others? LA (2), Chicago (3), Houston (6), Detroit (11), Boston (10), Philadelphia (5).

Any more questions?

McG, I'm enjoying these little back and forths between us, they have been very thought provoking. I asked you to quantify the vibrancy of a city and your numbers are very informative. I'll concede that San Antonio is a much better tourist trap than Oklahoma City. If your family is going to go on vacation, obviously San Antonio is a much better destination than Oklahoma City, but OKC as a destination city was never part of my argument. Tourist activities such as the river walk are something that you look at if you are going to watch a Spurs game, but I don't think that Six Flags is a reason that most free agents would pick when they are deciding to go to a new team. Free agents are looking at money, playing time, and opportunity to win (the order of the three is up to personal discretion). Most players don't even live full time in the cities that they play in. If Presti and company continue to manage the cap situation well and don't get bogged down with bad contracts, the team is going to have money to spend for the next two off seasons. It will also depend on whether or not the ownership will be committed to spending the requisite money that it will take to acquire free agents, and if OKC is committed to supporting the team through attendance and revenue. Playing time will be decided through roster moves through the draft, trades, and making the right decision on free agents, which is again on the capable shoulders of Presti and the front office. Winning is on everybody, the players on the roster playing up to their capabilities and playing as a team, front office and ownership being competent and manufacturing a winning environment, and fan support giving the team a pronounced home court advantage. Why do I keep bringing up market size? It is because all of those reason have nothing to do with where the team plays. I talked about the Knicks, Clippers, etc. because they play in destination cities and don't win. They don't win because they are not well run organizations. The rule of thumb about free agents has been that free agents would go to larger markets because there was more money through endorsements because of the increased exposure. I think that that is changing because of the internet and satellite television packages make it possible to watch an NBA game from anywhere in the country. Look at Chris Paul last year. He was everywhere on Sportscenter, commercials, and Hornets games were on nationally as frequently as anyone. The Hornets play in a smaller media market than Oklahoma City. To finish, yeah there was a touch of confirmation bias because I didn't include the Lakers, Celtics, etc. in my argument, but did you conveniently forget who won the championship three years ago (Miami Heat 16th largest market), or that Portland and Utah have been in the finals over the last twenty years?

[McG]

McG, I'm enjoying these little back and forths between us, they have been very thought provoking. I asked you to quantify the vibrancy of a city and your numbers are very informative. I'll concede that San Antonio is a much better tourist trap than Oklahoma City. If your family is going to go on vacation, obviously San Antonio is a much better destination than Oklahoma City, but OKC as a destination city was never part of my argument. Tourist activities such as the river walk are something that you look at if you are going to watch a Spurs game, but I don't think that Six Flags is a reason that most free agents would pick when they are deciding to go to a new team. Free agents are looking at money, playing time, and opportunity to win (the order of the three is up to personal discretion). Most players don't even live full time in the cities that they play in. If Presti and company continue to manage the cap situation well and don't get bogged down with bad contracts, the team is going to have money to spend for the next two off seasons. It will also depend on whether or not the ownership will be committed to spending the requisite money that it will take to acquire free agents, and if OKC is committed to supporting the team through attendance and revenue. Playing time will be decided through roster moves through the draft, trades, and making the right decision on free agents, which is again on the capable shoulders of Presti and the front office. Winning is on everybody, the players on the roster playing up to their capabilities and playing as a team, front office and ownership being competent and manufacturing a winning environment, and fan support giving the team a pronounced home court advantage. Why do I keep bringing up market size? It is because all of those reason have nothing to do with where the team plays. I talked about the Knicks, Clippers, etc. because they play in destination cities and don't win. They don't win because they are not well run organizations. The rule of thumb about free agents has been that free agents would go to larger markets because there was more money through endorsements because of the increased exposure. I think that that is changing because of the internet and satellite television packages make it possible to watch an NBA game from anywhere in the country. Look at Chris Paul last year. He was everywhere on Sportscenter, commercials, and Hornets games were on nationally as frequently as anyone. The Hornets play in a smaller media market than Oklahoma City. To finish, yeah there was a touch of confirmation bias because I didn't include the Lakers, Celtics, etc. in my argument, but did you conveniently forget who won the championship three years ago (Miami Heat 16th largest market), or that Portland and Utah have been in the finals over the last twenty years?

I agree with most of the points stated above and seem to come to the conclusion that you don't really believe that Oklahoma City can compete in terms of market size. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are placing complete faith in Sam Presti and his ability to create not just a competitive franchise, but a championship franchise. In essence you are saying that if this team played in _______ (city) it would have the same chance of developing a championship team as it currently does in Oklahoma City. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Presti is one of the brightest young minds in the NBA. However, I am far from believing that he will go down as the next great GM in the history of the league.

My basic point, and I think you can agree, is that Oklahoma City has numerous challenges ahead of itself if it hopes to be a competitive team on a year-to-year basis. Far from your best case scenario, I think that the team will definitely struggle with this for various reasons. Ownership will certainly never sign off on a Top-20 payroll, and the team is years away from attracting FA's that want to play on a winning team. We've all seen the problems franchises in similar markets have encountered (most recently Memphis), and I fully expect these deficiencies to haunt Oklahoma City.

And I definitely overlooked Miami, although according to the Census' 2007 projections they are currently the 7th largest market in the US, and fortunately part of my Top 11 argument.

[mnkinga23]

I agree with most of the points stated above and seem to come to the conclusion that you don't really believe that Oklahoma City can compete in terms of market size. In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are placing complete faith in Sam Presti and his ability to create not just a competitive franchise, but a championship franchise. In essence you are saying that if this team played in _______ (city) it would have the same chance of developing a championship team as it currently does in Oklahoma City. Now don't get me wrong, I think that Presti is one of the brightest young minds in the NBA. However, I am far from believing that he will go down as the next great GM in the history of the league.

My basic point, and I think you can agree, is that Oklahoma City has numerous challenges ahead of itself if it hopes to be a competitive team on a year-to-year basis. Far from your best case scenario, I think that the team will definitely struggle with this for various reasons. Ownership will certainly never sign off on a Top-20 payroll, and the team is years away from attracting FA's that want to play on a winning team. We've all seen the problems franchises in similar markets have encountered (most recently Memphis), and I fully expect these deficiencies to haunt Oklahoma City.

And I definitely overlooked Miami, although according to the Census' 2007 projections they are currently the 7th largest market in the US, and fortunately part of my Top 11 argument.

I think that we are getting close to the middle ground in our arguments. Is it harder to win in Oklahoma City than in somewhere like New York City? Absolutely, just as it is harder for someone like the Twins to win than it is the Yankees. Small market teams don't have the same resources as the larger market teams have. The Oklahoma City TBDs aren't going to be able to sign a LeBron James or a Dwanye Wade on the 2010 free agent market, that is the truth of the matter. That being said, limited resources do not preclude you from winning on a year-to-year basis. Limited resources make it imperative that the front office makes the right decisions on personnel and coaches and especially on what they do with the money that they are spending because we can't eat a bad contract like a Jerome James as easily as the Knicks can. That brings us to Presti. Do I have faith that he can turn this organization into a winning franchise that could someday play on that championship level? Yes, because it is his job to make the right personnel decisions that would take the team in that direction. I'll admit that he hasn't been tested yet because he hasn't had to make a big decision on spending big free agent dollars, but I think that in what he has already done with securing draft picks and removing certain debilitating contracts off the books, he has done a good job. Now you look at Memphis and how bad the situation is there, but remember that Memphis wasn't always as bad as it is now. A few years ago, the Grizzlies had Pau Gasol (acquired by trade), Shane Battier (draft), and Mike Miller (trade) and they were winning fifty games in a division with San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston. The owner there just gave up trying to play at a playoff level and told the GM to cut costs. That onus falls on Clay Bennett and the ownership group to make the commitment to spend the money necessary to have a championship level team; and with the money that they have already spent to get the team here, I think that he intends to spend what is necessary to make them successful. Look, when the Hornets were here, their payroll was around $74 million (essentially it is last years total because they didn't add or subtract any large contracts) and they still made money in OKC (which they didn't do in New Orleans previously). The Hornets also had the second best record in the west last year with essentially the same team as the one that they had in OKC, a team that was able to lure Peja and Tyson Chandler in free agency. Those two aren't the biggest names out there but they filled specific needs and supplemented the talent that the front office had acquired through the draft and trades. So if the front office and ownership can build it, free agents will come.
It will at least be 2010 before the team starts to look at free agency because obviously the team isn't going to be looking to make any big strides between now and then; the front office wants to give the young guys the minutes and time to develop; and contracts like Luke Ridnour, Chris Wilcox, and maybe Nick Collison need to expire to give the team a lot of cap room.
When we were talking about market size I thought that we were talking media markets. Here is my link that I was looking at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market

[McG]

You are simply echoing your previous statements which outline the beliefs that:

1. Sam Presti is the most important part of the franchise and he will build a championship-caliber team.
2. Oklahoma City is a disadvantaged market to compete in but team success will outweigh this.

Along with the new revelation that:

3. Clay Bennett and Co. will be willing to spend money on players up to the luxury threshold.

I have already discussed my opinion on each of these topics and (although I will refrain from restating these) I would like to remind you that you are being overly optimistic for the best case scenario in each one.

I will, however, address a few of your stated facts. Regarding the Hornets, their 2006-07 payroll was actually $53 million, right at the salary cap and where I expect Oklahoma City to be on a year-to-year basis. And as for the additions of Peja and Tyson, they overpaid for Peja and actually acquired Tyson through a trade so they didn't necessarily 'attract' either as a FA. Also, I think the overall difference between media market vs. metropolitan statistical areas is negligible but I apologize for the confusion.

[Great]

Certain players won't want to play in OKC. It will limit their endorsement oppotunities.

What ever players come will have to be a certain type if person.

A person just grateful to be playing. A person who can do without fame, but wants their game respected and appreciated.

Perhaps an underdog, as OKC will always see themselves as David to other teams Goliaths.

If ownership is able to harness that identity they can get good role playing free agents to put around the stars.

[captain_cheapseats]

I was surprised that he didn't point to the patron saint of all small market NBA teams...the San Antonio Spurs!

San Antonio has a metro population of 1.9 million and a median household income of $47k.
Memphis has a metro population of 1.2 million and a median household income of $42k.
Milwaukee has a metro population of 1.9 million and a median household income of $42k.
Oklahome City has a metro population of 1.2 million and a median household income of $42k.

San Antonio and Milwaukee are smaller markets, but OKC and Memphis are minute markets.

Sure, San Antonio is a smaller market, but it has an extra 700,000 people who have alot more money. Oklahoma City is going to follow the path of Memphis and struggle to be financially stable. Memphis has a 4 year old building and they only sold 70% of there tickets this season and ranked second to last in attendance.

The real question to ask is not the size of the metro area, but rather how many people live closer to OKC than any other NBA city. That is what determines your fan base, not metro size. For example, consider that Boston is a far bigger sports market than Houston, despite having a significantly smaller metro area. The reason is that Boston is the closest sports city to everyone in MA, ME, VT, NH, RI and a big chunk of CT, while Houston is trapped between Dallas and San Antonio, hence not even drawing all the fans within the state of TX, much less those from anywhere else.

The fan base for OKC will likely be all of Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas, along with chunks of Nebraska and Missouri. That doesn't make you a huge market team by any stretch of the imagination, but it does put you well above the Milwaukee's of the world. If OKC has a good team, there will be plenty of fans to support it.

[McG]

The real question to ask is not the size of the metro area, but rather how many people live closer to OKC than any other NBA city. That is what determines your fan base, not metro size. For example, consider that Boston is a far bigger sports market than Houston, despite having a significantly smaller metro area. The reason is that Boston is the closest sports city to everyone in MA, ME, VT, NH, RI and a big chunk of CT, while Houston is trapped between Dallas and San Antonio, hence not even drawing all the fans within the state of TX, much less those from anywhere else.

The fan base for OKC will likely be all of Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas, along with chunks of Nebraska and Missouri. That doesn't make you a huge market team by any stretch of the imagination, but it does put you well above the Milwaukee's of the world. If OKC has a good team, there will be plenty of fans to support it.

TO ALL READERS: Please disregard the above post.

MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify. These take into account proximity, driving distance, and overall utility between cities included in each MSA. Cap is unfortunately making the comparison between cities that are 30 miles from Boston and cities more than 300 miles from OKC. In other words, definitely not apples to apples.

[wizkid27]

McG, although I do think the team will be able to attract some players... I definitely agree with you, in that I really doubt that people from LIttle Rock or maybe to a certain extent Tulsa, will really put a lot of stock in the team being from OKC... Maybe even the opposite, in that there are a lot of Mavs fans around here already, and not all of them will jump ship to cheer for the team that is geographically closest.

[Great]

McG, although I do think the team will be able to attract some players... I definitely agree with you, in that I really doubt that people from LIttle Rock or maybe to a certain extent Tulsa, will really put a lot of stock in the team being from OKC... Maybe even the opposite, in that there are a lot of Mavs fans around here already, and not all of them will jump ship to cheer for the team that is geographically closest.

Because this is a new franchise, the first major league team in Oklahoma, identity is key cause it could be sold in 3 years.

The team is not going to win as is right now. They can be loved.

Branding the team and branding players is key. Outsiders, underdogs, etc...

If they are able to find players who have no name recognition but can really play and brand them as what OKC Thunder is all about then they have done something.

Signing Final Four Stillwater John Lucas III might be a good move. That's of course after Ridnour is dealt.

Good former Oklahoma State and Oklahoma players. Good Former Tulsa 66er's. People can see themselves in this team somehow.

They're getting a chance on the "big stage". And the guys can play.
Lucas did well in raptors summer league.

Build the identity, the culture of the team, the free agents will come.

[captain_cheapseats]

TO ALL READERS: Please disregard the above post.

This would have made you look like a prick even if you'd been correct.

MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify. These take into account proximity, driving distance, and overall utility between cities included in each MSA.

I can assure you that when the census bureau defines a given MSA they do not take the proximity of other NBA cities into account.

Cap is unfortunately making the comparison between cities that are 30 miles from Boston and cities more than 300 miles from OKC. In other words, definitely not apples to apples.

Northern Maine is about 400 miles from Boston, and most definitely NOT a part of its MSA. Everyone there roots for the Boston sports teams.

I'm curious why you're struggling with this concept. You do understand that (1) not every person in the U.S. lives within an MSA containing an NBA team, and (2) these people still watch the NBA, right?

[McG]

McG wrote:
TO ALL READERS: Please disregard the above post.
This would have made you look like a prick even if you'd been correct.

Or it may have helped uninformed readers such as yourself take notice. But judge as you will.

McG wrote:
MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify. These take into account proximity, driving distance, and overall utility between cities included in each MSA.
I can assure you that when the census bureau defines a given MSA they do not take the proximity of other NBA cities into account.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I'm not sure where you lost track but I (or anyone else of at least average intelligence) would NEVER even consider anything so ridiculous.

McG wrote:
Cap is unfortunately making the comparison between cities that are 30 miles from Boston and cities more than 300 miles from OKC. In other words, definitely not apples to apples.
Northern Maine is about 400 miles from Boston, and most definitely NOT a part of its MSA. Everyone there roots for the Boston sports teams.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. The fact is that Northern Maine gets EVERY Boston game on TV as it is. Of course they're watching the Red Sox (largest fan following in baseball), Celtics (most storied franchise in NBA history), and Patriots (most storied franchise of the millennium). I mean, do you really expect ANY non-nationally-televised games to be broadcast in Kansas and Arkansas!? Release the bias my friend.

I'm curious why you're struggling with this concept. You do understand that (1) not every person in the U.S. lives within an MSA containing an NBA team, and (2) these people still watch the NBA, right?

Please see my above points and reassess your opinion of who's 'struggling' with this matter. I think my understanding of what a METROPOLITAN Statistical Area (MSA) entails has been demonstrated in previous posts.

And I'm not sure about your 'people still watch the NBA' statement. Recent surveys concerning America's favorite professional sports give it a 4% share (out of EVERY sport). This falls behind the NHL (currently at 5%). This is irrelevant for diehard fans (such as ourselves) and strictly for your enlightenment.

[captain_cheapseats]

McG wrote:
MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify. These take into account proximity, driving distance, and overall utility between cities included in each MSA.
I can assure you that when the census bureau defines a given MSA they do not take the proximity of other NBA cities into account.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I'm not sure where you lost track but I (or anyone else of at least average intelligence) would NEVER even consider anything so ridiculous.

I wrote that OKC's proximity to other NBA cities would play a role in determining the size of its fan base. You replied that "MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify." Hence you either (1) erroneously think MSA includes some kind of measure that takes the location of NBA teams into account, or (2) misread my initial post. Given the nature of your first reply with the "attention to all readers" crap, I just assumed you were an idiot, and went with choice (1).

McG wrote:
Cap is unfortunately making the comparison between cities that are 30 miles from Boston and cities more than 300 miles from OKC. In other words, definitely not apples to apples.
Northern Maine is about 400 miles from Boston, and most definitely NOT a part of its MSA. Everyone there roots for the Boston sports teams.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. The fact is that Northern Maine gets EVERY Boston game on TV as it is. Of course they're watching the Red Sox (largest fan following in baseball), Celtics (most storied franchise in NBA history), and Patriots (most storied franchise of the millennium). I mean, do you really expect ANY non-nationally-televised games to be broadcast in Kansas and Arkansas!? Release the bias my friend.

I used ME, VT, NH, RI and CT as examples in my initial post, and you responded by stating that "Cap is unfortunately making the comparison between cities that are 30 miles from Boston and cities more than 300 miles from OKC." Given this progression it should be obvious why I mentioned that parts of Maine are 400+ miles from Boston: it destroys any value your attempted 30 vs. 300 retort may have had, and illustrates that you lack even a rudimentary understanding of New England's geography.

As for the idea that those in Maine root for the Boston teams because of their proud history rather than geography, give me a freakin' break. If that were the case, why wouldn't everyone who does not live in an MSA with a professional sports franchise across the entire nation be rooting for the Boston teams as well? The answer, of course, is precisely what I wrote in my first post: Boston is the closest professional sports market. I suspect you know this, and are just trying to save face at this point. Also, btw, your little "they get every game on cable" point is so obviously circular it barely warrants discussion. Ask yourself why they get every game on cable, and you'll be a lot closer to understanding this issue (hint: the answer is !NOT! because they are a part of the Boston/Cambridge MSA).

This little game has grown tiresome.....just admit that you misread my first post. Trying to somehow salvage your haughty response is making you look like a fool. For just a moment step back from trying to "win" this back-and-forth, and think about the position you're now attempting to defend: that MSA alone determines fanbase size, and geographic proximity to other teams plays no role whatsoever. You're smarter than that. You keep battling my first example so let's make it even easier on you: consider a city with two professional teams in the same sport, like the Lakers/Clippers or White Sox/Cubs. Do you honestly believe that MSA size alone is how we should quantify the fanbase of those teams, ignoring their obvious proximity to other franchises?

[McG]

First of all I would like to apologize to all that have come across the increasingly embarrassing effort by Cap to reaffirm his overwhelming bias. I would like to leave this as-is, but I feel the need to settle the previous "post" (if you shall call it that) once and for all.

Cap, you have very little understanding of how professional sports actually work. I appreciate your vigor but please look at the situation realistically. You seem to be under the belief as soon as a professional sports team enters a market it creates some sort of magical radius around it that enthralls every fan until reaching the next franchise's radius. Do you really believe this or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing? I mean seriously, consider two of the (simply hysterical) points that you've dwelled on over the past few posts:

1. Comparing Boston to OKC
2. Believing that ALL of Kansas and Arkansas and some of Nebraska and Missouri will rush to OKC sports overnight

Again, I understand your passion but you really need to think before you post. I attempted to establish that the above two beliefs were very far from reality but you have still (somehow) failed to grasp this. Feel free to respond in a rage of keyboard pounding if you'd like but either edit in advance or keep it under 100 words as it is getting increasingly difficult to make sense of your misthought ideas. Thanks in advance.

[captain_cheapseats]

First of all I would like to apologize to all that have come across the increasingly embarrassing effort by Cap to reaffirm his overwhelming bias. I would like to leave this as-is, but I feel the need to settle the previous "post" (if you shall call it that) once and for all.

Ahhh yes, the ever popular "I can't win this argument, so now I'll pretend to be above it all" approach. A little transparant, but always worth a try. As for this "overwhelming bias" idea you keep focusing on: where is it coming from? I'm not an OKC fan or from the area, I just found the topic interesting and thought I'd chime in. But since you have raised the issue of bias I may as well ask, were you a big Seattle Supersonics fan?

Cap, you have very little understanding of how professional sports actually work. I appreciate your vigor but please look at the situation realistically. You seem to be under the belief as soon as a professional sports team enters a market it creates some sort of magical radius around it that enthralls every fan until reaching the next franchise's radius. Do you really believe this or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?

The radius you describe is not "magical." In the world of professional sports its called a designated marketing area, or, more commonly, a "DMA." The NBA has already granted the new OKC franchise an exclusive DMA for all geographic areas within a 75 mile radius of the city. OKC will also have DMA territories that it shares with one or two other midwestern teams (the exact borders of these are sadly not public information at this time). The implications of this should be obvious: all but the most hard-core fans will root for the teams that are marketed to them and available for free on local cable. There is nothing "magical" about this, it's a fairly straight-forward concept.

I mean seriously, consider two of the (simply hysterical) points that you've dwelled on over the past few posts:

1. Comparing Boston to OKC

Actually, the comparison was Boston to Houston; yet another example of how in your haste to appear clever, you failed to actually read the posts you are replying to. But anyway.....the point was that Boston is a larger sports market than Houston, despite having a smaller MSA. If your theory (that MSA alone determines fanbase size) were correct, this would be impossible. It should also be noted that, amongst those with the capacity for abstract thought, use of an analogy is not a "simply hysterical" concept.

2. Believing that ALL of Kansas and Arkansas and some of Nebraska and Missouri will rush to OKC sports overnight

Not overnight, no. But eventually the commercials and other marketing efforts featuring the team should have some effect, and claim a portion of the fans in these areas (particularly if the team has success). In any event, suffice it to say that I think enough fans from these areas will follow OKC to provide a larger fanbase than that enjoyed by Milwaukee.

Again, I understand your passion but you really need to think before you post. I attempted to establish that the above two beliefs were very far from reality but you have still (somehow) failed to grasp this.

You actually wrote in your last post that people in Maine root for the Boston teams because of their proud tradition, rather than geographic proximity. It's awfully hard for me to "grasp" your points when they reach that level of absurdity.

[McG]

Cap. Please refer to the responses below.

The NBA has already granted the new OKC franchise an exclusive DMA for all geographic areas within a 75 mile radius of the city. OKC will also have DMA territories that it shares with one or two other midwestern teams (the exact borders of these are sadly not public information at this time).

Do Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska and Missouri fall within this magical 75-mile radius? (Thanks in advance for disproving your point!)

The implications of this should be obvious: all but the most hard-core fans will root for the teams that are marketed to them and available for free on local cable.

Will all of Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska and Missouri get the games 'marketed to them and available for free on local cable'? (Again, thanks!)

point was that Boston is a larger sports market than Houston, despite having a smaller MSA.

You fail to mention your primary point in comparing the two cities: the interest level/fanbase of Boston/OKC sport(s) will stretch outward to fans within hundreds of miles. Thus, you are in fact comparing the impact that sport(s) in each respective area will have in their not-so-immediate proximities. I chose to analyze how the city with arguably the richest sports history is a terrible comparison to OKC, but I'm glad you chose to disregard this.

You actually wrote in your last post that people in Maine root for the Boston teams because of their proud tradition, rather than geographic proximity. It's awfully hard for me to "grasp" your points when they reach that level of absurdity.

My point was that there is a lot more than just 'closest team proximity'/magical radius involved in how fans choose teams. I'm not sure why you fail to concede this very simple fact. The Red Sox regularly have home field advantage AWAY from home. If they can draw 20,000 fans playing on the West Coast, it shouldn't be surprising that they can dominate any market within a few hundred miles. This, in case you are still confused, can most closely be defined as history.

Please feel free to respond if you can scrape together anymore scattered ideas, but I will assume this isn't the case and bid you farewell until your next braindead post. May that day never come!

[captain_cheapseats]

You forgot to answer my question McG: were you a Seattle Supersonics fan? Given how worried you seemed to be earlier in the thread about the supposed bias I was bringing to this issue, one would think you would be anxious to explain where you are coming from.

The NBA has already granted the new OKC franchise an exclusive DMA for all geographic areas within a 75 mile radius of the city. OKC will also have DMA territories that it shares with one or two other midwestern teams (the exact borders of these are sadly not public information at this time).

Do Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska and Missouri fall within this magical 75-mile radius? (Thanks in advance for disproving your point!)

Two things.....
(1): Nice try at changing the topic. You wrote "You seem to be under the belief as soon as a professional sports team enters a market it creates some sort of magical radius around it that enthralls every fan until reaching the next franchise's radius. Do you really believe this or are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing?" I responded by explaining the concept of DMA (or, in your words, "magic circles"), and how they effect sports marketing. We can debate how large the OKC DMA will be (see point 2), but let's not pretend for even a second that your "magic circle" statement was anything but foolish.

(2): You appear to be entirely ignoring the second sentance, namely "OKC will also have DMA territories that it shares with one or two other midwestern teams (the exact borders of these are sadly not public information at this time)." My suspician is that OKC will ultimately be awarded an exclusive DMA for all of Kansas, along with large chunks of the other states listed, as well as extensive shared DMAs with the Mavs, Griz and Nuggets. But again, that info is not available to the public, if it is even known at all.

point was that Boston is a larger sports market than Houston, despite having a smaller MSA.

You fail to mention your primary point in comparing the two cities: the interest level/fanbase of Boston/OKC sport(s) will stretch outward to fans within hundreds of miles. Thus, you are in fact comparing the impact that sport(s) in each respective area will have in their not-so-immediate proximities. I chose to analyze how the city with arguably the richest sports history is a terrible comparison to OKC, but I'm glad you chose to disregard this.

Lol, you really just don't grasp the concept of "analogy" do you? My first post said that OKC will not be "a huge market team by any stretch of the imagination, but it does put you well above the Milwaukee's of the world[,]" for the same reason that Boston is a larger market than Houston (despite having a smaller metro area). No reasonable person could possibly turn that into a Boston vs. OKC comparison. Oh, and as for the "I'm glad you chose to disregard this" comment, you're kidding, right? We've debated your erroneous rich history argument ad naseum already, and continue to do so in the very next paragraph.

You actually wrote in your last post that people in Maine root for the Boston teams because of their proud tradition, rather than geographic proximity. It's awfully hard for me to "grasp" your points when they reach that level of absurdity.

My point was that there is a lot more than just 'closest team proximity'/magical radius involved in how fans choose teams. I'm not sure why you fail to concede this very simple fact.

Nice attempt to retreat to a less extreme position. You've denied throughout this thread that geographic proximity to other teams plays any role in determining fanbase size, have lost the point, are now trying to recast our debate as me saying that only geographic proximity matters. Obviously geographic proximity is not the only thing that determines fanbase size, you'd have to be a moron to think that. It is, however, a very important element, and I would argue the most important element.

The Red Sox regularly have home field advantage AWAY from home. If they can draw 20,000 fans playing on the West Coast, it shouldn't be surprising that they can dominate any market within a few hundred miles. This, in case you are still confused, can most closely be defined as history.

You still don't get it, the Red Sox don't dominate the New England market, they are the New England market, thanks to their exclusive DMA rights. Below is a link to a map of the MLB DMAs for each franchise. You'll notice that the Sox are the only team permitted to market itself in MA, ME, NH, VT and RI. http://www.maurybrown.com/images/MLBTerritories.jpg

[McG]

Some **** that nobody bothered to read.

Cap. Enough with the trying to defend your ridiculous posts already. Now I'm sure you'll try to bring back the infamous 'Nice try/attempt (fill in the blank)' but it's really starting to bore me. Look at your posts friend. You're not arguing me, you're arguing yourself. I feel like I should call the Dr. Phil hotline for you but I don't think they'd take me seriously if I were to say I'm having serious concerns about the mental state of my friend 'Captain Cheapseats.' Instead of going through another round of you trying to turn your stupidity against me, how about you just answer the statement that I am debating and that you are dodging as much as possible.

The fan base for OKC will likely be all of Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas, along with chunks of Nebraska and Missouri.

This is ridiculous, and from your previous posts you obviously realize it. Now don't tip-toe around with another 'Nice try' statement. If you're going to respond please provide an actual assessment of how your above statement could ever be reality. Or at least admit you were drunk/high/half-asleep when you wrote it and make us all feel better about your mental state. Since I'm doubting either of these are likely, I'll bid you farewell and wish you happy travels on your journey outside of my magical radius.

[captain_cheapseats]

Some **** that nobody bothered to read.

Cap. Enough with the trying to defend your ridiculous posts already. Now I'm sure you'll try to bring back the infamous 'Nice try/attempt (fill in the blank)' but it's really starting to bore me. Look at your posts friend. You're not arguing me, you're arguing yourself. I feel like I should call the Dr. Phil hotline for you but I don't think they'd take me seriously if I were to say I'm having serious concerns about the mental state of my friend 'Captain Cheapseats.' Instead of going through another round of you trying to turn your stupidity against me, how about you just answer the statement that I am debating and that you are dodging as much as possible.

Lol at you accusing me of "dodging," while at the same time not bothering to address any of the points in the previous post. You keep arguing the "rich history" angle to explain the Sox domination of the New England market, but when I provide you with a link showing that the MLB has granted the Sox an exclusive monopoly over New England, you make an inane Dr. Phil reference. You call me "overwhelmingly biased," but when I ask if you were a Seattle Supersonics fan, rather than answering you question my mental state. It's really quite pathetic.

The fan base for OKC will likely be all of Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas, along with chunks of Nebraska and Missouri.

This is ridiculous, and from your previous posts you obviously realize it. Now don't tip-toe around with another 'Nice try' statement. If you're going to respond please provide an actual assessment of how your above statement could ever be reality.

What are you talking about? We've gone over this several times: (1) fans are likely to root for the closest NBA team, and in any event (2) OKC is likely to be granted DMA rights over these areas. You might disagree with my assessment, but to now pretend that I've refused to address the topic is just sad, sad, sad.

Oh, btw, looking over this little back-and-forth, I realized that you've still yet to explain the "MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify" comment that started this whole thing. Before you feign indignation and totally retreat from this thread, could you please explain how MSAs quantify "how many people live closer to OKC than any other NBA city?" Or maybe it's finally time for you to admit that you were talking completely out of your *ss.....

[McG]

Again, apologies to all who come across this thread, but Captain Confused is seriously off the deep end. Let me state this one last time to hopefully (but unfortunately not realistically) end his confusion.

FANS WILL NOT FLOCK FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY FOR (ALMOST) ANY FRANCHISE AND MOST CERTAINLY NOT OKC.

Oh, btw, looking over this little back-and-forth, I realized that you've still yet to explain the "MSA's are in fact what are used to determine the very fact that Cap is attempting to quantify" comment that started this whole thing. Before you feign indignation and totally retreat from this thread, could you please explain how MSAs quantify "how many people live closer to OKC than any other NBA city?" Or maybe it's finally time for you to admit that you were talking completely out of your *ss.....

Most certainly Cap. First of all, you weren't trying to quantify how many people live closer to OKC than any other NBA city (but in your own words nice try). We were talking about the future OKC FANBASE, and you responded by believing it would be everyone within your prestated magical radius. This was your change of subject but I will, once again, outline that MSA's are the primary indicator for FANBASE. It goes back to the simple (yet obviously confusing) fact that MSA's take into account the REALISTIC economic market for any metropolitan area. You are obviously under the impression that these areas have a substantial economic benefit from cities outside of their designated MSA's and the center of your confusion has been my disagreement with this misconception.

I think the majority of this (i.e. your confusion) comes from the belief that EVEYRONE is/will be a fan of the NBA (or any other sports league for that matter), and that as soon as league X moves a team within 500 miles they will automatically follow that team. You either have very little experience with professional sports or simply are that stupid. Either way, please stop bothering the good people of this board and go back to your infamous cheap seats, where I'm sure you sit alone because no competent person could stand your shameless absurdity.