LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

looks like we'll be getting an NBA team here in Oklahoma City soon...they've been talking a lot all over the radio on if it does move here, what should the name be. A lot of the names they're comin up with are pretty stupid (like the OKC Energy, or the Oklahoma Landrunners), and I figured ya'll could come up with something better.

Couple more things too is whether it should be called the Oklahoma City ____ or the Oklahoma ___; i.e. whether it be a city team like Dallas, or a state team like Utah.


Any thoughts?

how about NO-klahoma. Moving the team out of Seattle because the owner is a greedy SOB is a disgusting on a bunch of levels.

I really wish David Stern and the rest of the league would step in and stop this nonsense. The Sonics belong to the city, not a few people greedy bastards.

scooter wrote:how about NO-klahoma. Moving the team out of Seattle because the owner is a greedy SOB is a disgusting on a bunch of levels.

I really wish David Stern and the rest of the league would step in and stop this nonsense. The Sonics belong to the city, not a few people greedy bastards.

Second.

Third.

StrykerFSU wrote:Second.

KnoxVegas wrote:Third.

Oh, BS.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2008

Seattle- Bottom 1/3 past 5 years; not a whole lot of support...
Notice the boost in attendance while the Hornets were in OKC in 05/06 and 06/07.

You can label it "greed," if you want, but it's his (the investment group's) team to do what he wants with. He asked for a new arena, Seattle dragged it's feet, and so he made the smart move. Heaven forbid he make a monetary decision, cause, ya know, the NBA's NEVER been about the money:
http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

25 Minnesota 37 527,030 14,244 74.9 35 580,334 16,580 87.2 72 1,107,364 15,380 80.9

Thats pushing it these days. Last game I went to there was maybe 5K there. Bad times for this franchise, but can only go up from there.

Yep, you taxpayers better buy me a new arena or I'm taking my team elsewhere. What's that? 41 years of history don't mean anything to me. The Seahawks and Mariners got new stadiums, where's mine?

It's blackmail pure and simple.

OklahomaLax45 wrote:...they've been talking a lot all over the radio on if it does move here, what should the name be. A lot of the names they're comin up with are pretty stupid (like the OKC Energy, or the Oklahoma Landrunners), and I figured ya'll could come up with something better.



Any thoughts?

What if we called them the bombers?.....jk. That would be terrible.

I thinking we should send them up to omaha! I cant think of a better way to waste a ton of money.

StrykerFSU wrote:Yep, you taxpayers better buy me a new arena or I'm taking my team elsewhere. What's that? 41 years of history don't mean anything to me. The Seahawks and Mariners got new stadiums, where's mine?

It's blackmail pure and simple.

While I think this guy is a dick, I bolded the most important part of your post. We got screwed out of an NBA team here in a similar situation, and now its happening in Seattle and all of a sudden there's all this outrage. Seattle sports fans are notorious fairweather fans. The Mariners and Seahawks have both been close to moving in the last 15-20 years. If the city and the fans were really all that concerned about history and keeping the team, they would have made it happen. The bottom line is that the team belongs to the owner, and he can do what he wants with it. I suggest Seattle fans learn to deal with it.

Madlax16 wrote:

OklahomaLax45 wrote:...they've been talking a lot all over the radio on if it does move here, what should the name be. A lot of the names they're comin up with are pretty stupid (like the OKC Energy, or the Oklahoma Landrunners), and I figured ya'll could come up with something better.



Any thoughts?

What if we called them the bombers?.....jk. That would be terrible.

I thinking we should send them up to omaha! I cant think of a better way to waste a ton of money.

Was gonna go the same route and say call them the McVey's, but thought it still might be a little to early for a joke like that.

Arklax wrote:

StrykerFSU wrote:Second.

KnoxVegas wrote:Third.

Oh, BS.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2008

Seattle- Bottom 1/3 past 5 years; not a whole lot of support...
Notice the boost in attendance while the Hornets were in OKC in 05/06 and 06/07.

They are making a move to a smaller market, where granted they are the only game in town but the ownership has already stated that they don't mind losing money. Not for a few years but ever. Now how smart is that? I do not think that municipalities should be blackmailed into new stadiums for losing sports franchises but cities find their identities through sports franchises.

Key Arena is in a great neighborhood which is really its problem. There is no room to build out (It also sucks to do TV there). I read last week that some local business men, including Microsoft's Steve Balmer, have ponied up $150 million of their own money to expand (for the second time in 15 years) Key Arena.

Your right, it is the ownerships perogative to move their teams as they wish. But what happens if the NBA OKC's franchise sucks five years from now? The Cubs and pre-2000's Red Sox were exceptions to the attendance rule. The former temporary tenants of the Ford Center, the NO/OKC Hornets are already trying to bail out of New Orleans over low attendance. David Stern has told them to stay put for now. This after moving from Charlotte for the same reason. Maybe it is not the public but the way these teams are run and their product that is the real problem.

Tim said it the best...

I live on the eastside and I'm sick of paying for everything I'll never use in Seattle, including stadiums for horrible football and baseball teams.

Let them go.

Part of the Seahawks getting their new stadium was that they had to hold training camp at Eastern Washington for a couple of years. That ended in 2006. It a way to appease the lawmakers of that area.

I think that a team in OKC has an opportunity to do very well. Look at the other teams in the NBA in which they are the only game in town.

Portland - consistantly draws very well
Sacramento - in the late 90's early 00's had the best home court in the game.
San Antonio - Draw well every year - and they are about the same size as OKC.

As far as a name goes...
Oklahoma City 07's - after the year the state was admitted into the union
Oklahoma City Prarie Dawgs - Although that sounds like an Arena Football team
Oklahoma CIty Rattlers
Oklahoma Outlaws

Just a few thoughts

JW wrote:I think that a team in OKC has an opportunity to do very well. Look at the other teams in the NBA in which they are the only game in town.

Portland - consistantly draws very well
Sacramento - in the late 90's early 00's had the best home court in the game.
San Antonio - Draw well every year - and they are about the same size as OKC.

As far as a name goes...
Oklahoma City 07's - after the year the state was admitted into the union
Oklahoma City Prarie Dawgs - Although that sounds like an Arena Football team
Oklahoma CIty Rattlers
Oklahoma Outlaws

Just a few thoughts

Sac is kind of a hard comparison cause you can almost still clump it into the bay area sports. You can get there from the north bay in about an hour to go watch a game if you are that big of a fan of the Kings compared to the Warriors and The Truth (Baron Davis). Not sure mileage or time wise what the closest pro team will be to Ok City