Looks like the Kings aren't going to be staying in Sacramento, and the BOK Center is looking real nice these days, your thoughts?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7810708/deal-new-sacramento-kings-arena-falls-through

Key quote from article:

"The Kings are scheduled to play at Power Balance Pavilion next season. Stern wouldn't speculate where they would play beyond that, and said if they sought to relocate, approval would be left to the relocation committee that is headed by Oklahoma City owner Clay Bennett."

BOK Center is nice but Tulsa wouldn't even make a short list for any NBA franchise seeking to relocate. Tulsa isn't even mentioned in this article.

I know, but the NBA likes new arenas, and the BOK Center in Tulsa is one of the best in the nation. I actually think Tulsa could support an NBA team. Even though their metro is smaller than OKC's, Tulsans have a lot of buying power, and I think their per capita income is higher...

Hmm, I think Kansas City would be a wiser choice with their nearly new Sprint Center.

I know, but the NBA likes new arenas, and the BOK Center in Tulsa is one of the best in the nation. I actually think Tulsa could support an NBA team. Even though there metro is smaller than OKC's, Tulsans have a lot of buying power, and I think their per capita income is higher...

Seattle
Kansas City
St. Louis
Cincinnati

I think that's pretty much the pecking order of a new or relocated NBA team.

I don't think Seattle, St. Louis, or Cincinnati have new arenas? I think Kansas City has the newest arena...

The Kings are going to Anahiem. This deal has been in the works for a long time. The NBA doesn't like new arenas as much as it that they like arenas that are capable of generating multiple revenue streams. For most cities this required building new arenas.

Just 2 weeks ago though they said the new arena in Sacramento was a done deal. What happened? Keeping the King in Sacramento is like trying to bailout Greece - a new plan has to be hatched every 4 weeks because the old plan everyone said would work didn't work.

I know, but the NBA likes new arenas, and the BOK Center in Tulsa is one of the best in the nation. I actually think Tulsa could support an NBA team. Even though their metro is smaller than OKC's, Tulsans have a lot of buying power, and I think their per capita income is higher...

Incomes in Tulsa aren't that much higher. We aren't talking about Greenwich CT here.

The number of eyeballs matter way more than incomes anyway. Why snuff out the growing clout of the Thunder in OK and KS?

This is Kansas City's team to lose.

I don't think Seattle, St. Louis, or Cincinnati have new arenas? I think Kansas City has the newest arena...

Seattle does have someone with the money who has been going through the process of getting one built and some others that have shown a willingness to put in money, though there are some conditions with it before it starts construction, however the building matters less than the market which is roughly 4 times the others mentioned here that interests the NBA.

What about Louisville?With the new KFC-Yum! Center?I think it goes KC,Anaheim,Seattle,Louisville,although KC with another pro franchise would be overextended,three teams in a metro just at 2 million?

It would be nice to have an NBA version of "Bedlam" in Oklahoma but I dont know.. It would also be nice for the city of Omaha, Nebraska to get an NBa team, they definitely would sell out every game night.

It would be nice to have an NBA version of "Bedlam" in Oklahoma but I dont know.. It would also be nice for the city of Omaha, Nebraska to get an NBa team, they definitely would sell out every game night.

As well as the Thunder turned out, most owners care more about the market size. Anaheim is plausible but will have resistance from the LA owners and those not wanting so many teams in one region. Seattle is plausible if they can get their arena deal done. Most other places are long shots. A second team in Chicago could make more sense than KC, Louisville, St. Louis or Cincinnati.

Seattle Metro = around 3.5 million
St. Louis Metro = around 3 million
KC Metro = around 2 million
Cincinnati Metro = around 2 million
Tulsa Metro = around 900,000

Anaheim isn't a metro, but the population for Orange Country is around 3 million. Even Louisville is bigger than Tulsa.

There are 53 metropolitan statistical areas larger than Tulsa.

Tulsa just doesn't have a big enough market for an NBA team. OKC barely does, and it has yet to be seen whether or not the city will be able to support the team in the long run, especially once they have some down seasons. I'm pretty sure the NBA and/or owners looking to move care more than just if a city has a nice, new, sparkling arena. I'm pretty sure it's more about the $$$ and number of eye balls. And to bring up per capita income is a little silly. If they were much concerned with that, I'm sure they'd be packing their bags for a city in Orange Country right now.

Edit: And someone mentioned Chicago adding a second team. The Chicago Metro is around 9.5 million. So even half of Chicago is over 4 times more populated than Tulsa.

It would be nice to have an NBA version of "Bedlam" in Oklahoma but I dont know.. It would also be nice for the city of Omaha, Nebraska to get an NBa team, they definitely would sell out every game night.

Bring the Kings coming back to Omaha! Us and KC actually shared the franchise in the mid 70s if you guys didn't know that. We used to be an NBA town.

As others had mentioned though Omaha would pack the place, we averaged 15K+ for a mid major basketball team this past season. Trouble is "Omaha" doesn't move the dial like KC, Seattle, St. Louis, Orange County ect.

Not expecting a major league franchise anytime soon, I accepted that. MLS is probably our best bet.

Not going to happen. The entire state of Oklahoma has a population not much larger than Seattle. We're lucky to have one team. Tulsa has the WNBA, and that's about as good as it is going to get for the forseeable future.

Tulsa is not an option and neither is KC. Kansas City and Denver are the two most oversaturated pro sports markets in the country. They can barely support the teams they have. The most likely desitnations are Anaheim or possibly Seattle.

tulsa ... no ...

KC Louisville seattle all would be way way ahead of tulsa .... that being said the kings if they leave are going to Anaheim

the state is small to support to NBA Team

tulsa ... no ...

KC Louisville seattle all would be way way ahead of tulsa .... that being said the kings if they leave are going to Anaheim

I just don't seem them putting that many NBA teams so close to each other, you will have Kings, Clippers, and Lakers all right there together.

WNBA Draft today!!

Tulsa?? Your on the clock, with the #4 overall pick.

I just don't seem them putting that many NBA teams so close to each other, you will have Kings, Clippers, and Lakers all right there together.

the NBA can NOT stop a team from moving to any city ... (the NFL/NHL can't either) only baseball with their trade exemption can ..

Anaheim is going to give the kings owners a great deal and IMHO they will move in a year

the NBA can NOT stop a team from moving to any city ... (the NFL/NHL can't either) only baseball with their trade exemption can ..

Anaheim is going to give the kings owners a great deal and IMHO they will move in a year

While not legally, but they can make them pay large amounts of cash to move and since the price may vary between cities incentivize where they go.

the NBA can NOT stop a team from moving to any city ... (the NFL/NHL can't either) only baseball with their trade exemption can ..

Anaheim is going to give the kings owners a great deal and IMHO they will move in a year

That is not entirely true. The final decision is up to the NBA Relocation Committee, which is headed by our very own Clay Bennett, see post #1.

This discussion is just silly.
The NBA is not nor probably never will come to Tulsa.
Not that I don't think we could support it, its that the demographics would not allow it.
We sold the NBA relocation committee on Oklahoma's demographics and not just OKC when the Sonics moved here.

I just don't seem them putting that many NBA teams so close to each other, you will have Kings, Clippers, and Lakers all right there together.

Knicks, Nets, and 76'ers?

The New York MSA is almost 19 million people!
Philadelphia is almost 6 million!

Apples to oranges..

That is not entirely true. The final decision is up to the NBA Relocation Committee, which is headed by our very own Clay Bennett, see post #1.

not true .. see Al davis vs the NFL .... sports leagues can not restrict free trade

The New York MSA is almost 19 million people!
Philadelphia is almost 6 million!

Apples to oranges..

and the LA area is 18 mil+

and the LA area is 18 mil+

The Southern California mega-region is 22.7 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California

The Southern California mega-region is 22.7 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California

you wouldn't include san diego in a nba teams market

you wouldn't include san diego in a nba teams market

In that case, the Anaheim market is only 3 million, not 18+ million.

http://news.lalate.com/2011/09/27/sacramento-kings-move-change-to-anaheim-royals-expected-for-2012-2013-season/


“Anaheim remains an NBA-ready city,” said Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait in a news statement in May. “We are proud of the work that was done to bring an NBA team to Anaheim’s Honda Center. In particular, we protected the city’s taxpayers and the city’s finances from any risk by using private, not public, funds in the financing. As confirmed by NBA Commissioner David Stern, this process has shown that Anaheim/Orange County is a stand-alone market. With more than 3 million residents, Orange County is its own region – not a suburb.

In that case, the Anaheim market is only 3 million, not 18+ million.

http://news.lalate.com/2011/09/27/sacramento-kings-move-change-to-anaheim-royals-expected-for-2012-2013-season/

not counting san diego .. is like okc not counting lawton ....

only counting anaheim ... and not the rest of LA is like OKC not counting edmond, norman, and yukon

In that case, the Anaheim market is only 3 million, not 18+ million.

http://news.lalate.com/2011/09/27/sacramento-kings-move-change-to-anaheim-royals-expected-for-2012-2013-season/

That is only the county the city resides, it is still closer to several more million people in the region than the Staples Center.

San Diego is far enough removed from LA it has had it's own team multiple times.

Clippers were located in SD prior to locating in LA.

Let's start over:

Oklahomanick said:

The New York MSA is almost 19 million people!
Philadelphia is almost 6 million!

Apples to oranges..

Bouldersooner said:

and the LA area is 18 mil+

I said:

The Southern California mega-region is 22.7 million people.

Then Bouldersooner said:

you wouldn't include san diego in a nba teams market

Philadelphia has an NBA team and is 94 miles to NYC. San Diego doesn't have an NBA team and is 97 miles to Anaheim.

So NYC/Philly area has 3 teams and 25 million people
LA has 2 teams and Southern California has 22.7 million people.

Just trying to keep it apples to apples.

Again, this is more complicated than just market size.

Market size + # of other professional sports teams + sports interest (other things to do) + income levels = best location.

A market like Omaha might be better than KC because KC has too many sports teams currently. OKC, SLC, and Portland have all shown that a smaller market with no other major pro sports teams is sometimes the best place to put a team. Has anyone noticed that these cities often have the best fans also? Cities like Omaha should merit consideration over some oversaturated markets.

Again, this is more complicated than just market size.

Market size + # of other professional sports teams + sports interest (other things to do) + income levels = best location.

A market like Omaha might be better than KC because KC has too many sports teams currently. OKC, SLC, and Portland have all shown that a smaller market with no other major pro sports teams is sometimes the best place to put a team. Has anyone noticed that these cities often have the best fans also? Cities like Omaha should merit consideration over some oversaturated markets.

Great analogy, I would like to see an NBA team in Louisville, Tulsa, or Omaha, let the smaller markets eat, and get a piece of the pie!

Another reason for Tulsa not being on the list is the very fact that Clay B. is on the relocation committee. Why would he want another team so close that would suck money and fans away from his team. It's the very same reason that Cuban voted against the Thunder moving. That being said, I don't think it will ever come to this - Seattle or Anaheim is getting the team.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Omaha get a team again.

the reality is that the NBA can "guide" a team to a location .. but they really have 0% control where a team moves ... do to the al davis vs NFL lawsuit .. that he won when he moved the raiders back to Oakland with out the NFL's blessing

Let's start over:

Oklahomanick said:


Bouldersooner said:


I said:


Then Bouldersooner said:


Philadelphia has an NBA team and is 94 miles to NYC. San Diego doesn't have an NBA team and is 97 miles to Anaheim.

So NYC/Philly area has 3 teams and 25 million people
LA has 2 teams and Southern California has 22.7 million people.

Just trying to keep it apples to apples.

Aside from the fact that including either Philadelphia within the same market as NYC or San Diego in the same market as LA/Orange County is pretty silly, your comparison is not apples-to-apples .

Comparing a chamber of commerce's made-up "Southern California" region to NYC and Philly census-defined metro population is not comparing apples to apples. Here is an apples-to-apples comparison based on Census Bureau Consolidated Area and MSA numbers for both regions.

NYC plus Philly have 3 teams and 28.5 Million people.

LA plus San Diego have 2 teams and 20.9 Million people.

The closest thing to an apples-to-apples comparison to the Southern California numbers would be the Boston-Washington megalopolis (http://www.america2050.org/northeast.html):

Boston-Washington: 5 teams and about 52.3 Million people.
Southern Cal: 2 teams and 22.7 Million people.

I read somewhere, and I can't remember where, that the owner of the Vancouver Canucks would be interested in bringing the NBA back to Vancouver, saying that the problem with the Grizzlies was the ownership. Vancouver has a NBA ready arena (Rogers Center) and would increase the NBA presence in the Pacific Northwest.

the reality is that the NBA can "guide" a team to a location .. but they really have 0% control where a team moves ... do to the al davis vs NFL lawsuit .. that he won when he moved the raiders back to Oakland with out the NFL's blessing

actually the Al Davis vs NFL law suit came when he tried to move the team to LA in 1980... The league objected and Mr. Davis sued. then after the law suit was won, that is when the raiders moved to LA in 1983. He moved the team back in 1995 because the original deal for renovations to the LA Coliseum were never done, and the attempt to build a new stadium fell through.

the reality is that the NBA can "guide" a team to a location .. but they really have 0% control where a team moves ... do to the al davis vs NFL lawsuit .. that he won when he moved the raiders back to Oakland with out the NFL's blessing

However one wants to categorize it, it is very highly unlikely that a team will move without approval from the relocation committee.

Tulsa would be a nice place for an NBA franchise; however, they are within 100-miles of Oklahoma City. It is highly unlikely that the NBA would put two teams in Oklahoma on a permanent basis. This is the only 'breakthrough city' (city with no major league sports) besides Louisville which has the facilities in place to house an NBA franchise.

As far as the Kings are concerned; Anaheim is down the road with the Honda Center which is home to the NHL Mighty Ducks. This team (Kings) will probably never leave California.

Kansas City has the Sprint Center which is nice. If the NBA were to relocate to Kansas City it would become an overextented market.

Louisville has the new KFC Yum Center leased out where the NBA can not come in at this time. Old Freedom Hall would have to be a temporary home for an NBA franchise. Memphis' market almost mirrors Louisville; the advantage NBA Memhis has is the fact that the Grizzlies and the Memphis State Tigers both share the new FedEx Forum. An NBA team in Louisville playing in an antique arena (Freedom Hall) would have too much competition from the Cardinals playing in the newer facility.

St. Louis has a lease in which the Blues has exclusive rights to Scottrade Arena.

Cincinnati doesn't have an NBA-ready arena and they are too close (100 miles ) to Indianapolis. An NBA franchise would overextend its market.

Seattle has to have commitments from both the NBA and NHL to build a privately funded proposed arena. Seattle would become an overextended market with four major league franchises.

However one wants to categorize it, it is very highly unlikely that a team will move without approval from the relocation committee.

i 100% agree with you ... i was just saying that it is possible ..

Tulsa is no stranger to professional sports, the North American Soccer League (NASL) was in Tulsa in the 80s. NASL was the most major of leagues in soccer at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzlzaoRyF5M

Major League Soccer (MLS) may be a more viable option for Tulsa in professional sports.

Tulsa is no stranger to professional sports, the North American Soccer League (NASL) was in Tulsa in the 80s. NASL was the most major of leagues in soccer at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzlzaoRyF5M

Major League Soccer (MLS) may be a more viable option for Tulsa in professional sports.

MLS has looked there a few times... they keep saying skelly field isn't an option and to build a stadium... and i seem to recall something about a year or two ago that some people were looking into the viability of renovating the old Drillers baseball stadium to see if it would work for soccer, but i never heard anything after that.

Tulsa would be a nice place for an NBA franchise; however, they are within 100-miles of Oklahoma City. It is highly unlikely that the NBA would put two teams in Oklahoma on a permanent basis. This is the only 'breakthrough city' (city with no major league sports) besides Louisville which has the facilities in place to house an NBA franchise.

As far as the Kings are concerned; Anaheim is down the road with the Honda Center which is home to the NHL Mighty Ducks. This team (Kings) will probably never leave California.

Kansas City has the Sprint Center which is nice. If the NBA were to relocate to Kansas City it would become an overextented market.

Louisville has the new KFC Yum Center leased out where the NBA can not come in at this time. Old Freedom Hall would have to be a temporary home for an NBA franchise. Memphis' market almost mirrors Louisville; the advantage NBA Memhis has is the fact that the Grizzlies and the Memphis State Tigers both share the new FedEx Forum. An NBA team in Louisville playing in an antique arena (Freedom Hall) would have too much competition from the Cardinals playing in the newer facility.

St. Louis has a lease in which the Blues has exclusive rights to Scottrade Arena.

Cincinnati doesn't have an NBA-ready arena and they are too close (100 miles ) to Indianapolis. An NBA franchise would overextend its market.

Seattle has to have commitments from both the NBA and NHL to build a privately funded proposed arena. Seattle would become an overextended market with four major league franchises.

Spot on analysis.

MLS has looked there a few times... they keep saying skelly field isn't an option and to build a stadium... and i seem to recall something about a year or two ago that some people were looking into the viability of renovating the old Drillers baseball stadium to see if it would work for soccer, but i never heard anything after that.

I don't understand why the recently renovated Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium wouldn't work in the short term. I think the key would have to have an agreement in place for a soccer-only stadium to be considered though. But Tulsa wouldn't build a soccer-only stadium without a commitment from the MLS. I still think this is Tulsa's best, and most logical, bet at a pro team and I think it would be a great get for T-town.

Not to get off subject with the NBA but MLS might be more suited for Tulsa at this time. The MLS are in stadiums with grass fields and I think Skelley Stadium is artificial turf. Renovation of Drillers' Field would be a temporary option; however, Tulsa would have to commit to building a 22,000 - 25,000-seat soccer-football specific stadium which I don't think would fly with the tax payers unless a team relocated to Tulsa and keeping the team was contingent upon stadium approvial--much like MAPS for Hoops in OKC.

Oklahoma City on the otherhand could possibly get something of this magnitude done with the uncoming 2017 extension of MAPS III or in a separate MAPS IV initative.

Getting back on subject:

Here is a recent study by Biz Journal on cities and how they rank for major professional sports:

Tulsa would be ripe for MLS or the NHL; Tulsa ranked ahead of Albany, Omaha, Tuscon and Albuquerque...

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/houston-scores-high-for-the-nhl.html?appSession=97693114219879&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

Full link: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/houston-scores-high-for-the-nhl.html

Getting back on subject:

Here is a recent study by Biz Journal on cities and how they rank for major professional sports:

Tulsa would be ripe for MLS or the NHL; Tulsa ranked ahead of Albany, Omaha, Tuscon and Albuquerque...

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/houston-scores-high-for-the-nhl.html?appSession=97693114219879&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=3&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

Full link: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/08/houston-scores-high-for-the-nhl.html

I can see how already having a major pro team for a city our size makes OKC less attractive than Tulsa to move a team in but does anyone have an idea how the came up with Tulsa having $38.347 of "Available personal income (billions of dollars)" and OKC only having $15.063

does anyone have an idea how the came up with Tulsa having $38.347 of "Available personal income (billions of dollars)" and OKC only having $15.063

This is actually a fairly common metric in the business of sports: OKC's figure is lower because they've already subtracted out how much they thought was necessary to support the one major-league team that's already here. Note, for instance, that the San Francisco Bay area, far larger than OKC and Tulsa combined, can't support another NHL team: they have five major-league teams already.

Tulsa would be a nice place for an NBA franchise; however, they are within 100-miles of Oklahoma City. It is highly unlikely that the NBA would put two teams in Oklahoma on a permanent basis. This is the only 'breakthrough city' (city with no major league sports) besides Louisville which has the facilities in place to house an NBA franchise.

As far as the Kings are concerned; Anaheim is down the road with the Honda Center which is home to the NHL Mighty Ducks. This team (Kings) will probably never leave California.

Kansas City has the Sprint Center which is nice. If the NBA were to relocate to Kansas City it would become an overextented market.

Louisville has the new KFC Yum Center leased out where the NBA can not come in at this time. Old Freedom Hall would have to be a temporary home for an NBA franchise. Memphis' market almost mirrors Louisville; the advantage NBA Memhis has is the fact that the Grizzlies and the Memphis State Tigers both share the new FedEx Forum. An NBA team in Louisville playing in an antique arena (Freedom Hall) would have too much competition from the Cardinals playing in the newer facility.

St. Louis has a lease in which the Blues has exclusive rights to Scottrade Arena.

Cincinnati doesn't have an NBA-ready arena and they are too close (100 miles ) to Indianapolis. An NBA franchise would overextend its market.

Seattle has to have commitments from both the NBA and NHL to build a privately funded proposed arena. Seattle would become an overextended market with four major league franchises.

You are missing Vancouver from your analysis, which has probably the most upside to all of the available cities.

Vancouver already has an NBA arena and an ownership group committed to reversing the 'experiment' of the Grizzlies. David Stern admitted his biggest mistake was with Vancouver, and the fact he/they let that team sit there and rot. By having the same ownership as the Canucks, Vancouver's corporate support would still flow into the same channel and both teams could be well marketed (as if the Canucks need any marketing). Vancouver has an amazingly large and diverse urban population and this could play into the NBA's expansion ideas for China/Asia moreso than any other city. It is the closest major city to Asia and its demographics are well within the ability to attend games (especially if the team is marketed properly, the biggest mistake of the past). Vancouver could become the Asian/Chinese pipeline for the NBA that Toronto is for European players, and Vancouver would be a nice alternative (again) for Canadians who hate everything Toronto. Vancouver also puts a team back in the Pacific Northwest, creating a local rivalry for Portland, and helps the NBA from placiating to 'Seattle' when there still is no plan for an arena here and the NBA would very likely fail again if the NHL is necessary to get an arena. The Seattle market could be split between the two, with Seattle likely allying with Vancouver (the way Vancouver supports Seattle's NFL and MLB teams). Vancouver has three major professional sports (NHL, CFL, MLS) and the return of the NBA would not extend the market as long as Alquini (Canucks owner) also owns the NBA team. The only thing holding back Vancouver is 1) if the Maloofs would sell at least majority control to Alquini and 2) if the NBA is really serious about the China/Asia strategy (which has failed in every city they have tried thus far). One of the biggest arguments for Vancouver could be the return of natural regional alignment of teams; with OKC moving to the same league as Dallas/San Antonio and Vancouver to the NW, reducing travel costs and player fatigue that currently likely exists having OKC still in the Pac NW league.

One of the biggest arguments for Vancouver could be the return of natural regional alignment of teams; with OKC moving to the same league as Dallas/San Antonio and Vancouver to the NW, reducing travel costs and player fatigue that currently likely exists having OKC still in the Pac NW league.

Not really an argument - there was an article that statistically showed the air miles within the Northwest Division was at a shorter average distance between all teams in the Division when OKC replaced Seattle. Minnesota, Denver and Utah were closer to OKC than Seattle, which only Portland was close too in the Division.

The main benefit we might get in a change of divisions would probably be less games starting after 9:00 PM central. I like the one we have now just due to it seeming like we may control it for many years. LA Lakers and Dallas have owners much more willing and ability to devote to teams than most teams in the west.

The main benefit we might get in a change of divisions would probably be less games starting after 9:00 PM central. I like the one we have now just due to it seeming like we may control it for many years. LA Lakers and Dallas have owners much more willing and ability to devote to teams than most teams in the west.

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

We had three division games start after 9:00pm central: Feb. 6 @Portland was at 9, Feb. 10 @Utah was at 9:30, Mar. 27 @Portland was at 9. All other games (8, total of 11) that started at 9 or later were against the Pacific division teams. Point is generally the same: We'll play all the Western Conference teams during the year, so there will always be some late starts. Only way to avoid that is to be in the Eastern Conference (not possible).

we had 3 starts after 7 central all 830 starts n .. 0 starts after 9 central .. that won't change no matter what west division we are in

Wrong, we had 2 starts after 9 central and 1 after 9:30 central just last week. Clippers at 9:30 and PHX and SAC at 9:00 cst.