Fort Worth-Arlington area is where all the new growth is in the Metroplex. Dallas is 95% occupied--litte room for growth.

The 2012 population estimate for Fort Worth is 777,000 and Arlington is 375,000. Arlington is about the size of Tulsa.

Source: U.S. Census Quick Facts State and County QuickFacts (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html)

The MLB Texas Rangers and the NFL Dallas Cowboys reside in Arlington in separate venues. We know the City of Arlington and the Rangers built the Ballpark and the Cowboys built AT&T (JerrysWorld).

We are fortunate, our sales tax rates range is 8.25-8.375 cents/dollar in the OKC area; the Metroplex sales tax rate range from 9 -12 cents/dollar. Event Parking around the American Airlines Center (Mavericks/Stars) is $30 to $50. We pay $5 - $15 on nights the Thunder are home.

I own property in Oklahoma and Texas and when I claimed 'homestead' when I lived here vs. when I was living in the Metroplex (can't claim both states at the same time); I paid two-three times in property taxes more in Texas than in Oklahoma--whichever state I qualified for the exemption. My property in East Texas is much cheaper. You pay the County and the School District in most Texas city/county arrangements.

Dallas is landlocked for the most part, especially to the north but the north Dallas burbs are growing fast as well as those in the mid-cities and Fort Worth. Just 20 years ago when I lived there 121 was still a two lane road with barbed wire and fields on both sides, and McKinney was way outside of town, now it is just another burb. There was also a discernable gap in development between Carrollton, Lewisville and Denton, now they are just merged together.

Our property tax in Austin was 3,400 in 2012 (partial year residents there) for a house valued by Travis County at 155,000, we were 4 miles south of downtown in AISD. Our house valued for 265,000 in Unincorporated Arapahoe County (between Aurora and Centennial, Colorado) has property taxes of almost 1,300 (2013 taxes), that is in the Cherry Creek School District which is not one of the cheaper districts. Even if we lived in Aurora proper (in CCSD) the taxes would only be about 300-400 more. I know people in DFW who are not Oklahoma natives (no connection at all) and are buying lake property on the Oklahoma side of Texoma, Lake Murray or Lake of the Arbuckles because of the property tax differences. Most are buying it for retirement.

Has anyone seen this site:

Could Your City Give a Sports Team a Good Home? (http://wagesofwins.com/2011/10/31/could-your-city-give-a-sports-team-a-good-home/)

Just can't figure out their logic for Tulsa being able to support one of the following:

NHL * NFL * NBA * MLS

We (OKC) already have the NBA which means that there are about $15 MM left to support one of the other sports which would make us marginal for MLS.
We're at 49.23 with 15.0 available for being marginal with the MLS.

Tulsa ranked Yes for any one of the following: NHL, NFL, NBA & MLS.
Tulsa is right at 38.35 with 38.3 available for each of those catagories.

New Orleans received 52.48 with a -18.4. They have NFL & NBA. Could the tourists dollars be making up for this adjustment?

We definitely need to promote more venues which could increase our tourism intake.

What are your thoughts? Am I reading this wrong? Those with high stat apt please feel free to chime in...

They are looking at overall household income in the area. So OKC has $49 billion in personal income. They calculate that you need $34.2 billion in income to support the NBA. That leaves us $14.8 billion remaining to support other pro teams. They estimate that Major League Soccer requires $15.4 billion. So we'd be over-extended if we got another team. And given the size of our market and our overall income, only MLS would really be feasible. Hence, we're "marginal" with it.

Tulsa, on the other hand, has $38.35 billion in personal income. They are (according to these figures) using precisely zero of that to support a pro team. So they could support the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, or MLS. Note that the NFL, NBA, or NHL would basically eat up every penny they had.

New Orleans is actually over-extended. What we're seeing now is that they can't support both teams. Yes, they have the NFL and NBA, but the Hornets are not long for the city and it was only sympathy from Hurricane Katrina that kept them there as long as they have been.

Has anyone seen this site:

Could Your City Give a Sports Team a Good Home? (http://wagesofwins.com/2011/10/31/could-your-city-give-a-sports-team-a-good-home/)

Just can't figure out their logic for Tulsa being able to support one of the following:

This site is using a formula that was developed by bizjournals a couple of years ago, to read more about the methodology used you can visit:

Methodology: Market Capacity for Pro Sports (http://upstart.bizjournals.com/industry-news/sports/2009/12/07/methodology-market-capacity-for-pro-sports.html?page=all)

Thanks,

Kokopelli

New Orleans is actually over-extended. What we're seeing now is that they can't support both teams. Yes, they have the NFL and NBA, but the Hornets are not long for the city and it was only sympathy from Hurricane Katrina that kept them there as long as they have been.
They are the Pelicans now...Charlotte is taking back the Hornets name starting for the 2014-15 season.

Probably the vast majority of ticket holders were already in the suburbs. In some ways it will make it easier to pay debt after the fall out is over of the case. Longer term though their bigger problem is that things like migration out of town, low housing prices, crime, unusually low income of tax base, corruption and slow job creation still have a lot of work after the bankruptcy process is over if they are to be solved. Though there is also a chance one of the wealthier suburbs or the state may pick up the tab on the next stadium.
Keep in mind that the Detroit metro area has as many people in it as all of Oklahoma. That's quite a cushion in the face of bankrupt Detroit.

They are the Pelicans now...Charlotte is taking back the Hornets name starting for the 2014-15 season.

Pelicans? Doesn't sound like a good name for a football team, unless they want to come across as underdogs, or underbirds as in the Pelicans against the Eagles.

Pelicans? Doesn't sound like a good name for a football team, unless they want to come across as underdogs, or underbirds as in the Pelicans against the Eagles.

It is for their basketball team, not that it is any better for basketball than football

It is for their basketball team, not that it is any better for basketball than football

Supposedly, it's an homage to the nickname for the state: The Pelican State. Looks like they're trying to increase the buy in for the Pelicans nee Hornets as more then just a New Orleans thing.

The first time I heard the name New Orleans Pelicans was way back before New Orleans and Atlanta were awarded NFL expansion franchises.

Sports Illustrated had the teams listed for name sake as the:

New Orleans Pelicans
Atlanta Crackers (meaning firecrackers).

If you're from the South, you know as well as I do why that nane (Crackers) didn't go over regardless of what was intended.

I was surprised to see the name Pelicans resurface until I heard why they wanted to use it.

Can you imagine the Thunder someday becoming the Oklahoma City Supersooners? Wouldn't have been as controversial as the Oklahoma City Supersonics?

Pretty interesting story from ex-OSU QB Rusty Hilger Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City RUSTY HILGER (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

Supposedly, it's an homage to the nickname for the state: The Pelican State. Looks like they're trying to increase the buy in for the Pelicans nee Hornets as more then just a New Orleans thing.

Supposedly for sure... they just used it as a reason to give Charlotte back the Hornets name before the New Orleans team moves somewhere else and changes anyway.

Pretty interesting story from ex-OSU QB Rusty Hilger Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City RUSTY HILGER (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

I am a little confused on that rendering in the article. Was that supposed to OKC or Oakland?

I don't think we will see an NFL team here by 2020, but soon after that could work. We would only have 8-10 games/year and they would fall mostly on Sunday, Monday and sometimes Thursday. With a population the size of Oklahoma City and having two major sports teams, the teams would have to work with each other to make sure we don't have a lot of overlapping going on when it comes to games. Of course, that would only be an issue for about 10 or so NFL games/year.

It would be cool if one of the guys fighting to bring in pro soccer would buy into an ownership group and get the stadium built to house both football and soccer. Kill two birds with one stone.

The rendering is the of the proposed Farmers Field in downtown L.A.

Rusty Hilger is just putting forth an idea without anything to back it up.

While I hold that OKC *could* support an NFL team in about 12 years were our corporations to be in good enough standing (it would take an unbelievable next 12 years) I don't want OKC to get another professional franchise until 2030 at the earliest. This city already spends way too much on sports as it is between the Thunder and OU and the myriad other sports things. At some point, we need to invest more in the arts and education.

Revival of the USFL may be an option to professional football outside the NFL. Formation of a new league just below the NFL could be attractive. You will see more articles like this in the next three to five years.

Boston Globe By Kevin Paul Dupont
| February 17, 2013


Other than that seed money, USFL owners must prove they have another $6.5 million in ready cash to run the team each year.

“That’s really not a lot,’’ said Cuadra, who was born in Nicaragua and came to the US six months later when his family moved to San Francisco. “We really feel that we’ve nailed it down.’’

Ideally, said Cuadra, the USFL will evolve in three or four years to a 16-team league, playing almost exclusively in cities absent NFL or Major League Baseball clubs. Cuadra wouldn’t be specific, but cities such as Birmingham, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Austin, Omaha, and others are the league’s primary targets, offering population density and less competition for the sporting dollar.

New USFL aims for new spring football league - Sports - The Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/02/17/new-usfl-aims-for-new-spring-football-league/XCnd7SJ1G0tfdiuJB7xUFI/story.html)

If we are going to build a stadium, construct something for multiple use for events like soccer (NASL, MLS), american football (high school, collegiate division II) track & field events, lacrosse, amphitheater and other events.

We're talking about building something 9,000-14,000 seats. We need to be thinking along the lines of 25,000 - 75,000 seats where to expand a stadium for the future we don't exceed original costs through expansion (adding on later).

Who knows? There may be some NFL franchises ready to relocate in around 2020. Do we want to be in a position without having to negotiate with Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (OU) as we did when we lost the USFL 'Outlaws' to Tulsa in the 70s? That contract OU put before the old USFL sealed the fate of the league from being successful in Oklahoma. Jacksonville's performance in the old World Football Leauge made them more attractive to the NFL.

How long has San Antonio been trying? and it sure isn't working out for them... they Built a Stadium to bring an NFL team there... and aside from a few preseason games and the temp relocation of the Saints after Katrina, it has been unused by Pro Football

For San Antonio's case, the issue was that for some odd reason, Paul Tagliabue disliked San Antonio as a market. Then in the early 90s when the NFL extended by two teams, he thought Jacksonville was a better market and had a better future than San Antonio. As we can see some 20 years later, that wasn't two in the least and choosing Jacksonville over San Antonio was a blunder on his part.

For San Antonio's case, the issue was that for some odd reason, Paul Tagliabue disliked San Antonio as a market. Then in the early 90s when the NFL extended by two teams, he thought Jacksonville was a better market and had a better future than San Antonio. As we can see some 20 years later, that wasn't two in the least and choosing Jacksonville over San Antonio was a blunder on his part.

If I recall, that was 1994-95 expansion Carolina (Charlotte) and Jacksonville were admitted to the NFL while a much bigger markets like San Antonio, St. Louis, Baltimore and Memphis were passed over. The Rams left Los Angeles for St. Louis leaving LA without an NFL franchise as the Raiders returned to Oakland.


Surprisingly, Oklahoma City was considered for expansion back in the 1969-76 era when there was talk of building a 100,000-seat stadium at Fair Park. Insurance executive E.L. "Jim" Roederer, a candidate for mayor was pushing this as a part of his platform. When Roederer was defeated so went the plans for the State Fair financed stadium. OKC was definitely on the NFL's radar.

In 2008 a group of investors led by Jerry Kobyluk proposed building a 100,000-seat retractable dome stadium? This received little if any local media attention.



Proposed NFL Expansion 1969-76:

Proposed NFL Expansion » FootballGeography.com (http://www.footballgeography.com/proposed-nfl-expansion/)

The article suggest we use MAP III money to build the stadium for the Raiders.......
...
....
.....
......
Now that I have stopped laughing, which MAPS III projects get scrapped to make way for the stadium?

The article suggest we use MAP III money to build the stadium for the Raiders.......
...
....
.....
......
Now that I have stopped laughing, which MAPS III projects get scrapped to make way for the stadium?

I think you misunderstood:

"Continuing the MAPS 3 tax for another three years would create the necessary revenue for an Oakland Raiders stadium plan."

Surprisingly, Oklahoma City was considered for expansion back in the 1969-76 era when there was talk of building a 100,000-seat stadium at Fair Park. Insurance executive E.L. "Jim" Roederer, a candidate for mayor was pushing this as a part of his platform. When Roederer was defeated so went the plans for the State Fair financed stadium. OKC was definitely on the NFL's radar.


An abortive version of that stadium eventually received lukewarm support from then-governor Henry Bellmon such that it went on a statewide ballot, but by then had been dissected and chopped down to a "20,000-seat multipurpose arena" question that was quite thoroughly crushed.

I think you misunderstood:

"Continuing the MAPS 3 tax for another three years would create the necessary revenue for an Oakland Raiders stadium plan."

Oops - I stand corrected. Thanks. So does this mean the Stadium would be built last or wiggle its way up to the front?

Oops - I stand corrected. Thanks. So does this mean the Stadium would be built last or wiggle its way up to the front?

Again, this is a pie in the sky dream, but I would guess it would be at the end because all of the other projects would have been started by then. Although, a new football stadium would bring in a lot more revenue but I wouldn't think the city council would ok an extension for an NFL stadium to be built even with the broad meaning of "capital improvements." I would guess there would be a new vote for the stadium (much like the arena improvements plan vote) and it would go on from there. So, even if the vote was passed and the tax was collecting, we wouldn't get any money from it until January of 2018. So, the stadium probably wouldn't even start construction until almost 2020.

An abortive version of that stadium eventually received lukewarm support from then-governor Henry Bellmon such that it went on a statewide ballot, but by then had been dissected and chopped down to a "20,000-seat multipurpose arena" question that was quite thoroughly crushed.

As late as 1984 there was talk of a 55,000-seat dome stadium by the Fairgrounds Trust.

A previous feasibility study had been done in 1972 (State Fair Board Trust).

"I would love to see us have some kind of professional sports team come here," Coats added. "Every time a business talks about locating here they want to know about professional athletics."

Study Sought On City Dome | News OK (http://newsok.com/study-sought-on-city-dome/article/2074333)


I would love to see them build something at Fair Park to replace many of the iconic structures which have been demolished or are currently non-functional.*

1. Grand Stands were demolished
2. *Arrow to Atoms Space Tower
3. Monorail torn down.

Oklahoma State Fair: Some State Fair highlights now just a memory | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-fair-some-state-fair-highlights-now-just-a-memory/article/3601624)

About the time OKC was repeatedly NOT building a dome.... Indianapolis was busy building one... It seems to have worked out for them.

I know what you mean WichitaSooner...but...

Along came United Airlines - and picked Indy over OKC because of 'quality of life' (AKA - the NFL). Then United turned out to be bust leaving Indy with so much debt at their airport they will never be able to pay it off
Then the temporary $150 million RCA dome that lured the Colts was imploded and replaced with a temporary $750 million stadium.

Their 'success' has come at a high price ($1.9 billion in debt). Carmel (an Indy suburb) is $1 billion in debt (not sure how a suburb got $1 billion in debt though).

Carmel (an Indy suburb) is $1 billion in debt (not sure how a suburb got $1 billion in debt though).

By building too many roundabouts? :)

I know what you mean WichitaSooner...but...

Along came United Airlines - and picked Indy over OKC because of 'quality of life' (AKA - the NFL). Then United turned out to be bust leaving Indy with so much debt at their airport they will never be able to pay it off
Then the temporary $150 million RCA dome that lured the Colts was imploded and replaced with a temporary $750 million stadium.

Their 'success' has come at a high price ($1.9 billion in debt). Carmel (an Indy suburb) is $1 billion in debt (not sure how a suburb got $1 billion in debt though).

These are the risks you take when bidding for a manufacturer to bring thousands of jobs to your community of which a lot of satellite businesses follow. What's the trade off? How long was United Airlines Maintenance facility there in Indianapolis before closing their doors? What was the economic impact while that corporation was there?

We experienced the same when we built the GM plant in OKC? Now the old GM Plant facility continues to serve an alternate purpose. There are risks involved in these type of fishing expeditions. Monroe, LA beat us out for a maintenance facility some decades back; that facility is still in operation. Did quality of life make the difference in that decision? Who knows what goes on behind-the-scenes in these high stakes bidding battles.

You come away with the 'Grand Prize' and it turns sour before you can get it into the freezer. Do we stop attempting to lure these manufacturing giants? Or do we continue to bait that hook and try for the next big catch-of-the-day.

Business deals have always brought about an element of risk as well as an element of surprise...

Revival of the USFL may be an option to professional football outside the NFL.

the USFL has been trying to make a come back since 2008... and it hasn't happened since.

I'm surprised that this thread has been resurrected. We should rename it 'Jesus'.

I'm glad OKC didn't build a dome, domes suck (and I'm from the home of THE Dome)

About the time OKC was repeatedly NOT building a dome.... Indianapolis was busy building one... It seems to have worked out for them.

Actually I think this is more reason for people to drop this OKC NFL fantasy.

In addition to what JTF said, Pacers attendance has been dreadful in the past few years. As in 5th from last in 2013, despite having a pretty good team. Colts attendance has historically been much better but maintaining that is not guaranteed, especially with Peyton Manning gone. And outside of basketball, college sports is nowhere near as supported there then here.

So if a market quite a bit larger cannot support 2 teams, what does that say about OKC's chances?

Actually I think this is more reason for people to drop this OKC NFL fantasy.

In addition to what JTF said, Pacers attendance has been dreadful in the past few years. As in 5th from last in 2013, despite having a pretty good team. Colts attendance has historically been much better but maintaining that is not guaranteed, especially with Peyton Manning gone. And outside of basketball, college sports is nowhere near as supported there then here.

So if a market quite a bit larger cannot support 2 teams, what does that say about OKC's chances?

One of the things you learn about a market is that some are unique. You can always lump them all into one catagory and say 'if it doesn't work in a larger city then it won't work in a smaller one.

Using the model of minor league sports as a gauge for major professional sports doesn't always fit the mold; this can sometimes be misleading. There are many variables to be considered. New Orleans for example based on its population and demographics is an overextended market to support both the NFL and NBA franchises. There are exceptions to the rules.

Sure in your opinion it's a fantasy or pipedream as most people like to put it. What harm is there in posters expressing their opinions? The year 2020 could bring about a complete demographic transformation for Oklahoma City.

I know the NFL is a different animal and on a mega level than the NBA.

How well in my recollection (late 80s) posters were saying that Oklahoma City would never get an NHL franchise. We finished high in the NHL expansion derby in 1997. That pipedream or fantasy didn't die. Nashville was one of those cities poised to get an NHL expansion fanchise in 97 along with Atlanta, Minneasota (St. Paul) and Columbus. Raleigh, N.C. was able to relocate the Hartford Whalers to their city during that same period. Houston and Oklahoma City were said to have been left out in the cold. We leap-frogged the NHL all the way to the NBA.

IMO: Nashville, Raleigh and Columbus would have preferred to NBA over the NHL.

In our brief experiment with the New Orleans Hornets we far exceeded the standard for housing a temporary NBA team. That opened the gates for the relocation of the Supersonic to our city. The new OKC Thunder was the result of that NBA transplant. We wil begin our eighth year hosting the NBA and our OKC NBAThuner resume looks impressive:

2008-09 Oklahoma City Thunder 97.7 (18,693)
2009-10 Oklahoma City Thunder 98.9 (18,003) arena reconfigured and downsized to 18,203
2010-11 Oklahoma City Thunder 99.7 (18,148)
2011-12 Oklahoma City Thunder 100.0 (18,203)
2012-13 Oklahoma City Thunder 100.0 (18,203)

Source: 2012-2013 NBA Attendance - National Basketball Association - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance)

Mayor Mick Cornett summed it up by saying that smart cities plan ahead...

Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

All jokes aside....
This is not going to happen.

If only...

Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

So let the voters decide if they want a penny in city sales tax to go to a pro football stadium.

Can't help but agree that Oklahoma City would be used as a pawn to up the ante on getting the stadium project completed in Oakland.

Has history taught us anything? Just how serious are the Raiders about building a stadium in Oklahoma City? Remember the Houston Oilers flirting with the City of Nashville. Nashville had the Oilers in bed quicker than two rabbits could mate. Nashville's mayor locked the Oilers into an 'exclusive agreement' while negotiating with the Oilers to relocate to the Music City. That meant 'there were no counter offers' from Houston during the process; this kept Nashville from being used as a pawn.

"Confronted by this unprecedented opposition, Adams once again drew the ultimate weapon: the threat of a move from the city. First, he pitted nearby county against county in a bid for a new stadium. Then, for good measure, the Oilers commissioned a study from a major accounting firm—the kind of study that ignores basic principles of economics, the failure of government industrial policy, and the efficiency of the private sector—which asserted that a new dome for the Oilers would be worth $20 million annually to Houston. Still, none of it turned the tide in Adams’s favor.

Nashville Woos the Oilers

So, in August 1995, he opened negotiations with the city of Nashville. Unlike Houston, Nashville and the state of Tennessee had wooed Adams. The city had long wanted to be “big league.” Mayor Phil Bredesen had already built a new hockey arena without a National Hockey League tenant; so he stood more than willing to build a football stadium for an actual NFL team. And Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist announced that state taxpayers also would be tapped to help bring the Oilers to Nashville.

Back in Houston, Lanier started to crack. He offered a deal to build an open-air stadium for Adams. But Adams decided it was too little too late, and besides, it supposedly was too hot to play outside in Houston."

The NFL Oilers: A Case Study in Corporate Welfare : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-nfl-oilers-a-case-study-in-corporate-welfare#axzz2fZ5NglJ1)

Oklahoma's Gaylold Family Memorial Stadium (82,000-plus) would make a temporary home if the team had to exit the Bay early.
So, if the Raiders are serious, there is a sure way to find out.

This may be what the Raiders need to get that stadium built in Oakland; because with two NFL franchises in the area (49ers getting a new stadium), Oklahoma City would be just the 'can do city' to flirt with as a relocation destination if Oakland doesn't get the job done. Oakland only needs to ask Seattle about Oklahoma City's adulteress ways.

Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

I was expecting to see that this was on The Onion. Call me surprised.

Oakland Raiders Stadium Plan A Field Of Dreams In Oklahoma City (http://rustyhilger.com/oakland-raiders-stadium-plan-a-field-of-dreams-in-oklahoma-city/)

It did kinda feel like April today...

One of the things you learn about a market is that some are unique. You can always lump them all into one catagory and say 'if it doesn't work in a larger city then it won't work in a smaller one.

Using the model of minor league sports as a gauge for major professional sports doesn't always fit the mold; this can sometimes be misleading. There are many variables to be considered. New Orleans for example based on its population and demographics is an overextended market to support both the NFL and NBA franchises. There are exceptions to the rules.

Sure in your opinion it's a fantasy or pipedream as most people like to put it. What harm is there in posters expressing their opinions? The year 2020 could bring about a complete demographic transformation for Oklahoma City.

I know the NFL is a different animal and on a mega level than the NBA.

How well in my recollection (late 80s) posters were saying that Oklahoma City would never get an NHL franchise. We finished high in the NHL expansion derby in 1997. That pipedream or fantasy didn't die. Nashville was one of those cities poised to get an NHL expansion fanchise in 97 along with Atlanta, Minneasota (St. Paul) and Columbus. Raleigh, N.C. was able to relocate the Hartford Whalers to their city during that same period. Houston and Oklahoma City were said to have been left out in the cold. We leap-frogged the NHL all the way to the NBA.

IMO: Nashville, Raleigh and Columbus would have preferred to NBA over the NHL.
In our brief experiment with the New Orleans Hornets we far exceeded the standard for housing a temporary NBA team. That opened the gates for the relocation of the Supersonic to our city. The new OKC Thunder was the result of that NBA transplant. We wil begin our eighth year hosting the NBA and our OKC NBAThuner resume looks impressive:

2008-09 Oklahoma City Thunder 97.7 (18,693)
2009-10 Oklahoma City Thunder 98.9 (18,003) arena reconfigured and downsized to 18,203
2010-11 Oklahoma City Thunder 99.7 (18,148)
2011-12 Oklahoma City Thunder 100.0 (18,203)
2012-13 Oklahoma City Thunder 100.0 (18,203)

Source: 2012-2013 NBA Attendance - National Basketball Association - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance)

Mayor Mick Cornett summed it up by saying that smart cities plan ahead...

Totally Agree! the NBA is much better than the NHL and those Cities you mentioned with NHL franchises would switch in a heartbeat!

What OKC really needs to do is spend the next 15 years improving on its transportation, its education, and its economy. The more improvements we make to our quality of life, the more people will move here. If we add another 10 buildings to our skyline of 500'+ (on the high end, but possible), that will mean we have a stronger corporate presence, a growing population, and more wealth.

At a certain point, we will become very attractive for an NFL team. In 2030, there will be some team that is in trouble. They will be wanting a new arena. Their ownership group will be losing money. They will have a bad relationship with their city. We will be voting on MAPS 6 or something. If we have a metro area population of 1.9 million and are voting to build a new 65,000 seat multi-purpose arena, I think we'll have a legit shot at a team.

Interesting finding by Bleachler Report (2011) on NFL potential relocation or expansion cities:

"It's rumored that several teams, including the Jacksonville Jaguars, San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, and (less frequently) the Buffalo Bills and Minnesota Vikings, could be seeking new homes. It's also occasionally rumored that the NFL might expand to as many as forty teams." Oakland, San Diego, Minnesota & Buffalo are aggressively seeking to replace their current facilities.

Excerpts on OKC:

5. Oklahoma City and Vegas seem to have been the hot expansion/relocation topics for the last few years. Oklahoma City now (unfortunately) has the Thunder, and isn't a big enough market to accommodate much more than that.
...They would need a new stadium, but they could use Gaylord/Oklahoma Memorial in the interim.


NFL: Potential Cities it Could Move or Expand To | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/844925-nfl-potential-cities-it-could-move-or-expand-to)

If Oklahoma City and Tulsa could work together and build something in between both cities; an NFL franchise would be a lot more pliable. Really don't see one (OKC) of these cities being able to bring in an NFL franchise since much of the NBA and NFL seasons interlock. OKC has the NBA and our 2020 population numbers and 2020 potential corporate support will determine how far into the future we can increase our major professional sports menu.

Oklahoma City now (unfortunately) has the Thunder

Boy people are just never going to get over this are they?

If Oklahoma City and Tulsa could work together and build something in between both cities; an NFL franchise would be a lot more pliable. Really don't see one (OKC) of these cities being able to bring in an NFL franchise since much of the NBA and NFL seasons interlock. OKC has the NBA and our 2020 population numbers and 2020 potential corporate support will determine how far into the future we can increase our major professional sports menu.

Who in the world is going to go to a stadium in Stroud to watch football? Those will be some amazing shots from the blimps...big stadium and then nothing but empty fields. You also lose every single benefit of having the stadium in a city (restaurants, shops, hotels, etc).

Who in the world is going to go to a stadium in Stroud to watch football? Those will be some amazing shots from the blimps...big stadium and then nothing but empty fields. You also lose every single benefit of having the stadium in a city (restaurants, shops, hotels, etc).

Locate it in Oklahoma City (preferably downtown), have OKC and Tulsa split the cost to get that dang rail line up and running between the two cities. Have someone sponser a few pre-game party trains before the games.

Game at noon on Sunday:
TUL-OKC
0800-0915
0900-1015
1000-1115

OKC-TUL
1700-1815
2030-2145
2300-1215

If I lived in Tulsa, it would be so fun to spend Sunday getting pregamed in the morning on the train to OKC. Watching an NFL game. Going to some afterparties in Bricktown (or anywhere downtown because of the streetcar). Then taking the train back to Tulsa. Talk about a fun day. Not have to worry about traffic, parking, driving drunk, etc.

That is a cool idea. Of course I doubt Tulsa would go for it since they would probably argue you could just as easily "train" people up from OKC. It'll probably have to be an OKC centered project and throw a bone to Tulsa once it is settled.

You're probably right. But, OKC is the larger city and the fastest growing. Someday the neighbors up the turnpike will need to accept reality, because when the opportunity comes around to snag an NFL team. It will most likely be a statewide effort.

Nothing needs to be built in Stroud to serve both cities, it needs to be in one or the other because the majority of the time it will be used for something other than football. Especially if it was a retractable roof. The reason why Arlington works is that area is already fully developed and there is a third of the distance between Dallas and Fort Worth than there is between OKC and Tulsa. People from all over the state and bordering states travel to games in Norman and Stillwater. People from all over the region travel to Denver for Broncos games and Dallas for Cowboys games. I would think putting a stadium in Stroud is a non-starter for potential owners and the league.

Nothing needs to be built in Stroud to serve both cities, it needs to be in one or the other because the majority of the time it will be used for something other than football. Especially if it was a retractable roof. The reason why Arlington works is that area is already fully developed and there is a third of the distance between Dallas and Fort Worth than there is between OKC and Tulsa. People from all over the state and bordering states travel to games in Norman and Stillwater. People from all over the region travel to Denver for Broncos games and Dallas for Cowboys games. I would think putting a stadium in Stroud is a non-starter for potential owners and the league.

Yup exactly. I would think if such a facility were built, a bowl game and even a bid for the title game would be put in.

Not to mention, God would probably just take out any stadium there with a massive F5.

While the land is available, let's just build a stadium on the Mother Road near Arcadia. Easy access via 66 from the 35, then create a more efficient route off of 44 for the Tulsa area fans. Win.

While the land is available, let's just build a stadium on the Mother Road near Arcadia. Easy access via 66 from the 35, then create a more efficient route off of 44 for the Tulsa area fans. Win.

That would never happen. This thing would create one helluva tax base. OKC wouldn't give that up to Edmond or Stroud. The only way they'd give it up is if Tulsa sold a better deal.

Mind you...my above scenario is only if anyone was crazy enough to move/purchase an NFL franchise to Oklahoma which I still think is asinine.

Just wish Oklahoma City and Tulsa would have planned together on a strategic airport to serve both communities. Each city has invested a lot in airport upgrades (Will Rogers World/Tulsa International).

What impact would high-speed rail have between OKC-TUL?*


There are some great arguments both pro & con for building a stadium; any easy solutions? Oklahoma City has the track record for taking on projects of this magnitude. It is encouraging that there will probably be some kind of stadium on a MAPS (2017) initiative which could include a private-public partnership development.

The arguments & concerns have ranged from:

1) We can't build a huge stadium (50,000 plus); it would be too spacious for our current needs.

2) Build it small; later expand--costs could exceed construction's initial investment.

3) We build now; we will be in a position to bid on events.

Have we learned from experience? The indoor sports arena initially cost $90 million (MAPS I); we're added $100 million (MAPS for HOOPS) in renovations.

Could feasibility assessments; if completed answer these questions?

Oklahoma City is at the crossroads. Our projected population (2015-2020) could range from 1.3 to 1.6 million. True there are arguments that San Antonio built a dome and never got an NFL franchise (Wouldn't hold my breath). San Antonio's proximity (Houston, Dallas) may have been the biggest factor. Having three NCAA Division I football universities within a 150-mile radius isn't exactly a plus . That 150-miles radius (OKC-TUL-FORT SMITH, WICHITA, LAWTON-WICHITA FALLS) is what the NFL uses to gauge a city for potential expansion/relocation.

*Feasibility studies needed?

OKC is already at 1.3 million at 2012. I'd project OKC to range 1.45 to 2.0 million between 2015-2020.

That said, while I know OKC could support the NFL today (particularly if Clay Bennett bought a team and that games would assuredly mostly be on Sundays/Mondays/Thursdays when OU does not have home games on Saturday); I want us to wait until 2020 to grow into the city we're building and THEN go after our second team (maybe third also with MLS). Again, we want it to be successful and NFL tends to be a different animal than the NBA.

Surely OKC is in a football state and surely if OKC didn't have the NBA then the city definitely could support NFL along with OU/OSU, but having the NBA means we need to properly nourish it then add another team after we've grown some more. Portland is at the point I'm talking about (2M metro) but I think OKC would be far more attractive when WE get there since we're in a football state (whereas OR really isn't despite the recent success of UofO).

As for the stadium, one does not need to build a HUGE stadium for the NFL like you do for college football. We could go for 55K-65K seats (something akin to Seattle's C-Link). I too am not sold on the retractable roof/domed idea; again - OKC is in football country. 2020 will be telling and if we make the projections everyone hopes for (and it appears that way) then I'd say OKC could begin planning for a NFL team with (say) MAPS 5.

Let's start marketing it as MAP5!;)

Personally, I think Harold Hamm would be a great NFL owner. I remember people (locals in particular) saying that OKC could not support a NBA team, even when the Hornets were here. We proved them wrong. Now we seem to forget what we have here and how much people here love sports. I think the group that woud suffer to most from the NFL in OKC would be OU football. Many of the non-alumni fans would, over time, make the transistion to the pros. It might take a generation, maybe two but I really think it would happen. I want to see what happens whent he OKC NFL team drafts a Univ. of Texas QB. :D

While the land is available, let's just build a stadium on the Mother Road near Arcadia. Easy access via 66 from the 35, then create a more efficient route off of 44 for the Tulsa area fans. Win.


No Thanks ... NIMBY!

There's already plenty of places to put an NFL stadium inside Okc.

That is a cool idea. Of course I doubt Tulsa would go for it since they would probably argue you could just as easily "train" people up from OKC. It'll probably have to be an OKC centered project and throw a bone to Tulsa once it is settled.

True. Tulsa has no interest in supporting anything that will make them appear as Oklahoma's "second" metro even though that's what they are. Whenever something gets proposed for OKC, Tulsa comes in and tries to convince them that Tulsa is the better location, and whenever something gets completed in OKC, Tulsa tries to copy it bigger and better.

I also have strong doubts the OKC metro will reach the 2 million mark by 2020. That would be great if it happens but this would have to become a serious boomtown ala Austin or Charlotte in the 2000s. I don't see OKC's national perception as positive enough yet to make it happen.