From the Oklahoman, Thunder expands its TV viewership area by 65 percent | News OK (http://newsok.com/thunder-expands-its-tv-viewership-area-by-65-percent/article/3898914)

I long mentioned in forums that OKC had a much larger population in its true catchment viewing area than Seattle had with the Sonics. If you break down the area, 3.8 million households in OK, KS, NE, W MO, and AR equates to 15 million people. By contrast, Seattle's catchment area is larger (with WA outside of the SW which belongs to Portland, North ID, MT, and AK) brings about 2 million households and maybe 7 million people. With OKC, you get the major population centers of OKC and KC along with OMA, LIT, TUL, and ICT. With SEA, you only get SEA-TAC along with the much lesser 2nd's of SPO, ANK, and BIL. I'm sure the NBA thought about this and this made it 'easier' for the move since 15 million is more than double 7. Even if you bring in nearby Vancouver Canada you'd still be with less people than the OKC catchment.

As for the OKC area, I'm surprised that Omaha and Little Rock are going with OKC, since Omaha could go with Chicago, Minny, or Denver and LIT usually goes with or falls under Memphis. I'm also surprised that OKC doesn't include West and far NW TX (Amarillo, Lubbuck, Wichita Falls) since those areas often fall under OKC region for other things, particularly NW TX/Wichita Falls.

I wonder if the Thunder will have a rotating exhibition game in KC-OMA-TUL-ICT-LIT in the preseason since they all have new/large arenas and could reinforce the ? If it were my decision, I'd recommend rotating between KC-OMA-LIT and having the annual games currently in TUL and ICT since they are more of the 'core' market while the three are expanded.

Anyway, I think this is great news for Oklahoma City; we're going to be better reinforced big city name in the minds of people in the region the way that KC and DEN has been in the past.

I also think the expansion is great. The Thunder have a chance to become the pro basketball equivalent of the Dallas Cowboys or the St. Louis Cardinals in this region of the country. I'd be willing to bet that the Dallas Mavericks and Mark Cuban have something to do with the Texas markets not being in the fold.

The ratings of the 30 games in the KC market must have been pretty good last year, otherwise they wouldn't have doubled the number televised this year. It definitely makes sense to play at least a preseason game at the Sprint Center in KC.

My family would certainly be happy if they had an Omaha pre-season game.

I am getting the Timberwolves on my regional Fox Sports channel in Omaha right now, been that way as long as I can remember. Would be nice to watch games for a team that is actually competitive for a change. I definitely see more OKC than Minny gear in Omaha.

This is great news! I'm curious what affect these new numbers have on the Fox/Thunder tv contract. More money? Those numbers should put us a little ahead, at least, of some of the other small markets.

Interesting that there's more OKC gear than Minny in Omaha already. ...

Urban, please keep us posted on when the games are aired up there (if any) and what is your perception of the good folks in Omaha to the Thunder. I am excited about the expansion and would like to keep tabs on how it is presented and received in your city. Also, I really do hope the team will at least have some sort of rotation in the preseason so you guys can enjoy the team in your arena.

good times!

I apologize for crossing threads and / or taking this thread off target, but this article goes further to explain why OKC Thunder success would not necessarily translate to OKC NFL success. Our NFL catchment area would be far smaller, if you account for the presence of the KC Chiefs and STL Rams.

It's great to have a big area, but you can't just add those numbers up without considering the intensity of the fan base. For example, the population of OKC is much more likely to watch a Thunder game than the population of Omaha even if they both get the game. Similarly, people in the entire state of Washington are far more likely to be Sonics' fans than the people in states near Oklahoma that are being added. It's not just having viewers in your market, but they actually have to watch games for this to be a great coup. It's still great news, but the markets are like comparing apples and oranges.

I apologize for crossing threads and / or taking this thread off target, but this article goes further to explain why OKC Thunder success would not necessarily translate to OKC NFL success. Our NFL catchment area would be far smaller, if you account for the presence of the KC Chiefs and STL Rams.

Very different sports, with very different TV contract situations. 16 game regular season and at most 4 playoff games in a 32 team league and split television revenue is a lot different than 82 games in a 30 team league with teams having their own contracts for a vast majority of their games. The maximum number of nationally broadcast games you're allowed to have in the NBA is something in the 25 to 35 range. In the NFL every one of your regular season games is broadcast nationally.

You don't need any catchment area at all for the NFL…you only need corporate sponsors, a stadium, and high usage of your ridiculously expensive suites...the television will take care of itself.

It's great to have a big area, but you can't just add those numbers up without considering the intensity of the fan base. For example, the population of OKC is much more likely to watch a Thunder game than the population of Omaha even if they both get the game. Similarly, people in the entire state of Washington are far more likely to be Sonics' fans than the people in states near Oklahoma that are being added. It's not just having viewers in your market, but they actually have to watch games for this to be a great coup. It's still great news, but the markets are like comparing apples and oranges.

Similarly, the attitude of West Coasters to sports is a lot different than they are in Texas/Oklahoma and the South. Oregon's stadium, though it's been a relatively successful program for almost 10 years (and the last 5 being their most successful ever), is still only at 54,000. Seattle has multiple pro franchises and so the money and attention that the Sonics would get is different than OKC where there's nothing else.

It's great to have a big area, but you can't just add those numbers up without considering the intensity of the fan base. For example, the population of OKC is much more likely to watch a Thunder game than the population of Omaha even if they both get the game. Similarly, people in the entire state of Washington are far more likely to be Sonics' fans than the people in states near Oklahoma that are being added. It's not just having viewers in your market, but they actually have to watch games for this to be a great coup. It's still great news, but the markets are like comparing apples and oranges.

Yeah, to me it's like before the Thunder were even a dream for OKC...this area was considered in the Dallas Mavericks market. I never cared one iota for that team and it never got me interested in watching NBA basketball. Can't imagine it's all that different for people who live in a city outside of this state.

This ^^^ is why I think it's important to keep that pre-season game in Wichita, needs to be permanent like in Tulsa at the BOK. Build that fan base. I heard an interview a couple years ago from the Kansas State mens BB team that said they got the Thunder on cable in Manhattan, and they made a point to watch whenever they could. Also, my brother lives in Sedona Arizona, he told me they got the Thunder on FoxAZ.......said they watched 20 games or so last year. So the brand is growing.

I agree with keeping preseason games in Tulsa and Wichita for the foreseeable future. Those are definitely the markets that are close enough for fans to drive in for a game, which makes a difference. But it wouldn't hurt for the Thunder to host an alternating 3rd preseason "home" game between Little Rock, KC, and Omaha.

Also, my brother lives in Sedona Arizona, he told me they got the Thunder on FoxAZ.......said they watched 20 games or so last year. So the brand is growing.

That's fantastic, as my sister lives in Flagstaff. Unfortunately they don't subscribe to cable services. Now my uncle and aunt, who live in Sedona, as well, may be interested. Good to know!

I agree with keeping preseason games in Tulsa and Wichita for the foreseeable future. Those are definitely the markets that are close enough for fans to drive in for a game, which makes a difference. But it wouldn't hurt for the Thunder to host an alternating 3rd preseason "home" game between Little Rock, KC, and Omaha.

I like that idea. The only problem is you can only have so many "home" games that are not in OKC. This year, we had four "homes games" with two at The Peake, one at the BOK and one in Wichita. Last year we did the same thing. So, if we only get seven preseason games with three away and four at home, do you take one away from The Peake or alternate the Wichita game to move to Little Rock, KS or Omaha? I would think playing one preseason game in Tulsa at the BOK center would a staple for years to come.

I'd be OK with sharing the preseason games with the catchment area; permanent annual games in TUL and ICT and rotating one game among KC, OMA, and LIT and the final/only actual home/OKC game being one or none. The key here is catchment and the Only way an NBA team can build support among such a large/diverse area is to have preseason games in the catchment.

As was mentioned earlier, Seattle probably didn't have this problem since there isn't anything in the rest of Washington (aside from Portland taking the SW), N ID, MT, and AK - they 'naturally' follow Seattle sports (with MLB and NFL taking the entire 4 states for catchment. In OKC's catchment, KC has teams in the NFL and MLB and I seriously doubt OKC returns the favor in supporting KC's teams when OKC is likely the largest catchment market for Dallas. Omaha is quite a bit far and I'd think has choices and LIT could chose Memphis. So IMO, for all of these three to chose OKC for the NBA they need to be 'rewarded' with a preseason game at least every three years so they can really feel part of the market.

But I digress, because the reason I brought up the Seattle vs OKC catchment comparison is that people in the past were solely looking at area but forgot to realize the actual population disparity between the two (which is what advertisers look at). 15 million 'potential' viewers (with two major and four medium markets) is a whole lot more attractive than 7 million (with one major and three small-medium markets); and that is likely what made the move to OKC much more feasible.

I totally agree about the argument of catchment with respect to the NBA (or NFL) given there are teams close by. Even the NHL would have a harder time here than the NBA does, since there are NHL teams in Denver, STL, and Dallas. I think OKC struck GOLD with the Thunder and not having any real competition for such a large geographical and decently populated region; not to mention having a top tier team sure helps build the fan-base.

I like that idea. The only problem is you can only have so many "home" games that are not in OKC. This year, we had four "homes games" with two at The Peake, one at the BOK and one in Wichita. Last year we did the same thing. So, if we only get seven preseason games with three away and four at home, do you take one away from The Peake or alternate the Wichita game to move to Little Rock, KS or Omaha? I would think playing one preseason game in Tulsa at the BOK center would a staple for years to come.

I would take both the current pre-season games away from the peak, especially years we are consistently expected to go deep in the playoffs or did the year before. There are 41 home games and up to 16 post season home games, so we have the least reason to go see them in the first place because pre-season games tend to not be as good as those others and many people would happily have that cost dropped from there season ticket. Certainly the lowest attendance percentage of our 'home' games was when they played here, though it was 'sold out'. I would keep the ones in Wichita and Tulsa since proximity will mean they are the most likely to drive over to see other games. I could see rotating one between Little Rock & Fayetteville/Bentonville area, and the other between KS & Omaha, of course there might also be reason to just pick two new cities to consistently host and focus marketing there.

I like that idea. The only problem is you can only have so many "home" games that are not in OKC. This year, we had four "homes games" with two at The Peake, one at the BOK and one in Wichita. Last year we did the same thing. So, if we only get seven preseason games with three away and four at home, do you take one away from The Peake or alternate the Wichita game to move to Little Rock, KS or Omaha? I would think playing one preseason game in Tulsa at the BOK center would a staple for years to come.

As far as i'm concerned, they only need 1 game at the Peake, and it should be the last pre-season game. I hate paying full price for pre-season. I have given one of them away to an under privilaged lady I work with, then we go to the last one. Let the other game go build the fan base, even maybe Amarillo, if it's Amarillo is not designated to the Mavs.

Totally agree with that, OKC keeps the last home game of the preseason but farms out the others to Wichita and Tulsa annually and rotating between KC-OMA-LIT

and maybe one for expansion or overseas like New Zealand or Africa (the homes of two Thunder players) or Switzerland (Thabo's homeland) - otherwise, I'd like the overseas game(s) to be 'away' and preferably in east Asia as we can't only have Lakers and Rockets owning China and Taiwan.

Totally agree with that, OKC keeps the last home game of the preseason but farms out the others to Wichita and Tulsa annually and rotating between KC-OMA-LIT

and maybe one for expansion or overseas like New Zealand or Africa (the homes of two Thunder players) or Switzerland (Thabo's homeland) - otherwise, I'd like the overseas game(s) to be 'away' and preferably in east Asia as we can't only have Lakers and Rockets owning China and Taiwan.

The Minnesota Timberwolves have planted their (preseason) roots in Omaha and the Memphis Grizzlies play some preseason games in North Little Rock, Arkansas.

http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/nursing/images/Centurylink_Center.jpghttp://i.axs.com/14-08232012-50367d22186c8.jpeg

Omaha, NE
North Little Rock, AR


Tulsa and Wichita are definite preseason hosts; we should look at Kansas City where the Miami Heat hosted a preseason game against the Thunder in October 2010.

If Adams keeps improving at this rate, we probably will have a TV deal in New Zealand soon.

It's great exposure for the Thunder, for sure.

Interesting that there's more OKC gear than Minny in Omaha already. ...

Urban, please keep us posted on when the games are aired up there (if any) and what is your perception of the good folks in Omaha to the Thunder. I am excited about the expansion and would like to keep tabs on how it is presented and received in your city. Also, I really do hope the team will at least have some sort of rotation in the preseason so you guys can enjoy the team in your arena.

good times!

First time the Thunder was showing in Omaha on the regional Fox station was tonight that I have noticed. I am assuming anytime the Wolves aren't playing and the Thunder are we will be getting OKC.

First time the Thunder was showing in Omaha on the regional Fox station was tonight that I have noticed. I am assuming anytime the Wolves aren't playing and the Thunder are we will be getting OKC.

My relatives in Omaha were all excited about getting the Thunder game. They are big Nebraska Cornhusker fans and don't like Minnesota. Minnesota beat the Huskers this year 34-23.


Thunder fan base is expanding:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQn2BsTsG1dUPQxo8MGRskYkuCzO_eHy wCw5weiM1sH0E8JPmX1ag

very nice map