Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which one of these cities has the best chance of gaining an NBA franchise?
Seattle 141 51.09%
San Jose 5 1.81%
Omaha 7 2.54%
Kansas City 27 9.78%
St. Louis 37 13.41%
Pittsburgh 9 3.26%
Las Vegas 21 7.61%
Vancouver 5 1.81%
Montreal 13 4.71%
Virginia Beach 11 3.99%
Voters: 276. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Sunbelt
798 posts, read 1,034,563 times
Reputation: 708

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
Can anyone summarize in a few short sentences why Seattle lost the Super Sonics? I really don't know the whole story, or why Seattle got "cheated" out of a team supposedly.
Basically, the original owner wanted updates to the arena but the state said no. So he sold the team to an OKC businessman named Clay Bennett. This is where it gets weird. Bennett asked for a new arena but that request was turned down. So he requested to move the team to OKC, and the NBA said yes. Personally, I think that Bennett already knew that he wasn't getting an arena in Seattle, he just wanted an excuse to make it look like his intentions weren't to move the team to OKC from the beginning.

Seattle fans may have more info than I do, this is just from ESPN/Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Sunbelt
798 posts, read 1,034,563 times
Reputation: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
The only reason I'm defending soccer is because you said the MLS is not on the same tier level as the NBA, NFL, etc but that is simply not true. Just because your city doesn't have an MLS franchise doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.
MLS is gaining popularity in the US, but it is still not on the level of the big four. It still needs to spread to more metros and gain more of a following before it can be considered one the big sports in the US. Soccer is still a second tier sport in the US, but the last World Cup changed that a bit. Hopefully this one will too. MLS is definitely far above the WNBA and Arena Football, but not quite up to NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL level.

Personally, I think that Seattle losing the Sonics helped the MLS. Look at Seattle's attendance numbers compared to other teams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,192,034 times
Reputation: 4407
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySwelly View Post
Basically, the original owner wanted updates to the arena but the state said no. So he sold the team to an OKC businessman named Clay Bennett. This is where it gets weird. Bennett asked for a new arena but that request was turned down. So he requested to move the team to OKC, and the NBA said yes. Personally, I think that Bennett already knew that he wasn't getting an arena in Seattle, he just wanted an excuse to make it look like his intentions weren't to move the team to OKC from the beginning.

Seattle fans may have more info than I do, this is just from ESPN/Wikipedia.
So, IOW, Seattle didn't build a billionaire a free stadium and he left town? UNREAL how common this theme is in pro sports! It's sad when it becomes the STANDARD that cities subsidize billionaires.....BILLIONAIRES!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Sunbelt
798 posts, read 1,034,563 times
Reputation: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
So, IOW, Seattle didn't build a billionaire a free stadium and he left town? UNREAL how common this theme is in pro sports! It's sad when it becomes the STANDARD that cities subsidize billionaires.....BILLIONAIRES!
One correction, I believe that the owner/Clay Bennett was supposed to contribute some percentage of the money for the updates/new arena. I'm not sure how much, but I'm sure that Seattle wasn't going to build a billionaire owner a free stadium haha. Probably something like what Jerry Jones did in Arlington: I believe 35% came from the city, and Jerry Jones paid 65%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 2,172,933 times
Reputation: 1071
I would like to see Warren Buffett use his sway to pull a team to Omaha.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 01:00 PM
 
3,755 posts, read 4,801,691 times
Reputation: 2857
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySwelly View Post
MLS is gaining popularity in the US, but it is still not on the level of the big four. It still needs to spread to more metros and gain more of a following before it can be considered one the big sports in the US. Soccer is still a second tier sport in the US, but the last World Cup changed that a bit. Hopefully this one will too. MLS is definitely far above the WNBA and Arena Football, but not quite up to NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL level.

Personally, I think that Seattle losing the Sonics helped the MLS. Look at Seattle's attendance numbers compared to other teams.
Without the support of the NBA, I don't see how the WNBA is a viable league.

Seattle is definitely aided by the lack of an NHL and NBA team, plus the Mariners have not been that good over the last several years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 02:26 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,461,849 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySwelly View Post
MLS is gaining popularity in the US, but it is still not on the level of the big four. It still needs to spread to more metros and gain more of a following before it can be considered one the big sports in the US. Soccer is still a second tier sport in the US, but the last World Cup changed that a bit. Hopefully this one will too. MLS is definitely far above the WNBA and Arena Football, but not quite up to NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL level.

Personally, I think that Seattle losing the Sonics helped the MLS. Look at Seattle's attendance numbers compared to other teams.
Has nothing to do with the sonics. Seattle has always been a soccer hub. One of the first states to really make youth soccer a common sport to play growing up. Sounders would be popular no matter what. Seattle Sounders just are in a amazing city to host soccer. Only if the rest of the MLS could catch up in popularity. Portland and Vancouver have strong fanbases too just small stadiums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,192,034 times
Reputation: 4407
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySwelly View Post
One correction, I believe that the owner/Clay Bennett was supposed to contribute some percentage of the money for the updates/new arena. I'm not sure how much, but I'm sure that Seattle wasn't going to build a billionaire owner a free stadium haha. Probably something like what Jerry Jones did in Arlington: I believe 35% came from the city, and Jerry Jones paid 65%.
It's still a subsidy. Can I have a 65% subsidy on my home, car, or can I have a 65% subsidy on my own personal pet investment? Face it, billionaires get what they want, and at the expense of everybody else -- I hate it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 02:56 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,966,660 times
Reputation: 8436
Don't give Seattle an NBA team until they start showing more class rather than going after everyone else's sports teams. Coyotes, Bucks, Kings, what else Seattle?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 03:00 PM
 
660 posts, read 1,081,756 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
It's still a subsidy. Can I have a 65% subsidy on my home, car, or can I have a 65% subsidy on my own personal pet investment? Face it, billionaires get what they want, and at the expense of everybody else -- I hate it!
Arenas are used for a lot more than just basketball, you know. Also, it's not like the owner sits in there by himself to watch his team. They're for the fans. The people should put up some of the costs as well. Otherwise, why would anyone want to own an NBA franchise? If they had to put up half a billion of their own $, on top of the half a billion+ to buy a team and 40-60 million per year in payroll plus other expenses, there aren't many humans that can afford that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top