Can't buy press this good

About time we finally get some good press from sports commentators. Gotta love just about every single second of this. Not only do they say great things about our team, suggesting that the Thunder will run the league after LeBron and Kobe get a few years older, but they balance it out with great things to say about OKC. They bring up that the Hornets wished they could have stayed in this market. They bring up that OKC can be just as good a place to live for an NBA player as all but the 4-5 elite cities in the NBA. They also bring up that we're one of the new booming cities.

My thoughts is that this is exactly the kind of footage you take advantage of if you're the OKC Chamber. Take just the parts where it shows people on ESPN talking about how great OKC is, and you've got a slam dunk video to show people considering a corporate relocation or something.

More potshots from "professional journalism"

This time, it's the Washington Post.

I like the NBA -- I'm not saying it's FAN-tastic, I'm not saying it's where amazing happens, I'm not saying I love this game -- I just like it. I like it enough to provide a comprehensive report on the NBA at midseason:

Kevin Durant is the best player you'll never see (unless you never see that online poker pro from Sweden who wins, like, $3 million a day). When I have grazed upon NBA-TV on occasion, I've stumbled on an Oklahoma City Thunder game. I don't even know where Oklahoma City is -- I assume it's in Oklahoma; maybe Kansas -- and can't imagine anyone playing basketball in Oklahoma City.

By the way, since when does the NBA have a team in Oklahoma City? I thought only the NHL did stuff like that.

How does anyone even get to call themselves a "professional journalist" after saying something like that? Not quite sure where OKC is, probably somewhere in Oklahoma, but possibly in Kansas.. and how can this guy proclaim that the NBA shouldn't be in OKC..afterall, only the NHL does stuff like that?

Since when does the NBA "do stuff like that?" Well, obviously it happened long before OKC. The NBA has a track record of being very successful in smaller, less prominent markets that aren't quite as small as "medium-sized" cities. In other words, the NBA has traditionally LOVED to take a chance on a larger mid-major city that's showed signs of becoming a major city.

The San Antonio Spurs have, for decades, been one of the most successful franchises in the league. The Seattle Supersonics literally put Seattle on the map back in the 60s, just as for many neanderthals, it has put OKC on the map, albeit somewhere vaguely in Oklahoma, possibly in Kansas. When the New Orleans Jazz moved to Salt Lake City, it marked the possibilities that can exist in brand-new "major cities."

What constitutes a city's fresh ascendancy to "major city" status from "mid-major city" status? Hard to tell--but whatever it is, it is the difference that exists between cities such as Charlotte, Nashville, and San Antonio, and cities such as Omaha, Tulsa, and Little Rock. It is from the latter camp that OKC hails, whereas it is the premier group that OKC is headed for. Anyone who can't see that is blind to all of the positive movement and growth that has occurred in OKC in the last 10 years.

Granted, sometimes taking a chance on a rising market has failed for the NBA. Moving the Grizz from Vancouver to Memphis has been a huge failure. The FedEx Forum is a great facility, Memphis is a truly "great" city, they have a basketball (and sports in general) culture there second to none, and yet the NBA can't compete with Memphis State collegiate basketball and they just can't get butts in seats. Sometimes a city is just a dud, and sometimes there are signs suggesting a move won't go over so well, but a lot of times, there's no way to tell. And even more often, bad ownership can lead to a franchise that just deteriorates over prolonged periods of time. Once a market deteriorates it's often soured and it's tough to make something good out of it, such as Seattle.

So, since when did the NBA "do things like that?" Basically, since forever. That is after all, the NBA's league growth formula. Growth benefits every franchise, as long as it's good growth. You want teams in cities that support them, and you want to get rid of teams in cities that don't support them..hopefully the end result is a league full of nothing but teams that are well-supported by their communities.

And what's more is that everyone who is familiar with the NBA knows that they have a whole bastion of teams in smaller markets (aka markets that aren't LA or NYC).. Sacramento, Orlando, San Antonio, New Orleans, Charlotte, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Portland, Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, Indianapolis..and possibly a team in Kansas City or Louisville (being discussed..they are building new arenas).

So what makes OKC especially worthy of all of the ridiculous and unfounded criticism that it has gotten in the last week? Absolutely nothing. To the Gazette's response (to a report that some Thunder players were 'unhappy' in OKC) last month that couldn't quite get to the point of defending the OKC scene as being "NBA star worthy," I would hold up the OKC "scene" to ANY of those other smaller cities I mentioned earlier, except New Orleans or Memphis.

The reality that nobody seems to fathom is that the NBA actually does play..quite a few..of its games in cities outside of New York, LA, Miami, Chicago, or Toronto..in fact probably the majority of cities are very "average" or as I would prefer to word it, "real," kinds of places.

To the SI article that made OKC sound like a bad day in Guymon, I would just suggest a dose of reality. You could easily make Cleveland or Memphis sound a lot worse.

To this article questioning since when the NBA has been in such small and unheard of markets, I suggest the author take a good hard look at a map of the NBA and start getting out of the Beltway some.

Sagging power lines and idle oil derricks...

Read this article on SI.com and you'll be flabbergasted. I typically don't make a big deal out if it whenever the NY Times or some other paper writes a glowing article on OKC, or when SI or ESPN blowhards repeatedly show us that they don't actually travel to games anywhere besides New York, LA, Chicago, and the usual suspects.

But this is especially deserving of being brought up because it goes above and beyond the usual crap that sportswriters come up with about OKC (which by the way completely contradicts what every travel writer or urban critic has said that has toured OKC).

On most mornings Kevin Durant, the best NBA player most people never get to see, drives his extralong conversion van 10 minutes from his house in the suburbs of Oklahoma City to the Thunder's practice facility, which if not technically in the middle of nowhere is at least on its outskirts. He passes sagging power lines and idle oil derricks and vast fields of brittle yellow grass pocked with snow before turning onto a two-lane road and, just past the John Deere factory, pulling into the parking lot of the practice center, a converted roller rink. Unfolding his 6'9" frame from the van, Durant ambles past the odd rabbit lounging in the shrubbery and enters the gym for another day of work, all the while engulfed by the scent of ... well, what is that exactly?

"Dog food," says Durant. "And it stinks, man; it really stinks." As it turns out, there is a hulking Purina plant just down the road, churning out untold tons of pet chow weekly, but Durant takes the, um, ambience in stride, just as he does many other not-so-glamorous elements of playing in the smallest market in the NBA. These include the weather (cold), the nightlife (hello, Denny's!) and the TV exposure (two national appearances this season, or 27 fewer than the Cavaliers), all of which are supposed to be of great importance to NBA players, who are commonly envisioned as a flock of 7-foot homing pigeons all hatched in the same sweaty South Beach nightclub. But Durant claims not to mind. He says that he "loves it here," and once you spend some time around him, it becomes clear that he is not only sincere but also talking as much about the franchise as the city itself.

That's pretty bad huh? I don't know if these people really understand that you can't write this kind of crap about a city with 1.3 million people? Not just because it's untrue, but because..what's the point? What does anyone possibly have to gain by going so far out of their way to paint a picture that is blatantly erroneous about an entire city? Why go to those lengths to upset 1.3 million people? It's unfathomable.

The weather-cold. The nightlife-hello, Denny's! (oh come on, we have IHOP at least!) TV exposure-well it's not the Cavs (you know, in that urban jewel that is Cleveland).

What is it really like in OKC? Well apparently anywhere in the city feels like the middle of nowhere. Instead of the typical development you see in other cities, OKC has sagging power lines, idle oil derricks all over the place, brittle yellow grass covered in snow, nothing but two-lane roads, John Deere factories, and so on. Did the writer mistakenly keep driving through Deer Creek until he got to Guymon? I don't think even Guymon could sound as bad once you factor in the Purina pet chow smell lofting through the air.

And idle oil derricks, really? This is an oil derrick..maybe he means an oil well. I suppose it's fitting that not even that is correct when the entire article is grasping for straws to make it sound like KD is playing basketball on Mars or something.

Speaking of the market, the article also refers to OKC as the smallest NBA market. Well! There are actually several smaller markets. New Orleans, Memphis, Salt Lake, and I believe Sacramento are all JUST a tad smaller than OKC. Never mind the most important fact that OKC has far and above been the most successful small market the NBA has entered, in the mold of Salt Lake, Charlotte, and San Antone.

Or is there perhaps a more subtle reason that someone could write such a misinformed, inappropriate article that is actually published in a major publication? KD becomes a free agent after this year, and the Thunder also have the largest amount of gap space when it comes to the salary cap. No other team is as well positioned to attract some big names to its roster than the Thunder. No other team has fostered as much young talent as well as the Thunder either. Sounds like Sam Presti is doing a helluva job in a hick town. What if the "NBA establishment" can successfully portray OKC as such a ridiculous place that Sam Presti can no longer be successful in Oklahoma, KD gets snatched away, and no talented players will even go near the Thunder?

That's the only reasonable explanation I can fathom after reading this article. That someone actually came to OKC and wrote the article isn't an option, and I also find it highly unlikely that anyone who wrote that could have honestly believed a word of it.

@ The Thunder

Tonight's Thunder game..disappointing last-second loss to the Hornets. Crowd got kind of tired of bad calls from the refs on everything, but when you live in this state, just get used to it. Crowd was really good despite a frigid night with sleet and power lines falling down (20,000 people sans power right now). I hadn't been to a Thunder game in a long time, so it was a good experience.

Turnstile count: 17,836.

Nice to see Oklahoma growing from afar

My apologies for my prolonged absence during the last 3/4 months. I appreciated everyone who occasionally read my blog, and especially those who occasionally commented. I promise I'll make up this drought by dropping more posts from time to time. Who would have thought switching to a more rigorous Architecture School and being a thousand miles away from OKC would have resulted in less free time to blog about Oklahoma?

However, not that even in the wintery land known as Canada can we escape Oklahoma's surging prominence, especially every time we turn on ESPN. The NBA ended up being just the shot in the arm that we needed (ok, maybe not). What a way for the Thunder to do something notable by vying for the highly-coveted title of Worst Franchise Ever! And if you don't think that's notable, which do people talk about more often: the Detroit Lions, or the Cincinnati Bengals. The record currently stands at 4-30; that is 4 wins, and 30 "moral victories" (we don't call them "losses" anymore, it's like it's the Special Olympics all-of-a-sudden). And I don't blame Scott Brooks at his Thunder post-game press conferences for wanting to change the subject to OU football. David Boren needs to issue a formal statement for his schoolapologizing for stealing the NBA's "thunder."

On the bright side, OU is at the same time highly underrated and on the verge of becoming the program of the decade. Of course it doesn't hurt that OU is probably the program of the year, with football being ranked #1, and at the same time basketball being ranked #4. OSU athletics, too, are showing signs of joining the big-leagues with all of their investment in athletic facilities. Even OSU football was once ranked #7, during a 3-week period that the State of Oklahoma had two teams ranked in the Top Ten. Sports columnists and announcers alike began to refer collectively to "the Oklahomas," although OU would very much beg to differ, as there's only one Oklahoma.

Plus, we can't forget all of the new sports facilities set to break ground. Such as the $100+ million renovations that the Ford Center is in the middle of getting, and the new Drillers Stadium in downtown Tulsa. Don't forget the rest of OSU's athletic village, which will likely bring the rest of Cowboys athletics up to par with the football, wrestling, and basketball programs there. OKC's Regatta Park has become the national mecca for rowing (just ask the New York Times), which used to be mainly an East Coast sport. I'm beginning to wonder how all of this compares to other states. There is no question that Oklahoma is a 21st-century player on the national sports scene, but when it's all done, and you consider NCAA and the pros and tournaments and all of that, how does Oklahoma compare?

Proud Okies, don't forget that a recent poll by The Sporting News ranked OKC 79th on its national list of Sports Cities. Norman, ranked seperately for some reason, was ranked 45th. Stillwater was ranked 71st, also ahead of the mother city, OKC. Many controversial problems abound with this ranking however: Even though by the time they did the ranking it had been concrete that the Sonics were moving to the Ford Center, this poll excluded them giving OKC 0 professional sports teams among its criteria. "Their ranking system is flawed," said even Mayor Mick. Had OKC and Norman been listed together, as they had been for every year of the poll until 2007, it probably would have resulted in a Top 30 ranking. Had they included the Thunder, who knows.

Perception is everything, and even still, that is by far Oklahoma's biggest problem. To quote a recent NBA team owner who toured our city before voting to approve the relocation of the Sonics: "You know, this Oklahoma

What does "Big League City" really mean?

After all of the rhetoric and slogans and hoopla, now that we're a "Big League City"--so what? Do we magically feel better? Or ostensibly, can you even call us a big league city before a single game? Or for folks like New Orleans fans, will it really make a difference, or rather highlight where OKC fails to stack up?

As for the latter, I think not. OKC will stack up well compared to a lot of "big league cities" because the only thing that cities like Memphis and New Orleans have over OKC is too intangible to really make a big point out of.

As for feeling magically better, I think that we can all take immediate solice in knowing what our community is capable for doing for itself. Even during the improbable MAPS revitalization of OKC, people like the NBA were still saying no to OKC. The Hornets was not supposed to be as hugely successful. That whole debacle sure made David Stern's job a lot harder, although a lot more potentially rewarding as well. All of OKC's individual successes have been very improbable, and yet they share one more thing in common: being completely driven by community willpower. Which is a LOT more tangible than you'd think--just pull up exit poll data and compare to other cities faced with similar choices, like Tulsa.

As great as that all is, the largest good that will come out of this will start to become more of a factor once we get into the regular NBA season; Bricktown is going through a phase where it clearly needs a boost (which the last boost it got was probably the Hornets). Businesses prospered on game nights--and since the Hornets left town, we've seen less consistency in the newer businesses staying open for long. It's been harder for concepts to take off and share in the district's success.

There are a lot of reasons why this is about to change. It all has to do with more people downtown. We're beginning to see more residents downtown, and the downtown population--last I heard--was up from like 4,000 to 8,000 since 2005 or so. I anticipate that downtown's population will be around 15,000 come 2010. This means more stability for the various downtown districts because more of a local base; more "rooftops" in the neighborhood. Bricktown can become more like MidTown--which I am starting to think is more representative of downtown's own local scene than anything else (which may be why people notice a profound difference between the two).

If you live in a unit in the Regency Tower apartments or in Sycamore Square, are you more likely to go hang out in MidTown or Bricktown after work? If you live in one of the new lofts we're seeing going up in the Deep Deuce/Bricktown areas, where are you more likely to hang out after work?

Also, I think that there's an intangible benefit from simply having the NBA brand a few blocks away from anywhere in downtown. It adds more prestige to the whole scene, which may in turn increase the value of downtown housing and office space--especially during the mortgage fiasco. I think that the new Devon Tower will also have a very similar effect in adding to the prestige and value of downtown, and is a very tangible part of the new "Big League OKC".

Put simply, so far, "Big League City" has meant this. In the months and years to come, there is no telling what it will come to mean.