More glowing social (and traditional) media coverage

Here's a few selected outside news reporting pieces about Mayor Mick's family values crusade to not allow lingerie football in OKC.

"There's at least one sports league that likes Seattle better than Oklahoma City."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

"League chairman Mitchell Mortaza said Cornett is taking away the freedom of individuals to choose what sporting events to attend."
Huffington Post

"You can add Oklahoma City to the list of places I will never move to."
SportsNewser

"Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett has said no to the Lingerie Football League."
MSN FoxSports (AP)

"From what I've been told, Oklahomans love their football. But they can't stand hot women in sexy outfits. At least that's what I've been led to believe by Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, who has banned the Lingerie Football League from going anywhere near his city's Cox Center."
Holy Taco

"What guy can say no to a bunch of women playing football in lingerie in their city?"
NY Daily News

These are just a FEW of the negative articles and blog posts that have been getting OKC the wrong kind of attention over the most recent bad decision from city hall.

Big 12-2 possibilities

Looks like we're going to lose the Big 12 north. Good riddance. With Nebraska and Colorado gone, here's an idea: Let's take everything Big 12 out of Kansas City now. I want the basketball tourney back in OKC now, I'm tired of this KC experiment. I know we signed a deal for the Sprint Center and I know that KU is still in the league, but that's one school. And they're desperate to keep the conference together so they aren't left out.

Can you say...Ford Center?

AHL team to be unveiled

Anyone remember the naming contest we had for the new NBA team 2 years ago, and how Barons seemed to be the most popular choice? Well tomorrow we expect the new AHL team will be unveiled. I would guess that Bennett and McClendon opted against the Barons because surely Seattle would have had a hey day with the "OKC Robber Barons." Fortunately the AHL is in no such precarious position. My prediction: OKC will finally get a pro-level "Barons" mascot.

We'll find out tomorrow.

Results in: Big League City

The results are in and OKC has shot way up in the Sporting News' rankings of the best sports cities. Oklahoma, as a state, has fared pretty well. OKC ranked #37 (ranking 42 spots higher than last year), and if that doesn't sound impressive, how about the two cities that surround us in the rankings: #36 Toronto, #38 Austin. To be sure, Norman is factored in with OKC this time, just as Boulder is factored in with Denver. Elsewhere in the state, Stillwater came in second at #60, and Tulsa followed at #82. Out of the Big 12's "pure college towns" only Columbia, MO ranked ahead of Stillwater at #56. Lawrence was #61, Lubbock was #63, Lincoln was #72, Waco was #85, College Station was #86, Manhattan was #91, Ames was #114. The best sports city in the nation was Pittsburgh, coming off of another Steelers Super Bowl.

Photo borrowed from Doug Loudenback. Check out his NBA-in-OKC coverage here.

Tulsa eyeing an Olympic bid for 2020

It's the Twilight Zone up in Green Country.

Tulsa community leaders have formed a public task force to consider making a bid for the Olympics in 2020. They may raise private funds to publicize Tulsa over the next few years as a possible site for the 2020 Olympics. The rationale is that Atlanta, when they made their bid in 1989, was hardly further along than Tulsa is today, and yet it won. Some have proposed that the International Olympic Committee loves the underdog when choosing a site, quoting from the host city application packet, "Bigger does not necessarily mean better." Apparently the Olympics have never been to Texas, or talked to a college student in the preppy south for very long.

The requirements for host cities: 40,000 quality hotel rooms, but Tulsa acknowledges they have 13,000 (one proposal that can't be serious is to fill the Port of Catoosa with cruise ships that could room 150 people each); an 80,000 seat Olympic stadium, an aquatics center, a velodrome for track cycling (whatever that is), dorms for athletes, and temporary routes for marathons and road courses..but Tulsa believes the facilities can be paid for by the Olympics coming to town, reiterating multiple times in the Tulsa Whirled article that the bid would be at no taxpayer expense. Tulsa leaders have also suggested that, like in the case with Atlanta, sites could be hosted across the region, and utilize facilities at OU, OSU, and in OKC. But isn't that making a better argument for OKC hosting the Olympics than for Tulsa? There are serious questions as to whether the airport is adequate in handling enough incoming visitors, too..and I know the roads leading to Tulsa aren't.

How can you seriously be confident in an Olympic bid that is at no taxpayer expense? The only thing that leaves Tulsa with that is supporting it is the BOK Center, basically.

Another problem: If Chicago is chosen for the 2016 Olympic games (a decision will come out Oct. 2) then it won't be returning to the US of A four years right afterward. That could be a good thing though, allowing Tulsa (and Oklahoma, for that matter) to seriously ponder whether it wants to be a potential Olympic host city/state or not. It will take a lot more than just applying for it and hoping they humor your underdogness.

Another city that has put a lot of consideration toward applying for the Olympics, that is a similar longshot as Tulsa, is Birmingham, Alabama. I think the best thing the 'Ham has going for it is the city in England that shares its namesake.

There are also benchmarks that a city must meet in the realm of mass transit too, which we all know just pretty much eliminates Oklahoma. The only reason Houston ever embarked on its current light rail system was to court the Olympics, which Chicago beat Houston out as the US contender. Apparently size does matter..and there are probably very few US cities that aren't "top 5" that could possibly host the Olympics, and Tulsa and Birmingham aren't among them. Maybe Austin, Denver, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Portland..maybe. Of course NYC/LA/Chicago/Houston go without saying. But Tulsa and Birmingham have a long ways to go, but if they seriously tried and worked for it, the worst that could happen is that they become better cities for it. Houston got eliminated in the second-to-final round (the final round is Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio) but it still has Reliant Stadium, Enron Field, a light rail system, and more. Even though it won't be getting the Olympics anytime soon, it is still a much better city. This is how a bid might just not be a bad idea. Kudos, I guess, to Tulsa for considering boldness.

P.S. The IOC has suggested Africa should be the host for the 2020 Olympics. Cape Town and Durban are competing, and I'd say Cape Town hands-down. Been there once, never been to Durban, never wanted to go to Durban (I value my life). Cape Town however is hosting the FIFA World Cup and placed 3rd for the 2004 Summer Games, behind Rome and eventual host, Athens. Cities in Asia that might apply to host: Delhi, Doha, Dubai, Kuala Lumpur, Baku (Azerbaijan), Istanbul, and Taipei; In Europe: Rome, Milan, Scotland, St. Petersburg, Valencia, and Warsaw; In North America: Birmingham, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Tulsa, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Toronto; Elsewhere: Lima, Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. Prague (Czech Rep.) has canceled its bid. Tough crowd.

WNBA to Tulsa

Looks like Tulsa will probably be welcoming a WNBA team to the BOK Center. In fact, according to the Tulsa Whirled's "unnamed sources" the BOK Center has already been in negotiations for a while. There will be a press conference Wednesday where a group of investors from OKC will announce their venture, which WNBA president Donna Orender will be in Tulsa for. One of ESPN's main women's bball analysts, Nancy Lieberman, said of the deal, “Oklahoma is passionate about sports, they are avid sports fans. I think it would be a great partnership."

This is nothing new however, as almost exactly a year ago the Tulsa Metro Chamber was putting out feelers for landing a possible WNBA team, influenced by the NBA coming to Oklahoma.

Considering Tulsa's desire to fill the BOK Center with some meaningful sports franchise, the WNBA makes perfect sense considering that the NBA is already in the Ford Center and the NHL would probably prefer to wait till after the recession to start even considering making a move somewhere else. Plus, the NHL just did did an expansion phase, so it would have to be a team relocation, and Kansas City is already all over that scene.

There are other sports that Oklahoma could play host to, such as Major League Soccer--which purportedly had a high level of interest in Tulsa which suddenly dropped off the radar a few years ago. The National Lacrosse League has even wants to expand into OKC, so perhaps they'd give Tulsa a shot, which is probably a more favorable city to Lacrosse anyway. Lacrosse is actually kind of cool, and I've been to a few NLL games in DC and Calgary..that I was literally already in the neighborhood for.

There are a lot of possible ways for Tulsa to get its foot in the door of major league sports. An NLL or WNBA franchise is definitely a step up from minor league basketball and arena football, and a good stepping stone toward landing either an NHL or MLS team, or perhaps even an NFL team should Tulsa ever build a stadium. The WNBA only has 13 teams at the moment, all of them in locations that would be "good company" for Oklahoma: Atlanta, Chicago, Connecticut, Detroit, Indianapolis, New York, DC, LA, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Sacrament, San Antonio, and Seattle (for some reason the Houston Comics recently died, despite winning 4 back-to-back championships). All of these teams play in NBA arenas with the exception of Connecticut's. Nancy Lieberman is right, this would be a win-win for Oklahoma and the WNBA.

P.S. Wow, it's been a long time since I wrote about Tulsa, especially considering I used to be pretty good at dividing my posts equally in the beginning..

Ask Nebraska about OU's bad defense..

Tim Tebow can't wait to go up against OU's defense. That's funny. Nebraska, and a lot of teams OU played this year, couldn't wait to get away from OU's defense. "Oh the humanity!" was all Nebraska fans could say after the first 6 minutes of the first quarter. After that Husker Nation had only one serious question on their hands: Was that just the worst beating we've ever gotten, or not? OU's message to Nebraska: No Sooner Magic needed.

And everyone knows Florida's defense is much better than OU's. After all, they're in the SEC. But, what if the offensive production allowed isn't the best indicator to go by? Florida had 837 total tackles during the regular season, which is not bad. OU..908. Florida had 272 tackles for a loss. OU..a mere 430. Florida had 31 sacks. OU..42 sacks. This is how the defenses compare head-to-head. OU plays in a tougher conference, with ALL 4 of the nation's top QBs; Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Graham Harrell, and Zack Robinson.

OU killed opponents by forcing turnovers often and early. With one of the greediest defenses in college football, OU's defense focused more on forcing turnovers and then scoring before the offense could even take the field. Not that most everyone hasn't heard of OU's no-huddle offense. Unstoppable is the word many have used to describe it. No modern program until now has ever scored 700 points in a season, or scored 60+ in 5 straight games. If you don't believe that, take it from Mizzou's Jeremy Maclin: "Are you kidding me? That offense is unbelievable." Unbelievable, works too.

Still not convinced? Then take it from Texas Tech's Mike Leach. After waiting in line for his 65-21 drubbing, OU had his #1 vote in the bag. In the press conference after OU's win over Tech, Stoops was asked if he had a Heisman winner in Bradford. His response: "Absolutely."

But, why is this team so good? Undoubtedly, it has much more to do with the chip-on-shoulder attitude that OU is playing with, than with Heisman QBs, no-huddle offenses, 65-21, or even 42 sacks and 32 turnovers. Each of OU's infamous 4-straight BCS losses came in games that OU should have won. Picked heavily over LSU, favored over much-hyped USC, come on..Boise State, and West Virginia was a program in anarchy. Can you say BCS funk? The sign plastered to the wall in the OU locker room says 48-28. That says it all.

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