MLS says that it will put only one team in Oklahoma. I know I may be putting the cart before the horse--and I know my good friend benine is not going to hesitate to slap my wrist on this one: Tulsa, proclaimed America's Most Beautiful City has led a tax revolt that has overshadowed this city most promising needs--facilities and infrastructure. Tulsa's Mayor Bill LaFortune has proclaimed that MLS is his administration's top priority. What if both cities produce MLS soccer specific stadiums and interested ownership groups? Will MLS let one of these cities go? There is an old saying, "You never want to let a fool and his money get to comfortable with each other." I'm not fully aware of what may be going on with MLS expansion behind the scenes; the ownership groups may be available; however, there doesn't appear to be too many cities interested in building soccer specific stadiums to complement these ownership groups. If soccer in the United States ever wants to see the spirited rivalry of two cities comparable to the level seen in the foreign countries then why not put soccer franchises in both Tulsa and Oklahoma City if they can produce ownership groups and a soccer specific venue. You want to see two fools go at it--let Oklahoma City and Tulsa hook-it up in sports; this rivalry is as foreign as you're going to get. These two cities produced riots during the sixties and fights at the turnpike gates when hockey was introduced and a number of individual incidents since then. Recently at an OKC-Tulsa near sellout (13,000 plus hockey) in OKC's Myriad, the players were interrupted and stopped to watch the fans fight. Then again, maybe you don't want to see these two cities in the same league--it might not be in the best interest of the sport. Although this rivalry has somewhat cooled down; Oklahoma City and Tulsa are on friendlier terms for now. I can't think of any two cities in the same state having this kind of hate for each other. The rivalry is domant now, but put both of these cities on the major league level in soccer and you're got a volcano ready to erupt. If only one city emerges with a viable ownership group and can deliver that soccer specific stadium then only one will be eligible for a franchise. If both cities come up with viable ownership groups and soccer specific stadium plans then the league is going to have a real problem if it selects one over the other; this definitely may not be in its best interest Tulsa will definitely try one more time to put a sales tax increase initative before the voters under Mayor LaFortune's regime. The third time is a charm--it will pass! The honorable Mayor Susan Salvage was either like or disliked and the vote often reflected her popularity. The LaFortune family has a great reputation and a soccer venue definitely will be in those plans along with an expanded convention center and a new arena 16,500-seat arena. Tulsans will probably be voting on this new plan for bundled project this November and again in March with a revision if it narrowly fails. Don't look for this vote to fail; Tulsans have been overwhelmed with OKC's progress and they can't survive another failure. Look for a soccer venue to become a reality in Tulsa. The proposed new MLS stadium in Edmond more than complements this city's hunger and demand for best in architectual design. University of Central Oklahoma (Edmond) has had plans since turning NCAA Division II to expand Wantland Stadium to 15,000-seats especially since the local high schools (Edmond Sante Fe, Edmond Memorial and Edmond North) have teamed up to push for one great facility. You see, a community like Edmond is elite; they want a stadium but not in their backyards; therefore, none of the high schools will see large stadiums on their individual campuses. During Oklahoma City's 89 Olympic Festival, a soccer stadium seating 8,000 was built at Edmond Hafer Park--the city quickly dismantled because of its bleachers. This city demands much in building style that the new Wal Marts built there had to adhere to more upscale front faces and not look like your traditional Wal Mart Supercenters. Now, with Express Sports entering the picture, a group that might be willing to share nearly half of the costs of stadium renovation, look for a soccer specific stadium to become a reality in Central Oklahoma. Oklahoma City-Edmond appears to have the musle to pull of an MLS entry. Tulsa, on the otherhand looks just as promising if it secures a soccer stadium that will be decided by the voters. If Tulsa can produce a venue, an ownership group will definitely emerge; this city has people deep pockets. Again, if both cities can produce ownership groups and venues--why not grant both cities a franchise?
i say the same thing!!! i actually like both proposals... and if you say that the cities have a great rivalrie, so go on!!!! a lot of cities in the world have more than 2 teams in their metropolitan area...., but hey... why not 2 teams really nearby???....
I like the proposals put forth by both, but having two teams in Oklahoma will do nothing to expand the national footprint. It isn't a positive to put two teams in OK, when you have only one team in Texas and no teams in the Pacific Northwest.
...sarcasm alert... sarcasm alert... Yes, if B.C. has an interested I/O and a SSS then MLS will come to Boise City... being located in a small market and having no history of previous fan support shouldn't be an issue Boise City, Oklahoma... Jewel of the Panhandle! http://www.ccccok.org/boise.html Maybe games could coincide with special events like the World Championship Posthole Digging Contest and Annual Chicken Drop??? DID YOU KNOW?... "ON July 5, 1943 Boise City was bombed during WWII by an air force B-17 crew who mistook the courthouse square for the bombing range 30 miles to the southeast. Six 100 pound practice bombs were dropped (4 pounds of powder and 96 pounds of sand). There were no casualties but some near misses and many irate but slightly amused citizens." Until the construction of said Boise City SSS, games would need to be played in Goodwell, OK at nearby Panhandle State Univ... http://www.opsu.edu/ Goodwell is "The Saddle Bronc Capital of the World" and Panhandle State's college rodeo team is a national powerhouse...
Yall need to quit, you getting to messy! This Boise City, Guymon and Goodwell mess, so you want to play the small cities game do you? Those cities are in Oklahoma's panhandle and often referred to as "No man's land." The panhandle was also the handle of Oklahoma which is shaped like a meat cleaver. Texas is shaped like a nice Kansas City Strip steak--well, you know the rest of the story. Chop, chop, chop--that cleaver must have been dull or that steak was a lion's cut. I say, lets build a stadium in Buffalo, Oklahoma and call the team the Buffalo Hillbillies. A team in Buffalo would be accessible to the larger metro areas like Wichita, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Amarillo and Topeka as well as the smaller Kansas communities like Englewood, Ashland, Protection, Atena, Sitka and Buttermilk. Can you believe that? Buttermilk, Kansas! I thought Oklahoma had some strangely-named towns. In Oklahoma it could serve the communities of Camp Houston, Freedom, Fairvalley, Rosston, Selman, May, Willard, Laverne, Edith and Plainview. The cities in Oklahoma which are famous for their rhyme: Henryetta, Sallisaw, Wagoner, Catoosa!
While it might seem a stretch for MLS to put 2 franchises in Oklahoma, the province of Alberta, Canada, has 2 NHL franchises and the similarities between Alberta and Oklahoma are rather striking. Like Oklahoma, Alberta has a population of 3 million or so, and depends on oil, gas and agriculture for much of its wealth. And Alberta, like Oklahoma, is dominated by 2 cities each having a population of about 700,000. Edmonton & Oklahoma City are more laid-back, blue collar, and home to their province/state's capitals. Calgary & Tulsa, on the other hand, are wealthier, home to oil company and bank headquarters, and like to think of themselves as more cosmopolitan than their respective rivals.
You are correct! Tulsa-Calgary and Oklahoma City-Edmonton bear striking similarities. I recall seeing an article in the Daily Oklahoman(travel section) some 10 years ago where they compared Edmonton to Oklahoma City and referred to Edmonton as our "sister" city because of population and demographics. As one poster (Quicksand) mentioned and I agree, it does nothing to expand the national footprint--if that is what the league is trying to do. There are ways you can expand the national footprint but who is going to be interested in watching soccer if there are too many small market teams unless they favor the state's name: Michigan (Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo) Oklahoma (Oklahoma City/Tulsa) Carolina (Greensboro, NC/Greenville, SC) New Mexico (Albuquerque) Iowa (Des Moines, Quad Cities--Davenport) Arkansas (Little Rock) Utah (Salt Lake City) Idaho (Boise, not Boise City, OK) Virginia (Hampton Roads area) Texas (Austin, Fort Worth) Markets like Omaha, Hartford, Wichita and Richmond are popular names for small market cities which would probably not opt to favor the state's name. I would contend that a rivalry like Oklahoma City vs. Tulsa could eventually work as a model to drum up interest in other cities with potential rivalries like Dallas-Houston, Kansas City-St. Louis or Chicago-Milwaukee should future teams be awarded to Houston, St. Louis and Milwaukee.
REALITY CHECK: Tulsa isn't just a small market--it's a teensy-weensy market. It's MSA is 15 percent smaller and growing more slowly than Fresno, California, of all places. It's also smaller than Albany, NY, Tucson, AZ, and Dayton, OH--none of which leap to mind as the best places to sink one of the six or eight remaining MLS franchises. Even OKC is smaller and growing more slowly than Grand Rapids, Michigan. I for one don't think MLS is sooooo desperate that it needs to move into every minor market that expresses an interest. One Oklahoma team maybe. Maybe. Two is a sign that the end is near.
Some thoughts in the area of reality: Minor markets may be more readily available. Every league has its small markets, the MLB has Milwaukee, NFL has Green Bay, NBA has Memphis and NHL has Calgary (CA) and Raleigh (US). Cities like Norfolk, Louisville, Hartford and Oklahoma City which are waiting to be the next "break-through city" wanting a Fab Four (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) franchise could find itself in a position like Columbus--work your way up to the next level. Norfolk and Louisville are obviously not soccer towns and are more realistically looking at the NBA. Hartford continues to live in Boston's shadow. Oklahoma City on the other hand with its neareast major league market some 200 miles away (Dallas), like Columbus, is a market that could start out with MLS and eventually add an NHL or NBA franchise. Sure, a city like Tulsa is not growing as fast as a Frenso; however, Tulsa is a town that wouldn't be as difficult to market soccer. Oklahoma City has been see-sawing with Grand Rapids, however, Oklahoma City's central city is still growing at the same rate as its metropolitan area. Metropolitan Area/Central City 48/92-Grand Rapids....1,088,514 (16.0)/197,790(-2.6) 49/29-Oklahoma City..1,083,346 (13.0)/506,132(13.8) Grand Rapids is close enough to Detroit that it could get Detroit's support, yet maintain an identity that this is Grand Rapids' team. MLS could turn into a sideshow in a city like Detroit. I'm just concerned as to the opportunities for expansion that MLS will have. Can they afford to pass anything up? Do they have cities lined up with I/O groups and Stadiums (SSS) ready to go? Here is a league that is still struggling with trying to get its existing teams in MLS in stadiums. MLS has not reached the status of the NBA or NHL where there are ownership groups lined up with solid stadium plans. I'm sure with expansion that MLS is going to require a solid stadium plan (financing) before any markets are admitted.
Sorry but for that market size in OK, one team only. I'd love to see OKC get a team, but two in a relatively small state? Did someone say cannibalization of the fanbase?
The cities are a 1-1/2 to 2 hr drive apart and are different media markets. How exactly would the "cannibalization" take place?
Re: Some thoughts in the area of reality: Disagree. I used to live in Norfolk. It is an area with over 1.5 million people and a huge grassroots soccer area. Old Dominion University soccer and the hampton roads mariners of the A league draw pretty well. They have been trying for years to get a major league team there. I think it has the distinction of being the most populated area in the country without a major league team. I think if MLS went there, they would have the kind of support the crew get in columbus. They would be the only game in town.
Wait a second. Hold up. How would both an OKC and a Tulsa team complete with owners and new purpose-built stadia be a sign the end is near, again? What's more, I'd go as far as to guarantee that fans from each city will get behind the team at least for the natural rivalries with the other OK team and Dallas. If they have a stadium and a an owner, why the hell not?
Because new MLS franchises are fairly scarce--I'd say there are only 6 to 8 left to be doled out. To get a truly national awareness, the league is going to have to place these franchises with great care (unless MLS wants to be a league that shuffles teams from city to city on a regular basis). You want to find cities that will provide a good level of support, natch, but you also want to find places that will be big enough to provide local sponsors and growing fast enough to gain lots of fans from kids who are fond of their hometown team. You'd like some geographic distribution, though if two really big markets were close together (say, NYC and Northern New Jersey or LA and San Diego) that wouldn't necessarily stand in your way. Maybe you'd pick one smaller market, but one that had a fairly close proximity to a large number of people. As I said, Oklahoma City might qualify under these standards, but Tulsa wouldn't and both together are certainly out of the question. It would be like MLS announcing with great fanfare that, ta-da, they're expanding into both Albany and Syracuse, NY. Nothing against Albany or Syracuse--maybe they could make an MLS franchise work--but I find it impossible to believe that they are two of the eight best cities for a viable national sports league. That's why Grand Rapids makes such a great counter example. You hear "MLS expanding to Grand Rapids" and you go "eewww," but Grand Rapids is a market that is as attractive or more than Oklahoma City: larger, growing faster, just as far from its nearest MLS team (3 hours, per Rand McNally) and so on. Is Grand Rapids a place MLS ought to consider? My first reaction is probably not. And that's how I feel about OKC. But they want us. They really want us. Me, I'm not impressed. If the only expansion choices are second or third rung cities, I'd rather stay at ten teams. If the only available investors are Horrowitz-class pretenders, I'd stick with Anschutz and Hunt. But the NFL has Green Bay! And it abandoned Providence, RI, and Portsmouth, OH. The NBA dumped Fort Wayne and Syracuse. And expanding into both Oklahoma City and Tulsa would be a guarantee that fans in one of those cities--or both, or all MLS cities--will be similarly disappointed.
Sorry, but I think MLS badly needs to expand with some sort of success fairly soon or the league may go the way of the dinosaur. I mean, the league's in 7 of the top 8 media markets already and doesn't seem to exactly be getting the ratings to show for it. One thing about being a Fire fan in Chicago (lived there a year and a half ago) is the utter apathy shown by local media outlets... you have to agree NYC is the same way... when I lived a few years ago in Boston, the media types were seemed very friendly towards the Revolution... BUT MLS in these major markets gets COMPLETELY DWARFED by the Cubs, White Sox, Yankees, Mets and Red Sox let alone the NFL teams now that football's just around the corner... MLS is treated like a "fourth rung" sport in these "first rung" cities. Part of the success that is Columbus is simply that the team is treated like a major league team. I remember the top shelf local media coverage of the Roughnecks in Tulsa. The team had its home games on the major news/sports radio in town and away games on the ABC and then NBC affiliate. The fans supported and embraced the team. Maybe a "second rung" or "third rung" city is EXACTLY what this league needs. God knows they've tried it the other way and well, we don't exactly have large market teams beatin' down the doors for franchises, do we? Or big time investors, either... I think your draconian pronouncement in favor of OKC or Grand Rapids above Tulsa due to slightly higher TV markets is kinda misplaced. Even more misplaced when you mentioned Albany and Syracuse but rather conveniently forgot about the serious consideration given another NY city, ROCHESTER, whose TV market is smaller than Tulsa's. By the way, in an earlier thread, I can be quoted as stating that 2 Oklahoma teams would not happen in my lifetime... Yeah, 2 MLS teams in Oklahoma?... that'd be almost as dissapointing as putting expansion teams in Queens and Rochester...
I'd be curious to know what MLS ' long term strategy to obtain profitability is. If its aim is to become a league like the NFL or NBA that depends on television for much of its revenues, then, yes, it wouldn't make too much sense to have one, let alone, two teams in Oklahoma. But my guess is that MLS is looking to reach profitability via a route similar to the NHL, relying on ticket sales for most of its revenue. And if that's the case, as long as your team can average 17,000+ a game, it really wouldn't matter much whether it was located in major market like Chicago or in a much smaller one like Tulsa.
A couple of points: I use Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) rather than TV market for comparisons precisely because I think TV is going to be a lesser--though important--revenue stream, and TV markets (due to cable) are often much, much larger than a reasonable drive to attend a game. The TV market for Portland, for instance, extends down to the Nevada border though I think the people in Harney County can't be counted on to attend a game. Though Rochester may have a smaller TV market than Tulsa, I bet you could draw fans from every corner of it and beyond. But even if you are counting on attendance, size matters. I don't think there are that high a percentage of people who are willing to show up to a soccer match just because it's "major league" and it's in their home town. (It smacks of full house in Springfield for the Mexico-Portugal match.) There's got to be an affinity for the sport. So when you compare Tulsa to Columbus, a metro area that's twice the size, and say MLS could have the same sort of success, you have to convince me that the percentage of people willing to attend MLS matches on a regular basis is twice as high. Haven't done it yet. Sure, MLS need not place francises based solely on population size. And I have no argument in avoiding markets that are oversaturated with sports teams. But then saying that's an endorsement for Tulsa seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum--taking an argument to its absurd extreme. Expand? Sure. Yes. Of course. But only into cities of MLS's choosing, after extensive research into why some existing MLS franchises and cities work and why some don't. Accept bids from cities that match the profile, reject ones from those that don't. But MLS can't turn down a real life investor, can it? Let me put it this way: MLS once had a situation in which an investor was willing to pony up his own money not only for a franchise but also to make create an intimate soccer specific stadium. The market wasn't exactly perfect (in fact, in 1995 the New York Times wrote that the market would probably fail to support a baseball team) but, hey, a no-brainer, right? If you've got the cash and the stadium, welcome to the league. That new team was called . . . the Miami Fusion. And now you know . . . the rest of the story.
Listen, there are lies, damned lies... and your statistics... Tulsa 393,049 Rochester 219,783 First off, you're fudging the numbers on Tulsa being "half" the size of Columbus... next, funny but Columbus isn't anywhere near the size of Chicago, Boston, DC, NYC yet has very comparable attendance... If you're going to harshly compare Tulsa to Columbus, I'd say look in your own backyard... if Columbus draws 18,000 a game, NY/NJ should draw at least 100,000 per game... ludicrous... And the idea that you happen to know that Rochester will draw from a larger area than Tulsa is simply fantasy on your part. If you're going to discount Tulsa in favor of OKC, Grand Rapids, and Columbus, then you MUST exclude Rochester in favor of those cities as well... I think they call it... hypocrisy... In fact, I can argue that your example of Miami is flawed simply because it's a case of a larger MSA that for all your statistical analysis should have been drawing much bigger crowds than Columbus since it satisfies your criteria much better than OKC and Grand Rapids... I can't guarantee success for Tulsa anymore than you can pick and choose success or failure in your geographical musings, but I can tell you that there were bigger odds against Tulsa when the NASL moved a team from San Antonio and Honolulu there in 1978 than there is now... If NASL had single-entity and hadn't folded I'd wager the Tulsa Roughnecks (a team that outdrew the Rochester Lancers plus a number of big market teams every year of it's existence) would still be around today... And, although I'd be in favor of a Rochester franchise under the right conditions, nobody can guarantee that if the "new" Rhinos had a couple of losing seasons that the Rhinos would draw much more than they're drawing now... So, enjoy your pick and choose all-you-can-stomach-buffet of statistics, buddy... or maybe you could just read the first line of THIS post again and save the indigestion...
Metropolitan statistics? Central City statistics are good for a growing city like Tulsa because many of your larger cities have growing metropolitan areas and flight from the central cities. Here are your statistics on Tulsa vs. Rochester: Metropolitan Area: Rochester..1,098,201 increase 35,731 (+3.4). Tulsa...........803,235 increase 94,281 (+13.0). Source: U.S. Census 2000 http://blue.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t3.html Central City Tulsa............393,049 increase + 25,747(+7.0) Rochester......219,773 decrease -11,903 (-5.1) Source: Demographia 2000 Census http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kr.htm Rochester's metropolitan area is ranked at 47; ahead of 48 Grand Rapids and 49 Oklahoma City; however, at its slower rate of growth--it will be interesting to see if Rochester remains ahead of Grand Rapids and Oklahoma City come 2010. Rochester is averaging A-Level 11,000 fans per game; however, it doesn't have the soccer fan base potential that Tulsa possesses. Who knows what Rochester could be averaging if this was an MLS franchise, maybe 17-18,000 fans per game. Tulsa does have the history behind them and the town has gotten bigger. If you brought soccer back to Tulsa now, I'd bet this city could easily average 25,000-28,000 with an MLS level franchise. Rochester and Oklahoma City are hard towns on losers. I will say this in Tulsa's favor; a less competitive MLS franchise would survive longer in Tulsa than Rochester or Oklahoma City.
Sigh. Why I bother with this I don't know. Oh, it's because some nitwit with a computer called me a liar. Now, let's go to the videotape for a direct quote from the begining of the post you reference: Now, maybe you aren't being dishonest--maybe you're just an idiot. But any way you slice it, refuting my comparison of MSA populations with central city figures is the act of someone who doesn't have a lot of material to work with. Then, of course: Maybe you don't read very well. I apologize for not writing at the level of "Go Dogs, Go" for you. Let me explain what I meant when I said, "Though Rochester may have a smaller TV market than Tulsa, I bet you could draw fans from every corner of it and beyond." You see, not every TV market has the same area--I mean, is the same across. Some TV markets are many many miles across. Some TV markets are just a few miles across. When you drive in your car-car to a soccer game, it is easier to do it if you don't have to go so many miles. Now, parts of the Tulsa TV market are many many miles from the city. I believe McAlester is in the market and it is 93 miles away. That's far. Not so many people from McAlester will go to the game. The Rochester market is not so wide. Every town in it is within 50 miles of Rochester. That makes it easy for them to drive there. Drive Dogs, Drive. Drive to Rochester. Disclaimer: I am not an advocate of placing an MLS team in Rochester, at least not ahead of several other cities. But it has a lot more going for it than does Tulsa. I am not sure how to make this statement any clearer, so let me just repeat it from my previous post, in caps this time: MLS NEED NOT PLACE FRANCHISES BASED SOLELY ON POPULATION SIZE. Maybe it's the word "solely" that's tripping you up. "Solely" means to the exclusion of all other factors, you know, like that's the only thing you look at. And I agree, the New York Times agrees, MLS honchos now agree, Miami doesn't work as a location for a sports franchise even in spite of its size. That's why I wrote, I part, "The market wasn't exactly perfect (in fact, in 1995 the New York Times wrote that the market would probably fail to support a baseball team) . . . ." That's why I also wrote: The only reason why I could think that you would object to such a careful plan of action is that it would smoke Tulsa out as a disaster waiting to happen. You know, I've found the best way to avoid indigestion is to avoid swallowing bulls**t like your post in the first place.
Re: Metropolitan statistics? I'm not sure that I understand the significance of your central cities argument. The population of central cities is influenced by many factors, chief of which is the ease by which the cities can annex territory along its perimeter. Cleveland has a core city population that's more than a third less than that of Jacksonville, FL, but you can't tell me that metropolitan Jacksonville is in any real sense "bigger" that Cleveland. Both Jacksonville and Indianapolis have city/county combined governments that include within the city limits what would otherwise be suburbs. (In the late 1980s, when I last lived in Indiana, Indianapolis had considerable amounts of farmland within its city limits.) I agree with you that slow metro growth is a mark against Rochester, and I am certainly not a big supported of a Rochester MLS bid. But metro Tulsa is not growing especially quickly and is quite a bit smaller than metro Rochester--at present growth rates, it will take more than 20 years for metro Tulsa to surpass metro Rochester. And though there's no evidence that any city in the world would "easily" turn out an average of 28,000 people for an MLS team (read carefully; I said nothing about English or Mexican teams), you've been very reasonable, so I'll let that one pass.