Would the OKC Thunder had been as successful if they were in KC?
 

Re-reading the below thread and their recent success got me thinking about this.......could it have been the same in KC? IM gonna say no. OKC was lightening in a bottle.......They had no pro sports and the city has really rallied behind them. But who knows.....whats your take?




http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...hlight=thunder

Well, if they had Durant and Westbrook and Harden, I'll say yes.
But I think OKC is better for them if they're not as good, because they're the only show in town and people would probably still support them. I don't think people in KC would keep going downtown on a Tuesday to see a crummy team play the T-Wolves they same way they probably would in OKC.

Would they still get Kevin Durant?

My answer rests on that.

NO. They didn't support the team when they had one.

No. Bad karma bro.

Chiefs fans don't watch the NBA? :Poke:

Unfortunately I would say no. Between the Chiefs, Royals and KU there really isn't much more room to spread this few number of fans.

I think Sporting is the perfect size for Kansas City. An NBA team would simply have been too big. 41 home games a year is more difficult to fill than one would think.

Yes. A winner is a winner. You go to the Finals, people will show.

They already had Kevin Durant.

Untrue. The Kings didn't leave because of lack of support.

The casual KU fans would flock to a successful NBA team pretty quickly.

The people that don't care about the Chiefs and Royals because they suck would also flock to a successful NBA team.

That's just it. They weren't winners before arriving in OKC. OKC supported them before waiting until they made a conference championship.

Waiting until they make a conference championship, isn't support. It's band-wagon.

That's why they split between TWO CITIES???

23k people attended the Royals game last night.

A marginally successful NBA team would have no problems packing the Sprint Center.

yep.