Reply With Quote
That's way too ambitious.
In the unlikely event they even consider expansion, it would be two teams tops. Seattle would be an obvious choice if they built an arena but no other market is super attractive.
With the salary cap going up in the next three years should the NBA consider expansion somtime soon.
If the NBA did expand I would see them expanding to six cities*. Two or three would have to go back to former cities.
What other cities would you consider? Columbus, Birmingham,Montreal,
Kansas City, Nashville, Jacksonville?
What do you think?
Northwest division
Seattle *
Portland
Utah.
Denver.
Minnesota.
Vancouver*
Pacific division.
Golden State.
Sacramento.
LA Lakers.
LA Clippers
Anaheim *
San Diego* or Las Vegas*
Southwest division
Dallas.
Houston
San Antonio.
New Orleans
Phoenix.
Oklahoma City.
Northeast division
Boston
Brooklyn
New York
Philadelphia
Toronto
Washington
Central division
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Milwalkee
Pittsburgh* or Cincinatti*
Southeast division
Atlanta
Charlotte
Miami
Memphis
Orlando
St Louis*
That's way too ambitious.
In the unlikely event they even consider expansion, it would be two teams tops. Seattle would be an obvious choice if they built an arena but no other market is super attractive.
There already too many teams, with too little coaching/playing/front-office talent. 20 of 30 teams are uncompe ive, but "it's a business".
"Unlikely" is right. Not long ago some people suggested the league should actually contract - not just for financial but also compe ive reasons. Undoubtedly Seattle will get a team at some point - either via relocation (likely) or expansion (less likely). It seems only fans who disregard the finances of the less profitable teams and the abysmal records of the less compe ive teams want the NBA to expand to mirror the NFL. If the NBA wants 32 teams then Seattle will be number 31. If the Rams leave St. Louis, then the NBA might feel like a return to St. Louis could be profitable. Las Vegas might be inching closer with gambling becoming less of an anathema to pro sports.
With the success of Kentucky and Louisville, I am surprised that there hasn't been any NBA interest in the region.....even in a city close, like Cincinnati.
I am also surprised that St. Louis doesn't have a team, but with the deal the Spirit did, I am sure the NBA has stayed away on purpose. I am surprised that KC couldn't support a team, but Sacramento can. Seattle supported their team, but the owners wanted a new arena. They had tons of money, I am surprised that the owners couldn't find a way to get that arena built. As for Vegas, I would have no problem with a team there, but I don't know if the league would be comfortable with it. I can see a ton of problems with having a bunch of young millionaires running around the streets of Vegas when they come in for a road game.
Seattle is a given as a new franchise. After that, I would go after Cincinnati or KC/St. Louis, then Las Vegas.
League's already watered down enough. if anything they should be contracting franchises so there's more starpower on each team.
League needs to contract, tbh.
As others have said, it's two teams max. Seattle and one other (Vegas, Vancouver again, second team in Chicago, etc.). Would give excuse to either eliminate divisions or go 4x4x2. You cannot dilute the product on the court anymore than it already is.
Unlikely to be a team in a college town. Money there is already spent on college sports and many big college towns either (1) lack big business to drive suite sales or (2) are already in close proximity to an NBA team.
Screw that Southwest division though.
This. Most of the cities you mentioned are jokes to get a team. Seattle would work and maybe Pit. Vancouver has already failed. Anaheim and San Diego are too close to LA/SAC town. Not enough fans in the area for one more team let alone two. A pro team in Vegas won't happen. Cincinatti can barely support their current teams let alone adding more. I used to live near STL and all they give a about is the Cardinals.
pipe dream is less teams, less games, more neutral global arenas hosting big regular season matchups
I say let's not water down the league and the East any further tbh
I don't think you can quite consider LA and Anaheim the same markets. They're close as the crow flies, but if you measure the distance between them by drive time to catch a 7:30 game it might as well be San Antonio to Houston. I'm serious, when I lived in LA sometimes I'd go to Angels games and the drive could be three hours, no exaggeration whatsoever. And frankly, I'd rather do the San Antonio to Houston drive than the LA to Anaheim rush hour drive since you wouldn't be doing tons of stopping and starting at 2 mph.
Maybe so, but their is only so many fans in California to go around. I just don't see Anaheim being able to support another pro sports team. Especially with Cali already having 4 pro teams. Two of them being in LA.
You should have posted "California Division" instead of "Pacific Division", tbh...
I really doubt Kings fans are gonna drive like 10 hrs to San Diego or Anaheim. Cali fans do front run. They can support another team. SoCal has the population to support another team and profit. Should they? No.
As you said, they are frontrunners. An expansion team is likely going to be very bad. California won't support a bad team, especially when there is two very good teams in state at the moment.
The city of Anaheim itself it not big enough to support another pro team imo anyway.
I don't think they should. But I think the money is there. They have 5 MLB teams. Lakers still make money and suck. Clippers all the sudden have fans. If it's about money and not quality of the game, then yes they can support another team there. More so than some of the cities mentioned in other states. Sad thing is they'd claim a Vegas team also if their team was sucking.
I don't know about expansion. I do think Seattle and Vegas are probably two markets where you could move economically underperforming teams to.
I think Vegas is a good honorary NBA city. With summer league, team USA friendly games, and maybe some more all star games. But I think Vegas has too many other things to do. So a struggling team would fail there. I lived there for 13 years. I think they are a good show with the NBAish events they have. Full time team not so much.
Anaheim is only like 340k people though. You really think they can support a third pro team? I just don't see it. Maybe I am wrong, but we will honestly probably never know.
I don't see LVille as a bad city to move a team, good sized city and Kentucky is crazy about basketball. Having some former Kentucky/Lville players on a pro team would go a long way towards drawing attendance tbh.
No Anhahiem is too close. I think most would from that area would agree. San Diego would work though. They have other pro teams to prove it. Using the collage town thing could work against the league just as well as having a pro team. Simple fact is there aren't enough star power in the league to expand when all the stars contract to a few teams. It's fun to say who could support a team. But how many teams actually please their fans?
An expansion is not going to happen however if it were to happen it would be nice to see something overseas - London or Berlin maybe.
It would. But travel/ time zones would suck. The league has already used travel as a playoff issue against a 1-16 seeding vs the current east-west set up.
Obviously it would never happen but I find it funny that they call it "world" champions even though it is only the U.S. and Canada with teams. Travel would be a nightmare to figure out but I think the compe ion would actually improve.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
