Jump to content

NBA Expansion?


rebelx

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to hear people's opinions on whether one more NBA expansion (confined to the U.S.) is likely at some point after the recession. I personally would like to see two more teams, for a grand total of 32 (like the NFL), with those teams being the revived Sonics and a Kansas City franchise. Anybody know or been able to gather anything about the prospects for future expansion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I just wanted to hear people's opinions on whether one more NBA expansion (confined to the U.S.) is likely at some point after the recession. I personally would like to see two more teams, for a grand total of 32 (like the NFL), with those teams being the revived Sonics and a Kansas City franchise. Anybody know or been able to gather anything about the prospects for future expansion?

Very little chance. The NBA is as far apart with their CBA as the NFL is. The NBA?s proposal reportedly calls for a hard salary cap, rollback in salaries, shortening the length of contracts and decreasing the players? take of Basketball Related Revenue from 57% to 45%. While it is very early in the bargaining process, and compromise will be needed, the owners have given the players what to respond too.

Add the fact that the Bobcats recent sale is reportedly valued at $175M, after Bob Johnson paid a franchise fee of $300M seven years ago, means that it probably a poor investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, I wouldn't expand the NBA, I would expand instead the D-League in order for every NBA team to have its own D-League affiliate, close enough to the city of the parent club. This way, draft picks won't be sent straight to the pros if they aren't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, I wouldn't expand the NBA, I would expand instead the D-League in order for every NBA team to have its own D-League affiliate, close enough to the city of the parent club. This way, draft picks won't be sent straight to the pros if they aren't ready.

That would be great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, I wouldn't expand the NBA, I would expand instead the D-League in order for every NBA team to have its own D-League affiliate, close enough to the city of the parent club. This way, draft picks won't be sent straight to the pros if they aren't ready.

That would be great idea.

Considering how many 1st-tier cities in America are barely willing to support the NBA, how many second- and third-tier cities do you think are going to be willing to support NBA-Lite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, I wouldn't expand the NBA, I would expand instead the D-League in order for every NBA team to have its own D-League affiliate, close enough to the city of the parent club. This way, draft picks won't be sent straight to the pros if they aren't ready.

That would be great idea.

Considering how many 1st-tier cities in America are barely willing to support the NBA, how many second- and third-tier cities do you think are going to be willing to support NBA-Lite?

Especially considering the number of torched markets that the ABA, CBA, *fill in X League here* and even the vaunted D League have left in their wake. That and college teams tend to murder minor league basketball teams at the box office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, I wouldn't expand the NBA, I would expand instead the D-League in order for every NBA team to have its own D-League affiliate, close enough to the city of the parent club. This way, draft picks won't be sent straight to the pros if they aren't ready.

That would be great idea.

Considering how many 1st-tier cities in America are barely willing to support the NBA, how many second- and third-tier cities do you think are going to be willing to support NBA-Lite?

Especially, when Bakersfield Jam does this for home games.

Plus NBDL players make way under six figures. Here is something else for most of you who like the thought of expanding the NBDL, but have no clue on its business model, outside of what their logos are.

Nov. 2009 CNBC story on NBDL

Four of the 16 teams are owned by NBA owners and the league has made it more appealing by allowing team owners to control player personnel on the teams they own...

On the surface, the numbers might not look all that impressive. D-League president Dan Reed said that league attendance averaged 2,800 fans per game last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to hear people's opinions on whether one more NBA expansion (confined to the U.S.) is likely at some point after the recession. I personally would like to see two more teams, for a grand total of 32 (like the NFL), with those teams being the revived Sonics and a Kansas City franchise. Anybody know or been able to gather anything about the prospects for future expansion?

If it happens It will be Seattle Supersonics reviving as an expansion team because the OKC Thunder have to pay the city of Seattle $30 million if the Sonics are not back within 3 years (2013 to be exact). and the second team could be a tussle between Kansas City and Pittsburgh with Pittsburgh being the better option (no homering. expanding the NBA in Europe makes no sense travel and financial wise and the owners will never vote for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that a smallish (though not by NBA standards I guess) city with an economy that is in the toilet should really be looked at as a candidate for expansion, though crazier things have happened. Unfortunately, you need demand, and potential owners, neither of which exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stern said in a podcast with Bill Simmons that he feels NBA had reached its saturation limit and wouldn't expand again any time soon. That being said, KC has that brand new arena just sitting empty, so I wouldn't be shocked to see a weak NBA or NHL franchise move there at some point soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the NBA brand's reached a saturation point at all. It's reached a saturation point with the league's current, somewhat elitist mindset. The prospects for pro basketball growth, under different conditions, would actually be quite good.

The NBA now considers itself a better product than it actually is, commanding ridiculous ticket prices and paying its players ridiculous sums of money. I'm not knocking the game of basketball by saying this, but there's no NBA team on Earth that should command $300 million, nor any collective of 13 guys who should command combined salaries of $50 million-plus. The reason for the latter? Talent. There's basketball talent everywhere, a lot of it of NBA calibre but that is never given a realistic opportunity to demonstrate it at the pro level.

Forget expanding to 32 teams. Expand to 64. Yes, I said 64. Expand the playoffs to 32 teams. Give franchises to places like Hartford, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Raleigh, New Orleans, Seattle, St. Louis, Vancouver, Las Vegas. The argument that doing so will "water down" the league is a myth - the talent level adapts relatively quickly league-wide to expansion.

How would expansion help the NBA? Well, first a "grand expansion" to 64 teams would likely command around $100-200 million per franchise, immediately putting billions in the league's coffers. Second, it would cause a greater leveling of the playing field in terms of players' getting monster contracts: yes, it would still happen, but only for the truly elite players (there'd be enough proven talent out there that players would be easily replaceable). Third, while admittedly it would reduce per-club network television rights revenues, it would result in greater gate revenue splits and would allow the league to go back to the networks and get greater rights fees, as the league would have clubs in more desirable markets.

Will we see expansion? No. Should we? I think we should. What's more likely is an ABA-style challenge to the NBA in the next decade, provided someone with a boatload of cash comes along and decides to take them on. The NBA, and the NHL, are both ripe for another challenge to their dominance in their respective sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it certainly makes sense to expand (to fill in Seattle, primarily, and fill the Sprint Arena in KC without stealing someone else's team away), there are plenty of NBA cities with a struggling team. I think many of these existing teams would be better off somewhere else.

The Grizzlies have been losing games and money for a few years in Memphis now, the Bucks and Wolves haven't been relevenat for a while, and don't even get me started with the Nets.

Up to this season (and likely even now), the Grizzlies seemed more fit somewhere else, and even David Stern said something to the effect that he wished he hadn't given Vancouver a franchise (though, I'm told, support was better there than it appeared).

A simple solution to the Memphis problem (if indeed it still is a problem) would be to take the Grizzlies and move them to Seattle and rename them the SuperSonics, "inheriting" the Sonics' history.

While I don't like the idea of mixing relocation and something Cleveland Deal-esque, nor do I like the idea of moving a one-horse-town's only horse somewhere else, moving the Grizzlies to Seattle would solve Stern's issue of "I wish that I had never allowed the Grizzlies franchise to exist" and the Seattle situation. This avoids the possibility of creating another potential perennial losing team that no one wants to watch, unless the Lakers, Magic, or Cavs (or whoever lands LeBron this summer, if Cleveland doesn't keep him) are in town.

However, Seattle won't be getting a team until their political leaders do something to solve the arena issue, as David Stern loves those shiny new buildings. And if that doesn't happen, he'll get himself a shiny new city, as we saw with the Sonics-to-OKC situation.

And, of course, the Grizzlies are stuck in Memphis until 2015, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stern knows of what he speaks. Best commissioner in sports. If he says there's nowhere left to put an NBA team, then there's nowhere left to put an NBA team. Pittsburgh is way too small to be a four-league town and the Penguins would not be keen on sharing their building and winter months with another tenant. Putting NBA teams in Hartford and Richmond is a pipe dream so I won't further indulge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give franchises to places like Hartford, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Raleigh, New Orleans, Seattle, St. Louis, Vancouver, Las Vegas.

Mac, your wish is granted....

hornets%20logo.gif

:P

I meant a real franchise, not those transplanted Charlotteans.

The New Orleans Hornets ARE a real franchise.

Anyway, if the NBA expands to 32 teams, the reborn Seattle SuperSonics will most likely be the 31st team, while the 32nd team will go either to Pittsburgh or Kansas City or even Omaha (in case you're wondering, Omaha used to share the Kings franchise with Kansas City between 1972 and 1978).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Pittsburgh and Omaha have less than zero chance of getting an NBA team. Besides the whole market size and economy things (which are certainly in neither team's favor, especially Omaha), it's not like the league just "awards" teams to cities. The cities need at least one ownership group basically sucking the league's nuts to be granted a franchise. Along with that, you need a fan base that is pining for a team. Neither of those cities have any of that going for them.

Syracuse once had an NBA team. Why not put them on your list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, if the NBA expands to 32 teams, the reborn Seattle SuperSonics will most likely be the 31st team, while the 32nd team will go either to Pittsburgh or Kansas City or even Omaha (in case you're wondering, Omaha used to share the Kings franchise with Kansas City between 1972 and 1978).

Please note that they effectively abandoned the Omaha "experiment" in 1975, reducing their home dates to a frequency similar to "Utah Jazz in Las Vegas" for the remainder of their date-sharing in Omaha. Please also note that when Kemper Arena's roof fell in in 1979, the Kings did not take up playing games in Omaha again, but rather played their entire slate in the New Deal Rattrap that is Kansas City Municipal Auditorium.

Omaha ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.