NBA Basketball in St. Louis

[rebelx]

I asked this as part of another thread in the past and got a couple brief responses, but I'm asking again and hoping to get more theories/info. Why did the NBA never move back to St. Louis after the Hawks left in '68? That still puzzles me. As I understand it, the Hawks didn't leave due to lack of fan support; it was simply that their new ownership group happened to be based in Atlanta and felt the need to rip the team right out of their city, not unlike what happened to the Sonics. It's just strange that in all the years since, St. Louis has never really been a serious relocation possibility for any team, despite the good track record while the NBA was there. I think the Hornets were considering it, but only briefly. Might still be a good place for them to move if things don't work out in NO .

Anyway, I'd like to know what people think.

[omnivore]

The NBA wasn't interested in St. Louis during the ABA-NBA merger, which is why the Spirits of St. Louis didn't get into the league at that time. Now? It's about most things. No interested owner, really. There were the rumblings before the Hornets moved to New Orleans, but they built Shinn a brand new arena there and the Scottrade Center is okay but it's not brand new.

Saturated market of good sports fans, but you need an owner who wants to put his team there and these days, teams aren't moving to your city unless you've giving them a new building and all sorts of other concessions. I think Kansas City and it's sparkling new Sprint Center would likely get an NBA bite these days (though I now they're all about hockey) than the sprawling St. Louis market.

It's not the major city it once was. The Cardinals do well because they have strong ownership that's owned the team for ages and they're successful. The Blues were a perennial playoff team until fairly recently and that helped and when the Rams were winning, the city was abuzz for them. Now, they'll be lucky to keep them another decade.

So who knows? Having lived there for a few years, I'd say that a St. Louis basketball team would be even more fun than a team in Brooklyn.

[The_Admiral]

I think the Silna brothers still have territorial rights and don't want to give up those sweet, sweet broadcast dividends they got for folding the Spirits. There were some roadblocks to the Vancouver Grizzlies moving there.

[Gothamite]

I know that the Silna Brothers still own a piece of the television revenues (and seriously, that's how I thought SEMI PRO was going to end), but I don't know that it's been confirmed they also own the territorial rights. The two need not be linked.

[rams80]

For what it's worth, the Spirits had flat out awful attendance, which may have deterred the NBA from any future franchise placement as well.

[Mac the Knife]

I think the Silna brothers still have territorial rights and don't want to give up those sweet, sweet broadcast dividends they got for folding the Spirits. There were some roadblocks to the Vancouver Grizzlies moving there.

No - the Silna's are not part of the 'problem' with the NBA going to St. Louis. The deal they reached has no provisions with respect to NBA territorial rights; the broadcast revenue they receive is their only ongoing benefit.

That said, had the Spirits been admitted into the NBA, odds are the team would've been relocated by now. Much as I love the city, its demographics have changed in a fashion that make it less attractive to a NBA franchise than other locations - its metro population rivals that of Pittsburgh and has been surpassed by cities like mine (Raleigh), the per capita income levels are higher in a number of other places, and an NBA franchise would have to compete for disposable income with three other major sports franchises (the Rams, Cardinals and Blues).

The NBA has figured out that, when it comes to relocating franchises anyway, going into smaller markets where it's the only pro game in town (i.e., Oklahoma City) is perhaps the best way to maximize its team's local revenue streams. Television money isn't going anywhere as there'll always be teams in the major markets the networks crave, so it makes sense for smaller but developing population centers to get teams when opportunities for them arise.

[B-Rich]

There were the rumblings before the Hornets moved to New Orleans, but they built Shinn a brand new arena there

Wrong.

The New Orleans Arena was planned for and built well before Shinn decided to move the Hornets. Funding for the Arena was approved in 1994, and shortly after that was when the tentative sale of the Minnesota Timberwolves to a group headed by Bob Arum was announced, a sale in which the T-Wolves were going to be moved to New Orleans. Of course that sale was not approved by the NBA Board of Governors. The arena was completed and opened in 1999, three years before the Hornets move was approved in 2002.

Getting back to the original point: yes, I think St. Louis is about tapped-out in terms of ability to support pro sports. Having 3 teams may even be a stretch. There are, of course, rumblings of the Rams possibly moving back to L.A. And lest we forget, in 1983 the city came VERY close to losing the NHL Blues, either via a move to Saskatoon or dissolution by the league: The Saskatoon Blues

Mac and Gothamite are right, there is no territorial claim by the Silnas. They only get rich off of the TV revenues of the 4 ABA teams that made the transition (and Gothamite, having Jackie Moon get the Silna treatment for the end of Semi-Pro would've been GOLD).

[DustDevil61]

No - the Silna's are not part of the 'problem' with the NBA going to St. Louis. The deal they reached has no provisions with respect to NBA territorial rights; the broadcast revenue they receive is their only ongoing benefit.

That said, had the Spirits been admitted into the NBA, odds are the team would've been relocated by now. Much as I love the city, its demographics have changed in a fashion that make it less attractive to a NBA franchise than other locations - its metro population rivals that of Pittsburgh and has been surpassed by cities like mine (Raleigh), the per capita income levels are higher in a number of other places, and an NBA franchise would have to compete for disposable income with three other major sports franchises (the Rams, Cardinals and Blues).

The NBA has figured out that, when it comes to relocating franchises anyway, going into smaller markets where it's the only pro game in town (i.e., Oklahoma City) is perhaps the best way to maximize its team's local revenue streams. Television money isn't going anywhere as there'll always be teams in the major markets the networks crave, so it makes sense for smaller but developing population centers to get teams when opportunities for them arise.

Let's not forget that even before the ABA folded, the Spirits were thinking about relocation, lest we forget the Utah Rockies.

[STL FANATIC]

I truly believe St. Louis could support an NBA team, but it's not in the cards any time soon.

A lot of this has been said already, but..

1. There's not a brand new building. Scottrade is still very nice and they do a good job keeping it fresh. But the number of years, whether it's just number or not, matters in these cases, and it's about 15 years old now.

2. There's already three major pro teams here. They're all supported well (short of the low attendance when your team is dead last problem that most cities face), but that's still 3 teams competing for dollars. The NBA has shifted to an "only game in town" model.

3. Other potential cities meet both 1 and 2 right now.

When Bill Laurie bought the Blues around 98 or 99, he was desperately trying to land an NBA team to bring to his building, but it never panned out. The Grizzlies in all probability would have moved to St. Louis, but the NBA sought to keep them in Vancouver. A year later they backed off. There were rumors of the Hornets coming, but there owners more than likely were just using STL as leverage with New Orleans. Laurie has since sold the building and the hockey team.

Outside of that, there hasn't been much talk of it, though I have heard a desire from fans to have one. But that's not how it actually works.

I do have this dream that new Rams owner Stan Kroenke will divest himself of the Nuggets and Avs, buy the large stake of the Blues that is for sale, and then find a way to bring an NBA team to join them. None of that is going to happen, but it'd be cool.

[Shmee]

For what it's worth, the city of St. Louis has half the population it did in the 1960s. I don't know about figures regarding the greater metropolitan area, but that's a HUGE hit to have taken over that time. Recently, St. Louis has done a lot to improve itself as you can see in all the green spaces and public art displays around downtown, but that city was at one time the 4th largest in the country.

[NorthStar74]

St. Louis back in the NBA?? That might be something but I dont know if it would be entirely possible... I know there were some reports that the Vancouver Grizzlies (now Memphis Grizzlies) were going to St. Louis and I thought it was very odd given the fact St. Louis has the NL Cardinals, NFL Rams and NHL Blues there and it would have been overkill for a 4th major sport team to be making its home in the Gateway City... what if one of the 3 other major sport leagues do leave St. Louis, would the NBA want to swoop up that area?? I have to wonder...

[The_Admiral]

Well, if any team left, it would be the Rams, because obviously the Cardinals are never ever leaving, and I should like to think the Blues are fairly stable. The NBA doesn't really cover the NFL's schedule, and in fact it would overlap with the two existing teams.

Personally, I have no particular desire to see the NBA in St. Louis, The only place I want to see the league where it isn't is Seattle.

[The Six]

Spirits of St. Louis is one of the best team names ever.

[DnBronc]

Well, if any team left, it would be the Rams, because obviously the Cardinals are never ever leaving, and I should like to think the Blues are fairly stable. The NBA doesn't really cover the NFL's schedule, and in fact it would overlap with the two existing teams.

Personally, I have no particular desire to see the NBA in St. Louis, The only place I want to see the league where it isn't is Seattle.

I don't know if it could happen, but I would love to see the Rams go back to LA, and the Jaguars come to St. Louis. It would right two wrongs that happened in the 90's.

[Saintsfan]

Spirits of St. Louis is one of the best team names ever.

This. But that might be about the only reason to have an NBA franchise in the city, and a funky name isn't enough!!

But the ABA had some pretty good names across the board. That league knew how to sell itself!

[Gothamite]

Well, if any team left, it would be the Rams, because obviously the Cardinals are never ever leaving, and I should like to think the Blues are fairly stable. The NBA doesn't really cover the NFL's schedule, and in fact it would overlap with the two existing teams.

Personally, I have no particular desire to see the NBA in St. Louis, The only place I want to see the league where it isn't is Seattle.

I don't know if it could happen, but I would love to see the Rams go back to LA, and the Jaguars come to St. Louis. It would right two wrongs that happened in the 90's.

Continuing your aside, I really thought that was likely to happen until Missouri passed the "Starve St. Louis and Kansas City Bill". Now I doubt that St. Louis will have the money to buy a new stadium after the Rams leave and scare them into it.

[yh]

As I understand it, the Hawks didn't leave due to lack of fan support;

Sadly, incorrect. The Hawks left primarily due to the exodus of their fanbase once the team's roster turned predominately African American. Keep in mind that St. Louis in the mid-1960s was still very much a segregated community with white flight well into its second decade. The Hawks, who were arguably the Western Conference's most consistently successful on-court team in the 1960's played most of their games in Kiel Auditorium in downtown St. Louis (on the site presently occupied by the Scottrade Center). At the time, the auditorium was situated adjacent to an abandoned warehouse district and a very rickety Union Station. Hawks ownership was well aware that the auditorium was in disrepair and in a less than optimal location for its optimal fanbase. The City of St. Louis offered no assistance in improving the building or its surrounding environs.

A move westward to the Arena (situated in a considerably more comfortable - read "whiter" - area just south of Forest Park) was not practical at first due to the massive renovation expense needed to bring it up to contemporary NBA standards and subsequently not practical because the NHL Blues purchased the building, renovated it and claimed all of the prime game dates. It should be noted that the Hawks did use the Arena occasionally over the years, but never as a full-time venue.

The teams co-existed in St. Louis for one year (67-68) and it was clear that the Blues were a runaway hit with the local sports crowd (again, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why). In 1968 the Hawks ownership sold the franchise to an Atlanta real estate group who promptly moved the team to Georgia within weeks of closing the purchase.

[The_Admiral]

I should like to think the Blues are fairly stable.

lol whoops!

Interesting story on the Blues/Hawks dynamic. Never suspected there was that much to it. I also didn't know downtown was so bad once.

[McCall]

The NBA wasn't interested in St. Louis during the ABA-NBA merger, which is why the Spirits of St. Louis didn't get into the league at that time. Now? It's about most things. No interested owner, really. There were the rumblings before the Hornets moved to New Orleans, but they built Shinn a brand new arena there and the Scottrade Center is okay but it's not brand new.

Saturated market of good sports fans, but you need an owner who wants to put his team there and these days, teams aren't moving to your city unless you've giving them a new building and all sorts of other concessions. I think Kansas City and it's sparkling new Sprint Center would likely get an NBA bite these days (though I now they're all about hockey) than the sprawling St. Louis market.

It's not the major city it once was. The Cardinals do well because they have strong ownership that's owned the team for ages and they're successful. The Blues were a perennial playoff team until fairly recently and that helped and when the Rams were winning, the city was abuzz for them. Now, they'll be lucky to keep them another decade.

So who knows? Having lived there for a few years, I'd say that a St. Louis basketball team would be even more fun than a team in Brooklyn.

The current ownership has only been in place since 1996. They're primary success is because they're one of the most successful franchises in baseball and because they were the team of the midwest for so long, thanks to KMOX stretching over so much space from west (not sure how far) all the way to Indiana. They were for many the team to listen to and follow.

Personally, I don't really mind if they never get a team. I'd rather keep the 3 we got. The Cardinals obviously are never going anywhere and the Blues, although on the market at this time, are a pretty safe bet to stay. I think the Rams will ultimately stay because of the local owner, but also because I think 2 other teams will beat them to LA before they can get there.

Let KC get a team. They got a brand spanking new arena and not much else to cheer for. The Chiefs are good sometimes but major letdowns. And the only other game in town, besides MLS, is minor league baseball. But I think a lot are satisfied with the sports scene in St. Louis as it is now.

[infrared41]

Spirits of St. Louis is one of the best team names ever.

This. But that might be about the only reason to have an NBA franchise in the city, and a funky name isn't enough!!

But the ABA had some pretty good names across the board. That league knew how to sell itself!

The Dallas Chaparrals, Virginia Squires, and Kentucky Colonels for the win Peter.

Anyway, on topic; There are quite a few cities I see as more viable options for an NBA franchise than St. Louis would be. I'd love to see the NBA come to Columbus but I'm sure Cleveland (and maybe Indiana and Detroit) would have a real problem with that.