PDA

View Full Version : If the NBA expands to 32 teams



Tg11
04-29-2017, 07:00 PM
If the NBA expands to 32 teams...16 teams in the East 16 teams in the West but only 8 teams make the playoffs in each conference then which 2 locations should the NBA go to? My ideal 2 locations would be Seattle and they would go in the East and Las Vegas they would go to the West

Quinnsanity
04-29-2017, 07:39 PM
They wouldn't put Seattle in the East. If both of the teams were based in the western part of the country they'd put them both in that conference move Memphis or Minnesota to the East.

I think it's Seattle and Mexico City. There's no growth opportunity left in Vegas now that they have two teams. But expanding into another international market would do a lot for the league's global ambitions, and Mexico City already has a state of the art arena. I've said this before, but I imagine they do something like a five-year trial run in Mexico City, where if it works out, great, but if not, they move to a more stable American market like they did with Vancouver/Memphis. The arena is already in place so the NBA would have all of the leverage.

Seattle is a lock though.

Tg11
04-29-2017, 07:52 PM
Seattle if they went to the West then to the East I would then have another Canadian market in the NBA at least to round out the East that being Montreal and with them getting an NBA team you can put them in the East

Quinnsanity
04-29-2017, 09:47 PM
Seattle if they went to the West then to the East I would then have another Canadian market in the NBA at least to round out the East that being Montreal and with them getting an NBA team you can put them in the East

Quebec City actually just opened a new arena a few years ago if they wanted to go back to Canada, but I don't think it makes much sense. The second Canadian market failed in Vancouver, and that was on the other side of the country. Having two Canadian teams so close to each other would really hurt Toronto's market share.

Tg11
04-29-2017, 09:59 PM
Well not necessarily because yeah Toronto and Montreal yeah geographically they are so close to each other but at the same time it would be good because at least there would be yet another Canadian team that people can cheer for besides the Raptors

Quinnsanity
04-29-2017, 10:01 PM
Well not necessarily because yeah Toronto and Montreal yeah geographically they are so close to each other but at the same time it would be good because at least there would be yet another Canadian team that people can cheer for besides the Raptors

That's not really something Canadians are clamoring for though. If they were, the Grizzlies would've succeeded there. Vancouver made much more sense given the geographic distance. Why do Canadian fans need a second team more than Mexican fans need a first?

Tg11
04-29-2017, 10:07 PM
Because I don't see the NBA going to Mexico if anything I could see them strictly staying in the US if they are going to expand again

And honestly I just can't see them crossing over the international market like that to expand

But I could see them going to Mexico for like regular season games like how the NBA goes to London each year I just can't see them expanding to Mexico

However, cities I could see them going to:

Seattle
Pittsburgh
Kansas City
St. Louis
Las Vegas
Louisville

valade16
04-30-2017, 12:14 AM
That's not really something Canadians are clamoring for though. If they were, the Grizzlies would've succeeded there. Vancouver made much more sense given the geographic distance. Why do Canadian fans need a second team more than Mexican fans need a first?

From what I've read Vancouver's problems were less fan enthusiasm and more bad management and ownership.

Lab Rat Robby
04-30-2017, 01:01 AM
i like the idea of putting a new eastern conference team in the state of Kentucky. i feel like they could come up with a really cool name. The Rivalry, the Secret Recipe, or the Triple Crown?

I also like the idea of a team in Mexico City. The NBA could market the hell out of it. While Trump builds a boarder wall, the NBA builds a team in Mexico.

Maybe a really cool idea would be to expand by 4 teams. I haven't even touched on Seattle and Las Vegas, because no brainer. And i think a great sleeper destination would be the Cayman Islands. If you think Texas and Florida have a tax advantage during free agency, imagine a team in a country with no income tax.

warfelg
04-30-2017, 08:32 AM
Expand with both teams in the west:

Give Seattle their team back.

For options for the other team location, there's San Diego, Las Vegas, KC, St. Louis. Personally I think KC or St. Louis is a nice pick. There's a big gap in that area right now.

Then kick either Memphis or NO to the east. Personally I like pushing New Orleans over for building a set of really good divisions.

Divisions:
East -
Atlantic Metro: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
Rust Belt: Toronto, Indiana, Charlotte, Washington
Great Lakes: Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland
Gulf Region: New Orleans, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami

Cali coastal: Golden State, Sacramento, LAC, LAL
Big Sky: Seattle, Portland, Utah, Denver
Rio Grande: Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston
Mississippi River: Memphis, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Minnesota

Heediot
04-30-2017, 08:41 AM
Expand with both teams in the west:

Give Seattle their team back.

For options for the other team location, there's San Diego, Las Vegas, KC, St. Louis. Personally I think KC or St. Louis is a nice pick. There's a big gap in that area right now.

Then kick either Memphis or NO to the east. Personally I like pushing New Orleans over for building a set of really good divisions.

Divisions:
East -
Atlantic Metro: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
Rust Belt: Toronto, Indiana, Charlotte, Washington
Great Lakes: Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland
Gulf Region: New Orleans, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami

Cali coastal: Golden State, Sacramento, LAC, LAL
Big Sky: Seattle, Portland, Utah, Denver
Rio Grande: Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston
Mississippi River: Memphis, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Minnesota

Nice division names and geographic divide. too bad Toronto couldn't be squeezed into the great lakes.

mrblisterdundee
04-30-2017, 08:48 AM
Seattle has first dibs, but after that, there's probably a midwestern city in the running.
Under the right management, I think a team in Vancouver could work. That city has a ton of wealth and star power. It also has the largest Asian-American population of any North American city, which should entice the NBA as it tries to expand its market. It would make a nice Pacific Northwest rivalry in one of the fastest-growing parts of the country.
San Jose has a hockey stadium, and is bigger than San Francisco. I could see a team going there, or even back in Oakland. Either way, there would be a nice Bay Rivalry.

Tg11
04-30-2017, 10:41 AM
Seattle in the West but for the East it would make sense for another team to be in the East...16 teams in each conference similar to the NHL and in the East I would put a team like Pittsburgh in the East

Quinnsanity
04-30-2017, 06:33 PM
Here's why I keep harping on Mexico City:

As a general rule, NBA owners do not want to expand. It dilutes the talent pool, lowers franchise valuations (exclusivity matters) and creates more competition, both on and off of the court. If they're going to do it, it has to be in markets that have very clear benefits for the entire league.

Seattle is one of the fastest growing markets in the country and has a booming tech sector. It behooves the league to have footing there, especially given the city's NBA history. It sets a precedent for other cities that the league is both willing to leave your city if you don't pony up for an arena AND willing to come back if you change your mind. That has a lot of value.

But what value does adding a team in, say, St. Louis add? Or Pittsburgh? The league does extensive research on fandom in those markets and they tend not to be particularly into basketball, otherwise they'd probably already have a team by now. They're in areas that are largely claimed by other teams anyway, meaning it would take longer to create a foothold there because you're developing new fans from scratch (compared to Seattle, which already has fans). None of those markets present a particular advantage to the league. It does not benefit the other owners to have a team there.

But having a team in Mexico City adds an entire country of potential fans. That has enormous implications for every team, it increases television ratings, merchandising sales and potentially opens up an avenue of talent development (notice how for most of NBA history there were very few Canadian players but now more and more are popping up around the 20 year anniversary of the Raptors starting play? That's not a coincidence). There are distinct advantages for every other team that can only be created by moving to Mexico. Those same advantages don't exist in typical American markets.

The NBA is largely stable right now. There's a reason they haven't expanded in 15 years. If they're going to do it, it has to be for very specific reasons. Mexico City fits their criteria.

valade16
04-30-2017, 07:41 PM
If they added Seattle and Mexico City I imagine the divisions in the west would be:

Seattle, Portland, GS and Sacramento
LAL, LAC, Phoenix, Mexico City
Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, OKC
Utah, Denver, Minnesota, Memphis

TrueFan420
04-30-2017, 08:18 PM
I keep seeing people say Seattle but if they couldn't get a deal done on a new stadium to keep the Sonics what makes anyone think they can or will now...

Raps18-19 Champ
04-30-2017, 08:21 PM
Vegas and Seattle are easily the 2 most logical choices. Move the team that is most eastern from WC to EC (New Orleans or Memphis is the team that is closest to the East).

KobeOwnSU
04-30-2017, 08:29 PM
Expand with both teams in the west:

Give Seattle their team back.

For options for the other team location, there's San Diego, Las Vegas, KC, St. Louis. Personally I think KC or St. Louis is a nice pick. There's a big gap in that area right now.

Then kick either Memphis or NO to the east. Personally I like pushing New Orleans over for building a set of really good divisions.

Divisions:
East -
Atlantic Metro: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
Rust Belt: Toronto, Indiana, Charlotte, Washington
Great Lakes: Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland
Gulf Region: New Orleans, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami

Cali coastal: Golden State, Sacramento, LAC, LAL
Big Sky: Seattle, Portland, Utah, Denver
Rio Grande: Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, Houston
Mississippi River: Memphis, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Minnesota
This.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

rhino17
04-30-2017, 09:41 PM
Seattle and Vegas or Vancouver

Move the Timberwolves or Grizz to the East

Quinnsanity
05-01-2017, 03:05 AM
Nobody has given a good reason for Vegas to get a team...

It's a small market that's quickly becoming over saturated with the Raiders and whatever they're calling the NHL team. There are gambling concerns (not that I'd necessarily be opposed to having a team there on principle, but it's worth mentioning). They'd have to share an arena. The economy is so tourism-based that selling season tickets would be extremely difficult, and in general their economy is about as volatile as any city in the nation. Vegas is a very glamorous city. That doesn't make it a particularly strong NBA market.

Tg11
05-02-2017, 08:50 AM
But also because of the tourism aspect that is why Vegas more or less will get an NBA team I mean it is only a matter of time before they do...I mean they are already getting an NHL team and NFL team with the Raiders moving out there but not necessarily sharing an arena because Vegas they can just build a football stadium or commission for one

But as for hockey arena they already have a built in one but I see what you are saying as far as the NBA team having to share with the NHL team but does that really matter nowadays? People in Vegas love their basketball so don't you think they wouldn't come out to support their NBA team? Of course they would in a heartbeat

Vegas is a big market just like L.A. just like New York so of course they would attract not only people but actual players to come to that expansion team if it ever happens

And if that were the case Vegas would fit in the West

And in the East if there was a 32nd team you geographically have Louisville and Louisville in the East everything rounds out nicely

16 teams in each conference and there wouldn't be an odd number of teams in one conference and in the other an even amount

But as for why Louisville should be the 32nd team and in the East? Why not? Louisville is the biggest city in basketball-crazed Kentucky. Most importantly, its one of the bigger American cities without a Big Four pro sports team. This is an NBA sweet spot: It loves to have teams in mid-sized cities with no other pro sports. Look at Portland, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Sacramento, Orlando, and Salt Lake City. Most of those teams do brisk business, too. Louisville would fit the mold and bolster the NBAs already strong presence in the South. (Is Louisville the northern-most southern city?) Finally, Louisville has an NBA-ready arena the KFC Yum! Center, host of the Louisville Cardinals

warfelg
05-02-2017, 09:03 AM
NBA wouldn't go over well in either Vegas (I expect the NFL and NHL to bomb there too) or Louisville.

Kentucky is a college basketball haven and they don't care about NBA. Vegas isn't a place people are from, it's a place a people go. It's like Tampa Florida and why that Rays suck.

Tg11
05-02-2017, 09:17 AM
If not Vegas or Louisville

Other 2 locations would be:

Kansas City...there is an arena just waiting for the NBA. Its paid for and everything. Just waiting, lonely as a concrete building can be

Seattle...Seattle was an excellent NBA city for 41 years before a multi-state conspiracy led to the SuperSonics being moved to Oklahoma City. Seattle is rich with Fortune 500 corporations, humans, and basketball fans. Arena funding problems led to the OKC move that and the aforementioned conspiracy but there have been solid funding plans since.

Driven
05-02-2017, 01:46 PM
I don't think they'd put a team so close to Cleveland, but I'm surprised that Columbus doesn't get any love from sports. That city is booming.

Quinnsanity
05-02-2017, 09:57 PM
But also because of the tourism aspect

The NBA doesn't care about single game ticket sales. They care about season tickets and suite sales. A tourism economy does not sell either of those particularly well.


that is why Vegas more or less will get an NBA team I mean it is only a matter of time before they do...I mean they are already getting an NHL team and NFL team with the Raiders moving out there

This is an example of the over saturation I was talking about


but not necessarily sharing an arena because Vegas they can just build a football stadium or commission for one

The financial crisis WRECKED Vegas. They're now going to build three separate arenas less than a decade removed from that?


Vegas is a big market just like L.A. just like New York

Vegas is the 42nd biggest TV market in the country. It's behind Birmingham and the greater Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo area.


But as for why Louisville should be the 32nd team and in the East? Why not? Louisville is the biggest city in basketball-crazed Kentucky.

Like War said, Kentucky is college basketball crazed. The NBA didn't even consider Kentucky's ABA team during the merger because it generally didn't make much money and the market was so small, and that team was LOADED by ABA standards, it went 68-16 one year.


I don't think they'd put a team so close to Cleveland, but I'm surprised that Columbus doesn't get any love from sports. That city is booming.

Teams have market rights within a certain radius of their city. The league is not allowed to move a team within that radius. When the Nets moved into the ABA they owed the Knicks $3 million for rights to the territory. They offered them Julius Erving straight up to waive the fee. The Knicks said no, but Philly paid it for them to get Doc. More recently, the Orioles pitched a fit when MLB decided to move the Expos to DC, so they either got a share of their TV revenue for several years or might even still be getting it. So yea, Cleveland wouldn't allow a team to move to Columbus. Hell, if the Cavs were so inclined, if they aren't satisfied with their arena in a few years they could threaten to move there and rebrand as the Ohio Cavaliers.

Saddletramp
05-03-2017, 03:30 AM
If they added Seattle and Mexico City I imagine the divisions in the west would be:

Seattle, Portland, GS and Sacramento
LAL, LAC, Phoenix, Mexico City
Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, OKC
Utah, Denver, Minnesota, Memphis

If they were to add Mexico City and Seattle, what you posted looks good except they'd put Memphis in the East and keep the Pelicans in the West.

Seattle, Portland, GS and Sacramento
LAL, LAC, Phoenix, Mexico City
Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, New Orleans
Utah, Denver, Minnesota, OKC


Or they could do:

Seattle, Portland, Utah, Denver
LAL, LAC, GS, Sacramento
Phoenix, Mexico City, San Antonio, Houston
Dallas, OKC, Memphis, Minnesota


Or, they could split it up into two divisions in each conference.

Seattle, Portland, Utah, LAL, LAC, GS, Sacramento, Phoenix
Denver, Mexico City, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans

Top 2 teams in each division get seeds 1-4 and the other 4 seeds go to the best records regardless of which division.


No matter what they do (if they do anything at all) somebody will be sorta screwed.

Oakmont_4
05-03-2017, 06:24 AM
The NBA needs to figure out how to make teams/the league more competitive before they start adding more teams.

As of right now I'd be against adding new teams. Unless rules were put in place to stop these super teams from forming. They can't figure out how to spread the talent around 30 teams never mind 32.

It's really an easy fix. Hard cap. Get rid of Max contracts and let teams pay the players whatever they want. If a team wants to pay LBJ 50% of their hard cap...Let em.

I'd also get rid of the lotto. If a team tanks...So be it. I'd make a rule that a team can't have a top 3 pick more than 2 out of a given 5 year span. So if you're going to tank, you better get it right cause you're not going to be able to pick top 5 every year.

Also ditch the matching salaries for trades. Being there's a hard cap, there's no need to match salaries. Either you fit under the cap or the trade doesn't happen. This will make trades more about talent then contracts.

The NBA has the most ridiculous rules in regards to salary cap and team building. Why they have to be so different then every other major professional sport blows my mind.