NBA team in Mexico?

[Brandon-Clyde]

It's 859 miles from San Antonio to Mexico City.

Portland is 630 miles from Oakland, and Seattle is 800 miles from Oakland. Sacto is a short ride, but then from Oakland to L.A. is another 360 miles, and Oakland-Phoenix is another 700-some miles. Just saying: the distance of the DF isn't ideal but it not a big enough deal that it'd prevent a team from getting there.

Tijuana would mitigate that as being a resort city many there speak English and is close to 2 major US cities that they could easily visit on off days.

I won't argue any more, but you should go to Mexico City and meet some people who live there. I have a feeling it's not at all what you imagine. Thousands of people speak English, and it's vibrant and exciting. A lot of it looks like a European city and people dress exactly like they do in downtown LA or Chicago or wherever else. They don't wear sombreros and talk like they're in a border bar in Breaking Bad (they sort of do in TJ, though--place is really not the best of Mexico!). Also, I used to live in Detroit in 2009 and most of that city is easily scarier than the DF and nowhere close to as interesting (not that Detroit sucks, it's got its good things). Players don't seem to mind going there, even if they're not lining up.

I get your point that players might not feel comfortable there immediately, just saying that's probably their ignorance talking more than any actual dislike of the city.

And the distance from Portland to Mexico City is 2,773 miles, Boston is 2,855 miles away, NYC over 2600 miles away, Milwaukee over 2,000 miles away, Chicago over 2,000 miles away. Just about any team in the NBA has 2-3 teams closer than the 859 miles between Mexico City and San Antonio(the nearest NBA team). Distance would be a significant factor
And I wonder where the sombrero comment comes from. All I have said is that Mexico City would be different enough culturally that most NBA athletes would prefer not to play there. They would want easy access to areas that they would be comfortable in. Remember they aren't just visiting(I would love to visit Mexico City and the Incan ruins btw) but living there 6 months out of a year would be a different matter.
Altogether that means a nice area and near enough US population centers to make players comfortable and minimize travel time

[DiscoLives4ever]

If the logistics could be worked out (a huge caveat, I know) I think it would be more effective to do a "Latin America" team that plays a handful of home have in each of a half dozen or so large cities (Mexico city, Rio, Bogota, Lima, Santiago, Buenos Aires). Pull fans from all of South America and only need to worry about selling a few games in each major urban area instead of a full 41.

[Mr. E]

Instead of placing a team there the NBA should increase the number of exhibition games with multiple teams over a few years to really gauge the level of interest.

That opinion applies to other cities as well. I would like to see more regular season games in neutral sites. I know that many owners would be against too much of a loss at the gate, so nothing too crazy but maybe each team has 4 neutral site games in various cities.

I know last year the Rockets/Timberwolves game in Mexico City was pretty successful. It was funny that on paper Minnesota was the home team, but that crowd was pretty heavily pro-Rockets.

[Ballerhogger]

I would question the attendance and a owner wanting move to mexico.

[Mr. E]

The Rockets & Wolves drew 18,996 at the Mexico City Arena which I believe is the max capacity for that building when configured for a basketball game.

But that is just one game. This is why I'd like to see the NBA try multiple games with several different teams over the course of a few years to really gauge interest.

[HotelVitale]

And the distance from Portland to Mexico City is 2,773 miles, Boston is 2,855 miles away, NYC over 2600 miles away, Milwaukee over 2,000 miles away, Chicago over 2,000 miles away. Just about any team in the NBA has 2-3 teams closer than the 859 miles between Mexico City and San Antonio(the nearest NBA team). Distance would be a significant factor

Ughh. Can't believe you're making me do this. After looking it up, the overall distance of NBA travel would clearly be greater from where you live (PDX-SEA area) than from the DF.

It'd be roughly equivalent for both teams to get to the northeast teams BOS/NYC (around 2300 miles, a little shorter from the DF), but it's half the distance to go from the DF to the Florida teams, as well as the southern teams (NOLA/CHA/ATL/WAS etc). Midwest teams (MIL/CHI etc) are all a bit closer to the DF but roughly equal.

As near as I can tell, the DF is closer to BOS, NYC, PHL, BKN, WAS, ORL, MIA, ATL, IND, CHI, DET, MIL, CLE, CHA, ATL, MEM, ORL, MIA, DAL, SAS, HOU, OKC. PDX would be closer to SAC, OAK, LAL, LAC, PHX, UTA, DEN, MIN.

You're right that the closest teams for PDX aren't quite as far: Oakland/Sacto is about 520 miles, and UTA is about 650 miles. From the DF to TX, it's 690 miles to SA and 750 miles to HOU, so that's an extra 100-170 miles for the closest neighbor. But the DF being so much further east means it's closer to the bulk of teams overall. Distance isn't ideal but if it's not a dealbreaker for the pacific NW, it's not one for Mexico City.

[DrCoach]

The bottom line is , how safe would athletes, staff and families be living there?

[nomansland]

It's 859 miles from San Antonio to Mexico City.

Portland is 630 miles from Oakland, and Seattle is 800 miles from Oakland. Sacto is a short ride, but then from Oakland to L.A. is another 360 miles, and Oakland-Phoenix is another 700-some miles. Just saying: the distance of the DF isn't ideal but it not a big enough deal that it'd prevent a team from getting there.

Tijuana would mitigate that as being a resort city many there speak English and is close to 2 major US cities that they could easily visit on off days.

I won't argue any more, but you should go to Mexico City and meet some people who live there. I have a feeling it's not at all what you imagine. Thousands of people speak English, and it's vibrant and exciting. A lot of it looks like a European city and people dress exactly like they do in downtown LA or Chicago or wherever else. They don't wear sombreros and talk like they're in a border bar in Breaking Bad (they sort of do in TJ, though--place is really not the best of Mexico!). Also, I used to live in Detroit in 2009 and most of that city is easily scarier than the DF and nowhere close to as interesting (not that Detroit sucks, it's got its good things). Players don't seem to mind going there, even if they're not lining up.

I get your point that players might not feel comfortable there immediately, just saying that's probably their ignorance talking more than any actual dislike of the city.

And the distance from Portland to Mexico City is 2,773 miles, Boston is 2,855 miles away, NYC over 2600 miles away, Milwaukee over 2,000 miles away, Chicago over 2,000 miles away. Just about any team in the NBA has 2-3 teams closer than the 859 miles between Mexico City and San Antonio(the nearest NBA team). Distance would be a significant factor
And I wonder where the sombrero comment comes from. All I have said is that Mexico City would be different enough culturally that most NBA athletes would prefer not to play there. They would want easy access to areas that they would be comfortable in. Remember they aren't just visiting(I would love to visit Mexico City and the Incan ruins btw) but living there 6 months out of a year would be a different matter.
Altogether that means a nice area and near enough US population centers to make players comfortable and minimize travel time

Incan ruins?

[nomansland]

Instead of placing a team there the NBA should increase the number of exhibition games with multiple teams over a few years to really gauge the level of interest.

That opinion applies to other cities as well. I would like to see more regular season games in neutral sites. I know that many owners would be against too much of a loss at the gate, so nothing too crazy but maybe each team has 4 neutral site games in various cities.

I know last year the Rockets/Timberwolves game in Mexico City was pretty successful. It was funny that on paper Minnesota was the home team, but that crowd was pretty heavily pro-Rockets.

Same reason there are loads of Cowboys fans. The Spurs and Mavs are pretty popular there too.

But I like the exhibition idea. It's a good way to plant seeds to get the general interest growing.

[djsunyc]

mexico? their starting center would be 5'3

[Brandon-Clyde]

And the distance from Portland to Mexico City is 2,773 miles, Boston is 2,855 miles away, NYC over 2600 miles away, Milwaukee over 2,000 miles away, Chicago over 2,000 miles away. Just about any team in the NBA has 2-3 teams closer than the 859 miles between Mexico City and San Antonio(the nearest NBA team). Distance would be a significant factor

Ughh. Can't believe you're making me do this. After looking it up, the overall distance of NBA travel would clearly be greater from where you live (PDX-SEA area) than from the DF.

It'd be roughly equivalent for both teams to get to the northeast teams BOS/NYC (around 2300 miles, a little shorter from the DF), but it's half the distance to go from the DF to the Florida teams, as well as the southern teams (NOLA/CHA/ATL/WAS etc). Midwest teams (MIL/CHI etc) are all a bit closer to the DF but roughly equal.

As near as I can tell, the DF is closer to BOS, NYC, PHL, BKN, WAS, ORL, MIA, ATL, IND, CHI, DET, MIL, CLE, CHA, ATL, MEM, ORL, MIA, DAL, SAS, HOU, OKC. PDX would be closer to SAC, OAK, LAL, LAC, PHX, UTA, DEN, MIN.

You're right that the closest teams for PDX aren't quite as far: Oakland/Sacto is about 520 miles, and UTA is about 650 miles. From the DF to TX, it's 690 miles to SA and 750 miles to HOU, so that's an extra 100-170 miles for the closest neighbor. But the DF being so much further east means it's closer to the bulk of teams overall. Distance isn't ideal but if it's not a dealbreaker for the pacific NW, it's not one for Mexico City.

By itself distance might not be a deal breaker but it is a significant problem. Consider that a round trip to Mexico city is nearly 1,500 miles to it's nearest competitor(San Antonio) and part of the point is that a team , such as Boston, traveling to Portland could easily hit other closer cities so it isn't just a trip to Portland, it is a trip to Sacramento, Oakland, LA, Denver etc. It isn't traveling that distance for a single game as it would be for Mexico city(which according to Bing is 750 miles from San Antonio)

[Brandon-Clyde]

Portland is 630 miles from Oakland, and Seattle is 800 miles from Oakland. Sacto is a short ride, but then from Oakland to L.A. is another 360 miles, and Oakland-Phoenix is another 700-some miles. Just saying: the distance of the DF isn't ideal but it not a big enough deal that it'd prevent a team from getting there.


I won't argue any more, but you should go to Mexico City and meet some people who live there. I have a feeling it's not at all what you imagine. Thousands of people speak English, and it's vibrant and exciting. A lot of it looks like a European city and people dress exactly like they do in downtown LA or Chicago or wherever else. They don't wear sombreros and talk like they're in a border bar in Breaking Bad (they sort of do in TJ, though--place is really not the best of Mexico!). Also, I used to live in Detroit in 2009 and most of that city is easily scarier than the DF and nowhere close to as interesting (not that Detroit sucks, it's got its good things). Players don't seem to mind going there, even if they're not lining up.

I get your point that players might not feel comfortable there immediately, just saying that's probably their ignorance talking more than any actual dislike of the city.

And the distance from Portland to Mexico City is 2,773 miles, Boston is 2,855 miles away, NYC over 2600 miles away, Milwaukee over 2,000 miles away, Chicago over 2,000 miles away. Just about any team in the NBA has 2-3 teams closer than the 859 miles between Mexico City and San Antonio(the nearest NBA team). Distance would be a significant factor
And I wonder where the sombrero comment comes from. All I have said is that Mexico City would be different enough culturally that most NBA athletes would prefer not to play there. They would want easy access to areas that they would be comfortable in. Remember they aren't just visiting(I would love to visit Mexico City and the Incan ruins btw) but living there 6 months out of a year would be a different matter.
Altogether that means a nice area and near enough US population centers to make players comfortable and minimize travel time

Incan ruins?

Whoops I believe I meant Aztec ruins. Incans were farther south(though I would like to visit there too)

[HotelVitale]

By itself distance might not be a deal breaker but it is a significant problem. Consider that a round trip to Mexico city is nearly 1,500 miles to it's nearest competitor(San Antonio) and part of the point is that a team , such as Boston, traveling to Portland could easily hit other closer cities so it isn't just a trip to Portland, it is a trip to Sacramento, Oakland, LA, Denver etc. It isn't traveling that distance for a single game as it would be for Mexico city(which according to Bing is 750 miles from San Antonio)

Brandon, man, take a minute and think about what you're saying: your point applies 100%, fully, completely to Mexico City. In fact a Mexico-Texas/south trip would be shorter than any west coast trip: a team like the Celtics traveling to HOU-DAL-SAS-Mexico City would have a much shorter overall travel distance than it would traveling from DEN-MIN-PDX-SAC. Same for traveling OKC-NOLA-Mexico City vs PHX-LAL-UTA-PDX. I'm not going to look it up, but the distance would probably be at least 30% shorter for the Mexico trip because all those western US cities are 500+ miles apart.

Again, the distance between the DF and the closest team is just a bit further than it is for PDX (about 100-150 miles), but once you get from the DF to SAS or MIA, the next leg is closer than it would be for western teams. And overall, the great majority of teams are further, so beginning or ending a random trip in CLE or WAS or CHA is going to be less of a hassle from the DF than from PDX.

[KF10]

mexico? their starting center would be 5'3

...right.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-b_fPBoe_A[/youtube]

Besides, a NBA team in Mexico will not be restricted for Mexicans-only.

[jbk1234]

Unless the Mexican government is going to assign about 5,000 federal troops to guard the players from the time they get off the plane until they get back on, it's not worth it. Things are really bad in Mexico. Hostage taking is a very real problem down there.

[Mr. E]

Same reason there are loads of Cowboys fans. The Spurs and Mavs are pretty popular there too.

But I like the exhibition idea. It's a good way to plant seeds to get the general interest growing.

This could probably be another thread, but the Exhibition idea would be a good way for the NBA to expand it's market and get a good feel for it's product in areas.

Two key points would be that they would have to be regular season games - you want your product to matter; and I would want each of the teams in these games to be from the same conference.

[Scalabrine]

We dont need any more teams.

Weve had 10 teams win over the past 35 years. 6 teams have won 30 of them.

Lets see some of the new expansion franchises like Charlotte make it out of the first round (or even playoffs), or lets start seeing some of these other teams that haven't won in decades start having consistent success before we water down the league even more...