RealGM

We all know some cities only have teams due to historical accident. The Spurs are a good example. They have a team due to the ABA merger, but if you reformed the league today Austin is a more lucrative location.

Imagine the league was started from scratch today. No franchise has a history, and the league has 30 teams. What cities lose their teams in the reshuffle?

NB: Denver was a tough exclusion, as was Cleveland, but they have multiple sporting franchises.

Delete. Wrong forum.

Strange phrasing. San Antonio and the ABA merger were not "accidents", and Austin was not bigger than San Antonio back then (nor is it "bigger" than it today).

Austin is faster growing and has more lucrative businesses based in it - it is not "bigger".

We'd also need to know the ground rules because if we are asking what cities would just generate the most money then New York Metro would have at least 3 or 4 teams today (and I'm being generous, it could support far more).

The reason why NY only has 2 teams is because the Knicks have territorial rights.



For comparisons sake, London is the same size and wealth as New York and has 7 major league soccer teams (defined by a team that's currently in EPL).

NY and LA probably get more teams honestly, probably get another team in the Bay Area and one in San Diego too, if the objective is creating parity at least. As it stands teams in those markets have a decisive advantage and will almost always be richer than average without mismanagement.

Obvious additions would be Seattle, more teams in NYC/LA, second teams in Chicago/the Bay (though Milwaukee/Sacramento kinda cover this need).

Cleveland, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, OKC, Memphis, New Orleans all likely on the chopping block.

On your list, I think Minneapolis is in a much stronger position than any of the others, don't see a real chance they wouldn't be in the top 30 picks.

I don't see why small market teams who have shown they will support a team would lose one to a bigger market. I mean look at Atlanta in multiple sports. Really only their football team (and the NFL is just different) hasn't had major issues. They lost their NHL team, their baseball team has had trouble selling out playoff games and that was in the Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine years. The Hawks have struggled with attendance.

Big doesn't mean better in every case. I wouldn't take away the Spurs, Blazers, Thunder, Jazz ever. Would be stupid to.

RCM88x wrote:NY and LA probably get more teams honestly, probably get another team in the Bay Area and one in San Diego too, if the objective is creating parity at least. As it stands teams in those markets have a decisive advantage and will almost always be richer than average without mismanagement.

Don't agree on SD. There's a reason that SD currently only has 1 major sports team and that many pro teams have left that city over the decades. People always get caught up in population numbers with this stuff when the main factor is ticket sales/merchandise and willingness to do things like build arenas/stadiums. Same as why LA has lost nfl teams in the past.

The NBA could probably cut some small market teams and add big Canadian cities like Montreal and Vancouver.

A thought exercise, US/Canada only. Building an NBA from the ground up, pretending professional basketball history to date doesn't exist. Roughly the same number of teams as currently.

32 teams
4 divisions of 8 teams
Teams play division rivals 4x/season, other squads 2x/season (total 76 games/season)
Top 3 in each division make playoffs, 4x wildcards, 16 total playoff squads
Undecided if to divide playoffs into divisions or not

Broadly looking at primary statistical area populations/gdp

Northeast Division:
3x NYC Teams (maybe the third in New Jersey)
Toronto
Montreal
Boston
Philadelphia
DC

West Division:
3x Southern California
2x Northern California
Seattle
Phoenix
Portland

Central Division:
2x Chicago
Detroit
Minneapolis
Indianapolis
Cleveland
St. Louis
Milwaukee

South Division:
Dallas
Houston
Atlanta
Miami
San Marcos (what, I couldn't decide)
Orlando
Tampa
Charlotte

Notes:
-Denver, very isolated, couldn't make it work
-San Diego/Sacramento/Riverside/San Jose may be included with my California splits, may not
-Columbus/Kansas City have arguments vs the currently larger cities in their states, as they are the up and comers
-Las Vegas, has a unique argument I found tough to value, could be somewhere in the West
-Milwaukee or 2nd Chicago feel like the weakest inclusions, but the Central overall is not full of top contenders
-Nashville vs the Northern Florida teams would be a close decision

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

RCM88x wrote:NY and LA probably get more teams honestly, probably get another team in the Bay Area and one in San Diego too, if the objective is creating parity at least. As it stands teams in those markets have a decisive advantage and will almost always be richer than average without mismanagement.

Don't agree on SD. There's a reason that SD currently only has 1 major sports team and that many pro teams have left that city over the decades. People always get caught up in population numbers with this stuff when the main factor is ticket sales/merchandise and willingness to do things like build arenas/stadiums. Same as why LA has lost nfl teams in the past.

They've lost teams because of crap ownership and the Lakers already had such a strong base in the area. If the NBA was starting from scratch that wouldn't be an issue. I think they could certainly support a team, they support Hockey just fine. They supported the NFL just fine until the ownership wanted an easy out and got a world class stadium in LA basically for free.

If everything was starting from scratch, SD would definitely be one of the 25ish most attractive markets in the country, I just can't imagine passing them up for a place like Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Hartford, Pittsburgh, SLC, Raleigh, Greeneville which is kind of what you get down to if you really list them all out. Just not nearly as much growth potential, wealth, or urban concentration in those areas.

RCM88x wrote:
They've lost teams because of crap ownership and the Lakers already had such a strong base in the area. If the NBA was starting from scratch that wouldn't be an issue. I think they could certainly support a team, they support Hockey just fine. They supported the NFL just fine until the ownership wanted an easy out and got a world class stadium in LA basically for free.

If everything was starting from scratch, SD would definitely be one of the 25ish most attractive markets in the country, I just can't imagine passing them up for a place like Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Hartford, Pittsburgh, SLC, Raleigh, Greeneville which is kind of what you get down to if you really list them all out. Just not nearly as much growth potential, wealth, or urban concentration in those areas.

The Clippers left in 84 and arena/stadium support is something I already mentioned above as a reason that some cities aren't seen as good as others for pro sports. It's not a knock on them as people because personally I think that the public paying for nearly free stadiums for billionaire team owners is ludicrous but its part of what makes some cities more appealing than others. Just as Seattle has like 4-5m people, tons of money but still doesn't like to build arenas which is why they lost the Sonics and nearly lost the Mariners and Seahawks. So I stand by what I said about SD. Great city, big population but just not a great city for pro sports and part of that is also that there is a lot else to do besides pay $100+ to see a pro fb/bb game.

Texas Chuck wrote:I don't see why small market teams who have shown they will support a team would lose one to a bigger market. I mean look at Atlanta in multiple sports. Really only their football team (and the NFL is just different) hasn't had major issues. They lost their NHL team, their baseball team has had trouble selling out playoff games and that was in the Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine years. The Hawks have struggled with attendance.

Big doesn't mean better in every case. I wouldn't take away the Spurs, Blazers, Thunder, Jazz ever. Would be stupid to.

Attendance and fandom are not the sole or even major indicators for the success or value of a sports franchise.

You're selectively picking on the Hawks, and yet the Hawks are worth as much as the franchises you listed based on its size alone. In addition to that, the value of its team is growing faster than those other teams which coincides with the fact that Atlanta as a city is growing faster than all of NBA cities.

Ten years from now it won't even be close unless the way NBA teams make money totally changes.


If you had to pick between having a sports team in Utah or Atlanta it would be "stupid" to pick the former. Ticket sales are not nearly as important as media contracts.

I didn't say Atlanta shouldn't have a team, though I would take their team before some smaller markets. I mean the biggest sports league in this country avoided LA for 2 decades and did just fine.

Its just not as simple as take the biggest markets. At all.

I think San Antonio has proved that a small market one-sport city can absolutely host an NBA team. Kind of like the Packers in the NFL.

Off the top of my head I'd say San Antonio, Utah, Portland, OKC are not-so-obvious markets that have done well to show they deserve to have a pro team.

You can't just lump in secondary cities like they're all created equal. Green Bay is a city of 100k. SLC has 200k. San Antonio has 2.65 million in its metro area, bigger than Vancouver (and Austin).

Obvious new franchise location is Mexico City. Monterrey and Guadalajara are 5 mil + metro areas and top 15 population centers in North America.

I'd probably cut Cleveland, Sacramento, Milwaukee, and SLC straight up, in favor of CDMX, Seattle, Vegas, and Kansas City.

Move Memphis to Nashville.
Move Orlando to Tampa.

The proper business move is to get rid of no cities, and just add 8-16 franchises, and implement relegation.

Monterrey and Guadalajara are good candidates. Santo Domingo in the DR and San Juan, PR too. Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Lima, Bogota, Santiago, Caracas, Quito, Maracaibo, Montevideo, Rio, Belo Horizonte, Guayaquil, La Paz... plus Monterrey, Guadalajara, Santo Domingo, San Juan, Havana? Montreal and Vancouver? Extra LA/NYC/CDMX franchises? No reason why you can't get a 32+32 league going, and make money off it instead of a money loser like the G-league.

Or have that be a separate Latin American league with NO NBA crossplay except for the all-star game which will finally give at least the new league a reason to care about that exhibition contest. The cities are big enough to compete monetarily in the near future. Once they win a couple of All-Star games, then add an interleague series of champions. Then, inevitably, interleague play will come because there's money in it but by then the new teams will have their feet under them and the history of the new league will add pride and context to interleague play.

What are the league doing to assign franchises Iin this new League ? Are they just taking the top 30 franchise fees offered or are they trying to have teams spread out across the nation? Because there are very different outcomes depending on their intention.