RealGM

The NBA has long been expected to address the possibility of expansion at the conclusion of its media rights negotiations with Seattle and Las Vegas considered the frontrunners. During Adam Silver's media availability on Tuesday in Las Vegas, he addressed the topic and confirmed the NBA's plans to explore the possibility this fall.

"We're not quite done with our media deals yet, but once we are we will turn to consideration around expansion," said Silver. "I will say it is a bit more complicated than it is suggested sometime. Because, just think of the new media deals, for example, once they're completed when you bring in new partners, you're diluting those payments of course to teams. Sometimes it seems as if we're printing money when we expand, but actually it is no different than selling equity in any business. I think there needs to be a fair amount of modeling with the league office working with existing owners and really thinking through the long-term prospects. Again, not just economically but also potential for dilution of talent.

"Having said that, I think we will engage this fall in earnest in the process of making those determinations. Should we expand? And if we were to expand, how many teams should we expand? And what markets should we be looking at?"

The NBA most recently expanded from 29 to 30 teams in 2004 with the addition of the then-Charlotte Bobcats. If the NBA expands to 32 teams with two teams located geographically in the Western Conference, there could be a realignment process with two teams in the middle of the United States moving to the Eastern Conference. 

Via RealGM Staff Report

IF two team were to move to the Eastern Conference - I propose Memphis and Minnesota.

Trippp wrote:IF two team were to move to the Eastern Conference - I propose Memphis and Minnesota.

Right now it is 15 and 15. Take two teams and move them east it goes to 17 and 13. Then add 2 expansion teams to the 13 and you still get 17 and 15. The answer is to move one team. The team is Minnesota. This both creates an NFL style divisional rivalry with the Pistons, Bucks, and Bulls, and remedies the Wolves having the most miles traveled of any team in the NBA.

Expansion dilutes talent! The nba is already watered down. Why the hell it takes 7 years for a team to be decent?

Rip32 wrote:Expansion dilutes talent! The nba is already watered down. Why the hell it takes 7 years for a team to be decent?

It technically does, but let's keep population growth in mind. There were $294 million American citizens in 2004. There are now almost $343 million. Adding two new teams will increase the number of NBA roster spots by under 7%, when the population has grown by nearly 17% in that time.

Memphis is the logical choice to move East. They can slide right into that Southern conference with Atlanta and the Florida teams.

Lee in Oregon wrote:Memphis is the logical choice to move East. They can slide right into that Southern conference with Atlanta and the Florida teams.

I agree Memphis is the logical choice.. BUT I wouldn’t be surprised if they moved Minnesota due to trying to make ANT one of the faces of the NBA. More games east coast times and in the garden, good for money.

The NBA has become a money grubbing whore of an enterprise. Everything Silver has done has been detrimental to the product on the court, with only the bottom line as the focus.

All they care about is revenue. Two new franchises equals billions in initial franchise fees and a steady revenue afterwards, regardless of success. The media deal is in place, so it doesn’t matter who is out there on the court.

We, the fans, are an afterthought.

Trippp wrote:IF two team were to move to the Eastern Conference - I propose Memphis and Minnesota.

The third remaining option would be New Orleans.

Talent has nothing to do with birthrate. 17% population growth doesn't mean a 17% talent growth.

Are there 17% more courts to play of for kids?
17% more playground?
17% more organized teams?
17% more coaches?
Also, international players make up a bigger and bigger portion of the league.

But to piggy-back off of the initial point, we also watering down the talent of the nation.

J.C. Smith wrote:

Rip32 wrote:Expansion dilutes talent! The nba is already watered down. Why the hell it takes 7 years for a team to be decent?

It technically does, but let's keep population growth in mind. There were $294 million American citizens in 2004. There are now almost $343 million. Adding two new teams will increase the number of NBA roster spots by under 7%, when the population has grown by nearly 17% in that time.

TheCage4 wrote:The NBA has become a money grubbing whore of an enterprise. Everything Silver has done has been detrimental to the product on the court, with only the bottom line as the focus.

All they care about is revenue. Two new franchises equals billions in initial franchise fees and a steady revenue afterwards, regardless of success. The media deal is in place, so it doesn’t matter who is out there on the court.

We, the fans, are an afterthought.

I just don't know how you get to this. I've been watching basketball since the late 90s, both college and NBA. What I remember was the NBA being a fairly uninteresting product 2000-2010. There was a power vacuum post Jordan, but there wasn't a lot of parity in the league and the games somehow (inexplicably) felt like little defense was being played while also offenses were stagnant. (I've played basketball my whole life, so I'm aware that that seems like a contradiction.) The league has gotten fantastically more interesting in the last 15 years.

I love the idea of the NBA returning to Seattle and expanding to Las Vegas. I think the dilution of talent will be minor and temporary. The league is so stacked with talented stars that this is a good time to expand. Moving Memphis and Minnesota/New Orleans to the Eastern Conference would be a lot of fun as well.

saltybs wrote:

TheCage4 wrote:The NBA has become a money grubbing whore of an enterprise. Everything Silver has done has been detrimental to the product on the court, with only the bottom line as the focus.

All they care about is revenue. Two new franchises equals billions in initial franchise fees and a steady revenue afterwards, regardless of success. The media deal is in place, so it doesn’t matter who is out there on the court.

We, the fans, are an afterthought.

I just don't know how you get to this. I've been watching basketball since the late 90s, both college and NBA. What I remember was the NBA being a fairly uninteresting product 2000-2010. There was a power vacuum post Jordan, but there wasn't a lot of parity in the league and the games somehow (inexplicably) felt like little defense was being played while also offenses were stagnant. (I've played basketball my whole life, so I'm aware that that seems like a contradiction.) The league has gotten fantastically more interesting in the last 15 years.

The NBA is a business, so yes, it's #1 objective is to make money and grow. That is the goal of (almost) all companies and that goal doesn't reflect on the quality of the product. Kia and Bugatti have the same goal, but the quality is very different. No one is a Kia fan, but Kia sells a lot of cars. People are fans of the sticker price. Bugatti fans are everywhere, but very few of these fans can afford a Bugatti. People are fans of the idea of owning a Bugatti. In business terms, fan = potential customer.

So of course the NBA cares about the fans. They care about the fans because they care about income and fans drive that income. And the NBA's growth is important to fans as well. If the NBA starts losing money then salaries go down. If salaries go down enough, leagues from around the globe become more competitive in keeping their own players and signing players out of the NBA. The NBA is the basketball equivalent of Bugatti... which makes it so ironic that they are sponsored by KIA!

(See how I pulled that back around! )

Memphis and Minnesota should move to the East.

HaydukesRedux wrote:Talent has nothing to do with birthrate. 17% population growth doesn't mean a 17% talent growth.

Are there 17% more courts to play of for kids?
17% more playground?
17% more organized teams?
17% more coaches?
Also, international players make up a bigger and bigger portion of the league.

But to piggy-back off of the initial point, we also watering down the talent of the nation.

J.C. Smith wrote:

Rip32 wrote:Expansion dilutes talent! The nba is already watered down. Why the hell it takes 7 years for a team to be decent?

It technically does, but let's keep population growth in mind. There were $294 million American citizens in 2004. There are now almost $343 million. Adding two new teams will increase the number of NBA roster spots by under 7%, when the population has grown by nearly 17% in that time.

Also, if we're being honest about the demographics of the league, there would have to be a 17% population growth among people of African descent.

Vancouver B*tchez!

only one team would need to move.

15 West, 15 East now.

LV and SEA put the West at 17, East 15.

Move one (likely Minny) from West to East and you're 16,16.

I'd be just excited for a two team expansion draft! The landscape changed a lot in the last 20 years. There will be major drama with an expansion draft.

There are so many decent vets that are out of the league... I'd love for some expansion teams to give some of them homes.

Pickled Prunes wrote:

saltybs wrote:

TheCage4 wrote:The NBA has become a money grubbing whore of an enterprise. Everything Silver has done has been detrimental to the product on the court, with only the bottom line as the focus.

All they care about is revenue. Two new franchises equals billions in initial franchise fees and a steady revenue afterwards, regardless of success. The media deal is in place, so it doesn’t matter who is out there on the court.

We, the fans, are an afterthought.

I just don't know how you get to this. I've been watching basketball since the late 90s, both college and NBA. What I remember was the NBA being a fairly uninteresting product 2000-2010. There was a power vacuum post Jordan, but there wasn't a lot of parity in the league and the games somehow (inexplicably) felt like little defense was being played while also offenses were stagnant. (I've played basketball my whole life, so I'm aware that that seems like a contradiction.) The league has gotten fantastically more interesting in the last 15 years.

The NBA is a business, so yes, it's #1 objective is to make money and grow. That is the goal of (almost) all companies and that goal doesn't reflect on the quality of the product. Kia and Bugatti have the same goal, but the quality is very different. No one is a Kia fan, but Kia sells a lot of cars. People are fans of the sticker price. Bugatti fans are everywhere, but very few of these fans can afford a Bugatti. People are fans of the idea of owning a Bugatti. In business terms, fan = potential customer.

So of course the NBA cares about the fans. They care about the fans because they care about income and fans drive that income. And the NBA's growth is important to fans as well. If the NBA starts losing money then salaries go down. If salaries go down enough, leagues from around the globe become more competitive in keeping their own players and signing players out of the NBA. The NBA is the basketball equivalent of Bugatti... which makes it so ironic that they are sponsored by KIA!

(See how I pulled that back around! )

Smooth