Rumor: NBA Expected to Announce Expansion Teams in Seattle and Las Vegas

[Profound23]

I say give Seattle KD and Westbrook.

[Big J]

I say give Seattle KD and Westbrook.

Westbrick never actually played for the Sonics, so we'll let LA keep him. KD can come home though.

[Klomp]

Average distance between Memphis and every other Western Conference city: 1171 miles
Average distance between Minneapolis and every other Western Conference city: 1199 miles

(Counting LA twice and including Vegas and Seattle)

So yes, it makes the most sense to send Memphis East.

Divisional opponents are the ones you are guaranteed to play 4 times every year. Those are the trips that matter most. The rest of the conference is on a rotation of who gets 3 or 4 games. Out-of-conference games are 2 yearly.

Let's break down the flights in-division, both currently and the other towns in the divisions where these franchises would be placed. I'll bold current divisional opponents for clarity.

MINNEAPOLIS to
Milwaukee 297.76 miles
Chicago 354.21 miles
Indianapolis 510.67 miles
Detroit 541.96 miles
Cleveland 629.22 miles
Oklahoma City 694.06 miles
Denver 698.34 miles
Salt Lake City 984.56 miles
Portland 1423.45 miles

MEMPHIS to
Atlanta 336.57 miles
New Orleans 358.71 miles
Dallas 419.50 miles
Houston 483.99 miles
Charlotte 519.99 miles
San Antonio 631.44 miles
Orlando 683.14 miles
Washington DC 763.33 miles
Miami 872.85 miles

Tell me how it makes more sense for Memphis to move, based on those numbers?

You can't just cherry-pick Divisions though. Right now teams play their Non-Division Conference opponents an average of 3.6 times, so you'd just have weight them differently and add a 0.9 multiplier to those teams. After expansion that number would presumably go down slightly, so call it 0.85. You can't ignore them though and just worry about Divisions. Plus there would likely be Division realignment anyway.

But really, in the end, this is all so inconsequential. I could only find data from a couple of years ago, but the Timberwolves total flight distance was about 9000 miles more than the NBA average. That sounds like a lot, but it represents something like 18 hours over 6 months. 3 hours of extra flight time per month. Considering they're not exactly flying economy, that's nothing.

You're right, divisional lines will probably be redrawn. And how would you draw them? Someone will probably be screwed and have the worst draw. Minnesota has had that for the past 20 years. It's someone else's turn.

Regarding flight totals, you can't just compare to average. You have to also look at what's optimal. Where is it now and where could it be? Memphis in the east doesn't change much. Minnesota in the east changes a lot.

[LAL1947]

You can't just cherry-pick Divisions though. Right now teams play their Non-Division Conference opponents an average of 3.6 times, so you'd just have weight them differently and add a 0.9 multiplier to those teams. After expansion that number would presumably go down slightly, so call it 0.85. You can't ignore them though and just worry about Divisions. Plus there would likely be Division realignment anyway.

But really, in the end, this is all so inconsequential. I could only find data from a couple of years ago, but the Timberwolves total flight distance was about 9000 miles more than the NBA average. That sounds like a lot, but it represents something like 18 hours over 6 months. 3 hours of extra flight time per month. Considering they're not exactly flying economy, that's nothing.

Hah, we're not trying to "cherry-pick divisions". We're trying to figure out the best conferences/divisions geographically.

For example, if Minnesota goes to the East, you could have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference:

East 1: Chicago, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
East 2: Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Washington
East 3: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
East 4: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando

Isn't that nice and clean? Or compress East 1 & 2 and East 3 & 4 into 2 divisions of 8 teams. Either way (4x4 or 2x8), Minnesota's travel will be cut down if they play more games against their division rivals than against other teams... the same goes for teams in the West who would otherwise need to travel to Minnesota.

Not sure why you think this makes less sense than keeping Minnesota in the West (which is when you then have to cherry-pick divisions after discarding geographical proximity).

[NZB2323]

Ok but if Vegas and Seattle get added in, which other team goes to the east? You need 16 teams in each conference. It literally has to be Memphis based on the map, no?

No, look at the Map. Minnesota right now is in the same division as Portland and Utah, but the teams that are the closest to Minnesota are Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland, and Toronto.

Memphis is further East and is close to Atlanta and Charlotte, but Memphis is also close to New Orleans, OKC, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

So the divisions will look something like this

BOS, NY, BRK, PHI, TOR

DET, CLE, IND, CHI, MIL, MIN

MIA, ORL, ATL, WAS, CHA


MEM, OKC, SA, DAL, HOU

POR, SEA, UTAH, DEN, PHX

LAC, LAL, SAC, GAS, LV

With 32 teams I think we’d see 4 divisions:

Atlantic: NY, BRK, PHI, MIA, ORL, ATL, WAS, CHA

North: MIN, MIL, CHI, DET, IND, CLE, TOR, BOS

Southwest: MEM, NOP, OKC, DAL, SAS, HOU, DEN, UTA

Pacific: SEA, POR, LAC, LAL, SAC, GSW, LV, PHX

[zimpy27]

No, look at the Map. Minnesota right now is in the same division as Portland and Utah, but the teams that are the closest to Minnesota are Milwaukee, Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland, and Toronto.

Memphis is further East and is close to Atlanta and Charlotte, but Memphis is also close to New Orleans, OKC, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.

So the divisions will look something like this

BOS, NY, BRK, PHI, TOR

DET, CLE, IND, CHI, MIL, MIN

MIA, ORL, ATL, WAS, CHA


MEM, OKC, SA, DAL, HOU

POR, SEA, UTAH, DEN, PHX

LAC, LAL, SAC, GAS, LV

With 32 teams I think we’d see 4 divisions:

Atlantic: NY, BRK, PHI, MIA, ORL, ATL, WAS, CHA

North: MIN, MIL, CHI, DET, IND, CLE, TOR, BOS

Southwest: MEM, NOP, OKC, DAL, SAS, HOU, DEN, UTA

Pacific: SEA, POR, LAC, LAL, SAC, GSW, LV, PHX

Currently there are 1230 games a season.

If they scrap divisions entirely and just have 2 conferences. Then each team could play opposing conference team 2 times and each team in their conference 3 times.

2 x 16 = 32
3 x 15 = 45

77 games played by 32 teams, 2 teams to a game equals 1232 games a season.

- It makes sense to have 3 games in a conference so that you get a tie-breaker game for positions
- I think the divisions are kind of useless these days
- reducing games played for each team is something that's been called for in quite a while

[Bolts]

I think we should move Memphis to Kansas City and New Orleans to Boise and that would even out the geography a bit.

[LAL1947]

If they scrap divisions entirely and just have 2 conferences. Then each team could play opposing conference team 2 times and each team in their conference 3 times.

2 x 16 = 32
3 x 15 = 45

77 games played by 32 teams, 2 teams to a game equals 1232 games a season.

- It makes sense to have 3 games in a conference so that you get a tie-breaker game for positions
- I think the divisions are kind of useless these days
- reducing games played for each team is something that's been called for in quite a while

I agree with 2 of your 3 bullet points there... except, that divisions are useless. There are still uses for them.

For example, what will you do if the owners say that 77 games reduces their revenue too much? 3 more games (for a total of 80) can be played against divisional rivals if we there 4 divisions of 4 teams per conference... or 7 more games (for a total of 84) can be played if we have 2 divisions of 8 teams per conference. I'd rather see the playoff series reduced to 5-games to make it less of a war of attrition.

The league also made divisions kinda useless by not rewarding divisional winners more... I feel they favor the larger markets and teams with the richest owners by not doing it TBH. For example, imagine if we have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference, with the Top 2 in each division progressing to the playoffs... every regular season game and divisional series would have more meaning. We wouldn't need the silly play-in game either.

[Cactus Jack]

As a former Seattle resident for more than 20 years, I'll believe it when I see it. Can't trust the NBA.

The owners are going to make whatever they think is in their best collective financial interest and if the numbers don't pan out there's no way they're going to expand.

I'd love for Seattle to get a team again. It was great fun having the Sonics there and I have a lot of fond memories with my kids watching hoops. We're all still basketball fans even though they're in their 20's now.

But the NBA has no interest in bringing a team back to Seattle unless the prospect is at worst revenue neutral over the long term for the rest of the owners.

The rumor last time was it was a done deal — with that exact language; as well as a set date, and even a rationale that the owners needed to.

Expansion at some point might happen, but at this point the faith placed on the rumors of media guys who are not known for just this sort of breaking news feels a lot like someone at a roulette table repeatedly saying 00 will come up next. At some point they will nail it but along the way there will be a lot of premature calls.

Look, I can appreciate the skepticism. I was a skeptic myself for a long while. Prior to the actual build of an arena here (Climate Pledge) & the current group that includes the Leiweke brothers. I was absolutely convinced that the NBA wouldn't be back.

No one could conceivably get an arena built in Seattle. It just wasn't possible. Then the NHL team miraculously followed.

They said an arena & Hockey team would come. It did. They say the NBA will follow.

So you can choose to be a skeptic. That's fine.

I'm not too worried with when that time will be. Because the time will come. Whether that be in 2-3 years, 5 or 10. The wheels are already in motion.

The truth is if Tim & Tod Leiweke we're not in the forefront of this thing, then I'd likely feel much different. The group as a whole has some big heavy hitters.

Read on Twitter

[vital_signs]

I think we should move Memphis to Kansas City and New Orleans to Boise and that would even out the geography a bit.

Boise isn't remotely close to being large enough to warrant consideration for a team.

[zimpy27]

If they scrap divisions entirely and just have 2 conferences. Then each team could play opposing conference team 2 times and each team in their conference 3 times.

2 x 16 = 32
3 x 15 = 45

77 games played by 32 teams, 2 teams to a game equals 1232 games a season.

- It makes sense to have 3 games in a conference so that you get a tie-breaker game for positions
- I think the divisions are kind of useless these days
- reducing games played for each team is something that's been called for in quite a while

I agree with 2 of your 3 bullet points there... except, that divisions are useless. There are still uses for them.

For example, what will you do if the owners say that 77 games reduces their revenue too much? 3 more games (for a total of 80) can be played against divisional rivals if we there 4 divisions of 4 teams per conference... or 7 more games (for a total of 84) can be played if we have 2 divisions of 8 teams per conference. I'd rather see the playoff series reduced to 5-games to make it less of a war of attrition.

The league also made divisions kinda useless by not rewarding divisional winners more... I feel they favor the larger markets and teams with the richest owners by not doing it TBH. For example, imagine if we have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference, with the Top 2 in each division progressing to the playoffs... every divisional series and regular season game would have more meaning. We wouldn't need the silly play-in game either.

If teams want more games than 77 then I think that's what the midseason tournament will be for.

[LAL1947]

The league also made divisions kinda useless by not rewarding divisional winners more... I feel they favor the larger markets and teams with the richest owners by not doing it TBH. For example, imagine if we have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference, with the Top 2 in each division progressing to the playoffs... every regular season game and divisional series would have more meaning. We wouldn't need the silly play-in game either.

If teams want more games than 77 then I think that's what the midseason tournament will be for.

Fair enough. A mid-season tourney would be a nice way to make up the difference.

What do you feel about making divisions more relevant though, i.e., by having 4 divisions of 4 teams and the Top 2 from each division going into the playoffs? My thought is this would make small markets more relevant in Free Agency... apart from giving more meaning to every regular season game and divisional series. I think this could make a nice subject for a poll on the GB.

The fans of big market and rich teams will no doubt oppose it, citing reasons like, "we want the best 16 teams in the playoffs", without considering all of what is going into regularly making those the best 16... or point to the Lakers missing this season as a reason for why no change is needed.

[JB2]

You can't just cherry-pick Divisions though. Right now teams play their Non-Division Conference opponents an average of 3.6 times, so you'd just have weight them differently and add a 0.9 multiplier to those teams. After expansion that number would presumably go down slightly, so call it 0.85. You can't ignore them though and just worry about Divisions. Plus there would likely be Division realignment anyway.

But really, in the end, this is all so inconsequential. I could only find data from a couple of years ago, but the Timberwolves total flight distance was about 9000 miles more than the NBA average. That sounds like a lot, but it represents something like 18 hours over 6 months. 3 hours of extra flight time per month. Considering they're not exactly flying economy, that's nothing.

Hah, we're not trying to "cherry-pick divisions". We're trying to figure out the best conferences/divisions geographically.

For example, if Minnesota goes to the East, you could have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference:

East 1: Chicago, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
East 2: Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Washington
East 3: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
East 4: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando

Isn't that nice and clean? Or compress East 1 & 2 and East 3 & 4 into 2 divisions of 8 teams. Either way (4x4 or 2x8), Minnesota's travel will be cut down if they play more games against their division rivals than against other teams... the same goes for teams in the West who would otherwise need to travel to Minnesota.

Not sure why you think this makes less sense than keeping Minnesota in the West (which is when you then have to cherry-pick divisions after discarding geographical proximity).

The way you laid out the East is logical and clean. The West is a bit tougher

SEA, POR, SAC, GS
LAL, LAC, PHX, LV
UTA, DEN, OKC, MEM
DAL, SAS, HOU, NOP

or

SEA, POR, LV, UTA
LAL, LAC, SAC, GS
DEN, OKC, MEM, PHX
DAL, SAS, HOU, NOP

[zimpy27]

The league also made divisions kinda useless by not rewarding divisional winners more... I feel they favor the larger markets and teams with the richest owners by not doing it TBH. For example, imagine if we have 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference, with the Top 2 in each division progressing to the playoffs... every regular season game and divisional series would have more meaning. We wouldn't need the silly play-in game either.

If teams want more games than 77 then I think that's what the midseason tournament will be for.

Fair enough. A mid-season tourney would be a nice way to make up the difference.

What do you feel about making divisions more relevant though, i.e., by having 4 divisions of 4 teams and the Top 2 from each division going into the playoffs? My thought is this would make small markets more relevant in Free Agency... apart from giving more meaning to every regular season game and divisional series. I think this could make a nice subject for a poll on the GB.

The fans of big market and rich teams will no doubt oppose it, citing reasons like, "we want the best 16 teams in the playoffs", without considering all of what is going into regularly making those the best 16... or point to the Lakers missing this season as a reason for why no change is needed.

Yeah if they go back to the top teams in divisions making the playoffs then yeah I like divisions. They have to do something. I just think their time has passed. Initially, they were set up to reduce travel and create rivalries. But travel is not a problem anymore with jets and the rivalries didn't really happen in divisions.

I think divisions could be a path to more regular season interest but people often complain if one division is weak. People already complain about conference weakness

[bbms]

I say give Seattle KD and Westbrook.

No love for Presti?

[ReddoverKobe]

I know money is always the factor but this sport should contract, not expand. When you get numerous great players on the floor together the NBA is hands down the best sport to watch.

[Cactus Jack]

I say give Seattle KD and Westbrook.

No love for Presti?

Presti can make his way back as well.

[LAL1947]

The way you laid out the East is logical and clean. The West is a bit tougher

SEA, POR, SAC, GS
LAL, LAC, PHX, LV
UTA, DEN, OKC, MEM
DAL, SAS, HOU, NOP

or

SEA, POR, LV, UTA
LAL, LAC, SAC, GS
DEN, OKC, MEM, PHX
DAL, SAS, HOU, NOP

Thank you.

I like the way you have the West laid out in the 2nd option (switch Utah and Phoenix tho). The 1st option is cleaner geographically but then it'll be favoring California by splitting their teams into 2 divisions instead of making them compete against each other. That will matter if the league ever does something like send the Top 2 teams from each division to the playoffs.

[_qubik]

They should move all team to LA, NY and Miami

[Dick Tate]

A team President tells Portland guy that if Blazers are sold and moved, it won't be to Seattle because it is "earmarked" for expansion.

So... if expansion (earmark) falls through, is said President suggesting the Blazers may end up in Seattle in the long run?