ISB wrote:Isn't that just the rennovated Key Arena where the sonics played though?..
It's practically a brand new building. In the same location. The project cost $1.2 Billion. It's 2x the size of the old arena.
Moderators: cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid
ISB wrote:Isn't that just the rennovated Key Arena where the sonics played though?..
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over
Cactus Jack wrote:ISB wrote:Cactus Jack wrote:The team will play at Seattle Center. The new arena is called "Climate Pledge Arena".
Isn't that just the rennovated Key Arena where the sonics played though?..
It's practically a brand new building. In the same location. The project cost $1.2 Billion. It's 2x the size of the old arena.
KingFox wrote:Good. I don't like the Thunder having all of the Supersonic accomplishments in their vault. It's weird
timO wrote:"woke arena"
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over
timO wrote:KingFox wrote:Good. I don't like the Thunder having all of the Supersonic accomplishments in their vault. It's weird
well sonics could trade a couple of FRP for his 79 title
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over
LAL1947 wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote: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).
nomansland wrote:SNPA wrote:Expansion is about money. Owners want to recoup COVID losses. This means new teams will -all things being roughly equal both immediate and long term- go to the highest bidders.
Seattle and Vegas have no inside track. This isn’t a fan sentimentality decision. It’s about billionaires making money. I’m a Kings fan that lived through the relocation dramas, you should listen..this is solely about money.
They don’t care about the Sonics.
They don’t care about Las Vegas.
Money. They care about money.
It's true they don't care about the Sonics or fans in Seattle.
But there is *a lot* of money in Seattle. That + any emotional attachment and good PR for the league makes it an attractive destination.
Pointgod wrote:LAL1947 wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote: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).
Bingo. 4 divisions of 4 makes the most sense. This probably gives the NBA a reason to cut down the games played as well from 82
SNPA wrote:nomansland wrote:SNPA wrote:Expansion is about money. Owners want to recoup COVID losses. This means new teams will -all things being roughly equal both immediate and long term- go to the highest bidders.
Seattle and Vegas have no inside track. This isn’t a fan sentimentality decision. It’s about billionaires making money. I’m a Kings fan that lived through the relocation dramas, you should listen..this is solely about money.
They don’t care about the Sonics.
They don’t care about Las Vegas.
Money. They care about money.
It's true they don't care about the Sonics or fans in Seattle.
But there is *a lot* of money in Seattle. That + any emotional attachment and good PR for the league makes it an attractive destination.
There are counter arguments here. Lots of cities will have billionaires trying to buy into the league. And there’s been a thought that Seattle not getting a team back is beneficial to owners in certain markets where they want/it’s feasible to get public financing for an arena. Seattle is the cautionary tale, there’s value in that. It certainly worked in Sac.
I’m not against Seattle or Vegas getting a team, I’m just more clear eyed about it than a lot of posters are indicating they are in this thread.
Pointgod wrote:LAL1947 wrote:NyKnicks1714 wrote: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).
Bingo. 4 divisions of 4 makes the most sense. This probably gives the NBA a reason to cut down the games played as well from 82
LakerLegend wrote:SNPA wrote:nomansland wrote:
It's true they don't care about the Sonics or fans in Seattle.
But there is *a lot* of money in Seattle. That + any emotional attachment and good PR for the league makes it an attractive destination.
There are counter arguments here. Lots of cities will have billionaires trying to buy into the league. And there’s been a thought that Seattle not getting a team back is beneficial to owners in certain markets where they want/it’s feasible to get public financing for an arena. Seattle is the cautionary tale, there’s value in that. It certainly worked in Sac.
I’m not against Seattle or Vegas getting a team, I’m just more clear eyed about it than a lot of posters are indicating they are in this thread.
Everyone knows what you're saying, it isn't some insightful deduction.
Seattle and Vegas have the inside track because they have brand new buildings that haven't cost the NBA a dime.
amcoolio wrote:Pointgod wrote:LAL1947 wrote: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).
Bingo. 4 divisions of 4 makes the most sense. This probably gives the NBA a reason to cut down the games played as well from 82
Divisions are antiquated. Best thing is two conferences of 16, top 6 make it, play-in for 7,8,9,10. Nice and clean when viewing the standings.
If you want to go the NFL route, I wouldn't mind. Like an NBC and an ABC with 8 teams in the east and west in each conference. NBA would likely never do it though
Pointgod wrote:Bingo. 4 divisions of 4 makes the most sense. This probably gives the NBA a reason to cut down the games played as well from 82
Cactus Jack wrote:ISB wrote:Cactus Jack wrote:The team will play at Seattle Center. The new arena is called "Climate Pledge Arena".
Isn't that just the rennovated Key Arena where the sonics played though?..
It's practically a brand new building. In the same location. The project cost $1.2 Billion. It's 2x the size of the old arena.
Pointgod wrote:amcoolio wrote:Divisions are antiquated. Best thing is two conferences of 16, top 6 make it, play-in for 7,8,9,10. Nice and clean when viewing the standings.
If you want to go the NFL route, I wouldn't mind. Like an NBC and an ABC with 8 teams in the east and west in each conference. NBA would likely never do it though
I like the idea of getting rid of divisions. Also how about they borrow from the NFL and the two top teams get a first round bye. I guess you’d maybe need to get rid of the play in or extend the play in to teams 11 and 12 and have a best of 3 first round. I think the top of the conference needs to mean something so teams don’t sit their players.
.....I don't think I like that rule, maybe for one year but that's enuf. NBA has too many 'side' rules the way it is nowHangTime wrote:They should get the same stipulation that the the Raptors and Grizzlies had for years 2, 3, and 4, which was No chance at the first overall pick.
Ray Donovan wrote:.....I don't think I like that rule, maybe for one year but that's enuf. NBA has too many 'side' rules the way it is nowHangTime wrote:They should get the same stipulation that the the Raptors and Grizzlies had for years 2, 3, and 4, which was No chance at the first overall pick.
ISB wrote:Cactus Jack wrote:ISB wrote:
How good were the renovations at that place? I know at one point the NBA considered that arena unsalvageable.
The team will play at Seattle Center. The new arena is called "Climate Pledge Arena".
Isn't that just the rennovated Key Arena where the sonics played though?..