NBA Expansion

[wegotthabeet]

I don't see Vancouver as being on the short list. The NBA has already been there, the team wasn't really too supported, and then relocated. That's not to say the league can't return to the city, but I don't see it happening.

I suspect it'll be two teams with a relocation of another team from the Western conference to the East. If it were four teams, well, that sure would be interesting but don't feel like the league would be willing to do that many in one drop.

this is disingenuous. bad form from a Seattle fan. you have no idea what your talking about.

LMAO. Uh, sure.

Don't even try that crap with me. There's a difference between what happened with the Grizzlies and the Sonics. The only similarity is that both teams were relocated.

Sent from my SM-F936U using RealGM mobile app

yeah the difference was one team was set up to fail with highly restrictive stipulations of expansion and the other wasn't. one team had a chance to stay, but the public would not fund the arena, the other had a perfectly suitable arena. they even averaged more fans than the place they moved to. the Vancouver Grizzlies averaged more fans per game in 6 years despite knowing the team was a going to relocate than the Memphis Grizzlies did in their first 12 seasons.

don't give me this bs about the fan support not being there in the 90s. it was there. Vancouver has only grown in population and wealth since then.

okc also averaged way more fans than the Sonics. so when you say the team wasn't really supported and therefore relocated as a result that is completely disingenuous. it shows your ignorance.

[DoItALL9]

this is disingenuous. bad form from a Seattle fan. you have no idea what your talking about.

LMAO. Uh, sure.

Don't even try that crap with me. There's a difference between what happened with the Grizzlies and the Sonics. The only similarity is that both teams were relocated.

Sent from my SM-F936U using RealGM mobile app

yeah the difference was one team was set up to fail with highly restrictive stipulations of expansion and the other wasn't. one team had a chance to stay, but the public would not fund the arena, the other had a perfectly suitable arena. they even averaged more fans than the place they moved to. the Vancouver Grizzlies averaged more fans per game in 6 years despite knowing the team was a going to relocate than the Memphis Grizzlies did in their first 12 seasons.

don't give me this bs about the fan support not being there in the 90s. it was there. Vancouver has only grown in population and wealth since then.

okc also averaged way more fans than the Sonics. so when you say the team wasn't really supported and therefore relocated as a result that is completely disingenuous. it shows your ignorance.

Oooo
I felt that

[nomansland]

this is disingenuous. bad form from a Seattle fan. you have no idea what your talking about.

LMAO. Uh, sure.

Don't even try that crap with me. There's a difference between what happened with the Grizzlies and the Sonics. The only similarity is that both teams were relocated.

Sent from my SM-F936U using RealGM mobile app

yeah the difference was one team was set up to fail with highly restrictive stipulations of expansion and the other wasn't. one team had a chance to stay, but the public would not fund the arena, the other had a perfectly suitable arena. they even averaged more fans than the place they moved to. the Vancouver Grizzlies averaged more fans per game in 6 years despite knowing the team was a going to relocate than the Memphis Grizzlies did in their first 12 seasons.

don't give me this bs about the fan support not being there in the 90s. it was there. Vancouver has only grown in population and wealth since then.

okc also averaged way more fans than the Sonics. so when you say the team wasn't really supported and therefore relocated as a result that is completely disingenuous. it shows your ignorance.

Guys, let's stop with the PNW on PNW violence. Both cities got screwed by the NBA in one way or another. I'd love to see the next expansions go to Seattle and Vancouver.

Curiously, people seem to be focused on Las Vegas but in the long run Vancouver would be better for the NBA and better for basketball.

[zimpy27]

Real answer should be San Jose since that region has a lot of wealth (look at how successful GSW have been).

Mexico City makes a strong case too.

Of those listed I'd go with Las Vegas

[Kiss of Death]

The NBA needs expansion sooner than later.
NBA level players aren't making rosters.

[Sealab2024]

honestly this makes more sense financially. logistically probably not, but let's try.

1. move the entire Central division West.

2. move the Pelicans to Seattle

3. expand to 40 teams (10 in Europe).

4. 4 divisions total: East, Central, West, Europe

EUROPE
10 teams

EAST
New York
Brooklyn
Boston
Philadelphia
Toronto
Washington
Atlanta
Charlotte
Orlando
Miami

CENTRAL
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Indiana
Minnesota
Houston
San Antonio
Dallas
Memphis

WEST
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Golden State
Sacramento
Phoenix
Utah
Denver
Portland
Seattle
OKC

5. regular season = 75 games (9 x 5 division + 1 x 30 other teams)

6. playoffs stay within division until the semi finals

7. Finals in Vegas every year ( or other neutral site).

This would make a ton of sense but would take an almost herculean effort to get 10 European cities going at the same time. But if you could you'd have enough of a base that teams could take a once a year road trip through Europe (probably twice in the east) to play those home games there and the European teams could do the regional run through the divisions as well. You wouldn't want teams constantly going back and forth over the Atlantic for like 3 game road trips for a ton of reasons which is why a single or even two European teams doesn't make financial sense, but a full division would change the numbers enough to work.

Your math is off however. 4 divisions with 10 teams equals 39 games. You play your division opponents 3 times that's an extra 18 games bringing you to 57. Add a second against the other division in conference that's 67. switch off a home and away against an alternating division in other conference you're at 77.

Biggest question to me would be how do you add ten teams, stock them with players and not completely destroy the talent pool for a good decade.

Not sure that my math is off. I'd just have the regular season more geared towards division games to reduce travel as much as possible. 75 games total per team.

Teams would play division opponents five times. 45 games total or 60% of the schedule. 30 games vs every other team, so they would play every other team only once, rotating between home and away every year. 75 games is plenty. most players don't even play 70. So 1500 regular season games, up from 1230, but now with access to the European, African & Middle East TV markets in their respective prime times. More total games, far wider reach.

most of the teams would come from the Euroleague. Real, Barcelona etc... maybe only London & Paris being true expansion teams.

Gotcha, misread the math.

[OxAndFox]

It will be Seattle and Vegas.

But if it does go outside of the US, which I see around 6-8 years after Seattle gets a team, it will be Paris, Barcelona, Madrid and Milan IMO and coincide with Wemby's 3rd contract.
This will be the time when the NBA goes to play each team twice and no conferences. The schedule would look like mini-tournaments.
36 teams. 70 regular season games. 1 home and 1 away against each team. The top 20 teams make the POs. 7 game PO series' (2-2-2-1).

[JDR720]

These euro team ideas won't happen. The travel and logistics are too much. The NFL can do it because they play a game per week. The NBA plays 2-4 games per week.

Mexico won't happen for the same reasons + it's Mexico. American NBA players don't want to go 5 minutes across the border to Toronto. A wealthy American-like city, they aren't going all the way to the middle of Mexico. They're insanely rich celebrities, they go to Mexico for vacation. Not to live there.

That would hurt the NBA European teams too. Nobody, besides the Euro players obviously, would want to play there. This of course assumes FIBA would even allow it, I'm sure the existing Euroleague teams would be very against the NBA encroaching on their turf.

And in addition, the ticket prices wouldn't be able to match what the NBA wants. Either because the populace doesn't have the money (Mexico) or laws/regulations (Europe). Compare the prices of the Euro's to the ones of Copa America, they aren't even close.

[PlatinumState]

Mexico City's never happening so give that a rest. Same for the caribbean (wtf lol )and Europe unless they start making supersonic passenger planes again. Realistically its gonna be Vegas and Seattle in the next 5 years then no new expansion for like 20 years because remember the last expansion was 20 years ago (Bobcats)so it doesnt happen that often. I could see some teams relocating like Memphis and New Orleans

[_jin]

People needs to stop talking about expansion to Europe, it can't happen, not only because of obvious logistical and economical reasons but because legally the league would have to change its whole structure and the CBA would need to be reworked to conform to EU laws. It's not worth the enormous hassle for a negligible bump in revenues. The league knows it, it's why they've been thinking about a NBA Europe league but there's already 2 competing european leagues it's not feasible either.

[kwajo]

Not sure how feasible they'd be but if the NBA wants to expand beyond the lower 48 I'd look at the Caribbean before MC and Montreal before Vancouver. Honestly if things had gone differently in the last century Havana would have been the perfect spot, but there's still Puerto Rico, The Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. They might not have the largest population but I've no doubt they'd be supported as well as they could be. And since Vancouver didn't work out, Montreal might actually be a better option and if done right could engage the citizenry.

To be clear I haven't studied any of these places just thinking out loud. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons they wouldn't work, but these are the out of the box ideas I'd at least be looking at if I'm Silver.

Montreal has a ton of money and is a much larger city and surrounding area than Vancouver, I only see language and cultural differences as the biggest issues for attracting the NBA and US-born players. A Montreal team would by default have the support of the entire Quebec population of +9 million, most of whom are at most 2-3 hours from the centre of the city, and a very strong corporate base as well, plus the instantly intense rivalry with Toronto would be fantastic for the league.

Having both Vancouver and Montreal with NBA teams would be amazing, but let's be real, both are longshots compared to Las Vegas and Seattle.

[Sealab2024]

Not sure how feasible they'd be but if the NBA wants to expand beyond the lower 48 I'd look at the Caribbean before MC and Montreal before Vancouver. Honestly if things had gone differently in the last century Havana would have been the perfect spot, but there's still Puerto Rico, The Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. They might not have the largest population but I've no doubt they'd be supported as well as they could be. And since Vancouver didn't work out, Montreal might actually be a better option and if done right could engage the citizenry.

To be clear I haven't studied any of these places just thinking out loud. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons they wouldn't work, but these are the out of the box ideas I'd at least be looking at if I'm Silver.

Montreal has a ton of money and is a much larger city and surrounding area than Vancouver, I only see language and cultural differences as the biggest issues for attracting the NBA and US-born players. A Montreal team would by default have the support of the entire Quebec population of +9 million, most of whom are at most 2-3 hours from the centre of the city, and a very strong corporate base as well, plus the instantly intense rivalry with Toronto would be fantastic for the league.

Having both Vancouver and Montreal with NBA teams would be amazing, but let's be real, both are longshots compared to Las Vegas and Seattle.

Of course it'll be Vegas and Seattle but I see the NBA adding two more probably about 5 years after that. That's when the whole thing gets interesting because I don't really think there's a frontrunner in that race. For Canada I think it'll come down to one or the other between Vancouver and Montreal and if it were me I'd lean heavily towards Montreal.

[nomansland]

These euro team ideas won't happen. The travel and logistics are too much. The NFL can do it because they play a game per week. The NBA plays 2-4 games per week.

Mexico won't happen for the same reasons + it's Mexico. American NBA players don't want to go 5 minutes across the border to Toronto. A wealthy American-like city, they aren't going all the way to the middle of Mexico. They're insanely rich celebrities, they go to Mexico for vacation. Not to live there.

That would hurt the NBA European teams too. Nobody, besides the Euro players obviously, would want to play there. This of course assumes FIBA would even allow it, I'm sure the existing Euroleague teams would be very against the NBA encroaching on their turf.

And in addition, the ticket prices wouldn't be able to match what the NBA wants. Either because the populace doesn't have the money (Mexico) or laws/regulations (Europe). Compare the prices of the Euro's to the ones of Copa America, they aren't even close.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, although basketball ticket prices in Barcelona, where I live, are surprisingly expensive. I don't think the top end seats are as expensive as the NBA but the worst seats are more expensive. You can easily spend 80 euros for the worst seat in the house.

[pipfan]

I think they stay at 32 for a while-it's a nice even number.

I would go 76 games, four divisions of 8 teams
Play each team in your division 4 times (28 games)
Play each team in the other division 2 times (48 games)

76 games over the same calendar. Cut 6 back-to-backs and reduce injuries. National TV would love it (fewer stars out for their matchups) plus each RS game would mean a little bit more

Only loss is in the 3 home games each club loses, plus a bit on local TV/radio, but some of the ticket sales would get soaked up in the other 38 games (few teams sell out all their games).

[Sealab2024]

I think they stay at 32 for a while-it's a nice even number.

I would go 76 games, four divisions of 8 teams
Play each team in your division 4 times (28 games)
Play each team in the other division 2 times (48 games)

76 games over the same calendar. Cut 6 back-to-backs and reduce injuries. National TV would love it (fewer stars out for their matchups) plus each RS game would mean a little bit more

Only loss is in the 3 home games each club loses, plus a bit on local TV/radio, but some of the ticket sales would get soaked up in the other 38 games (few teams sell out all their games).

That's a real problem though. Owners aren't going to eliminate home games. That's money out of their pockets and I promise they're not interested in that at all.

[pipfan]

I think they stay at 32 for a while-it's a nice even number.

I would go 76 games, four divisions of 8 teams
Play each team in your division 4 times (28 games)
Play each team in the other division 2 times (48 games)

76 games over the same calendar. Cut 6 back-to-backs and reduce injuries. National TV would love it (fewer stars out for their matchups) plus each RS game would mean a little bit more

Only loss is in the 3 home games each club loses, plus a bit on local TV/radio, but some of the ticket sales would get soaked up in the other 38 games (few teams sell out all their games).

That's a real problem though. Owners aren't going to eliminate home games. That's money out of their pockets and I promise they're not interested in that at all.

Honestly, I don't think it's that much $, and it would improve the RS. Six fewer games means fewer rest days for stars and less tanking. I think it's a fair number, since most people think the RS is too long. I don't know the answer, but how many teams sell out their home games? I know a lot of tickets are sold in 5/10 game packets, which this would not affect.
It'd help ratings as well-fewer dud national TV games where the stars sit (due to less rest and fewer injuries).

[Sealab2024]

I think they stay at 32 for a while-it's a nice even number.

I would go 76 games, four divisions of 8 teams
Play each team in your division 4 times (28 games)
Play each team in the other division 2 times (48 games)

76 games over the same calendar. Cut 6 back-to-backs and reduce injuries. National TV would love it (fewer stars out for their matchups) plus each RS game would mean a little bit more

Only loss is in the 3 home games each club loses, plus a bit on local TV/radio, but some of the ticket sales would get soaked up in the other 38 games (few teams sell out all their games).

That's a real problem though. Owners aren't going to eliminate home games. That's money out of their pockets and I promise they're not interested in that at all.

Honestly, I don't think it's that much $, and it would improve the RS. Six fewer games means fewer rest days for stars and less tanking. I think it's a fair number, since most people think the RS is too long. I don't know the answer, but how many teams sell out their home games? I know a lot of tickets are sold in 5/10 game packets, which this would not affect.
It'd help ratings as well-fewer dud national TV games where the stars sit (due to less rest and fewer injuries).

I know it's the right thing to do for both the game and the players but I promise you the owners will never let it happen. 20,000 seats at a hundred dollars a pop is already 2 million and I'm sure the average cost for a ticket is more than that. Then you include drinks, food, jerseys, other merchandise, advertising etc you're looking at over ten million a home game. X's three is 30+ million dollars. Over 30 franchises you're now looking at almost a billion dollars in lost revenue. There's no chance the owners agree to just give up a billion dollars.

[Mamba81p]

That would hurt the NBA European teams too. Nobody, besides the Euro players obviously, would want to play there. This of course assumes FIBA would even allow it, I'm sure the existing Euroleague teams would be very against the NBA encroaching on their turf.

I don't think FIBA has any authority over what NBA does. Plus FIBA has a bigger vendetta against Euroleague than against NBA.

[SkyBill40]

this is disingenuous. bad form from a Seattle fan. you have no idea what your talking about.

LMAO. Uh, sure.

Don't even try that crap with me. There's a difference between what happened with the Grizzlies and the Sonics. The only similarity is that both teams were relocated.

Sent from my SM-F936U using RealGM mobile app

yeah the difference was one team was set up to fail with highly restrictive stipulations of expansion and the other wasn't. one team had a chance to stay, but the public would not fund the arena, the other had a perfectly suitable arena. they even averaged more fans than the place they moved to. the Vancouver Grizzlies averaged more fans per game in 6 years despite knowing the team was a going to relocate than the Memphis Grizzlies did in their first 12 seasons.

don't give me this bs about the fan support not being there in the 90s. it was there. Vancouver has only grown in population and wealth since then.

okc also averaged way more fans than the Sonics. so when you say the team wasn't really supported and therefore relocated as a result that is completely disingenuous. it shows your ignorance.

Admittedly, I'm not as fully up on the Grizzlies when they were in Vancouver as you may be; however, don't come at me like I'm clueless as to what happened with my Sonics. That shows YOUR ignorance. And saying that the public failed to support a new arena in Seattle as the reason they moved is an overly simplistic and not wholly true assertion. It goes much further than that, but you're not a Sonics fan, so there's that.

Regardless, I said what I said: I don't personally think VAN will be reconsidered before a new location would be; however, Silver doesn't seem to have any clue on where to go and the league has been waffling about expanding for more than a decade now.

[Clemenza]

Real answer should be San Jose since that region has a lot of wealth (look at how successful GSW have been).

Mexico City makes a strong case too.

Of those listed I'd go with Las Vegas

Come on man, SJ is Warriors territory