Image

Pacer fans: status on ownership question

Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow

User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,775
And1: 14,046
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Pacer fans: status on ownership question 

Post#21 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:59 pm

Starkiller wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:Louisville is not getting an NBA team before Seattle, Las Vegas, St. Louis, etc. There are much better options out there, including places like San Diego.


The only one I'd give it to you on is Vegas. The other ones, I'd say Louisville is in a better place to get a team than they are. The new arena here is incredible. A Seattle team just failed, why would they go back?


Why? Why Louisville? Why would they get a team when they're less than a 2 hour drive from Indianapolis? Hell, if they're going to stack franchises close together, put a team in Cincinnati. That would be MUCH more realistic. But Seattle is owed a franchise by the NBA, much as Cleveland was owed and given one by the NFL after the Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Las Vegas, San Diego, and St. Louis are just much better and more realistic options as professional cities.
User avatar
Starkiller
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,014
And1: 269
Joined: Nov 24, 2009
     

Re: Pacer fans: status on ownership question 

Post#22 » by Starkiller » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:00 pm

Wizop wrote:someone recently suggested Lexington rather than Louisville. maybe it was Patino. both cities have big arenas though. from a rivalry point of view, I'd love to see the KY Colonels return whether they played in one city or were a regional franchise playing games both places.

the Hornets are now owned by the league. I assume that they'd like to find solid owners whether that moved the team or not.


It was Pitino's greasy ass. Because he doesn't wanna share his arena with an NBA team, which is a quote from him. I guess if NBA stars come in there it will cramp his style and he won't be able to knock up any disgusted tramps in the area.
This ^
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,775
And1: 14,046
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Pacer fans: status on ownership question 

Post#23 » by Scoot McGroot » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:15 am

Starkiller wrote:
Miller4ever wrote:^^I think you should do some more research on what happened there. Basically, Seattle's team was stolen even though the market there is good. I would give them the best chance of getting a team back, then Las Vegas.


I admit I don't know all the details, but there had to be a reason to take them out of Seattle right?


They were taken out of Seattle simply because the owner WANTED to be in Oklahoma City, and the Sonics were the 1st team he could buy that had a loose arena deal. Make no mistake, if that were the Pacers, the Hornets, the Wolves, the Grizzlies, hell, probably anyone outside of the Lakers, Knicks, and Celtics, they would have been moved.
User avatar
Gremz
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 36,278
And1: 6,143
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Location: I am a Norwegian Fisherman
Contact:
         

Re: Pacer fans: status on ownership question 

Post#24 » by Gremz » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:11 am

The next team to play in Seattle should be called the Shoehorns.
Image

Return to Indiana Pacers