Renewed Idea: NBA Sister Cities

[the sea duck]

I have to admit, I've brought this idea up a few times in a few threads over the years (and even dedicated a now-locked thread to it: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1304878&hilit=sister+cities), but the idea has seemed to gain little traction, mostly derailing into anti-expansion arguments.

However, with MLB looking at the potential for essentially the same idea (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27016429/rays-explore-splitting-games-montreal), I thought it was worth bringing up again.

From the old thread because I don't feel like typing a new one:

"The Euroleague thread got me thinking about an old idea I had for incorporating the NBA to a division in Europe. Would it be feasible to expand new franchises to multiple cities? For instance, maybe Kansas City shares a team with London. London is the home city in Europe. Kansas City is the sister city and domestic home in the U.S. So the team could play home games in Kansas City for stretches of the season, then go back to Europe for the games over there. It would make the travel easier and add flexibility to the schedule. Plus, smaller U.S. markets could be made larger by adding the market overseas.

Could the league do this for 4 to 6 teams? Would it work?"

[Frank Dux]

I actually kinda like it, especially for the smaller markets.

[NuggetsWY]

A 2014 thread that appeared to die off and was bumped in 2016?
This concept hasn't made another appearance since then?
Good luck but I doubt there will be much interest.

[Michael Jordan]

Its not a bad idea but lets be real it probably won't happen. Seattle + Vancouver would be nice.

[RoyceDa59]

It makes sense for cities that are within ~200 miles proximity to each other or less.

Portland/Seattle/Vancouver
Oakland/San Francisco
Chicago/Milwaukee
Houston/Austin/San Antonio
Orlando/Tampa
St Louis/Kansas City
LA/San Diego
Phoenix/Tucson
Pittsburgh/Columbus

[Sherlock]

There is some precedent for this from the New Orleans / OKC team sharing post Katrina. It could theoretically work, though I think you'd have to name a primary city and a secondary city. Primary city would host the playoff games, etc. But you could play some games each year in the sister city.

[the sea duck]

There is some precedent for this from the New Orleans / OKC team sharing post Katrina. It could theoretically work, though I think you'd have to name a primary city and a secondary city. Primary city would host the playoff games, etc. But you could play some games each year in the sister city.

That post-Katrina team was my inspiration for this idea.

[teke184]

I believe this has been done or attempted several times and never ended well.

It was done by the Kings during the 70s and 80s, splitting time between KC and Omaha, before a series of disasters ended up with them sold to Sacramento investors, including their arena’s roof caving in during bad weather and their GM being fired in a scandal and getting replaced by a hated former GM of the franchise.

The Cavs also tried it during Ted Stepien’s disaster of an ownership, when they planned to play some home games in Cincy, Buffalo, and Pittsburg in addition to Cleveland, but I don’t know exactly how far those plans got.

[Coeur]

Great question. I think they might want teams in other countries but not shared teams.


I live in Las Vegas and everyone expects that LV and Seattle will either get expansion teams. When the lottery happened for the 2 franchises it made me start thinking the nba doesn’t want to expand to LV and Seattle but sell those 2 teams from New Orleans and Memphis.


I think they move Memphis and New Orleans to Seattle and Las Vegas and the next expansion is 4-6 international teams. Or they start by trying Montreal and Mexico City

[LakerLegend]

Silly idea all around when you apply common sense and logistics.

NBA needs to put teams in the following cities:

Seattle
Montreal
Vancouver
St. Louis or Kansas City

[Huskies1947]

Lets be honest... this whole Tampa-Montreal scenario is actually to move the team to Montreal full time in the future. The Rays are stuck with the albatross lease with Tampa bay so really what they want to do is "Satisfy" the lease until 2027 by playing early season games in Tampa; call it an extended spring training if you will. This would never be a permanent full time thing.

[ChettheJet]

I think it's a good idea for baseball because attendance is so dependent on the team's record and selling half as many season tickets is easier.

I guess there are NBA teams either losing money or breaking even but it might be tougher with only 41 home games to divide up as compared to 81 for baseball. I think an owner would have to grind out the figures to see if it would work out before they ever brought it to the public. If a city was faced with losing their franchise or sharing, the idea might not seem so bad.

[HeatIn5]

It makes sense for cities that are within ~200 miles proximity to each other or less.

Portland/Seattle/Vancouver
Oakland/San Francisco
Chicago/Milwaukee
Houston/Austin/San Antonio
Orlando/Tampa
St Louis/Kansas City
LA/San Diego
Phoenix/Tucson
Pittsburgh/Columbus

Miami/Cuba? Too soon?

[dorkestra]

This could be a good method for the NBA to dip their toes into the Mexican market

[Huskies1947]

OP does this splitting a team between real sister cities? E.g. Toronto and Chicago are sister cities but we would never have a need to split a team.

[Effigy]

I have to admit, I've brought this idea up a few times in a few threads over the years (and even dedicated a now-locked thread to it: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1304878&hilit=sister+cities), but the idea has seemed to gain little traction, mostly derailing into anti-expansion arguments.

However, with MLB looking at the potential for essentially the same idea (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27016429/rays-explore-splitting-games-montreal), I thought it was worth bringing up again.

From the old thread because I don't feel like typing a new one:

"The Euroleague thread got me thinking about an old idea I had for incorporating the NBA to a division in Europe. Would it be feasible to expand new franchises to multiple cities? For instance, maybe Kansas City shares a team with London. London is the home city in Europe. Kansas City is the sister city and domestic home in the U.S. So the team could play home games in Kansas City for stretches of the season, then go back to Europe for the games over there. It would make the travel easier and add flexibility to the schedule. Plus, smaller U.S. markets could be made larger by adding the market overseas.

Could the league do this for 4 to 6 teams? Would it work?"

I think London might be too much of a stretch. Nobody cares about the London team's travel issues, we care about the other 30 teams' travel. A West Coast team playing games in London would be pretty rough.

I also don't think fans would really get behind a team they have to share.

And I don't know if it's fair to say MLB is looking into it, so much as one team in Tampa that is bleeding money that can't get out of their agreement is trying to circumvent that agreement by playing games somewhere else. If they could just move, I think they would.

[the sea duck]

OP does this splitting a team between real sister cities? E.g. Toronto and Chicago are sister cities but we would never have a need to split a team.

No, cities would only become "nba sister cities" by sharing a franchise. Although, sharing a sports team could lead to other connections between two cities as well.

If something like 4 expansion teams were shared between North American and European cities, they could all be in the same division and effectively create the European Division (at one time under David Stern a Euro division was at least a thought). Maybe they could play all of their division games in their European homes (so let's say 12 games), then host a select schedule of 7-8 Eastern conference teams (rotating every other year), that brings the European schedule to 19-20 home games per year. Maybe you could choose 1, 2, or 3 additional Western conference teams to visit per year (again rotating). Bringing the total European schedule to 20-22 games. So East teams would only have to travel to Europe once every other year. West teams would travel to Europe once every 5 to 15 years or so. The teams with home games in Europe might only need to make the trip 2 or 3 times per year depending on how clever the schedulers can be (not too bad for a 7 month span of time). Teams going to Europe would only be there for a stretch of 4 games, which isn't too bad.

The rest of the schedule could be hosted by the North American city. Pre-season could be entirely in Europe and against each other and non-NBA teams. Other teams no longer have to travel to Europe for regular season games with each other or pre-season games with other non-NBA teams.

[CallMeKahn]

It could work, but I hate it with a passion. Look at Tampa Bay exploring the idea of sistering with Montreal. Why? Because that crap worked so well the first time up there? Tampa Bay isn't exactly a model franchise and neither were the Expos before they moved out. Why gives bad owners an out with this crap? Sell the team if you don't want to win.

A new franchise needs to work with it's presumed fanbase to draw love. Splitting teams like that just doesn't click with me. I understand it works in Europe, but I don't know how well it would fly here doing a time share with your local sportsball team.

[XxIronChainzxX]

I don’t get this one. Wouldn’t this just double the capital costs of the business? Suddenly a team has to pay for two stadiums.

[the sea duck]

I don’t get this one. Wouldn’t this just double the capital costs of the business? Suddenly a team has to pay for two stadiums.

In theory it increases revenue too, though. A team supported by two cities (regions) instead of one. And the European teams might garner even more support in Europe given say only 4 teams for the continent and still relative scarcity of the product.