NBA to Vegas?
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Centrum Hockey
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2018
- 2,092
- 728
The only realistic option's for Vegas in terms of relocation are Memphis and New Orleans City, county, Grizzlies in negotiation over 'trap door'. New Orleans has a more economic reasons to stay put in it's current location than Memphis has.
I think Seattle and Vancouver are first in line for expansion, because of the realignment those new teams would allow.
Minnesota and Oklahoma City both want out of the Northwest Division and into divisions with closer teams, namely the Central and Southwest.
Returning to Seattle and Vancouver will accomplish that, because those two would go in the Northwest.
Further down the road when the NBA does want to expand to 36 teams, Vegas could be an option for the 6th Pacific team.
Minnesota and Oklahoma City both want out of the Northwest Division and into divisions with closer teams, namely the Central and Southwest.
Returning to Seattle and Vancouver will accomplish that, because those two would go in the Northwest.
Further down the road when the NBA does want to expand to 36 teams, Vegas could be an option for the 6th Pacific team.
IU Hawks fan
They call me IU
Leagues don't expand based on what divisions look like, they create divisions based on the teams they have.
Exhibit A: NHL putting a team in Seattle, forcing Arizona to the Central.
As I stated earlier, Vegas would be the obvious choice for the 6th Pacific team once the NBA does want to expand from 32 to 36. Though Anaheim is a dark-horse candidate.
The Northwest Division's only real options for #6 are Calgary and Edmonton. The latter just built an arena a few years ago, and Calgary will start building a new arena next year.
However, both cities have an intense rivalry, and one city would likely complain if the other was awarded the team.
Solution? Have a single Alberta team split its home games between Calgary and Edmonton. In alternating years, the first 21 home games would take place in one city and the last 20 in the other.
The Atlantic Division has a few more options. The 6th Atlantic team could go in Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, or Pittsburgh. All NHL arenas in these cities are at least relatively new.
As for the Southeast Division, awarding a team to Nashville is out because its potential biggest rival, Memphis, is in the other conference. Birmingham is out because they are merely renovating their current arena, which dates to the 1970s. So that leaves two options for #6 in the Southeast. Tampa Bay would give Miami and Orlando an additional in-state rival, and have all 4 big 4 leagues in that market. But Louisville is also intriguing. It is located in a state that is a basketball hotbed. And it was home to the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA. I'm sure Louisville would welcome a return of major-league basketball to its city. I also have them in the 40-team MLB alignment I have proposed.
For now, the priority should be Seattle and Vancouver to allow Minnesota and OKC to be with closer teams.
Perhaps 20 years after that, an expansion to 36 teams (2 consecutive years of adding 2 new teams) could then be considered.
The Northwest Division's only real options for #6 are Calgary and Edmonton. The latter just built an arena a few years ago, and Calgary will start building a new arena next year.
However, both cities have an intense rivalry, and one city would likely complain if the other was awarded the team.
Solution? Have a single Alberta team split its home games between Calgary and Edmonton. In alternating years, the first 21 home games would take place in one city and the last 20 in the other.
The Atlantic Division has a few more options. The 6th Atlantic team could go in Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, or Pittsburgh. All NHL arenas in these cities are at least relatively new.
As for the Southeast Division, awarding a team to Nashville is out because its potential biggest rival, Memphis, is in the other conference. Birmingham is out because they are merely renovating their current arena, which dates to the 1970s. So that leaves two options for #6 in the Southeast. Tampa Bay would give Miami and Orlando an additional in-state rival, and have all 4 big 4 leagues in that market. But Louisville is also intriguing. It is located in a state that is a basketball hotbed. And it was home to the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA. I'm sure Louisville would welcome a return of major-league basketball to its city. I also have them in the 40-team MLB alignment I have proposed.
For now, the priority should be Seattle and Vancouver to allow Minnesota and OKC to be with closer teams.
Perhaps 20 years after that, an expansion to 36 teams (2 consecutive years of adding 2 new teams) could then be considered.
Last edited:
NBA Is not going past 30 or 32, nor are Canadian cities outside of Toronto and maybe Vancouver, Z, sorry, Alberta has no interest in the NBA, in fact the Maritimes has its own version of basketball, as evidenced by the St. John's Edge, it's called the NBL...
Never say never. There was a time when people thought Vegas was never going to get a major league sports team. Now they have 2.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Someone just brought up a good point to me. The reason why NBA owners do not want to expand is because they don't want to have to divide up TV money even further and expansion money is not gonna make up for it.
no, Z, they've had more than 2, minor league counts as a pro franchise, and they've had 3 at minimum, between the Aviators and the 51s, JUST AS THERE were teams prior to the Knights, especially at the Orleans....where Henderson is now located
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
He didn't say pro, he said major league teams. Which they didn't until NHL arrived.
wrong, the Knights would've not likely been there if there hadn't been a culture to take advantage of it.....
The NBA may be forced to expand soon though. A league less popular, the NHL, is set to go to 32. MLB could very well be at 32 by the end of the decade too.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I don't think "everyone else is doing it" is a valid reason to expand.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but Seattle and Vegas would be pretty good choices for expansion, period.
You don't expand because of the alignment, but the fact that good candidates ALSO WOULD make a lot of teams happier definitely speeds up the decision to expand.
KevFu
Registered User
Massive expansion fees are a great reason, though. Especially when you just didn't sell tickets to the last month of the season and postseason.
A huge reason I want expansion teams in certain locations is because regional rivalries matter. Oklahoma City and Minnesota don't have any regional rivals in the Northwest Division.
In fact, the only rivalry in that division currently based on geography is Denver-Utah.
Adding Seattle and Vancouver would create a 3-way rivalry between them and Portland like in MLS.
It would also make Minnesota rivals with the other Midwestern NBA teams.
Same with Oklahoma City and the other teams in the South Central States.
When it comes time to expand to 36, Vegas would have a rivalry with Phoenix for instance.
The Alberta team would see Vancouver as its biggest rival.
In fact, the only rivalry in that division currently based on geography is Denver-Utah.
Adding Seattle and Vancouver would create a 3-way rivalry between them and Portland like in MLS.
It would also make Minnesota rivals with the other Midwestern NBA teams.
Same with Oklahoma City and the other teams in the South Central States.
When it comes time to expand to 36, Vegas would have a rivalry with Phoenix for instance.
The Alberta team would see Vancouver as its biggest rival.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
NBA isn't giving Canada another team. At least cities that are not Montreal or Vancouver anyway. Too small by NBA standards.
KevFu
Registered User
Right, but why would anyone think the NBA would skip over the second and third biggest cities in the country and start looking at Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg?
It's like saying "The NBA isn't going to give Florida another team, at least outside of Tampa and Jacksonville, anyway." Yeah, duh. The next biggest CSA without a team in Florida is 88 Daytona, which is the same size as like, Quebec City.
Montreal would be a great choice for the NBA. If the NBA went to 36 teams, you'd have to think two Canadian cities would be on the list.
Seattle, Vegas, Montreal, Vancouver, St. Louis, Kansas City (but not both STL/KC), Louisville, San Diego would have to be your top 8.
In choosing my ideal NBA expansion locations, I took arena age into consideration. All the cities I mentioned have or will have arenas built no earlier than 1993.
I used to advocate for San Diego, but the Chargers moved and the arena there is not up to NBA standards anymore, and I don't see San Diego building a new arena that meets those standards.
Montreal would be in consideration for the 6th Atlantic team as I mentioned, but it has a lot of competition - Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh.
The next-largest American metro area in the prospective Northwest Division footprint, Boise, is not large enough. As a primary census statistical area, it currently ranks #73. While Green Bay is smaller at #130, the Packers are essentially a Milwaukee team.
In TV market size, Boise is barely out of the top 100 at #102. Green Bay at #67 is a bigger TV market than Boise. But again, the Packers are effectively a Milwaukee team.
The Calgary and Edmonton metro areas, both on their own and combined, have more population than the Boise area. And since I'm proposing a single Alberta team splitting its home games between both cities, that gives the potential team a bigger fanbase than any potential Boise team.
I used to advocate for San Diego, but the Chargers moved and the arena there is not up to NBA standards anymore, and I don't see San Diego building a new arena that meets those standards.
Montreal would be in consideration for the 6th Atlantic team as I mentioned, but it has a lot of competition - Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh.
The next-largest American metro area in the prospective Northwest Division footprint, Boise, is not large enough. As a primary census statistical area, it currently ranks #73. While Green Bay is smaller at #130, the Packers are essentially a Milwaukee team.
In TV market size, Boise is barely out of the top 100 at #102. Green Bay at #67 is a bigger TV market than Boise. But again, the Packers are effectively a Milwaukee team.
The Calgary and Edmonton metro areas, both on their own and combined, have more population than the Boise area. And since I'm proposing a single Alberta team splitting its home games between both cities, that gives the potential team a bigger fanbase than any potential Boise team.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,906
- 53,742
An NBA team in Alberta doesn't feel like a fit. And trying to convince NBA players to split their time between Calgary and Edmonton feels like a non starter.
HisIceness
This is Hurricanes Hockey
Alright, my proposal to add Seattle and Vancouver also involves adopting a new schedule format that greatly increases the amount of division games.
Right now, NBA teams only play 16 division games which is only roughly 20% of their annual schedule. In contrast, teams in the other big 4 leagues play at least a third of their schedule in their division.
Under my new alignment, the Central and Southwest Divisions would each have 6 teams and the others would remain at 5.
Every team would play every non-division opponent, even those in the same conference, twice a year home and road - 54 games for teams in the 5-team divisions, 52 games for teams in the 6-team divisions.
The remainder of each team's schedule is played within the division - 7 games against each team for 28 games for teams in the 5-team divisions, and 6 games against each team for 30 games for teams in the 6-team divisions.
When expanding to 36 teams later on, in order to keep the division games at a high enough amount, teams would go to playing each opponent in the other conference just once a year - 9 teams at home, 9 on the road, changing every 2 years so that each team gets to visit Calgary and Edmonton at least once over a 4-year cycle. That adds up to 18 games.
Each team would play its in-conference non-division foes twice each home and road, for a total of 24 games.
All teams would play 8 games against each of their division rivals, for a total of 40 games.
40 + 18 +24 = 82
These schedule formats aim to drive down travel costs.
For the Alberta team, over a 4-year cycle each of its home cities will host 8 games against each division foe, 2 games against each remaining Western team, and 1 game against each Eastern team. Over each two-year sub-cycle, non-division Western foes will visit one city and Eastern foes will visit the other, changing every two years.
Right now, NBA teams only play 16 division games which is only roughly 20% of their annual schedule. In contrast, teams in the other big 4 leagues play at least a third of their schedule in their division.
Under my new alignment, the Central and Southwest Divisions would each have 6 teams and the others would remain at 5.
Every team would play every non-division opponent, even those in the same conference, twice a year home and road - 54 games for teams in the 5-team divisions, 52 games for teams in the 6-team divisions.
The remainder of each team's schedule is played within the division - 7 games against each team for 28 games for teams in the 5-team divisions, and 6 games against each team for 30 games for teams in the 6-team divisions.
When expanding to 36 teams later on, in order to keep the division games at a high enough amount, teams would go to playing each opponent in the other conference just once a year - 9 teams at home, 9 on the road, changing every 2 years so that each team gets to visit Calgary and Edmonton at least once over a 4-year cycle. That adds up to 18 games.
Each team would play its in-conference non-division foes twice each home and road, for a total of 24 games.
All teams would play 8 games against each of their division rivals, for a total of 40 games.
40 + 18 +24 = 82
These schedule formats aim to drive down travel costs.
For the Alberta team, over a 4-year cycle each of its home cities will host 8 games against each division foe, 2 games against each remaining Western team, and 1 game against each Eastern team. Over each two-year sub-cycle, non-division Western foes will visit one city and Eastern foes will visit the other, changing every two years.
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
You sort of skipped over why the NBA would view any of these changes as improvements? Such as:
“These schedule formats aim to drive down travel costs.“
Travel costs are 1-2% of NBA revenues. It’s not an important reason for the league to completely rearrange schedules that would upset many fans.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
What's a natural fit? You think NBA in Utah and Denver are natural fits? I don't see the difference.
By no means do I think it makes sense but its not because of culture. its mostly size and my guess is that NBA doesn't want more Canadian teams, for US TV ratings purposes.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part I- Latest: TrufleShufle
-
