I'm not convinced the NBA should go beyond 30. If it did, and even if it didn't, the salary cap per team should be lowered to spread out superstars to make the league more even.
However, if it goes to 32, many people seem to agree that #31 will be Seattle. However, who would be #32? List of possibilities, in no particular order: Vancouver, San Diego, Las Vegas, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Montreal. Any others?
Who would you want to see?
My vote would be for St. Louis.
EDIT
New poll based on Wedge's comment below. Outside of Seattle, where should a team/teams relocate? Choose one above on the poll but feel free to comment on who should relocate and where teams should relocate.
Whoever has a new arena. The NBA is fine as is though. Other than Seattle, there's not really a market that's worth adding. Maybe if Las Vegas hadn't added the wrong sport, you'd go there.
There's
a story out now claiming that a few NBA teams are losing money, mostly because they have extremely weak local TV deals and/or can't command higher ticket prices.
Maybe that story is just BS propaganda intended to justify a lockout of the players when the CBA expires. But if it's not BS, then maybe your poll should be, what are the cities to which existing NBA teams might relocate? Maybe the teams that make the most local revenue, like the Lakers and Knicks, will tell the owners of teams that only make about $10 million/year in local TV money,
"Instead of asking for more of our money, how about moving your franchise to a place where it can make more money?"
(09-20-2017 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]There's a story out now claiming that a few NBA teams are losing money, mostly because they have extremely weak local TV deals and/or can't command higher ticket prices.
Maybe that story is just BS propaganda intended to justify a lockout of the players when the CBA expires. But if it's not BS, then maybe your poll should be, what are the cities to which existing NBA teams might relocate? Maybe the teams that make the most local revenue, like the Lakers and Knicks, will tell the owners of teams that only make about $10 million/year in local TV money, "Instead of asking for more of our money, how about moving your franchise to a place where it can make more money?"
Very good point. Will attempt to change the poll.
(09-20-2017 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]There's a story out now claiming that a few NBA teams are losing money, mostly because they have extremely weak local TV deals and/or can't command higher ticket prices.
Maybe that story is just BS propaganda intended to justify a lockout of the players when the CBA expires. But if it's not BS, then maybe your poll should be, what are the cities to which existing NBA teams might relocate? Maybe the teams that make the most local revenue, like the Lakers and Knicks, will tell the owners of teams that only make about $10 million/year in local TV money, "Instead of asking for more of our money, how about moving your franchise to a place where it can make more money?"
Weak local TV markets make sense, look at where NBA teams are. They're often in places that don't have another pro sports team. New Orleans and Memphis are both small and relatively poor and while others like Salt Lake, OKC and Portland are more affluent but still small. Major League Baseball by contrast doesn't have many small markets, with Kansas City being the worst...and they just won the World Series. Heck, one of their small markets, Oakland, is actually just part of a large market. Tampa Bay is a medium sized market that's just not good for pro sports as isn't Miami, actually a large market. I venture to say San Diego, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Kansas City are MLB's only true small markets. And Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are original MLB baseball towns, so it's not exactly like an expansion team in Vegas.
It will never happen but the NBA should actually contract because there isn't enough talent to spread around. I can believe there are teams losing money since everyone knows before the season starts which teams actually have a legit chance for a ring. But you still have to pay those excessive player contracts.
There are some small markets, and you're right that the smallest NBA markets are smaller than MLB's smallest.
Nielsen TV market size for smallest MLB TV markets (the number on the left is the ranking among U.S. TV markets):
23 Pittsburgh 1,160,220 TV homes
26 Baltimore 1,119,480
28 San Diego 1,065,700
33 Kansas City 919,020
35 Milwaukee 895,700
36 Cincinnati 863,800
Smallest NBA TV markets:
31 San Antonio 938,660 TV homes
34 Salt Lake City 916,960
35 Milwaukee 895,700
41 Oklahoma City 722,140
50 New Orleans 641,620
51 Memphis 633,930
(09-20-2017 12:26 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not convinced the NBA should go beyond 30. If it did, and even if it didn't, the salary cap per team should be lowered to spread out superstars to make the league more even.
However, if it goes to 32, many people seem to agree that #31 will be Seattle. However, who would be #32? List of possibilities, in no particular order: Vancouver, San Diego, Las Vegas, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Montreal. Any others?
Who would you want to see?
My vote would be for St. Louis.
EDIT
New poll based on Wedge's comment below. Outside of Seattle, where should a team/teams relocate? Choose one above on the poll but feel free to comment on who should relocate and where teams should relocate.
Vancouver lost the Grizzlies to Memphis so I doubt it.
I doubt Las Vegas goes for the hat trick with the NBA too.
Montreal can't even get back their NHL or MLB teams so I doubt that too.
And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
(09-20-2017 06:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]It will never happen but the NBA should actually contract because there isn't enough talent to spread around. I can believe there are teams losing money since everyone knows before the season starts which teams actually have a legit chance for a ring. But you still have to pay those excessive player contracts.
All the league's should contract.
(09-20-2017 09:53 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
Milwaukee is suspect because of its proximity to Chicago. It's closer to Chicago than San Diego is to Los Angeles. There are probably even more Cubs fans (and Bulls fans) in southern Wisconsin than there are Dodgers fans in San Diego.
There is very little interest in getting an NBA team in Saint Louis.
The largest tv market without a team is Tampa-St. Pete at 13 followed by Seattle at 14.
(09-20-2017 11:35 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 09:53 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
Milwaukee is suspect because of its proximity to Chicago. It's closer to Chicago than San Diego is to Los Angeles. There are probably even more Cubs fans (and Bulls fans) in southern Wisconsin than there are Dodgers fans in San Diego.
Cubs fans maybe. Milwaukee has more support from Wisconsin in general, just like the Packers. Maybe I'm wrong but Milwaukee in no way is a colony of Chicago.
(09-21-2017 06:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 11:35 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 09:53 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
Milwaukee is suspect because of its proximity to Chicago. It's closer to Chicago than San Diego is to Los Angeles. There are probably even more Cubs fans (and Bulls fans) in southern Wisconsin than there are Dodgers fans in San Diego.
Cubs fans maybe. Milwaukee has more support from Wisconsin in general, just like the Packers. Maybe I'mean wrong but Milwaukee in no way is a colony of Chicago.
The
local TV revenue indicates that either there are a heck of a lot of Cubs fans in Wisconsin, or fans in Wisconsin are just less enthusiastic about baseball in general. The Brewers reportedly get about $24MM/year in local TV revenue, which is near the bottom in MLB, above only teams that either have smaller TV territories (Royals) or places with weak interest in local teams (Marlins, Rays). The Padres, for example, get $39MM/year, even though the Milwaukee market alone is only 10-15% smaller than San Diego and the Brewers' Wisconsin MLB TV territory has about twice as many people as the Padres TV market, which is limited to San Diego County and the desert county to the east.
(09-20-2017 06:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]It will never happen but the NBA should actually contract because there isn't enough talent to spread around.
Here's an article for you...
The 23-Team League the NBA Needs
Quote:Let’s get rid of some teams. The obviousness of it is staring you in the face. It is, after all, simple math. In a 30-team league, one team having four of the top 15 players in the world means a diluted talent pool...
Quote:So, let’s turn the clock back 30 years, to the 1987-88 season, by contracting the post-’88 expansion teams: the Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Charlotte Hornets, Toronto Raptors, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, and Minnesota Timberwolves. Yes, I know those teams, particularly the Heat, have rich histories. Get them out of here. We have too many teams.
(09-21-2017 11:52 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 06:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]It will never happen but the NBA should actually contract because there isn't enough talent to spread around.
Here's an article for you...
The 23-Team League the NBA Needs
Quote:Let’s get rid of some teams. The obviousness of it is staring you in the face. It is, after all, simple math. In a 30-team league, one team having four of the top 15 players in the world means a diluted talent pool...
Quote:So, let’s turn the clock back 30 years, to the 1987-88 season, by contracting the post-’88 expansion teams: the Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Charlotte Hornets, Toronto Raptors, Memphis Grizzlies, New Orleans Pelicans, and Minnesota Timberwolves. Yes, I know those teams, particularly the Heat, have rich histories. Get them out of here. We have too many teams.
Contraction based on talent supply versus expansion based on tv revenue/market penetration .... HMM tough call.
The NBA by its own measures basically has allow talent to amass at certain teams while also allowing certain teams to run a limited roster yet get revenue sharing. I don't 100% trust the accounting practices of any pro sports league though... I find their revenue pools for the leagues as a whole and for the teams individually a dark murky soup of using all available tax loop holes to exist.
That said, for my home state Charlotte Hornets, we were a Eastern Conference factor after getting LJ and Zo.... the Glen Rice and what not.... but George Shin and his moving of the franchise originally probably alienated a lot of the NBA fans of the Hornets in the state. And its reemergence as the Bobcats expansion franchise as a complete joke for its life span under that banner did it no favors either. Going back to the Hornets was probably their smartest move but like I said, they alienated the entire state with some of their moves. When the Hornets started we had local quality broadcasts for their games all over the state, now my Hornets coverage is relegated to a SD alt channel that no one knows about unless you know about it.
The Heat have been a big success with their titles and playoff appearances, as well as the big name talent the Miami area has been able to attract.
The Orlando Magic started out so well but with the failures of keeping Shaq and Penny... they have faded out of memory from those great playoff runs they had in the mid 90s.
The Timberwolves started slow but during the KG era were decent. They are just now getting back on track again.
The Grizzlies were a utter failure in Vancouver but have seem to have righted that ship now that they are in Memphis.
The Raptors have had two good eras with Vince Carter and now they current team... but they, overall haven't really caught on.
I read that as the writer picking an arbitrary and clean way to choose franchises to cut, not as a value judgment on particular franchises. Though at least some of those owners would be thrilled if this was really on the table and if the NBA was to pay market value for the teams being contracted, a la the infamous Bud Selig Twins/Expos contraction idea.
(09-21-2017 03:25 AM)lew240z Wrote: [ -> ]There is very little interest in getting an NBA team in Saint Louis.
The largest tv market without a team is Tampa-St. Pete at 13 followed by Seattle at 14.
That's basically Orlando, so they're covered, especially the east bay side.
(09-21-2017 06:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 11:35 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 09:53 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
Milwaukee is suspect because of its proximity to Chicago. It's closer to Chicago than San Diego is to Los Angeles. There are probably even more Cubs fans (and Bulls fans) in southern Wisconsin than there are Dodgers fans in San Diego.
Cubs fans maybe. Milwaukee has more support from Wisconsin in general, just like the Packers. Maybe I'm wrong but Milwaukee in no way is a colony of Chicago.
There are enough Cubs fans to justify the worst realignment move by Bud Selig; moving the Brewers to the NL.
To honest the NBA's situation isn't that bad. Move either the Kings or Pelicans to Seattle and contract the other along with the Nets.
(09-21-2017 06:29 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-21-2017 06:14 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 11:35 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (09-20-2017 09:53 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]And of course, Cincinnati is actually much bigger in that, one it's a giant baseball town and, two, that it has other large markets that contribute to its fanbase, such as Louisville and Dayton.
Baltimore isn't in Washington's TV market but for a long time was the only baseball team in the region. And they are still the only AL team in the region.
Milwaukee is suspect because of its proximity to Chicago. It's closer to Chicago than San Diego is to Los Angeles. There are probably even more Cubs fans (and Bulls fans) in southern Wisconsin than there are Dodgers fans in San Diego.
Cubs fans maybe. Milwaukee has more support from Wisconsin in general, just like the Packers. Maybe I'm wrong but Milwaukee in no way is a colony of Chicago.
There are enough Cubs fans to justify the worst realignment move by Bud Selig; moving the Brewers to the NL.
To honest the NBA's situation isn't that bad. Move either the Kings or Pelicans to Seattle and contract the other along with the Nets.
Stern engineered a new ownership group in Sacramento (which then got a new arena with public $$$) in order to stop the Kings from moving to Seattle, so they're off the table no matter how incompetently the team is run.
You could contract two teams and move a third to Seattle, leaving 28 teams, which would at least cost the owners less money than contracting six or seven as the Ringer writer suggested. But he is correct that to bring the talent level of the NBA's bottom significantly closer to the top, it would require eliminating that many teams.