(01-20-2017 12:28 PM)Mimi Wrote: (01-20-2017 03:10 AM)HometownTiger Wrote: Surprised Kansas City isn't mentioned...they have a ready-made arena in the middle of basketball country. Definitely fits out west too.
Pittsburgh and Lousiville make sense, but they'd be in the East.
I'd say KC and Seattle.
Remember the KC Omaha Kings? Before they moved to Sacramento in the mid 1980s. I did not look it up but believe they were the Cincinnati Royals at one time.
They split games between Omaha and KC. It really did not work. Believe Tiny Archibald was their best player while there.
Simply believe that thirty teams are enough, even if some larger markets do not have a team.
Cincinnati, San Diego, Las Vegas, St. Louis, KC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh Seattle, Nashville, likely the biggest cities with no NBA team.
Seattle
San Diego (100 miles from LA)
Tampa (100 miles from Orlando)
St. Louis
Baltimore (45 miles from D.C.)
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati (100 miles from Indianapolis)
Las Vegas
Kansas City
Columbus
Austin (80 miles from San Antonio)
San Jose (Part of San Francisco Bay which has the Warriors)
Nashville
Hampton Roads (VA Beach/Norfolk/Newport News)
Providence, RI (90 miles from Boston)
Jacksonville
Louisville (100 miles from Indianapolis)
Of this list, San Diego, Austin, Hampton Roads, Providence, and Louisville are the only metro areas that don't currently have an NFL football and/or NHL hockey team. San Diego, Austin, Providence, and probably Louisville are close enough to existing NBA teams that there would be opposition to having an NBA team there due to media contracts.
Must be noted that Vancouver, BC has 2.3 million people and metro Montreal has 3.8 million people. Both are larger than most of the largest US metros with a current NBA franchise.