(01-12-2018 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 12:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 08:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 10:49 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I would go that far, but the past expansion teams could be eliminated. I guess MIA is viable but the rest can go.

They're not going to eliminate franchises that make money.

Also, the NBA would make less TV money if they reduced the inventory of available games and eliminated existing markets. Though maybe TV wouldn't care as much if only smaller markets were eliminated -- as mentioned here before, the smallest NBA markets, per current Nielsen rankings [PDF file], are #36 Milwaukee, #41 Oklahoma City, #50 Memphis, and #51 New Orleans. Only the last two are in any danger of eventual relocation, IMO. The Bucks recently got gullible state and local politicians to pay for a new arena, and the OKC owners are very wealthy even by NBA-owner standards.

TV is another reason to get an NBA franchise into Seattle, which is the 12th-largest TV market.

I understand that, but the lack of team talent that the larger league has created is an issue the NBA has turned a blind eye to in the name of expansion fees. How valuable is the inventory if no one wants to watch? Hell, even the Hawks Are losing money despite being in the number 8 TV market.

There isn't a lack of talent, only a lack of distribution of talent. The biggest issue is that most elite players don't want to be the only elite player on their team. That's why we had "The Heatles" and Durant-to-the-Warriors. The salary cap was supposed to even out the distribution of talent, but when players like Durant are willing to take less in salary to play on their team of choice, the cap helps some but can't completely prevent the clustering of elite players.

I don’t think there are 32 stars in the NBA, let alone the 2 that it appears a teams needs to be competitive in the association today.

Maybe your definition of stars is too narrow. To use an analogy to the 1990s: There aren't 32 Michael Jordans, but there are dozens of Scottie Pippens in the NBA. And you can win with a properly-constructed team that doesn't have a LeBron or MJ. San Antonio has 5 NBA titles.

(01-12-2018 12:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 12:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 08:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  They're not going to eliminate franchises that make money.

Also, the NBA would make less TV money if they reduced the inventory of available games and eliminated existing markets. Though maybe TV wouldn't care as much if only smaller markets were eliminated -- as mentioned here before, the smallest NBA markets, per current Nielsen rankings [PDF file], are #36 Milwaukee, #41 Oklahoma City, #50 Memphis, and #51 New Orleans. Only the last two are in any danger of eventual relocation, IMO. The Bucks recently got gullible state and local politicians to pay for a new arena, and the OKC owners are very wealthy even by NBA-owner standards.

TV is another reason to get an NBA franchise into Seattle, which is the 12th-largest TV market.

I understand that, but the lack of team talent that the larger league has created is an issue the NBA has turned a blind eye to in the name of expansion fees. How valuable is the inventory if no one wants to watch? Hell, even the Hawks Are losing money despite being in the number 8 TV market.

There isn't a lack of talent, only a lack of distribution of talent. The biggest issue is that most elite players don't want to be the only elite player on their team. That's why we had "The Heatles" and Durant-to-the-Warriors. The salary cap was supposed to even out the distribution of talent, but when players like Durant are willing to take less in salary to play on their team of choice, the cap helps some but can't completely prevent the clustering of elite players.

I don’t think there are 32 stars in the NBA, let alone the 2 that it appears a teams needs to be competitive in the association today.

Maybe your definition of stars is too narrow. To use an analogy to the 1990s: There aren't 32 Michael Jordans, but there are dozens of Scottie Pippens in the NBA. And you can win with a properly-constructed team that doesn't have a LeBron or MJ. San Antonio has 5 NBA titles.

My definition was Chuck Person/Dominique Wilkins level players. I look at teams with stars like NOLA and the T’wolves struggling to compete and it just doesn’t seems like it there is enough. I might be a talent issue too.