That’s why you pick the right places to put these teams. STL or KC make sense. SD makes sense. LV and Seattle make sense. Even Montreal and Vancouver could be pulled off imo. Also, it can be a gradual expansion not all at once.
In terms of games played my math ain’t the best but I think it could be worked out to where in conference can be two games and out of conference remains one game out of the year. It makes it more important that they win their games against specific opponents.
So if opening up the opportunity to get NBA level coaching and training doesn’t gradually increase the talent pool what does? Again, I’m certainly not saying that it would be smooth sailing starting out but I think the long term benefits outweigh the immediate struggles.
You just named 5/6 cities. And no, all them don't make sense. You yourself are saying STL or KC, not both. Putting team a especially in KC, which already had a team moved, cannibalizes the OKC market.
San Diego makes little to no sense. If that's the case the Clippers would be there. Competing with the Lakers in a nearby city isn't happening. Seattle never should've lost its team. Vegas is automatic. NBA would not be gambling on both Montreal and Vancouver.
Some towns are simply not sports culture towns, or have too much of an attachment to another sport or NCAA culture to make sense. There aren't 10 cities clamoring for an NBA team.
The NBA got 6 teams added in a 7 year span ('88 to '95), and that was too fast. How gradual does this need to be? It'll get to the point where it defeats the purpose your supposed fight against the NFL.
It doesn't work. It won't be "remaining" 1 game out of conference because a team plays an Interconference opponent twice a year, not once. Divisional games a 4 year, non-division conference opponents 3 or 4 times. So now you're adding a bunch of teams just to limit their matches against each other, in a game based on 7 game series when it truly matters. Doesn't make sense.
NBA coaching doesn't matter when talking about players making the league. They are not getting NBA coaching before draft day, and all you're doing in opening the door for more players who had a lower baseline of talent than before.
Does it make sense for the NFL to add 8-10 teams, 10 being the equivalent addition by percentage?
Does it make sense for the MLB to add 10 teams? The baseball world has been worried about it's loss of relevancd for years, why not make the league 33% bigger? By your logic they need it more than the NBA.
Talent and product dilution.
Magically adding teams doesn't build talent when you need the talent to get there, and all that's being added is bad teams for good teams to beat up on.
Again, 6 teams were added in 7 years. This thinned the talent pool out enough for 1 team to win 6 times in 8 years, and with most of the teams being added to the East, bred the "weak East" of the post-Jordan era people bring up. Repeating that to the tune of 10 teams will be even worse.
Talent is discovered/honed before going pro, not taking athletes and trying to coach them up to your professional standard. The 90s and 00s had too many boom or bust floaters and buns behind this mentality.
The lack of smooth sailing is why it won't be and shouldn't be done. There is and should be no interest in weakening a product and taking risks on potency of market engagement to say 30 years later you have 10 extra teams to try to combat a 32-team league that is astronomically successful based on
scarcity, not abundance.
