Rumor: NBA Expansion?

[Marc Spector]

we already know the play is going to be Vegas and Seattle get A Team at the same time. The Vegas team will be headed by LeBron after he retires.

They probably move Minneapolis to the eastern conference to make up the difference.


After that it’s a very small list of eligible cities. I still think the grizzlies relocate to Nashville before the decade ends, there’s too much money in Nashville to leave it alone.

Pittsburgh could support an NBA team. St. Louis and Cincinnati absolutely cannot. Neither can Kansas City. Louisville is in the midst of a shrinking downtown and doesn’t really have a plan for its economic future so they probably are not a viable candidate despite having an NBA ready Arena.


I think the league is happy with Toronto being the sole occupant of NBA basketball in Canada . They are happy with the Drake partnership .

Plus from a diversity standpoint Toronto makes the most sense. Montreal doesnt vibe and Vancouver scares them because of the CCP money.

Mexico City is inevitable for both the NFL and the NBA so the next expansion after the Vegas Seattle Minneapolis move will probably be a team in Mexico City and A Team in Pittsburgh.

 

[Frump]

What year are these two teams likely to start?

 

[Frump]

we already know the play is going to be Vegas and Seattle get A Team at the same time. The Vegas team will be headed by LeBron after he retires.

They probably move Minneapolis to the eastern conference to make up the difference.


After that it’s a very small list of eligible cities. I still think the grizzlies relocate to Nashville before the decade ends, there’s too much money in Nashville to leave it alone.

Pittsburgh could support an NBA team. St. Louis and Cincinnati absolutely cannot. Neither can Kansas City. I think the league is happy with Toronto being the sole occupant of NBA basketball in Canada . They are happy with the Drake partnership .

Plus from a diversity standpoint Toronto makes the most sense. Montreal doesnt vibe and Vancouver scares them because of the CCP money.

Mexico City is inevitable for both the NFL and the NBA so the next expansion after the Vegas Seattle Minneapolis move will probably be a team in Mexico City and A Team in Pittsburgh.

Just going by location either Memphis or NO would make the most sense to move east

 

[daemonova]

Minnesota and Memphis has always suffered for playing in a tougher Western conference.

Only reason NBA keeps them where they are so they can justify have a western conference team playing at 7pm eastern

 

[Dreamchaser]

I actually don't think LeBron will get an expansion team. The Nba wants 3 billion dollars. Who has that kind of money.

 

[CarltonJunior]

I actually don't think LeBron will get an expansion team. The Nba wants 3 billion dollars. Who has that kind of money.

Buyers acquire them in groups, not as individuals. LeBron could absolutely be a part of one and then buy his way into the majority stake. Happens all the time.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

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.

I’m looking at it from the perspective of creating regional rivalry akin to the NCAA. I think part of what makes it successful in middle America is because it plays into state/regional competition which the NBA could possibly exploit in similar fashion. So rather than cannibalizing one market it can grow them within their respective cities/regions.

Other than Vegas being an entertainment center, there’s no reason to put a team there because it’s a Laker stronghold. Hell the Bay Area was and someone still is a Laker stronghold prior to the Warriors run. So bringing up the Lakers in terms of SD is kinda moot. Especially if you want more international engagement with Mexico being right there.

MLB doesn’t have an expansion issue their product just isn’t that exciting. And the NFL doesn’t need to expand much either. But if there’s less matchups overall then it forces engagement. If you play an intraconference opponent then you can’t bank on winning 3/4 you have to win both or the series is split. That can also make for an exciting end to the season with seeding being determined by those last games.

I think if the problem is the lack of talent early on, then a way to alleviate that is by increasing the amount of early player development opportunities across the board first so that you can create that increased talent pool and then have expansion coincide with that gradual increase. At the very least, it would address your concerns with the lack of talent in the short term.

Honestly I just feel like depending on how it’s implemented a 40 team league is possible and can be a very exciting product.

After Vegas & Seattle I see the league going international. Mexico City, Paris, or another Canadian city. No disrespect to places like KC, Louisville, STL, etc., but the league already has places like that in Milwaukee, Utah, New Orleans, etc. After Vegas & Seattle, if there is anything after that expansion wise, Silver and company are going to swing for the fences outside the USA.

In terms of population, Mexico City makes sense but in that case why not just do Puerto Rico also since it’s similar distance?

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

It’s ok to ignore that poster because I’m correct

 

[Marc Spector]

Just going by location either Memphis or NO would make the most sense to move east

i think minny is closer to chicago, milwaukee and detroit than Memphis and NO are to other eastern conf cities

 

[Marc Spector]

I’m looking at it from the perspective of creating regional rivalry akin to the NCAA. I think part of what makes it successful in middle America is because it plays into state/regional competition which the NBA could possibly exploit in similar fashion. So rather than cannibalizing one market it can grow them within their respective cities/regions.

Other than Vegas being an entertainment center, there’s no reason to put a team there because it’s a Laker stronghold. Hell the Bay Area was and someone still is a Laker stronghold prior to the Warriors run. So bringing up the Lakers in terms of SD is kinda moot. Especially if you want more international engagement with Mexico being right there.

MLB doesn’t have an expansion issue their product just isn’t that exciting. And the NFL doesn’t need to expand much either. But if there’s less matchups overall then it forces engagement. If you play an intraconference opponent then you can’t bank on winning 3/4 you have to win both or the series is split. That can also make for an exciting end to the season with seeding being determined by those last games.

I think if the problem is the lack of talent early on, then a way to alleviate that is by increasing the amount of early player development opportunities across the board first so that you can create that increased talent pool and then have expansion coincide with that gradual increase. At the very least, it would address your concerns with the lack of talent in the short term.

Honestly I just feel like depending on how it’s implemented a 40 team league is possible and can be a very exciting product.



In terms of population, Mexico City makes sense but in that case why not just do Puerto Rico also since it’s similar distance?

pr is a island and has no cities that measure up to mexico city. mexico city is on par with NYC/Tokyo

 

[Marc Spector]

I actually don't think LeBron will get an expansion team. The Nba wants 3 billion dollars. Who has that kind of money.

lebron will be what hov was to the nets but his stake will be far larger as bron has way more liquid capital

 

[Shadow King]

I’m looking at it from the perspective of creating regional rivalry akin to the NCAA. I think part of what makes it successful in middle America is because it plays into state/regional competition which the NBA could possibly exploit in similar fashion. So rather than cannibalizing one market it can grow them within their respective cities/regions.

Other than Vegas being an entertainment center, there’s no reason to put a team there because it’s a Laker stronghold. Hell the Bay Area was and someone still is a Laker stronghold prior to the Warriors run. So bringing up the Lakers in terms of SD is kinda moot. Especially if you want more international engagement with Mexico being right there.

MLB doesn’t have an expansion issue their product just isn’t that exciting. And the NFL doesn’t need to expand much either. But if there’s less matchups overall then it forces engagement. If you play an intraconference opponent then you can’t bank on winning 3/4 you have to win both or the series is split. That can also make for an exciting end to the season with seeding being determined by those last games.

I think if the problem is the lack of talent early on, then a way to alleviate that is by increasing the amount of early player development opportunities across the board first so that you can create that increased talent pool and then have expansion coincide with that gradual increase. At the very least, it would address your concerns with the lack of talent in the short term.

Honestly I just feel like depending on how it’s implemented a 40 team league is possible and can be a very exciting product.



In terms of population, Mexico City makes sense but in that case why not just do Puerto Rico also since it’s similar distance?

The NCAA isn't a professional league, and is based on local university pride, often by virtue of alumni remaining in the area as much as the locals who didn't play but watch.

They also have multiple conferences of various sizes, and aren't expected to play a uniform group of out-of-conference teams every single year. A college team can go decades without playing a team theoretically.

Market growth in professional sports is limited because the attachment to pro teams doesn't touch that of a college team, and thus drawing from a region is more important to the business model of a pro team. Market size is irrelevant to college teams.

Vegas is 4 hours away from LA and has always sat by itself, and you're making my argument by listing is an entertainment center. It's also the gambling and sports gambling capital, like a breh already said, it went from 0 teams to 5 teams in less than a decadez because there's too much money in Vegas to ignore it. San Diego does not have the same sports finance gold mine as Vegas. Vegas also would not be contending with 2 nearby teams. There's 0 sense adding a team with 2 in LA. Like I said if anything the Clippers would be there which is a relocation not an expansion.

The MLB doesn't have the expansion issue because they understand there's no need to dilute talent, not because of entertainment value. The NFL doesn't need to expand only by this interleague competition standard, but all entities want to increase their bottom line. So why not "grow markets" the way you say about the NBA? Again, talent dilution.

Your model adds up to 58 games. The NBA isn't cutting their schedule by 33% to add 10 markers and try to "grow them" as you stated. Bringing an NCAA model based on regional rivalry pride doesn't work for a professional league that needs to justify why the need to invest in a market.

That talent issue doesn't get solved by what you're saying. The G League already exists. You're proving my point by suggesting that these extra players need extra development to belong.

Adding 150 players to 10 new markets that may or may not respond or be overshadowed with other markets is a terrible idea. Period. I don't believe the NBA needs any expansion at all, but the 2 proprosed is justifiable. 10 teams is ridiculous.

 

[focusloco]

Edit

 

[Frump]

i think minny is closer to chicago, milwaukee and detroit than Memphis and NO are to other eastern conf cities

Maybe but I’d think Memphis pretty is close to the same distance to teams like Charlotte Atlanta and the Florida teams

 

[Da_Eggman]

My position still stands, NBA should expand to 40 teams. Silver needs to start being more aggressive and fight back against the NFL’s dominance and one of the ways is by directly competing in markets they’re in, markets they’ve left, and markets they haven’t tapped into.

so many awful franchises right now with no chance of contending adding more teams gonna make it a worse product