[DWadeBIWParticipant]

 Hi everyone, 

I have been thinking about this and would like to know what you guys think..

Advantages to expanding the NBA 

Disadvantages to expanding the NBA

What cities are most likely to be chosen for an NBA team.. and why?

any other insights, opinions, and information about expansion are welcomed! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

We’ve done this before but always worth looking at again.

Seattle would be the logical city to get a team back, as I’m UK based, maybe other US contributors on here could identify other cities. Las Vegas was mentioned before.

The plus side is more teams gives more players a shot at the NBA. 

Downside is you’d ideally need two expansion teams to make East and West both 32 teams like the NFL did a few years ago. If teams were moved divisons then they might object and I’m not personally a fan of expansion drafts. I’d just give the teams the free cap space and say recruit from there and the draft picks of course.

 

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

We’ve done this before but always worth looking at again.

Seattle would be the logical city to get a team back, as I’m UK based, maybe other US contributors on here could identify other cities. Las Vegas was mentioned before.

The plus side is more teams gives more players a shot at the NBA. 

Downside is you’d ideally need two expansion teams to make East and West both 32 teams like the NFL did a few years ago. If teams were moved divisons then they might object and I’m not personally a fan of expansion drafts. I’d just give the teams the free cap space and say recruit from there and the draft picks of course.

 

 

 

 

 

[Reptilian MonkParticipant]

 Advantages are new or more NBA markets for new fan bases and more NBA profit assuming the new teams are run properly and are profitable. 

Disadvantages would be the quality of the NBA teams being assembled. Currently with 30 teams, Lakers Knicks, 76ers have starting line ups with players like Lou Amundson, Lance Thomas, Robert Sacre, Henry Sims, Robert Covington, etc. lots of Bench Warmer/D Leage talent starting. More teams would create more watered down teams and not make every game anticipated when you have a D league quality starting 5 versus an elite talented Cavaliers or Warriors quality team. 

Seattle would be first option for a team with such a good fan base up there. Also heard Las Vegas and St. Louis.

 

 

 

[Reptilian MonkParticipant]

 Advantages are new or more NBA markets for new fan bases and more NBA profit assuming the new teams are run properly and are profitable. 

Disadvantages would be the quality of the NBA teams being assembled. Currently with 30 teams, Lakers Knicks, 76ers have starting line ups with players like Lou Amundson, Lance Thomas, Robert Sacre, Henry Sims, Robert Covington, etc. lots of Bench Warmer/D Leage talent starting. More teams would create more watered down teams and not make every game anticipated when you have a D league quality starting 5 versus an elite talented Cavaliers or Warriors quality team. 

Seattle would be first option for a team with such a good fan base up there. Also heard Las Vegas and St. Louis.

 

 

 

[BostonCs FanParticipant]

Seattle would be the ideal city for the NBA to expand too and Vancouver would be runner up. I always thought Vancouver had a great fan base and was never a fan of the ownership moving to Memphis. For the sake to balance the conferences I think New Jersey or Pittsburgh would qualify as great candidates to host a franchise out east. Although St. Louis is the 21st biggest market in the US, and with the latest rumors surrounding the Rams about the possibility of a relocation, I feel internally that this hurts the probability of this city hosting any future sports team. As for Vegas, its just doesn’t have the vibe to host a sports club. I’ve been to a plenty sport events in Vegas I can surely tell you players safety and the lure of Vegas nightlife should be a concern.

[BostonCs FanParticipant]

Seattle would be the ideal city for the NBA to expand too and Vancouver would be runner up. I always thought Vancouver had a great fan base and was never a fan of the ownership moving to Memphis. For the sake to balance the conferences I think New Jersey or Pittsburgh would qualify as great candidates to host a franchise out east. Although St. Louis is the 21st biggest market in the US, and with the latest rumors surrounding the Rams about the possibility of a relocation, I feel internally that this hurts the probability of this city hosting any future sports team. As for Vegas, its just doesn’t have the vibe to host a sports club. I’ve been to a plenty sport events in Vegas I can surely tell you players safety and the lure of Vegas nightlife should be a concern.

[trelos6Participant]

Add 2 teams, and then re-organize divisions into North East, Pacific, South East, Central.

Pacific – Seattle, Portland, GSW, Clippers, Lakers, Sacramento, Utah, Vancouver

North East – Boston, Knicks, Nets, Philly, Wizards, Toronto, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland

Central – Denver, OKC, Houston, Dallas, Spurs, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Phoenix

South East – Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte, Indiana, Memphis

 

Playoffs are then: Top 2 teams from each region automatically qualify.  (8 teams).  Winning region guarantees seed 1-4 in playoffs.  Second in region guarantees 5-8 in playoffs.

Then teams 9-16 in playoffs by best record.

1 v 16, 2 v 15 etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

Add 2 teams, and then re-organize divisions into North East, Pacific, South East, Central.

Pacific – Seattle, Portland, GSW, Clippers, Lakers, Sacramento, Utah, Vancouver

North East – Boston, Knicks, Nets, Philly, Wizards, Toronto, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland

Central – Denver, OKC, Houston, Dallas, Spurs, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Phoenix

South East – Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta, Charlotte, Indiana, Memphis

 

Playoffs are then: Top 2 teams from each region automatically qualify.  (8 teams).  Winning region guarantees seed 1-4 in playoffs.  Second in region guarantees 5-8 in playoffs.

Then teams 9-16 in playoffs by best record.

1 v 16, 2 v 15 etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

Pacific – GSW, Portland, Clippers, 

NE – Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Wizards

Central – Houston, Dallas, Spurs, Milwaukee, OKC, Phoenix

SE – Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans

GSW v Phoenix

Atlanta v New Orleans

Houston v OKC

Chicago v Milwaukee

Memphis v Washington

Portland v Spurs

Dallas v Cleveland

Toronto v Clippers

 

So GSW v Clips

Atl v Cavs

OKC v Spurs

Chicago v Memphis

 

And then

GSW v Memphis

Cavs v OKC

 

Do we end up with the 4 best teams in the semis?  I believe so (if healthy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

Pacific – GSW, Portland, Clippers, 

NE – Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Wizards

Central – Houston, Dallas, Spurs, Milwaukee, OKC, Phoenix

SE – Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans

GSW v Phoenix

Atlanta v New Orleans

Houston v OKC

Chicago v Milwaukee

Memphis v Washington

Portland v Spurs

Dallas v Cleveland

Toronto v Clippers

 

So GSW v Clips

Atl v Cavs

OKC v Spurs

Chicago v Memphis

 

And then

GSW v Memphis

Cavs v OKC

 

Do we end up with the 4 best teams in the semis?  I believe so (if healthy)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ExumInfernoParticipant]

 Expanion is bad.  Teams and games were better with fewer teams, now there are not enough quality players to go around.

The NBA would make more money, with a few more games and also with the new teams paying a fee to join the NBA.  24 D-League players would be added to NBA rosters.  Fans in two new, or old, NBA cities would get to see their team lose 65 games a season for the next decade.  All other NBA fans would probably enjoy the game less, exceot for the easy 2 or 3 wins against the new teams.

For money and exposure, the NBA wants London and Mexico City.  That would be a disaster.

Places that lost NBA teams, they did lose them for a reason and while they had some great fans there were not enough of them, plus there are many other problems that mean a team could fail again if a new one appears.

Just let bad teams relocate.  Hornets, Hawks, Magic, Bucks, Nuggets, T-Wolves, they are all in the bottom 10 for percentage of tickets sold for their home venue.  If somewere else can provide more fans, let the team decide.  The Hawks used to be in other cities, maybe in the future they try St. Louis or Milwaukee again.  The Bucks and their new owners, if someone had a new arena and more fans they might move.  If they went west, Memphis could mvoe to the eastern conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ExumInfernoParticipant]

 Expanion is bad.  Teams and games were better with fewer teams, now there are not enough quality players to go around.

The NBA would make more money, with a few more games and also with the new teams paying a fee to join the NBA.  24 D-League players would be added to NBA rosters.  Fans in two new, or old, NBA cities would get to see their team lose 65 games a season for the next decade.  All other NBA fans would probably enjoy the game less, exceot for the easy 2 or 3 wins against the new teams.

For money and exposure, the NBA wants London and Mexico City.  That would be a disaster.

Places that lost NBA teams, they did lose them for a reason and while they had some great fans there were not enough of them, plus there are many other problems that mean a team could fail again if a new one appears.

Just let bad teams relocate.  Hornets, Hawks, Magic, Bucks, Nuggets, T-Wolves, they are all in the bottom 10 for percentage of tickets sold for their home venue.  If somewere else can provide more fans, let the team decide.  The Hawks used to be in other cities, maybe in the future they try St. Louis or Milwaukee again.  The Bucks and their new owners, if someone had a new arena and more fans they might move.  If they went west, Memphis could mvoe to the eastern conference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 I live in Mexico City at the moment. People are not big fans of basketball here. They could be with certain incentives, but in general, people won’t pay high prices and they won’t show up if the team isn’t doing well. I believe putting a franchise here would be a terrible idea.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 I live in Mexico City at the moment. People are not big fans of basketball here. They could be with certain incentives, but in general, people won’t pay high prices and they won’t show up if the team isn’t doing well. I believe putting a franchise here would be a terrible idea.

[Flameres15Participant]

 What about Kansas City? They have a football (chiefs) and baseball (royals). I have not heard a lot about them in the discussion for a team. Both the Chiefs and the Royals are well managed, so I can see it being around good managment (owned by two seperate people). Kansas already has a fan base in the Jayhawks (45 min from K.C., Kansas). The K.C. team would be added to the eastern conference, while Seattle would be added to the Western Conference. Thoughts?

[Flameres15Participant]

 What about Kansas City? They have a football (chiefs) and baseball (royals). I have not heard a lot about them in the discussion for a team. Both the Chiefs and the Royals are well managed, so I can see it being around good managment (owned by two seperate people). Kansas already has a fan base in the Jayhawks (45 min from K.C., Kansas). The K.C. team would be added to the eastern conference, while Seattle would be added to the Western Conference. Thoughts?

[MopgrassParticipant]

When teams get spread even thinner with expansion, super teams where three of the best guys in the league join forces… will have an even greater advantage… unless they find away to find a way of stopping the super teams from forming.

[MopgrassParticipant]

When teams get spread even thinner with expansion, super teams where three of the best guys in the league join forces… will have an even greater advantage… unless they find away to find a way of stopping the super teams from forming.

[rickybobbyParticipant]

 I wouldn’t mind 2 more expansion teams added to the league. The talent in the league has been down lately but there’s enough for 1 or 2 more teams. This could help keep or get some of the talented veterans back in the league. It also can help some of the younger guys either get another chance in the league or an oppurtunity to get off the end of someones bench. But with what Philly and NY are doing by intentionally stacking their teams with d league talent trying to lose and putting out a bad product doesn’t help the case of adding expansion teams at the moment. 

[rickybobbyParticipant]

 I wouldn’t mind 2 more expansion teams added to the league. The talent in the league has been down lately but there’s enough for 1 or 2 more teams. This could help keep or get some of the talented veterans back in the league. It also can help some of the younger guys either get another chance in the league or an oppurtunity to get off the end of someones bench. But with what Philly and NY are doing by intentionally stacking their teams with d league talent trying to lose and putting out a bad product doesn’t help the case of adding expansion teams at the moment. 

[TenSecondTomParticipant]

 Aside from the obvious locations for an NBA franchise to expand to (Seattle and Las Vegas come to mind), I would really like to see the NBA expand overseas. I think that the NBA should go ahead and do this before the NFL does as it has a much larger folllowing in other countries. Adam Silver has said that in order for this to happen, there would need to be an entire division for scheduling/travel purposes. With that being said, I think an agreement with the Euroleague or something of that nature could be agreed upon to have the top 4 teams from the prior year be eligible for NBA competition the following year. More logistics would have to take place including what rules would teams follow if the Euro team is home and as far as contracts, draft picks etc. but those can be sorted out rather easily. I think that something like this could transform league popularity even further.

[TenSecondTomParticipant]

 Aside from the obvious locations for an NBA franchise to expand to (Seattle and Las Vegas come to mind), I would really like to see the NBA expand overseas. I think that the NBA should go ahead and do this before the NFL does as it has a much larger folllowing in other countries. Adam Silver has said that in order for this to happen, there would need to be an entire division for scheduling/travel purposes. With that being said, I think an agreement with the Euroleague or something of that nature could be agreed upon to have the top 4 teams from the prior year be eligible for NBA competition the following year. More logistics would have to take place including what rules would teams follow if the Euro team is home and as far as contracts, draft picks etc. but those can be sorted out rather easily. I think that something like this could transform league popularity even further.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

As a european I can confirm that the NBA is highly popular. In my France,where I live, I think most of the basketball fans are NBA fans before being Pro A fans(our league),and Tony Parker is a huge reason for that. But the NFL has an advantage over the NBA=the Schedule. They play once a week so it would be pretty easy to play in Europe. I Wonder if in the NBA at a time where everybody’s complaining about back-to-back,adding Europe travels would be that good of an idea.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

As a european I can confirm that the NBA is highly popular. In my France,where I live, I think most of the basketball fans are NBA fans before being Pro A fans(our league),and Tony Parker is a huge reason for that. But the NFL has an advantage over the NBA=the Schedule. They play once a week so it would be pretty easy to play in Europe. I Wonder if in the NBA at a time where everybody’s complaining about back-to-back,adding Europe travels would be that good of an idea.

[mgreener_34Participant]

 If the NBA does go forward with the new age restriction rule, I would hate to see expantion happen. The league is at an all time high when it comes to parity, and I would hate to see that ruined because the league wanted to add another team. 32 teams is enough, and if players do have to play 2 years of college ball than I don’t see the ability for teams to rebuild as quickly being a possibility. Keep it the way it is for now if you ask me. 

[mgreener_34Participant]

 If the NBA does go forward with the new age restriction rule, I would hate to see expantion happen. The league is at an all time high when it comes to parity, and I would hate to see that ruined because the league wanted to add another team. 32 teams is enough, and if players do have to play 2 years of college ball than I don’t see the ability for teams to rebuild as quickly being a possibility. Keep it the way it is for now if you ask me. 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Get a team in Seattle.  Get a team in San Jose.  Then you can have a California division. 

You also could put Seattle with Portland in the same division.  

Then send Memphis and New Orleans to the East.  

This would help the lower tier West teams.

It would also put more talent in the East.  You could have a good south east division with Memphis, New Orleans, and Atlanta and probably Charlotte.  I would probably realign the Southeast with those teams and the two Florida teams.  Hawks-Grizzlies would be a really good rivalry.  And Anthony Davis would give the East one of the NBA’s best young players.  

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Get a team in Seattle.  Get a team in San Jose.  Then you can have a California division. 

You also could put Seattle with Portland in the same division.  

Then send Memphis and New Orleans to the East.  

This would help the lower tier West teams.

It would also put more talent in the East.  You could have a good south east division with Memphis, New Orleans, and Atlanta and probably Charlotte.  I would probably realign the Southeast with those teams and the two Florida teams.  Hawks-Grizzlies would be a really good rivalry.  And Anthony Davis would give the East one of the NBA’s best young players.  

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I’m in favor of expansion. It will cut down on the mega-teams (2012 Heat) from being assembled, which I see as a positive thing, because there will be more money available. One more team means 2 more max salaries are out there and that will prevent a handful of teams from domainting the league. 

What I’m going to say from here on out may offend people of certain cities. I mean no offense but want to talk about the possibility of expansion in a way that reflects markets and their abilities to sustain the expensive asset that is an NBA team….

Expansion needs to happen in cities like Seattle. The city has wealth and a love of basketball, the fact that Minnesota and Orlando have teams over Seattle is pretty crazy. I have nothing against those two fanbases just that those markets have less to offer than Seattle does. 

But that’s not to say that money means everything, just look at Vancouver and how that turned out. Vancouver was a valid attempt, and it failed. People need to realize that. They struggled to maintain traction mainly because it’s a deceptively small city and it embraces outdoor sports over any traditional team ones, besides hockey. It’s a rich and growing town so it wouldn’t be crazy to try another team there, but I wouldn’t invest in it. I mean Memphis, a tiny market with massive poverty, took the team from them. 

So by using that experience as a lesson, I think Baltimore would be great expansion situation. Baltimore and Maryland as a state have an established basketball culture. Interest in the game wouldn’t have to be ginned up as high school and college ball are already enormously popular. And the fact that Baltimore & DC have their own respective teams for baseball and football prove that the two won’t step on the other’s toes. 

 

 

 

 

[DolanCareParticipant]

 I’m in favor of expansion. It will cut down on the mega-teams (2012 Heat) from being assembled, which I see as a positive thing, because there will be more money available. One more team means 2 more max salaries are out there and that will prevent a handful of teams from domainting the league. 

What I’m going to say from here on out may offend people of certain cities. I mean no offense but want to talk about the possibility of expansion in a way that reflects markets and their abilities to sustain the expensive asset that is an NBA team….

Expansion needs to happen in cities like Seattle. The city has wealth and a love of basketball, the fact that Minnesota and Orlando have teams over Seattle is pretty crazy. I have nothing against those two fanbases just that those markets have less to offer than Seattle does. 

But that’s not to say that money means everything, just look at Vancouver and how that turned out. Vancouver was a valid attempt, and it failed. People need to realize that. They struggled to maintain traction mainly because it’s a deceptively small city and it embraces outdoor sports over any traditional team ones, besides hockey. It’s a rich and growing town so it wouldn’t be crazy to try another team there, but I wouldn’t invest in it. I mean Memphis, a tiny market with massive poverty, took the team from them. 

So by using that experience as a lesson, I think Baltimore would be great expansion situation. Baltimore and Maryland as a state have an established basketball culture. Interest in the game wouldn’t have to be ginned up as high school and college ball are already enormously popular. And the fact that Baltimore & DC have their own respective teams for baseball and football prove that the two won’t step on the other’s toes. 

 

 

 

 

[ph90702]

I would like to see two conferences with sixteen teams each.  I would play a seventy-six game schedule. Sixty games would be against the teams in your conference, and sixteen games would be against teams in the other conference.  I would do away with divisions and send the four best teams in each conference to the playoffs.

[ph90702]

I would like to see two conferences with sixteen teams each.  I would play a seventy-six game schedule. Sixty games would be against the teams in your conference, and sixteen games would be against teams in the other conference.  I would do away with divisions and send the four best teams in each conference to the playoffs.

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

Too many great ideas here. Guess that means they will never happen. lol I see Vancouver is in this discussion. I think if Seattle gets a team back that they should play some regular season games in Vancouver.

 How about the Seattle team hosting the Memphis Grizzlies in Vancouver?  That would be a good game with history.  They could also do Seattle hosting the Toronto Raptors in Vancouver as their Canadian game.  

Then what about Seattle against the Portland Trailblazers in Vancouver for one of the games?  Should be a good Pacific Northwest rivalry then you would get one game in Seattle, one in Portland, and one in Vancouver.  

I think having 3 NBA games in Vancouver every year would be more than fair.  You would also have more preseason games their (both Seattle and Portland) with some training camps in Vancouver every few years.  … they could also do a D League team in Vancouver.  And, I know they only like to have All Star Games in NBA cities but they did do one in Las Vegas.  I think an NBA All Star Game in Vancouver would be really good.  Great city (from what I have heard) and it would be cold but not TOO cold.  

I think this idea can work for other towns too.  Once the Warriors move back to San Francisco and if they get the San Jose expansion team (which I think they should) then I would do a Warriors -San Jose game in Oakland every year.  I would also do a Kings – San Jose game in Oakland, too.  … I would then put a D League team in Oakland called the Oakland Warriors and let them be the Warriors’ minor league team.  

Then I would copy the way the Nets and Knicks co-hosted the All Star Game.  Put the All Star Game in San Francisco with the dunk contest, 3 point shootout, and the rest of the events in Oakland.

I would also do a game in Las Vegas every season.  I would think about having a Christmas game in Las Vegas every year between the Lakers and the Clippers.  You could also have an opening night game between the Clippers and Utah Jazz in Las Vegas.  Opening the NBA season in Las Vegas every year would be pretty cool.  You could even do an Opening Night in Las Vegas double header with the Lakers, Clippers, Jazz, and then an east coast team (Lakers vs. Celtics?).

You could have an opening night game every year in Baltimore with the Wizards and either the Knicks, Nets, or Celtics.  Like the other example if you do a Washington ASG you can have Baltimore host a few events too.  Then do a Christmas game between the Wizards and one of the remaining 3 teams.  

The more teams in the NBA sphere the better (in my opinion).

As far as expansion goes, I think there ARE as many super stars in the league as there has ever been.  4 SUPER MVP candidates right now with LeBron, Westbrook, Curry, and Harden and that is not even mentioning Anthony Davis (future of the league along with Andrew Wiggins) and Kevin Durant (last year’s MVP).

There are a bunch of great NBA point guards.  There might not be a ton of Superstar Centers (but Marc, DeAndre and DeMarcus is a solid BIG THREE), but there are lots of good "above average" or "average" big men who do well when they get a chance (Whiteside, Rudy Gobert, even Alexis Ajinca).  

32 teams should be enough, but if the NBA ever goes to 34 teams they would chose between teams that they already have a few regular season games anyway (or even All Star Games).  Cities like Baltimore, Las Vegas, Vancouver, and Kansas City (where you can do a Thunder vs. Kings — used to play in KC –game or something like that).  

Yeah, at least give Kansas City a shot.  Put an All Star Game there.  

I would also put an All Star Game in San Diego (great town, GREAT weather) even if all they did every year was a random Clippers game against another California team or Seattle or Utah.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Game played at a neutral location is a college thing. It’s very rare in the NBA and there were only 2 this year: in London and in Mexico,in order to attract overseas fans.

[sitlbitoParticipant]

Game played at a neutral location is a college thing. It’s very rare in the NBA and there were only 2 this year: in London and in Mexico,in order to attract overseas fans.

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

Too many great ideas here. Guess that means they will never happen. lol I see Vancouver is in this discussion. I think if Seattle gets a team back that they should play some regular season games in Vancouver.

 How about the Seattle team hosting the Memphis Grizzlies in Vancouver?  That would be a good game with history.  They could also do Seattle hosting the Toronto Raptors in Vancouver as their Canadian game.  

Then what about Seattle against the Portland Trailblazers in Vancouver for one of the games?  Should be a good Pacific Northwest rivalry then you would get one game in Seattle, one in Portland, and one in Vancouver.  

I think having 3 NBA games in Vancouver every year would be more than fair.  You would also have more preseason games their (both Seattle and Portland) with some training camps in Vancouver every few years.  … they could also do a D League team in Vancouver.  And, I know they only like to have All Star Games in NBA cities but they did do one in Las Vegas.  I think an NBA All Star Game in Vancouver would be really good.  Great city (from what I have heard) and it would be cold but not TOO cold.  

I think this idea can work for other towns too.  Once the Warriors move back to San Francisco and if they get the San Jose expansion team (which I think they should) then I would do a Warriors -San Jose game in Oakland every year.  I would also do a Kings – San Jose game in Oakland, too.  … I would then put a D League team in Oakland called the Oakland Warriors and let them be the Warriors’ minor league team.  

Then I would copy the way the Nets and Knicks co-hosted the All Star Game.  Put the All Star Game in San Francisco with the dunk contest, 3 point shootout, and the rest of the events in Oakland.

I would also do a game in Las Vegas every season.  I would think about having a Christmas game in Las Vegas every year between the Lakers and the Clippers.  You could also have an opening night game between the Clippers and Utah Jazz in Las Vegas.  Opening the NBA season in Las Vegas every year would be pretty cool.  You could even do an Opening Night in Las Vegas double header with the Lakers, Clippers, Jazz, and then an east coast team (Lakers vs. Celtics?).

You could have an opening night game every year in Baltimore with the Wizards and either the Knicks, Nets, or Celtics.  Like the other example if you do a Washington ASG you can have Baltimore host a few events too.  Then do a Christmas game between the Wizards and one of the remaining 3 teams.  

The more teams in the NBA sphere the better (in my opinion).

As far as expansion goes, I think there ARE as many super stars in the league as there has ever been.  4 SUPER MVP candidates right now with LeBron, Westbrook, Curry, and Harden and that is not even mentioning Anthony Davis (future of the league along with Andrew Wiggins) and Kevin Durant (last year’s MVP).

There are a bunch of great NBA point guards.  There might not be a ton of Superstar Centers (but Marc, DeAndre and DeMarcus is a solid BIG THREE), but there are lots of good "above average" or "average" big men who do well when they get a chance (Whiteside, Rudy Gobert, even Alexis Ajinca).  

32 teams should be enough, but if the NBA ever goes to 34 teams they would chose between teams that they already have a few regular season games anyway (or even All Star Games).  Cities like Baltimore, Las Vegas, Vancouver, and Kansas City (where you can do a Thunder vs. Kings — used to play in KC –game or something like that).  

Yeah, at least give Kansas City a shot.  Put an All Star Game there.  

I would also put an All Star Game in San Diego (great town, GREAT weather) even if all they did every year was a random Clippers game against another California team or Seattle or Utah.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HitsterParticipant]

Vancouver had a team briefly before it upped to Memphis, I could see the logic of a second franchise in Canada and that would balance out nicely if we assume the other one likely goes to Seattle.

The thing is a city is probably much more willing to aquire an existing franchise such as when it was rumoured the Kings and Bucks might move cities. They have a certain level of visability and are getting a proven product and if lucky enough like Oklahoma a potential now proven Franchise player in KD.

[HitsterParticipant]

Vancouver had a team briefly before it upped to Memphis, I could see the logic of a second franchise in Canada and that would balance out nicely if we assume the other one likely goes to Seattle.

The thing is a city is probably much more willing to aquire an existing franchise such as when it was rumoured the Kings and Bucks might move cities. They have a certain level of visability and are getting a proven product and if lucky enough like Oklahoma a potential now proven Franchise player in KD.

[joecheck88Participant]

 I recently moved to the UK and I’ve been toying with the idea of adding 10 teams but doing a football(soccer) like things. 2 leagues, 20 teams each. Bottom few teams get relegated. Top 8 teams can still do a playoff. Teams at top of second league move to NBA. Distribute $$ in regards to where the team finished. This prevents tanking to an extent. Also, two different lotteries. The problem would be what 10 cities do you add. I think it would solve many of the problems of tanking. Won’t happen but a fun thought. 

[joecheck88Participant]

 I recently moved to the UK and I’ve been toying with the idea of adding 10 teams but doing a football(soccer) like things. 2 leagues, 20 teams each. Bottom few teams get relegated. Top 8 teams can still do a playoff. Teams at top of second league move to NBA. Distribute $$ in regards to where the team finished. This prevents tanking to an extent. Also, two different lotteries. The problem would be what 10 cities do you add. I think it would solve many of the problems of tanking. Won’t happen but a fun thought. 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Sounds cool but the flights would be a pain.  The map is too big on a GLOBAL NBA.

I would think about doing a North American 30 team NBA and keep this part the way it is, then a 30 team European/Asian NBA but I am not sure there is enought NBA quality talent for 30 more teams.

Then you can have 82 regular season games for both sides.  Then 16 playoff teams for each side.

THEN have the NBA Finals between the top North American team and the top European/Asian team.

If that won’t work, you can do a 30 team North American D League (where each NBA team has its own farm club) then a 30 team European/Asian/African D League where where each team is losely affiliated with a North American NBA team but with more freedom.  

Then you have a similar playoff structure, although you can have 5 game series until the Finals.

Then do a 7 game Finals between the top North American D League team and the Euro/Etc. D League team.

The only other way to do it would be to get FIBA and the NBA to merge.  

Then have a few "Interleague" games with a Global 7 game Finals.  

Also include the 30 FIBA teams into the same NBA draft.

So, if a guy gets drafted to a Spanish team then that is where he goes.

Otherwise, all the good talent will be on the North American teams with the European, Asian, and African teams getting the second rate talent.

So the only time the two sides would meet (outside of a few interleague games) will be the NBA Finals and also the All Star Weekend (NBA vs. FIBA).

For the new FIBA-NBA side, I would do six divisions: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Africa/Middle East, North Asia, and South Asia/Australia/New Zealand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 Sounds cool but the flights would be a pain.  The map is too big on a GLOBAL NBA.

I would think about doing a North American 30 team NBA and keep this part the way it is, then a 30 team European/Asian NBA but I am not sure there is enought NBA quality talent for 30 more teams.

Then you can have 82 regular season games for both sides.  Then 16 playoff teams for each side.

THEN have the NBA Finals between the top North American team and the top European/Asian team.

If that won’t work, you can do a 30 team North American D League (where each NBA team has its own farm club) then a 30 team European/Asian/African D League where where each team is losely affiliated with a North American NBA team but with more freedom.  

Then you have a similar playoff structure, although you can have 5 game series until the Finals.

Then do a 7 game Finals between the top North American D League team and the Euro/Etc. D League team.

The only other way to do it would be to get FIBA and the NBA to merge.  

Then have a few "Interleague" games with a Global 7 game Finals.  

Also include the 30 FIBA teams into the same NBA draft.

So, if a guy gets drafted to a Spanish team then that is where he goes.

Otherwise, all the good talent will be on the North American teams with the European, Asian, and African teams getting the second rate talent.

So the only time the two sides would meet (outside of a few interleague games) will be the NBA Finals and also the All Star Weekend (NBA vs. FIBA).

For the new FIBA-NBA side, I would do six divisions: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Africa/Middle East, North Asia, and South Asia/Australia/New Zealand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts