OT: NBA expansion

[Sean Miller Fan]

Although I don't watch the NBA, its always bothered me that such good college players often have a difficult time hanging on in the NBA. Plain and simple, now that basketball is a global game, there is an over-supply of NBA-worthy basketball players. Guys who are "NBA good" have to play in the D-league or Europe, for much less money and fame.

When I hear that the NHL is close to expanding to 32 teams, a league that has almost a non-existent American fanbase and shallow talent pool to draw from (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, 8-10 American cities), it makes me wonder why in the world the NBA doesn't have a lot more teams. There are enough good players globally that you're not really watering down the league. Will people stop watching because Brad Wanamaker and Gilbert Brown are getting PT in the NBA? Those guys, for example, are GOOD enough.

Most NBA people will tell you that they are going to expand to Europe but dont know when. The 2 main issues are travel and arenas. There are very few NBA caliber arenas in Europe. Most are of the smallish variety without the necessary amenities. But, assuming they can get the arenas built, I think I figured out the travel part.

I have 2 ideas for NBA expansion. "The first is promotion/relegation" kinda similar to what you see in European soccer although for this idea, the 30 current NBA teams are grandfathered into the NBA. They can never be relegated. In my mind, you add 50 teams with 10 new ones being in the NBA, 20 being in the NBA 2nd division, and 20 being in the NBA 3rd division. Out of the 10 new ones who are in the NBA, the bottom 3 get relegated every season. The top 3 out of the 2nd division get promototed and so on. Pittsburgh, for example, might have a franchise in the 2nd division. If they do well, they can gain promotion to the 1st division and then guys like LeBron are playing games here. Maybe, a team like Erie (whose D-league franschise draws reasonably well) would be a 3rd divison team. I think the draw and allure of a 2nd division team gaining promotion would help those teams sell tickets and create interest.

OK, but if you dont like that idea, how about this idea for a 40 team NBA (no promotion, relegation)

EAST
European
London
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
Rome

Atlantic
Boston
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Toronto

Central
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Chicago
Milwaukee

Southeast
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

WEST
Midwest
New Orleans
Memphis
Oklahoma City
St. Louis
Kansas City

Southwest
Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Las Vegas
Phoenix

Northwest
Minnesota
Denver
Utah
Portland
Seattle

California
San Diego
LAL
LAC
Golden State
Sacramento

20 games vs your own division (5 games each)
20 games vs other conference (everybody once)
42 games vs other divisions in your own conference (everybody 3 times except 3 teams who you'd only play twice)

European teams would only play 21 games in North America and may only have to make 3-4 trips across the pond during the regular season. North American teams would only have to make 1 trip to Europe.

The playoffs would be a problem but you can maybe add in an extra rest day.

 

[NTOP]

Although I don't watch the NBA, its always bothered me that such good college players often have a difficult time hanging on in the NBA. Plain and simple, now that basketball is a global game, there is an over-supply of NBA-worthy basketball players. Guys who are "NBA good" have to play in the D-league or Europe, for much less money and fame.

When I hear that the NHL is close to expanding to 32 teams, a league that has almost a non-existent American fanbase and shallow talent pool to draw from (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, 8-10 American cities), it makes me wonder why in the world the NBA doesn't have a lot more teams. There are enough good players globally that you're not really watering down the league. Will people stop watching because Brad Wanamaker and Gilbert Brown are getting PT in the NBA? Those guys, for example, are GOOD enough.

Most NBA people will tell you that they are going to expand to Europe but dont know when. The 2 main issues are travel and arenas. There are very few NBA caliber arenas in Europe. Most are of the smallish variety without the necessary amenities. But, assuming they can get the arenas built, I think I figured out the travel part.

I have 2 ideas for NBA expansion. "The first is promotion/relegation" kinda similar to what you see in European soccer although for this idea, the 30 current NBA teams are grandfathered into the NBA. They can never be relegated. In my mind, you add 50 teams with 10 new ones being in the NBA, 20 being in the NBA 2nd division, and 20 being in the NBA 3rd division. Out of the 10 new ones who are in the NBA, the bottom 3 get relegated every season. The top 3 out of the 2nd division get promototed and so on. Pittsburgh, for example, might have a franchise in the 2nd division. If they do well, they can gain promotion to the 1st division and then guys like LeBron are playing games here. Maybe, a team like Erie (whose D-league franschise draws reasonably well) would be a 3rd divison team. I think the draw and allure of a 2nd division team gaining promotion would help those teams sell tickets and create interest.

OK, but if you dont like that idea, how about this idea for a 40 team NBA (no promotion, relegation)

EAST
European
London
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
Rome

Atlantic
Boston
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Toronto

Central
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Chicago
Milwaukee

Southeast
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

WEST
Midwest
New Orleans
Memphis
Oklahoma City
St. Louis
Kansas City

Southwest
Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Las Vegas
Phoenix

Northwest
Minnesota
Denver
Utah
Portland
Seattle

California
San Diego
LAL
LAC
Golden State
Sacramento

20 games vs your own division (5 games each)
20 games vs other conference (everybody once)
42 games vs other divisions in your own conference (everybody 3 times except 3 teams who you'd only play twice)

European teams would only play 21 games in North America and may only have to make 3-4 trips across the pond during the regular season. North American teams would only have to make 1 trip to Europe.

The playoffs would be a problem but you can maybe add in an extra rest day.

Although I don't watch the NBA, its always bothered me that such good college players often have a difficult time hanging on in the NBA. Plain and simple, now that basketball is a global game, there is an over-supply of NBA-worthy basketball players. Guys who are "NBA good" have to play in the D-league or Europe, for much less money and fame.

When I hear that the NHL is close to expanding to 32 teams, a league that has almost a non-existent American fanbase and shallow talent pool to draw from (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, 8-10 American cities), it makes me wonder why in the world the NBA doesn't have a lot more teams. There are enough good players globally that you're not really watering down the league. Will people stop watching because Brad Wanamaker and Gilbert Brown are getting PT in the NBA? Those guys, for example, are GOOD enough.

Most NBA people will tell you that they are going to expand to Europe but dont know when. The 2 main issues are travel and arenas. There are very few NBA caliber arenas in Europe. Most are of the smallish variety without the necessary amenities. But, assuming they can get the arenas built, I think I figured out the travel part.

I have 2 ideas for NBA expansion. "The first is promotion/relegation" kinda similar to what you see in European soccer although for this idea, the 30 current NBA teams are grandfathered into the NBA. They can never be relegated. In my mind, you add 50 teams with 10 new ones being in the NBA, 20 being in the NBA 2nd division, and 20 being in the NBA 3rd division. Out of the 10 new ones who are in the NBA, the bottom 3 get relegated every season. The top 3 out of the 2nd division get promototed and so on. Pittsburgh, for example, might have a franchise in the 2nd division. If they do well, they can gain promotion to the 1st division and then guys like LeBron are playing games here. Maybe, a team like Erie (whose D-league franschise draws reasonably well) would be a 3rd divison team. I think the draw and allure of a 2nd division team gaining promotion would help those teams sell tickets and create interest.

OK, but if you dont like that idea, how about this idea for a 40 team NBA (no promotion, relegation)

EAST
European
London
Paris
Madrid
Berlin
Rome

Atlantic
Boston
New York
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
Toronto

Central
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Chicago
Milwaukee

Southeast
Washington
Charlotte
Atlanta
Orlando
Miami

WEST
Midwest
New Orleans
Memphis
Oklahoma City
St. Louis
Kansas City

Southwest
Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Las Vegas
Phoenix

Northwest
Minnesota
Denver
Utah
Portland
Seattle

California
San Diego
LAL
LAC
Golden State
Sacramento

20 games vs your own division (5 games each)
20 games vs other conference (everybody once)
42 games vs other divisions in your own conference (everybody 3 times except 3 teams who you'd only play twice)

European teams would only play 21 games in North America and may only have to make 3-4 trips across the pond during the regular season. North American teams would only have to make 1 trip to Europe.

The playoffs would be a problem but you can maybe add in an extra rest day.

Uhhhh.....OK. Not sure I understand why it's posted here, though. Highly irrelevant.

 

[raleighpanther]

Interesting fantasy... but there is a better chance that Pitt will have an on-campus football stadium in the next five years than the above scenario occurring.

 

[Ski11585]

40 teams would destroy the league and dilute the talent. I strongly disagree with the notion that there are too many good college players who miss out on the NBA. That's just not true. I loved watching Gil and Brad, but they're not good enough to get regular minutes in the NBA. Sam wasn't good enough to stick around. There's a reason the NBA is doing so well right now, and it's due to really, really good stars who are, for the most part, marketable and not awful people (that we know). Adding more teams will weaken the talent pool and make for worse basketball.

 

[levance2]

When I hear that the NHL is close to expanding to 32 teams, a league that has almost a non-existent American fanbase and shallow talent pool to draw from (Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, 8-10 American cities), it makes me wonder why in the world the NBA doesn't have a lot more teams. There are enough good players globally that you're not really watering down the league.

It's all about the cities. The NHL is crap in Phoenix or Atlanta, but there are several places in Canada that it could be a legitimately sustainable sport. FiveThirtyEight had an interesting analysis of this. The NBA, on the other hand, doesn't make all that much profit, and does not have extremely attractive cities for expansion.

What difference does it make if there are a million Lebrons available to play if there are only 30 cities with enough people willing to pay to see them? The NBA probably has too many teams as it is.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's all about the cities. The NHL is crap in Phoenix or Atlanta, but there are several places in Canada that it could be a legitimately sustainable sport. FiveThirtyEight had an interesting analysis of this. The NBA, on the other hand, doesn't make all that much profit, and does not have extremely attractive cities for expansion.

What difference does it make if there are a million Lebrons available to play if there are only 30 cities with enough people willing to pay to see them? The NBA probably has too many teams as it is.

How can the NHL sustain a 32 team league (if they expand by 2 as expected) with a fraction of the domestic and global TV markets and also a fraction of the talent pool to draw from?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I loved watching Gil and Brad, but they're not good enough to get regular minutes in the NBA. Sam wasn't good enough to stick around. QUOTE]
Agreed. However, my point is if the league expanded, having guys like GB get 10-15 minutes a game off the bench would not destroy the league or dilute the talent. There are so many good players globally that the difference between the last guys on the bench and guys like GB, Brad, Lamar, etc is minimal. Just as there is very little difference between the worst players for Stoke City of the EPL and a random good MLS player. There is a very large market for "filler players" in basketball and soccer.

 

[levance2]

How can the NHL sustain a 32 team league (if they expand by 2 as expected) with a fraction of the domestic and global TV markets and also a fraction of the talent pool to draw from?

Because they are super-popular in Canada, and you don't need random fans from Iowa or Montana to care about a given team when 100% of Saskatoon watches them.

Another astonishing result can be obtained by comparing Houston and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan — two markets that are occasionally mentioned as possible sites for N.H.L. expansion teams. Houston’s media market has about six million people, compared with not quite 340,000 for Saskatoon. However, I estimate that only 2 percent of Houston residents are serious N.H.L. fans, versus 46 percent of the population in Saskatoon. Thus, they are roughly equal at about 150,000 N.H.L. fans each.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Because they are super-popular in Canada, and you don't need random fans from Iowa or Montana to care about a given team when 100% of Saskatoon watches them.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-canada-win-the-stanley-cup/

I am aware of the NHL's popularity in Canada. Canada only has 35 million people though which is the population of California. While, certainly, that's a significant market where the NHL has a deep market penetration, you can't run a business based off of that alone. The NHL has done very well given its limited fanbase. Really, given their limited resources, the brass at niche leagues like the NHL and MLS should be commended given their vision and growth. The fact that these leagues can even think about expanding is a credit to their business model.

Here's the thing though. The NBA is about a jillion times more popular than the NHL in every country in the world except Canada. So, although the NHL is popular in Canada, adding NBA teams in St. Louis or Kansas City or Vegas or London or Berlin is going to make the league a ton of cash and expand their global TV deals.

If the NHL can sustain 32 based off of 35 million Canadiens and 8-10 cities in the US who know what hockey is, I am quite certain the NBA can sustain far more than 32 teams.

 

[ameoba defense]

I am aware of the NHL's popularity in Canada. Canada only has 35 million people though which is the population of California. While, certainly, that's a significant market where the NHL has a deep market penetration, you can't run a business based off of that alone. The NHL has done very well given its limited fanbase. Really, given their limited resources, the brass at niche leagues like the NHL and MLS should be commended given their vision and growth. The fact that these leagues can even think about expanding is a credit to their business model.

Here's the thing though. The NBA is about a jillion times more popular than the NHL in every country in the world except Canada. So, although the NHL is popular in Canada, adding NBA teams in St. Louis or Kansas City or Vegas or London or Berlin is going to make the league a ton of cash and expand their global TV deals.

If the NHL can sustain 32 based off of 35 million Canadians and 8-10 cities in the US who know what hockey is, I am quite certain the NBA can sustain far more than 32 teams.

The NHL doesn't have anywhere near the payroll of the NBA. Thus, they don't need to make nearly as much money to be successful. Likewise, by MLS accepting what they are, and going for slow growth, as opposed to trying to make themselves a league on the level of the major leagues in Europe, they can maintain themselves at a successful level. Know your level! If the USFL hadn't let that idiot Donald Trump get involved, and convince them to try to take on the NFL, they'd likely still be around, and solidly established as a springtime fix for football fans.

Cities like St. Louis don't have NBA teams because they're too small to support 4 major sports. No city the size of Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cleveland, and St. Louis has all four sports. There's a reason for that.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The NHL doesn't have anywhere near the payroll of the NBA. Thus, they don't need to make nearly as much money to be successful.

What point are you trying to make? Yea, the NHL's payrolls are much smaller than the NBA's because the league is nowhere near as popular meaning their global TV deals and ticket revenue are worth far less than the NBA. So, yes, NHL owners have less expenses and thus, don't have to make as much money to turn a profit. I could say the same thing about the pizza shop down the street though. I'm not being sarcastic when I ask what you are talking about?

 

[dooz3]

The answer is simple. The NBA is smart. The NHL and SMfraud are stupid.

 

[Ski11585]

The answer is simple. The NBA is smart. The NHL and SMfraud are stupid.

The NBA's product is pretty much perfect right now. I have no idea why they'd mess it up and dilute the talent by expanding.

 

[Pitt79]

That is basically a horrible idea. It would ruin Eurobasket Champions League, which I am a fan of and is a great competition, a hybrid of NBA and college ball. 10 minute quarters, 24 second clock and everybody, even the backup centers shoots lights out on the 3s. Travel would be brutal too, LA to London is like an 8 hour time difference.

And if it where to happen, LONDON? You include London. England is probably the crappiest basketball country in Europe. Adding London to the NBA would be like adding Pittsburgh to the Premier League and having the games opposite the Steelers. And you leave out Athens, Greece? Arguably the pro basketball capital of Europe, who's two top teams, Olympiacos and Panathinaikos take turns with the Spanish teams winning the Euro Final 4 every year... those 2 teams and Real Madrid are to Euro hoops what Barcelona, Chelsea or Man U are to Euro soccer, top shelf.