https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2776767-nba-executive-reportedly-says-league-will-eventually-have-team-in-kansas-city
https://www.slamonline.com/nba/nba-exec-kansas-city-will-get-nba-team/
Apparently Kansas City is also rumored to be a bargaining chip city for the NBA besides Seattle. Well two NBA teams I am aware of are eliminated from the stadium debates to Kansas City the Golden State Warriors and the Sacramento Kings (Kansas city's Last NBA team back in 1984) because one Golden State Warriors have their new stadium under construction and Sacramento Kings have a new stadium in the past year.
Isn't the NBA at 30 teams? No one needs to move.
Just expand the NBA to 32 teams.
St. Louis already hosts NBA games, why not move them there?
The NBA is a children's TV show.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 20, 2018, 12:22:03 AM
Just expand the NBA to 32 teams.
There aren't enough good players to justify 24 teams, let alone 32.
KC is a failed NBA city, as is St. Louis (the Hawks moved to Atlanta 50 years ago). Sacramento has been the only real success for the Kings, an original NBA franchise that failed in Rochester NY, Cincinnati (both as the Royals), KC, and Omaha. They split home games between the latter two cities for a few years in the 1970s.
Another city they sometimes talk about for expansion is Pittsburgh. Zero chance. It had an ABA franchise, but it didn't survive the 1976 merger. Pittsburgh is a football and hockey town. Even the Pirates talked about leaving in the early '80s.
Rust-belt cities that have shrunk in size over the years are not markets for the NBA, a league that favors the largest TV markets, and who's core audience is mainly urban Blacks and affluent Whites.
The thing is all these smaller cities like St. Louis and Pittsburgh already have an NHL team and I don't think just any city can support both an NBA team and NHL team. Only the real big metro areas are able to do that. I believe the smallest four sport city is Denver but Denver is the largest metro area in about a 600 mile radius and is in the middle of an urban corridor with around 5 million people. Minnesota is the least populated state to have a team in all four. And now the most populated metro area with no teams in any sport is Hartford, CT. Look at Atlanta they couldn't support the NHL and NBA and Georgia is the most populated state without a team in all four sports. Virginia remains the most populated state with no teams although northern Virginia residents are within the Washington, D.C. area that has teams in all four sports. And Iowa is the most populated state that has neither a team or is within a media market of one. Kansas City failed with both the NBA and NHL and St. Louis failed with the NBA. Ohio has a strange case where they have at least one team in all the major sports but none of their cities or metro areas has four teams. Two NFL teams, two MLB teams, one NBA team, one NHL team. I just don't think Kansas City would be a good fit as it's already a failed NBA city.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 21, 2018, 11:22:01 AM
KC is a failed NBA city, as is St. Louis (the Hawks moved to Atlanta 50 years ago). Sacramento has been the only real success for the Kings, an original NBA franchise that failed in Rochester NY, Cincinnati (both as the Royals), KC, and Omaha. They split home games between the latter two cities for a few years in the 1970s.
Another city they sometimes talk about for expansion is Pittsburgh. Zero chance. It had an ABA franchise, but it didn't survive the 1976 merger. Pittsburgh is a football and hockey town. Even the Pirates talked about leaving in the early '80s.
Rust-belt cities that have shrunk in size over the years are not markets for the NBA, a league that favors the largest TV markets, and who's core audience is mainly urban Blacks and affluent Whites.
There is a substantial Hispanic audience as well, which tends to overlap with the "urban" aspect of the above, since that is where the predominant form of recreation is on the basketball court. (Used to be baseball because of stickball in the streets.)
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 21, 2018, 01:36:03 PM
The thing is all these smaller cities like St. Louis and Pittsburgh already have an NHL team and I don't think just any city can support both an NBA team and NHL team. Only the real big metro areas are able to do that. I believe the smallest four sport city is Denver but Denver is the largest metro area in about a 600 mile radius and is in the middle of an urban corridor with around 5 million people. Minnesota is the least populated state to have a team in all four. And now the most populated metro area with no teams in any sport is Hartford, CT. Look at Atlanta they couldn't support the NHL and NBA and Georgia is the most populated state without a team in all four sports. Virginia remains the most populated state with no teams although northern Virginia residents are within the Washington, D.C. area that has teams in all four sports. And Iowa is the most populated state that has neither a team or is within a media market of one. Kansas City failed with both the NBA and NHL and St. Louis failed with the NBA. Ohio has a strange case where they have at least one team in all the major sports but none of their cities or metro areas has four teams. Two NFL teams, two MLB teams, one NBA team, one NHL team. I just don't think Kansas City would be a good fit as it's already a failed NBA city.
Kansas City also failed in MLB the first time around when Charlie Finley moved the A's out of town.
St. Louis will never receive an NBA franchise because of the deal the Silna brothers struck with the NBA when the ABA merged with it.
Kansas City failed in the NHL too, with the Scouts moving first to Denver (as the Rockies, unrelated to the MLB team) and then to NJ (as the Devils).
I believe Chicago and Philadelphia are the only large cities (over 1 million) to lose one NBA franchise (Packers-Zephyrs and Warriors), and then have it replaced with another (Bulls and 76ers).
Pittsburgh is a special case, seeing that it is wedged in between Cleveland and Philadelphia. I wonder who's the most popular team there: The Cavs, Sixers or other?
Cincinnati could've had a great rivalry with the Cavaliers, but then the Royals moved west to Kansas City and became the Kings.
If anything, Seattle should be first in line for a new team.
Quote from: Henry on May 22, 2018, 10:24:44 AM
Kansas City failed in the NHL too, with the Scouts moving first to Denver (as the Rockies, unrelated to the MLB team) and then to NJ (as the Devils).
I believe Chicago and Philadelphia are the only large cities (over 1 million) to lose one NBA franchise (Packers-Zephyrs and Warriors), and then have it replaced with another (Bulls and 76ers).
Pittsburgh is a special case, seeing that it is wedged in between Cleveland and Philadelphia. I wonder who's the most popular team there: The Cavs, Sixers or other?
Cincinnati could've had a great rivalry with the Cavaliers, but then the Royals moved west to Kansas City and became the Kings.
If anything, Seattle should be first in line for a new team.
Detroit has the Pistons now but had a team called the Falcons for one season (1946-47) then folded and the Pistons moved to Detroit from Fort Wayne for the 1957-58 season. I agree that Seattle should be the next city to get an NBA team but is there an arena issue there? Or is Key Arena actually fine to play in?
Just because KC or St. Louis may have blew it many years ago is not a prerequisite for failure today.
The Toronto Huskies were in the very first season of the NBA (called BAA originally) in 1946-47. So if they failed roughly 50 years ago from when the NBA would return permanently to Toronto in 1995, we are also mentioning that the ABA merger happened over 40 years ago now. Who says they couldn't be successful today? That was a long time ago. Both you and I both know that the Toronto Raptors aren't going anywhere and they are arguably one of the most financially safe teams in the league.
I'd say that Seattle should be first in line, and afterwards, you can laugh at me all you want, but Louisville should be second.
Like I've said all along the NBA and NHL can only co-exist in the largest of markets. The cities that have an NBA team but not an NHL team or have an NHL team but not an NBA team aren't big enough to support both and then you have cities that have neither but have a team in the NFL and/or MLB.
My first example would be cities like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Milwaukee. I'm having a hard time including cities that have a team in another market in the same state like Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio or Kansas City and St. Louis in Missouri. Cleveland has the NBA, MLB and NFL, Cincinnati only has the NFL and MLB and Columbus has the NHL. Kansas City has the NFL and MLB and St. Louis has the NHL and MLB.
If the state of Missouri is able to get an NBA team I think Kansas City would be a better fit than St. Louis due to the fact that St. Louis already has the Blues. The NBA and NHL compete against each other (playing their games at the same time of the year) is my reasoning.
Now I'm happy to say that Detroit is the only U.S. city with all four major sports teams playing in the downtown area. Philadelphia and Chicago has all their teams playing within the city limits but not downtown. Actually Little Caesars Arena isn't downtown but it's very close, Little Caesars Arena is in the Cass Corridor (Midtown).
The league should have allowed the Kings to move to Seattle. Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors? Could have gotten the whole Seattle thing out of the way and expanded in KC and Louisville. Anyways if your going to be put a team in Seattle you need to add another team otherwise you have an odd number of teams.
Has Seattle remedied whatever it was that caused the Sonics to move to Oklahoma City?
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
The league should have allowed the Kings to move to Seattle. Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors? Could have gotten the whole Seattle thing out of the way and expanded in KC and Louisville. Anyways if your going to be put a team in Seattle you need to add another team otherwise you have an odd number of teams.
Sacramento kept the Kings for demographic reasons like State Lobbyists and Superpacs as their target to fill seats at the Golden one center.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Ah yes, the old "The NYC metro area doesn't NEED the Rangers, the Islanders, and the Devils, they only NEED two teams" argument. As long as they can get butts in seats and make a tidy profit doing so, no team is going anywhere.
Quote from: bing101 on May 23, 2018, 02:11:59 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
The league should have allowed the Kings to move to Seattle. Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors? Could have gotten the whole Seattle thing out of the way and expanded in KC and Louisville. Anyways if your going to be put a team in Seattle you need to add another team otherwise you have an odd number of teams.
Sacramento kept the Kings for demographic reasons like State Lobbyists and Superpacs as their target to fill seats at the Golden one center.
Having a former NBA star as Mayor doesn't hurt matters any.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 23, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Ah yes, the old "The NYC metro area doesn't NEED the Rangers, the Islanders, and the Devils, they only NEED two teams" argument. As long as they can get butts in seats and make a tidy profit doing so, no team is going anywhere.
No city even NYC should have more than 2 teams. There is such a thing as over saturation.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
The league should have allowed the Kings to move to Seattle. Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Sacramento is as far from Oakland as New York City is from Philadelphia, to put the distance in perspective.
Quote from: dvferyance on May 23, 2018, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 23, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Ah yes, the old "The NYC metro area doesn't NEED the Rangers, the Islanders, and the Devils, they only NEED two teams" argument. As long as they can get butts in seats and make a tidy profit doing so, no team is going anywhere.
No city even NYC should have more than 2 teams. There is such a thing as over saturation.
The top 30 or 32 markets deserve to have teams, even if they are the same city.
It seems feasible with Seattle reviving itself as of the major NBA seats of power, but I just don't think Seattle will get an NBA team regardless if it has a WNBA team. Yes, the metro is big enough, but traveling to Seattle is very expensive as with going to other big cities. It's hard to travel to Seattle for an NBA game in the winter due to the harsh conditions on Interstate 90 and other roadways. That I think was one of the factors playing to the Sonics becoming the Thunder in OKC, among other major factors. Yes, it's great having the Sounders soccer team and Seahawks NFL team but I don't think the city of Seattle has enough capital to squeeze a new NBA franchise or revive the Sonics name. This NBA executive is essentially talking out of his own ass thinking KC will get an NBA team. Nope. It failed in Saint Louis and and KC and Missouri can't hold an NBA team anyway despite being able to hold the Chiefs NFL team and the Royals/Cards MLB teams. I think KC's got an MLS team, but it may be on the way out if it isn't already.
Could the NBA build a franchise in say, Montana, Idaho or Wyoming? Nooope. Why? The designated TV markets in these states are too small to hold a large NBA team. Plus, if the Jazz is in Salt Lake City and it's a few hours south of Boise, why does Boise need an NBA team? Makes no sense, does it? Also, Montana only has about 1.1 million people in the state that covers over 500,000 square miles. No NBA team can thrive there, either. The markets are too small to hold them. Wyoming is a scratch because it would be overrun by Denver.
So, if KC is a no go, who would fill the second expansion seat if Seattle was approved to get a new NBA team, then? There aren't a whole lot of options the NBA has to get another expansion team if Seattle gets one.
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2018, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 23, 2018, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 23, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Ah yes, the old "The NYC metro area doesn't NEED the Rangers, the Islanders, and the Devils, they only NEED two teams" argument. As long as they can get butts in seats and make a tidy profit doing so, no team is going anywhere.
No city even NYC should have more than 2 teams. There is such a thing as over saturation.
The top 30 or 32 markets deserve to have teams, even if they are the same city.
The NYC metro has 20M-24M people, depending on how you're counting. This isn't 3/32 of the US population.
Quote from: 1 on May 23, 2018, 08:27:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 23, 2018, 06:28:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 23, 2018, 05:21:48 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 23, 2018, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on May 22, 2018, 04:27:38 PM
Why does Sacramento need a team when they are just a stones throw away to the Golden State Warriors?
Ah yes, the old "The NYC metro area doesn't NEED the Rangers, the Islanders, and the Devils, they only NEED two teams" argument. As long as they can get butts in seats and make a tidy profit doing so, no team is going anywhere.
No city even NYC should have more than 2 teams. There is such a thing as over saturation.
The top 30 or 32 markets deserve to have teams, even if they are the same city.
The NYC metro has 20M-24M people, depending on how you're counting. This isn't 3/32 of the US population.
Look at the total market though, because there are several million people in sparsely populated areas that will never support a team. About 80% of the US lives in urban areas (2010 Census) - out of 325M people, that's 260M. 260M * 3/32 = 24M. So... the math works.
The Census definition of "urban" just means an incorporated city of 2500. And "urbanized area" is one or more "census blocks" (similar concept to a single voting precinct) with a density of at least 1000 people/sq. mi.
This makes any wide spot in the road anywhere "urban". It does not mean that anything near that lives in a more realistic definition of an "urban area". If you add up the TV market size, slightly less than 40% of the country lives in a TV market with an NBA team. The NHL is significantly lower, due to its absence from the large southern cities of Houston and Atlanta.
Here would be my NBA realignment with 32 teams.
East
Atlantic Division
Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
New York Knicks
Philadelphia 76ers
Toronto Raptors
Washington Wizards
Central
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavilers
Detroit Pistons
Indiana Pacers
Milwaukee Bucks
Southeast
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Hornets
Memphis Grizzles
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
West
Northwest
Denver Nuggets
Kansas City Knights
Minnesota Timberwolves
Portland Trail Blazers
Seattle Supersonics
Utah Jazz
Southwest
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
New Orleans Pelicans
Oklahoma City Thunder
San Antonio Spurs
Pacific
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Quote from: dvferyance on June 08, 2018, 08:30:20 PM
Here would be my NBA realignment with 32 teams.
East
Atlantic Division
Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
New York Knicks
Philadelphia 76ers
Toronto Raptors
Washington Wizards
Central
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavilers
Detroit Pistons
Indiana Pacers
Milwaukee Bucks
Southeast
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Hornets
Memphis Grizzles
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
West
Northwest
Denver Nuggets
Kansas City Knights
Minnesota Timberwolves
Portland Trail Blazers
Seattle Supersonics
Utah Jazz
Southwest
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
New Orleans Pelicans
Oklahoma City Thunder
San Antonio Spurs
Pacific
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Not bad, but I would recommend that you pull one out of the Atlantic (probably Washington) and put in South East. Otherwise you have 7 in the Atlantic and 5 in the Central and South East. They should all be either 5 or 6 each. The other option would be to move Toronto from the Atlantic to the Central. That actually might be better since they are closer to the Central teams than Washington is to the SE teams.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 21, 2018, 01:36:03 PM
The thing is all these smaller cities like St. Louis and Pittsburgh already have an NHL team and I don't think just any city can support both an NBA team and NHL team. Only the real big metro areas are able to do that. I believe the smallest four sport city is Denver but Denver is the largest metro area in about a 600 mile radius and is in the middle of an urban corridor with around 5 million people. Minnesota is the least populated state to have a team in all four. And now the most populated metro area with no teams in any sport is Hartford, CT. Look at Atlanta they couldn't support the NHL and NBA and Georgia is the most populated state without a team in all four sports. Virginia remains the most populated state with no teams although northern Virginia residents are within the Washington, D.C. area that has teams in all four sports. And Iowa is the most populated state that has neither a team or is within a media market of one. Kansas City failed with both the NBA and NHL and St. Louis failed with the NBA. Ohio has a strange case where they have at least one team in all the major sports but none of their cities or metro areas has four teams. Two NFL teams, two MLB teams, one NBA team, one NHL team. I just don't think Kansas City would be a good fit as it's already a failed NBA city.
Mason City, Iowa is a secondary market for the Vikings and parts of southern Iowa are similar for the Chiefs (and used to be for the Rams).
Quote from: Life in Paradise on June 09, 2018, 12:36:39 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 08, 2018, 08:30:20 PM
Here would be my NBA realignment with 32 teams.
East
Atlantic Division
Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
New York Knicks
Philadelphia 76ers
Toronto Raptors
Washington Wizards
Central
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavilers
Detroit Pistons
Indiana Pacers
Milwaukee Bucks
Southeast
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Hornets
Memphis Grizzles
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
West
Northwest
Denver Nuggets
Kansas City Knights
Minnesota Timberwolves
Portland Trail Blazers
Seattle Supersonics
Utah Jazz
Southwest
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
New Orleans Pelicans
Oklahoma City Thunder
San Antonio Spurs
Pacific
Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
Sacramento Kings
Not bad, but I would recommend that you pull one out of the Atlantic (probably Washington) and put in South East. Otherwise you have 7 in the Atlantic and 5 in the Central and South East. They should all be either 5 or 6 each. The other option would be to move Toronto from the Atlantic to the Central. That actually might be better since they are closer to the Central teams than Washington is to the SE teams.
I moved Washington becasue I thought it made more sense being in the Atlantic than the southeast. Washington DC is closer proximity to cities like Philly and NYC than it is to Atlanta, Orlando or Miami. One division had to have 6 teams anyways.
If given a list of 32 items to be put into groups, the first thing that comes to mind is 6 groups with unequal numbers of items??
Quote from: davewiecking on June 09, 2018, 08:40:56 PM
If given a list of 32 items to be put into groups, the first thing that comes to mind is 6 groups with unequal numbers of items??
I would have created 9 groups of 4 teams each and just given teams random byes for the empty teams.
Quote from: Alps on June 10, 2018, 12:56:29 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on June 09, 2018, 08:40:56 PM
If given a list of 32 items to be put into groups, the first thing that comes to mind is 6 groups with unequal numbers of items??
I would have created 9 groups of 4 teams each and just given teams random byes for the empty teams.
You mean 8 groups of 4 teams? 9 groups of 4 teams would be 36 teams.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 10, 2018, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 10, 2018, 12:56:29 AM
Quote from: davewiecking on June 09, 2018, 08:40:56 PM
If given a list of 32 items to be put into groups, the first thing that comes to mind is 6 groups with unequal numbers of items??
I would have created 9 groups of 4 teams each and just given teams random byes for the empty teams.
You mean 8 groups of 4 teams? 9 groups of 4 teams would be 36 teams.
I thought we were being ridiculous
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on May 23, 2018, 07:11:26 PM
It seems feasible with Seattle reviving itself as of the major NBA seats of power, but I just don't think Seattle will get an NBA team regardless if it has a WNBA team. Yes, the metro is big enough, but traveling to Seattle is very expensive as with going to other big cities. It's hard to travel to Seattle for an NBA game in the winter due to the harsh conditions on Interstate 90 and other roadways. That I think was one of the factors playing to the Sonics becoming the Thunder in OKC, among other major factors. Yes, it's great having the Sounders soccer team and Seahawks NFL team but I don't think the city of Seattle has enough capital to squeeze a new NBA franchise or revive the Sonics name. This NBA executive is essentially talking out of his own ass thinking KC will get an NBA team. Nope. It failed in Saint Louis and and KC and Missouri can't hold an NBA team anyway despite being able to hold the Chiefs NFL team and the Royals/Cards MLB teams. I think KC's got an MLS team, but it may be on the way out if it isn't already.
Could the NBA build a franchise in say, Montana, Idaho or Wyoming? Nooope. Why? The designated TV markets in these states are too small to hold a large NBA team. Plus, if the Jazz is in Salt Lake City and it's a few hours south of Boise, why does Boise need an NBA team? Makes no sense, does it? Also, Montana only has about 1.1 million people in the state that covers over 500,000 square miles. No NBA team can thrive there, either. The markets are too small to hold them. Wyoming is a scratch because it would be overrun by Denver.
So, if KC is a no go, who would fill the second expansion seat if Seattle was approved to get a new NBA team, then? There aren't a whole lot of options the NBA has to get another expansion team if Seattle gets one.
The arena study released a few weeks ago predicted that 90% of NBA fans traveling to the arena would be from Western Washington (at its most extreme, from Chehalis to Vancouver BC). Attendees from Eastern WA (and beyond) are a non-factor.
Kansas City does have an MLS team that built its own stadium and rebranded itself, to much success (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mls/sporting-kc/article211500359.html). There's no way they'll be relocating soon, especially while under local ownership.
The main factors were the owner's intent to move to OKC (as it always had been, according to the leaked e-mails), the lack of a "suitable" arena (which had been renovated only a decade earlier and praised by Stern), and to piss off the locals.
As far as I'm concerned, the NBA is not welcome in Seattle. They burnt their bridges and long-time fans just fell away from the sport and found better alternatives.
KC has the arena for it. The Sprint Center which is nearly 10 years old now was built to try to bring in an NBA team. There really hasn't been much sports there with the exception of having an AFL team for a few years and a few college basketball tournaments there. Seattle on the other hand would have to build a new arena. I really can't think of any new markets that would be viable for the NBA. I hear suggestions like Las Vegas and Pittsburgh but they already have NHL teams. Maybe Louisville but I am not sure how the university there would feel about having to share the arena with an NBA team. I don't get this whole argument the NBA already failed there so it's out. The NFL failed 3 times in LA and now they have not one but two teams.
I never thought an NBA team would succeed in Oklahoma City but the Thunder are huge. I never thought that Oklahoma was a basketball state but I was proven wrong.