NBA Executive Reportedly Says League Will Eventually Have Team in Kansas City

[bing101]

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.

[Alps]

Isn't the NBA at 30 teams? No one needs to move.

[Flint1979]

Just expand the NBA to 32 teams.

[ET21]

St. Louis already hosts NBA games, why not move them there?

[SP Cook]

The NBA is a children's TV show.

[KeithE4Phx]

Just expand the NBA to 32 teams.

There aren't enough good players to justify 24 teams, let alone 32.

[KeithE4Phx]

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.

[Flint1979]

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.

[Alps]

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.)

[Road Hog]

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.

[Henry]

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.

[Flint1979]

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?

[MisterSG1]

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.

[Flint1979]

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).

[dvferyance]

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.

[abefroman329]

Has Seattle remedied whatever it was that caused the Sonics to move to Oklahoma City?

[bing101]

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.

[abefroman329]

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.

[KeithE4Phx]

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.

[dvferyance]

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.

[TheStranger]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[Billy F 1988]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[Alps]

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.