Rumor- NBA looking to expand to 32 teams?
- Thread starter FakeNews
- Start date
please NO more pro teams in da state of FL
beenz
Rap Guerilla
Omaha????? 
And WHAT THE fukk is w/ this love affair with Seattle. Seattle lost their team 'cause they really didn't give enough of a fukk to keep them there, and got caught up listenin' to Joni Mitchell 
Just cop that Thunder jersey, have a coke and a smile, and STFU.
Just cop that Thunder jersey, have a coke and a smile, and STFU.
most def seattle and maybe mexico city
if not there
kanas city or louisville
if not there
kanas city or louisville
And WHAT THE fukk is w/ this love affair with Seattle. Seattle lost their team 'cause they really didn't give enough of a fukk to keep them there, and got caught up listenin' to Joni Mitchell
Bu bu but owners aren't making any profit.
Contract Contract Contract
Seriously these nikkas playing games. Why the fukk did they move that team from Seattle to that god forsaken place?
Bu bu but owners aren't making any profit.
Contract Contract Contract
fukk u know bout basketball u bytch azz nikka
The War Report
NewNewYork
Apparently more than what's inside your pea brain. :obama2:
The state of Kentucky doesn't give a flying fukk about professional basketball. Kansas City is a fukking football town. Mexico City?
who_better_than_me
Time to go!!
I wonder why Bmore never a get mentions as a possible expansion team location?
STAN JONES
Veteran
how the fukk is Omaha a possibility before Baltimore 
@ Omaha . They already had their chance sharing the Kings with Kansas City during the 70s. I'd like to see it in Seattle again but I don't know about the support there. The team is going to be Bobcat status for five years AT LEAST. Can their fans there deal with that?
2007 NBA ALL-STAR WEEKEND is the reason why the league is never giving Vegas a team. I know because I was there
I'm betting on San Diego and St Louis for this.
They should have some exhibitions games & test out some of these cities they are looking at. No one thought OKC could support a team until they had that run with the Hornets. That's when they knew OKC could support a team. I could see Omaha with a team. What else is there to do in Omaha?
Wouldn't make much sense in my mind, with the Wizards right across the way. They did the same shyt Seattle did, in not givin' two fukks. But, I do agree with this premise though. It's just that Charm City's lower on the list. A good starting point would be to do something about 1st Mariner Arena.
A few things to keep in mind:
1-Any locale that is already part of an existing team's territory is a no go (San Jose and Baltimore). Existing franchises have moved into existing territories under unique circumstances. That happened in LA only because an existing franchise had nowhere else to go. It happened in NY because the Nets were already there as part of the ABA.
2-Talk of Pittsburgh, Cincy, STL, etc ignores the fact that these metros are full of other pro sports teams and the pie isn't big enough to accomodate another team. Bizjournals did a study a couple of years back. All you really need to know is that a mid-market or smaller metro with MLB and at least one other team is off the table. KC might be the only exception to the rule, but I doubt it. SEA is the minimum for an MLB+NBA+NFL team.
3-This leaves smaller markets who are the only games in town. When you look at the support the Spurs and Jazz get (even when they aren't so great), this makes a lot of sense.
The largest markets without pro sports (by metro total personal income) or territorial issues are: Columbus, Austin, VABeach-Norfolk, Vegas, Richmond, and Louisville. The first two have a huge college presence that takes away from support. VABeach-Norfolk-Newport News constantly fight over who gets the arena (and tax revenue). Vegas has the gambling issue. Unless the league looks outside of the US, Louisville makes the most sense by far. It would also resurrect a huge ABA rivalry (Pacers-Colonels). The Colonels were extremely popular and were actually doing better than a couple of the ABA teams that got in.
If there needs to be another team w/ Seattle, Louisville is the best bet.
1-Any locale that is already part of an existing team's territory is a no go (San Jose and Baltimore). Existing franchises have moved into existing territories under unique circumstances. That happened in LA only because an existing franchise had nowhere else to go. It happened in NY because the Nets were already there as part of the ABA.
2-Talk of Pittsburgh, Cincy, STL, etc ignores the fact that these metros are full of other pro sports teams and the pie isn't big enough to accomodate another team. Bizjournals did a study a couple of years back. All you really need to know is that a mid-market or smaller metro with MLB and at least one other team is off the table. KC might be the only exception to the rule, but I doubt it. SEA is the minimum for an MLB+NBA+NFL team.
3-This leaves smaller markets who are the only games in town. When you look at the support the Spurs and Jazz get (even when they aren't so great), this makes a lot of sense.
The largest markets without pro sports (by metro total personal income) or territorial issues are: Columbus, Austin, VABeach-Norfolk, Vegas, Richmond, and Louisville. The first two have a huge college presence that takes away from support. VABeach-Norfolk-Newport News constantly fight over who gets the arena (and tax revenue). Vegas has the gambling issue. Unless the league looks outside of the US, Louisville makes the most sense by far. It would also resurrect a huge ABA rivalry (Pacers-Colonels). The Colonels were extremely popular and were actually doing better than a couple of the ABA teams that got in.
If there needs to be another team w/ Seattle, Louisville is the best bet.