Two new teams will be added in 2024

[SAGirl]

1529188053331259392

Well maybe the rumors of relocation will trend down.

[SAGirl]

I only just realized it’s a rumor lol no wonder…

[Mr. Body]

A team back in Seattle fixes on of David Stern's worst mistakes, which is saying a lot.

This suggests one team needs to be bumped into the east, right? I would expect it to be Memphis, Minnesota, or New Orleans.

[Chinook]

Awk, but probably still worthy of discussion. I think expansion is a great idea, though I don't like how Seattle couldn't keep a team but has been shoving to the front of the line. It would be nice to see the NBA in places like Louisville or St Louis first. Still, you can't deny the NBA's imprint of Seattle, and Vegas would mean a new state. I don't think this rumor has legs, but the idea might end up being right despite that.

I'm not a person who thinks the NBA is watered down. I think the league can easily make rules to increase parity if they wanted to. There are more than 544 NBA-caliber players in the world. Just do what you need to to bring more of them here.

[Mr. Body]

Awk, but probably still worthy of discussion. I think expansion is a great idea, though I don't like how Seattle couldn't keep a team but has been shoving to the front of the line.

They wanted to keep the team. Stern got pissed that the citizens, understandably, balked at giving the billionaire owner a huge new arena at no cost to him. So Stern ripped the team out of their hands and threw it to shithole Oklahoma.

[Chinook]

A team back in Seattle fixes on of David Stern's worst mistakes, which is saying a lot.

This suggests one team needs to be bumped into the east, right? I would expect it to be Memphis, Minnesota, or New Orleans.

SA, DAL, HOU, OKC
LA, LA, LV, PHX
POR, SEA, GS, SAC
UTH, DEN, MIN, MKE
CHI, IND, CLE, DET
MEM, NO, ORL, MIA
NY, BRK, BOS, TOR
WSH, PHL, CHA, ATL

I think it would fit better without two PST teams. But whatever.

[Mr. Body]

SA, DAL, HOU, OKC
LA, LA, LV, PHX
POR, SEA, GS, SAC
UTH, DEN, MIN, MKE
CHI, IND, CLE, DET
MEM, NO, ORL, MIA
NY, BRK, BOS, TOR
WSH, PHL, CHA, ATL

I think it would fit better without two PST teams. But whatever.

Right, both new ones would be in the WC. I would put CHA and ATL with MEM and NO. They have more cultural similarities. And then WSH, PHL, ORL, MIA.

[MannyIsGod]

Expansion would be good. I can't remember any time where the NBA had as much talent as it currently does, honestly.

[scott]

SA, DAL, HOU, OKC
LA, LA, LV, PHX
POR, SEA, GS, SAC
UTH, DEN, MIN, MKE
CHI, IND, CLE, DET
MEM, NO, ORL, MIA
NY, BRK, BOS, TOR
WSH, PHL, CHA, ATL

I think it would fit better without two PST teams. But whatever.

The regional rivalries with a set up like this would be a ton of fun. I love it.

[Neo.]

send the clippers down to san diego or something, its still stupid to have two teams in LA

also reduce the number of games played out of conference, and increase the number of games within the division. make division titles more meaningful and add fuel to divisional rivalries, like football and baseball

more games within the divisions would actually then give reason to give divisional winners a top 4 seed automatically, as opposed to in the past where everyone in the conference played each other an equal amount of times, making it stupid in situations like 05-06 with the spurs and mavs getting the 1 and 4 seed

[Chinook]

Right, both new ones would be in the WC. I would put CHA and ATL with MEM and NO. They have more cultural similarities. And then WSH, PHL, ORL, MIA.

But, I think St Louis instead of Vegas would be cool

SA, PHX, LA, LA
MEM, STL, ATL CHA
HOU, NOP, ORL, MIA
DEN, UTH, OKC, DAL
SEA, POR, GS, SAC
MIN, MKE, IND, CHI
DET, TOR, BOS, CLE
NY, PHL, WSH, BRK

Breaks up the Texas Three-step, but it does put each city with others in it regional bubble.

Don't even get me started on if Mexico City was one of the teams.

[Neo.]

But, I think St Louis instead of Vegas would be cool

SA, PHX, LA, LA
MEM, STL, ATL CHA
HOU, NOP, ORL, MIA
DEN, UTH, OKC, DAL
SEA, POR, GS, SAC
MIN, MKE, IND, CHI
DET, TOR, BOS, CLE
NY, PHL, WSH, BRK

Breaks up the Texas Three-step, but it does put each city with others in it regional bubble.

Don't even get me started on if Mexico City was one of the teams.

what on earth makes you think breaking up a division with SA/HOU/DAL is a good idea?

[exstatic]

send the clippers down to san diego or something, its still stupid to have two teams in LA

also reduce the number of games played out of conference, and increase the number of games within the division. make division titles more meaningful and add fuel to divisional rivalries, like football and baseball

more games within the divisions would actually then give reason to give divisional winners a top 4 seed automatically, as opposed to in the past where everyone in the conference played each other an equal amount of times, making it stupid in situations like 05-06 with the spurs and mavs getting the 1 and 4 seed

Not happening. They just broke ground on a very expensive, very lavish new arena. Opening in 2024.

[exstatic]

But, I think St Louis instead of Vegas would be cool

SA, PHX, LA, LA
MEM, STL, ATL CHA
HOU, NOP, ORL, MIA
DEN, UTH, OKC, DAL
SEA, POR, GS, SAC
MIN, MKE, IND, CHI
DET, TOR, BOS, CLE
NY, PHL, WSH, BRK

Breaks up the Texas Three-step, but it does put each city with others in it regional bubble.

Don't even get me started on if Mexico City was one of the teams.

Completely moronic. Part of the season, this division would have 3 separate time zones. We're closer in flight miles to Miami than Los Angeles.

StL already had a team, and lost it. What next? Cincinnati or Kansas City?

[spurs1990]

Was hoping Vancouver will get another team over Vegas and add some more Canadian footprint

[exstatic]

Was hoping Vancouver will get another team over Vegas and add some more Canadian footprint

Franchises that flat out fail rarely get a second chance. I don't put Seattle in that category.

[Chinook]

what on earth makes you think breaking up a division with SA/HOU/DAL is a good idea?

Because it doesn't really matter that every Texas city is in a division? No one said anything about the Cali teams being broken up or the Bucks, Pelicans and Grizz changing conferences in the other example

[BatManu20]

Only a matter of time. Now move Memphis to the East and call it a day.

[Chinook]

Completely moronic. Part of the season, this division would have 3 separate time zones.

StL already had a team, and lost it. What next? Cincinnati or Kansas City?

STL never had an NBA team. They had an ABA team. Also, I'm not against Cinci or KC having teams. Smaller cities can have teams if they can support them. It's okay.

Anyway, why does it matter if there are different time zones? The Spurs often play all three of those teams four times a season right now. It won't be any different. This is ignoring that the current Northwest division currently does the same thing with Minny and OKC being CST, Denver and Utah being MST and Portland being PST.

[Neo.]

Because it doesn't really matter that every Texas city is in a division? No one said anything about the Cali teams being broken up or the Bucks, Pelicans and Grizz changing conferences in the other example

Texas is a worldwide brand of it's own

NBA conferences are not

regardless you didn't answer the question of how it's a good idea.

[Neo.]

Because it doesn't really matter that every Texas city is in a division? No one said anything about the Cali teams being broken up or the Bucks, Pelicans and Grizz changing conferences in the other example

Texas is a worldwide brand of it's own

NBA conferences are not

regardless you didn't answer the question of how it's a good idea.

[BatManu20]

Could see Dejounte wanting to play for Seattle at some point in his career tbh. Sooner or later.

[Chinook]

Texas is a worldwide brand of it's own

NBA conferences are not

regardless you didn't answer the question of how it's a good idea.

So is California (and more so). Dunno why you skipped over that. Texas is Texas, and that doesn't change just because the teams aren't in the same division. The NBA used to be unique for having Texas teams together, and MLB joining them was seen as a black eye for many Astros fans. There are definitely cultural ties between Central Texas and California that run through multiple cultures. As SA expands its reach into Mexico and Austin, that becomes even more apparent. It actually makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective to have the actual Southwest cities together. Houston, NOP, ORL and MIA are all Gulf coast cities and have their own histories. Houston can go either way and tech into a Middle South culture with Memphis, but those four cities fit really well together on their own without Houston. Dallas and OKC make a ton of sense as rivals. I'd rather then be with Memphis and STL in this scenario, but as I mentioned, STL, MEM, ATL and CHA fit too well together, and someone needs to pick up Denver and Utah. Given the recent cultural trends in Dallas and Denver, I think the fit is just fine with those cities.

[T Park]

Forgone conclusion it’s Vegas and Seattle. Seattle to the north west Vegas to the pacific.

[Neo.]

So is California (and more so). Dunno why you skipped over that. Texas is Texas, and that doesn't change just because the teams aren't in the same division. The NBA used to be unique for having Texas teams together, and MLB joining them was seen as a black eye for many Astros fans. There are definitely cultural ties between Central Texas and California that run through multiple cultures. As SA expands its reach into Mexico and Austin, that becomes even more apparent. It actually makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective to have the actual Southwest cities together. Houston, NOP, ORL and MIA are all Gulf coast cities and have their own histories. Houston can go either way and tech into a Middle South culture with Memphis, but those four cities fit really well together on their own without Houston. Dallas and OKC make a ton of sense as rivals. I'd rather then be with Memphis and STL in this scenario, but as I mentioned, STL, MEM, ATL and CHA fit too well together, and someone needs to pick up Denver and Utah. Given the recent cultural trends in Dallas and Denver, I think the fit is just fine with those cities.

hm so basically you think putting teams with cultural similarities in divisions together is beneficial for basketball.

how? because tbqh history has proven otherwise.

[tonight...you]

Juarez needs a team, if they want to make in-roads to Mexico. Juarez has a milly and a half in pop and El Paso has over half a milly and believe me: El Pasoans have zero prob queuing to get through the border. And then there's Las Cruces and a few other outside guys like Fort Stockton.

Just need to make sure the NBA provides lots and lots of security, lol.

[baseline bum]

Completely moronic. Part of the season, this division would have 3 separate time zones. We're closer in flight miles to Miami than Los Angeles.

StL already had a team, and lost it. What next? Cincinnati or Kansas City?

Gotta admire the Silnas playing the long game and negotiating a 1/7th share of the TV deals for the 4 ABA teams in perpetuity until the league finally just gave them a $500 million lump sum in 2014 to relinquish those rights.

[Maddog]

STL never had an NBA team. They had an ABA team. Also, I'm not against Cinci or KC having teams. Smaller cities can have teams if they can support them. It's okay.

Anyway, why does it matter if there are different time zones? The Spurs often play all three of those teams four times a season right now. It won't be any different. This is ignoring that the current Northwest division currently does the same thing with Minny and OKC being CST, Denver and Utah being MST and Portland being PST.

Well St Louis did have NBA team
Left in the mid 60s to Atlanta

Having lived there don't see them supporting an NBA team

Stl, SA, LV are metro areas of 2.8 to 2.3 million
SA and Vegas are growing. St Louis has flat to negative growth

I'm still a bit dubious about Vegas but we'll see

[paperboy77]

1529188053331259392

Well maybe the rumors of relocation will trend down.

Hope this is true although Legion Hoops is full of it. Sonics were my 2nd favorite team as a kid.

[Chinook]

hm so basically you think putting teams with cultural similarities in divisions together is beneficial for basketball.

how? because tbqh history has proven otherwise.

The NBA is making a lot of cultural pushes. One of their big ones is in Mexico right now. So yes, in particular, marketing SA, LA and PHX as a division for Mexico and Mexican-Americans makes sense. They can and already do similar things with the Pacific teams and Asia and Florida teams and Cuba. This just formalizes some or those.

I'm not going to even get into your cliff-hanger answer. You think it's weird that Texas would be "broken up" in this change since to you the cities have a cultural bond that can't be separated or something. You might not notice because the NFC East is so messed up, but the NFL has historically grouped by culture, and it's been beneficial to them. They separate states into different divisions. Texas is obvious, but CA, FL, NY and PA. Ohio is like the only true exception where a multi-team state only has teams in one division. Even in teams that are in different states but still near enough to each other to have overlapping markets like Baltimore and DC are separated. So no, historically, cultural groupings work well together.

Also, the groupings have cultural ties for sure, but they make more geographic sense. You don't have Portland, OKC and Minny in the same division anymore. That's good for basketball, especially given the lack of rivalries among those clubs anyway. The Eastern Lake Cities are together. If the NBA wanted to reduce the schedule to reemphasize divisions, this would be a much better basis for doing so than it would be now where divisions and conferences are twisted up and scattered.

[tonight...you]

The NBA is making a lot of cultural pushes. One of their big ones is in Mexico right now. So yes, in particular, marketing SA, LA and PHX as a division for Mexico and Mexican-Americans makes sense. They can and already do similar things with the Pacific teams and Asia and Florida teams and Cuba. This just formalizes some or those.

I'm not going to even get into your cliff-hanger answer. You think it's weird that Texas would be "broken up" in this change since to you the cities have a cultural bond that can't be separated or something. You might not notice because the NFC East is so messed up, but the NFL has historically grouped by culture, and it's been beneficial to them. They separate states into different divisions. Texas is obvious, but CA, FL, NY and PA. Ohio is like the only true exception where a multi-team state only has teams in one division. Even in teams that are in different states but still near enough to each other to have overlapping markets like Baltimore and DC are separated. So no, historically, cultural groupings work well together.

Also, the groupings have cultural ties for sure, but they make more geographic sense. You don't have Portland, OKC and Minny in the same division anymore. That's good for basketball, especially given the lack of rivalries among those clubs anyway. The Eastern Lake Cities are together. If the NBA wanted to reduce the schedule to reemphasize divisions, this would be a much better basis for doing so than it would be now where divisions and conferences are twisted up and scattered.
Reduce the schedule?

[Dex]

But, I think St Louis instead of Vegas would be cool

SA, PHX, LA, LA
MEM, STL, ATL CHA
HOU, NOP, ORL, MIA
DEN, UTH, OKC, DAL
SEA, POR, GS, SAC
MIN, MKE, IND, CHI
DET, TOR, BOS, CLE
NY, PHL, WSH, BRK

Breaks up the Texas Three-step, but it does put each city with others in it regional bubble.

Don't even get me started on if Mexico City was one of the teams.

No way the NBA passes on the chance to put a team in Vegas, especially with gambling on games suddenly being acceptable (hell, ESPN runs the spreads and stuff now)

[Dex]

Reduce the schedule?

Owners will never reduce the schedule because that's just lost revenue. They would probably play 100 games in the regular season if NBA would allow it.

[CGD]

STL never had an NBA team. They had an ABA team. Also, I'm not against Cinci or KC having teams. Smaller cities can have teams if they can support them. It's okay.

Anyway, why does it matter if there are different time zones? The Spurs often play all three of those teams four times a season right now. It won't be any different. This is ignoring that the current Northwest division currently does the same thing with Minny and OKC being CST, Denver and Utah being MST and Portland being PST.

I vaguely remember that the St. Louis situation was complicated because the old owners have a sweet ass deal from the NBA that’s still in force today. Basically as part of the deal to have them leave a long time ago, they got a deal from the nba to get revenue sharing from any and all nba tv deals essentially in perpetuity. They really have no incentive to bring a team back because basically they get the $$ without assuming the costs of owning a team. It was something really wild like this.

[tonight...you]

No way the NBA passes on the chance to put a team in Vegas, especially with gambling on games suddenly being acceptable (hell, ESPN runs the spreads and stuff now)
Yeah. That was a real head-scratcher to me.
Owners don't reduce games, they add them.
And Chinook is a savvy poster so I'd like something more to his assertion.

[RC_Drunkford]

Maybe DJ, Lavine and Banchero can team up in Seattle

[Chinook]

Yeah. That was a real head-scratcher to me.
Owners don't reduce games, they add them.
And Chinook (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557) is a savvy poster so I'd like something more to his assertion.

Owners want to add games. Players want to reduce them. That's why it stays the same, but that balance could tip if the owners get something they want. Silver seems to badly want the NBA to have an in-season tournament. That could make a ton of money and help off-set fewer games total.

Like for example: Say you get the two extra teams, and you go to eight divisions of four teams each. If you start off saying every team is going to play each other at least once home and away, you get 62 games. Then you can play everyone in your division a total of six times, bringing the total number of games up to 74. Then you do Silver's tourney, which is a double-elimination tourney with consolidation matches to guarantee everyone four to six matches. That brings the total games played up to 78-80, while increasing the importance of division games.

Or: You play everyone in your division four times and everyone else at least two times (68 games so far). Then you play two other divisions once extra on a rotating basis (one division at home, the other away) (76 games). Then you have division tournaments where the winners get eight playoffs spots, the other eight going to the teams with the best record. You do round-robin for that tournament (79 games). Now divisions are really important, but there are more games against other teams. Now no one's firmly eliminated from the playoffs until the end of the season, but the best teams will still get in if they have a bad stretch.

Ideally, what Silver should want is for the tournament to take place before the All-Star break and confer some advantage that can be applied to the second half of the season. I wouldn't know how to make that work. You'd assume the league would want teams to still play in every arena, so unless you do those games before the tourney, you can't change that. Maybe for draft picks? We'll see. But there's a lot of room to alter the schedule and still increase revenue and hype. Ultimately, I think fans would be receptive toward care more about fewer games.

[Neo.]

The NBA is making a lot of cultural pushes. One of their big ones is in Mexico right now. So yes, in particular, marketing SA, LA and PHX as a division for Mexico and Mexican-Americans makes sense. They can and already do similar things with the Pacific teams and Asia and Florida teams and Cuba. This just formalizes some or those.

I'm not going to even get into your cliff-hanger answer. You think it's weird that Texas would be "broken up" in this change since to you the cities have a cultural bond that can't be separated or something. You might not notice because the NFC East is so messed up, but the NFL has historically grouped by culture, and it's been beneficial to them. They separate states into different divisions. Texas is obvious, but CA, FL, NY and PA. Ohio is like the only true exception where a multi-team state only has teams in one division. Even in teams that are in different states but still near enough to each other to have overlapping markets like Baltimore and DC are separated. So no, historically, cultural groupings work well together.

Also, the groupings have cultural ties for sure, but they make more geographic sense. You don't have Portland, OKC and Minny in the same division anymore. That's good for basketball, especially given the lack of rivalries among those clubs anyway. The Eastern Lake Cities are together. If the NBA wanted to reduce the schedule to reemphasize divisions, this would be a much better basis for doing so than it would be now where divisions and conferences are twisted up and scattered.

:lol you obviously misunderstood me, or perhaps just chose not to read

never said cultural groupings do or dont work together well. but we all know sports benefit more from good rivalries than anything else. not sure if focusing on keeping cultures together is the best way to encourage good competitive rivalries. especially if doing so means breaking up already existing rivalries

[Chinook]

:lol you obviously misunderstood me, or perhaps just chose not to read

never said cultural groupings do or dont work together well. but we all know sports benefit more from good rivalries than anything else. not sure if focusing on keeping cultures together is the best way to encourage good competitive rivalries. especially if doing so means breaking up already existing rivalries

So you said history has proven that cultural groupings aren't good for basketball. You can try to Houdini your way out of that. I don't care. I was responding to that idea as well as the one that Texas is also a cultural grouping, one that doesn't really matter any more than the others. You looked at it only from your own point of view and assumed that if Dallas and Houston were critical rivals to you, then they had to be big ones for the league. Phoenix and Los Angeles both have historical rivalries with the Spurs too.

Even if they didn't or even if you dismiss Dallas' and Houston's rivalries outside of the Spurs, you can form new ones. The Titans and Ravens used to be fierce division rivals before Tennessee got split up and had to form new feuds with Houston and Indy. Even then, the two teams still have entertainingly bad blood between them. Tampa Bay used to play Green Bay and the rest of the NFC North (nee NFC Central) every year but then had to play New Orleans rest of the NFC South. There's no reason to believe the Doncic, Holmgren and Jokic wouldn't make for an excellent division. Houston, NO and Orlando each have high draft picks to grow with, and Miami is a contender. That's also an exciting division. In the same way that the Texans and Cowboys continues to be a spectacle, the intrastate games can still be hyped up.

I don't think this "keeps cultures together" as much as it places a greater emphasis on region and culture than the current NBA alignment can. The Southwest is arguably the engine of the country right now. Getting them together and having them market to Mexico and the growing tech industry seems like a great business idea rather than having the individual teams stake their claims in a disorganized manner. In that same way, bringing an improving Wolves team into a division with MKE, CHI and Indy almost mimics the NFL's NFC North model. Trae, LaMelo and Ja in the same division as an expansion team? Sounds like a very easy division to market.

The biggest rivalry in NBA history is between two teams across the country from each other who outside of some Finals series only play twice a year. Besides that, rivalries seem more between players than between teams. Can they happen? Yes, especially over short periods of time. But they are mostly forged in the post-season, and little about that goes away with this model. In a league where divisions have become almost meaningless, I don't think the league will lose sleep that the Texas teams aren't all together.

[spurs1990]

Assuming we keep 82 games and get four divisions of four per conference…
16x2 = 32 interconference
3x4 = 12 division
12x3 = 36 intraconference

With remaining two games versus another division that finished in same place as you the year before.

[Neo.]

So you said history has proven that cultural groupings aren't good for basketball.

is that what i said? lets see the quote


hm so basically you think putting teams with cultural similarities in divisions together is beneficial for basketball.

how? because tbqh history has proven otherwise.

oh gotcha. so thats not what i said. however, i certainly understand how it could be interpreted that way, because of the way I worded myself, I will give you that. but the meaning of what i said is that there are better focuses for basketball. the greatest rivalry is between two cities of completely opposite cultures (boston/LA), and their opposing cultures are a major reason of what made that rivalry so great, and in the eyes of many is what saved the sport of basketball from fading away.


You can try to Houdini your way out of that.

no need. i simply didnt say that.


I was responding to that idea as well as the one that Texas is also a cultural grouping, one that doesn't really matter any more than the others. You looked at it only from your own point of view and assumed that if Dallas and Houston were critical rivals to you, then they had to be big ones for the league. Phoenix and Los Angeles both have historical rivalries with the Spurs too.

Even if they didn't or even if you dismiss Dallas' and Houston's rivalries outside of the Spurs, you can form new ones. The Titans and Ravens used to be fierce division rivals before Tennessee got split up and had to form new feuds with Houston and Indy. Even then, the two teams still have entertainingly bad blood between them. Tampa Bay used to play Green Bay and the rest of the NFC North (nee NFC Central) every year but then had to play New Orleans rest of the NFC South. There's no reason to believe the Doncic, Holmgren and Jokic wouldn't make for an excellent division. Houston, NO and Orlando each have high draft picks to grow with, and Miami is a contender. That's also an exciting division. In the same way that the Texans and Cowboys continues to be a spectacle, the intrastate games can still be hyped up.

I don't think this "keeps cultures together" as much as it places a greater emphasis on region and culture than the current NBA alignment can. The Southwest is arguably the engine of the country right now. Getting them together and having them market to Mexico and the growing tech industry seems like a great business idea rather than having the individual teams stake their claims in a disorganized manner. In that same way, bringing an improving Wolves team into a division with MKE, CHI and Indy almost mimics the NFL's NFC North model. Trae, LaMelo and Ja in the same division as an expansion team? Sounds like a very easy division to market.

The biggest rivalry in NBA history is between two teams across the country from each other who outside of some Finals series only play twice a year. Besides that, rivalries seem more between players than between teams. Can they happen? Yes, especially over short periods of time. But they are mostly forged in the post-season, and little about that goes away with this model. In a league where divisions have become almost meaningless, I don't think the league will lose sleep that the Texas teams aren't all together.

ive said already in this thread that i strongly believe they should get rid of some out of conference games and add more divisional games, in order to make divisions more meaningful. i believe that would be a much better route in order to create more rivalries and interest in the regular season, as opposed to keeping mexican heavy cities in the same division.

[KobesAchilles]

Well at least the Spurs are moving to Austin. No more Seattle or Vegas bs.

[Chinook]

oh gotcha. so thats not what i said. however, i certainly understand how it could be interpreted that way, because of the way I worded myself, I will give you that. but the meaning of what i said is that there are better focuses for basketball. the greatest rivalry is between two cities of completely opposite cultures (boston/LA), and their opposing cultures are a major reason of what made that rivalry so great, and in the eyes of many is what saved the sport of basketball from fading away.

Understood that you meant something different. I understand what you're saying now.

You don't lose Boston/LAL rivalries by changing divisions. For the most part rivalries come from important games, which in the NBA almost always means playoff games. If Dallas and SA, for example, see each other in the post-season a lot and take turns knocking each other out, they'll see themselves as rivals. If they merely play a lot without that playoff history, they won't be any more than they are with New Orleans. I for one definitely consider LAL to be a bigger rival than Dallas, though Dirk helped. I hated Houston when Harden was there but liked them quite a bit before and after. I'm a Spurs fan, but I have no beef with the Rockets nowadays. I don't particularly hate the Suns, but I know Spurs fans who got into the NBA a bit before me certainly habor animosity, like LJ showed a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I'd find division rivalries in that new grouping to be way more intense. I'd also find it easier to root for other Texas teams if they weren't competing with the Spurs for a playoff spot. That's subjective though.


ive said already in this thread that i strongly believe they should get rid of some out of conference games and add more divisional games, in order to make divisions more meaningful. i believe that would be a much better route in order to create more rivalries and interest in the regular season, as opposed to keeping mexican heavy cities in the same division.

It's not an either/or thing. Expansion will necessitate realignment, and a four-by-eight grouping makes the most sense in my mind. So someone (and I'd argue a lot of someones) is going to have their divisions broken up. That's inevitable. Whether it's SA that leaves or Memphis, NO or anyone else, they will have to deal with a new division. Playing more games in their division will help create/strengthen/reestablish rivalries. Playing LAL, LAC and PHX six times a year would definitely create contempt, though as mentioned, I think plenty already exists. Or maybe SA gets PHX, DEN and LV. The Suns become the obvious main rival while everyone is freaking about stopping Jokic. Meanwhile an expansion team is driving ratings. The question is how would the NBA promote it, and I don't think you've given a good answer against what I've been saying. The league doesn't need divisions or conferences for rivalries. Proximity and familiarity can breed them, but superstars and playoff series will create them too. Except for a desire for Texas to be left untouched, I haven't heard a single reason why realigning based on marketing culture isn't just the NBA having its cake and eating it too.

[exstatic]

STL never had an NBA team. They had an ABA team. Also, I'm not against Cinci or KC having teams. Smaller cities can have teams if they can support them. It's okay.

Anyway, why does it matter if there are different time zones? The Spurs often play all three of those teams four times a season right now. It won't be any different. This is ignoring that the current Northwest division currently does the same thing with Minny and OKC being CST, Denver and Utah being MST and Portland being PST.

StL Hawks. Won a Chip in the 50s. Traded the draft rights to Bill Russell to Boston for Cliff Hagan, who led them to that one Chip. Moved to Atlanta.

[Neo.]

Understood that you meant something different. I understand what you're saying now.

You don't lose Boston/LAL rivalries by changing divisions. For the most part rivalries come from important games, which in the NBA almost always means playoff games. If Dallas and SA, for example, see each other in the post-season a lot and take turns knocking each other out, they'll see themselves as rivals. If they merely play a lot without that playoff history, they won't be any more than they are with New Orleans. I for one definitely consider LAL to be a bigger rival than Dallas, though Dirk helped. I hated Houston when Harden was there but liked them quite a bit before and after. I'm a Spurs fan, but I have no beef with the Rockets nowadays. I don't particularly hate the Suns, but I know Spurs fans who got into the NBA a bit before me certainly habor animosity, like LJ showed a couple of weeks ago. Personally, I'd find division rivalries in that new grouping to be way more intense. I'd also find it easier to root for other Texas teams if they weren't competing with the Spurs for a playoff spot. That's subjective though.



It's not an either/or thing. Expansion will necessitate realignment, and a four-by-eight grouping makes the most sense in my mind. So someone (and I'd argue a lot of someones) is going to have their divisions broken up. That's inevitable. Whether it's SA that leaves or Memphis, NO or anyone else, they will have to deal with a new division. Playing more games in their division will help create/strengthen/reestablish rivalries. Playing LAL, LAC and PHX six times a year would definitely create contempt, though as mentioned, I think plenty already exists. Or maybe SA gets PHX, DEN and LV. The Suns become the obvious main rival while everyone is freaking about stopping Jokic. Meanwhile an expansion team is driving ratings. The question is how would the NBA promote it, and I don't think you've given a good answer against what I've been saying. The league doesn't need divisions or conferences for rivalries. Proximity and familiarity can breed them, but superstars and playoff series will create them too. Except for a desire for Texas to be left untouched, I haven't heard a single reason why realigning based on marketing culture isn't just the NBA having its cake and eating it too.

"let's take away games from already established historic rivalries to keeps people of similar culture together!!!!!"

great idea :td

[Chinook]

"let's take away games from already established historic rivalries to keeps people of similar culture together!!!!!"

great idea :td

Dallas isn't any more an established rivalry than LAL is. I don't know why you keep insisting that Texas teams have an intense intrastate beef that can't compare to other teams.

If the NBA expands, divisions will almost certainly change. That's just a fact. No amount of thumbs-downing will change that. YOU don't want it to be Texas, but it will be someone, and that fan base may not want it to happen. That you believe New Orleans or Memphis cares less about staying in the Southwest just because they're in another state shows you have no interest in even considering this beyond just what you personally want.

Also, for like the umpteenth time, LAL and Boston are still rivals despite not being in the same division. If SA and Dallas dislike each other so much, they'll still be rivals even if they're in a different division. It'll basically be like LAL and SA is now, and LAL and SA will be like SA and DAL is now. But the change is inevitable for someone.

[spurs1990]

If the Spurs do move up I-35 any chance they keep the San Antonio name. Austin’s NBA fandom has been majority Spurs since at least the early 90s from my personal knowledge so I think they’d be open on retaining the city name.

The name Austin Spurs just doesn’t sound right in any way

[ducks]

Talent is not their for 2 more teams
Max players run together and join teams now

[Seventyniner]

My shot at an 8-division realignment, based mostly on geographical proximity.

WEST
Northwest: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State
Southwest: LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Las Vegas, Phoenix
Central: Denver, Utah, Oklahoma City, Dallas
South: San Antonio, Houston, Memphis, New Orleans

EAST
Midwest: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana, Chicago
Mideast: Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Washington
Northeast: Philadelphia, New York, Brooklyn, Boston
Southeast: Orlando, Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte

I think either Dallas to Salt Lake City or San Francisco to Seattle would be the longest in-division plane trip.

[Ice009]

Awk, but probably still worthy of discussion. I think expansion is a great idea, though I don't like how Seattle couldn't keep a team but has been shoving to the front of the line. It would be nice to see the NBA in places like Louisville or St Louis first. Still, you can't deny the NBA's imprint of Seattle, and Vegas would mean a new state. I don't think this rumor has legs, but the idea might end up being right despite that.

I'm not a person who thinks the NBA is watered down. I think the league can easily make rules to increase parity if they wanted to. There are more than 544 NBA-caliber players in the world. Just do what you need to to bring more of them here.

I'm not in the US so I don't know the geography too well, but I'd like to see teams in areas that don't have an NBA franchise close by, that is, as long as that area has a lot of NBA fans that will keep the market going there. St. Louis sounds good. I'll have to lookup on a map what cities are near them.

Speaking of St. Louis, I was a pretty big fan of them back in the very late 90's/early 2000s. I haven't followed NFL closely since then. Just sort of check the scores and only usually get to watch playoff games these days. Can anyone tell me why did they move the team to LA (I'll look it up myself when I have time)? Were the fans upset? Wasn't St. Louis a big enough market? I remember the fans there being great when I used to watch them on a regular basis. Not sure how they were when they started losing after Mike Martz screwed everything up with his egomaniac coaching and running of the team.

[JPB]

Expansion would be good. I can't remember any time where the NBA had as much talent as it currently does, honestly.

The 80s and 90s were stacked with talent and superstars. Evrey team had one or two legendary players and a bunch of great role players.

Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Shawn Kemp, Ewing, and on and on... That was without comparison with now IMHO and that was the moment when the NBA really started to boom.

[KingKev]

Franchises that flat out fail rarely get a second chance. I don't put Seattle in that category.

Maybe, but I don’t think you understand the difference in Vancouver the last 20 years. Vancouver is a top tier World city now with baffling foreign wealth (especially asian). Basketball has grown exponentially in Canada from the early days of the Vancouver/TO expansion. They have the infrastructure in place to host a team immediately in terms of arena, parking, public transit etc etc.

[KingKev]

The 80s and 90s were stacked with talent and superstars. Evrey team had one or two legendary players and a bunch of great role players.

Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Shawn Kemp, Ewing, and on and on... That was without comparison with now IMHO and that was the moment when the NBA really started to boom.

The NBA started to boom because they were strategic in building international sport. Many of those guys paved the way but that era WAS NOT booming with talent. These days most good teams are 3-4 All-Stars deep. Not us though.

[Maddog]

Expansion would be good. I can't remember any time where the NBA had as much talent as it currently does, honestly.


The 80s and 90s were stacked with talent and superstars. Evrey team had one or two legendary players and a bunch of great role players.

Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Shawn Kemp, Ewing, and on and on... That was without comparison with now IMHO and that was the moment when the NBA really started to boom.

It was the moment that the NBA started to Boom and led to the current state of talent.
Superstars are superstars because they stand out from their peers. As the overall talent levels rise people standout less.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

if the spurs ended up in a LA-LA-PHX division i'd commit seppuku

[Chinook]

if the spurs ended up in a LA-LA-PHX division i'd commit seppuku

Well they say Roe is dead anyway...

[lefty]

Expansion would be good. I can't remember any time where the NBA had as much talent as it currently does, honestly.
Yup
Unlike in the 90s when talent was scarce resulting in a diluted league and traffic cones and grocery baggers (hello John Starks) starting in the NBA :lol

[MannyIsGod]

It was the moment that the NBA started to Boom and led to the current state of talent.
Superstars are superstars because they stand out from their peers. As the overall talent levels rise people standout less.

Yeah exactly. I think right now the league is MUCH deeper than it was then.

[Seventyniner]

Another way to boost revenue without overtaxing the players is to add more games but restrict each player to appearing in 82 or fewer regular season games.

I always thought the league could reduce wear and tear on the stars by keeping the 82-game season and not allowing any player to appear in more than 66 games, but expanding the schedule to, say, 100 games and not allowing a player to appear in more than 82 is even better for the league.

Tons of purists would hate it, sure, and the league would have to expand rosters to 18 or 19 to make up for this restriction. But I think it would provide a big bump to overall league revenue and profits.

[Chinook]

Another way to boost revenue without overtaxing the players is to add more games but restrict each player to appearing in 82 or fewer regular season games.

I always thought the league could reduce wear and tear on the stars by keeping the 82-game season and not allowing any player to appear in more than 66 games, but expanding the schedule to, say, 100 games and not allowing a player to appear in more than 82 is even better for the league.

Tons of purists would hate it, sure, and the league would have to expand rosters to 18 or 19 to make up for this restriction. But I think it would provide a big bump to overall league revenue and profits.

I'm not sure adding games -- especially games where stars don't play -- is really what the league should want for revenue. Rather, they need to find a way to charge more per game, or put another way, they need to find a way to add more high-quality/high-value games. That's why the league is pushing for the play-in to stay and why Silver wants an in-season tournament. If it's not exclusive it's basically exclusive that the NBA licenses all of their games to three companies now (Disney, AT&T and Comcast). They don't really have the smaller networks to bully into team contracts. They'll need to get the giants to pay, and simply more low-quality games that they can't show nationally anyway probably won't do that. Big events will be the things that get them to spend more on their media deals.

Considering the rise of injuries during the big-ticket events like guys sitting out ASGs and missing the playoffs, I don't think the NBPA needs to sell the owners on more games being a bad idea. More rest, with more stars playing each night and more spectacle seems to be the way to go for both sides. I don't think the owners will let games reduce with the assurance that they'll make more money in the long run, but unlike the NFL, it's very possible to make all of the ends (medical, financial, marketing, etc) meet in the NBA.

[spurs1990]

The 80s and 90s were stacked with talent and superstars. Evrey team had one or two legendary players and a bunch of great role players.

Jordan, Pippen, Magic, Bird, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Shawn Kemp, Ewing, and on and on... That was without comparison with now IMHO and that was the moment when the NBA really started to boom.

Just sticking with 1991-1995 (pre Canada expansion) you had all those guys plus an influx of young talent - DC, Payton, Mutumbo, Steve Smith, Grandmama, Kenny Anderson, Terell Brandon, Shaq, Mourning, Sprewell, Jim Jackson, Kukoc, Webber, Van Exel, Nickel Hardaway, Vin Baker, Mashburn, Rider, Kidd, Big Dog, Grant Hill, Eddie Jones, and a host of others who had high trajectories but for injured.

Early 90s NBA was entertaining, competitive, and as athletic as anything you have today. Everyone could throw down alley oops, tomahawks, crossovers, and shoot from anywhere other than behind the 3pt. The era will be forgotten as there was no real coverage in the regular season outside one night on TNT and Sunday NBC games after football ended.