Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 61
  1. #26
    Wolf Ruvinskis tonight...you's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    5,329
    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.

  2. #27
    生麦生米生ハメ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    87,180
    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.

  3. #28
    Veteran Maddog's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    1,580
    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

  4. #29
    Believe. paperboy77's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    1,383


    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.

  5. #30
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,328
    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.

  6. #31
    Wolf Ruvinskis tonight...you's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    5,329
    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?

  7. #32
    Don't stop believin' Dex's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    25,190
    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 ( , ESPN runs the spreads and stuff now)

  8. #33
    Don't stop believin' Dex's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    25,190
    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.

  9. #34
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    5,660
    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.

  10. #35
    Wolf Ruvinskis tonight...you's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    5,329
    No way the NBA passes on the chance to put a team in Vegas, especially with gambling on games suddenly being acceptable ( , 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.

  11. #36
    Veteran RC_Drunkford's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    8,865
    Maybe DJ, Lavine and Banchero can team up in Seattle

  12. #37
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,328
    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.
    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.

  13. #38
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,141
    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.
    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 compe ive rivalries. especially if doing so means breaking up already existing rivalries

  14. #39
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,328
    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 compe ive 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 ans 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.

  15. #40
    Veteran spurs1990's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    3,716
    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.

  16. #41
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,141
    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 ans 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.

  17. #42
    Veteran KobesAchilles's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Post Count
    2,741
    Well at least the Spurs are moving to Austin. No more Seattle or Vegas bs.

  18. #43
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,328
    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.

  19. #44
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    34,942
    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.

  20. #45
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,141
    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

  21. #46
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,328
    "let's take away games from already established historic rivalries to keeps people of similar culture together!!!!!"

    great idea
    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.

  22. #47
    Veteran spurs1990's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Post Count
    3,716
    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

  23. #48
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    70,136
    Talent is not their for 2 more teams
    Max players run together and join teams now

  24. #49
    Every game is game 1 Seventyniner's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Post Count
    8,474
    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.
    Last edited by Seventyniner; 4 Weeks Ago at 12:00 AM.

  25. #50
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    16,351
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •