pehawk wrote:Well, I think it's both. I believe the original intent leans my way.
Throwdown wrote:Well, Silver is thought of in circles to be a guy who's more for the big time cities as opposed to Stern who was down for the small markets they could bend over.
Throwdown wrote:I don't know if it'll be relocation or expansion, I do believe we will have a team in the next 2 years though.
Milwaukee isn't as easy as people are trying to make it seem, 6 year lease, owner is pretty adamant about not wanting the team to go to an out of towner. Charlotte is about to change their name back to the Hornets, they have a world class arena already, it might just be a case of the Bobcats brand not catching on.
Who else is there? We aren't getting the Pacers, and they aren't going to move a team from Atlanta to Seattle, Memphis just got a new owner who seems committed to to staying there, Minnesota already said no, I'm running out of teams that would be even remotely possible.
pehawk wrote:You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.
C'mon, sugartits, keep up!
Smelly McUgly wrote:pehawk wrote:You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.
C'mon, sugartits, keep up!
The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.
Go home, you're drunk.
Hawkfan77 wrote:Smelly McUgly wrote:pehawk wrote:You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.
C'mon, sugartits, keep up!
The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.
Go home, you're drunk.
Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game...
Hawkfan77 wrote:Smelly McUgly wrote:pehawk wrote:You're splitting hairs, they also have the Packers.
C'mon, sugartits, keep up!
The Packers? A team two hours away from Milwaukee? This post of yours was somehow more terrible than the last.
Go home, you're drunk.
Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game...
pehawk wrote:Wow, did you REALLY just compare Wisonsin and California? Really?
Okay then...
pehawk wrote:Cali being what, the 8th biggest economy in the world, makes it pretty much dissimilar.
Hawk Strap wrote:Nope
Smelly McUgly wrote:Hawkfan77 wrote:Wow 2 hours?? No one would ever drive that far to see an NFL game...
In that case, let's just adopt the Blazers, a team only a bit farther away from Seattle, as our NBA team! Sarcasm also off and such.
pehawk wrote:
Hmm, I didn't know that. I'll let the rest of Wisconsin know they aren't Packers fans.
Should we tell Tacoma they're out of the Seahawks fan club?
pinksheets wrote:I don't quite agree with your take, pe. It's not that the NBA wants small markets because they are one horse towns. They want small markets that are one horse towns (because they're small markets) because those are the cities they can most hold hostage in exchange for huge public funds. You want to lose your only sports team? You want us to scar your civic pride a bit and head to a "real" city? Oh, we'll do it, bitches.
It's a horrible business model that I think is unsustainable. It's parasitic, which means moving from city to city, sucking up public money until they're sick of it, then moving onto the next. Eventually you'll run out of reasonable targets or they'll be enough cities say "hell no" that the NBA is going to lose a huge source of cash influx and foundation building (through gifting arenas). They'll have shaky reputations in big markets who make sense simply because of the money and audience in the market, and be stuck in the small towns that don't have the advertising revenues, the spending power, or local economics that can push money into their league through traditional, stable means.
Throwdown wrote:I don't know if it'll be relocation or expansion, I do believe we will have a team in the next 2 years though.
Milwaukee isn't as easy as people are trying to make it seem, 6 year lease, owner is pretty adamant about not wanting the team to go to an out of towner. Charlotte is about to change their name back to the Hornets, they have a world class arena already, it might just be a case of the Bobcats brand not catching on.
Who else is there? We aren't getting the Pacers, and they aren't going to move a team from Atlanta to Seattle, Memphis just got a new owner who seems committed to to staying there, Minnesota already said no, I'm running out of teams that would be even remotely possible.
Lords of Scythia wrote:re: the PP debate - even if there's fifty teams in a market, if it's a huge market like LA there's the POTENTIAL revenue stream
pehawk wrote:"the PP debate"? Really? That's hurtful.
That's MR PP, to you.
pinksheets wrote:I think if they thought that was the case they'd be going that route. They probably have a better idea of what's going on than us. I'd have backed going nuclear, but I also just trust that they're moving int he right direction.
sc85sis wrote:Just throwing this out here, so take it for what it's worth. If the NBA does expand, don't they have to do at least two teams keep the conferences even?
But you'd have to add two teams, meaning more dilution and potentially a weak East Coast market to keep things even.
A. Dilution is not a serious concern. See above.
B. The league absolutely does not have to expand by two teams. The NBA has regularly had spans with an odd number of teams, including from 1970-74 (17 teams) and from 1980 (when expansion to Dallas brought the league to 23 teams) through 2004 (when the Bobcats made it 30). During that span, the league added teams in twos and fours when adding them as single teams or in threes would have given the NBA conference balance. Guess what: the NBA traditionally hasn't cared too deeply about conference balance!
So it's totally reasonable to believe that the NBA could expand only to Seattle, giving the West 16 teams, and likely giving the Northwest Division a sixth team.
Hawk Finn wrote:Actually, I wouldn't mind St Louis. But give me Syracuse over Seattle, without question.
It is currently Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:01 pm