Expansion possible? Seattle group willing to privately finance new arena

[guava_wrench]

Move Memphis east instead of Minn.

Just ditch East and West and make four 8-team conferences. Play 2 times with out-of-conference teams and 6 times with in-conference teams for a total of 90 games.

What is the point of ditching divisions for conferences? Shouldn't you at least mention what the point is of that? Why not 2 conferences with 2 divisions each if you want 4 groupings? There is no reason why # of games has to be the same for all in conference or all out of conference.

And would the all-star game be round robin now between the 4 conference teams? Or would there be 2 rounds of all start games? Or would we just alternate which cycle through all star conference match-ups every 3 years?

[wdleehi]

I am against expansion of the league.   It seems there are not enough stars at the moment for the teams now.  How does adding more teams without stars better the game we watch?

[Moranis]

Move Memphis east instead of Minn.

Just ditch East and West and make four 8-team conferences. Play 2 times with out-of-conference teams and 6 times with in-conference teams for a total of 90 games.

I like the idea of four 8-team conferences. It makes a lot more sense. I'd ease up on the number of games though. I understand it's unlikely to happen but it'd improve the quality on the floor imo. 2 times against out of conference teams and 4 against conference teams = 76 games. You drop 6 games in the calendar which could give a longer All-Star break or an extended training camp.

Assuming Seattle and St Louis the conferences could be:
West: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, Utah, LAC, LAL and Suns
Mid-West: Denver, OKC, Dallas, Memphis, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta
North: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Cleveland, Indiana, St Louis
East: Boston, New York, Brooklyn, Philly, Washington, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami

You can flex it around and put the Southern teams together and then a central division from Denver to Chicago too

I thought about this, but I'm very skeptical than any rearrangement that will decrease the number of games will happen.

I'm just skeptical that the players union would get warm & fuzzy and embrace 8 additional games i.e)  another half month of regular season games unless the owners were will to concede a couple of points to them.  From a calendar standpoint, the season is already long enough as it is before factoring in any postseason play.  Now you're going to add in more travel and a couple of more back to backs. 

Then you have the matter of these guys signing contracts contingent on an 82 game schedule.  You add more games and these guys are gonna want to be adequately compensated for the adjustment one way or another.

It isn't necessary either even with 2 extra teams

Just do 8 4 team divisions - play 3 teams 5 times (15 games), 12 teams 3 times (36 games), 16 teams twice (32 games) - that is 83 games so just 1 extra game.  Just rotate the home and away from the division/conference opponents every year and it will even out in the end, but if you really want an even number you just alter the division opponents 1 game (either add 1 for 86 games or subtract one for 80 games)

Or you just do 4 8 team divisions - play 7 teams 4 times (28), 8 teams 3 times (24), 16 teams 2 times (32) for an 84 game schedule (so add two games)

[Birdman]

Word here in Kentucky is that Louisville will get one..built a new arena ( the yum center)...

[guava_wrench]

Move Memphis east instead of Minn.

Just ditch East and West and make four 8-team conferences. Play 2 times with out-of-conference teams and 6 times with in-conference teams for a total of 90 games.

I like the idea of four 8-team conferences. It makes a lot more sense. I'd ease up on the number of games though. I understand it's unlikely to happen but it'd improve the quality on the floor imo. 2 times against out of conference teams and 4 against conference teams = 76 games. You drop 6 games in the calendar which could give a longer All-Star break or an extended training camp.

Assuming Seattle and St Louis the conferences could be:
West: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State, Utah, LAC, LAL and Suns
Mid-West: Denver, OKC, Dallas, Memphis, San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta
North: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Cleveland, Indiana, St Louis
East: Boston, New York, Brooklyn, Philly, Washington, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami

You can flex it around and put the Southern teams together and then a central division from Denver to Chicago too

I thought about this, but I'm very skeptical than any rearrangement that will decrease the number of games will happen.

I'm just skeptical that the players union would get warm & fuzzy and embrace 8 additional games i.e)  another half month of regular season games unless the owners were will to concede a couple of points to them.  From a calendar standpoint, the season is already long enough as it is before factoring in any postseason play.  Now you're going to add in more travel and a couple of more back to backs. 

Then you have the matter of these guys signing contracts contingent on an 82 game schedule.  You add more games and these guys are gonna want to be adequately compensated for the adjustment one way or another.

It isn't necessary either even with 2 extra teams

Just do 8 4 team divisions - play 3 teams 5 times (15 games), 12 teams 3 times (36 games), 16 teams twice (32 games) - that is 83 games so just 1 extra game.  Just rotate the home and away from the division/conference opponents every year and it will even out in the end, but if you really want an even number you just alter the division opponents 1 game (either add 1 for 86 games or subtract one for 80 games)

Or you just do 4 8 team divisions - play 7 teams 4 times (28), 8 teams 3 times (24), 16 teams 2 times (32) for an 84 game schedule (so add two games)

I don't know why people think games need to be even. That doesn't matter at all. What would actually matter is an imbalance in home and away games.

Other conference will remain 2 games. In division could be either 4-6 per. In conference, out of division would be whatever is left divided up.

[guava_wrench]

I am against expansion of the league.   It seems there are not enough stars at the moment for the teams now.  How does adding more teams without stars better the game we watch?

If you are concerned with that, we will need to contract to like 10 teams because being a 'star' is a relative term and will always only refer to the top outlier talents.

What is funny is that even in that 10 team league, a team or two will be horrible despite having a top 20 talent and you can still complain about diluted talent.

[tankcity!]

If anything, I think there teams should be contracted. Would be nice to have deep teams around the league. Lebron has mentioned this as well a couple of years ago. We need less teams and better rosters.

[guava_wrench]

If anything, I think there teams should be contracted. Would be nice to have deep teams around the league. Lebron has mentioned this as well a couple of years ago. We need less teams and better rosters.

Yeah. The Celtics should be contracted because we lack a top 15 player. I chose 15 because there are 15 players on all-NBA teams. And we should keep Sacramento, because they do have a top 15 players.

Unless you have a single team league, you are going to have teams that are overmatched every season. Expansion is not the problem. The only real problem expansion introduces is potentially adding markets that don't merit a team and owners who can't afford to compete.

[tankcity!]

If anything, I think there teams should be contracted. Would be nice to have deep teams around the league. Lebron has mentioned this as well a couple of years ago. We need less teams and better rosters.

Yeah. The Celtics should be contracted because we lack a top 15 player. I chose 15 because there are 15 players on all-NBA teams. And we should keep Sacramento, because they do have a top 15 players.

Unless you have a single team league, you are going to have teams that are overmatched every season. Expansion is not the problem. The only real problem expansion introduces is potentially adding markets that don't merit a team and owners who can't afford to compete.

What are you talking about? I love when people put words in my mouth. You would keep big market teams and get rid of small market teams. For example, if the Thunder have to continuously be under the cap, which frustrated Durant, then they shouldn't have a basketball team. Charlotte shouldn't have a team. Neither should the Kings. Get rid of the teams and have draft to deepen the league. Duh.

[GreenEnvy]

If anything, I think there teams should be contracted. Would be nice to have deep teams around the league. Lebron has mentioned this as well a couple of years ago. We need less teams and better rosters.

Yeah. The Celtics should be contracted because we lack a top 15 player. I chose 15 because there are 15 players on all-NBA teams. And we should keep Sacramento, because they do have a top 15 players.

Unless you have a single team league, you are going to have teams that are overmatched every season. Expansion is not the problem. The only real problem expansion introduces is potentially adding markets that don't merit a team and owners who can't afford to compete.

What are you talking about? I love when people put words in my mouth. You would keep big market teams and get rid of small market teams. For example, if the Thunder have to continuously be under the cap, which frustrated Durant, then they shouldn't have a basketball team. Charlotte shouldn't have a team. Neither should the Kings. Get rid of the teams and have draft to deepen the league. Duh.

But wouldn't that fall on the owners, not the cities? If fans keep showing up and attendance is good, should they lose their team? Want to set a limit of consecutive lottery trips before relocating/contracting?

This is a business, and as long as teams are making money, they should stay in that city. If a fan base is selling out games year after year despite a bad team, they deserve a new owner, not losing their home team.

There is no clear cut answer to solve competitive balance. Cut down to 20 teams and you will still have your 5 great ones, 10 mediocre ones, and 5 terrible ones.

[PhoSita]

I am against expansion of the league.   It seems there are not enough stars at the moment for the teams now.  How does adding more teams without stars better the game we watch?

The way I look at it is, league expansion won't make competitive balance any worse.  The league is already horribly top heavy.  So why not give more cities NBA basketball?

What we need is some non-Finals accomplishments that can mean something to all the teams with no hope of winning a title.  Bill Simmons was championing a mid-season tournament at one point in time.  I like that idea.

[guava_wrench]

If anything, I think there teams should be contracted. Would be nice to have deep teams around the league. Lebron has mentioned this as well a couple of years ago. We need less teams and better rosters.

Yeah. The Celtics should be contracted because we lack a top 15 player. I chose 15 because there are 15 players on all-NBA teams. And we should keep Sacramento, because they do have a top 15 players.

Unless you have a single team league, you are going to have teams that are overmatched every season. Expansion is not the problem. The only real problem expansion introduces is potentially adding markets that don't merit a team and owners who can't afford to compete.

What are you talking about? I love when people put words in my mouth. You would keep big market teams and get rid of small market teams. For example, if the Thunder have to continuously be under the cap, which frustrated Durant, then they shouldn't have a basketball team. Charlotte shouldn't have a team. Neither should the Kings. Get rid of the teams and have draft to deepen the league. Duh.

You missed my point. My point was to show that teams who get the superstars can be non-competitive and hard to watch. On the other hand, teams without superstars can be competitive.

An considering how we enter season with most people considering only 3-5 teams having a chance to win it all, why would you think it would be any different with 16 teams? You are still going to have an uneven distribution of talent. Especially when a ton of talent leaves for foreign leagues due to the decreases revenue and salaries in the US.

Look back at NBA history. Look at all the horrible teams back when the league only had like 10.

[guava_wrench]

For those who want to contract small market teams -- yeah, makes a lot of sense to get rid of San Antonio. And if OKC manages their cap and keeps winning, they should be contracted while Philly can dump salary in one of the largest markets.

[Timdawgg]

Timely...I live in Vegas and this made the news here today...Not necessarily expansion but relocation...

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/33489648/mgm-exec-reportedly-pursuing-nba-team-for-las-vegas

[Eja117]

If I'm the mayor of a city I'm not letting my city be used as leverage against another city.