Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've long said the NBA screwed up when they allowed the Supersonics to move to Oklahoma City. (On the other hand, I'm glad the Kings, who generally in their history have received strong support in California's capital city, stayed in Sacramento and didn't move to Seattle.) What the league should have done but wasn't going to do for PR purposes is to have allowed the New Orleans Hornets to stay in Oklahoma City. New Orleans was and is a marginal-sized sports market for two major league teams, even before Hurricane Katrina.
I've long said the NBA screwed up when they allowed the Supersonics to move to Oklahoma City. (On the other hand, I'm glad the Kings, who generally in their history have received strong support in California's capital city, stayed in Sacramento and didn't move to Seattle.) What the league should have done but wasn't going to do for PR purposes is to have allowed the New Orleans Hornets to stay in Oklahoma City. New Orleans was and is a marginal-sized sports market for two major league teams, even before Hurricane Katrina.
Having the New Orleans franchise relocate to Oklakoma City would have made a lot more sense than moving
the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. For some strange reason, David Stern felt obligated to keep the Hornets in New Orleans at any cost even though it didn't make much sense from a business standpoint. When you look at the team's attendance over the years, it's not that good and is usually near the bottom.
By that logic, lets just cut it down to the Lakers and Celtics, that way their rosters are always the best 30 players and we get to see them every game.
Diluted the talent? The Hornets might not be good in the face of last year's Heat... but they are still a pro-level club that would squash college level players. The markets should decide who gets a team, if a market has enough basketball fans, they should have a team... which would mean like doubling the teams.
This is like the NFL, adding what 2-3 teams in the last 30 years... their are PLENTY of cities that could support a pro level team, but they don't get to because the league is exclusionary
The teams I've mentioned, aside from the newer ones like New Orelans (small sample size), have been irrelevant for years, some for decades, because they're unable to retain and/or attract top talent. The result of the talent drain has been a glass ceiling of sorts semi-permanently erected over those teams' fates unless or until they fortuitously get rich quick through the draft (like OKC).
"Pro-level club" is hardly the status mid-tier teams like the Pelicans are fighting for. The problem is the smaller markets of which you speak are loathe to absorb the tax penalties that generally accompany talent-rich rosters, and as such they exist as de-facto minor league teams which function to feed talent into larger markets/more prominent teams or cities once star players become free agents and the costs of retaining them (including adding talent around them) become too high. For example, despite OKC's success we've already seen them lose a superstar for nothing to Houston, and New Orleans has lost Chris Paul. Cleveland lost LBJ, Toronto Chris Bosh, and I doubt Irving will stay in Cleveland past the end of his current, recently extended contract. In the end, it's always the smaller markets getting the short end of the stick, irrespective of fan bases. The result is poor play and predictable champions. Have you seen the eastern conference in recent years?
The teams I've mentioned, aside from the newer ones like New Orelans (small sample size), have been irrelevant for years, some for decades, because they're unable to retain and/or attract top talent. The result of the talent drain has been a glass ceiling of sorts semi-permanently erected over those teams' fates unless or until they fortuitously get rich quick through the draft (like OKC).
"Pro-level club" is hardly the status mid-tier teams like the Pelicans are fighting for. The problem is the smaller markets of which you speak are loathe to absorb the tax penalties that generally accompany talent-rich rosters, and as such they exist as de-facto minor league teams which function to feed talent into larger markets/more prominent teams or cities once star players become free agents and the costs of retaining them (including adding talent around them) become too high. For example, despite OKC's success we've already seen them lose a superstar for nothing to Houston, and New Orleans has lost Chris Paul. Cleveland lost LBJ, Toronto Chris Bosh, and I doubt Irving will stay in Cleveland past the end of his current, recently extended contract. In the end, it's always the smaller markets getting the short end of the stick, irrespective of fan bases. The result is poor play and predictable champions. Have you seen the eastern conference in recent years?
We agree on the result and COMPLETELY disagree on the cause.
No team should be subsidized by tax payers, AT ALL. That is step one to fixing the problem. Bigger markets should NOT be able to pass their costs onto the tax payer so that they can buy championships.
It would be Seattle or Vancouver – of cities not listed Richmond, Virginia or even Alburquerque, New Mexico (the most likely state without a major league franchise to get one). San Juan in Puerto Rico would certainly be financially and culturally a reasonable fit for the NBA, but would logistically be difficult.
If other planned relocations, such as that of the San Diego Chargers back to their original home in Los Angeles, took place then one could have more additions. When David Berri did his study ‘Could Your City Give a Sports Team a Good Home’ (which I will admit is flawed fatally with the NHL as it does not consider living costs, culture or territorial issues, but more useful with the more telegenic NFL and NBA), I’ve always noted San Diego as one of the rare markets with the precise number of teams fittings its personal income (“saturatedâ€). If the Chargers did move back to Los Angeles, it is not tough for me to imagine that there would be interest in re-establishing the NBA in San Diego.
Having the New Orleans franchise relocate to Oklakoma City would have made a lot more sense than moving
the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. For some strange reason, David Stern felt obligated to keep the Hornets in New Orleans at any cost even though it didn't make much sense from a business standpoint. When you look at the team's attendance over the years, it's not that good and is usually near the bottom.
A consistent winning franchise will cause ANY any market no matter the size to have consistent good attendance (along with a superstar or two). I'm a Pelicans fan and when that team produces a consistent winner meaning making the playoffs on a regular basis then the attendance will rise. I remember when they had back to back playoffs appearances when Chris Paul was here the attendance was middle of the pack. Now they're at the bottom I wwonder why?
A consistent winning franchise will cause ANY any market no matter the size to have consistent good attendance (along with a superstar or two). I'm a Pelicans fan and when that team produces a consistent winner meaning making the playoffs on a regular basis then the attendance will rise. I remember when they had back to back playoffs appearances when Chris Paul was here the attendance was middle of the pack. Now they're at the bottom I wonder why?
Even with great attendance, the Pelicans will never have the popularity that the Saints have. They will always be the #2 team in New Orleans. Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.
Having the New Orleans franchise relocate to Oklakoma City would have made a lot more sense than moving
the Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. For some strange reason, David Stern felt obligated to keep the Hornets in New Orleans at any cost even though it didn't make much sense from a business standpoint.
...it's New Orleans.
Look, Seattle is also one of the GREAT American Cities, but it doesn't have the party everyday, "Big Easy", host every big time event atmosphere that New Orleans has. Maybe that was in mind and I think that's why Stern found it a little easier to let New Orleans keep their team while taking Seattle's team away.
Even if it did make more sense to move the (then) Hornets to OKC, even when they had the team for a little while, it just didn't happen.
Even with great attendance, the Pelicans will never have the popularity that the Saints have. They will always be the #2 team in New Orleans. Nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.
I actually wouldn't mind seeing Vancouver get an NBA franchise again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
