Clippers owner might be forced to sell the team (Seattle: house, buyer)

[pw72]

Well stated, but Seattle still deserves a team compared to many lesser markets in the country. As I said above, it is likely not going to be the Clippers, but at some point, some team or some move by the NBA will bring back the league to Seattle. Whether it is 2016, 2018, or 2020 or beyond, it WILL happen. Basic understanding of financing will bring this into focus.

[PrincessoftheCape]

Originally Posted by GoBlueInSeattle

Seriously? That is just silly. If you want to move the goalposts, we can all play that game.

I'm not moving the goalposts. This is the same TV market (minus Oregon) that both the Seahawks and Mariners claim exclusivity in. Not to mention the fact that it was a gross oversimplification on your part in the first place to count every person living in L.A. as a 'fan' of the Clippers. Try 1/5th at best, with the vast majority favoring the Lakers.

First off, nobody is drooling over the opportunity to reach out to the Idaho or
Montana or Alaskan markets - there's no money there - and which are all just
mostly empty space.

Yeah, screw those conservative dollars. It's not real money. Might as well close all the Walmarts and shut down all cable service in those areas, too, while we're at it.

More importantly, if you want to spread the "how far can I draw my media market
radius before I look like a doof" exercise,

First of all, you're a jerk. If you want to go name-calling I can partake as well as the next girl. Second, as stated, Seattle's other teams claim exclusivity in the portions of the PNW I mentioned up above. I have no idea what the Clippers' broadcast radius is in S. California, nor what their media deals are in terms of competing games (who sees the Lakers or the Clippers when both are on?). However, I'd bet good money that the division of fans in San Diego dramatically favor the Lakers simply because morons back a winner, and most people are morons.

Nobody in Idaho or Alaska considers themselves "Cascadians."

So? They still largely pull for the nearest sports teams. Here's an interactive map for Baseball that demonstrates the point. How is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of regional teams?

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by PrincessoftheCape

Yeah, screw those conservative dollars. It's not real money. Might as well close all the Walmarts and shut down all cable service in those areas, too, while we're at it.

It's not that those areas are conservative it's that the combined population of Alaska, Idaho and Montana is less than the combined population of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Also that the highest population area of any of those states--Boise and Southern Idaho-already has a stronger fanbase for the Utah Jazz that goes back years now.

This map is old, but it goes back to when the Sonics existed in Seattle:

CommonCensus Sports Map

The fanbase for the Mariners covers a much larger territory because they basically have all of Oregon as well and don't have a competing team until one gets to Denver or the Bay Area.

[dispo4]

Originally Posted by DevanXL

BS, Seattle is one of the most profitable cities in sports between merchandise sales, and the fandom that exists in this region. Yes LA is 18 million people but clippers still have one of the smallest fanbases in the NBA. They were one on true worst franchises in pro sports. The TV revenue is only thing keeping the team profitable with half empty staples center for years. Seattle gives the franchise a new following in an area of the country that is rejecting the NBA. Clippers fanbase is a fraction of the Lakers, heck on Bleacher report the clippers have less registered fans then the now defunct sonics. Say LA is more profitable is false. If LA was such a profitable sports town the NFL would be licking at the chops to get a team there. LA is full of fair weather fans besides the Lakers fanbase. Once the clips start losing again they will be the ugly step sister of LA once again.

As has been mentioned multiple times before, not having a team in LA is more profitable for the NFL since it is the ultimate leverage tool for making small market teams upgrade venues, please get your facts straight Want to talk about fair weather fans? I've never seen so many people jump on the Seahawks bandwagon then leading up to the superbowl, I live here buddy you can't BS me, half of the people running around the metro with Seahawks jerseys couldn't even name 2 players on the team, I've lived all around the U.S., and this is where I experienced the most bandwagoning, you want to see a true sports town? Go to Boston, I was there before they won the 2004 championship and people still supported them eventhough they were losers, you guys know nothing about being in a real sports town.

[dispo4]

Originally Posted by pw72

Seattle should not build up any expectations of the Clippers being sold to Ballmer. OK, perhaps there is a 1-2% chance, but that is it. The arguments on this thread are persuasive. The L.A. market can out-perform Seattle 3-4 times over when it comes to revenue, (i.e. radio/tv). And I am speaking as a native Seattleite. Just isn't going to happen. Seattle 's best hopes will be to find another franchise in trouble in a smaller market, or expansion. This could take years, but probably will happen at some point.

Honestly I wish the Sonics would have never moved, I actually liked them back in the day, would of been awesome to watch Laker games here in Seattle, could you imagine the okc roster in sonic gear? I think both Memphis and OKC do not deserve an NBA team, especially over Seattle, hopefully one day the NBA comes back to Puget sound.

[Seacove]

I have such mixed feelings about the NBA in Seattle. I would take the NHL over the NBA any day because it would be new with no bad history. If we get some expansion team, am I supposed to be grateful that the NBA threw us some crumbs? If we were to take someone's team, am I supposed to be happy about that after the way David Stern treated Seattle? Sure, Silver's there now but it just feels like the NBA poisoned the well.

[Botev1912]

Originally Posted by dispo4

would of been

what does that mean? In what language is it?

[The Illusive Man]

Originally Posted by dispo4

As has been mentioned multiple times before, not having a team in LA is more profitable for the NFL since it is the ultimate leverage tool for making small market teams upgrade venues, please get your facts straight Want to talk about fair weather fans? I've never seen so many people jump on the Seahawks bandwagon then leading up to the superbowl, I live here buddy you can't BS me, half of the people running around the metro with Seahawks jerseys couldn't even name 2 players on the team, I've lived all around the U.S., and this is where I experienced the most bandwagoning, you want to see a true sports town? Go to Boston, I was there before they won the 2004 championship and people still supported them eventhough they were losers, you guys know nothing about being in a real sports town.

The NFL would love to be in LA and it would be a financial monster. The team would easily be one of the most valuable in the league. The only reason we don't have a team is because of facilities. LA does not want to build a tax payer funded stadium. Trust me, if LA voted to being construction of a stadium tomorrow with taxpayer funds, teams would be lining up around the block. The issue right now is no one wants to pay for it, a stadium here will cost well over a billion.

Seattle is pretty bandwagon themselves. Seahawks haven't always had great attendance and everytime I see the Mariners on TV the stadium is practically empty. Plus the attendance for the Sonics for their last few years was pathetic. LA is a far superior sports town.

Sorry, the Clippers are staying in LA. You vultures can go for another team.

[bloom]

Seems a lot of LA celebs want to buy team to keep in LA. Would be nice if they returned to original city, San Diego, which has no viable professional basketball arena.

[dispo4]

Originally Posted by Botev1912

what does that mean? In what language is it?

Sorry captain grammar, I meant "would had been"