Sacramento Kings moving franchise to the OC, CA.

Sure. What about Kansas City and Cincinnati?

 

Why the hell would the NBA expand? And why would it be to Sacramento?

 

why do they always expand? more money.

 

Don't forget Rochester and Omaha.

And the league won't want to expand. Like the NFL with LA, they want one city available so teams can threaten to move if they don't get a new taxpayer-funded arena.

 

The NBA is the one league of the big four that still talks about expanding. It's impossible to know how serious they are, but you hear Pittsburgh and St. Louis thrown around a bit, as well as Seattle obviously.

It's in the league's best interest to keep the Kings in Sacramento for now, because one would presume that they might be able to get a bigger franchise fee for a team in Seattle.

 

The NBA has a decent TV package unlike the NHL and you only have to find 18,000 to 20,000 people willing to buy tickets to support it. There's plenty of U.S. cities who could support a franchise.

 

While the arena and support are very strong in Seattle and SacTown, please no expansion. Do the powers that be not understand that we do not need more Bobcats/Wizards/Raptors?? The NBA is bad enough right now, we don't need to see a team with Jannero Pargo and Grant Hill in the starting lineup joined by new exciting rookie Noerlens Noel.

 

Jannero Pargo... Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...

 

Man you are just a clueless about this are you are about everything else. There are not plenty of cities that can support the NBA, there are cities now that can't support it. Attendance is a small part of the success of the market. You can fill 18000 seats all you like if you are charging next to nothing. If you aren't selling out your luxury boxes and have good corporate partners you will fail regardless of attendance.

 

If you look at NBA attendance numbers, very few locales are drawing the crowds they say they're drawing, with ticketbuyers paying full face value. If Detroit actually got 10,000 people a night through the door, I would be stunned. Most franchises have two-for-one weekday or other discount deals in place.

The NBA is EXTREMELY dependent on the so-called casual fan, as opposed to the NHL, which has a smaller casual-fan base but a bigger hardcore base. It's why the NHL fills local arenas pretty well, but draws nothing for TV, and why the NBA has a lot of cities that can't draw flies, but gets decent TV numbers.

 

And you can't use spell check.

So you're saying that a city such as St. Louis doesn't have enough corporate potential?
Birmingham?
San Diego?
Las Vegas?
Kansas City?
Nashville?
Cincinnati?

Hell idiot. Oklahoma City was never considered a potential NBA city until a few years ago.

 

Birmingham? No way. Too small, too poor.

San Diego? Perhaps, though I'm sure the L.A. teams would insist on a very large "territorial rights" payment.

Las Vegas? As long as gambling is legal there, it will never get a team.

Kansas City? It's straining to support the teams it already has. The NBA team would be third-banana at best, maybe even fourth (behind pro soccer). Or fifth or sixth, if you include Kansas and Mizzou.

Nashville? It already has hockey, and it's doubtful a metro that size could conceivably support three major-league teams.

Cincinnati? Nope. Corporate support might be there, but, again, size of market dictates that supporting three major-league teams (including baseball) would be a stretch.

To me, the most viable market for a new team (other than Seattle) would be Anaheim, because it (and L.A.) certainly has the population and corporate base to support another team.

Certainly, the NBA is to an expansion point where it is either putting a team back in a city that already lost one, or otherwise would go into a market that would have some question marks for sustained viability.