Sacramento Kings moving franchise to the OC, CA.

Some of us old timers may remember when a certain NBA franchise was known as the Kansas City-Omaha Kings.

I realize that was nearly 40 years ago and dynamics have changed.

 

OTA deals mean so much to an NBA team, if this was the '80s.

 

I'd be pretty surprised if Omaha ever wound up with a team, but I'm a little surprised it doesn't get tossed out there more and that owners don't use it for leverage.

 

That's why it's in the NBA's best interest to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Seattle is the better leverage for the league to be able to go into a handful of cities and say, "If you don't do this, this team could go to Seattle."

I don't know what other franchises would be likely to move. New Orleans would seem to be the only obvious choice. You hear Milwaukee mentioned every once in awhile, but I don't really see that happening.

 

Well, congrats to them.

 

The fact of the matter is that all, yes all, yes every single one, of these cities are perfectly capable of supporting professional sports franchises.

In some markets it takes more work than others, and in some markets the potential maximum profit is less than others, but it would be possible for a franchise to survive in basically every single one of these markets.

It's unethical, rapacious, greedy, criminal and incompetent owners who fuck it up.

 

The Thunder TV market is the whole effing state of Oklahoma.

Applying Mark's theory: Half the teams in every league (OK, the "lottery" type teams in each sport) should just move or close shop because, well, they shouldn't draw at all because they suck. Problem is, every league needs teams to suck. You win, you lose.

 

Is TV market size that much of a factor in Sacramento? According to the Kings' web site, they only had 10 game on local over-the-air TV. The rest are on an RSN they share with the A's that covers an area to the Oregon border (perhaps beyond?) to the north, Reno to the east and the Fresno area to the south. OK, they're blacked out in the Bay area to protect the Warriors, but that's still a lot of territory.

 

Market size is still an issue in regional cable. Whoever carries the games has to pay for the rights, whether it's over the air or cable. They'll pay a hell of a lot more in the bigger markets. The Kings may claim a lot of real estate there but trees don't pay for cable. Their population base isn't large.

 

It goes in cycles. You take your lumps like everyone else. You just don't want to get stuck in a down cycle where you suck for, say, 10 straight years. That's usually a sign of managerial incompetence.

But to think you will never have a down season in totally naive and unrealistic, too.

As for Omaha.... yeah, any team that is the first and only pro team in its market is going to have a serious advantage. Is it enough to offset the demographics in the business community in terms of sponsorships and selling luxury suites? Tough call.

 

Who said ANYTHING about never having a down season?

 

from the fwiw file:

the blazers sold out 814 consecutive games between 1977 and 1995. not bad for a "small market." the jail blazer image pretty much broke that streak.

portland is 33-45 this season, but have put together a young, fairly exciting team with a bright future. the result you ask?: the fourth-best attendance in the league, averaging 17,799 a game. the warriors and the clippers are fifth and sixth, respectively. the kings are 30th.

in 2008-'09 and '09-'10 the blazers were third in the league in attendance each season, and in '10-'11 and '11-'12 they were second both seasons.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance