Sign in to follow this  
Notorious O.D.K.

Silver: NBA Expansion is Inevitable

Recommended Posts

Expansion is Inevitable

I would think 2 teams will join within the next 3-5 years. I would give teams to Seattle and possibly Vancouver (or maybe St. Louis, possibly Austin,TX). Hopefully two teams west if the Mississippi join and Memphis rolls over to the Eastern conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The league is diluted, if silver doesn't believe that than he is an idiot. It is about money and greed, and as long as people keep watching a ****** product nothing will change.

And no no other team has a chance at a title but golden state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
35 minutes ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

Expansion is Inevitable

I would think 2 teams will join within the next 3-5 years. I would give teams to Seattle and possibly Vancouver (or maybe St. Louis, possibly Austin,TX). Hopefully two teams west if the Mississippi join and Memphis rolls over to the Eastern conference.

I think Seattle deserves a team and Vegas is looking very promising as a 2nd location. Screw Vancouver who had a team and didn't support it. St Louis isn't a basketball city to me. Austin would struggle to be acceptable to Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. San Diego would seem to be a nice market if the Clippers and Lakers don't pitch too big of a fit. San Jose would be as well since the Warriors have sold out games for ever. Expansion south of SF would make a lot of sense with the Silicon Valley money down there. 

I may be in the minority but I'd hate to lose the Western Conference rivalries we have built up over the years but I'm sure I'd adjust to the East quick enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wells    0
48 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I think Seattle deserves a team and Vegas is looking very promising as a 2nd location. Screw Vancouver who had a team and didn't support it. St Louis isn't a basketball city to me. Austin would struggle to be acceptable to Dallas, San Antonio and Houston. San Diego would seem to be a nice market if the Clippers and Lakers don't pitch too big of a fit. San Jose would be as well since the Warriors have sold out games for ever. Expansion south of SF would make a lot of sense with the Silicon Valley money down there. 

I may be in the minority but I'd hate to lose the Western Conference rivalries we have built up over the years but I'm sure I'd adjust to the East quick enough. 

Another possibility is Kansas City, which use to be the home of the Kings, and they have built an NBA level arena .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
40 minutes ago, Wells said:

Another possibility is Kansas City, which use to be the home of the Kings, and they have built an NBA level arena .

Good call! I forgot about KC and their new arena. They were shooting for an NHL team originally for the building weren't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wells    0
4 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

Good call! I forgot about KC and their new arena. They were shooting for an NHL team originally for the building weren't they? 

Was their first hope, according to what I've read.  But it seats about the same as FedExForum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gradey    0
3 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

The league is diluted, if silver doesn't believe that than he is an idiot. It is about money and greed, and as long as people keep watching a ****** product nothing will change.

And no no other team has a chance at a title but golden state.

I don't see how that is relevant to expansion.  I do agree that one team has an abundance of talent right now....but with FA rules as they are then you could have 4 teams in the league and one will have the means to be a powerhouse if the PLAYERS decide to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0

Seattle and Vegas, maybe San Jose, if there isn't another recession before that. Then they'll be threatening contraction again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nwagrizzfan    0

Vegas goes from zero teams to the NHL and NFL just like that.

Let them and the league's see how that plays out first.

Kansas City would be my 2nd choice behind Seattle.  Though I'm not sure there is the population or disposable income for a small market like that to support three major league teams.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the nba should expand.  They can barely muster enough decent talent for the teams they have now.

They just need to move a couple current teams to a more desired market.  Unfortunately, that might include the grizz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Father Pat said:

Seattle and Vegas, maybe San Jose, if there isn't another recession before that. Then they'll be threatening contraction again. 

When did the NBA contract or when did they threaten contraction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
1 hour ago, Notorious O.D.K. said:

When did the NBA contract or when did they threaten contraction?

During the last lock out Stern brought it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Silver say that he could see or would like Mexico City to have an NBA team?

Pretty sure I read it on ESPN when the last NBA game was played there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
1 hour ago, BigHunkALove said:

Didn't Silver say that he could see or would like Mexico City to have an NBA team?

Pretty sure I read it on ESPN when the last NBA game was played there

About a week ago Mexico City was named as a possible place for major league baseball expansion. It wouldn't surprise me if the NBA was looking at it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

The league is diluted, if silver doesn't believe that than he is an idiot. It is about money and greed, and as long as people keep watching a ****** product nothing will change.

And no no other team has a chance at a title but golden state.

 

The league is really  more talented then ever before.  

More people around the world are playing  basketball. Last year there were over 110 foreign players in the league. That is more than 7 full teams of foreign players that really weren't around in the 80s.

Whether the league has 9 teams or 30 teams, it has always been dominated by a small handful of teams with an outstanding star or two or three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Grizzled Vet said:

 

The league is really  more talented then ever before.  

More people around the world are playing  basketball. Last year there were over 110 foreign players in the league. That is more than 7 full teams of foreign players that really weren't around in the 80s.

Whether the league has 9 teams or 30 teams, it has always been dominated by a small handful of teams with an outstanding star or two or three.

Completely agree. This is a golden age of basketball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree.  Imo, the golden age was in the 90s.  Today's nba isn't even as close as interesting as the nba was during that time.  The teams in the 90s were better and were far more entertaining.    The players were better at their skills and not as good at flopping/baiting refs.  The game was officiated better and fairly.  The nba didn't seem to dictate who won.  

And all the good players didn't go play for one team. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grizzled Vet said:

 

The league is really  more talented then ever before.  

More people around the world are playing  basketball. Last year there were over 110 foreign players in the league. That is more than 7 full teams of foreign players that really weren't around in the 80s.

Whether the league has 9 teams or 30 teams, it has always been dominated by a small handful of teams with an outstanding star or two or three.

 

1 hour ago, tmoneyinmphs said:

I completely disagree.  Imo, the golden age was in the 90s.  Today's nba isn't even as close as interesting as the nba was during that time.  The teams in the 90s were better and were far more entertaining.    The players were better at their skills and not as good at flopping/baiting refs.  The game was officiated better and fairly.  The nba didn't seem to dictate who won.  

And all the good players didn't go play for one team. 

You are both right.   I hate when people assume from nostalgia sake that the league is less talented today.  That isn't true at all.   The fact that their are more international players in the league now means the league has more "talent" by default. on a quantity basis.   There may be an argument in regards to which eras players had more quality talent but quantity-wise today's era wins.  

This article http://www.complex.com/sports/2013/05/20-reasons-why-the-nba-was-better-in-the-90s/ makes good points about the 90s era.  I am going to post a couple that i think are the major reasons why some people like or dislike whichever era.

The worldwide appeal of basketball is a good thing, but it would've been nice of those Western European imports to leave "the flop" inside their soccer stadiums. In today's game, seven-foot-tall purported badasses react to post moves like a Paparazzo who'd just been nudged by a love-scorned Justin Bieber in an airport.

The NBA has a serious culture problem. Even if it were occasionally successful, we have a hard time believing that Scottie Pippen or David Robinson would "pull a Pau" and drop to the floor like they were Tasered in the crank as part of their defensive repertoire....

The Europeans have changed the game. In an effort to make the game global, Stern and his henchmen changed defensive rules to make the game more offensive (double entendre alert!). Where's the Dominique and MJ mid-range jumpers at?

Now guys pass the ball around the three-point line like they're playing "Around the World." There are only a handful of players that still respect the art. Three come to mind: Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, and Kobe Bryant. You can make the case for some other guys, but the ones mentioned base their games on the mid-range. Sometimes you have to take that extra dribble to get a closer look.

 

If you are a fan of isolation-based One on One basketball and hard fouls then you should be a big fan of 90's era ball.  Because that is what it mostly was.   And if that's your preference then i would assume you will be a big fan of DeRozan, JCrawford, Westbrook, and Melo.  Their playstyles fit in perfectly with that era.  

If you are a fan of more fluidity in the offensive scheme and appreciate jumpers as much as dunks and you like your stars to be 2 way players then this era is more for you.   Which explains fans of Steph, LeBron, Kawhi,  CP3 and KD. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dwash    0
10 hours ago, Grizzled Vet said:

 

The league is really  more talented then ever before.  

More people around the world are playing  basketball. Last year there were over 110 foreign players in the league. That is more than 7 full teams of foreign players that really weren't around in the 80s.

Whether the league has 9 teams or 30 teams, it has always been dominated by a small handful of teams with an outstanding star or two or three.

Its a variety of players so it isnt diluted but the star power is missing which is what gets people excited. You had the Bulls who would get challenged by Ewings Knicks, Mournings Heat, Millers Pacers.  You atleast thought they had a chance because they were going to get outmuscled like Lebron does everyone. Then the Magic came in play.

Then you had a open West with the Spurs, Jazz, Rockets, Suns, Blazers , Sonics, etc all hanging around. Just good competition with true star led teams.

You always added someone in the draft that was high impact in Kidd, Mourming, Shaq, Penny, Duncan, AI, Vince, the Truth, KG, Kobe. Grandmama! Immediately you knew these guys would change the landscape of the league. The guys now are solid but you still have doubts for two or three years about what they will do and you rarely watch cause their teams typically suck.

Teams led by Isiah Thomas, Derozan even John Wall just arent moving anyone. Now the West has been monopolized too. 

The league badly needs more star led teams that we can believe in.  Teams that shoot most jumpers and led in scoring by a 6'2" point guard arent going to beat Lebron or the Warriors most of the time and true fans know they wont win the series. Thats why they complain. Casual fans maybe interested however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wells    0

Personally, the 90's don't even begin to be the top "talent" era.  The level of competition in the 60's and early 70's was much more intense, with the talent much more concentrated in the small league. The games were more free flowing and much more offensively oriented. Even a "defensive" team like the Celtics averaged over 110 points per game, and that is without a three point shot.

The reason this era gets overlooked so much is that there wasn't a National TV contract, so people didn't see a lot of games played until the Playoffs came around. There isn't a lot of historical footage to view. There is not a single picture of any play from Chamberlain's 100 point game.  The only picture you ever seen is a post game picture from the locker room with Wilt holding a hand written sign saying he scored 100 points. In today's sports media, you would have been taken to the game midway through the first quarter to watch the performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dwash said:

Its a variety of players so it isnt diluted but the star power is missing which is what gets people excited. You had the Bulls who would get challenged by Ewings Knicks, Mournings Heat, Millers Pacers.  You atleast thought they had a chance because they were going to get outmuscled like Lebron does everyone. Then the Magic came in play.

Then you had a open West with the Spurs, Jazz, Rockets, Suns, Blazers , Sonics, etc all hanging around. Just good competition with true star led teams.

Another important factor that our nostalgia glasses overlook is Expansion.    Magic, Heat, Grizzlies and Raptors were all added right before the 90s not to mention Hornets and Wolves added right before them.  The league was more diluted than we like to remember.   Those expansion teams were terrible for a long time.  (Related note MJ benefited just like Lebron did from watered down East: Magic, Raptors, Hornet, Heat all got added to the league  right around time he started winning championships).  

The game changing from College centric to now being AAU and International having a huge factor kills star power.    The stars from the past were basically marketed and identified before they ever stepped foot in the NBA.    Nobody knew who Kristap Porzingas was in the states before he made an impact.  More guys have to earn that label on the court now than ever before.  Only guys that get a free ride are the top lottery picks from the big schools but more often than not those guys need development.

Back in the day they got most of their development and polish before getting drafted.   In other words their were less "projects" back then.  Grant Hill, Penny, Cwebb, Larry Johnson, Shaq and the like were great college players and made immediate impact.   They didn't have to "develop" as much as they had to adjust to the speed of the NBA.  

1 and done guys don't get that seasoning so they are much more raw and less apt to actually become what they were hyped to be.   Another huge caveat is that back then guys actually played their true positions in college.    Nowadays college coaches are more apt to force a player to play a position the team needs filled rather than their true position.   There are so many 6'5'-6'7' guys that cant dribble because they were played at PF instead of on the wing in college.  Most of these "projects" are having to actually learn their natural position for the first time in the pros.   How many teams have the patience for that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael D    0

I want the league to expand by adding two Western Conference teams and then sending Memphis and maybe New Orleans to the Eastern Conference.  That looks like that's how its going down anyways since the main candidates are Seattle, Las Vegas, Mexico City, Kansas City, and San Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think so much of it depends on when you were exposed to the NBA. If you began watching at a young age in a whatever decade, your natural inclination is to feel that they were more talented. That is your baseline and if you were younger you tend to look at sports stars as superhuman who can do no wrong. They don't have flaws in their games, they are perfect off of the court, etc. You have a romanticized view of the sport when you were first exposed to it. Then you kind of have a confirmation bias going forward after all of your favorite players have retired. You look at every else as a follower and not as good as the people you watched when you were first exposed and you point out their every flae as if flaws didn't exist back then.

People do this with music as well "(insert decade here) is the best music ever". For most people, it depends on exposure and it's highly subjective.

 

I mean, we have no way of knowing how the stars of yesteryear would compete in today's NBA. There have been all types of advancement in training, training techniques, kinesiology, sports science/medicine, weight lifting equipment, supplements, AAU tourneys, recovery from injury, etc. It's just different. A lot of people think that if such and such star from yesteryear was in today's NBA they would dominate and these youngsters couldn't compete with the toughness and hard fouls of back then. On the flip side, I've heard tons of stories of those stars of yesteryear smoking in practice, not practicing at all, turning it on when the game starts, etc Would they be able to have the mentality to stick to a physical regimen like so many stars of today?

There's no right or wrong answer. I just live for the moment and appreciate what is in front of me. As Nas said, ain't no best.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MemphisX    0

90s was just the first time the masses were exposed to the talent.  So people of glorified that era even though it had some of the worst basketball being played ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael D said:

I want the league to expand by adding two Western Conference teams and then sending Memphis and maybe New Orleans to the Eastern Conference.  That looks like that's how its going down anyways since the main candidates are Seattle, Las Vegas, Mexico City, Kansas City, and San Jose.

Only 1 team would go. There are currently 15 teams in each conf. If 2 teams are added, presumably there would be 16 teams in each. If you add two to West, you have 17 teams so you would only need to send 1 team over to balance out at 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this