I like to see Edmonton get an NBA expansion team. Maybe Clippers owner Steve Ballmer would give them rights of the nickname and be called the “Alberta Clippers” while LA gets its own nickname.
Next cities for an nba teams are seattle,las vegas,mexico city,london,paris,berlin,rome, madrid,st louis,montreal,pittsburg,vancouver,kansascity,sandiego,tokio,shanghai,seoul sydney,mumbai,johannesburg, Lagos,sao paulo
Expansion is on the horizon, and with the CBA completed and Media Rights Deal beginning its negotiation period, it seems that it is only a matter of time before the NBA expands. I strongly believe Seattle and Las Vegas will be awarded teams in the next expansion round, but given Adam Silver and Marc Tatum’s rhetoric surrounding Mexico City, it is reasonable to believe that Mexico City will be considered as well. However, these are some logistical issues with expansion that the NBA simply cannot avoid: Altitude- This one is huge. Mexico City has an elevation of 7,349 ft, more than 2,000 feet more than Denver. The altitude is visibly a problem for players. This isn’t the Olympics. This isn’t baseball. This isn’t football. In the NBA, players do not have days to prepare for events in extremely high elevation. They will have to fly into Mexico City, play that night, and then fly out the next morning. When the Heat played the Spurs in December in Mexico City, the entire Heat team, one of the best conditioned teams in the NBA, looked incredibly exhausted. 41 games in Mexico City simply is not realistic. Even for the G league team, opposing players such as Willie Cauley-Stein have had to sit out games due to the altitude. Imagine Embiid or Zion playing in Mexico City. Travel: This one isn’t as big of an issue, but it’s hard to ignore. Yes, Mexico City to NYC is a shorter flight than NYC to LA, but you have to consider that Mexico City is far from EVERY NBA team. The nearest NBA city from NYC is Philly, which is 94 miles. The nearest NBA city from Mexico City is San Antonio, which is 700 miles. Portland may be far from other NBA cities, but it is much closer to Sacramento and San Francisco than Mexico City is to San Antonio, and presumably Seattle when it returns will also be very close to Portland. Mexico City is out of the way for any road trip. Add the hassle of international travel and it becomes clear that travel would be an obstacle, regardless of what Mark Tatum might have said in December. Desirability: I also strongly believe that players will not want to live in Mexico City. The country as a whole is less developed than Canada and the United States, and while Mexico City is very nice and cosmopolitan, it is still very culturally different than the United States and Canada, not to mention the language barrier that exists. Expecting players to move their families to Mexico City is something that I do not think is reasonable from the NBA's point of view. The NBPA does not have a direct say in expansion, but given how much the league front office and owners value players, it would be hard to imagine the NBA expanding to Mexico City against the will of the players. Again, Mexico City has world-class restaurants, clubs, and venues, but if players do not want to play in Toronto and especially did not want to play in Vancouver, Mexico City seems next to impossible. I mean, you cannot even drink the tap water in CDMX, and MLB and NFL players have reported getting sick from the food. The G-league players that rave about Mexico City are also making much less money, so the five star treatment they receive is a major step up from anything else they would get. NBA players are making much more money, so they would gain little from the cushy lifestyle that the G-league players in Mexico City have. Also, G-league players have fewer options to play basketball professionally, so they would be much more willing to play in Mexico City, but because NBA players have options, it is hard to imagine many players choosing Mexico City over the US or Canada. Keep in mind Mexico City has an HDI of 0.815, while the lowest US state, Mississippi, has an HDI of 0.866. These things matter when considering where players want to or would even tolerate playing and raising a family. Finally, CDMX can be very racist to black people, and anti-black behavior is unfortunately more tolerated in Mexico than the US or Canada, which would undoubtedly affect NBA players in Mexico City. Safety: On paper, Mexico City is safer than some NBA cities, but it is the perception that still makes it an issue. The view is that because Mexico City is in Mexico, by extension Mexico City is unsafe. For this reason, the G-league team in Mexico needs armed security to and from games. Now, imagine how much additional security NBA players would need. The players would also effectively be made to live in a bubble in Polanco, which will probably create extra challenges for getting to and from games. Traffic and pollution are also absolutely horrendous. These are simply issues which do not exist in Seattle or Las Vegas. While Mexico City appears to have lower crime rates than many NBA cities, I strongly believe Mexican crime statistics are severely underreported compared to American crime statistics. Experts have indicated that over 90% of crimes go unsolved in Mexico, so it would not surprise me if Mexico City’s true crime rate is actually higher than any NBA city. Plus, Mexico police is much more corrupt than American/Canadian police on all levels, so that certainly doesn’t help. Currency: Selling tickets in pesos, a currency much weaker than USD or CAD, and paying salaries in USD is also bound to be an issue. Look, Mexico City is a great destination and has a huge, largely untapped international market that has expressed interest in basketball, albeit less interest than soccer or baseball. From a business standpoint, it is an intriguing idea, but from a logistical standpoint, it will be a disaster. I do largely think that Silver and Tatum's rhetoric regarding Mexican expansion has been that of PR to keep the Mexican market engaged, as well as to place pressure on Seattle or Las Vegas. Just my thoughts.
I don’t think a team is coming to Orlando unless the Rays end up moving, it’s too close to try and compete with the Rays, especially with how successful they’ve been in recent years. They are so close that Busch Gardens, a theme park in Tampa, is still often considered to be one of the Orlando parks alongside Disney, Universal, and SeaWorld. The closest teams that are considered separate markets (Angels-Padres, Cubs-Brewers) are both around 90 miles from each other, Orlando and Tampa are around 70 miles from each other. (Edit: Yes I know D.C. and Baltimore are closer but some people consider Baltimore as a part of greater D.C., similar to Newark-New York, San Jose-Oakland-San Fransisco, and Anaheim-L.A.)
I am almost certain the NBA will expand to 36 by 2036 (with in 12 years) in Vegas, Seattle, Mexico City, Vancouver OR Montreal and two more American cities like St Louis, Louisville, Pittsburgh or San Diego to name 4 possibilities. Too many suitors that are willing to pay the expansion fee to enter.
Now doing the conferences and potential divisions would be quite interesting. They could keep the same divisions but it would be 6 teams in each one. I could see a scenario playing out like this: Western Conference Northwest Division: Seattle SuperSonics Portland Trail Blazers Denver Nuggets Utah Jazz Vancouver (insert name here) Calgary (insert name here) Pacific Division: Los Angeles Lakers Los Angeles Clippers Golden State Warriors Sacramento Kings Las Vegas (insert name here) San Diego (insert name here) Southwest Division: Oklahoma City Thunder Phoenix Suns Dallas Mavericks San Antonio Spurs Houston Rockets Memphis Grizzlies Eastern Conference Atlantic Division: Boston Celtics Brooklyn Nets New York Knicks Toronto Raptors Philadelphia 76ers Washington Wizards Central Division: Indiana Pacers Chicago Bulls Milwaukee Bucks Minnesota Timberwolves Detroit Pistons Cleveland Cavaliers Southeast Division: Miami Heat Orlando Magic Charlotte Hornets New Orleans Pelicans Atlanta Hawks Louisville (insert name here) The only team that has a disadvantage in terms of travel would be the Grizzlies but their division won’t be as far off as the Minnesota Timberwolves currently are so this would be my perspective from as much geographical sense as possible, not quite perfect but certainly as close to it as I thought I could get if the expansion goes to 36 teams and happens in this scenario. Now of course one could put Memphis in the Southeast if Mexico City gets an expansion team (which in that case the Mexico City team would go to the Southwest) or a Pittsburgh team goes to the Southeast if a Louisville team doesn’t get the bid. I accidentally only had 5 teams originally in the Northwest so as much of long shots as these are for the sake of geography and since these two cities have high populations either Edmonton or Calgary could be in that division as an expansion team. Calgary has the higher population between those two so I would say in this hypothetical scenario they’d get the bid over Edmonton.
@@lakerskid2013 Great breakdown. My only concern is that I believe Mexico City will be one of 6 expansion teams, and yes, the Southwest division. Your Northwest Division only has 5 teams. So, I'm not sure what changes, BUT greats division breakdown.
@@EdV-et6qm I didn’t even realize I had just 5, that’s my fault there. Since we’re only in a hypothetical scenario I decided to go with Calgary as the 6th team, as much of a crazy longshot as that is but for the sake of geography it’s something worth at least putting down for even teams. If not Calgary then Edmonton would be a substitute and they’d be far enough from Vancouver to where it wouldn’t be a territorial issue.
I have lived in Oregon for almost 23 years. However, I lived west of Seattle, 2 different times, for a total of 14 1/2 years beforehand. Now, I am completely loyal to all the Seattle teams! But, the Sonics are the only Seattle team that has been my favorite team for all my life. I've been a Husky fan every year but 1st grade. My teacher was a fan of the Cougars and I had a crush on Mrs. Burns. But, my second grade teacher was a Husky fan, so I switched back. I once chose the Chiefs as my favorite team to spite my dad, who was a big Seahawks fan. Then, I was a Jags fan because they had Mark Brunell, a former Husky. In college I switched to the Seahawks and have stayed with them. For MLB, I liked several teams before college. But, in college, I switched to the Mariners. And, I became of the Sounders and the Kraken when they came into their leagues. All that to show that I am loyal to Seattle, including the Sonics! I hope they come back!!!!
I'm not a Bears fan but a Vikings. But I realize that the Bears and Cardinals are the founding members of the NFL. I would like to see a homage to Soldier Field. Chicago got their name as a connection to the Chicago Cubs as baseball was king back and that a cub grows into a bear.
Bears want The State and the City of Chicago to help flip he bill but they are focusing on using that money on the Migrants so there is no money for the stadium.
