This needs to happen ASAP. There are so many talented undrafted players and dudes that just haven’t had a chance at a roster spot in a few years that can probably still ball
I’d love to see expansion with no expansion draft for that reason, a team full of undrafted FAs and players looking for a second chance would be interesting
I think one underrated part of expansion is the fact that currently more teams make the playoffs/ playins than those that don’t. Adding 2-4 teams would help to balance that out and j make the league look more competitive in general imo
I think it’s time to expand for sure. It makes geographical sense to add two teams in the west (Seattle and Vegas) and move two teams over to the east like Memphis, Minnesota, or NOLA
Even though, Memphis is the easternmost Western Conference team, I actually think Minnesota should move east since its in much closer proximity with the Great Lakes teams than the rest of Western Conference while Memphis is still pretty close to New Orleans, and Texas teams. Also in terms of divisions, it should be eight divisions of four teams
I think the expansion draft could be an underrated tool for existing teams to reset salaries and gain flexibility by leaving bad contracts or just unwanted players unprotected. I think expansion teams would gladly pick up some guys like Duncan Robinson or Davis Bertans just to give their team some structure and build a competent environment even if they aren't helping to contend immediately, in order to help develop a young star (presumably expansion teams would get high lottery picks in their first year). I would gladly overpay some complementary players to help fill out my roster around a young talent - sorta like how I thought CP3 would be great for Wemby in SA, or getting someone like Steven Adams for Ja
Players like Davis Bertans and Duncan Robinson in particular are specialist types that are harder to use in the league. Davis got a great bag because he was part of the Wizards and they tried to make something work. He underperformed on the Mavs for the most part, at least compared to his salary. He is a perfectly fine player though, that can be great scoring option from the bench. Duncan Robinson is an even more extreme example, being an even more deadly movement shooter, but also lacking the size that Bertans has. I'm less convinced he is a huge overpay though, considering how well he played at stretches in the playoffs this year. (which is exactly when it counts) Being a specialist is not always great, but in his case if he fits the system and they run plays for him, he will be extremely effective. That said, with regards to the expansion teams, I'd much rather have them start out with new talent and let them acquire players through the regular draft, free agency and trades. Being a spot in the league that is starting out means expectations start out low, but it also means that people from the G-League, players that just slightly fell out of the league or international players can come in and prove their worth. There is so much talent, it is not exactly needed to strip players from existing teams right away to make a new team. I like your notion of having teams leaving certain guys open for the taking, however a lot of the younger talent-rich teams are not willing to lose a lot of guys, or they don't exactly know which ones are going to work out. There is also the issue of having rosters that already don't have enough of a certain type of player, like a Center (Mavs or Hornets) or a lengthy Wing defender (Portland and Cavs) Having to *also* include the players on these spots, in addition to their core roster could prove too many to safeguard in this way.
@@Hobo613 to be fair, that was an all time draft run from them and that outcome is unlikely in the NBA given that talent is more top heavy. But how else would you fill out an expansion roster?
Vancouver won't be an expansion city. They tried that before, and the city didn't support the team, so they left, basically. Seattle (obviously), Vegas, Louisville, and Kansas City will be the 4 potential markets, imo, with Vegas the least likely due to the NBA's aversion to the gambling culture of that city.
@@TenMillionYearProgram42 I think the Raptors’ chip back in ‘19 was a good sign of progress for Canadian basketball. The men’s national team has been as deep with NBA talent as I can remember. Perhaps Vancouver, as a Canadian city, could be considered in this respect.
As much as I think seattle and Las Vegas are going to almost 100% going to be the next 2 teams if the league does choose to expand, I think Vancouver is extremely deserving and a huge opportunity for the league. They were robbed of a franchise due to all the circumstances leading to their team being poached. Plus the growth and the huge market Western Canada could provide. If I was a billionaire with money to throw around, Id be looking at Vanvouver.
@@gotworc I personally think the Vancouver market is bigger. Mostly because youd gain access to the entire Western half of Canada as a market. Right now the Raptors are the only Canadian option for fans, and most fans who arent on the Eastern side tend to opt for American teams anyway because theres no "home team". I also think the Vancouver area has a more access to the Chinese market than seattle. Vancouver is a hub for Asian immigration. I think the Vancouver area also offers a bit higher net worth of fans. Its incredibly expensive living anywhere near downtown Vancouver, which would result in a much much bigger influence and market than when they tried and gave up in the 90s. I do think theyre both worth a team, and seattle obviously has a lot to offer, plus their history bias and the excitement the Kraken have given the city are huge pluses. Again, I think because of the extreme bias during Vancouvers first run and the fact the team failed there already, plus the risk all Canadian professional sports teams tend to have competing with the American dollar as a factor and American players not interested in moving to Canada along with a ton of other things will most definitely prevent a team from coming anytime soon. The NBAs obviously chasing money and Las Vegas and seattle are more guarentees. I could see Memphis and New Orleans/OKC/Minnesota moving to the East and seattle and Las Vegas being two the two Western teams. Just sucks given how Vancouver lost their team and Id love to see them get a second chance.
I was living there. They weren't robbed. Nobody went to the games but families and the hos that slept with the players really talk. But the city is definitely ready now
@@RB-ru8mv If you look into how the NBA approached the two Canadian expansions, it's a fair argument to say they were robbed. If you look at the attendance drop-off, it's pretty fair to say the drop-off resulted from the terrible on-court performance. The team had an arena capacity of around 18k. They were at 17k people attending (avg) the first year and the next 3 years were at 16k. which was around the middle of the league in average attendance. The team dropped to 13k and 27th in the league after 4 straight years of literal bottom-of-the-league performances with no top draft picks to show for it because of the way the league structured the expansion. Attendance wasn't an issue until people saw no progress. That, paired with the absolutely terrible management, the fact that a guy like Steve Francis refusing to play in Canada, the weak Canadian dollar, and the draft pick bull*hit, I don't think its hard to argue the team was robbed in the end. Obviously, some things were their own fault like management, but the other things weren't necessarily. Regardless, I think Vancouver is poised and ready to support a NBA franchise today.
The Kings left Gerald Wallace unprotected in the 2004 Expansion Draft to Charlotte. And then he became an All-Star there. One on the Franchise’s big mistakes early leading to the 16 year playoff drought… Watching this I couldn’t help but be reminded of that..
@@TenMillionYearProgram42 Where did you get your attendance news? Fox? Except for the last year and a half when we knew the team was leaving. Most of the years they outdrew Memphis with a terrible team. Ownership sucks, the attendance was not the issue. 🤷
Calgary should also get an NBA Expansion franchise team called the Calgary Drillers in Northwest Division and Western Conference in Western Canada in the province of Alberta
I’m really hoping we get a team back in Vancouver. Canada deserves a second team, Vancouver has almost a million more people since the Grizzlies left, and interest in basketball has skyrocketed since 2001. That being said, unless it’s 4 teams, I’d be shocked. Vegas is basically a lock and Seattle seems more likely than Vancouver sadly. Idk who a 4th could be. Maybe Pittsburg, Louisville, Cincinnati, or Kansas City? Mexico City would be really cool but jfc the altitude advantage would be crazy. Regardless of who’s picked since all of those other than Pittsburg would be western conference, it’s easy enough to just move Memphis and New Orleans to the eastern conference
They should add a team in Jacksonville. With the jags looking up, sports fans in Jacksonville have never been happier. We are loyal fans who will go to games no matter how bad the team is and I think our sports culture is really expanding
What surprises me is the complete dismissal of Canada. There is only one team for a whole country that definitely loves basketball. There are many successful sports franchises in the country so with a good empty stadium there is definitely potential. Sure Vegas has a lot of money to throw around but I would put a few Canadian cities right after it. Especially ones starving for a franchise. There are big cities without any big league team.
Los Vagas, Seattle makes sense. Also Montreal and Vancouver should be considered. Canada has massive growth with basketball now. Mexico is also good option but safety of the players might be an issue.
I know it’s too much to happen all at once but my dream is: 6 team expansion (Seattle, Vegas, Baltimore, St Louis, San Diego, and Louisville (KY) would be my picks but whatever) then with 36 teams you scrap divisions, play one home and one away game against each other team for a 70 game season and then seed playoffs all together. Teams 1-10 are in for sure, teams 11-22 play a 3 game series and the 6 winners of those series take the last 6 playoff spots.
@@resident-one1533 personally I just think that much travel isn’t real workable for NBA teams. If you’re based in LA or Texas and have to go play in London or Berlin aside from the hours of travel they’re 6-9 hours ahead so you’d be jet lagged like crazy. NFL players talk about struggling with it and they’re able to go a week early and adjust. Imagine for example teams with a game Wednesday in New York, Friday in Madrid, then Monday in Orlando. The travel alone would exhaust guys. I could see maybe Vancouver or Mexico City or something close, but I just think the NBA schedule is too busy for longer distance travel.
They should name themselves the Vancouver Blues so that their mascot is the thing that's famous in Memphis, and Memphis's mascot is the thing that's famous in Vancouver 😂
I agree it should happen and I don't think it should be more than 2 teams. As you said, it will take time for those teams to compete, and the more you add, the more time it takes. I think 2 is the sweet spot.
If NBA is smart, they would take the stand that the NHL has and actually give expansion teams a chance to be competitive. You need to build fanbases quickly, allowing expansion teams to be somewhat competitive early is good for the league and building those fanbases.
@@civilwarwasaninsidejob7405 And what does that do to fan bases in Denver and San Antonio when they lose Jokic and Wemby? Although I guess it would create instant rivalries.
@@civilwarwasaninsidejob7405 Taking players out of existing teams is going to hurt those teams, making them less competative. I'm tentative to open existing teams up to this process. I realise this is the exact same point which theman4884 mentioned. The example is extreme, as the teams would be allowed to protect their core players (including their stars). It would greatly punish deeper teams though, especially younger teams that haven't exactly figured out their roster and who is supposed to be on it.
I think free agents should be a team as well. Always felt like they should be able to compete if they want on a veterans min until you get signed by a team.
One thing not brought up, which I think is important is that if the league were to add two teams in Seattle and Las Vegas then it could shift Minnesota to the Central Division. This makes so much sense, and could really level the playing filed for them seeing as they are closer to every team in the Central Division then they are to the closest team in the Northwest Division.
I mean look at Markkanen and Bridges this year. Both great players the year before, but did anyone expect either of them to grow to the level they did. There's a number of 3rd or 4th guys I feel could shine in the right situation. I'd say start with 2 and move to 4 over a longer plan.
Theyre better off adding teams in Mexico City (biggest city in N America) and Montreal (19th) than 2 more in a crowded US market. Vegas is 1/10th the size of Mexico City and less than half the size of Montreal.
@@RD-zx6py Mexico City brings a ton of money but you are completely right. I don't think people understand that this is a huge drawback. No players would want to play, and the team is likely going to suck real bad. The draft will end up having players ask not to be drafted by them.
With rising Canadian talent, like a Shai or a Jamal Murray of a Bennedict Mathurin or a Shaedon Sharpe or even Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett as two first overall draft picks from Canada, Canadian major cities like Vancouver or Montreal would be my picks of inspiring the next generation of Canadian basketball. I would also include players like RJ Barrett and many other solid Canadian players still in the league I hear mentioned a lot and Canada even has hall of fame Steve Nash, but I would say Seattle is a must in my opinion as well.
***maybe*** Montreal but Vancouver is a terrible sports city. They barely support their NHL team and they are the second largest metro population at 6 million
@@chrisholm9789 I hear yah, and I wasn’t familiar to the Vancouver sports scene and I guess it might also depend on team success, but hopefully and possibly Montreal at least as it would seem like Vancouver would be more of having that potential I would think from hearing about the large population. I would think Vancouver could possibly be like a Portland or a Toronto given how the team’s success is like how the support for the raptors seemed to be buzzing during the nba finals, and I would assume Vancouver hasn’t been as popular at hockey historically as Montreal has, but perhaps a future exciting basketball team with talent in a Canadian city can excite a fan base
@@jeredl1214 Vancouver had the grizzlies the same time the Raptors entered the league and they only lasted a few seasons before moving. It’s a different culture there, very hippie, no urban culture at all…I just can’t see it working there. The people who might support a basketball team don’t live anywhere near the arena either, downtown and surrounding area is filled with, how do I put it nicely… lol idk yuppies perhaps?
@@chrisholm9789 Expansion seems more complex the more to think about and it’s interesting to hear about some background history on Vancouver and nba basketball in Canada. I hear you about the culture as well and I feel Portland sort of having a weird culture possibly like hippie on the surface while having some tech companies from my limited knowledge, and I’m in favor for both Montreal and Vancouver if there could be in my scenario, but I can see how there might be a group of people who possibly might not support a nba team moving to Vancouver. I mean last time the Vancouver grizzlies and raptors were introduced seems like a long time ago, but I hear you and I sort of think of the tech scene in Vancouver giving some hope as I rather have a team in Canada anyway than most of the other possible locations. Seattle is probably my top though.
@@chrisholm9789 I agree, Vancouver has horrible sports culture, I'd pick any provincial capital city over it... they might not have the cash flow and population numbers but they'll have the fanbase.
Nashville Seattle Vegas seem due up and could see a Canadian or Mexico City team following a few years down the line depending on how the new teams perform and the financial and talent health going forward with the league
OKC deserves to keep its core together for the entirety of their careers because it’s entirely home grown with the exception of SGA who Presti sniped before he was a superstar.
This was exactly my point in another comment thread. Teams like OKC, who put in a lot of time, careful planning, trading well and cultivating their young core over a longer period of time need to be able to reap the rewards of this buildup. If they are going to lose a bunch of their depth, while they are on the verge of breaking out, that would be really unfair. I'm not a Thunder fan specifically, but I do like what they have been building over there. SGA is definitely homegrown, he did most of his development at OKC and turned from a promising talent into a breakout MVP-level star.
I want 6 nba teams in an expansion lol Seattle, Las Vegas, St. Louis (or Kansas City), Vancouver, Louisville, (or you could name it after the state), and Monterrey (only because it’s much closer then Mexico City while also being the 2nd largest metropolitan in Mexico)
I think it should be kept even so the conferences aren't imbalanced. But yeah there's a bunch of cities that could get am expansion team, and personally I would like to see like 4 get added.
@@Cyantist13 4 makes the divisions REAL hard to balance. It's 2 or 6. 5 CAN work but basically requires a 7th division just hanging out there. 6 and you just more or less add a team to every current division, add 2 and you collapse the 6 divisions into 4.
nah cos the conferences would be unbalanced because it’d be an odd number. Also, they shouldn’t add that many teams at the same time. It’d change the league too drastically all at once. They should just add two for now; probably Seattle and Las Vegas and maybe 10-15 years down the line, they could possibly add more
2 teams seems to be a sure thing but i would like to see 4 team. seattle and vegas are the obvious first 2. the other two would be vancouver, and hear me out now, honolulu. the first 3 are obvious markets. honolulu is a sleeper market, because of its proximity to asia, where there are more nba fans than the entire population of the united states. fans from asian countries such as china, japan, taiwan, etc will come and spend big bucks fly a relatively short flight to go watch a game live. hawaii will be the number one place to inject foreign cash into the league.
Kansas City used to have the Kings, and KC fans were lied to about their team moving. Here's a video by Andy Hoops breaking down what happened in KC. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1jCYSvC-xsc.html
If you're going to do 32 teams, even out the schedule to 76 games with 4 divisions in 2 conferences: 28 games against teams in your division, 16 games against teams in the other division of the same conference, and 32 games against teams in the other conference. And, I would have the two expansion teams play against each other in the first 2 games, if in different divisions or conferences, or 4 games, if in the same conference of their inaugural seasons.
I like your idea. I would agree to 32 games against the other conference, 24 games in the other 3 divisions in the own conference and then 12 games in the own division this gets to a total of 68 games. But we actually have the mid season tournament, so this gives an other few games. And if those games wouldn’t be enough, then you can face your division again. I just think you have to play each team 2x (home/away), and then 4x or 5x in the own division.
@@willkennedydrumming The reason why I picked 76 is because I wanted to make sure that every team gets an even amount of home and away games for all 32 teams.
@@manzac112 yeah I see, and as I said I like your Idea. What also could be interesting would be 4 conferences with 8 teams each. So 2 divisions per conference. 4 teams out of the 8 teams going for the first 2 rounds. This would make sure you focus your 2 divisions more. But maybe it‘s still better to go 2 conferences because if it would be 4 conferences and the top 4 of each battle each other would mean per instance Celtics, 76ers, Bucks, knicks would face each other… this would mean that Miami has an easy go in the south
you only need to move one nba team to the east. the math is weird at first but makes sense when you do it. remember, there are 15 teams in each conference. when you move 1 team to the east, then the west now has 14 teams and the east has 16 teams
I said it once and will keep saying it, the NBA needs 36 teams. Maybe adding them all at the same time is too much but the league is way too popular to have only 30 teams (more than half of them make it to the playoffs). The Western Conference NEEDS teams and they have some of the biggest cities. Seattle, Las Vegas and Vancouver should all get teams and the TWolves, Grizzlies and Pelicans should all move east. There are other cities, like San Diego and Austin who could also get an NBA team.
Don't particularly care about an expansion. Jalen Brown as the best player on a team would be a first round exit, at best, so I fail to see how that's "exciting".
I don’t get the connection to a single player… (Jalen Brown as an individual and his contract and all that stuff = different topic) this is a team sport. 1 player, even if he is the best (like lebron or MJ), can’t do it alone. The Miami Heat showed us how some stars, some undrafted players and other roll players can make it to the finals. And in addition, those new teams with some 2nd best player stars, could open up a door for them. (And actually Jalen Brown wouldn‘t be available anyways)
Expanding to 32 teams also fixes the problem of having 6 divisions. 4 divisions of 8 teams each Southeast: Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando, Washington Northeast: Boston, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, NY, Philly, Toronto Southwest: Clippers, Dallas, Golden State, Lakers, OKC, Phoenix, San Antonio, Vegas Northwest: Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Portland, Utah, Sacramento, Seattle With only 2 divisions per conference (East & West), throw in a rule that each division winner can finish no worse than 4th (home court in 1st round), though I rarely if ever see a case where the top 4 in a conference comes from 1 division
I think the league could do well with 40 teams total. Definitely adding 2-4 teams in the next decade will be huge for the league. It'll also encourage a lot more former players to own teams. Especially with the success of the G-League.
Out of all the scenarios , I would prefer Memphis to he moved to the East and Seattle as well as Mexico City to be added to the West . It would even make more sence because 50% of each conference would make the postseason.
@@manzac112 And is a TERRIBLE anchor on the Northwest division in terms of travel if Seattle is being added as well. Like Seattle to Minnesota is a WILD distance. Crazy travel is unavoidable in the currently constructed NW, but it would be near criminal if Minnesota remains in the West so that Memphis can go out East.
I want Virginia to get a team. It’s crazy that they don’t have a team yet, and Virginia Beach seems like an excellent and stable location for a professional team.
We don’t need teams in other countries, there are TONS of cities in the USA that deserve a team. Vegas. Seattle. Louisville. ABQ. St. Louis Kansas City. Pittsburgh. Syracuse. A team in Virginia (not sure where in Virginia) Omaha. Austin, Jacksonville, Tampa, Birmingham, Nashville, Cincinnati, a second team in Chicago or Houston or DFW. So many more.
Naw owners want new teams in areas where the expansion team doesn't take away fans/money from them. Plus putting a team in like Mexico City, they will literally have a whole country as a fan base.
@@Ghostkilla773 that is not a concern for any owner. Pretty much all the cities I named have no real loyalty to any team, and due to not having a local team most aren’t even nba fans. You can grow the nba fanbase perfectly fine in any of those cities without leeching off another team. Especially considering a fan in say Louisville is probably not going all the way to Cleveland or Memphis for games ever. And Mexico City would be a terrible idea logistically, as the travel times would suck, players wouldn’t want to go there, and it would stunt any possibility for growth of a Mexican league. Mexico deserves their own league instead of being an outcast in ours. And Mexican cities that the nba can’t justify a team in would be able to get those teams, like Tijuana or Monterrey or ciudad Juárez. Puebla.
Not to mention the rivalries that can arise from having two teams in an area make the games between those teams far more exciting and watched, which drives more revenue than would be “lost” by having another team compete. It only works in metro areas large enough to support this however, which is why I only named the 3 largest metros with only one team (all of which are certainly large enough to support it)
There’s plenty of talent out there and plenty of money. I could see up to six teams coming, one for each division after some shuffling. They may not be all that competitive at first, but there’s no reason to expect that. Neither were the Mets. I love the idea and think it’s really overdue. I feel like Vegas and Seattle should be locks, I’ve heard talk about Nashville & Austin, Virginia Beach…hell all of these places would be great.
I am a big Seattle Sports fan, grown up in Washington and it will always be home to me. There is no way I can root for a team not from here. So Seattle (as the Sonics again, obviously) and Vegas. The Vegas team would be the Jokers as a nod to its gambling history and casino industry. They would both be in the west and move Memphis to the east, make the Mississippi River the dividing line. Then restructure the divisions within the two conferences. To a simple north and south division of 8 teams each. North-west division would be: Seattle, Portland, OKC, Minnesota, Denver, Utah, Sacramento, and Golden State. Southwest division would be Vegas, Los Angeles x 2, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, and New Orleans. Northeast would be Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, New York, Brooklyn, and Boston. Southeast would be Philly, Washington, Indiana, Memphis, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, and Miami.
Adding two teams in the US (most likely Seattle and Vegas) and two teams internationally (Mexico city and another team in Canada) would be extremely interesting although adding 4 teams at the same time might stretch out the talent in the league a little too thin
Add two teams to the west, Las Vegas & Seattle. Reassign the Memphis Grizzlies to the Eastern Conference to even it out in the Eastern Conference. I can see St. Louis, MO getting a bball team if other cities are being considered.
NBA can just have all the expansion teams like Nashville, Saint Louis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, London, Paris, Shanghai, Tokyo, Beijing & so much more of the NBA teams all around the world!🌍🌍🌍🌍🌍🌍🏟🏟🏟🏟🏟🏟🏀🏀🏀🏀🏀🏀
1:30 - 100% Agree A great example of this is Naz Reid. I would bet my life that if you gave Naz Reid a starting role on any other team, he's be averaging 20 & 10 (or close to it) and be in All-Star conversations. He's that good, but he'll never get big minutes with KAT & Gobert. It's why I wanted him to leave the Wolves in free agency, but he stayed and got his contract.
One thing worth mentioning is the G-league which is a bona fide farm system now, look at the amount of quality undrafted players in the NBA, the majority of whom had time in the G-league, back in 1995 when the raptors and grizzlies entered there was no G-league and in 2004bthe D-league was in its infancy, so now it is easier for these expansion teams to find young talent and not rely on a bunch of castoffs
It’s a good idea. However I would put a rule where the new teams have to have at least 5 players that don’t have a team( free agency and or overseas) . That way they don’t have a lot of raw talent and have some veterans on the squad.
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think an interesting path for NBA expansion could be through a second division, like a number of global basketball leagues have. At this point, through the popularity of international soccer, the concept of promotion and relegation isn't exactly alien anymore. A lot of online content creators and average fans talk about "what if college football had relegation, etc" because they hate tanking/mediocity, etc... but on the flipside the league could arrange revenue sharing in the next CBA such that owners wouldn't suffer huge losses through relegation. It would also open up a bunch more roster spots, hopefully for NBA vet types as the league continues to get younger. There are also a bunch of other North American markets that could support high level pro basketball USA: Seattle, Vegas, Kansas City, Louisville, etc CAN/MEX: Montreal, Vancouver, Mexico City, Monterrey? The NBA could even get weird and try a team in Europe or the Caribbean or something, and a 2nd division could be the perfect scenario to try, higher stakes than the G League and lower than the current NBA. And the final piece is that you could use the mid season tournament to do interleague play, and make it a more distinct and interesting competition. It'd be really unique in American sports and I'd love to see it!!!
I'd say they have the potential to expand to 6 teams. But I would say 2-4 would be realistic for the next few years. And the WNBA is way overdue for expansion as well.
Teams would have to be in North America and not across the ocean. Flying across the ocean for every single regular season game does not make sense. I wanna see Seattle, Vegas, maybe Baltimore as well
