NBA to Vegas?

[CHRDANHUTCH]

FSG has said that an NBA team was a priority for them. Years ago they approached MLSE about a merger but they couldn't do it because Rogers owns the Blue Jays.

it's the same reasoning why FSG has a stake in PIT.... neither team at TD Garden is available or on the market

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

FSG has said that an NBA team was a priority for them. Years ago they approached MLSE about a merger but they couldn't do it because Rogers owns the Blue Jays.

I'll be shocked if the Vegas franchise isn't given to FSG. Lebron has been vocal about wanting to be an owner and is a partner in FSG.

 

[KevFu]

It's bonkers to me that the NBA doesn't have more teams than everyone else by a long-shot.

Guys who are among the best 450 players in the world can't crack an NBA roster. And most the drop-off in talent is mainly due to the fact that NBA players can afford technically develop their skills getting better at basketball as a full time job, and who else can afford to do so.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

It's bonkers to me that the NBA doesn't have more teams than everyone else by a long-shot.

Guys who are among the best 450 players in the world can't crack an NBA roster. And most the drop-off in talent is mainly due to the fact that NBA players can afford technically develop their skills getting better at basketball as a full time job, and who else can afford to do so.

Owners don't want to share the TV pie with more owners.

 

[KevFu]

Owners don't want to share the TV pie with more owners.

I understand the concept, but like you're adding to the number of places where people have teams, increasing interest in those large markets, which is going to translate to increased media rights to pay those teams shares -- especially as Sports is more valuable in our a la cart, stream/binge society.


There's 18 markets with over 50 million people that don't have NBA teams where an NBA team would probably work. Cross off anyone with a question of "close enough to a team" or "market saturation"-- Tampa Bay, Riverside/Inland Empire, Baltimore, Hartford, Austin, Cincinnati, Nashville, Raleigh, Jacksonville, and Providence.

But that still leaves Seattle, Las Vegas, Montreal, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Kansas City, Virginia Beach or Raleigh, Louisville.

The smallest places on that list are like places you think of first with "what places really love basketball?"

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I understand the concept, but like you're adding to the number of places where people have teams, increasing interest in those large markets, which is going to translate to increased media rights to pay those teams shares -- especially as Sports is more valuable in our a la cart, stream/binge society.


There's 18 markets with over 50 million people that don't have NBA teams where an NBA team would probably work. Cross off anyone with a question of "close enough to a team" or "market saturation"-- Tampa Bay, Riverside/Inland Empire, Baltimore, Hartford, Austin, Cincinnati, Nashville, Raleigh, Jacksonville, and Providence.

But that still leaves Seattle, Las Vegas, Montreal, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Kansas City, Virginia Beach or Raleigh, Louisville.

The smallest places on that list are like places you think of first with "what places really love basketball?"

Raleigh and Louisville are ones I'd be weary of.

They love college ball and UNC, Duke, Louisville, Kentucky. I don't know if they'll take to a pro franchise.

 

[KevFu]

Raleigh and Louisville are ones I'd be weary of.

They love college ball and UNC, Duke, Louisville, Kentucky. I don't know if they'll take to a pro franchise.

Yeah, and there's still SEVEN cities on the "good list" ahead of all them!

I'd also say that plenty of places support college and pro. Half the Big East plays in NBA arenas, and of course, Georgia football vs Atlanta Falcons.

I really don't buy the argument that anyone loves the college game more than the pro game.

There ARE people who like college basketball and not the NBA. I'm one of those people. I'm a college hoops junkie, but I'm a college hoops junkie because of my loyalty to my SCHOOL. I really just don't like the game basketball all that much, it's just part of the identity of my school so it became part of my identity (as a sports junkie it was highly compatible).

But that's not loyalty to the college GAME. That's loyalty to the COLLEGE. Like how SEC football is massive because that's the football they have.

I've lived in SEC country, there's really no difference between Louisiana supporting LSU and the Saints, or Georgia and the Falcons.

No one says that same thing about football in Texas: "They just won't like pro football in Texas, they have the SWC/Big 12 (now SEC)." They support like 11 NCAA teams and 2 pro teams quite well and the NFL would work in San Antonio, Austin or El Paso.


Does that make sense? Those with huge crowds for NCAA hoops is both loving the school and the game. It's "an NBA fan base with no NBA team to support," so they have huge NCAA arenas.

And if you basketball were to fail in one of those cities, it would be because an owner did something stupid. Like put Louisville team in blue uniforms.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I understand the concept, but like you're adding to the number of places where people have teams, increasing interest in those large markets, which is going to translate to increased media rights to pay those teams shares -- especially as Sports is more valuable in our a la cart, stream/binge society.

There's 18 markets with over 50 million people that don't have NBA teams where an NBA team would probably work. Cross off anyone with a question of "close enough to a team" or "market saturation"-- Tampa Bay, Riverside/Inland Empire, Baltimore, Hartford, Austin, Cincinnati, Nashville, Raleigh, Jacksonville, and Providence.

But that still leaves Seattle, Las Vegas, Montreal, San Diego, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Kansas City, Virginia Beach or Raleigh, Louisville.

The smallest places on that list are like places you think of first with "what places really love basketball?"

The NBA is not a locally driven league. This is antiquated thinking. The younger generation these days doesn't care about teams, they root for the players they like, and aren't going to get attached to their local bottom feeder in a league that's already too top heavy. There's better, more modern ways to increase interest on a national scale that they're already doing quite well.

They're about to more than double their rights fees. $2.7b is going to turn into probably $6b. That's $200mm per team. A 36 team league need would need $7.2b to match that. Are these additional 6 markets really going create a 20% bump? I think not.

 

[KevFu]

The NBA is not a locally driven league. This is antiquated thinking. The younger generation these days doesn't care about teams, they root for the players they like, and aren't going to get attached to their local bottom feeder in a league that's already too top heavy. There's better, more modern ways to increase interest on a national scale that they're already doing quite well.

They're about to more than double their rights fees. $2.7b is going to turn into probably $6b. That's $200mm per team. A 36 team league need would need $7.2b to match that. Are these additional 6 markets really going create a 20% bump? I think not.

That's very true and I've made the same arguments in other threads on "your side."

Maybe that's why I don't like the NBA. It's NOT tribal. It's celebrity.