Problem is that D-League takes a backseat to the American Hockey League in Austin. As long as the Austin Spurs draw half the size the crowd of the Texas Stars... no way the NBA thinks expansion would be a good idea. I could see the NHL coming here first, especially since Texas University really can't argue it's drawing fans away from its hockey program.
In terms of a business, the league is going to grow because it makes them money. In terms of competitiveness for a trophy it gets weaker and weaker and yes the best always rise to the top which is why you have practice and D-League. They prove it there. Teams have to fill 15 slots when their depth may only be 3 - 6 strong players and some back ups/ role players. That's called watered down. Even LeBron said the Cavs are bored because theirs no real competition out there. Look how pathetic the East is alone. It's a joke!
Practice and D-league? Surely you don't htink that's enough? First of all with tthat you immediately take out most of the international stars. Secondly D-league plays no defence and has very mixed results in developing young players. Tell me how Jimmy Butler or Kawhi Leonard who were only/mosty defensive specialists would shine and develop in just the D-league? Also why would a team for example with a Klay Thompson even bother much to develop a Zach Lavine who when drafted was extremely raw and didn't know how to really play bbal except dunking? If the team is so stacked and they are also contending and the roster spots are so few, they would just waive him after a rookie season. Almost every young player unless he's some kind of generational talent needs the right environment and chances and patience. If you don't have roster spots, real nba playing time, patience and opportunities to give you won't see much development from your rookies. With what you are proposing a lot of current stars would most likely have washed out of the league before breaking out. Jimmy Butler, Isaiah Thomas, Kawhi Leonard, Gobert, Whiteside, Kemba walker, Derozan, Lowry...All those took a while to develop or were when drafted defensive specialists. Smth they sure wouldn't be able to showcase or improve in D-league. Embiid would already have his team give up on him if they had to wait till his third season to even play in D-league. In the end no matter how the league contracts, the number of contenders will not rise much. You have a series of 7 games adn that's why there are no surprises on who wins the trophy except once every 20 years. The contenders will just end up being the teams with th emost superstars instead of stars. . But what will happen is that the number of stars will reduce because many fewer young raw players will get the chance and opportunities required to develop into elite. So it will equalise.
This is what I was about to recommend. Kansas and the Midwest really don't have a pro ball team. Kansas and Kansas state seem to be good every year so it appears to be a potential popularity among fans. Kansas City seems the place to target. Tap into both Kansas and Missouri markets. And potentially Nebraska and Iowa. Seattle is the other clear choice. This then allows you to move Memphis and New Orleans to the east with two 16 team conferences.
I'd love to see Austin get a team. City's growth rate is through the roof. There can never be too many teams in Texas.
I'm sure they'll look to it, but I don't think it is much of an indicator. I'd much rather watch minor league hockey in person than minor league basketball. But I'm also okay watching minor league hockey over major league hockey in person. I know that sounds weird, but the ease of the experience, not too crowded, don't have to get that involved with knowing who the players are on what team, etc. It's a cheap, easy way to watch a hockey match... and hockey is more fun in person. I suspect there are many with the same thoughts. Minor league hockey = ok. Minor league basketball = why? Can just go watch the Longhorns if I want to.
don't you austin folks even think about rooting for another team... Besides, too many teams IMO. Vegas and seattle deserve a team though
I've always wanted the Austin Bats with a big batman logo on the front and everyone dress like batman in the crowds but we've already had the ice bats as a hockey team
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/24824194/the-future-nba-seattle-nba [...] So that is the question: When will Seattle get the Sonics back? The likely answer isn't what Seattle basketball fans want to hear: Not anytime soon. The NBA doesn't have expansion anywhere on its timeline, and Seattle's arena developments weren't discussed for a moment at the fall board of governors meeting two weeks ago, league sources said. Some prospective ownership groups that have met with NBA officials have been told expansion may not happen until 2025 at the earliest, when a new TV deal can be negotiated, sources said. Beyond that, the complexities of the so-called New Arena at Seattle Center, the building's working title, may make it challenging for Seattle to compete for a team if and when the time comes. The situation could even require Seattle to have a second new arena with the NBA team as the main tenant if the city wants to outbid other markets to attract a team, multiple ownership sources told ESPN. NBA commissioner Adam Silver hasn't ruled out expansion in the long term but is also focused on markets outside the U.S. The NBA has been playing regular season games in Mexico City for the past few years and is soon to announce the launching of a G League team there for the 2019-20 season, a trial balloon of how an NBA team might function there. "There are lots of terrific markets out there in the United States and some in countries attached to the United States who also have wonderful cities that could potentially house NBA teams," Silver said in June, a reference to the league's interest in Mexico City. Other than expansion, the wild card for Seattle would be for a current NBA team to relocate. Several prospective ownership groups are watching the Memphis Grizzlies. The city of Memphis has some protections built into the Grizzlies' long-term lease with FedEx Forum, however lawyers who have reviewed the lease believe there is a possible window for the team to leave in 2021, multiple league sources said. However, Grizzlies owner Robert Pera would have to sell the team in order to move it under the terms of the lease, and Pera has given no indication he plans to do so. Quite the opposite, actually. Earlier this year, Pera agreed to buy out some of his minority owners at a price that valued the team at nearly $1.3 billion, league sources said. At the time, Pera told season-ticket holders in a statement that "I am committed to Memphis as an NBA market and as the home of the Grizzlies." Naturally, this issue is complex and fast-changing. It's hard to predict where the NBA will be on its 30 current markets when the KeyArena replacement is expected to be finished. But multiple NBA owners and league sources told ESPN that while the Seattle arena development is positive, it doesn't materially change their viewpoint on replacing the Sonics at this time. [...] The New Arena at Seattle Center indeed promises to be a huge success. Oak View has partnered with billionaire investor David Bonderman and Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer to pledge $650 million to get an NHL expansion team, which should be finalized by the end of the year. Live Nation is also a partner and will ensure a premium slate of concerts. But that is also potentially the issue. With others in line to get lion's share of profits, an NBA team would be arriving last to the party. That could dim the NBA's desire to move into the market when more lucrative options may be available elsewhere, league sources said. In essence, it's possible Seattle might finally have an arena -- but the wrong arena for the NBA. [...] Ultimately, Seattle is going to have one and perhaps two new top-shelf venues to use and a new NHL team, possibly for the 2020-21 season, to cheer for. They will become an even more compelling market for an NBA team. But the aging green-and-gold merchandise is probably going to have to stay in the closet while the billionaires, politicians and executives scrap over the money and details.
It's shocking to me that the NBA would pass on Seattle in favor of other markets once KeyArena is rebuilt. There is so much money in that city now, it'd be like passing on the Bay Area. Perhaps somebody who has been there more recently can correct me, but when I was there last, I felt like the KeyArena neighborhood would still be ok for NBA games. There is a monorail that connects Seattle Center to downtown and we live in the age of Uber and Lyft, so lack of surface parking lots isn't the same issue it was in 2008.
They could put the arena in the ocean and Seattle peeps would swim out to the games. It's a no-brainer.
I think the suggestion is that, given the NHL is already the primary tenant, the NBA team would be playing second fiddle from that perspective, and would be unlikely to get the sort of favorable treatment that NBA teams typically get with arena deals.
