Expansion/Re-Alignment

[BitterJim]

I generally despise the idea of expansion in any sport, because I think we have plenty of teams in general, and plenty of bad teams in particular, and because each sport already has numerous players who aren't good enough to be playing at the highest professional level but are there anyway because teams have slots they have to fill.

That said, pro sports leagues are greedy and never satisfied, so I know they'll just keep expanding. Adam Silver is perfectly content to add teams in smaller markets because that instantly creates new fan bases that can spend gobs of money, yet the big-market teams remain the ones that will most often be in the NBA Finals, which is better for TV ratings. A win-win for him and the league, even though many expansion teams don't have much hope of ever being great, because the best free agents usually want to be where it's warm (L.A., Miami) or where the biggest media are (N.Y., L.A.).

In light of these facts, and also factoring in geographical/travel considerations, I think the NBA should go wild:

• Move Minnesota, Memphis, and New Orleans to the East
• Add West teams in the following cities:
  > Seattle (already a given)
  > Vegas (already a given)
  > San Diego (great weather, great destination for players and for All-Star Weekend, already has baseball, used to support an NBA team)
  > St. Louis (already has baseball and hockey, used to support an NBA team)
  > Albuquerque/Santa Fe (warm weather, meets a need for NBA fans in the large gap between the Phoenix, Denver, and Texas teams)
  > Omaha (one of the fastest-growing metro areas in the U.S., used to (partially) support an NBA team, and meets a need for NBA fans in the heartland)

This means 18 teams in each conference:

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic Division
Boston
Brooklyn
New York
Philadelphia
Toronto
Washington

Central Division
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Milwaukee
Minnesota

Southeast Division
Atlanta
Charlotte
Memphis
Miami
New Orleans
Orlando

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Northwest Division
Denver
Las Vegas
Portland
Sacramento
Seattle
Utah

Pacific Division
Golden State
L.A. Clippers
L.A. Lakers
New Mexico
Phoenix
San Diego

Southwest Division
Dallas
Houston
Oklahoma City
Omaha
San Antonio
St. Louis

I'm sure there are factors I'm not taking into consideration, but that's my wild, somewhat haphazard stab at expansion/realignment.

You're missing the biggest argument against this idea, that Tatum would be tempted to leave if St Louis got a team. To me, that makes it a non-starter.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I generally despise the idea of expansion in any sport, because I think we have plenty of teams in general, and plenty of bad teams in particular, and because each sport already has numerous players who aren't good enough to be playing at the highest professional level but are there anyway because teams have slots they have to fill.

That said, pro sports leagues are greedy and never satisfied, so I know they'll just keep expanding. Adam Silver is perfectly content to add teams in smaller markets because that instantly creates new fan bases that can spend gobs of money, yet the big-market teams remain the ones that will most often be in the NBA Finals, which is better for TV ratings. A win-win for him and the league, even though many expansion teams don't have much hope of ever being great, because the best free agents usually want to be where it's warm (L.A., Miami) or where the biggest media are (N.Y., L.A.).

In light of these facts, and also factoring in geographical/travel considerations, I think the NBA should go wild:

• Move Minnesota, Memphis, and New Orleans to the East
• Add West teams in the following cities:
  > Seattle (already a given)
  > Vegas (already a given)
  > San Diego (great weather, great destination for players and for All-Star Weekend, already has baseball, used to support an NBA team)
  > St. Louis (already has baseball and hockey, used to support an NBA team)
  > Albuquerque/Santa Fe (warm weather, meets a need for NBA fans in the large gap between the Phoenix, Denver, and Texas teams)
  > Omaha (one of the fastest-growing metro areas in the U.S., used to (partially) support an NBA team, and meets a need for NBA fans in the heartland)

This means 18 teams in each conference:

EASTERN CONFERENCE
Atlantic Division
Boston
Brooklyn
New York
Philadelphia
Toronto
Washington

Central Division
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Indiana
Milwaukee
Minnesota

Southeast Division
Atlanta
Charlotte
Memphis
Miami
New Orleans
Orlando

WESTERN CONFERENCE
Northwest Division
Denver
Las Vegas
Portland
Sacramento
Seattle
Utah

Pacific Division
Golden State
L.A. Clippers
L.A. Lakers
New Mexico
Phoenix
San Diego

Southwest Division
Dallas
Houston
Oklahoma City
Omaha
San Antonio
St. Louis

I'm sure there are factors I'm not taking into consideration, but that's my wild, somewhat haphazard stab at expansion/realignment.

You're missing the biggest argument against this idea, that Tatum would be tempted to leave if St Louis got a team. To me, that makes it a non-starter.

Ha, I figured I missed something -- never thought of that angle!

[BudweiserCeltic]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

[A Future of Stevens]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

The top-end talent is great, but I don't think it's all that deep.

[slamtheking]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

[Moranis]

The problem is there are always odd teams, but I suspect you would do 8-4 team divisions as that would really help scheduling

So games played
32 - 2 games, 16 other conference
36 - 3 games, 12 other division
15 - 5 games, 3 other division

83 total games (or they could play 4 division games and reduce scheduleto 80).  It adds a game but actually increases importance of division and thus reduces travel.

Divisions
NE - Bos, NY, BKN, Tor
Mid At - Was, Cha, Phi, Atl
S - Mia, Orl, NO, SA
Mid Wst - Cle, Det, Ind, Mem
Cen - Chi, Mil, Min, OKC
NW - Sea, Por, Uta, Den
Pac - GS, LAL, LAC, Sac
SW - Hou, Dal, Pho, LV

Memphis and OKC are hard to place, but I think that works quite well overall.

[A Future of Stevens]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

[slamtheking]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals. 

[dannyboy35]

Ugh. worst thing for the league is expansion.

I agree, there?s too many bad teams now

   It is what it is and I also realize it?s selfish on my part because I have a team I love. I?m sure people in Seattle are going to be so excited and I WOULD be glad for them.
  I?m thinking of the years there were 23 teams and a 7 team lottery. Nobody HAD to spend years in limbo . There was always hope to get out of it so much sooner.
   Can you imagine if the league had 7 less teams snd and a redraft from those 7 ? expansion ? teams.
  There would be multiple STACKED teams with 4 all star LEVEL players.

[Moranis]

We barely got enough talent in these teams, and we want to expand...

Most pundits have been raving for years about how deep and talented the league is. If they are going to water it down a little, nows the time I guess.

and most pundits are idiots so that would explain that

I agree withe pundits part, but I honestly believe the level of talent is at an all time high. You can't even compete in the modern NBA without a minimum of 2 superstars and a great supporting cast. That wasn't the case 15 years ago.

15 years ago you needed more than just 2 superstars to win it all (our second big 3 era) but 30 years ago you only needed 2 (the MJ/Pippen run and even just one could get you a title with the Hakeem titles).

All time high for talent was the 80's.  As talented as the Sixers were in the 80's, they only won 1 title and team as loaded as the Bucks couldn't even get to the finals.

Ray Allen and Paul Pierce aren't in the same class as those other guys.  They were clear HOF players, but they aren't in the discussion for best players ever or even the best players of their era.  Not even particularly close.  I mean combined Piere and Allen have 0 1st Team All NBA, just 2 2nd Team All NBA, and just 4 3rd Team All NBA.  COMBINED.  As a comparison, Pippen has 3 1st Team All NBA, 2 2nd Team All NBA, and 1 3rd Team All NBA all by himself.  Just a different class of player and Pippen himself isn't in even a top 15 all time player discussion (and may not even be a top 25 player all time). 

So I think if you are going to say superstar, you may need to clarify if you mean a Ray Allen type superstar, a Scottie Pippen type superstar, or an actual MVP candidate type superstar. Also, most champions only have 1 MVP type candidate player, even today.  I mean last year you had SGA, but after him Williams is very good, certainly looking like he could be a HOF player, but he it would be a surprise if he is anything more than a Ray Allen type.  Holmgren and the rest of the team are a solid supporting cast.  The C's, had Tatum who is likely more like Pippen than Jordan, Brown who is in the PP/RA class, and a nice supporting cast.  The Nuggets had the best player in the world, a PP type player in Murray, and then a bunch of ok players.  The Warriors, given their age, were really just Curry as a true elite player.  I mean Wiggins was probably their 2nd best player.  Really deep team, but Steph was the only superstar (of any class).  The Bucks were similar to the Nuggets in that they had the best player in the world, and then maybe Middleton or Jrue was in the PP class, but frankly I don't think they were.  You really have to go back to the Lakers with Lebron and Davis to find a team with 2 real bonafide superstars.  The Raptors were not that either with Kawhi and a solid supporting cast, but the Warriors with Steph/KD and pre-injury Klay and young Dray were just another level of team.  Cavs and that 1st Warriors team were more like Nuggets/Bucks than the 2nd/3rd Warriors or Lakers. 

Most of the recent champions have had an other wordly player at the top and a very deep supporting cast, but not 2 bonafide superstars.