Some owners want to get rid of New Orleans

[wdleehi]

http://www.abc26.com/sports/local/wgno-sports-sternespn-021511,0,1745533.story


David Stern sounds like he doesn't want to, but if enough owners want to, it will happen. 



Count me as a supporter of this idea.  Less teams, better talent on rosters. 

[pearljammer10]

I too support this idea. I think they should take out a couple teams, weed out some of the lesser talents of the league and make the teams more exciting by adding better players to the rosters.

[wdleehi]

I too support this idea. I think they should take out a couple teams, weed out some of the lesser talents of the league and make the teams more exciting by adding better players to the rosters.

Whack two teams, have a 30 player draft.  Teams have the choice to select a player or skip.  Every player worthy of playing in the NBA stay.  Those who are not, they get the rest of their money from the NBA and a free to look elsewhere for work. 

Teams that need talent can add talent.  Those who don't like the available players are not stuck with them.


For example, the team that picks first can pick a second time if there is a player left that they want after everyone else picked or waived their right to be picked.   

[Fafnir]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

[Assassin70]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

[Roy H.]

Which franchise gets Chris Paul is the dispersal draft of NO's players?  Cleveland?  I'm guessing they're in favor of immediate contraction.

[wdleehi]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

[wdleehi]

Which franchise gets Chris Paul is the dispersal draft of NO's players?  Cleveland?  I'm guessing they're in favor of immediate contraction.

Yep.


Of course they likely will trade him right away since their is little chance  Lebron's buddy stays in Cleveland. 

[Fafnir]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

[wdleehi]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

Would it?  Is there a market big enough out there?  Is the gate % that much greater? 


Actually, it wouldn't matter.  Teams will still play the same amount of games.  So instead of sharing a smaller market's gates, team will get more shares from more games against NY or one of the LA teams. 

[Roy H.]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

The question is, where is that NBA market?  There are at least three teams right now that don't seem sustainable:  Memphis, New Orleans, and Sacramento.  Where can you put those teams?  Retread cities like Vancouver and Seattle?  Vegas? 

Honestly, I think the league (from a purely economic standpoint) would be better off contracting, waiting a couple years, and then charging a new franchise a huge "expansion fee" like normally happens.  That way, the owners get to have their cake and eat it, too.

[wdleehi]

And in this down economy, what city can afford to put together the arena the NBA will want?

[Fafnir]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

Would it?  Is there a market big enough out there?  Is the gate % that much greater? 


Actually, it wouldn't matter.  Teams will still play the same amount of games.  So instead of sharing a smaller market's gates, team will get more shares from more games against NY or one of the LA teams. 

There will be less games overall though so less revenue. Plus you lose an entire TV market (or two).

(There are 1230 NBA games in a season with 30 teams, 1189 with 29 and 1148 with 28)

[Fafnir]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

The question is, where is that NBA market?  There are at least three teams right now that don't seem sustainable:  Memphis, New Orleans, and Sacramento.  Where can you put those teams?  Retread cities like Vancouver and Seattle?  Vegas? 

Honestly, I think the league (from a purely economic standpoint) would be better off contracting, waiting a couple years, and then charging a new franchise a huge "expansion fee" like normally happens.  That way, the owners get to have their cake and eat it, too.

Seattle was perfectly sustainable, if owners didn't insist on never paying for their own stadiums as their business model.

[wdleehi]

I'd rather they just move them to a market that can support a basketball team. They never should have gone to New Orleans in the first place.

/agree

Why contract when you can move?

1) Because the TV money is shared among fewer teams thus more money for these franchise struggling for cash.

2) (for the fans) better talent because it is not spread so thin.  Better talent across the NBA means more good games.  

My guess is that if you can move the Hornets to a good NBA market the marginal revenue would go up more than contraction would lower costs.

Would it?  Is there a market big enough out there?  Is the gate % that much greater? 


Actually, it wouldn't matter.  Teams will still play the same amount of games.  So instead of sharing a smaller market's gates, team will get more shares from more games against NY or one of the LA teams. 

There will be less games overall though so less revenue. Plus you lose an entire TV market (or two).

(There are 1230 NBA games in a season with 30 teams, 1189 with 29 and 1148 with 28)

Do owners share local media money?  I thought they didn't.



For the NBA owners, there will still be 82 games plus the playoffs.

For the national contract, they will have the same amount of games so that money stays the same.  But instead of being split 30 ways, it is split 28 ways.

And of course, higher talent, easier to draw.  More local money.  


Less teams, easier to get that playoff money.