Some owners want to get rid of New Orleans

[pearljammer10]

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. 

It would also draw more interest to the showcase games. The NBA wouldnt have to put teams no one cares about on TV. And with the talent level being higher on each team, televised games would be much more watchable. Plus, teams would have to play the bigger markets more throughout the season.

[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)

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.  

Are you trying to maximize individual owners net revenue or the league's net revenue?

That's two very different goals.

[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)

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. 

It would also draw more interest to the showcase games. The NBA wouldnt have to put teams no one cares about on TV. And with the talent level being higher on each team, televised games would be much more watchable. Plus, teams would have to play the bigger markets more throughout the season.

They already don't put a lot of "who cares" games on TV. Look at the national TV schedule, its dominated by the good teams by and large to a huge extent. They max out the Lakers/Spurs/Celtics/Knicks/Heat/OKC/etc...

[BballTim]

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. 

  Couldn't they have gotten rid of New Orleans before they wasted all that money rebuilding it.

  Oh, did they just mean the nba franchise?

[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.  

Are you trying to maximize individual owners net revenue or the league's net revenue?

That's two very different goals.

This is the owners wanting to do this.  So, they are looking to line their pockets more in the down economy.


It is David Stern who is against it.  His goal is to grow the reach of the product. 


In the end, if enough owners want it, it happens.   

[Donoghus]

The players union would fight this tooth & nail.

Lost jobs.

Relocation has a much better chance of happening in this instance than contraction.

[Fafnir]

The players union would fight this tooth & nail.

Lost jobs.

Relocation has a much better chance of happening in this instance than contraction.

Given that pretty much no potential ownership group is willing to committ to staying in New Orleans, they will be moved eventually.

[Donoghus]

The players union would fight this tooth & nail.

Lost jobs.

Relocation has a much better chance of happening in this instance than contraction.

Given that pretty much no potential ownership group is willing to committ to staying in New Orleans, they will be moved eventually.

Yeah, that's the scenario I envision happening.  I guess the question is when & where. 

[mmbaby]

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. 

  Couldn't they have gotten rid of New Orleans before they wasted all that money rebuilding it.

  Oh, did they just mean the nba franchise?

Rebuilding? Have you had a chance to swing down here?

[BballTim]

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. 

  Couldn't they have gotten rid of New Orleans before they wasted all that money rebuilding it.

  Oh, did they just mean the nba franchise?

Rebuilding? Have you had a chance to swing down here?

  No, but there wouldn't be much point. I was never there before Katrina so I wouldn't be able to tell new problems from old ones.

[RebusRankin]

Put them in Seattle.

[Fan from VT]

Put them in Seattle.

Stern will never move a team to a city that doesn't use taxpayer money to fund state of the art stadiums.

[wdleehi]

Put them in Seattle.

Stern will never move a team to a city that doesn't use taxpayer money to fund state of the art stadiums.

Thus, they are stuck.


What city could build one right now?

[Fan from VT]

Put them in Seattle.

Stern will never move a team to a city that doesn't use taxpayer money to fund state of the art stadiums.

Thus, they are stuck.


What city could build one right now?

I believe there are a couple waiting. I think on the B.s. report stern mentioned Anaheim has one that meets specs, Vegas may build one, and Kansas City has an arena that is new and would work. St. Louis too, apparently.

[Moranis]

Put them in Seattle.

Stern will never move a team to a city that doesn't use taxpayer money to fund state of the art stadiums.

Thus, they are stuck.


What city could build one right now?

I believe there are a couple waiting. I think on the B.s. report stern mentioned Anaheim has one that meets specs, Vegas may build one, and Kansas City has an arena that is new and would work. St. Louis too, apparently.

Pittsburgh was also mentioned and while Newark wasn't mentioned the Prudential Center is very nice.