32 Teams. Add Seattle + ?

[LooseCannon]

If the NBA were getting an expansion team, I say put one in Anaheim.  It would not only annoy the Lakers but would actually hurt them by costing them 10% of their most recent TV deal.

[ACF]

If the NBA were getting an expansion team, I say put one in Anaheim.  It would not only annoy the Lakers but would actually hurt them by costing them 10% of their most recent TV deal.

TP. Anything that hurts LA is a good thing 

[Celtics4ever]

Perhaps one in Vegas and one in Seattle then reorganize so another team goes east?  I know some people think Vegas would be bad because of the gambling but people already bet on the games.

[Kiorrik]

Sydney. Add Sydney.

[slamtheking]

contraction would be the better way to go.  League is far too watered down with players that shouldn't be in the league.

I'd like to see it cut back to 24 teams.  keep the bigger markets/best-supported/historic teams. 

[Adelaide Celt]

Sydney. Add Sydney.

Don't think so. Can't even support an NBL team.

[ACF]

Sydney. Add Sydney.

Don't think so. Can't even support an NBL team.

What about Adelaide, then?
 

[ACF]

Theoretically speaking, which team would/should "move" East if a Seattle + (insert city name) expansion ever happened? Grizzlies or Pelicans? I guess you'd go with the Grizz, just by looking at geography.

[Adelaide Celt]

Sydney. Add Sydney.

Don't think so. Can't even support an NBL team.

What about Adelaide, then?
 

*Sits down quietly*

[Moranis]

Columbus would never get a team.  Too close to both Cleveland and Indianapolis.  Cincinnati or Louisville are much more likely from that region.  St. Louis would seemingly make the most sense outside of Vegas (which I agree wouldn't happen). 

So assuming you add St. Louis and Seattle this would be how I would draw up the divisions

1 - Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden St.
2 - LA, LA, Phoenix, Utah
3 - Denver, Dallas, Houston, San An
4 - Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Memphis, Minnesota
5 - NY, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly
6 - Milwaukee, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit
7 - Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta
8 - Washington, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Cleveland

I would set it up so you play the other 3 teams in your division 5 times, the other 12 teams in your conference 3 times, and the 16 teams in the other conference twice, for a 83 game schedule (rotate years on the extra home vs. extra road game).  If they wanted to keep it an even number, play the other teams in your division 6 times and go to a 86 game schedule.  That sort of set up would really put more emphasis on the divisions and would really foster the rivalries more.

[Donoghus]

Columbus would never get a team.  Too close to both Cleveland and Indianapolis.  Cincinnati or Louisville are much more likely from that region.  St. Louis would seemingly make the most sense outside of Vegas (which I agree wouldn't happen). 

So assuming you add St. Louis and Seattle this would be how I would draw up the divisions

1 - Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden St.
2 - LA, LA, Phoenix, Utah
3 - Denver, Dallas, Houston, San An
4 - Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Memphis, Minnesota
5 - NY, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly
6 - Milwaukee, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit
7 - Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta
8 - Washington, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Cleveland

I would set it up so you play the other 3 teams in your division 5 times, the other 12 teams in your conference 3 times, and the 16 teams in the other conference twice, for a 83 game schedule (rotate years on the extra home vs. extra road game).  If they wanted to keep it an even number, play the other teams in your division 6 times and go to a 86 game schedule.  That sort of set up would really put more emphasis on the divisions and would really foster the rivalries more.

Regular season is already too long.  86 games would be ridiculous.  Players union would probably object, also.

[Moranis]

Columbus would never get a team.  Too close to both Cleveland and Indianapolis.  Cincinnati or Louisville are much more likely from that region.  St. Louis would seemingly make the most sense outside of Vegas (which I agree wouldn't happen). 

So assuming you add St. Louis and Seattle this would be how I would draw up the divisions

1 - Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden St.
2 - LA, LA, Phoenix, Utah
3 - Denver, Dallas, Houston, San An
4 - Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Memphis, Minnesota
5 - NY, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly
6 - Milwaukee, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit
7 - Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta
8 - Washington, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Cleveland

I would set it up so you play the other 3 teams in your division 5 times, the other 12 teams in your conference 3 times, and the 16 teams in the other conference twice, for a 83 game schedule (rotate years on the extra home vs. extra road game).  If they wanted to keep it an even number, play the other teams in your division 6 times and go to a 86 game schedule.  That sort of set up would really put more emphasis on the divisions and would really foster the rivalries more.

Regular season is already too long.  86 games would be ridiculous.  Players union would probably object, also.

It could easily be negotiated, just like the NFL is doing right now with its union about increasing the NFL regular season and playoffs.  At the end of the day it will be about money and benefits and if the league makes the appropriate concessions then the union will agree. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Columbus would never get a team.  Too close to both Cleveland and Indianapolis.  Cincinnati or Louisville are much more likely from that region.  St. Louis would seemingly make the most sense outside of Vegas (which I agree wouldn't happen). 

So assuming you add St. Louis and Seattle this would be how I would draw up the divisions

1 - Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden St.
2 - LA, LA, Phoenix, Utah
3 - Denver, Dallas, Houston, San An
4 - Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Memphis, Minnesota
5 - NY, Brooklyn, Boston, Philly
6 - Milwaukee, Chicago, Toronto, Detroit
7 - Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Atlanta
8 - Washington, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Cleveland

I would set it up so you play the other 3 teams in your division 5 times, the other 12 teams in your conference 3 times, and the 16 teams in the other conference twice, for a 83 game schedule (rotate years on the extra home vs. extra road game).  If they wanted to keep it an even number, play the other teams in your division 6 times and go to a 86 game schedule.  That sort of set up would really put more emphasis on the divisions and would really foster the rivalries more.

Regular season is already too long.  86 games would be ridiculous.  Players union would probably object, also.

It could easily be negotiated, just like the NFL is doing right now with its union about increasing the NFL regular season and playoffs.  At the end of the day it will be about money and benefits and if the league makes the appropriate concessions then the union will agree.

The NFL shouldn't expand its schedule. Guys are banged up enough already after 16 games.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

contraction would be the better way to go.  League is far too watered down with players that shouldn't be in the league.

I'd like to see it cut back to 24 teams.  keep the bigger markets/best-supported/historic teams.

Hear, hear. Thin the crop so that there are more good-to-great teams, and thus better competition.

[lightspeed5]

expansion wont happen, like others said league is watered down with talent.