The Score just reported that a newspaper report says that the Hornets may be relocated... and CHICAGO is one of the 4 cities under consideration.

Stupid.

3 basketball teams for the L.A. area? Yeah, sure.

Anaheim has wanted a team for a long long time and Orange County is a major marketplace with tons of major businesses. In general, Orange County people don't feel all that associated with Los Angeles.

 

The Clippers should be playing at the pond but Sterling didn't want to because he lives in LA.

 

Anaheim has also been trying for a while to get an NBA team and at various points in time have tried to bring in another football team.

Worth checking out is this list of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. Just behind the OC area, which is housing bubble ravaged...Seattle is the largest metro area in the U.S. without an NBA team. San Diego, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh are your next ones on the list (although the Wiz probably count for Baltimore).

Could the Hornets play at All-State? It holds 17500 for basketball. (There's no way the Bulls let anpother NBA team into the UC)

What connection does he have to NOLA, or to other cities that might want an NBA Team? I thought Oracle was mostly Bay-Area based

He is adamant about owning an NBA team. He feels he got screwed out of the Golden State franchise because of their stubborn former owner. And he is very very close with David Stern. Stern wanted him to get the GS team, but it didn't happen.

CBS Sports on Chicago...

This one was brought up by Sports Illustrated this week and it's an interesting question. Could Chicago support a fifth sports team, and a second basketball team? The Bulls undoubtedly would always be the favorite, the Yankees to the other team's Mets, as it were, but the market is indeed large enough to support a second team. Chicago has some of the best sports fans in the country, and attendance is almost always at stable league measures across sports. There are certainly enough investors to drum up an ownership group if someone was interested in a majority share, and sponsorships wouldn't be an issue, either.

 

But what about the building? It already exists.

 

The Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Clippers, and Los Angeles Kings all occupy the Staples Center. While Staples is newer than Chicago's United Center which currently hosts the Bulls and defending Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks, the United Center is bigger, and you can make the dates work. The question would be if it would make financial sense for the United Center to give up the free nights for eight months of the year (geez the NBA season is long) in exchange for the tenant, and whether logistics costs would skyrocket too much with having to handle the demands of three teams.

 

A second Chicago team would satisfy the NBA owners contingent's interest in a stable, big-market location. An at least temporary arena is in place should the team's owners decide they want their own digs in another part of town, and it's hard to see there being no interest in the club given how rabid Chicago sports fans are. But that's a whole lot of teams in one market, and even New York has not had more than the Knicks in several decades (though they're due for a new neighbor in 2012). It would simultaneously be the easy way out and a bold move for the league to approve and push for a second team in the Windy City.

No one would support a second NBA or NFL team in Chicago.

 

The Bears and Bulls are way too popular.

 

NFL has a better chance though if the team is good, because the average fan can't see a Bears game in person.

Does Allstate Arena have enough space to support a second team temporarily?

Does Allstate Arena have enough space to support a second team temporarily?

They can seat 17,500 for basketball. So, even if Chicago is a "holding spot" until the move elsewhere (within chicago or elsewhere), I could see them housed there. but long term? They need a bigger arena IMO.

No one would support a second NBA or NFL team in Chicago.

 

The Bears and Bulls are way too popular.

 

NFL has a better chance though if the team is good, because the average fan can't see a Bears game in person.

Those two teams are far to rooted to compete against. s***, if the Sox were brought in recently instead of back in the day we wouldnt support them at all. I think people who arent from here dont understand the sports market.

Those two teams are far to rooted to compete against. s***, if the Sox were brought in recently instead of back in the day we wouldnt support them at all. I think people who arent from here dont understand the sports market.

Let's put it this way...starting from scratch building a franchise as the 2nd team in chicago, or staying in NOLA, which is the better business investment?

 

If I had no personal knowledge of the city, the first option might make sense, as Chicago is more than 3 times the size of the Metro area for NOLA, and hasn't recently been devastated, plus they have the benefit of the NBA's largest arena, and the CP3/DR1 rivalry would kick up instantly.

 

That said...the only time I'd ever go to see the other team is to go see the Bulls beat them for cheaper tickets. And I think the rest of the city would be about the same way. The other team would always be the "other".

Let's put it this way...starting from scratch building a franchise as the 2nd team in chicago, or staying in NOLA, which is the better business investment?

 

If I had no personal knowledge of the city, the first option might make sense, as Chicago is more than 3 times the size of the Metro area for NOLA, and hasn't recently been devastated, plus they have the benefit of the NBA's largest arena, and the CP3/DR1 rivalry would kick up instantly.

 

That said...the only time I'd ever go to see the other team is to go see the Bulls beat them for cheaper tickets. And I think the rest of the city would be about the same way. The other team would always be the "other".

It depends on where they put the team. You put it at All-State and you can draw greater from the Northwest and Southwest suburbs, while also bringing in a lot of attendance from the Rockford region. I think they'd have no problem selling out that arena on most nights with NBA talent playing there (especially Chris f***ing Paul? I'll head out a few times to watch).

 

It would certainly make for some entertaining "cross town" games.

Edited December 6, 201015 yr by Steve9347

It depends on where they put the team. You put it at All-State and you can draw greater from the Northwest and Southwest suburbs, while also bringing in a lot of attendance from the Rockford region. I think they'd have no problem selling out that arena on most nights with NBA talent playing there (especially Chris f***ing Paul? I'll head out a few times to watch).

 

It would certainly make for some entertaining "cross town" games.

Remember though, the NBA doesn't make its money on the people who buy the cheap seats (you might be fairly wealthy, I wouldn't know). The NBA makes its money on the people who pay a couple hundred dollars to sit close to the court, and the people who spend a lot more than that to fill the luxury boxes. To succeed as an NBA franchise in chicago, you need the big money, the businesses, to fill those spots. When NBA franchises have gotten in trouble, it's because the big industries in their cities have gone downhill, such that the luxury boxes couldn't be filled or such that they had to cut their lower box ticket prices.

Actually the Sears Centre would be a better option to draw from the Rockford area.

Anaheim has wanted a team for a long long time and Orange County is a major marketplace with tons of major businesses. In general, Orange County people don't feel all that associated with Los Angeles.

 

The Clippers should be playing at the pond but Sterling didn't want to because he lives in LA.

 

Anaheim has also been trying for a while to get an NBA team and at various points in time have tried to bring in another football team.

 

Do you think the Clippers would draw more fans if they were based in Anaheim rather than LA?

Do you think the Clippers would draw more fans if they were based in Anaheim rather than LA?

I don't think they'd notice a difference in the size of the fan base, however, I think it is more likely that you'd have a shot at having a larger fanbase which is fans of your team first and foremost.

 

All of this said, a second team can become powerful once it wins. Fans are bandwagoners in general. There are exceptions to the rule but I think if you get a 2nd franchise in and it does what it takes and goes on a dominate run, people will switch allegiances, imo.

 

The posters on Soxtalk might not, but a lot of fans might.

Actually the Sears Centre would be a better option to draw from the Rockford area.

The Sears centre only holds like 12k.

The team could get fans, but it would need 1 of 2 things to happen:

 

1) Superstar/winning team. Everyone loves a winner.

 

2) Ownership group. If its owned by Walter Payron's ghost, Mike Ditka and other fan favorites, plenty would support.

 

I was at the Belmont Red Line stop on Saturday night and saw that Depaul plays at All-State. Got me thinking if Depaul could work something out with the UC (wasnt sure of the logistics). If Depaul and the NBA could some how get a Northside Arena built, that would most likely be pretty attractive to fans. Getting to the UC is a chore, and Im sure there are plenty of people who just want a party atmosphere.

 

 

Actually the Sears Centre would be a better option to draw from the Rockford area.

way way way too small. 11,000 for basketball

Let's put it this way...starting from scratch building a franchise as the 2nd team in chicago, or staying in NOLA, which is the better business investment?

 

If I had no personal knowledge of the city, the first option might make sense, as Chicago is more than 3 times the size of the Metro area for NOLA, and hasn't recently been devastated, plus they have the benefit of the NBA's largest arena, and the CP3/DR1 rivalry would kick up instantly.

 

That said...the only time I'd ever go to see the other team is to go see the Bulls beat them for cheaper tickets. And I think the rest of the city would be about the same way. The other team would always be the "other".

I'd put them in Omaha

Worth checking out is this list of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. Just behind the OC area, which is housing bubble ravaged...Seattle is the largest metro area in the U.S. without an NBA team. San Diego, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh are your next ones on the list (although the Wiz probably count for Baltimore).

If Seattle ever got their arena situation sorted out, they would make the most sense IMO.

 

I always remember the great fan support they had back in the 90's when the likes of Kemp, Payton and Detlef Schrempf were playing there.

Bringing back the Seattle Sonics would be the smartest move.

A second team in Chicago would not succeed unless they were good off the bat.

 

I'd go to a few games if they were cheaper than the Bulls just to see NBA action, but they'd never scratch the Bulls in terms of my fandom, Chris Paul or not.

A second team in Chicago would not succeed unless they were good off the bat.

 

I'd go to a few games if they were cheaper than the Bulls just to see NBA action, but they'd never scratch the Bulls in terms of my fandom, Chris Paul or not.

 

No but if they were good off the bat the younger generation would gravitate towards them. Plus with the Hornets being in the West it wouldnt like they'd be competing directly against the Bulls as well.