These cities (small markets as they are - support their football, hockey (in Pittsburgh), and baseball teams. Why no basketball? If you could have a team in Cleveland, couldn’t you be successful in these other towns?
Why are there no NBA teams in Cincinnati, Kansas City, or Pittsburgh?
- Thread starter Nitwit
- Start date
Kansas City has a team, they moved to Sacramento. Pittsburgh had an ABA team. Cincinnati also had a team - Big O played for the Royals.
Do the fan bases in those areas care about basketball? I agree with your theory here but I can't see the NBA being successful in Pittsburgh or Cincinnati. Maybe KC but, yeah, they're in Sacramento now so it didn't work.
If the NBA did expend I would say either Vancouver or Seattle gets a team then probably Las Vegas. Maybe Mexico City if they want to be ballsy.
Things change over time. Los Angeles did not have an NFL team for what, a decade or more? Now it has two. (Sure wish the Chargers did not bail on San Diego, though.)
I have lived in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Greater Cleveland, including Akron, is substantially larger than Greater Cincinnati. Also, for whatever the reason, Cleveland just thinks bigger than Cincinnati.
Additionally, Cleveland used to be something like the 12th largest metro area in the US. It got the Cavaliers at a time when its national footprint was much larger.
Additionally, Cleveland used to be something like the 12th largest metro area in the US. It got the Cavaliers at a time when its national footprint was much larger.
I've lived in the Pittsburgh area all my life. As a lawyer I've met a lot of people, both professionally and socially over 45 years. Never once in all those years have I ever heard a discussion about the NBA for more than 5 minutes, even during the NBA finals. Maybe a team here would change that, but I doubt it.
Wasn't there talk of moving the Chargers already because of how poorly attended the games were?
LA can't support two teams--they'll both be elsewhere eventually.
I never played in Cincinnati, LOL. Although I have lived in Columbus and NE Ohio for several years in the past (27 years on and off in NE Ohio and 21 years on and off in the Columbus area).
Please take this opportunity to remember that pitt is a basketball school.
As an "ambulance chaser" or "legal Leach" ya mean!!
I always knew there was something I didn't like about you!
LOL!!! ;-)
Cincy and KC had the same team. The Royals started in Rochester; moved to Cincinnati; then KC/Omaha, where the name was changed to the Kings; and is now in Sacramento.
Before it's ABA team, the Condors, an ill-fated naming, Pittsburgh had an ABL franchise called the Rens, which also featured Connie Hawkins.
Yup, back in the day when the NBA still had "territorial picks": the Cincinnati Royals claimed Oscar Roberstson who played college ball for the University of Cincinnati.
OTOH, NBA franchises exist in Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Memphis, Oklahoma City, and Milwaukee. The metro areas of those cities are smaller than the three you mention. Except for NOLA (Saints) amd Milwaukee (Brewers), the others are the only major professional teams in town. Maybe the NBA philosophy in smaller markets is to avoid competition for disposable income.
Could not agree more. Have lived here for almost 30 years and the Burgh is NOT a basketball town, no matter how you slice it.
Pittsburgh no way the NBA goes in.
Maybe Cincinnati.
KC could work.
Seattle is definitely getting one because they had their Sonics stolen by OKC... if OKC has a team why not KC or Cincy.
No way Mexico City.
Vegas for sure after what the Knights have done.
Maybe Cincinnati.
KC could work.
Seattle is definitely getting one because they had their Sonics stolen by OKC... if OKC has a team why not KC or Cincy.
No way Mexico City.
Vegas for sure after what the Knights have done.
Yes on Cincinnati. It's a market that can support 2 pro teams, plus the strong hoops of the local college programs. UC Bearcat football when they're playing well. But nothing much more.
Cincinnati's making a push for an MLS team but I don't think the city would support that AND the Reds. Cincinnati's USL team is doing well attendance-wise but I think a large part of that is the Reds being a combination of (1) below-average and (2) directionless in terms of their plan for the future in the 2015-2018 era.
The NBA has a ton of teams who are the only team in their market.
Salt Lake City
OKC
Sacramento
Portland
San Antonio
Memphis
Orlando (although this is really a shared market with the Tampa area)
I think the best explanation is that the NBA was willing to go take a chance and expand west and south before other leagues (they were they only pro team in Phoenix for many years as well). They were able to take chances because the league wasn’t very popular or lucrative back then so why not. Therefore we have San Antonio instead of St. Louis and Portland instead of Cincy. It has seemed to work out.
I don't know the answer to the questions but I will take a guess that the NBA does not want to oversaturate (my term) with too many teams and players. There was talk of a team in Vegas but that never materialized
Years ago the NBA had multiple rounds for their draft. Now it's two rounds.
I am guessing the NBA owners want to cap the number of players they want to pay.
Years ago the NBA had multiple rounds for their draft. Now it's two rounds.
I am guessing the NBA owners want to cap the number of players they want to pay.
4 of those cities are NBA cities because teams moved there from another city. One of them was an ABA team. So it's not really expansion. It's just reshuffling.
I think a lot of it has to do with the corporate money in a city too. In smaller cities there is only so much corporate money to buy those expensive suites and other high priced (court side) tickets. The cities mentioned in the NBA (such as Salt Lake City, Cleveland, OKC, Portland, Milwaukee, etc.) do not have a hockey team to compete with in the winter for the corporate boxes. A lot of nba teams in smaller markets do not sell out the building when the team is not very good; however they are fine as long as the suites remain bought. I would assume Pittsburghers would come if the team was good, but wouldn't otherwise. Watch what happens to attendance in Cleveland if LeBron leaves this summer. However, as long as they get the corporate dollars they should be fine. So a smaller market that does not have a hockey team (Cinci, KC) might be able to support an NBA franchise, but Pittsburgh not so much. (Until it gets Amazon HQ2. hah)
Who the fled to Minnesota to replace a franchise called the Muskies that folded because of poor attendance (real smart move). Lasted a year and did no better. Owner decide to flee the Far North and moved back to Pittsburgh because he "couldn't think of anywhere else to go."
And The Hawk was a Brooklyn native.
Who cares how the team got there, the owners moved to those cities for a reason. They could’ve moved anywhere or stayed put, but the moved to brand new markets in some cases.
KU,University of Kansas is their 'professional' team, much like Ohio State football is much of Ohio's NFL team (substitute).
I was at a Pittsburgh Pipers playoff game in 1968 when three friends and I took a bus from our Mon Valley town to the Civic Arena. We were 14, it was a school night and we all had great parents. I will never forget that evening. During the second half paperboys were walking through the stands selling the bulldog edition of the PG. The headlines read in bold letters Martin Luther King Shot. Interestingly there was no mention or any change at the game. The city was calm as we walked about 10 blocks to catch the bus home. I remember watching the news with my parents into the early morning.
Can't compare LA to those towns.
2 of those towns just did not support hoops.
LA supported both teams but the business side just took over.
Rochester Royals, Cincinnati Royals, Kansas City Kings, Sacramento Kings, same franchise.
The argument FOR an NBA franchise in Pittsburgh — we’re still a top 25 market (based on how broadcasters determine a “media market”). Pittsburgh and St. Louis are the only two in that top 25 that either don’t have the NBA, or have a team reasonably close (Tampa) or recently lost a team (Seattle.). On that basis, you’d think that eventually someone would roll the dice on a team here.
But the flip side of that is that if we DID get a team, we’d be the smallest market by far to have all four of the major sports leagues. I suspect that we’re not large enough — either by population or by corporate support — to support all four. You’d end up with three franchises duking it out for the disposable sports spending, to my mind to the detriment of all three. The Steelers are likely immune to damage from that, but the Pens, Pirates and the NBA franchise would constantly be duking it out for a limited supply of cash.
Given that, I personally would prefer to stick with the status quo.
But the flip side of that is that if we DID get a team, we’d be the smallest market by far to have all four of the major sports leagues. I suspect that we’re not large enough — either by population or by corporate support — to support all four. You’d end up with three franchises duking it out for the disposable sports spending, to my mind to the detriment of all three. The Steelers are likely immune to damage from that, but the Pens, Pirates and the NBA franchise would constantly be duking it out for a limited supply of cash.
Given that, I personally would prefer to stick with the status quo.
Similar threads
