It seems inevitable that Seattle and Las Vegas will receive expansion franchises in the near future, but what if I tell you that Reno may be a candidate in place of the latter?
It is no secret that the NBA prefers to have new teams in places that previously had no pro sports - Oklahoma City and Orlando come to mind. And when looking at Vegas, the market is already rather saturated: the NHL's Golden Knights, the NFL's Raiders, and the WNBA's Aces, with MLB's Athletics on their way soon pending league approval.
Well, Seattle obviously gets a pass because of the Supersonics, but other than hosting the Summer League, Vegas does not have much NBA history. And does the league really want to play second fiddle or worse to those franchises above?
By contrast, Reno may obviously be smaller, but it has a decent enough population and grassroots program in the University of Nevada campus to work. It also has some underrated marketing appeal - it could be easily be marketed as the team of the Tahoe.
Does this sound like a good idea? Let me know in the comments!
Not. A. Troll.
Why does the NBA refuse to enter Kansas City, even though there is an NBA-ready arena there?
Simple. It does not want to play second fiddle to the Chiefs.
If you’re not a Troll you need to lay off the Skip Bayless.
NBA has actually tried Kansas City and St Louis before and both teams left. Any new expansion owner is going to demand a new state of the art Arena. Sucks for tax payers but it is what it is. The build it and they will come method has pretty much failed for any city that tried it.
KC already has the T-Mobile Center.
T-Mobile Center in KC is one of the most profitable arenas in the world because it doesn’t a primary sports tenet. It’s calander is wide open and they can charge concert promotors high rates for good dates