PDA

View Full Version : The reason why Cincinnati has no NBA team



Reds
04-14-2011, 06:44 PM
Vote!

IslandRed
04-14-2011, 09:00 PM
It's kind of related to #5 (economy/not enough people), but the best answer is, "because Cincinnati isn't that big and has a team in the NFL."

(Set aside the "Bengals? NFL? Really?" jokes for a moment, folks.)

Once outside the major markets that easily support all the sports, the NBA generally doesn't like being in a smallish market that has the NFL grabbing the majority of attention and corporate sponsorship. They'd rather go somewhere where they can be the only game in town, even if it means being in a slightly smaller market. Think San Antonio, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, etc. as opposed to Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh or Nashville.

Kingspoint
04-14-2011, 09:06 PM
It's kind of related to #5 (economy/not enough people), but the best answer is, "because Cincinnati isn't that big and has a team in the NFL."

(Set aside the "Bengals? NFL? Really?" jokes for a moment, folks.)

Once outside the major markets that easily support all the sports, the NBA generally doesn't like being in a smallish market that has the NFL grabbing the majority of attention and corporate sponsorship. They'd rather go somewhere where they can be the only game in town, even if it means being in a slightly smaller market. Think San Antonio, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, etc. as opposed to Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh or Nashville.

Sounds like they could use a team in Las Vegas or Louisville.

Joseph
04-14-2011, 09:13 PM
They are trying to get one here in Louisville, and for the love of all thats Holy I hope they do not. I loved the NBA when I was a teen and even a little into my 20's, but I really would rather have minor league hockey than the NBA now. Just don't care. I'm not sure its a sport that stays with you as you get older, but maybe thats just me.

Kingspoint
04-14-2011, 09:35 PM
They are trying to get one here in Louisville, and for the love of all thats Holy I hope they do not. I loved the NBA when I was a teen and even a little into my 20's, but I really would rather have minor league hockey than the NBA now. Just don't care. I'm not sure its a sport that stays with you as you get older, but maybe thats just me.

Shouldn't worry about next year, as it's unlucky there's even going to be a season. If there is, it probably won't begin until January.

David Stern has really done a poor job of running the NBA the last 10 years. They're in a lot of trouble.

Redhook
04-14-2011, 10:22 PM
The NBA is boring and the city of Cincinnati has realized that. It's not coming back. There's great collegiate basketball here too: UC, XU, UK, OSU, etc. Plenty of more exciting options.

WVRed
04-14-2011, 10:24 PM
They are trying to get one here in Louisville, and for the love of all thats Holy I hope they do not. I loved the NBA when I was a teen and even a little into my 20's, but I really would rather have minor league hockey than the NBA now. Just don't care. I'm not sure its a sport that stays with you as you get older, but maybe thats just me.

I'm the opposite in that I would like to see a NBA team in Louisville, but I don't know that it would work.

Louisville has a brand new arena, but it is controlled by the University of Louisville and I don't think they would be very friendly tennants. Rick Pitino has said he is against bringing a NBA team to Louisville, while John Calipari is all for it. Freedom Hall would likely work, but it would need renovated first.

It may get somewhat of a following, but most Kentucky fans only care about former UK players that are currently in the NBA. Best bet would be to draft a UK/UofL player every year in the draft and you might hold the fan interest.

As for Cincinnati, a new arena or renovating US Bank Arena would be the first priority. I think Cincinnati could support it, as long as the team is winning. If they win, Mike Brown will feel the squeeze, and the Reds as well if they have a down season. Competition would actually be nice in Cincy.

Revering4Blue
04-14-2011, 10:29 PM
It's kind of related to #5 (economy/not enough people), but the best answer is, "because Cincinnati isn't that big and has a team in the NFL."

(Set aside the "Bengals? NFL? Really?" jokes for a moment, folks.)

Once outside the major markets that easily support all the sports, the NBA generally doesn't like being in a smallish market that has the NFL grabbing the majority of attention and corporate sponsorship. They'd rather go somewhere where they can be the only game in town, even if it means being in a slightly smaller market. Think San Antonio, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, etc. as opposed to Cincinnati, Kansas City, Pittsburgh or Nashville.

Spot on.




Not happening.

Las Vegas is out because of the obvious gambling issue.

Louisville is too close to Indy, one of the smallest markets.

Then again, if Seattle and Sacramento can lose franchises, there's no telling what's next.

Joseph
04-14-2011, 11:27 PM
I'm the opposite in that I would like to see a NBA team in Louisville, but I don't know that it would work.

Louisville has a brand new arena, but it is controlled by the University of Louisville and I don't think they would be very friendly tennants. Rick Pitino has said he is against bringing a NBA team to Louisville, while John Calipari is all for it. Freedom Hall would likely work, but it would need renovated first.

It may get somewhat of a following, but most Kentucky fans only care about former UK players that are currently in the NBA. Best bet would be to draft a UK/UofL player every year in the draft and you might hold the fan interest.

As for Cincinnati, a new arena or renovating US Bank Arena would be the first priority. I think Cincinnati could support it, as long as the team is winning. If they win, Mike Brown will feel the squeeze, and the Reds as well if they have a down season. Competition would actually be nice in Cincy.

Yeah UofL has already stated that the YUM center ain't happening, so Freedom Hall is the target right now. Sacto was one of the targets and I can't remember the other one I've heard thrown around....Memphis maybe? I dunno really can't recall.

RBA
04-15-2011, 12:02 AM
San Diego doesn't have a team.

Caveat Emperor
04-15-2011, 01:43 AM
1. Inadequate Arena -- US Bank seats 17,000 for hoops, which would make it the smallest arena in the NBA. Additionally, it has a limited number of luxury suites available compared to most modern arenas (and they're more skyboxes than luxury suites anyway -- they're arguably the worst seats in the house since they're at the top of the arena). Those would all be deal-breakers by themselves, but you can also add in the lack of anything approaching a modern locker room facilities and on-sight training / workout areas and it drives even more nails into the coffin.

US Bank Arena simply isn't up to spec for a professional franchise -- hockey or basketball. It's been made to look as nice as it can possibly get, but they'd have to doze the entire thing and build a new arena if they ever wanted an NBA or NHL team. Good luck getting the county to ever build a stadium again after the (continuing) debacle surrounding the Bengals and Reds deal.

2. Competition for Resources -- You've got the Reds and the Bengals soaking up sports dollars, and you've also got two (historically) top-flight college programs in Xavier and UC. I don't know that there's room for another professional sport playing 40+ home dates per year.

3. Regional Saturation -- Pacers 2 hours to the West, Cavs 3 hours to the East.

4. Lack of Interest -- I don't sense any great desire to have the NBA in Cincinnati.

nmculbreth
04-15-2011, 02:21 AM
2. Competition for Resources -- You've got the Reds and the Bengals soaking up sports dollars, and you've also got two (historically) top-flight college programs in Xavier and UC. I don't know that there's room for another professional sport playing 40+ home dates per year.


While all of the other reasons apply, I think this one is the most compelling argument against bringing an NBA team to Cincinnati. I think one can make a very compelling argument that the city's sports dollars are stretched too thin in the current environment and that adding an NBA team would only exacerbate the problem.

The Reds finished 20th in total attendance in 2010, the 2nd lowest of any playoff team. Even with the predicted bump in attendance this season, the Reds will likely finish somewhere in the middle of the pack attendance-wise. Add in the waning support for the Bengals and the anemic support for UC's basketball program and I think it's pretty much impossible to argue that the city needs another team to support.

bucksfan2
04-15-2011, 09:49 AM
San Diego doesn't have a team.

San Diego don't care about sports teams. Its why they are a large market but can't draw. The Chargers have a very good organization but face black outs every year. They can't support the Padres. They lost at least one NBA franchise.

reds1869
04-15-2011, 11:02 AM
I voted for a combination of all the negatives listed in the poll. They all contribute as does market saturation.

WVRed
04-15-2011, 11:35 AM
Yeah UofL has already stated that the YUM center ain't happening, so Freedom Hall is the target right now. Sacto was one of the targets and I can't remember the other one I've heard thrown around....Memphis maybe? I dunno really can't recall.

Sacramento is relocating, most likely to Anaheim. Memphis is a possibility although they are playing in a newer arena. The other more likely candidate to lose a franchise is New Orleans, who the NBA owns similar to the Expos. The NBA wants to keep the franchise there but outside of Sacto, New Orleans is the most likely.

My guess is Kansas City (Sprint Center), or Seattle if they ever get a new arena, will be the most likely options.

Simon Rhymon
04-15-2011, 12:50 PM
The NBA is a losing proposition. 17 out of 30 teams are in the red. (http://www.businessinsider.com/forbes-17-of-30-nba-teams-lost-money-last-year-2011-1) Half the league plays to less than 90% capacity - 4 at less than 80%. (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance) The game is boring compared to the college. Ticket prices are ridiculous.

UC's support is awful finishing 13th in the league behind even DePaul and Seton Hall. What would an NBA team do to Xavier and UC crowds? Cincinnati should consider themselves lucky they aren't encumbered with a money losing franchise ready to skip town leaving behind a mountain of debt.

My apologies if my feelings about a bunch of chest thumping meatheads colors my opinion.

Roy Tucker
04-15-2011, 01:58 PM
I voted for a combination of all the negatives listed in the poll. They all contribute as does market saturation.

Me too. I clicked on the top 5 options.

I have fond memories of seeing Oscar, Lucas, Wilt, Russell, Havlicek, West, Baylor, etc at the Gardens. I'm glad I got to experience that. But this area just wouldn't support an NBA team and there is 0% chance they'd get state of the art facilities for it. Just can't see it happening.

Kingspoint
04-15-2011, 02:49 PM
The NBA is a losing proposition. 17 out of 30 teams are in the red. (http://www.businessinsider.com/forbes-17-of-30-nba-teams-lost-money-last-year-2011-1) Half the league plays to less than 90% capacity - 4 at less than 80%. (http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance) The game is boring compared to the college. Ticket prices are ridiculous.

UC's support is awful finishing 13th in the league behind even DePaul and Seton Hall. What would an NBA team do to Xavier and UC crowds? Cincinnati should consider themselves lucky they aren't encumbered with a money losing franchise ready to skip town leaving behind a mountain of debt.

My apologies if my feelings about a bunch of chest thumping meatheads colors my opinion.

David Stern's an idiot. He's been an idiot for a long time now. He has no frickin' idea what he's doing.

From Rotoworld via NBATV w/ Rotoworld comments:

David Stern projected on Friday that the NBA will lose $300 million this season, with 22 teams losing money.

The league's projections are always suspect, however, especially with collective-bargaining negotiations on the horizon. A different statistic showed that the league's arenas were collectively at 90% capacity this season, for the seventh season in a row.

That stat about the league's arenas at 90% capacity is hogwash. Someone is lying whoever wrote that. 50% of the arenas rarely are filled to 1/3rd capacity on any given night.

Redsfaithful
04-15-2011, 02:53 PM
I think Columbus is more likely (there's a building for it here at least), and I don't think Columbus would ever get a franchise either. Cincinnati's way, way down the list of potential locations.

WVRed
04-15-2011, 04:16 PM
I think Columbus is more likely (there's a building for it here at least), and I don't think Columbus would ever get a franchise either. Cincinnati's way, way down the list of potential locations.

Never really thought of Columbus, but Nationwide Arena and the proximity to Cincinnati would make that work. I think the biggest fear would be taking away from the Cavs, who are going to be in for a world of hurt given the ownership and LeBron leaving town.

Revering4Blue
04-15-2011, 11:04 PM
San Diego don't care about sports teams. Its why they are a large market but can't draw. The Chargers have a very good organization but face black outs every year. They can't support the Padres. They lost at least one NBA franchise.

Sorry to veer off-topic, but respectfully, this is untrue.

Percentage-wise, more people attend MLB games in SD than they do in Metro LA.


Population: From Wikipedia

Metro LA - 17,786,419
Metro SD - 3,053,793

Baseball attendance: From ESPN

Angels and Dodgers - 6,813,134
Padres - 2,131,774

LA - 6,813,134/17,786,419 = .383

SD - 2,131,774/3,053,774 = .698

As for the Chargers, the prevailing feeling in SD is that Spanos made up his mind years ago to move to LA and now he's just waiting for his Qualcomm lease with San Diego to run out. That's why he had such an outrageous negotiating position ("Give me $700 million for a new stadium, make sure I and not the city get to own the new stadium, oh, and I want you to give me all the old land at Qualcomm stadium" It wasn't even that long ago that taxpayers footed the bill to upgrade Quallcom. Not unlike Seattle with Key Arena.

True, San Diego has lost two NBA teams and one ABA team, but in all cases, it wasn't San Diego's fault.

The Rockets moved to Houston because the owner encountered tax problems and couldn't find a local owner to take over. Plus, the Houston Rockets didn't draw flies until the Summit was built.

The ABA Conquistadors folded because then Lakers owner Jack Kent Cooke (Yes, the former Redskins owner) feared that an NBA team in SD--an ABA/NBA merger was just around the corner--would harm his Southern California Cable TV empire, and promptly pressured fellow NBA owners to reject SD. Louisville lost the Colonels for similar reasons.

The reason the Clippers left SD: Los Angeleno, Donald T. Sterling.

His hosing of SD is well documented and isn't worth me typing two paragraphs for emphasis.

Don't kid yourselves, one of the main reasons that the Malgoof brothers are eying Anaheim is to access the SD market in a backdoor way. Read: The Honda Center isn't up to snuff and any upgrades are simply a five year band-aid. Should the Chargers move to L.A as anticipated, SD, with more fortune 500 companies than the entire LA market, will look to fill the void by finally replacing the Sports Arena. The lack of an arena is the only reason there is no team in SD, which is a much better market than it was 25 years ago and a better market than many current NBA cities.

marcshoe
04-15-2011, 11:52 PM
Maybe the Kings will move back to KC, then to Cincy....

then back to Rochester.

This trend will eventually lead to the return of the Minneapolis Lakers. I'm sure we can all see that.

Danny Serafini
04-16-2011, 12:44 AM
Maybe the Kings will move back to KC, then to Cincy....

then back to Rochester.

This trend will eventually lead to the return of the Minneapolis Lakers. I'm sure we can all see that.

As a fan of the only other team (Atlanta Hawks) to have moved as much as the Kings, I'm going to vote against it. Something tells me that reverting to the Tri-Cities Blackhawks (representing Moline and Rock Island, IL and Davenport, IA) wouldn't be all that lucrative. Though I will say it would be cool to bring back the Ft. Wayne Pistons and their awesome logo:

http://www.sportslogos.net/images/logos/6/244/full/4953.gif

Deepred05
04-16-2011, 08:24 AM
There was a lot of speculation when the Maloofs owned the Rockets about them moving to Albuquerque. George Sr was a huge basketball fan, and it was his dream to bring a franchise to Alb. some day. The two brothers who run the Kings have been given the team to stay out of the families "real" businesses. I wouldn't be surprised if the move to Albuquerque isn't being discussed.

mlh1981
04-16-2011, 07:47 PM
The NBA is increasingly becoming a coastal sport. Your location means everything. Players won't want to go to Cincinnati.

Teams like Oklahoma City and San Antonio have a nice thing going, but they will be in for a world of hurt should they ever misfire.

mlh1981
04-16-2011, 08:08 PM
They are trying to get one here in Louisville, and for the love of all thats Holy I hope they do not. I loved the NBA when I was a teen and even a little into my 20's, but I really would rather have minor league hockey than the NBA now. Just don't care. I'm not sure its a sport that stays with you as you get older, but maybe thats just me.

My biggest problem, and I hate to generalize, because I know that there are many good, supportive fans, is that the NBA seems to attract the worst kind of fandom (in my opinion).

I hate the notion of a "player fan" over a "team fan." Maybe someone can explain this to me. I just don't understand. It seems like there are a lot of these type of fans in the NBA. I have talked to numerous people here in Ohio, heat supporters, who moved on to the Heat from the Cavs because of LeBron James.

"I wasn't a fan until he got there, and I only liked them because LeBron was on the team."

Plus, many people just don't have an understanding of the fundamentals of the game. I think many baseball fans can appreciate some of the finer arts, but the NBA crowd would rather just see the slam dunks and fancy stuff.

Revering4Blue
04-16-2011, 08:34 PM
I hate the notion of a "player fan" over a "team fan." Maybe someone can explain this to me. I just don't understand. It seems like there are a lot of these type of fans in the NBA. I have talked to numerous people here in Ohio, heat supporters, who moved on to the Heat from the Cavs because of LeBron James.

"I wasn't a fan until he got there, and I only liked them because LeBron was on the team."

I can somewhat understand it.

Many in Indiana became Celtic fans because of Larry Bird, then jumped on the Pacer's bandwagon once they became a power in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Likewise, Michiganders, particularly Michigan State fans, rooted for Magic Johnson's Lakers back in the day, which made it very interesting during the Pistons/Lakers finals matchups in 88/89.

Finally, most Bulls fans in the 90s--outside of Illinois--were Michael Jordan bandwagonjumpers, particularly in Jordan's home state of North Carolina. I suspect many have jumped back on the bandwagon due to their recent rise in power. And, they will claim to have always been Bulls fans.

Thanks to Lebron's Dog and Pony Show, I can't for the life of me understand why any Cavs fan can root for the Heat.

Using a baseball example--not that it anyway compares with the Lebron saga-- IIRC, Pete Rose's free agent departure to Philly didn't cause a mass exodus of Reds fans . MLB fans are much more likely to pick a team to root for and not change allegiance.

medford
04-18-2011, 03:48 PM
Well I was one of those "Jordan era" Bulls fans, and I will happily claim that I've remained a fan ever since. Of course, during many of the down years, there wasn't as much reason to watch (which was less often due to the loss in overall popularity and the reduced number of times they were on WGN), but I always followed/watched when I could. Of course I was 10 or so at the time, so I'm not sure if I was a bandwagoner or just a kid that fell in love w/ the most exciting player the league had to offer at the time. It also didn't hurt that John Paxon is from my hometown and took me down into the locker room at the old stadium once as a kid, cementing my fandom for life.

anyhoo, I think you overblow things a bit on the "fan of the individual" vs "fan of the team" idea in relation to other sports, but there is no doubt is more fashionable in basketball. Likely, its because an individually great player has more influence on the success/failure of a team than in baseball or football. A QB can't complete a pass w/o a lineman to block for him, a pitcher can't win w/o an offense to score for him.

Take LeBron off the Heat and put him on any other NBA team, and that team's got a shot to make the playoffs next year. You can't say that about football or baseball. Addtionally, basketball stars move around more than football stars. Football stars are often tied down by the franchise tag. Think Manning is ever leaving town, or Tom Brady? Not until they're washed up, if at all. In baseball, any small market fan has resigned themselves that their young star player is eventually going to head off to the Yankees or Sox or someother place we can't afford, teams we're aligned to hate for having the ability to have such higher payrolls, so when our favorite players move to one of those spots they're now "dead to us" They Ken Griffey Jr types are pretty rare, guys who take significantly less money despite being an all world type talent, and there were a lot of Junior fans who were neither Seattle, nor Cincy fans in baseball, just enjoyed watching him at the plate and in CF during his prime.

Yachtzee
05-04-2011, 12:07 AM
Cincinnati is better off without NBA basketball. If they were to add another major league sport, they'd probably be better off with an MLS team. I just don't see Southwest Ohio/NKY flocking to the "me-first" brand of basketball that the NBA has created.

reds44
05-04-2011, 02:19 AM
Cincinnati is better off without NBA basketball. If they were to add another major league sport, they'd probably be better off with an MLS team. I just don't see Southwest Ohio/NKY flocking to the "me-first" brand of basketball that the NBA has created.
Yeah because Ohio State football isn't me first or anything.

Or Kentucky basketball.

Caveat Emperor
05-04-2011, 01:42 PM
Yeah because Ohio State football isn't me first or anything.

Or Kentucky basketball.

While I don't disagree, they're both colleges which means they have a certain built-in fanbase (alums + students) as well as a long tradition in their respective areas. People are born and raised as OSU or UK fans. An NBA team coming in wouldn't have that.

The DARK
05-04-2011, 04:13 PM
While Louisville does deserve some form of professional sport, basketball doesn't seem like the on to be going after. Cincinnati and Louisville just aren't basketball cities. Baseball, actually, seems like their best bet to me; the absurdly high attendance rate for the Dragons and Bats proves that being that close to Cincinnati doesn't result in a lack of interest, and it already has a reputation as a family-friendly baseball city with the Louisville Slugger museum. Small TV market, but they have the entire state to promote to. Plus, it would be an awesome rivalry with our Reds!

WVRed
05-04-2011, 05:45 PM
While Louisville does deserve some form of professional sport, basketball doesn't seem like the on to be going after. Cincinnati and Louisville just aren't basketball cities. Baseball, actually, seems like their best bet to me; the absurdly high attendance rate for the Dragons and Bats proves that being that close to Cincinnati doesn't result in a lack of interest, and it already has a reputation as a family-friendly baseball city with the Louisville Slugger museum. Small TV market, but they have the entire state to promote to. Plus, it would be an awesome rivalry with our Reds!

That would probably work, except it would take away fan support, and ultimately money, from the Reds.

Look at Baltimore with the Orioles. When the Nationals moved in, Peter Angelos was up in arms because he considered Baltimore/Washington a single media market. It caused such a stir that the Orioles now hold the broadcasting rights to the Nationals games as part of the agreement to move to Washington.

The only reason basketball could possibly work is because both Louisville and Kentucky are college basketball crazy and Louisville/Lexington have the media markets to make it work. The question is whether or not the people in Kentucky would support a NBA franchise. Most UK fans could care less about the NBA, they only follow to see how the former Cats are doing.

BuckeyeRed27
05-04-2011, 06:32 PM
The NBA may have to contact 2-6 teams, so that's one reason why Cincinnati doesn't have an NBA team. Like others have mentioned Cincinnati is way way way down the list of possible places the NBA might land if a franchise was to move.

reds44
05-04-2011, 06:50 PM
While I don't disagree, they're both colleges which means they have a certain built-in fanbase (alums + students) as well as a long tradition in their respective areas. People are born and raised as OSU or UK fans. An NBA team coming in wouldn't have that.
I don't think the NBA in Cincinnati is a good idea. I just don't think it has to do with an attitude.