More Seattle and Vegas Expansion?

Back in the Spring, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said that the league wasn't considering expansion "at this time."  Well, he either wasn't telling the truth then or the owners' opinions changed rapidly.  Because rumor has it, Silver's ready to announce the NBA's 31st and 32nd franchises at preseason games that are scheduled to be played in Seattle and Las Vegas.  Hmm, I wonder why those two cities...

The fact that the NBA wants to expand isn't surprising.  Neither is the fact that Seattle and Las Vegas are the rumored cities.  Seattle's been first in line to get a new team ever since the Sonics left, and everyone pretty much expected the NBA to be the one that finally pulled the trigger on Vegas.  Now the NHL and NFL have both beaten them to it and they've seen how much the Golden Knights are thriving, so now they really want to stake their claim.

So, it was really more a matter of when the NBA would decide to expand to Seattle and Las Vegas than if that would happen.  And it would be shocking if they choose to put a team anywhere else.  Frankly, I can't even think of another city that could be a potential NBA expansion candidate.  

There are two other reasons that Seattle and Las Vegas are the obvious choices.  One, the NHL recently expanded to both cities, and both of those arenas were built with basketball also in mind, so they both have an NBA-ready arena.  Two, they both have a successful WNBA team (the Seattle Storm and Las Vegas Aces), so there's already that basketball presence in the city and the cross-promotional opportunity that comes with it.

Expanding to Seattle and Las Vegas would also help balance the NBA, which is badly needed.  Right now, the Blazers are on an island as the only team in the Pacific Northwest.  Giving Seattle its team back would obviously remedy that situation.  Las Vegas is, obviously, also in the West, so that would also give them a chance to balance out the conferences and move either Memphis or New Orleans to the East where they belong.

Adding those two will make realignment a necessity, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Because, frankly, some of the NBA divisions don't make a whole lot of sense.  And, seeing as they essentially ignore the divisions when it comes to playoff qualification and seeding, would they consider dropping divisions entirely and just do a straight conference-based table?

While it would be extreme, I wouldn't put it past the NBA to try something like that.  Especially since they seem committed to this ridiculous in-season tournament idea, which would count as regular season games.  I have no idea how they plan to work a schedule that includes an in-season tournament (unless they do it like the WNBA Commissioner's Cup).

Completely scrapping divisions might just be a little too extreme, though.  Which is why I don't think it'll happen.  Even though winning your division doesn't get you anything in terms of the postseason, winning the division still means something.  That alone is enough of a reason to keep them.  And, frankly, they'd make scheduling a lot easier, too.

For argument's sake, let's say the NBA divides its 32 teams into four divisions of eight, just like the NHL.  It wouldn't surprise me if they looked to the NHL as the inspiration for their schedule, either.  You know whatever they do, they're keeping the two games against the other conference, which is 32 total games.  Three against each of the other 15 teams in your conference is 45, which leaves five more to play as a fourth game against all but two division opponents (which is the NHL's schedule format...frankly, I think the NHL should go to an 84-game schedule so they can play four against every division opponent).

Or, if this in-season tournament is actually going to become a reality, they could set up the divisions in a way that leaves room in the schedule for those games.  And if they were to set up the divisions like the NFL (eight of four), that would only be three teams they play a fourth time, which leaves two games for the in-season tournament (against whoever), which I think could work.

As for how those eight groups of four would be divided, it's actually pretty easy for the most part.  It gets a little complicated with all the teams in the Midwest, but I'll get to that.  I'll start with the two that are really easy.

Seattle and Las Vegas are both in the Pacific time zone, which makes eight on the West Coast.  Well, that's convenient.  Lakers, Clippers, Suns and Las Vegas in the Pacific "South", Warriors, Kings, Blazers and Sonics in the Pacific "North."  Then you put the three Texas teams with either New Orleans or Oklahoma City.  Actually, I'd put them with New Orleans, since putting the Thunder with Denver, Utah and Minnesota (who they're currently in a division with) makes more sense.

That's the West.  The East is where it gets tricky.  I'll start with the easy one.  The Northeast would be the Celtics, Knicks, Nets and Sixers.  Then I'm putting Charlotte with Atlanta and the Florida teams.  Why?  Because Washington's further north, and someone needs to go with Cleveland, Toronto and Detroit.  Which leaves the Bulls, Pacers, Bucks and Grizzlies to complete the fourth division of the Eastern Conference.

I, of course, have no idea what the NBA plans on doing with the divisions and schedule once Seattle and Las Vegas officially join the league.  It hasn't even been confirmed that Seattle and Las Vegas are definitely getting NBA expansion teams.  Right now it's just rumors.  But, who are we kidding?  It's only "rumored" because it's not official yet.  Whether they announce it in the coming weeks or later, Las Vegas and Seattle will be getting NBA teams.