What's new

Euro expansion?

Will the Nba ever have a Euro division?


  • Total voters
    22
Is there a Europe wide basketball league or are there multiple smaller leagues? I honestly don't know. But if there was a single dominant European league I could see maybe having a international championship game between the NBA champs and the Euro champs. I imagine as it stands right now the NBA champs would be the better team, but maybe in several years it wouldn't be so cut and dry.
 
But hey, one more time for my favorite solution.

3 on 3

Advantages:

Smaller overall roster. Somewhere between 7-9 players per team.

More space on the floor for todays athletes to perform.

Harder to double and triple-team top guys.

Faster game.

Easier to officiate.

Easier for casual fans to see everything that's going on.

More interesting line-up options. Could go 3 bigs, could go 3 guards, anything in between. It would be even more of a chess game as the standard format would be gone.

But one of the biggest advantages... it would concentrate the talent so that there might be enough to go around, giving more teams a chance to win.
 
But hey, one more time for my favorite solution.

3 on 3

Advantages:

Smaller overall roster. Somewhere between 7-9 players per team.

More space on the floor for todays athletes to perform.

Harder to double and triple-team top guys.

Faster game.

Easier to officiate.

Easier for casual fans to see everything that's going on.

More interesting line-up options. Could go 3 bigs, could go 3 guards, anything in between. It would be even more of a chess game as the standard format would be gone.

But one of the biggest advantages... it would concentrate the talent so that there might be enough to go around, giving more teams a chance to win.
Get rid of the double teams and the number of players who would be capable of competing would dwindle. So yeah fewer players per team but your role players would be out. I think this would make games less competitive not more.
 
Travel wise, in twenty years there maybe much faster jets in common usage.
I know a bit about planes and aerodynamics and stuff, and commercial aircraft aren't going to get any faster. Ever. The Atlantic Ocean will remain the single biggest obstacle to expansion of the NBA to Europe. The NBA season is long and the schedule is tight as it is, so even if you don't allow for time to recover from jet lag, the travel time alone would have a serious impact on scheduling.

However, if they were going to do it, I'd send over a Division at a time to play all Euro teams in a single road trip, then reverse the process, then the Euros play the next division in the US before they all fly to Europe to repeat the process, and so on. In between visits from a US division, the Euros would play each other.

But then where do the Euro teams fit into Conference play? How do they make the playoffs? Is it fair for West Coast teams to play in Europe? Do you expand into Asia-Pacific simultaneously and add one overseas Division per conference to balance things out, putting Europe in the East and Asia-Pacific in the West? Even if you make allowances for the travel, there are still other issues that need to be addressed.
 
However, if they were going to do it, I'd send over a Division at a time to play all Euro teams in a single road trip, then reverse the process, then the Euros play the next division in the US before they all fly to Europe to repeat the process, and so on. In between visits from a US division, the Euros would play each other.
yep
But then where do the Euro teams fit into Conference play?
Tough but doable if EC is Us east coast and Euro west.
Is it fair for West Coast teams to play in Europe?
If out of conference were 1 game a year it's only 5 games that they could play in one stretch no big deal.
Do you expand into Asia-Pacific simultaneously and add one overseas Division per conference to balance things out, putting Europe in the East and Asia-Pacific in the West?
No the Pacific is a monster it is undoable.

It would be easier if the NBA could move a team off the west coast further east. Maybe the Sonics. Would definitely want to put some southern teams in the west coast as well and start focusing Ec in the northeast. It would be great if they had 2 teams in New york then Euros could play 2 teams in 1 flight.

Maybe stern was up to something?
 
Last edited:
Is there a Europe wide basketball league or are there multiple smaller leagues? I honestly don't know. But if there was a single dominant European league I could see maybe having a international championship game between the NBA champs and the Euro champs. I imagine as it stands right now the NBA champs would be the better team, but maybe in several years it wouldn't be so cut and dry.

It's both. Best singular leagues are Spain, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, France. Then there are tons of mediocre leagues.

As a Europe wide basketball league, there are 5-6 of them. The best is obviously the Euroleague which includes the best teams from the best basketball countries of all Europe(plus Israel). The other two important ones are Adriatic and VTB leagues. One is for former Yugoslavia countries(plus some others) and the other one is to unite Eastern Europe and Northern Europe.

Besides leagues there are two Europe wide cups which recognized as one or two notch inferior versions of the Euroleague. They are Eurocup and EuroChallenge.

As you can guess already, European Basketball structure is a total mess. Besides the ones I mentioned there are too many small countries and too many small leagues and making united leagues out of all the geographic and political issues is a tough job. And because of the futbol no one cares about regulating basketball across the Europe. This is where any NBA expansion idea would make a contribution to European Basketball. If Basketball starts to be talked and discussed a lot more, it can be recognized as a profitable business and can close the gap with futbol.
 
I know a bit about planes and aerodynamics and stuff, and commercial aircraft aren't going to get any faster. Ever.

Aren't there planes that capable of flying New York-London under 3 hours already? Didn't Concorde fly with supersonic speeds for 30 years until the 9/11 and the economic recession. It's more of a business problem rather than being technological obstructions.
 
32 teams. 8 divisions of four. Kings and biucks move to Euro Florida teams move to WC.
[out of conference 1 time = 16 games. 6 in division = 18. Conference 4 = 48]=82


Eastern Conference

Atlantic

Boston Celtics
Brooklyn Nets
New York Knicks
Toronto Raptors

Central

Philadelphia 76ers
Chicago Bulls
Detroit Pistons
Indiana Pacers


Southeast

Cleveland Cavaliers
Atlanta Hawks
Charlotte Bobcats
Washington Wizards

Euro

London Royals (Sacramento Kings)
Cologne Bock (Milwaukee Bucks) A goat would make a fine logo
Madrid ?
Paris ?


Western Conference

Pacific

Golden State Warriors
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Portland Trail Blazers

Mountain

Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
Utah Jazz
Phoenix Suns

Southwest

Oklahoma City Thunder
Dallas Mavericks
Houston Rockets
San Antonio Spurs

South

Memphis Grizzlies
New Orleans Pelicans
Miami Heat
Orlando Magic
 
Aren't there planes that capable of flying New York-London under 3 hours already? Didn't Concorde fly with supersonic speeds for 30 years until the 9/11 and the economic recession. It's more of a business problem rather than being technological obstructions.
Commercial jets take 6-7 hours to cross the Atlantic (faster one way because of prevailing tailwinds, which become headwinds on the return journey) and cross 5 time zones doing so. Concorde took half that time, but they have been permanently grounded. Supersonic jets are far too expensive to develop for there ever to be a supersonic jet airliner built ever again.
 
Commercial jets take 6-7 hours to cross the Atlantic (faster one way because of prevailing tailwinds, which become headwinds on the return journey) and cross 5 time zones doing so. Concorde took half that time, but they have been permanently grounded. Supersonic jets are far too expensive to develop for there ever to be a supersonic jet airliner built ever again.

I don't think you can generalize that.
All it takes is a fuel that's really cheap to produce and materials that withstand the wear. The comfort of the passenger has to be maintained as well.
While that's a lot to achieve I wouldn't necessarily rule that out.
 
Commercial jets take 6-7 hours to cross the Atlantic (faster one way because of prevailing tailwinds, which become headwinds on the return journey) and cross 5 time zones doing so. Concorde took half that time, but they have been permanently grounded. Supersonic jets are far too expensive to develop for there ever to be a supersonic jet airliner built ever again.

The point is we can cross the Atlantic under 3 hours since late 1960ies and a commercial jet did that for 27 years. So tech is not the problem. The other problems are all conjunctural and solvable.
 
I think the time zone issues would be a bigger problem than the travel times. As it is, when a US team plays overseas, the game times are adjusted so that they're on at a reasonable viewing time in the home market - like mid-afternoon games and the like.


Maybe if the Euroleague were a completely separate division that would meet the US league in a championship series or something, that might work. Otherwise, I think it would be tough to sustain interest with regularly scheduled games at inconvenient times for one market or the other.
 
Commercial jets take 6-7 hours to cross the Atlantic (faster one way because of prevailing tailwinds, which become headwinds on the return journey) and cross 5 time zones doing so. Concorde took half that time, but they have been permanently grounded. Supersonic jets are far too expensive to develop for there ever to be a supersonic jet airliner built ever again.

An organization such as the NBA needing quick flights might just be what the Aviation industry needs to bring a concorde like jet back. Maybe they could get Elon Musk to build one? The guys investing in space travel for christ sakes.
 
I think the time zone issues would be a bigger problem than the travel times. As it is, when a US team plays overseas, the game times are adjusted so that they're on at a reasonable viewing time in the home market - like mid-afternoon games and the like.


Maybe if the Euroleague were a completely separate division that would meet the US league in a championship series or something, that might work. Otherwise, I think it would be tough to sustain interest with regularly scheduled games at inconvenient times for one market or the other.

All these years, we are watching the NBA games at various times of night, from the midnight to the sunrise. If the NBA expansion becomes real I'd like the games to be played at prime time for Europe, like 19:00-21:00 PM. That would make it around the midday for you guys which is perfect imo. Would there be anything better to do in the working hours than secretly watching NBA games in your iphones?
 
All these years, we are watching the NBA games at various times of night, from the midnight to the sunrise. If the NBA expansion becomes real I'd like the games to be played at prime time for Europe, like 19:00-21:00 PM. That would make it around the midday for you guys which is perfect imo. Would there be anything better to do in the working hours than secretly watching NBA games in your iphones?

I think 9pm gmt is the most likely with some 10 pm. That would make it 4-5 on the east coast. Weekend games could be played earlier.
 
I think 9pm gmt is the most likely with some 10 pm. That would make it 4-5 on the east coast. Weekend games could be played earlier.

That would be perfect for us. Btw, that bald weird guy who will be the new commissioner is even more enthusiastic than Stern about his Euro Expansion idea.

When we do expand, we’d need to expand probably with multiple teams, so that you wouldn’t have an orphan team in Europe, but that you’d potentially have a division so those teams could play each other more often and NBA teams presumably traveling in Europe could have more teams to play when they’re over there.

It’s still a concept, but I’m comfortable with it.
 
The point is we can cross the Atlantic under 3 hours since late 1960ies and a commercial jet did that for 27 years. So tech is not the problem. The other problems are all conjunctural and solvable.
No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.
 
No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.

Trillions?

It was all down to Cost: The Airlines were not making back the money spent on the safety modifications and other upgrades, with some other big costs coming up (tens of millions, before any life extension programme), BA need to write off £84M now rather than £150M in 3 or 4 years. Air France wrote off a large sum of money too.

With the premium first class market non-existant post 9/11,
there was no hope of paying back the modification cost to start with, forgetting about any further investment that was required to keep the aircraft in the air. Day to day the aircraft still broke even, but could no longer pay back any big expenditure items, so its days were numbered. It is a sad time, but the inevitable really only came forward a few years from the ends of its technical lifespan.


The development costs of Concorde were around £1.134 billion, which was funded by the UK and French governments. The cost to build the 16 production Concordes was £654 million of which £278 million was recovered through sales returns (this included spares, technical support, etc.). This debt was also funded by the 2 governments.

Because of the premium rate that passengers would pay to fly on Concorde (First Class +20%), the aircraft only needed to be around half full to break even and turn an operating profit.

Seems doable if you have the market. NBA could be a big help filling planes on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
No, we CAN'T cross the Atlantic in 3 hours. The problem isn't tech, the problem is that the tech is VERY EXPENSIVE. BAC/Aerospatiale made a LOSS on developing Concorde which is why no other manufacturer has ever built a SST. The market for such a plane isn't big enough to justify the massive expenditure (we're talking TRILLIONS of $ here) of developing one.

The problem is physics and this is NOT a conjectural or solvable problem. Regular subsonic aircraft run into compressibility around Mach 0.85; no amount of power increase will get them through this barrier, not in one piece anyway. You have to radically re-design the aircraft to go any faster, which means reducing the aircraft cross-section and re-designing the wings for high-speed rather than low-speed efficiency - both of which result in a smaller aircraft carrying a smaller payload. You also need exponentially more power which means engines with higher fuel consumption, which means you have to carry more fuel, which means a higher ratio of fuel (expense) to payload (income).

Concorde's design went past any compromises needed to become transsonic and went all-in on being supersonic (Mach 2.0). Only by being radically different in performance could they charge a premium to operate profitably, but it required massive subsidies from the UK and French Governments to be built in the first place. It is grounded permanently not for technical reasons, but because it isn't economic to make the modifications required to be certified by aviation authorities again. The days of supersonic commercial travel are over.

What are your credentials in the industry?
 
Top