# Chicago could get second NBA franchise?



## calabreseboy (Nov 17, 2004)

> While sources said David Stern’s desire is for the Hornets to remain in New Orleans, it’s possible a potential buyer in another area of the country could purchase the team and relocate it. Kansas City, Anaheim and Seattle have been mentioned as possible relocation sites, in addition to Chicago, which already has the Bulls, but it is the country’s third-largest media market and could conceivably support two teams.


http://benmaller.com/2010/12/chicago-could-get-second-nba-franchise/


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Ew. Hope not.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

This is a Bulls only town.

I'll admit it would probably be good for basketball in Chicago to have a competing franchise, but I just can't stomach the thought of it.

Red and black only, goddammit.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Why would someone want to own an NBA team in Chicago? They can never compete against the Bulls market. Why not San Francisco, San Diego, or one of those cities?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

It would be exciting to have another team in Chicago, but I could never see them becoming more popular than the Bulls. Especially at this point where the Bulls are a top 4 seed. Maybe if the Bulls got back to the Marcus Fizer days for a while, another franchise in the city would do well, but definitely not at this point.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

That would be dumb. They wouldn't be loved the way the Bulls are loved with all the History that the Bulls have established in Chicago. I'd rather the NBA just delete a team than bring another one to Chicago. At least give Seattle their Sonics back.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Seattle really should have another franchise. That was just total bull****.

Not to mention the Sonics were my second favorite NBA franchise.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Oh, and Gary Payton needs his jersey retired at some point, for ****'s sake.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

If Chris Paul couldn't get a second team relevant noone can


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ha, pockets would never allow his a second NBA team in Chicago. He's happy with using the Bulls as his personal piggy bank to fund the Sox.


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

PD said:


> Why would someone want to own an NBA team in Chicago? They can never compete against the Bulls market. Why not San Francisco, *San Diego*, or one of those cities?


I never understood why the Clippers don't move to San Diego. I can't comprehend how that franchise even makes money. I understand they play out the same arena as the Lakers, which I'm sure cuts costs, but .. imagine you live in L.A. and you have two basketball teams you can support, one wins numerous championships almost every decade and the other one barely makes the playoffs a few times a decade, who would you support? I can't imagine I'd be native to L.A. and would be a Clippers fan when I could just as easily be a Lakers fan. Two teams for the same city doesn't work unless you're a super big city like New York and the other team plays across the bay. Although it will be interesting to see how the Nets do when they move to Brooklyn.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

taco_daddy said:


> I never understood why the Clippers don't move to San Diego. I can't comprehend how that franchise even makes money. I understand they play out the same arena as the Lakers, which I'm sure cuts costs, but .. imagine you live in L.A. and you have two basketball teams you can support, one wins numerous championships almost every decade and the other one barely makes the playoffs a few times a decade, who would you support? I can't imagine I'd be native to L.A. and would be a Clippers fan when I could just as easily be a Lakers fan. Two teams for the same city doesn't work unless you're a super big city like New York and the other team plays across the bay. Although it will be interesting to see how the Nets do when they move to Brooklyn.


You have a big point about the super big city part. Sure Chicago may be top 3 in TV market, but there's a huge drop off between 1 and 3. The New York market includes part of Connecticut. A second Chicago pro basketball team isn't going to pick up support in neighboring states that are close to Chicago because those states have other pro basketball options.

And Seattle deserves to have a team. They should have never lost the Sonics.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Another issue with adding a team to a big city, is that most of these one city-two team arrangements came about when these professional sports leagues were just getting started (some exceptions, like the Mets, but those are unique circumstances). I would imagine it would be much more difficult nowadays to add a ball club to a big city given how entrenched loyalties are to the teams that are already there.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

narek said:


> You have a big point about the super big city part. Sure Chicago may be top 3 in TV market, but there's a huge drop off between 1 and 3. The New York market includes part of Connecticut. A second Chicago pro basketball team isn't going to pick up support in neighboring states that are close to Chicago because those states have other pro basketball options.
> 
> And Seattle deserves to have a team. They should have never lost the Sonics.


 As a former resident of Northwest Indiana, I can say that this region was all about Chicago sports teams since their regular broadcast channels reported Chicago news. We didn't follow the Pacers much, except for during MJ's first retirement, when Reggie Miller broke out in the playoffs.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

taco_daddy said:


> I never understood why the Clippers don't move to San Diego. I can't comprehend how that franchise even makes money. I understand they play out the same arena as the Lakers, which I'm sure cuts costs, but .. imagine you live in L.A. and you have two basketball teams you can support, one wins numerous championships almost every decade and the other one barely makes the playoffs a few times a decade, who would you support? I can't imagine I'd be native to L.A. and would be a Clippers fan when I could just as easily be a Lakers fan. Two teams for the same city doesn't work unless you're a super big city like New York and the other team plays across the bay. Although it will be interesting to see how the Nets do when they move to Brooklyn.


The clippers actually have a pretty loyal following here in LA. Nobody in the media ever gives them love but LA has a good fan-base and although not as many there is still a more support than you would think for the terrible Clippers.

San Diego is a unique big city, I lived there for about 5 years, it really seems like they should have more franchises but for a myriad of reasons they have a pretty weak sports fan base. There is a lot of military there, lots of college kids, basically it isn't a city with a lot of permanent residents and the people who are are kind of hippy-surfer people. My two cents...

As good as the Chicago fans are I have a feeling that they could in fact support a second franchise.


----------



## calabreseboy (Nov 17, 2004)

taco_daddy said:


> I never understood why the Clippers don't move to San Diego. I can't comprehend how that franchise even makes money. I understand they play out the same arena as the Lakers, which I'm sure cuts costs, but .. imagine you live in L.A. and you have two basketball teams you can support, one wins numerous championships almost every decade and the other one barely makes the playoffs a few times a decade, who would you support? I can't imagine I'd be native to L.A. and would be a Clippers fan when I could just as easily be a Lakers fan. Two teams for the same city doesn't work unless you're a super big city like New York and the other team plays across the bay. Although it will be interesting to see how the Nets do when they move to Brooklyn.


I lived in LA for 3 years from 03-05 and the Clippers have a pretty large fanbase. Lakers fans are mostly bandwagon supporters, although they obviously have more dedicated, passionate fans that the Clippers. The Lakers are more glitz and glamour of LA, whereas the Clippers have more of a working-class, laid back fanbase. As a basketball fan, I definitely preferred the crowd at Clippers games than at Lakers games. I genuinely felt like I was surrounded by people who actually loved the game of basketball, as opposed to having a bunch of tourists and people that just want to be seen at a Lakers game sitting around me.

Also, the Clippers have consistently gotten crowds of 15,000-18,000 since they moved to Staples. They are also in a large media market (albeit a market that heavily favours the Lakers) and so it would be hard to NOT be successful in LA, a city that loves basketball in general. If the team wasn't doing so well, I'm sure Sterling would have moved or sold them by now. And he has said a number of times that he has absolutely no intentions of ever doing that (which kind of sucks for the Clippers because the man has no urgency to win).

And yes, I am a closet Clippers fan.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I can't even think of where they'd put it. The city is crowded AS IS.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> The clippers actually have a pretty loyal following here in LA. Nobody in the media ever gives them love but LA has a good fan-base and although not as many there is still a more support than you would think for the terrible Clippers.
> 
> San Diego is a unique big city, I lived there for about 5 years, it really seems like they should have more franchises but for a myriad of reasons they have a pretty weak sports fan base. There is a lot of military there, lots of college kids, basically it isn't a city with a lot of permanent residents and the people who are are kind of hippy-surfer people. My two cents...
> 
> As good as the Chicago fans are I have a feeling that they could in fact support a second franchise.


Chicago can barely support their own soccer team.
Their own world series championship winning Baseball team struggles to get even half the fan's or viewers that the Cubs do.
The Blackhawks are still a niche team. 
They couln't even keep their second football team relevant in the 50's. FOOTBALL

No way would the Hornets succeed in Chicago or Rosemont. Maybe Schaumburg but Chicago has never been able to support too many sports at once.

If the NBA wanted a second team in Chicago they should have done it at the start of the decade.. Those where some very very dark times my friends. Chris Paul in Chicago sounds awesome but with Rose now becoming probably the most well known athlete in Chicago no way do I see the Hornets in Chicago.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

That would just be dumb. You already have one of the more popular franchises in the history of the sport in town, and want to bring in a scrub #2 team? No one would give a crap about it. Why would they, especially with a homegrown star leading the fan-favorite original home team anyway.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Chicago can barely support their own soccer team.
> Their own world series championship winning Baseball team struggles to get even half the fan's or viewers that the Cubs do.
> The Blackhawks are still a niche team.
> They couln't even keep their second football team relevant in the 50's. FOOTBALL
> ...


Where in Schaumburg? On martingale road where wrigley was "thinking" about moving to? It's a huge piece of land owned by wgn. Or where Alexian Field (Schaumburg Flyers) is. They are going out of business anyways...

I remember when the grizz relocated and people were saying chicago. They were saying Arlington Race Track as a place to move to... at the time i think it wasnt in use. 

My guess would be Aurora-Naperville area since it's near a major highway.

I always wondered why St. Louis doesn't have a team...


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Nobody would go to Schaumburg for an NBA game. They'd be more succesful leaving that franchise in NO if that were the case.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BullFan16 said:


> Where in Schaumburg? On martingale road where wrigley was "thinking" about moving to? It's a huge piece of land owned by wgn. Or where Alexian Field (Schaumburg Flyers) is. They are going out of business anyways...
> 
> I remember when the grizz relocated and people were saying chicago. They were saying Arlington Race Track as a place to move to... at the time i think it wasnt in use.
> 
> ...


St Louis is a crap hole just like NO's but they could realistically have a successful NBA team, but it sounds like Stern wants the hornets in a bigger market.

Schaumburg is quite the town, I'm sure the Hornets would find a crowd there, the median income is significantly higher than Rosemont.

Finding room would be a bitch, but I still think Schaumberg is a better location over Rosemont.


----------

