Where has all the expansion teams gone?
The NHL actually has been expanding. The league has added the Vegas Golden Knights and Seattle Kraken recently, which followed four expansion teams (Atlanta, Columbus, Minnesota, Nashville) at the turn of the century and 11 teams since 1990. The rest of the major four sports leagues haven't. The NFL and NBA have had weird had-to expansion teams added nearly 20 years ago. The NBA watched the Charlotte Hornets move to New Orleans, and then a new team added to Charlotte which took back its history and name from New Orleans and .... well. Long story short, the New Orleans Pelicans is technically the last franchise the NBA has added and that was in 2002. The NFL has a similar story as the Cleveland Browns left for Baltimore in 1996 but came back in 1999, making the Baltimore Ravens an expansion team in 1996 and the Houston Texans were added to even everything out in 2002. Baseball hasn't expanded since adding Arizona and Tampa Bay in 1998.
So let's expand. Everything financially in sports is exploding. The Washington Commanders are being sold for over $6B. Let's expand! Not just two teams each league as the NBA and MLB are hinting at. Let's make every league a 36 team league. There is certainly the talent and the markets to make that happen.
So let's look at each league.
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL
Let's start here because it is the one in the news recently with the Oakland Athletics likely moving to Las Vegas and the news of Salt Lake City beginning the process of luring a professional baseball team to Utah. Baseball, you would think, would thrive with expansion teams. Since the last time MLB expanded in 1998, global baseball has been on the rise even if it seems baseball's popularity has waned among Americans. The truth is that baseball is a very regional sport, and one advantage MLB has is the fact they can see what markets have thrived with their minor league teams when making decisions to expand.
To make a 36-team league, we'd need to add six more clubs. Since we know that Salt Lake City, Portland, Charlotte and Nashville are actively trying to get teams, they seem to be four great choices for our expansion. All four of those cities are in geographic areas underserved by Major League Baseball. Nashville has a strong pitch to get one of those expansion teams. Salt Lake City has shown great fan support for the NBA's Utah Jazz and college programs BYU and Utah, plus franchises like the Colorado Rockies would love to have someone near them. Same reasoning for Portland, which links up with the MLB teams seemingly on an island -- the Seattle Mariners. Charlotte has routinely been one of the top teams in terms of attendance in minor league baseball and offers a team in between Baltimore and Atlanta.
So who else should join those four? Well, let's bring back the Montreal Expos. And for the final market, Oklahoma City. OKC just gets ahead of San Antonio and New Orleans. Oklahoma City has shown to be a great NBA town and they've always supported their local college teams.
So how would an expanded MLB look? Pretty much the same as we'd just add a sixth team to each of the current divisions.
AL EAST: Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Charlotte Knights, New York Yankees, Tampa Bay Rays, Toronto Blue Jays
AL CENTRAL: Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Guardians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, Oklahoma City RedHawks, Minnesota Twins
AL WEST: Houston Astros, Las Vegas Athletics, Los Angeles Angels, Portland Beavers, Seattle Mariners, Texas Rangers
NL EAST: Atlanta Braves, Miami Marlins, Montreal Expos, New York Mets, Philadelphia Phillies, Washington Nationals
NL CENTRAL: Chicago Cubs, Cincinnati Reds, Milwaukee Brewers, Nashville Stars, Pittsburgh Pirates, St. Louis Cardinals
NL WEST: Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Los Angeles Dodgers, Salt Lake Bees, San Diego Padres, San Francisco Giants
Montreal heads back to the NL East where they resided before the franchise moved to Washington. Charlotte (deemed the Knights here since that's the name of their minor league franchise) goes to the AL East and puts a nice geographic spot between Tampa Bay and the rest of the division.
In the central divisions, Oklahoma City goes to the American League to link with Kansas City. The NL Central is more "mid-east" geographically, so putting Nashville there seems to make sense.
As for the west teams, it all depends on how you view it. You could put Salt Lake City with Colorado (and Portland with Seattle) so the two are close division rivals. Or you could separate those cities so that each league will have a presence in those geographic areas. I chose the former, due to wanting to have Seattle and Portland and Colorado and Salt Lake as division rivals for the drama or ease of travel. In the ease of travel column, think about the two Texas teams having a better time traveling to Seattle and Portland for trips together ... and vice-versa.
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
The NBA has been openly looking at expanding with Las Vegas and Seattle being the two most popular options. I agree and will go ahead and log them in. Ironically, the NBA seemed to be the league most receptive to placing a team in Las Vegas yet the other three leagues have/will already have a team there. Seattle got a bad deal with the entire arena fight with the SuperSonics and should never have lost their team. Since the Seattle Kraken got a new arena build, it seems like a perfect time to bring back the Sonics. Oh, and if they do, the Oklahoma City Thunder should hand them back their history like the New Orleans Pelicans did for Charlotte.
I need four more. The NBA has grown so much globally since the 1992 Dream Team in the Barcelona Olympics, yet only five teams have been added to the league since then. So what other four cities deserve a team?
I'm bullish on Kansas City. To me, that's a basketball city that has housed an NBA franchise at one point (the Kings) and has been a great host to college basketball for generations. They have the arena and the base to have a successful franchise. I'm also all about Pittsburgh. Look, the city is great with it's sports teams and the NBA should be able to work there. I believe Vancouver should get a team again. There were a lot of reasons why the Grizzlies didn't work out in Vancouver but it wasn't because of the fans. The NBA put the clamps on the Grizzlies and Toronto Raptors from building a franchise (no top five picks in initial draft and they couldn't use the entire salary cap). Add the fact that the NBA was attempting to put roots into Canada with two expansion franchises that there was ample opportunities to fail. With the Raptors now on solid ground, it is time to give Vancouver another shot and allow them to build a franchise will all the available means.
For my final team, let's go to Louisville. They already have an NBA-ready arena and a relatively underserved professional sports market.
So how would a 36-team NBA look? Well, without the shackles of having an American and National league or conference, you just go by the geography.
ATLANTIC: Boston Celtics, Brooklyn Nets, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Pittsburgh Team, Toronto Raptors
SOUTHEAST: Atlanta Hawks, Charlotte Hornets, Memphis Grizzlies, Miami Heat, Orlando Magic, Washington Wizards
CENTRAL: Chicago Bulls, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Louisville Colonels, Milwaukee Bucks
SOUTHWEST: Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Kansas City Team, New Orleans Pelicans, Oklahoma City Thunder, San Antonio Spurs
MIDWEST: Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Timberwolves, Portland Trail Blazers, Seattle SuperSonics, Utah Jazz, Vancouver Team
PACIFIC: Golden State Warriors, Las Vegas Team, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings
The main issue here, of course, is that the Western Conference would end up with four of the six expansion teams, and the newly minted Midwest Division getting two of them. Only Louisville and Pittsburgh would end up in the East, with Memphis moved over for geographic purposes. I really wanted to move Minnesota into the Central Division but it doesn't really work. If I did that, the Louisville expansion team then moves to the Southeast, Memphis then goes back to the Southwest and Kansas City would be the third expansion team in the Midwest. I can't do that. 
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Let me just say that I've been a fan of ditching all these divisions (I'd love it for the NBA, where divisions are pointless) and the NHL did just that, going from six to four divisions a few years ago. While I'm tempted to go back to a six-division format for my 36 team NHL, I also love how the NHL does their postseason. While this is all about expansion, I do have an idea for a change in the playoff format to make this more fun.
First thing's first -- who are the four franchises we are adding? I think Quebec City is an easy one. The Nordiques deserve to be resurrected and the Colorado Avalanche should go ahead and give back the 'Niques history to Quebec. After that comes Houston. That is a great market that has several deep pocketed ownership groups wanting to get a shot at the NHL. How about Salt Lake City? Sure, I've already added an expansion baseball team (and maybe an NFL squad) but hockey makes some sense there. Finally ... Hartford. If we are bringing back the Nordiques, let's bring back the Whalers!
So let's stick with the four division format and see what we can do. Nine teams in each division. What I used to like about the NHL postseason (and it has somewhat returned) is that the divisions have internal playoffs. Remember the old Adams, Patrick, Norris and Smythe division playoffs? Let's bring that back. And with nine teams in each division, why don't we take a page out of the NBA and make the top three teams in each division in the playoffs, with the teams finished fourth and fifth play each other in a "play-in" to face the top seed?
Anyway, here are my four new divisions:
ATLANTIC: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Hartford Whalers, Montreal Canadiens, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Quebec Nordiques
CENTRAL: Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Ottawa Senators, Pittsburgh Penguins, Tampa Bay Lightning, Toronto Maple Leafs, Washington Capitals
MIDWEST: Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, Dallas Stars, Houston Aeros, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, Salt Lake City Team, St. Louis Blues, Winnipeg Jets
PACIFIC: Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Los Angeles Kings, San Jose Sharks, Seattle Kraken, Vancouver Canucks, Vegas Golden Knights
If we go to the six division format:
ATLANTIC: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Hartford Whalers, Montreal Canadiens, Ottawa Senators, Quebec Nordiques
METROPOLITAN: New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, Washington Capitals
SOUTH: Carolina Hurricanes, Dallas Stars, Florida Panthers, Houston Aeros, Nashville Predators, Tampa Bay Lightning
CENTRAL: Chicago Blackhawks, Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Minnesota Wild, St. Louis Blues, Toronto Maple Leafs
NORTHWEST: Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, Edmonton Oilers, Seattle Kraken, Vancouver Canucks, Winnipeg Jets
PACIFIC: Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Los Angeles Kings, Salt Lake City Team, San Jose Sharks, Vegas Golden Knights
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
How come the most powerful sports league in the western hemisphere hasn't expanded in two decades and has expanded just four teams since 1977? Unlike the NBA and MLB, adding six teams doesn't fit as well since the NFL is a league with eight divisions. So how do you split that up? Do you go back to the East, Central, West format before 2002? Do you just have six divisions of five teams and two divisions of four teams and have uneven divisions like we did up until 2002?
Instead of making a massive realignment change of divisions, let's stick with the eight divisions and we will just have a division in each conference with just four teams. So who are the cities?
There's two ways to view this. One is acknowledging the rumor of the NFL creating an international division. Even if the NFL creates this new four team division ... what does that even mean? Is that a fifth division for a conference (which seems unfair) because there is no way the NFL would add a fifth division into the other conference. I mean, how could they expand eight franchises with four of them on foreign soil? So that means the NFL would realign the other three divisions in that conference somehow.
While there's been a lot of chatter on this, I'm not doing that for this exercise. That would be way more speculatory for something that was supposed to be more about fun. So let's table the international division for now. Let's just add four more teams. Each conference gets two teams and they would have two four-team divisions and two-five team divisions. Again, we've had uneven divisions before.
Again. So who are the cities?
I'm starting off with San Antonio. I know, Texas has the Cowboys and Texans already ... and, so? Florida has three NFL teams. New York state has three teams (in name). Los Angeles has two in the same stadium. So you don't think a football hotbed like Texas can't support three teams? San Antonio makes the most sense geographically and they have the Alamodome to hold them over until a new stadium is built. Next is ... Salt Lake City again. Look, the Beehive State really loves their football --BYU and Utah have passionate fanbases and Utah State has been emerging. Add in how well the NBA's Jazz do there and we have a hit. The only issues is that, ya know, the NFL plays on Sundays and that could be a bit of a problem there ... and the fact that in this article I just added an MLB and NHL team already. Still, if the NFL wants a team there it will put a team there.
Next two aren't as simple. There is always some feeling to place a team in a city that previously had one. Oakland is a no. San Diego is likely also a pass, which is a shame because I wish the NFL had told the Chargers to stay put and they just added an expansion team with the Rams in Los Angeles. The city I really feel could support a return would be St. Louis. A great sports town that really got crapped on with the whole Rams thing. Sure, the stadium wasn't ideal, but this was more of a owner just wanted the opportunity to own Los Angeles rather than them having a problem with their own city. St. Louis has had the Cardinals and Rams come and go already, but both of those franchises were moved from somewhere else and had owners looking to cash in out west. Build anew.
Last one is Toronto. Yes, let us start doing international NFL by starting small. While the logistics of having a team in Toronto pales in comparison to ones in Mexico City, London or Munich, it does provide a test case that the NFL could work out some of the bugs. That doesn't mean that Toronto couldn't be a massive success. Toronto has teams in the NBA and MLB and both have won championships. Obviously, Toronto is an original six member of the NHL so there is already the known of logistics of having them in American leagues. Oh, and could we just bring over the Argos name as well?
AFC EAST: Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, New England Patriots, New York Jets
AFC SOUTH: Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, St. Louis Stallions, Tennessee Titans
AFC NORTH: Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers
AFC WEST: Denver Broncos, Kansas City Chiefs, Las Vegas Raiders, Los Angeles Chargers, Salt Lake City Team
NFC EAST: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Commanders
NFC SOUTH: Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers, New Orleans Saints, San Antonio Express, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
NFC NORTH: Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, Toronto Argonauts
NFC WEST: Arizona Cardinals, Los Angeles Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks
Alright. First off, I didn't want to move any teams from their current divisions. I was tempted to use this as an opportunity to maybe do something with the Indianapolis Colts, like place them it the geographically more correct AFC North or put them back in their historical division, the AFC East. But I didn't do that since we are 20 years in to the current format and it's just fine.
So placing the expansion teams was a bit easier. First I put San Antonio in the NFC South. With two teams in Texas already, I didn't want to put them in the same division. With Dallas in the geographically off (but historically correct) NFC East, it was easy to put San Antonio in the NFC South. That will ease the Cowboys fanbase yet keep the Texans happy since this expansion franchise will not be in the AFC. From there, I put the other "western" team, Salt Lake City, in the AFC. The AFC West makes a ton of sense as to pair them with the Denver Broncos and Kansas City Chiefs since the AFC West is more mountain oriented than the NFC's counterpart.
Next, I put Toronto in the NFC North. The AFC East was an option, but I didn't want Toronto in the same division as Buffalo. The NFC East wasn't an option since that division is pretty set in stone. Going to the Norths, the NFC makes more sense than the AFC's. That means the St. Louis franchise heads to the AFC, which is good since the city has already had two NFC teams and it's time to get away from that. Putting them in the AFC South works with Indianapolis and Tennessee. Oh, and if Ohio can have both its teams in the AFC, then so can Missouri.
Of course, if any league could add eight teams and get away with it, it would be the NFL. So maybe there would be an eye on additional expansion down the road with the London, Mexico City and Germany franchises looked at in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment