The gambling argument is indeed silly. What is nearby to NYC? A town called Atlantic City. Same state where we have the Nets and Devils. Pass.

I don't think Las Vegas will work because among other things, Las Vegas is such a tourist industry-bang/bust town, would visitors pluck down money to got to a game? Would they rather do that or gamble or attend those Las Vegas-unique shows/attractions? NBA you can get outside of Vegas. And mind you, assuming they would is based on the notion that the team is winning.

Nevermind that Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert. Yeah you know that already, but what else is there? Desert. Major pro sports teams depend upon dominating the TV/PR/advertizing/ticket-buying marketplace of an entire region. And basically buttplugged between southern California (which has many sports franchises) and Arizona (got them too, plus the Suns)...

I just don't see how a Vegas franchise would work. I remember alot of people used arguments for Columbus when that Ohio city got the Blue Jackets from the NHL. One of the biggest cities without a major franchise, untapped potential, yada yada....and its been a flop so far. Well no wonder, it was sandwiched between Cincinnati and Cleveland. Duh! Expect Jackets to move within 5 years.

Vegas surely perhaps would have a better chance than Columbus, and maybe I am being too cynical. Yet I have my reasons to be skeptical.

Also, there is a perception that Las Vegas the city isn't willing to play ball to get a franchise, you know what I mean? Hell the Triple A minor league baseball team there, they're playing in a stadium that is falling apart and the city has been unwilling to bank a new joint or renovations.

If they're unwilling to do that for a Triple A farm team, why would they for a NBA franchise?



I feel sorry about the SuperSonics. Fuck Oklahoma City, what the fuck those assholes ever do?