Interesting.

David Stern is willing to sacrifice the Sonics without putting in any real work to save the franchise, but is going through hell and high water to try and get an arena deal done in Sacramento, despite the fact that the Key is a heck of a lot better than ARCO, and that Sacramento voters have already rejected an arena before.

My point here is not to criticize Sacramento, who have some great NBA fans, but its to highlight the discrepancies by Stern regarding the two markets.  Some of that has to do with the owners, no doubt, as the Maloofs have much more integrity than Clay Bennett, but some of it also makes me think that Stern has a new marketing plan for the NBA.

The fact is that all the studies show that the NBA is the third most popular professional league, behind the NFL and MLB.  In cities with multiple pro franchises, a much smaller percentage of the people label the NBA team as their favorite.  However, the NBA also has many cities, much more than any other sport, with the NBA team as the lone (Portland, San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Sacramento, and Memphis).  All but Memphis are among the most successful and passionate franchises in the NBA.

See, the NBA needs the big markets (NY, LA, Chi, etc) for obvious reasons.  And the smaller markets have worked out great because there is no other game in town.  But, I'm beginning to think that Stern is just tired of dealing with the competition in the mid-sized markets with multiple teams.  For example, the Sonics have had one good season in a decade.  As the Seahawks and Mariners have had very good seasons during that time, some Seattleites are choosing to spend their sports dollar on those teams instead.  Rather than trying to make the team good, Stern's response is to go to a market in OKC that he hopes will still go see a crappy team because there is no other game in town.

The success of the Portlands, Utahs, and San Antonios is no doubt what's driving this thought process.  Maybe Stern thinks that OKC will be another San Antonio.  But there is also the risk of becoming another Memphis (who likely won't last another decade in the River City.  Of course, you can't just up and move a team for no reason, you have to have an excuse.  And Stern will use arenas as excuses.  Mid-sized multiple team markets--build, or lose your team.

Some cities have built.  Denver, Cleveland, and Indianapolis built their arenas, and will keep their teams.  Seattle built their arena, but apparently not big enough, and will likely lose their team.  I look to two cities as the next battlefields in their theories.  One is Milwaukee, as comparatively smaller market with competition from the Brewers and the Packers, and relatively little appetite to build a new arena.  I also look to the T-Wolves, as the Target Center is somewhat dated, and, after years of running their own building, won't want to move to the XCel Energy Center.  Las Vegas will always be seen as an option, as will Louisville, who is building a new arena.  Oft cited cities with new or building new arenas, such as Kansas City, San Jose, and St. Louis won't be considered due to competition in those markets.

This is just a theory I've been bouncing around in my head.  Feel free to disagree.  But we are about to see a ton of franchise movements (Memphis, NO, Seattle, likely Milwaukee, and possibly Minnesota).  I guess we're lucky to live in a one team city--at least until we get MLB.