Bill Simmons Proposes Moving Bobcats to Chicago

"The Charlotte Bobcats never should have happened. You know how I know this? Because Michael Jordan spent about 20 bucks in actual cash to buy them two years ago, that's how. If the Bobcats break their stadium lease and move somewhere else, they'd have to pay the city of Charlotte $150 million. So it would make no sense to move them, unless … you know … Jordan moves them to Chicago (where he still lives), plays in the United Center (where he has a giant statue), ropes Oprah into being a minority owner, then quickly becomes a well-run version of the Clippers to the Bulls' version of the Lakers.20 Not only would they cover the $150 million pretty quickly, but that would give the league six teams in the three biggest TV markets. And that's a bad thing … why?"

11 months ago Andrew7 60 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting, they could be our Clippers, in the house that MJ built.

My name is EARL

by Juan dela Cruz on Jul 10, 2011 6:04 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Clippers are horrible

Let us cavort like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean.

by hedonism bot on Jul 11, 2011 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions

I would watch them.

They have exciting young talent and all the other teams still come to visit. And good seats would come cheap, compared to the Bulls.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

As if Jerry would stand for it.

How does one practice consistency? Take lots of Benefiber?
by WearShades on May 31, 2011 6:37 AM PDT

by Dr. Handsome, D.D.S. on Jul 10, 2011 7:46 AM CDT reply actions

It's not about what can be done,

it’s about what Simmons would do if he were the basketball czar. I would love it, and I think the Chicago market could support it, but you of course are right, Jerry would never stand for it.

by Tim S. on Jul 10, 2011 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

There is no possible way that the United Center would be able to host 3 sports teams during the Winter

Bulls, Blackhawks, and then the hypothetical team, plus the events that the UC holds (like rodeo, highschool basketball tourney, etc..), it’d be jammed packed.

Bears. Bulls. White Sox.

by The Voiss on Jul 10, 2011 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions

staples center does it

by 5liv4 on Jul 10, 2011 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions

I guess that is true, forgot about that.

But ask a Clipper fan if they actually like that (last year, they played 2 home games in February, as an example).

Bears. Bulls. White Sox.

by The Voiss on Jul 10, 2011 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

We only had 3 home games in February, not much of a difference.

by Grinder in Training on Jul 11, 2011 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs

It'd definitely be difficult, but I think it'd be doable

They’d just have to boot some of those “other events.”

Pat Riley is the devil.

by Poloplaya14 on Jul 10, 2011 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Would they make more money from concerts or Bobcats games?

All State arena can be used for things like a Rodeo or high school basketball tournaments if they need space, it’s out there. It’d come down to if they thought a second NBA team would be a better revenue draw than Lady Gaga or Jay-Z?

by Grinder in Training on Jul 11, 2011 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions

Yes, Allstate Arena holds 17,500 for basketball games.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Allstate also host

Depaul, Wolves, and I think the Rush play there

by Dennis Hopson2 on Jul 12, 2011 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions

Do any of them fill up that arena?

I doubt it.

by Tim S. on Jul 12, 2011 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions

The NBA is obsessed with having 'NBA arenas', which Allstate is not

that’s why they moved out of Seattle.

BaB on Twitter | BaB on Facebook
"Don't nag, flag!"

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 12, 2011 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions

Why is Allstate not an "NBA arena"?

by Tim S. on Jul 13, 2011 6:33 AM CDT up reply actions

something about total number of seats and luxury boxes I'd guess

but I don’t know for sure

by SidM on Jul 13, 2011 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions

right, it's (relatively) a shithole.

BaB on Twitter | BaB on Facebook
"Don't nag, flag!"

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 15, 2011 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

You forgot the CIRCUS!!!!!

by Dennis Hopson2 on Jul 12, 2011 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions

And Disney on Ice.

So both teams have long road trips.

by Tim S. on Jul 12, 2011 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

The only thing that makes it possible is MJ

Any other owner would surely be shutout, but Reinsdorf might let Jordan in.

From a business perspective, Reinsdorf could stand to make more money with a second team in the city. He owns a stake in the United Center, so he would get money from the lease agreement with the Bobcats, and he owns a stake in Comcast Sports Net, so unless they sign a tv deal with Fox Sports Net, he would stand to make some more money than usual from televised games.

http://www.dabullz.com | Dabullz on Twitter | Dabullz on Facebook

Chicago Bulls Blog and Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jul 10, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

cool idea

my first thought is they’d get nervous about the possibility of only one market in the finals, but that hasnt stopped MLB from doing AL/NL in the same city so maybe not.

by Bush League Bob on Jul 10, 2011 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

That means the Bulls

would get about 43 home games

by Dennis Hopson2 on Jul 12, 2011 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

This is the worst possible timing

Who is going to cheer against Derrik Rose? Nobody that is a basketball fan in this city right now would support another team. That would be directly rooting against our guy winning a title.

Five years ago, yeah great idea. 2011, bad idea.

by metalkiwis on Jul 10, 2011 10:47 AM CDT reply actions

It could be done.

If they made the move, send the Bobcats into the Western Conference, and send the Grizzlies into the Eastern Conference. This just makes sense, as the Grizzlies are in an Eastern city, and it would eliminate Chicago fans from having to just hate on the Jordan’s team because they’re in the same conference as the Bulls.

Put the Bobcats out West, and then I think you might see plenty of fans pulling for them, while pulling for the Bulls. They probably need to change the team’s name though, and they would need to start winning to make it work. I’m not so sure there is room for a second profitable team in Chicago if they suck as badly as the Bobcats have over the past 7 years….although I’m sure Stern will gift them a #1 pick if they did move to Chicago.

http://www.dabullz.com | Dabullz on Twitter | Dabullz on Facebook

Chicago Bulls Blog and Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jul 10, 2011 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Bobcats in the WEST, Bulls in the EAST

would be awesome! Lakers would come to chicago 3 times a year instead of one.

We’d get to see every single basketball player on local tv 6 times.

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 11, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs

Fuck the lakers!

And anybody that goes to the united center in a kobe jersey and cheers for them. Just my humble opinion.

by #1humblebot on Jul 11, 2011 5:49 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

Agreed & rec'd

by Dennis Hopson2 on Jul 12, 2011 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions

You wouldn't have to cheer against Rose

There would be like 38 extra games to go watch at the United Center though.

As someone who could just barely afford 2 games a year ticket wise, if there was a cheaper NBA team to go watch, I could see doing it.

by tuluse on Jul 11, 2011 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah that is a good point. But that seems like a pipe dream. If Chicago can handle two teams, why would one have to be cheap? Do we really need a second tier team in the city?

by metalkiwis on Aug 5, 2011 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd love another Pro NBA team in Chicago.

"The advanced metrics guys do not like Derrick Rose very much." - Bills Simmons podcast 2/4

by RogersPark Kris on Jul 10, 2011 11:24 AM CDT reply actions

Charlotte would like one.

Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Cha-pu

by chapuforyou on Jul 11, 2011 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

BA-ZING!

"The advanced metrics guys do not like Derrick Rose very much." - Bills Simmons podcast 2/4

by RogersPark Kris on Jul 11, 2011 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Nah

"You know what Neil, stop being such a sourpuss." - Stacey King

by Scribbz on Jul 10, 2011 12:09 PM CDT reply actions

Simmons clearly doesn't have the pulse of this city.

Chicago is NOT a basketball city; the NFL and MLB are clearly favored over the NBA here and I doubt there are enough fans here to support a second team.

by dakoose on Jul 10, 2011 1:08 PM CDT reply actions

If we aren't, then no one is.

Any team that could consistently sell out the United Center despite fielding horrible teams for years and years is a basketball town. Sure, other sports may be even more popular, but the Bulls are the most profitable team in the NBA.

by Tim S. on Jul 10, 2011 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

They were coming off six championships in eight years

A glorified expansion team (which is what the Bobcats basically are) isn’t going to have that kind of equity with the fans. Unless they were big winners, I don’t see how they’d draw big crowds. Of course, they don’t draw big crowds in Charlotte, so they’d probably be better off with a half-filled arena in a major market as opposed to a half-filled arena in a small market.

by Big D on Jul 11, 2011 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

That wasn't the point.

Dakoose said Chicago isn’t a basketball city. I can’t think of many markets better for basketball than Chicago.

As for the Bobcats in Chicago, they would be more profitable even if they didn’t draw anyone, just because of the TV market. Look at the Clippers.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Chicago is a sports city and there's nothing going on in the winter on a tuesday night except for basketball.

And people love basketball here, from prep through college to the pros. I think when Dakoose says this isn’t a basketball city its because NFL + MLB get more media coverage than the Bulls, but culturally I think basketball is just as strong here as it is anywhere.

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 11, 2011 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well, there's hockey.

But Chicago is even less of a hockey town than a basketball town, and there’s enough interest for both plus a second NBA team.

Just look at the amount of activity on this blog vs. other basketball blogs, for example.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think Chicago is basketball enough to support one team, and no more than that.

by dakoose on Jul 11, 2011 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions

If Stern gifted the Cats a #1 pick, I think they could succeed.

They’ve just been such a shitty franchise so far. Emeka Okafor and Stephen Jackson are the closest things that team has had to a franchise player…and neither is even close.

Magically have the Bobcats get the #1 pick the summer they move, give them some knockout talent, and combine that with MJ, and I think the team can succeed. They would just need that one talent to draw. A prime Iverson or McGrady type would be enough to propel a second Chicago franchise imo.

http://www.dabullz.com | Dabullz on Twitter | Dabullz on Facebook

Chicago Bulls Blog and Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jul 11, 2011 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

The thing is Chicago is huge

It’s 50% bigger than the next largest city which would be Dallas; It’s over 5 times the size of Charlotte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Economy wise, it’s probably an even bigger advantage, and that’s what really matters in terms of getting sponsorships and advertising.

by tuluse on Jul 11, 2011 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions

besides L.A

where isn’t the NFL more popular than the NBA?

by 5liv4 on Jul 10, 2011 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions

I wouldn't know, aside from a few years overseas,

I’m a lifelong Chicagoan.

by dakoose on Jul 10, 2011 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions

and even then...

I would guess you have a huge number of Raiders holdout in LA.

by CubFan81 on Jul 10, 2011 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions

portland?

Let us cavort like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean.

by hedonism bot on Jul 11, 2011 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions

1st and foremost

Chicago is always a Bears city, then the Cubs (even if they fucking suck for more than a century), then Bulls, then Sox/Hawks. So yeah we dont need a 2nd NBA team

"I see PRIDE, I see POWER, I see a BADASS MOTHA WHO WON'T TAKE NO CRAP OFF NOBODY!"

by T.Moore on Jul 10, 2011 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions

I liked this

Jerry Buss, James Dolan and Jerry Reinsdorf shouldn’t have to support flawed businesses in flawed markets. And if believing that makes me an NBA Republican, so be it.

Fun read

Woooooooooooooot!!

by Belize on Jul 10, 2011 5:07 PM CDT reply actions

lolwut

Blake "The Franchise" DeWitt will lead us to the promised land

by jesus christos on Jul 10, 2011 6:14 PM CDT reply actions

as a bulls fan I would love a second team here as long as it was in the western conference.

The problem is, I don’t think anyone would become a bobcats fan first and foremost- and this would hurt them financially. Everyone will stay a bulls fan and sort of a secondary bobcats fan.

by Uncle Stanley McGoober on Jul 11, 2011 7:24 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

The Clippers still make money.

Lots more than the Bobcats do in Charlotte.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

They make money because they essentially use Staples Center for free and Sterling is one of the cheapest owners in the league.

The Clippers aren’t some model franchise.

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 11, 2011 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

That's my point.

If they can make money, anyone can.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions

What's really hilarious about all these questions of whether or not Chicago could support another team...

is that nobody here has mentioned the Sky yet.

by SidM on Jul 11, 2011 9:44 AM CDT reply actions

Not the same stadium or the same season.

And if your point is that the Sky don’t get support, well, they obviously aren’t an NBA team.

by Tim S. on Jul 11, 2011 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions

i was referring more to the idea of a finite supply of "basketball-fandom" or something

yeah, less tangible than head-to-head conflict of facilities being available

by SidM on Jul 11, 2011 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions

I think another NBA team would increase the attention on basketball hence up the "basketball-fandom"

Bulls v Bobcats wouldn’t be quite the same thing as Cubs v Sox but would definitely get more media coverage than Bulls v Timberwolves or some other random team.

It’d get people paying attention who don’t normally pay attention.

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 11, 2011 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions