From ESPN:

Quote:The NBA on Friday sent teams a memo indicating that "eligibility rules" for the draft may shift as early as 2021 (but no earlier) as the league reviews issues "related to player development and the corruption investigation in college basketball," according to a copy of the memo obtained by ESPN.

The memo does not mention the one-and-done rule by name, but it is meant to remind teams that the league and the players union could agree to scrap one-and-done before the expiration of the current collective bargaining deal in 2024 -- and perhaps well before then, sources say. The memo says that, as of now, the league does not expect changes in draft eligibility rules to take place at any time "prior to the 2021 or 2022 draft."

Quote:A 30-team G League with competitive salaries would present prospects with a viable alternative to both college basketball and international leagues that do not operate with an age limit. The NBA has broached internally the idea of eventually adding a third round to the draft to give teams more chances at filling all these potential roster spots.

Well the Trailblazers appear to have one coming next year (2019-20), in the Nike HQ at Beaverton, Oregon (a suburb of Portland), perhaps in the Michael Krzyzewski Fitness Center (not going to hold a large crowd, similar to Lakers setup). So 28 look to be online by next year if league sources Adam Johnson mentions are correct about this.



New Orleans is trying to get a location and somebody else to pay for it. The Benson family is in a bit of disarray, even before patriarch Tom Benson died March 18th this year. The shutting down of the G League city search coincided with the beginning of Tom's final illness. His widow, Gayle Benson is the owner now, but it's not certain for how long or even if the team will long run stay in New Orleans. Many NBA watchers think it's likely she will get big offers (think $2-3B) by some Seattle or even Mexico City group, wanting to bring the team to their city in a couple years. For Seattle that could well line up with a new facility going up.

IMO, if a sale is probable, it would make sense to take over the Erie BayHawks in 2019-20 and 2020-21 before moving the G-League to somewhere close to the new city of the Pelicans. But who knows what will happen?

That leaves the Denver Nuggets. *cricket*
If you have heard anything, then that is more than anybody else has.

If New Orleans moves, realignment without expansion could get interesting:

Northwest - Seattle*, Portland, Utah, Denver, Minnesota
Southwest - Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Memphis, Oklahoma City
Pacific - Golden State, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Sacramento, Phoenix

New Orleans and Oklahoma City would essentially be trading divisions. Things could get wide open in the Northwest if a clear front-runner can't establish any momentum between now and then.

The Erie Bayhawks are affiliated with the Atlanta Hawks and are moving to College Park, Georgia (where part of Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport and the Georgia International Convention Center are located) in 2019, so any G-League franchise for the Pelicans will likely be on the Gulf Coast, or somewhere near the Pelicans' new home.

I would expect Denver to be looking at Colorado Springs or Aurora. I could also see the Miami Heat selling the Sioux Falls Skyforce to Denver, and then starting a new club somewhere in Florida. Delaware (76ers affiliate) could then move from the Southeast Division to the Atlantic Division if they haven't already done so by then.

The Pelicans took bids for a city near them. But they fell away one by one, announcing they were out. Baton Rouge, Mobile, Shreveport and last to fall out Pensacola. They wanted Saint Tammany parish originally -- but major civil projects came first and no money was available for a sports center. Then one by one, each of the remaining cities had measures before councils and boards rejected when asked to spend the $100-200M they would have to come up with to build a facility, while the Pelicans refused to offer any financial support or guarantees. So on March 5th Del Demps announced the project was on hold indefinitely.

If the Pelicans ownership had really wanted a G League team, they would have one, even if it meant expanding the teams HQ and practice facility. But they are a Mickey Mouse operation. Most likely a G League team will only come with ownership clarification (i.e., a sale). Gayle Benson is a New Orleans native, and the 71 year old wont move the team herself. Note, there is considerable friction among Gayle and the children and grand children (Tom died at 90).

It would not surprise me if Denver had one first. Stan Kroenke, the man who paid the $650M relocation fee for the Rams in cash, can set up a franchise tomorrow out of a single afternoons profits from his wife's Walmart holdings. It's simply a question of a suitable location (perhaps 1st Bank Arena on the north side, or maybe Broadmoor World Arena in Colorado Springs, or even DU's Magness Arena ... which may be too busy with DU Hockey, plus Men's and Women's Basketball), that with some refurbishment could be up and running in a year.

I do like the idea of New Orleans moving to Seattle, swapping divisions with OKC to make the alignment more sensible. If they move to Mexico City (central time zone), then you probably leave the alignment alone. The NBA is likely to stay at 30, because they are already worried that small markets have a disadvantage, although everyone is making money (so unlike the NHL, they don't need expansion fee money).

Anyway they will have 27 this year, and I expect 28 minimum by 2019-20 season with Portland, and it's hard to see Kroenke not getting the 29th done in the Denver area by 2020, located somewhere within 50 miles of team headquarters (plenty of options with a little WalMart $). New Orleans is the wildcard.

The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

Crazy to me that Birmingham doesn't seem like it's gotten G-League consideration.

(06-18-2018 02:41 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The Pelicans took bids for a city near them. But they fell away one by one, announcing they were out. Baton Rouge, Mobile, Shreveport and last to fall out Pensacola. They wanted Saint Tammany parish originally -- but major civil projects came first and no money was available for a sports center. Then one by one, each of the remaining cities had measures before councils and boards rejected when asked to spend the $100-200M they would have to come up with to build a facility, while the Pelicans refused to offer any financial support or guarantees. So on March 5th Del Demps announced the project was on hold indefinitely.

If the Pelicans ownership had really wanted a G League team, they would have one, even if it meant expanding the teams HQ and practice facility. But they are a Mickey Mouse operation. Most likely a G League team will only come with ownership clarification (i.e., a sale). Gayle Benson is a New Orleans native, and the 71 year old wont move the team herself. Note, there is considerable friction among Gayle and the children and grand children (Tom died at 90).

It would not surprise me if Denver had one first. Stan Kroenke, the man who paid the $650M relocation fee for the Rams in cash, can set up a franchise tomorrow out of a single afternoons profits from his wife's Walmart holdings. It's simply a question of a suitable location (perhaps 1st Bank Arena on the north side, or maybe Broadmoor World Arena in Colorado Springs, or even DU's Magness Arena ... which may be too busy with DU Hockey, plus Men's and Women's Basketball), that with some refurbishment could be up and running in a year.

I do like the idea of New Orleans moving to Seattle, swapping divisions with OKC to make the alignment more sensible. If they move to Mexico City (central time zone), then you probably leave the alignment alone. The NBA is likely to stay at 30, because they are already worried that small markets have a disadvantage, although everyone is making money (so unlike the NHL, they don't need expansion fee money).

Anyway they will have 27 this year, and I expect 28 minimum by 2019-20 season with Portland, and it's hard to see Kroenke not getting the 29th done in the Denver area by 2020, located somewhere within 50 miles of team headquarters (plenty of options with a little WalMart $). New Orleans is the wildcard.

Omaha would make sense for Denver.

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

From what I understand the one and done rule can exist because it is collectively bargained. That alone doesn’t necessarily mean it is legal, but there is precedent for it. Even Maurice Clarett cited that in his lawsuit against the NFL.

MLB is a bit different in that players almost never go straight to the parent club - essentially, they are being paid to learn the game at the Major League level (in particular to play with a wooden bat) for a few years. Sometimes college may be a better deal than taking a minor league salary to play in Sarasota or Bowling Green.

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 01:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  The way the press release is worded, this could also go the other way. That is, instead of "none and done" it could go to "two and done", which is probably closer to what college coaches would prefer.

However, the latter change would likely trigger law suits that could upset the whole apple cart.

The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The simplest is what they do for baseball.

You can go out of high school, but if you choose college then you're not eligible again for 3 years.

IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

(06-19-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  IIRC, MLB can have such a rule with impunity, because they enjoy special status regarding antitrust rules granted by Congress years ago. I don't think the NBA has the same stutus. It seems to me it would be very difficult for them, after all this time, to make a legal case why rising sophs shouldn't be allowed to play in the NBA. They can hardly argue that they aren't physically or emotionally ready - they've shown for years that they are.

I don't see why the existence of a G-League mitigates that.

If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

If that's the law then it's a dumb law. The union and the league should not be able to bargain away the rights of people who are not part of the union and not part of the league.

(06-19-2018 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

If that's the law then it's a dumb law. The union and the league should not be able to bargain away the rights of people who are not part of the union and not part of the league.

Happens with many union contracts. People hired while a union contract is in force are bound by it even if they hadn't been hired when it was adopted.

(06-19-2018 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-18-2018 08:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If it is in the approved collective bargaining agreement it is OK. That's why Maurice Clarett's anti-trust suit against the NFL failed.

I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

If that's the law then it's a dumb law. The union and the league should not be able to bargain away the rights of people who are not part of the union and not part of the league.

That's why it would be unconstitutional. With a union it changes the law involved, but it can't change the principles of the constitution.

(06-19-2018 10:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 07:09 AM)ken d Wrote:  I think chargeradio's assessment may be correct. It may be legal. But IMO that would have to be settled by a court - maybe even SCOTUS.

Let me give a (slightly) more extreme rule that could potentially be collectively bargained. Let's say that the owners and players collectively agree that no one can play in the NBA until they have been out of high school for 4 years, not just one or two. At some point, the reasonableness of the restriction has to come into play. I don't believe a court would let that stand. And, in deciding that 4 years is unreasonable, they might make their ruling broad enough to allow all high school graduates to go straight to the NBA.

I think the main reason that one-and-done has not been challenged may be that it has been deemed not worth the cost and effort by players right out of high school, given the assumption that they can find other ways to monetize their talents without having to go overseas for a year or playing for peanuts in the G-League.

I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

If that's the law then it's a dumb law. The union and the league should not be able to bargain away the rights of people who are not part of the union and not part of the league.

Happens with many union contracts. People hired while a union contract is in force are bound by it even if they hadn't been hired when it was adopted.

But they are categorically denying 18 year olds the right to earn a living. They are effectively a monopoly conspiring to deny a group of people rights. It simply wouldn't stand if it went to the Supreme Court.

(06-20-2018 12:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 10:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 05:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2018 01:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm pretty sure it would get ruled unconstitutional. But with only a year delay, its not worth it to fight it like Spencer Haywood did in the 70s when it was a 4 year delay. He won an injunction at the Supreme Court. The NBA then settled.

Supreme Court denied cert in the Clarett case. Haywood case the CBA didn't address draft eligibility so it really isn't a relevant case.

If that's the law then it's a dumb law. The union and the league should not be able to bargain away the rights of people who are not part of the union and not part of the league.

Happens with many union contracts. People hired while a union contract is in force are bound by it even if they hadn't been hired when it was adopted.

But they are categorically denying 18 year olds the right to earn a living. They are effectively a monopoly conspiring to deny a group of people rights. It simply wouldn't stand if it went to the Supreme Court.

Yet the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address this very issue and said, "Nah, circuit court decision will stand."

On Denver. I think the new practice facility for the Nuggets and Avalanche Kroenke is planning seems the more logical location to house a G-League team, similar to what the Wizzards are doing.

https://www.bsndenver.com/nuggets-avalan...-facility/

You wont see a team separated from it's host team city. Omaha suggested by Bullet wont happen, as it doesn't allow same day call up. That is why every franchise, with the exception of Miami, has it's G-league affiliate within a short drive (well Iowa is a long drive to Minneapolis) - Sacramento decided even Reno was too far and moved their team to nearby Stockton. Beaverton is the same concept for Portland. Denver I see following the Wizards model in placing it in a new practice facility across the street from the Arena.

This sucks for smaller cities, but makes sense for the NBA franchises these teams serve. I do think the league would be wise, if New Orleans winds up as possibly being sold, to push the Pelicans to use Erie for a couple years while that gets settled, so that everyone has a team in time for the 2021 CBA when HS kids likely will draft eligible, possibly with a required G-League year (I have no idea how the final CBA will be worded, it's a couple years away and will be argued and debated by players and teams)