i'd love to see it.

How are you gonna do all the traveling? Flights to Europe are draining. Players won't be at their best performance. Otherwise, I think it would be great.

This would be tough on the fans.

I have trouble staying up for the west coast games. Imagine your team going on a Europe road trip and having to watch everything on tape delay. I would end up knowing the results of the games before I even watched it. The NBA would probably end up losing ratings during that period because of it.

Another question, do Europeans want the NBA?

I think you have basically incorperation of existing teams in Europe into the league. So the risk is small.

I would say each team plays 10 games there in two trips and each euro team plays 10 here. For the playoffs you have have the euro champ play the US champ. Might be ugly at first, but like the NFL parity would happen over time.

And also the rosters are wide open to whom ever, they can carry as many US players as they want, and we are required to carry a few. This way euros can develope here as well.

Andrew brings up a good point regading the times. West coast games also make the times even more screwy.

The reality is the euro teams are doing very well and are structured properly. They have to want to come in the fold. Do they want that?

After reading Nalon's suggestion about taking already created teams in Europe and adding them to the NBA, upon thinking about this more, I think the best way is to not necessarily have them join the NBA in the same capacity, but to create a "Champions League" as EUFA does with soccer in Europe.

This is the best way to do it, I think. For those not familiar with how that system works, the top finishing teams from many of the top leagues around the world play each other in qualifiers, group play and then elimination/playoff matches (the early elimination round are 2 "legs"/games) until the final match which is a one game winner take all.

What could happen is that all division winners (at least in the NBA) automatically qualify for the group stage, or maybe the top two teams in each division, or the top 4 in each conference. Then other teams that made the playoffs have to qualify for group play in this "Champions League" by playing in a randomized mini-playoff (best out of 3?) where you could play against NBA, or European teams. Deciding who would get the 2nd home game is the biggest problem here, because in EUFA Champions League they use goal difference, or who scored the most on the road. That works better for soccer where scoring is hard, but in basketball would you want teams running up scores in order to qualify for the next round?

So, in this US/Europe Pro-Basketball "Champions League." what happens next is the winners of these mini-playoffs then make the group phase to compete with the elite finishers in the NBA and top clubs in leagues around Europe -- or perhaps from a newly created NBA Europe league? (which takes the top teams from Europe and puts them in divisions together). Let's say that means 16 NBA teams + 16 European teams are randomly put into 4 groups of 4 teams. You play each team twice in your group, one home and one away, and then the top team from each group makes the elimination phase where they also play best out of 3, which in this case the team that gets the 2nd home game could be based on who had a better group record, and if that is the same other factors could be used (maybe point difference is the only way to do it). Then the final game is played in a neutral site, decided before the the season starts and is played after the NBA season is over (like July).

One thing that would really be great, is that this could really improve the importance the NBADL. Teams, like in EUFA Champions League could be allowed to expand roster size to say 18. This would mean that teams could keep guys like Nichols or Jared Jordan in the NBADL, but still relevant and more happy, by getting real experience against higher levels of competition in this league. This is EXACTLY what top European clubs do in soccer, where they rest some stars against weaker competition, and allow young players a chance to play in important games.

This model makes the most sense to me, instead of having the NBA itself take on European teams as part of the same league. I'm actually, or wouldn't be surprised that this isn't the model that they are considering or will go with. It's a lot easier to schedule, because you may only have to play one or two games a month like this, and what could happen is they cut about 10 games out of the NBA season to accommodate this league. I personally love this idea, as it would generate a lot more excitement I think, especially for lower echelon playoff teams who may have no hope of winning the NBA, but could fare well in this league if top NBA teams take this less seriously...for now...which I say because for EUFA Champions League, top teams take that VERY seriously because it shows that you are the best in all of Europe, not just your own country. It's very glamorous.

Posted by arkrud:

I would propose to built NBA game Palace at Azores islands (Portugal)
They are 3 hours of flight from Europe and New York
Fans can also use Cruise ships with casino on board (for referees )
On the islands NBA can build houses and hotels for NBA players and fans.
This can be multi-billion venture...

Teams will stay on the islands for week or two to meet with opponent and fans can spend vacation here with beaches, wild nature and stuff. Its endless opportunities for NBA...

no F that, keep the teams here in NA

I want to take back my vote- it is time- and can we do it for this year? At least so we can trade Marbury to a team in Italy?

I apologize for the mistake on the acronym, as I thought it looked wrong when I wrote it (and I was on their website checking that I had the way it was set up right) because I follow it as best as I can from here, where I had to wach a replay of Man U v. Roma on the Spanish language version of ESPN (which I don't even understand).

Firefly, I appreciate and understand your criticism about the proposed league sounding arrogant if half the teams come from the U.S. I meant to suggest that as a way of getting several NBA teams to play important games against top European clubs, but it does have an eyer of arrogance which I cannot say is not wrong. My view stems from a perception (which may be wrong) of the NBA as having the best players, and while I agree that it's at least somewhat arrogant sounding I believe you are mis-using the word "patriotic" (that's completely different). While you may be lumping me as an American who is seeing an American b-ball league as superior and that stemming from "patriotism" it is more associated with arrogance about the NBA's superiority, which interestingly is EXACTLY what many non-Americans, especially Europeans (in my view) say about soccer here.

My view suggests that there is a recognition of talent level difference overall in the NBA versus other foreign leagues right now, as is the case for top European leagues in soccer versus other lower echelon leagues. While the American national team that has been made up entirely of top NBA players has not fared as well in International competition of late because of increased competition that does not mean that America still puts out, by percentage, the most top talent.

One of the major reasons for creating a "Champions League" for basketball (which I did not mean to suggest was an exact replica of UEFA Champions League, would be a balanced representation of all teams, because the U.S. has hosted soccer matches where it is Brazil vs. the World) is that it would give other players more exposure.

I was just thinking about this, but one could argue that it is a form of modern globalization and neo-colonialism as is the entire international soccer/football hegemony, where almost all top players wind up in the best European leagues. I just realized that I am proposing the exact same form of colonialism in terms of the NBA dominating and using this potential system as a way of finding new talent to take into its league. Currently, it's the NBA attracts the top level of talent around the world. So while you suggest I am the one that's arrogant, and I respect your criticism as valid, does the system of professional international soccer/football not function in the same way, and do you not have a similar view of that?

Sure, I know that UEFA Champions League has 2-3 teams per top national league, but it is imbalanced and dominated by the mega clubs by nature, to say the least. The mega clubs behave the same in their own countries and Europe like the Yankees do in baseball here but arguably even more so, where they outspend their competition through transfers of mega-stars, young talent, etc. Top Spanish, English, German, and Italian clubs dominate, with a few exceptions. So let's not be under any illusions that that's a more democratic system or we are going to get a perfectly democratic system. UEFA Champions League is slightly democratic because it has more countries involved but no more so than the idea I am proposing because basketball is not as developed as soccer around the globe, hence is the level of talent and money in basketball outside of North America not as high as soccer leagues I think by any means so to create a system where each country has 3 teams might create poor competition, at least at first. Maybe I'm wrong and this wold be a good way to help spread the game.

Also, this same so-called democracy plays out with the FIFA World Cup, where Europe gets more countries in the tournament than Africa, for example. It's interesting because as I was writing the idea out I thought about that, but didn't include it in the post...it's also arguably like the UN and the 5 permanent members of the Security Council.

It is presumptuous to suggest that other teams out of the U.S. can't compete, but the purpose from the perspective of generating excitement through achieving the highest level of competition is to include several NBA teams for now, and top clubs from some European leagues (i.e. Spain, Italy, Greece, etc.)