Unless they have a huge superstar player that grabs attention or in a tight race for something against the locals, Canadian teams in US leagues generally aren't very good TV ratings or box office draws in the US.

Americans by and large are for some reason way more interested in seeing their home team play Cleveland or Denver than Toronto.

In terms of players the NBA is the second-most American dominated league after the NFL.

American MLB players generally hated Montreal though with a few notable exceptions that are today (rightfully) venerated as Expos legends, for that and other reasons. (Though Latin American players generally loved playing in Montreal. Not many of those in the NBA.)

Plus the MLB guys were spending the summer in Montreal.

NBA players would have Montreal as their home base in the winter. The number one state for producing NBA players is... California.

The tricky thing for proponents of the NBA in Montreal is that it's tough for them to get the NBA's attention when there are so many lucrative untapped markets in the US to choose from. For instance, Kansas City's metro GDP is slightly above Montreal's, and presents far fewer potential hassles.

Winnipeg is a city that by all the usual metrics would never have a NHL team, but the city's outsized passion for hockey made it possible. I don't know that you can say Montreal has a similar level of passion for basketball that would give it a leg up on the various US cities that would love to have a NBA team. If anything, Montreal probably has less basketball passion than the average North American city of that size. And yeah I get that plenty of teenage and twentysomething males in Montreal love basketball, but that's not what the team is going to be built on. Do the 60 year olds populating Montreal's corporate boardrooms care about basketball the way they do in Raleigh-Durham? I highly doubt it.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. There is definitely a "fad" aspect to the NBA right now, and this is evident even in Montreal. Does this mean that the sport has the grassroots, base and history to make it in the city long term? Especially through the tough years? I have my doubts.

It was a similar situation with the Expos even though baseball arguably even had way more established roots in Montreal and Quebec. Look what happened there.

As has been mentioned except for the Habs I don't think Montreal is that good a day-in day-out go to their team's games regularly on a weeknight type of sports city. It does well with "event" sports like F1, tennis and even boxing. Which all happen to be individual sports so maybe there is something to that as well.

Western Canada doesn't even come close to having the media and cultural convergence that Quebec and French Canada have.

TSN and Sportsnet are still the sports channels in Western Canada and they and all other national media and most corporate sponsors are still based in Toronto. You think they'd give first billing to the Vancouver NBA team over the Raptors at this point? Look at how people complain about coverage of the Leafs on TSN (Toronto Sports Network) and HNIC. And there are multiple NHL teams in Canada other than the Leafs.

Totally different from Quebec where the Montreal NBA team would get top billing in all the media (all of which is distinct and based in Montreal for francophones), not just the one with broadcast rights. You'd never hear about the Raptors here if Montreal got an NBA team.

Conceivably, Canada could get some good bona fide regional sports networks like they have in the US but even that comes with caveats. First of all, TSN and Sportsnet have so much of a head start it would be hard for the upstarts to compete with them. Plus, you wouldn't likely get a "Western Canadian" sports network but rather one for BC, one for AB, and maybe one for MB-SK.

Middle of the pack ratings because they were playing the Bucks Lakers Clippers and Heat. That's kind of like when the Jays would stumble into a Sunday night ESPN slot because they were playing the Yankees in a pennant race. The NBA rights holders aren't putting the Raptors-Grizzlies on a national broadcast. Canadian ratings don't register in the US, so a given Canadian market being larger than 3/4 of the US markets means nothing to the US broadcasters considering spending billions of dollars a year for the rights. Put a team in a US market grows the interest level in that market for not only the team but the sport, and makes the rights worth more.

You aren't going to suck enough money out of TVA, Sportsnet or TSN for Canadian rights to a new Vancouver or Montreal team to make up for the rights fees a Seattle or Vegas team will generate on the US national rights deal (let alone what they might be able to do on their own regional rights).

This entire conversation reminds me of this joke from Corner Gas:

https://i.imgur.com/HIDTpbd.jpg
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/co...20190728200429

Looks like Vegas and Seattle are the front runners for NBA expansion not Montreal. I do have my doubts Vegas can support 4 teams for a market their size and lack of business diversification from hospitality.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/a...uld-get-teams/

It's funny how Vegas went from being forbidden to essential for pro sports in under a decade...

I think Vegas can handle it, it's not a huge city but it's still fairly large and it's bolstered by a huge number of visitors willing to spend big money.

Seattle makes good sense too.

I have no concerns about the NBA being successful in Vegas. MLB on the other hand, after the first few years of novelty wears off, I can see them running into issues. The time of year the season runs and the shear number of games. The bulk of the season is in the so-called low season, I hardly ever hear someone in July or August saying they are heading to Vegas. And I don't think the locals really spend a lot of time on the strip.

The A's really overestimate people's willingness to sit in the Vegas sun to watch a baseball game in July and August. There's a reason the Raiders' palace has a roof. A Vegas MLB team is destined to relocate.

I don't recall the latest news, but I imagine they will at least have a retractable roof. Even still, I doubt their drawing power through the summer months after the first few seasons.

Partially retractable, according to the information released thus far. Renders suggest the fans in the main seating will have a transparent roof directly overhead (looks similar to the Vikings' glass dome), but the outfield will be fully uncovered. It seems horribly insufficient when you consider how hot it gets in Vegas even when you're in the shade.

^ I would imagine they will make sure that fans are comfortable, it's a deal breaker if fans are going to be sweltering in the summer heat. Phoenix is basically in the same climate and they have managed to make it work.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...-luck-2805179/

If A’s need more land for retractable roof ballpark, they may be in luck

If the Oakland Athletics’ planned Las Vegas ballpark needs more than the 9 acres of land allotted to them to accommodate a retractable roof, they could be in luck.

If additional land is needed, that could be provided, Bally’s Chairman Soo Kim said Friday.

“I do believe we have some language that allows for supports for a roof if necessary beyond the above (acreage),” Kim told the Review-Journal.

The A’s initial stadium plans include a $1.5 billion, 30,000-seat ballpark that would include some form of retractable roof.

Bally’s Corp., which owns the Tropicana, and Gaming and Leisure Properties, which owns the land where the stadium would be situated, agreed to provide the A’s 9 acres of land free of charge. That land is valued at around $180 million, according to Kim.

Renderings for the A’s ballpark show a large arch above the stadium, which would be the supports Kim noted. Wembley Stadium in England features a similar arch above the retractable roof facility. Those supports extend beyond the stadium’s footprint, which could require additional land.

A retractable roof is desirable to the A’s to allow for the ballpark to be climate controlled during the hot summer months and to allow for open air games during months when temperatures are not as extreme.

The A’s and Bally’s Corp. will also have up to 4 acres of shared space at the 35-acre site that could be used as a courtyard of sorts, leading fans to and from Las Vegas Boulevard, as depicted in artists renderings.

The Texas Rangers’ 40,000-seat Globe Life Field features a retractable roof and sits on 13 acres of land in Arlington, Texas. The A’s have toured that ballpark previously during their Las Vegas ballpark research process.

Although slightly larger, Globe Life Field provides an idea of how much space might be needed to construct a retractable roof stadium at the Tropicana site.

Similar to Globe Life Field, the A’s would also use artificial turf in Las Vegas, due to the lack of sunlight that would be available with a partially retractable roof.

The Raiders’ Allegiant Stadium features a semi-translucent dome and a natural grass field. The field is located on top of a field tray that moves in and out of the stadium to allow for adequate sunlight when not in use.

After the A’s stadium funding bill was signed into law by Gov. Joe Lombardo last month, earmarking up to $380 million in public money toward the $1.5 billion project, the A’s still need MLB approval for their relocation to Southern Nevada to be official. The A’s have begun the relocation application process.

Once they submit the application to MLB officials, it will be reviewed ahead of a potential vote of the team owners. The A’s would need 75 percent of owners to vote in favor of their move to Las Vegas for it to be approved.

That says to me that it will have the ability to be fully enclosed, but that when the roof is open it will only expose the outfield.

Chase Field has a full roof.

Maybe, but they've given zero evidence that is the case.

^ Maybe they just haven't released all the info yet. It's impossible to imagine MLB succeeding in Vegas without a climate controlled venue.

In the stories I have seen, they say retractable roof. It just sounds to me like the reverse of the Skydome. Fixed panel over the infield seats rather than the outfield, ostensibly to allow that wide open outfield view of the Strip. What you describe is a partial roof, not a partially retractable roof.

Sounds like B.C. vs Montreal got and an average viewership of 700 000.