The winner of the Warren Buffet-Dan Gilbert led NCAA bracket contest for $1 billion wouldn't be able to buy two NBA franchises (unless that winner is already a billionaire). According to Forbes' annual ranking of sports franchises (published Wednesday), the New York Knicks are, as usual and despite their mediocre performance for most of my fanhood (I'm 24), the most valuable NBA team at $1.4 billion. The Lakers are next at $1.35 billion. The Bulls are third at an even $1 billion and the rest are in the millions, with the Boston Celtics and their $875 million valuation fourth, ESPN reported.

Likely, Knicks owner and Cablevision CEO James Dolan wouldn't sell the team unless presented with a "Godfather offer" as sportswriter Bill Simmons has termed it, according to Newsday, which should know best since it is owned by Cablevision, which of course owns the Knicks! Such an offer ($2 billion, maybe?) might not even be enough for Dolan to give up his rights as owner of one of the world's most powerful sports franchises. After all, is the difference between $2 billion (or more) and $1 billion really greater than the difference between owning the Knicks and not owning the Knicks? Sadly for NYK nation (which could have been coined if the Knicks were a little more successful), Dolan will likely be here until senility and death overcome him like they did George Steinbrenner. I'd wish for the devise of Cablevision, but their headquarters are less than a mile from my house.

Mostly, franchise value is dictated by geographical location and basketball tradition, which is why New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, and Houston cover the top spots. Amazingly, Oklahoma City is #11 on the list despite a listed address in Oklahoma City and only becoming a franchise less than a decade ago. (Kevin Durant once played on the Seattle Supersonics, in case you forgot; I need that rookie card!)

Two teams that have done the most despite their geographical location and/or on the basis of actual results:

1. Oklahoma City: Already explained, which makes their decision to let James Harden go even more frustrating for OKC fans.

2. Chicago Bulls: Sure, they play in a major market, but they didn't have a great basketball history until Michael Jordan came along. His era will keep them forever relevant, even as they've struggled since his retirement. I lived "Windy" for a year of my life and that city is nuts about basketball. It also helps that Illinois is a big basketball state located directly next to an even bigger hoops mecca, Indiana. Still, without MJ, Pippen, Rodman, BJ Armstrong, and their rings, Chicago wouldn't be in the top ten.

Two teams that have done the least with their geographical location and/or on the basis of actual results:

1. Washington Wizards: How could a city of one of the most valuable NFL franchises and a rising MLB team also host such a disaster (and the #21 most valuable NBA franchise)? Half the reason has to be because of their team names. Not even considering the Redskins, Washington's NBA team used to be called the "Bullets" (ouch) and now they're called the "Wizards" (could be charming if their logo wasn't so bad they're now using old Bullets colors). Chris Webber was once on both of those teams but, alas, he was traded for Rod Strickland. Only when the city/district sticks to obvious nicknames like the "Capitals" and "Nationals" does its teams succeed.

2. Milwaukee Bucks: This is the same state that hosts the Packers! Wisconsin also borders Illinois (a lake away from Indiana) and is a fairly rabid basketball region, evidenced by their obsession with Marquette (probably spurred by their lack of obsession for the Bucks). The Bucks (a solid nickname) are the least valuable NBA franchise, according to Forbes, and that's mostly because they haven't had a good team since the Ray Allen-Sam Cassel-Glenn Robinson-George Karl days, days which weren't even that good. At least they once had one of my favorite all time players, Michael Redd. Fear the deer? Save the dear! (They also once traded Kareem Abdul Jabar.)