Where I'm going to differ with you, and eventually punt, KC, is as follows:
"Major" markets (San Jose, San Diego, Anaheim, Kansas City, St. Louis, Tampa, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and maybe Buffalo) are not going to work, generally. One or two exceptions at most... PROVIDED the NBA wants this league to pay some of its own way. It costs too much to market in these towns, PLUS the media will ignore them while covering the major league teams that exist in those markets.
I almost included Tacoma on that list... and frankly, with the facility they have available, because it's too large, that won't work, either. Technically, as this stands, I didn't lump Tacoma in with the previous bunch, but it goes to the same end.
Las Vegas, New Mexico, Raleigh, Columbus, Louisville, and perhaps Hartford are also bad ideas, because the college teams in each town dominate.
That leaves Vancouver (which you could probably put in the first category), Oklahoma City (which you could easily put in the second category since Norman is basically a suburb), Tulsa (whose college team is known to have decent pull half the time), Little Rock, Omaha, Des Moines, Nashville (as long as the Predators and TItans are around, forget it), Birmingham (which doesn't strike me as a good place for a team), Jacksonville (Jaguars), Richmond, Grand Rapids (who has watched CBA die there a couple times), Albany, and perhaps Providence (the Friars have some Big East history anyway).
These are two of the reasons why the CBA and D-League are arranged the way they are. Places with limited competition are the prime markets to consider. Leagues trying to target "major non-NBA markets" fail for fairly simple reasons. The model doesn't work this way.
That being said, if the NBA can somehow make the money work better, this could happen. However, I suspect what you'll see is more like the reserve league MLS started this year, where teams either play in the same building as the first team or in a smaller location with less rental cost attached.