PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article about Attending NBA games (Pacers Mentioned)



tinsley#11
12-10-2007, 01:01 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_experts/post/Fans-to-NBA-not-tonight-we-ve-got-a-headache;_ylt=Amv30XEe1K9UV50FHu636gSLvLYF?urn=nba ,57019

Fans to NBA: not tonight, we've got a headache

By Kelly Dwyer

Monday, Dec 10, 2007 11:49 am EST



http://f3.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_nba_experts/ept_sports_nba_experts-301983557-1197305303.jpg?ymYHwk.CX6eJkZhLThis, actually, makes a whole heap of sense. Though local and national television ratings for NBA games are up across the board, attendance is down this season. And though hardcore NBA fans don't make up the bulk of patrons in attendance in an arena's lower bowl (most of those are corporate-bought ducats, handed down sometimes two or three times to clients and favor-givers), it seems as if quite a few NBA junkies are preferring a night in front of a tube watching the game as opposed to an evening spent observing in person. Sports Media Watch reports (http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/nba-fans-would-rather-watch-game-on-tv.html):


"The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: ratings for Indiana Pacers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/ind/) games are up 43% on FSN Midwest, while attendance for the team is down 28%.


The piece goes on to explain that this pattern is repeated on other networks and across the league. There are several, quite obvious, reasons behind this. First among all has to be the prohibitive cost of NBA tickets. The league has a mandated block of ten-dollar seats available in every arena, but most of those seats are pretty worthless and anything approaching a passable seat is going to cost you - to say nothing of the overpriced parking, Sysco-brand food products and the pricey beverages of your choice.

Secondly - and as a 27-year old male I'm well aware that I'm smack in the middle of the NBA's target demographic - the game experience can be nauseating. The music and sound effects, played during actual game possessions and ostensibly meant to aid the home team, can be dizzying and headache-inducing even from the comfort of your own home. Most teams don't exactly do a sound job of advertising the product via TV when they crank up canned "DE-FENSE" chants or play a needless Gwen Stefani hook in the midst of an important play called out of a timeout.
Teams now employ in-game hosts to purportedly drive up interest during timeouts, morons somehow afforded microphones and team-issued activewear that do nothing but annoy and distract most fans over the age of four and a half. This goes well beyond some over-caffeinated team employee chucking t-shirts into the stands by way of an air-cannon: this is a full-on affront to the senses that is team-sponsored. These NBA teams, rife with PR hacks and promotion-types trying desperately to protect their phony-baloney jobs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes), have convinced themselves that you want this sort of nonsense.

And, as you've already told them via your refusal to deign to attend these games, these mugs are wrong. Way wrong.
There are dozens of other reasons behind why NBA fans are tuning into television broadcasts in droves while staying away from the arenas, but it's also become evident that fans (even over-caffeinated types like me who appreciate a good batch of noise and nonsense in heaping amounts) are pretty sick of the clang and clatter that the NBA sponsors within the realm of the game experience. Fans are choosing to create their own brand of game experience, without the NBA treating them like a toddler agape at a dangling pair of car keys, and I applaud them for that.
Related: Indiana Pacers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_experts/teams/Indiana+Pacers/nba.t.11)


================================================== ====

At least people are still watching on tv. I do agree that there is too much extra music and side stuff that takes away from the game itself.

OakMoses
12-10-2007, 01:14 PM
It's nice to hear someone in the media talking about this, even if it is just a Yahoo blog.

I live in Montana and I don't get to go to many games, but I can tell you that even if I lived in Indy, the price of decent seats would make it impossible to go to as many games as I'd like.

From what I see on TV, the Pacers aren't as bad as many arenas with the in-game tom foolery. It's especially noticable when you watch them play a team like Cleveland or Charlotte.

For most people, it's hard to justify spending $100+ per person to go see a bunch of 20-somethings getting payed multiple millions of dollars to play a game.

My plan to fix the NBA:

- Shorten the regular season.
- Lower ticket prices.
- Lower salary cap.
- At least one, if not two, 5 game playoff series.
- Stop calling so many stupid fouls.
- Allow teams to cut one player per year.

Unclebuck
12-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Interesting

Here is the actual Sports media article which discusses TV ratings vs attendance.
http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/nba-fans-would-rather-watch-game-on-tv.html




Monday, December 10, 2007
NBA fans would rather watch the game on TV.
The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: ratings for Indiana Pacers games are up 43% on FSN Midwest, while attendance for the team is down 28%.

This pattern is repeated, though in much smaller proportions, leaguewide. NBA ratings are up on ESPN, TNT, and the majority of local broadcasts. Meanwhile, attendance throughout the league is down.

John Dempsey of Variety reports ratings for NBA games on ESPN and TNT are up across the board in the key demographics of adults 18-34, 18-49 and 25-54.

Fox Sports Net, which broadcasts local coverage of 17 NBA teams, has seen its ratings climb by 12%, including an increase of 146% for Milwaukee Bucks games on FSN Wisconsin. Comcast, which holds the local broadcast rights to five NBA teams, has seen its ratings climb by 20% -- led by a 76% increase in ratings for coverage of the Boston Celtics on Comcast SportsNet New England.

One could look at the generally good ratings as a sign of league health. However, slumping attendance could be a signal of problems for the league -- even in some of the markets where the ratings have been climbing. The aforementioned Indiana Pacers, with ratings up 43%, have seen their attendance plummet to second-worst in the Eastern Conference, were averaging fewer than 13,000 fans per game as of December 3 -- compared to over 17,000 fans at that point last year. Only the Philadelphia 76ers have worse attendance in the conference.

Through December 3, nine NBA teams are averaging fewer than 15,000 fans per game. At this point last year, no NBA team averaged fewer than 15,000 in attendance. The 76ers and New Orleans Hornets are both averaging fewer than 12,000 per game, down 29% and 36%, respectively, from last year. The 76ers are filling the Wachovia Center to less than 60% of arena capacity; even the Hornets -- with the worst attendance in the NBA -- are filling a larger proportion of New Orleans Arena.

Three NBA teams, the 76ers, Hornets and Pacers, are playing to less than 70% capacity. Perhaps more ominously, eight NBA teams are playing to less than 80% capacity; by comparison, at the end of last season, only four teams could not fill their arenas to 80% capacity.

The NBA has set attendance records in each of the past three seasons.

On the positive side, the Portland Trailblazers and Boston Celtics are only two of several teams to see marked improvement in attendance. Despite losing number one draft pick Greg Oden for the season, the Trailblazers have seen their attendance rise 23% from last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics, off to a 17-2 start, have seen attendance climb 10% from the same point in '06. The Golden State Warriors, Houston Rockets, Utah Jazz, Toronto Raptors and New York Knicks have also seen their attendance rise by at least 5%.

Unclebuck
12-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Here is a general link to several articles about NBA's TV ratings. I find this stuff intersting, not sure if anyone else does

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/search/label/NBA

Trader Joe
12-10-2007, 01:47 PM
I completely agree with the sentiment of the article. Especially the point made about the MCs or whatever you want to call them. The Pacers have a couple of them, one or two women, and this new guy that I first saw at the Mavs game over Thanksgiving. The guy is especially annoying and I *****ed about him to my dad for most of the game.

The one thing the Pacers do though that drives me over the top is the idiotic montage/video of celebrities yelling at the fans to get up and be loud. Ashton Kutcher is a guy that I go out of my way to avoid seeing on a TV and when the Pacers force me to listen to him screaming and see his goofy *** face with his G.D.'ing trucker hat it makes me want to vomit.

My point is this, cut the crap Pacers. Its not bringing anyone in and if anything its keeping people away. No one is going to the game to watch a 20-something MC in a Pacers t-shirt do a dumb dance in front of the camera during "smile cam". You are either there to see the game or you are there as a social/business event and the annoying obnoxious timeouts that they have don't add to either of those experiences.

Major Cold
12-10-2007, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=
My plan to fix the NBA:

- Shorten the regular season.
- Lower ticket prices.
- Lower salary cap.
- At least one, if not two, 5 game playoff series.
- Stop calling so many stupid fouls.
- Allow teams to cut one player per year.[/QUOTE]

This is nice in thought but not in real life.

Shorten the regular season.
Less games equals less revenue. To do this and pay contracts and bills ticket prices go up.

Lower ticket price
Lowering the ticket price on top of lessing the chances of getting revenue equals bankruptcy for over half of the season.

Lower salary cap
if you can convince the players to take a pay reduction then you should take Sterns job (with a pay cut of course:))

At least one, if not two, 5 game playoff series.
lessing the season will hurt teams. But taking more games away in the playoffs really hurts their prime income time of the year. It would be like Christmas happening on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. It hurts.

Stop calling so many stupid fouls.
Would that increase the scoring or lessen it? Not sure what would happen. But with the Pistons, Heat, and Knicks style defense slowed it down tremendously. Add the hard fouls and you get 80 point games.

Now stop the favor calls I agree with.

Major Cold
12-10-2007, 02:04 PM
My point is this, cut the crap Pacers. Its not bringing anyone in and if anything its keeping people away. No one is going to the game to watch a 20-something MC in a Pacers t-shirt do a dumb dance in front of the camera during "smile cam". You are either there to see the game or you are there as a social/business event and the annoying obnoxious timeouts that they have don't add to either of those experiences.

kids like it. but how marketable are the pacers to kids?

Trader Joe
12-10-2007, 02:06 PM
kids like it. but how marketable are the pacers to kids?

I don't think kids like it. My younger sisters don't. They would honestly rather watch the game. They like Boomer and Bowser and they don't bother me because at least they don't talk (Boomer and Bowser that is). I don't really have a problems with the MCs until they open their mouths.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-10-2007, 03:08 PM
I guess there is a league wide attendance problem. I don't think it's because they overload the senses though. There are so many reasons and we all know them.

tdubb03
12-10-2007, 03:21 PM
Maybe the Pacers should try 1500 or so free tickets for a few games. Put on a good show, maybe you'll get a few paying fans out of it. Just a thought.

Unclebuck
12-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Maybe the Pacers should try 1500 or so free tickets for a few games. Put on a good show, maybe you'll get a few paying fans out of it. Just a thought.

The problem with doing something like that, and two tickets for the price of one or really any discounts - in many ways it isn't fair to the season ticketholders who don't get discounts and have been loyal for 15 years or in some cases a lot longer.

tdubb03
12-10-2007, 03:39 PM
The problem with doing something like that, and two tickets for the price of one or really any discounts - in many ways it isn't fair to the season ticketholders who don't get discounts and have been loyal for 15 years or in some cases a lot longer.

I can understand that argument. It doesn't really seem like anything less than a few winning seasons and playoff showings is going to get butts back in the seats. That, or somehow getting Eric Gordon.

MyFavMartin
12-10-2007, 03:39 PM
Family four pack including 4 tickets, 4 drinks, 4 hotdogs, and 4 popcorns, for $100?

OakMoses
12-10-2007, 03:58 PM
This is nice in thought but not in real life.


I completely agree with you. The things that would improve the product that the NBA puts out would also appear to decrease revenue, so they'll never be done. The things I suggested just seem like fairly reasonable responses to the complaints you hear about the NBA.

McKeyFan
12-10-2007, 06:41 PM
I have a friend, pretty savvy guy, who said people are tired of watching a bunch of young punks shoot a zillion free throws as the climax of a boring game.

obnoxiousmodesty
12-10-2007, 06:56 PM
On the noise note, I'm going to be taking my entire family (6 people, counting myself) to the Wizards game in a few weeks as a Christmas gift. None of them have ever been to a Pacers game, so prior to the event I've already decided to warn them about the loud music during play along with the irritating timeout guys. I worry my family is going to be turned off from attending another game due to the headaches they're about to receive. My parents especially are not going to like it.

BoomBaby31
12-10-2007, 07:56 PM
I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.

Wu-Gambino
12-10-2007, 08:06 PM
Hilarious, in baseball and football you have good guys?!?

I have no numbers, but it seems there are more NFL players in trouble with the law (and that includes some Indianapolis Colts) than the NBA. You talk about overpaid? Baseball players are paid more than NBA players due to a lack of salary cap. And when we are talking about the character of the MLB, which one of the three major sports leagues has a rampant steroids scandal? I know I am overgeneralizing, but come on.

Hoop
12-10-2007, 09:17 PM
"The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: ratings for Indiana Pacers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/ind/) games are up 43% on FSN Midwest, while attendance for the team is down 28%.

Makes a lot of sense. I've had season tickets for over 20 years. I'm almost to the point of giving up my season tickets, they are just to damn expensive. I can watch the games at home now days. That was not an option several years ago, no home games were on TV period, if you wanted to see the game you had to be there.

They are pricing normal people out of the picture. Most of the seats around me are owned by businesses and you never see the same people in the seats.




the irritating timeout guys
My God, I hate the timeout guys and girls more than anything at the games, the music doesn't bother me, I like it most of the time. The timeout girls voices sound like finger nails on a chalkboard.

Unclebuck
12-10-2007, 10:02 PM
I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.

I disagree with you 100%.

Naptown_Seth
12-10-2007, 10:56 PM
I have a friend, pretty savvy guy, who said people are tired of watching a bunch of young punks shoot a zillion free throws as the climax of a boring game.
Yeah, but RATINGS are up. So this POV doesn't wash. People want to watch, they just don't want to take the time, effort and money to do it in person.

I think it's a sign that the team is bordering on a return. Fans have interest but don't trust the early results. By the end of the year attendance will have picked up, at least if this playing output continues.

I do think they are spoiling the live experience by trying to hard. Let there be silence, fans will notice and some will even want to do something about it. Right now participation is being taken out of the mix because the arena is making all the noise, leaving no room for the fans to start to feel linked to the game itself. And if any arena should be giving you a classic live experience it's Conseco.

Eindar
12-11-2007, 02:22 AM
Really, the only incentive to attend a game in person vs. watch it from the comfort of your home is because you're going to have an "experience" in person. This includes things like pre-game autographs, but also includes any visceral thing that wouldn't be included in the at-home version. The marketing guys realize this, which is why they added in all the craziness, for lack of a better term. They're trying to create an experience.

I feel the problem is they're going about it all wrong. I remember the first time I went to MSA as a kid. The arena looked run-down, the team sucked, but I will always remember walking into the aisle for the first time and seeing the court lit up really bright with the rest of the arena in complete darkness and thinking, "something special happens there". All it took was one great win over Boston in the playoffs, and I was hooked for life. I think the marketing teams should focus on making the experience "special" instead of "entertaining". After all, I can do a lot better for $100 bucks a head than an annoying chick screaming at me, a DJ, and a guy who spins lots of plates at the same time. I'd much rather watch the game on TV, then go spend the $100 at a night club, several museum trips, or a video game I've got my eye on.

I guess, to sum it up, what I'm saying from an economics standpoint is that the arenas need to offer an experience that has no substitute good, or they need to make their prices competitive with the aforementioned substitute goods.

RickSmitsFan
12-11-2007, 03:28 AM
I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year.
Not me!

...and by the way when I saw the Pacers play the Nuggets a couple years ago, IN DENVER, Sjax gave his armband to a 5 year old girl next to me, and Ron left the stadium giving fives. Aren't those supposed to be two of the biggest thugs in the game?

Roaming Gnome
12-11-2007, 08:26 AM
I think attendance is down because the role models are down. Most of these players are punks. Over paid, under-skilled, punks. I see little kids sticking their hands out, to get a high five from any athlete that will give it, and most-all don't have the common courtesy to extend a hand to an 8 year old. Honestly there isn't probably 2-3 NBA players that I could point and say "If you're going to model yourself after a NBA player take a look at him." When it comes down to the NBA I'm solely a "team" guy, meaning I just like teams not really players. About 10-15 years ago I could name about 30 guys that I truly like, as a basketball player and role model. I'd rather see a little less athletic player that is a good player and person. Then some high flying, ball hogging, in and out of jail, punk, that can't high-five 8 year olds and getting 17 million a year. I do realize most of the NBA players do good things, but I assure you, it's under their PR peoples advise. The NBA character is in judgement. In baseball you have good guys, in football you have good guys. Heck Peyton Manning, Brett Farve and even in the college ranks Tim Tebow I'd suggest a kid (if they were going to pick a role model)to pick one of them and I'm older then Tim Tebow.

Yeah, I disagree 100% with this also!

Unclebuck
12-11-2007, 08:30 AM
Really, the only incentive to attend a game in person vs. watch it from the comfort of your home is because you're going to have an "experience" in person. This includes things like pre-game autographs, but also includes any visceral thing that wouldn't be included in the at-home version. The marketing guys realize this, which is why they added in all the craziness, for lack of a better term. They're trying to create an experience.




I disagree with your premise. When I see a game in person vs just on TV, I learn, so much more about the team, I get a feel for how the game is going - somehting I don't believe you can possibly pickup on TV. You get a ,much better idea of the quickness of a player, size, strength, speed. I truly believe after a game I see in person I know at least 50% more about both teams and about how the game went, vs just watching it on TV.

On TV you have no idea why Lebron James is so difficult to stop, but in person you get a good idea, in person you realize how quick Iverson is, and my favorite over the years was seeing John Stockton in person - you cannot possibly appreciate him by just watching on TV. His passing angles, his total control was a marvel to see in person.

I have gone to hundereds of games in my life and have never had any interest in getting autographs, or being close to the players, or any of that (sure I enjoy it when the crowd is in the game and it is fun to be there with 18,000 people who are all pulling for the same thing) but I enjoy the stuff you can only learn by being there in person. Why do you think teams send advance scouts to the game - why not save time and money and just watch it on TV, why do you think talent scouts go to the game - you just get a much better feel for things in person

Putnam
12-11-2007, 08:50 AM
"The situation for the National Basketball Association can be summed up thusly: Unclebuck loves it just the way it is, and almost everyone else doesn't.



I guess, to sum it up, what I'm saying from an economics standpoint is that the arenas need to offer an experience that has no substitute good, or they need to make their prices competitive with the aforementioned substitute goods.

This is what I've been trying to suggest.

Everything anyone has suggested about the noise and bother of the arena experience, plus the Pacers' off-court issues and their record over the past couple of seasons contributes to the decline, and so does the recent proliferation of amusement alternatives.

It is, as eindar suggests, an economic shift. For all the reasons given, people (in the aggregate) want less of the NBA than they used to. They've got more money than every to spend on amusement, but they are choosing less often to spend it inside NBA arenas.

BillS
12-11-2007, 09:27 AM
Here's an idea - set aside a section (not just a few seats) courtside and hold a "lottery" from all upper bowl seats that have people who entered the arena (I'm pretty sure those bar codes have the seat number) by 20 minutes before the game. Winners get to move down into that section.

Or even a frequent-attendee points program with upgrades available.

Biggest advantage is that you have a chance of getting an actual noisy crowd near the court rather than just corporate clients.

Unclebuck
12-11-2007, 09:38 AM
Here's an idea - set aside a section (not just a few seats) courtside and hold a "lottery" from all upper bowl seats that have people who entered the arena (I'm pretty sure those bar codes have the seat number) by 20 minutes before the game. Winners get to move down into that section.

Or even a frequent-attendee points program with upgrades available.

Biggest advantage is that you have a chance of getting an actual noisy crowd near the court rather than just corporate clients.

Now that is a great idea. (although it might cost the team a few dollars)

avoidingtheclowns
12-11-2007, 09:45 AM
the wizards kinda do something like that. but it is a fan-cam kinda thing. they make people sitting in the upper bowl right before the game jump up and down if they want a seat upgrade. the camera pans and zooms in on the "craziest" two people and then ushers come and relocate them to their upgrade.

Naptown_Seth
12-11-2007, 12:58 PM
Now that is a great idea. (although it might cost the team a few dollars)
More than they are losing now? I wonder how well Legends has sold in fact.


I like both ideas. Frequent flier promotes attending games even more. Imagine attending 15-20 upper deck games and getting one upgrade to the lower level for a game, or the right to buy better seats for one game at half price at least. Something like that.



I disagree with your premise. When I see a game in person vs just on TV, I learn, so much more about the team, I get a feel for how the game is going - somehting I don't believe you can possibly pickup on TV. You get a ,much better idea of the quickness of a player, size, strength, speed. I truly believe after a game I see in person I know at least 50% more about both teams and about how the game went, vs just watching it on TV.Totally agree. And last year when I was blowing Rat crap about his seat vs lower seats the point was similar, jokes aside. The closer you get the more the game changes, the more the speed, size and even minimal spacing start to show up. But even an upper level seat shows you a game that you just aren't seeing on TV for these same reasons.

BoomBaby31
12-11-2007, 05:08 PM
Hilarious, in baseball and football you have good guys?!?

I have no numbers, but it seems there are more NFL players in trouble with the law (and that includes some Indianapolis Colts) than the NBA. You talk about overpaid? Baseball players are paid more than NBA players due to a lack of salary cap. And when we are talking about the character of the MLB, which one of the three major sports leagues has a rampant steroids scandal? I know I am overgeneralizing, but come on.


I'm not writing all players are saints. I'm writing I can easily pick 20 good role model players in the MLB and Football. It would really be a grind to pick 5 superstar players in the NBA that are good role models, that kids should actually look up too. MLB and Football both have their bad apples and some of those bad apples are way worse then NBA's bad apples. We aren't comparing apples though, I am comparing the whole leagues character.

FlavaDave
12-11-2007, 05:46 PM
. It would really be a grind to pick 5 superstar players in the NBA that are good role models, that kids should actually look up too.

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Dirk Nowitski
Rip Hamilton
Paul Pierce
Ray Allen
Steve Nash
Amare Stoudamire
Shaquille O'Neal
Dwayne Wade
LeBron James
Dwight Howard
Yao Ming
Chauncy Billups
Manu Ginobili
Tony Parker
Chris Paul
Jermaine O'Neal
Elton Brand
Tracy McGrady
Kevin Durant

Shall I keep going?

Oneal07
12-11-2007, 05:59 PM
I think a lot of people are accessing League Pass, which is why the broadcasting rating are high!!! Sucks that no one is attending games, I would love to see the Pacers Live

Doug
12-11-2007, 06:03 PM
I think they already move "one lucky couple" from the upper deck into courtside ( 4 rows back on the baseline, really) seats.


As I've posted before, I'm firmly in the "all of this noise" is distracting me from watching the game camp.


I think next time I stay home I'll have my kids turn my stereo up loud at random intervals while my wife throws t-shirts at my head. That should help simulate the game experience.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-11-2007, 06:05 PM
On the other hand Flava, it's just so easy to dig up dirt on just about anybody in the spotlight in this internet age. I'm not gonna put forth the effort but I have before when trying to prove a point about the Colts vs the Pacers and police blotters. Nobody's perfect and not everybody is a role model. I understand your point though not everybody's a gangster or doomed to spend time in jail either.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-11-2007, 06:06 PM
I think next time I stay home I'll have my kids turn my stereo up loud at random intervals while my wife throws t-shirts at my head. That should help simulate the game experience.

That **** happens in my house anyways.