Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index....0&format=print

    Bucks could benefit from league's new revenue-sharing plan

    Qualified teams get up to $6 million
    By DON WALKER

    dwalker@journalsentinel.com
    Posted: April 28, 2008

    National Basketball Association owners this month quietly tweaked the league's revenue-sharing plan, a move that should provide some financial assistance to small-market teams like the Milwaukee Bucks.

    The new plan, approved April 18 at the NBA owners' meeting, covers three years, and begins next year. Under it, qualified teams would receive a maximum $6 million a year. That number would increase over the three-year period.

    The total amount to be redistributed to NBA franchises would be $49 million, a $19 million increase over the current plan.

    Spokesmen for the NBA and the Bucks would not comment on whether the new plan would benefit the Bucks. But an NBA source said that, given the size of the Milwaukee market and public statements by owner Herb Kohl that the Bucks lose money every year, they would qualify for more shared revenue.

    Although published reports indicate the NBA generated as much as $3.5 billion in revenue last year, the amount of shared revenue, compared with Major League Baseball and the National Football League, is tiny. In 2005, for instance, Major League Baseball transferred $300 million from 14 richer teams to 16 teams with lower revenues.

    Before the owners' recent move, Sen. Kohl at a press conference praised the revenue-sharing programs in baseball and football. And he reiterated his hope that a better revenue-sharing program could be implemented in the NBA.

    "We are a low revenue team, to be sure, in the NBA," Kohl said at the time. "Which makes it necessary for me to make up the difference. And I do it willingly and happily."

    In November 2006, Kohl joined with seven other team owners to lobby NBA Commissioner David Stern for an overhaul of the league's revenue-sharing system.

    At the time, Kohl and the other owners said in a letter to Stern that the current economic system needed change. "The needed correction is serious revenue sharing, not just modest revenue assistance and we urge you to address this issue on an urgent basis this year," the letter stated.

    In general, the NBA revenue-sharing plan is funded by the luxury tax on teams that spend more than allowed under the salary cap and escrow fund. The additional money will come from the league's 30 teams.

    Wyc Grousbeck, the owner of the Boston Celtics, told SportsBusiness Journal that the new plan increases revenue to certain teams and gets the league closer to having all teams either break even or be profitable in the years ahead.

    Last year, according to SportsBusiness Journal, only 12 out of the league's 30 teams were profitable.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-29-2008, 09:31 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

    Do you think its incorrect to say that New York subsidizes much of the American sports world?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

      Good news, on the face of it. Certainly I am glad to hear it. But what will be the actual effect of an infusion of $6 million to the Pacers and other small market clubs?

      Will they lower ticket prices?

      Will they put plusher cushions on the seats in Legends?

      Will player salaries get inflated?

      Will they spend it on promotions and advertising?

      Or will they do everything as before and use the $6 million to pad the bottom line?


      I like the Simons and have never felt they were doing anything but their best for the community and the team, so I mean nothing critical by these questions. But what can/should they do with the revenue sharing boost?
      And I won't be here to see the day
      It all dries up and blows away
      I'd hang around just to see
      But they never had much use for me
      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

        Originally posted by Fool View Post
        Do you think its incorrect to say that New York subsidizes much of the American sports world?
        The Knicks and the Yankees subsidize the NBA and MLB - that is for sure. In the NFL, I think the Cowboys will have the greatest revenue this upcoming season with their new stadium

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

          In the NHL, I'm sure the Rangers are near the top, but I would not be surprised if the Leafs are #1 in terms of subsidizing other teams.

          Putty raises a good question. Sure, the six million is nice, but what exactly are we going to do with it? It does not necessarily mean we will be putting it towards players or salaries. I'm not even sure if it would be worthwhile to do so.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

            Well, if the pacers lost $1.5 Mil last year, this should help fix that situation. (I don't know where I got that number but I think it is somewhere close to the number we were hearing)

            If the business is turning a profit, all the less reason to consider a move......

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

              While I'm sure large-market/marquee teams don't care much for revenue sharing, I'd say the big winner is the league and the fans. Sharing the wealth will only allow teams who for no fault than their own than geography to remain vital to the league. You want competition to remain high and one sure way to ensure that competition remains is to put money in the pockets of small-market owners who simply don't have the population growth complete on the same playing field as the large-market/marquee teams, i.e., Portland -vs- Lakers; Bucks -vs- Bulls; Pacers -vs- Hawks. Of course, some of these small-market teams could probrably take some lessons from Mark Cuban and procure some corporate sponsorships beyond mere advertising dollars. (You don't really think it's only the fans who are selling out American Airlines Area do you?)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                Good news, on the face of it. Certainly I am glad to hear it. But what will be the actual effect of an infusion of $6 million to the Pacers and other small market clubs?

                Will they lower ticket prices?

                Will they put plusher cushions on the seats in Legends?

                Will player salaries get inflated?

                Will they spend it on promotions and advertising?

                Or will they do everything as before and use the $6 million to pad the bottom line?


                I like the Simons and have never felt they were doing anything but their best for the community and the team, so I mean nothing critical by these questions. But what can/should they do with the revenue sharing boost?

                In our case it might be earmarked for subsidizing Tinsley's departure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                  Originally posted by rcarey View Post
                  Putty raises a good question. Sure, the six million is nice, but what exactly are we going to do with it?
                  Keep the team?

                  I mean, even if the team is breaking even, it's a poor investment. If I had $300mil in the bank, I'd be making an awful lot in interest. In terms of what their money is worth, the Simons are losing income even when the team posts a profit.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                    Well, if the pacers lost $1.5 Mil last year, this should help fix that situation. (I don't know where I got that number but I think it is somewhere close to the number we were hearing)

                    If the business is turning a profit, all the less reason to consider a move......
                    You probably got that number from here:

                    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/...ions_Rank.html

                    Basically the estimate breaks down as follows for last year:

                    Revenues $107 million
                    Salaries $65 million
                    Other Expenses about $43 million

                    Earnings (Prior to Income Tax, Interest, Amortization that gets fudged by sports Franchisesand isn't "real" anyway) was about (1.3) million. The issue with this is that no one knows what those "other" expenses are. Travel, marketing, employees are all in there. The tricky part is the lease. Bear with me on the explanation for a minute.

                    The Pacers pay $1 a year and they get 100% of the event revenues in exchange for taking on the operating expenses. The part that can be deceiving is how much of the annual refurbishment/maintenance they are allowed to recognize. Municipalities often sign conditions into the lease that permit teams to recognize expenses that the city actually pays. The city won't pay taxes anyway, so they're not missing out on any tax savings. It's a way for the local government to actually "pay" the franchise to occupy the facility, and its perfectly legal in many cases. The Bills lease was discovered to have something like this a few years back in a Federal Court case, and it's fairly common. If you figure the maintenance on the place is about 2% of its current value, and to build Conseco today would cost you about $220 million, their income could be under-reported by $4.5 million. I'm sure there are other expenses that could be misleading as well.

                    You don't make a lot of money, but these losses we hear about might not exist. Which is why you hear about the Pacers pressing on the lease but nothing happens. How can the deal get much better? The only reason to do this is to show a future owner that they aren't necessarily "tied" to the lease, so the franchise is potentially more valuable to a buyer because it has a chance of being relocated. Of course, if a future owner tries to move the team, the city could show everyone that the Pacers aren't really paying these expenses, they are in fact making money, and therefore the lease is still binding. There could be a little political fallout if the lease is structured this way, so for now, it doesn't make sense for the city to come forward with this.

                    Anthem is right in that you can get better returns elsewhere, but look at the Pacers profile in the Forbes link. Since 2001, the franchise value is increasing at about 6% a year. That's not a bad return when you think of it in real estate terms, which I'm sure the Simons do. It's a pretty similar investment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Keep the team?

                      I mean, even if the team is breaking even, it's a poor investment. If I had $300mil in the bank, I'd be making an awful lot in interest. In terms of what their money is worth, the Simons are losing income even when the team posts a profit.
                      Owning an NBA team is a fantastic investment. If you look at how much these teams were bought for in the 70s and 80s (often in the tens of millions) and how much they're worth now (the hundreds of millions), your investment has increased 1000% in the last couple of decades. That's a fantastic return, especially considering how much money international expansion and the internet will start bringing in.

                      There's only a certain amount of teams, thirty, and a large number of buyers and investment groups that want NBA teams. Owning an NBA team is like holding a $300 million ticket that will only go up in price, not down. Short term losses of a million or two are worth how much you can make in the long term if you're smart about it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        Owning an NBA team is a fantastic investment. If you look at how much these teams were bought for in the 70s and 80s (often in the tens of millions) and how much they're worth now (the hundreds of millions), your investment has increased 1000% in the last couple of decades. That's a fantastic return, especially considering how much money international expansion and the internet will start bringing in.

                        There's only a certain amount of teams, thirty, and a large number of buyers and investment groups that want NBA teams. Owning an NBA team is like holding a $300 million ticket that will only go up in price, not down. Short term losses of a million or two are worth how much you can make in the long term if you're smart about it.
                        You need to take into consideration that the money that these teams are worth are now set as standards. Inflation and the ever decreasing value of the dollar have really made it hard to keep a sports franchise let alone in it's city of origin.

                        I wonder to what effect this will have on the Seattle ordeal.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                          You need to take into consideration that the money that these teams are worth are now set as standards. Inflation and the ever decreasing value of the dollar have really made it hard to keep a sports franchise let alone in it's city of origin.

                          I wonder to what effect this will have on the Seattle ordeal.
                          Of course inflation has occurred in the past twenty years, but not at a rate of 1000%. The Simons could sell the Pacers right now and make back all the money they've spent over the years and still make a ridiculous profit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                            For them one could only hope.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Minor change in NBA's revenue sharing program - should help the Pacers

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              Owning an NBA team is a fantastic investment. If you look at how much these teams were bought for in the 70s and 80s (often in the tens of millions) and how much they're worth now (the hundreds of millions), your investment has increased 1000% in the last couple of decades.
                              No offense, dude, but I'm glad you don't handle my investing. For fun, let's have two scenarios. In both, the year is 1970 and you have 30 million dollars. In scenario 1, you buy the Pacers. In scenario 2, you invest that money at a relatively low rate of return (7%). Scenario 2 gives you a current value of $392 million, which is more than what the Pacers are worth. Plus, you've never lost money in all that time, while the Pacers have had plenty of loss years. PLUS, the 7% rate is pretty low in terms of what you can earn when you've got $30mil in your pocket. Bottom line is that NBA teams have been a fair investment but not an amazing one.

                              But that's not the point. The point is that NBA teams will NOT continue increasing in value the way they have over the past 30 years. If we go back to our previous scenarios, #2 gives a monetary value of $772 million by 2018. There's no way the Pacers are worth that kind of money in 2018.

                              Look, say you bought Microsoft stock in 1983. You'd have been a billionaire by 2005, right? Well how much do you expect the stock to go up from there? Not much... it's been flatlined since. So you sell MSFT and buy some other stock that you expect to go up. That's where the Pacers are right now... if somebody's willing to give you $400mil for the Pacers then you take the money and run, because there are better (monetary) uses of $400mil than owning a sports franchise.

                              People buy franchises to be involved in a game they like, not because they make good investments.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X