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.
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
-
Follow me at @Bluejbgold -
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
I'm glad the owners are still pushing for a hard cap. If it gets implemented over a 2 year period as suggested then our cap space would be even more valuable in 2012 then it is now, and Posey's expiring contract might have a lot of value at the trade deadline. There aren't a lot of details about the new proposal but I like the part about teams being able to compete for a championship and I hope it refers to some parity clauses. I hope the owners don't eventually cave in for a system just like the one we have with a lower bri but it doesn't sound like they will.Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan. -
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Color me shocked.
I've heard this is going to be long and ugly.
Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Looks like the union figures fans will be on their side, so they are playing the "please me" game rather than making any counter proposals.
It might also indicate they aren't willing to grant any of the owners' statements on league finances, so they feel no need to change from their year-old proposal.
*sigh*
I almost don't care about the bottom line, I just want a more level playing field. Does the NBAPA realize that if only 20-30 guys get the top money with 4-5 teams and the remaining are scrubs that leaves an awful lot of players making the minimum or without jobs if franchises fold or go the "no loss payroll" route.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Wade, Lebron, and Bosh took less money...why can't the rest of the league do the same?
Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
BillS, why do you think it's the players' union being intransigent? By all accounts, it is the owners who are pushing wholesale changes. They claim those changes are necessary, but from the outside it certainly looks like the NBA as a whole is doing pretty well.
Here's the way I see it. While overall the NBA is a very profitable business, the obvious contention is on how the pie is divided. Of the 3 groups of stakeholders - big market teams, small market teams, and the players - it's pretty clear that the big market guys and the players are doing well. On the other hand, the small market teams (including the Pacers) are struggling financially, and many are losing money.
So the pie needs to be redistributed so that more money goes to the small market teams. The only question is, how much of it is coming from the big market teams, and how much from the players. The owners' current proposal, as I understand, is to take the needed money from the players, and redistribute it to the owners, big market and small market alike.
Now consider the implications. For the small market teams, they've gone from losing money to perhaps making a small profit. But for big market teams, they've gone from being profitable to being even more lucrative. How exactly is that improving competitive balance?
Personally, I've always felt that to really improve balance, the redistribution should actually be going from the big market teams to small market teams, i.e. revenue sharing. And I think it's right that the players' union is insisting that it's part of CBA negotiations. Some people like to point to the hard cap as the reason for the NFL's balance, but I think revenue sharing has a lot more to do it. Just look at NFL teams' annual payrolls, it's pretty obvious that the "hard cap" is a polite fiction.
And even if the NBA can come up with a real hard cap, think on those implications. Everyone will have the same spending budget on players. Level playing field right? Not really, because it's obvious that the big guys are making much more money. Which means they can overspend on things not covered by the cap, like top coaches and executives, improved facilities, and player amenities. Last offseason we already saw top free agents take less money to go to their preferred destination. With a hard cap I think this becomes an even more common occurrence.
I think for the sake of the owners' bottomline, the players will have to give back some salary - and the players have already conceded that. For competitive balance though, IMO revenue sharing is the one factor that could improve it. It's not perfect, and I can understand the big market teams being reluctant to part with their profits, but it seems to me to be the best option.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
snip for lengthOriginally posted by wintermute View Post
I suppose from the owners' side they want to know why a franchise that can command a lot of revenue both has to pay big money players and small market teams.
The other thing is that revenue sharing alone isn't going to be some automatic point of agreement. I doubt if revenue sharing will be based solely on top line, since a market with a high top line and no sweet arena deal would be hurt by it. The question becomes whether revenue sharing is BEFORE or AFTER player salaries are taken out. If it is BEFORE salaries are taken out, that's an incentive for high-revenue owners to reduce salaries because the amount of revenue shared will eat into the profit margin - not going to be a favorite of the players. If it is after the player salaries are taken out, it will be an disincentive for the player salaries to be controlled. Since higher payroll would reduce the amount teams have to put in the share pool, the big market teams would want to spend any money they'd have to spend anyway (whether sharing or salaries) on salaries - which will make it harder for the small-market teams to come up to par and therefore won't be a selling point to those owners. A hard cap, with revenue sharing being an after-salaries number, specifies the balance between these two issues - owners in all markets will have an incentive to spend up to the cap, which is good for players overall, and revenue to be shared can't be spent locally on salaries and made unavailable.
I understand that a hard cap alone doesn't change the amenities and attractions a big market can offer. I think a combination of things is required, many of them not in the CBA. In all, I'd prefer to see some combination of:
Hard cap
Revenue sharing
Franchise tag
Less random draft position system based more on franchise performance over time
Shorter guaranteed contract limit
League takeover of St. Louis Spirits payments
Removal of 75-mile marketing limit
In exchange, I'd be perfectly willing to see the max salary limit removed (go ahead, spend your entire cap on one player, bwaa haaa haaa haaaaaaaa) and even for the players to continue receiving the majority of BRI.
In general, one could say it is in the best interests of the players to make proposals to help the small market teams because the loss of franchises (the worst case scenario) hurts players more than it hurts the big-market owners. So, if across-the-board pay cuts plus revenue sharing aren't sufficient, and a hard cap isn't acceptable to the players, what do they think is a better plan?
I think the players are choosing to believe the owners have no leverage (based on the NFL lockout decision), which is why they are choosing not to negotiate as such, just to wait and see.BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
When over 50% of your league is LOSING money, I don't think that falls into the "pretty well" category.Originally posted by wintermute View Post
http://www.businessinsider.com/forbe...st-year-2011-1
That's not even taking into account the payroll differences from the top teams, to the bottom teams. Teams that are barely spending any money are still posting a negative hit.
http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/20...team-payrolls/
There's almost a 60 MILLION dollar difference between LAL and Minnesota. The Twolves lose money, and yet LAL makes money.
That's not a good financial model, so this idea that the NBA is doing "pretty well" as a whole, just isn't reality.
This isn't the NFL where the owners want to make a bigger portion of the profit. The NBA just wants to make a profit.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
I know there's questions about the legitimacy of the league's claims about losing money, but here's what concerns me, as a Pacers fan. This is a graphic done by Tim Donahue (count55) using Shamsports information:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...-spend-enough/
I'd like to see this graph for more than just last season, but I have a feeling that for several years, this is basically what it would look like each year.
Personally, I think the luxury tax threshold of today should become the hard cap of tomorrow.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Ah. Was the NBA better off when it only had 8 teams, or now that it has 30?Originally posted by BillS View Post
I think having more teams improves the mindshare of the league, and thus the profits of the largest teams. While there are NBA fans in non-NBA cities, I'm sure the presence of the Pacers creates more NBA fans in Indiana than there would have been otherwise. Indirectly, to casual fans a 30 team league is superior to a 8 team league, and these casual fans would naturally gravitate to the biggest stars playing for the best teams (invariably big market). So a franchise like the Pacers provides tangible value to a team like the Lakers, if only by acting as a foil. Quantifying this value is tricky, I'll admit, but it's certainly in the Lakers' best interest that teams like the Pacers can survive.
I agree with most of these actually, except the hard cap, though from your argument I can see the need. Even then I'd rather have a more punitive luxury tax system in place, like a 2x penalty for exceeding the luxury tax threshold.Originally posted by BillS View Post
Ha, I'd love this actually. Would certainly put a stop to the top players agreeing to play together in their favored locales, or at least make it more punitive financially.Originally posted by BillS View PostComment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
That's an interesting point, though as you say very hard to try to quantify.Originally posted by wintermute View Post
I guess my question is whether you need 30 teams. 8 might be too small, but how much mindshare do you lose if you drop teams in all but the largest urban markets? One would think 16 might be plenty, for instance.
If one believes that the best situation for the league is to only have 2-4 teams contending for titles, those are the ones that will be on national sports news and broadcast anyway. If you have enough geographical balance that those teams show up locally a few times a year, how many pieces of cannon fodder do you really require?BillS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
So why don't you take some profit from the rich teams, and give them to the poor teams? The NBA as a whole made a profit, not great, I think about 6%, but profit nonetheless.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
And the players have said from the start that they're willing to reduce their share of BRI. It should be a matter of negotiating a percentage that would give the league as a whole a decent return.
To me, what that shows is the enormous disparity in revenue for the top teams and bottom teams.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Nothing that the owners are proposing changes this disparity. Instead, they're proposing that the lowest common denominator, i.e. what the poorest franchise can afford, be the standard.
What this means, is that the poorest teams break even or maybe make a small profit, while the rich teams rake it in even more. That's not parity.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
That's a good question, and it's why contraction is such a potent threat for the owners. It could make financial sense for them, and obviously it would be very bad for the players.Originally posted by BillS View Post
My opinion though, is that the league (and especially Stern) values the size and reputation of the NBA, such that they'd never really consider contraction. So I think it's a bit of an empty threat. But it's the best one they have to hold against the players.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Why would you do that when you can change the system and every team could become financially independent of each other?Originally posted by wintermute View Post
The Lakers or Boston or Chicago shouldn't be depended on for the Pacers to make money. They're an association, not a single corporation. They are ran independently from each other, and they should operate independently from each other.
Piggy backing off the rich, so the poor can survive, isn't a very good business model either, because what happens if one of the major market teams that is propping up the entire system falters for whatever reason?
They need a system that can support all the teams, not just a select few.
I really doubt Dr. Buss would be very happy watching his profits go out the window so Minnesota can pinch every penny and still make a profit.Last edited by Since86; 05-04-2011, 02:29 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Players unhappy with owners' new offer
Because as I've said, the rich teams get even richer while the poor teams are just above break even point?Originally posted by Since86 View Post
While it does solve the problem of every team being financially solvent, it doesn't solve competitive balance, which should be an equally pressing issue for a small market team like ours.
Revenue sharing isn't perfect, but it does address both problems.
I addressed this in my reply to BillS. It is in Dr. Buss's best interest for the likes of Minnesota and Indiana to survive. It helps bring more profit to his team. The actual value is arguable of course, but I think it's pretty obvious that an NBA reduced to say 8 teams wouldn't bring the same amount of interest or revenue. IMO the Lakers aren't really independent of say the Twolves or the Pacers.Originally posted by Since86 View PostLast edited by wintermute; 05-04-2011, 02:34 PM.Comment
Tweet
Comment