PDA

View Full Version : High Ratings on Television



MagicRat
02-09-2012, 08:21 AM
via Mike Wells/Indianapolis Star


High ratings on television

The Pacers are still having a difficult time getting people to show up for games at Bankers Life Fieldhouse this season, but they're doing well in television ratings.


They had a 3.7 household rating, which was their highest of the season, in the Indianapolis area for Tuesday's game against the Utah Jazz, according to the Nielsen Co.


http://www.indystar.com/article/20120209/SPORTS04/202090333/-b-Pacers-notebook-b-Hibbert-hopes-named-All-Star-backup-Thursday

Unclebuck
02-09-2012, 08:50 AM
I wish they would give that number more context. OK, so that is the highest of the season, that is some context, but how does that compare to last year, prior years.

Over the past couple of seasons we have gotten a few little tidbits of information on the Pacers local TV ratings and if I remember correctly last year they were higher than the year before - but is this information available anywhere. I would love to get ratings of every game

Sandman21
02-09-2012, 08:52 AM
Okay, I hate to say it, but I wish blacking out home games was an option.

Mackey_Rose
02-09-2012, 08:55 AM
Okay, I hate to say it, but I wish blacking out home games was an option.

I can't envision any scenario where that wouldn't be extremely counterproductive.

RWB
02-09-2012, 09:08 AM
Okay, I hate to say it, but I wish blacking out home games was an option.

That is not the answer and in fact would hurt interest in the Pacers. I keep seeing posts from many members who use Stub Hub for the better seats and better prices than going to Pacers.com. Would seem hard to sell tickets from the main Pacer site if you can get much better deals from other sources.

Obviously the Pacers do surveys to see what they can do to get people out to the fieldhouse. They're are going to have to find a compromise on prices where single tickets are worth coming out and not ticking off their season ticket holders too. I understand they have already tried that in past seasons with give-a-ways and such. Frankly the product was so bad at that time no one really cared. They still need to do that with the new and improved team they have on the floor. In some ways they are trying that right now with a promo for former mini season package fans to get them interested again. I believe it's a free game during February so there is effort.

Unclebuck
02-09-2012, 09:08 AM
Yeah, blacking out home games would be a huge mistake. The Pacers need more media coverage not less.

Are there a few people who decide that if the game is on TV they won't go to the game? Sure there are, but there are tons more who if not on TV they would watch or do something else and forget all about the Pacers.

Kegboy
02-09-2012, 09:18 AM
My first reaction was it's great that we have such good ratings against a generic team like the Jazz. Then I remembered Hayward.

In fact, we should blame all those lazy Bulldog fans for not coming to the game. ;)

MagicRat
02-09-2012, 09:41 AM
I wish they would give that number more context. OK, so that is the highest of the season, that is some context, but how does that compare to last year, prior years.

Over the past couple of seasons we have gotten a few little tidbits of information on the Pacers local TV ratings and if I remember correctly last year they were higher than the year before - but is this information available anywhere. I would love to get ratings of every game

I tried to poke around a little bit to find some comparisons. The only interesting thing I came up with was:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120126/sports/701269832/

The Bulls suffered their first home loss of the season Wednesday to the hands of the Indiana Pacers, but the cable broadcast earned the highest ratings ever for a regular-season game on Comcast SportsNet Chicago, topping a Cubs game from the 2008 season.<!--Title: BKN, 2001x1447-->

MagicRat
02-09-2012, 09:46 AM
http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/05/12/pacers-games-earn-higherst-tv-ratings-in-five-years/PARAMS/post/27121

Here we go.

Averaged 2.1 last year, which was 35% higher than the prior year.

Unclebuck
02-09-2012, 09:47 AM
I tried to poke around a little bit to find some comparisons. The only interesting thing I came up with was:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120126/sports/701269832/

The Bulls suffered their first home loss of the season Wednesday to the hands of the Indiana Pacers, but the cable broadcast earned the highest ratings ever for a regular-season game on Comcast SportsNet Chicago, topping a Cubs game from the 2008 season.<!--Title: BKN, 2001x1447-->


I have a vague memory that the teams that get the best ratings are between 6 -10. Average would be more in the 3-5 range and down from there. But it makes a huge difference the size of the city.

If the Knicks get a 2.2 rating in NYC and the pacers get a 6.8 rating in Indy, there are still multiple times more people watching the Knicks than the pacers.

MagicRat
02-09-2012, 09:47 AM
http://www.ibj.com/pacers-tv-ratings-heat-up/PARAMS/post/2000

Unclebuck
02-09-2012, 09:51 AM
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/02/tv-ratings-sixers-hit-seven-year-high-also-nba-ratings-on-abc-and-tnt/

Sixers Hit Seven-Year High on CSN Philadelphia: Monday’s Lakers/Sixers NBA regular season game drew a 5.1 rating on Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, the highest for a Sixers game on the network since March of 2005. So far this season, Sixers games have averaged a 2.8 rating on CSN Philadelphia, up 77% from last year. (Comcast

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/01/ratings-game-spurs-earning-big-numbers/
Fox Sports Southwest averaged a 9.7 rating for regular season Spurs telecasts through January 5, up 54% from last year, and the highest local average in the league. FS Southwest has earned its five biggest regular season Spurs ratings ever this season, with Lakers/Spurs on December 28 (17.8) and Spurs/Celtics on January 5 (14.3) taking the top two spots. The Spurs have earned nine of the ten highest local ratings in the NBA this season. Spurs ratings on San Antonio’s CBS and CW affiliates are up 22% and 31%, respectively.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010/12/ratings-game-jazz-ratings-up-big/
Fox Sports Net Utah averaged a 6.3 rating for Utah Jazz games through December 22, up 50% from last year (4.2). The network has topped a 9.0 rating on three separate occasions this season, matching last year’s full season total. (Salt Lake Tribune via Sports Business Daily (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&articleID=144609))

Naptown_Seth
02-09-2012, 11:42 AM
Yeah, blacking out home games would be a huge mistake. The Pacers need more media coverage not less.

Are there a few people who decide that if the game is on TV they won't go to the game? Sure there are, but there are tons more who if not on TV they would watch or do something else and forget all about the Pacers.
I think you are underestimating this effect (on TV, stay home).

The Super Bowl coverage of the various downtown activities was pretty extensive and it showed with the lackluster crowds who chose to stay home and watch instead.*






*my tag does say "now with extra sarcasm"

Pacer Fan
02-09-2012, 12:39 PM
Anyone that works 40+ hours and are 30 minutes or more away from the game is going to find it hard to go to during work days on any kind of regular basis. Especially if they have a 2nd job, a family, a hobby, school, ect.

Driving an hour + to down town to make it to a 7:00 game and is on the back side of rush hour. Many people just don't want to deal with the hurry, rush around just to get to a game and blow 1/2 or more of a weekly salary for one game. If a person makes $600.00 a week after taxes and wants to take their family for a 2 1/2 hour game. They just worked nearly all week for that, not gonna happen. But should that person and family be deprived from viewing from there home because of a blackout? obviously not! You think that person is gonna go...Oh No, I must go to a game, now that I can't watch it at home? Hell No!

They have to show the games on TV to get noticed and to create interest and want from people. Blackout is the dumbest thing they could do, especially with today's technology.

I think these pro teams need to cut the ticket prices by 70% at all times. I think they should have a very reasonable package to buy and watch from home to make up the difference of ticket prices. Like FSI being a paid channel.

That would show support and would easily make more money then ticket sales. And it wouldn't be the NBA package.

added: Please understand, I am thinking for others here, not just myself, I couldn't go on a regular basis if someone paid for the whole thing, I don't have the time to get there, 1 1/2 hour drive one way and I'm in a 50 mile radius. My kid is an adult and is in college and my wife would not go but once a year if I smiled right. And I definitely don't have a money issue as I work my rear off to have nice things. So, cost would be minimal for myself and a friend. It's all about time and simplicity.

Eleazar
02-09-2012, 02:18 PM
Anyone that works 40+ hours and are 30 minutes or more away from the game is going to find it hard to go to during work days on any kind of regular basis. Especially if they have a 2nd job, a family, a hobby, school, ect.

Driving an hour + to down town to make it to a 7:00 game and is on the back side of rush hour. Many people just don't want to deal with the hurry, rush around just to get to a game and blow 1/2 or more of a weekly salary for one game. If a person makes $600.00 a week after taxes and wants to take their family for a 2 1/2 hour game. They just worked nearly all week for that, not gonna happen. But should that person and family be deprived from viewing from there home because of a blackout? obviously not! You think that person is gonna go...Oh No, I must go to a game, now that I can't watch it at home? Hell No!

They have to show the games on TV to get noticed and to create interest and want from people. Blackout is the dumbest thing they could do, especially with today's technology.

I think these pro teams need to cut the ticket prices by 70% at all times. I think they should have a very reasonable package to buy and watch from home to make up the difference of ticket prices. Like FSI being a paid channel.

That would show support and would easily make more money then ticket sales. And it wouldn't be the NBA package.

FSI is a paid channel, you aren't picking it up with bunny ears. Unless you are talking about pay per view, which is just dumb. People aren't going to pay extra to watch the NBA, especially not in Indiana.

Peck
02-09-2012, 02:44 PM
See I just don't get why some of you guys keep saying that blacking out home games is a bad thing if it is not a sell out.

It just makes sense to me.

If I was just a casual fan, and let's face it that is who we are talking about here, why would I want to spend a dime of my money in the middle of the week in the middle of February to go see the Pacers play the Nets when I can just get home from work, eat my dinner and watch the game on tv paying nothing more than my monthly cable/satalite bill.

Now however if it wasn't on and I wanted to see the team then I might be more tempted to go.

I mean honestly this is how it was done for years prior to fox sports taking over the last couple of seasons anyway.

Maybe they could just have home games blacked out in a 50 mile radius or something.

I think there are a lot of people who don't go to games because they can see every game for basically free.

Cubs231721
02-09-2012, 03:22 PM
See I just don't get why some of you guys keep saying that blacking out home games is a bad thing if it is not a sell out.

It just makes sense to me.

If I was just a casual fan, and let's face it that is who we are talking about here, why would I want to spend a dime of my money in the middle of the week in the middle of February to go see the Pacers play the Nets when I can just get home from work, eat my dinner and watch the game on tv paying nothing more than my monthly cable/satalite bill.

Now however if it wasn't on and I wanted to see the team then I might be more tempted to go.

I mean honestly this is how it was done for years prior to fox sports taking over the last couple of seasons anyway.

Maybe they could just have home games blacked out in a 50 mile radius or something.

I think there are a lot of people who don't go to games because they can see every game for basically free.

Casual fans IMO go to games for basically two reasons. They either go for the experience/occasional night out, or because something has made them invested in the team. The first isn't affected whatsoever by the blackout. The second is actually hurt by a blackout. How is a casual fan going to get invested in the team if half the time they sit down to watch them they can't?

A blackout would help bring in more dedicated fans who want to watch the Pacers one way or the other and so will choose to buy tickets if they can't see them on TV. The casual fan doesn't care enough to be upset to the point where they buy tickets. They'll just find something else to watch. And they'll have that many less opportunities to become a dedicated fan of the team.

The Pacers would have more ticket sales for a few years, but it would come at the expense of their future fanbase. I don't see how it's a good long-term strategy.

Hicks
02-09-2012, 03:30 PM
Uh, there are also plenty like myself who used to go a lot more often but circumstances change and now I rely almost entirely on TV. I would get royally screwed if they started blackouts.

Naptown_Seth
02-09-2012, 04:07 PM
See I just don't get why some of you guys keep saying that blacking out home games is a bad thing if it is not a sell out.

It just makes sense to me.

If I was just a casual fan, and let's face it that is who we are talking about here, why would I want to spend a dime of my money in the middle of the week in the middle of February to go see the Pacers play the Nets when I can just get home from work, eat my dinner and watch the game on tv paying nothing more than my monthly cable/satalite bill.

Now however if it wasn't on and I wanted to see the team then I might be more tempted to go.

I mean honestly this is how it was done for years prior to fox sports taking over the last couple of seasons anyway.

Maybe they could just have home games blacked out in a 50 mile radius or something.

I think there are a lot of people who don't go to games because they can see every game for basically free.
Yeah, this worked great for me in high school. I knew the best way to get the girls was to play hard to get, and they were more than happy to let me continue doing just that.

In other words, the Pacers aren't popular enough to play hard to get. And if they were then they wouldn't need to anyway. The more they win the more it becomes an event, and that's what draws crowds. That's why the Orlando game was packed...people came to the event of possible stars in for the SB.




I'm telling you, I'm with JMV on this one. You almost want to be careful what you wish for. I want the Pacers to have the financial success, but I don't want to be sitting next to Bandwagon McDbag when they become popular again.

Naptown_Seth
02-09-2012, 04:11 PM
Many people just don't want to deal with the hurry, rush around just to get to a game and blow 1/2 or more of a weekly salary for one game. If a person makes $600.00 a week after taxes and wants to take their family for a 2 1/2 hour game
There are literally tickets going for $2 to some games on StubHub. If you want to be there you can be for maybe $60 for 4. Even at high prices of perhaps $12 for food and pop you are still only in for $108 total with decent upper level seats.

I love how the barrier to something is always that you can't get the deluxe version for the non-deluxe price. Like I'd love to go to the beach but a trip to Fiji is just so expensive that I'd rather stay home instead.

Unclebuck
02-09-2012, 04:18 PM
See I just don't get why some of you guys keep saying that blacking out home games is a bad thing if it is not a sell out.

It just makes sense to me.

If I was just a casual fan, and let's face it that is who we are talking about here, why would I want to spend a dime of my money in the middle of the week in the middle of February to go see the Pacers play the Nets when I can just get home from work, eat my dinner and watch the game on tv paying nothing more than my monthly cable/satalite bill.

Now however if it wasn't on and I wanted to see the team then I might be more tempted to go.

I mean honestly this is how it was done for years prior to fox sports taking over the last couple of seasons anyway.

Maybe they could just have home games blacked out in a 50 mile radius or something.

I think there are a lot of people who don't go to games because they can see every game for basically free.


You need to back up a step. How do you get casual fans? TV is the best way to get casual fans, and if you black out home games that are not sold out you have no way to get casual fans. And the pacers fall off the radar of the casual local sports fan completely. The radio which might have been an option 20 years ago just isn't anymore.

As I mentioned in my prior post the opportunity to get casual fans to pay attention to the pacers through TV is what is most needed right now.

It is also important to televise home games because the team will win a lot more home games than road games and it is always better to show the team winning to get more fans. Plus by showing home games something might spark interest -

The proof though is in the fact that no NBA team blacks out home games. Also it is probably less expensive for teams to show the home games than it is to show road games

RWB
02-09-2012, 04:27 PM
There are literally tickets going for $2 to some games on StubHub.

I do have to question how many casual fans go to Stub Hub and look for Pacer tickets? Maybe a lot, but I venture to guess most just go to Ticket Master or Pacer.com.... Yowza, look at those prices and say never mind.

Sandman21
02-09-2012, 05:00 PM
Wow. Note to self: No PD before I drink some caffeine in the morning.

I'm not saying that it has to be a total sellout to avoid a blackout, nor does it have to be an NFL-style blackout....

Say 13-14k tickets are sold and the game is on TV.

Pacer Fan
02-09-2012, 06:15 PM
FSI is a paid channel, you aren't picking it up with bunny ears. Unless you are talking about pay per view, which is just dumb. People aren't going to pay extra to watch the NBA, especially not in Indiana.

I would pay $10.00 per game in a second if I knew that it would help support the Pacers. I would pay that before paying hundreds for tickets for family, food, parking, gas, ect.

I'd rather view on my precious HDTV, then nose bleed and try to go cheaper.

If it was a option of:
Blackout vs Tickets
Blackout vs Pay per Game / Season

I would have to take the pay per game / season without a second thought.

PR07
02-09-2012, 11:09 PM
I'd be pretty PO'd if they blacked out the Pacers' games. As someone who has a lot of class in the evening, I usually come home to catch the Pacers mid-game, and it really wouldn't be worth me hauling downtown and paying $$$ so I can catch maybe half of a game.

The Pacers need all the attention and support they can get, it doesn't matter if it's at home, at restaurants, or in Banker's Life. Blacking out games would rule out the Pacers fans who have their training wheels on and who maybe would be willing to finally ride their bikes without the training wheels (go to games) later on. It would be doing a huge disservice to the franchise, as well as bars, restaurants, etc. in Indianapolis.

graphic-er
02-09-2012, 11:55 PM
Awe man the Pacer's game is blacked out tonight? Hey Bulls are on WGN....

Bball
02-10-2012, 12:07 AM
I do have to question how many casual fans go to Stub Hub and look for Pacer tickets? Maybe a lot, but I venture to guess most just go to Ticket Master or Pacer.com.... Yowza, look at those prices and say never mind.

I agree with this 100%. Heck, I know about Stub Hub, have used Stub Hub, and yet I don't think to look sometimes. I can't imagine the random casual fan is going to think to hit Stub Hub.

Also, not only do I think blackouts are a bad idea, I think not having at least a package of games on regular broadcast TV is a problem... I can't say it's a mistake because I'm not sure there's an option any longer to have any games on local broadcast TV now that independent stations are a thing of the past.

You have to go searching for FSN-I. And it's not like the evening news is promoting 'the game coming up next'.... or promoting games via commercials during their popular shows. Or even cross-marketing.

But you need easy access to the games to create interest and cause people to want to be there.... to be part of the action... to be the sixth man! And then when you have their interest, you want it to be affordable enough when they look at prices they don't balk.

As said, being in the rafters for a playoff game is one thing, but to be there for a mundane Tuesday night game is another.

I think the team needs to consider a different balance to their ticket prices.

Make club level more affordable especially. Give season ticket holders more perks while making single games cheaper for better seats. Just make sure season ticket holders get some value added things so they aren't insulted.

skyfire
02-10-2012, 12:53 AM
TV blackouts will continue to get less effective now that you can get every game live on the internet on a range of devices in HD, via nba.tv.

PacersHomer
02-10-2012, 12:57 AM
TV blackouts: Because advertising money isn't important to anyone

Jessen
02-10-2012, 01:00 AM
I live 30 minutes away...but honestly can't make most of the games due to work. I either get off work right around tip off or I'm stuck at work watching the game. I actually tried to download the mobile pass last Wednesday because I was at work(Btw it sucks. They took my $30...nothing works...they won't even acknowledge that I've asked for a refund, so i was forced to resort to illegal streams).

Back to my main point; I want to go to games and I would go if I could reasonably get to Indy in time for tip off, but it's simply not doable most nights. I still consider myself to be more than a "casual fan" as I've followed pretty much every game since the mid 90s. I've just never been in a great position to watch in person. So the television broadcasts allow me to to continue to be a fan. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this type of situation...so yes, I think blackouts would hurt the fanbase.

Indra
02-10-2012, 01:07 AM
Anyone that works 40+ hours and are 30 minutes or more away from the game is going to find it hard to go to during work days on any kind of regular basis. Especially if they have a 2nd job, a family, a hobby, school, ect.

Driving an hour + to down town to make it to a 7:00 game and is on the back side of rush hour. Many people just don't want to deal with the hurry, rush around just to get to a game and blow 1/2 or more of a weekly salary for one game. If a person makes $600.00 a week after taxes and wants to take their family for a 2 1/2 hour game. They just worked nearly all week for that, not gonna happen. But should that person and family be deprived from viewing from there home because of a blackout? obviously not! You think that person is gonna go...Oh No, I must go to a game, now that I can't watch it at home? Hell No!

They have to show the games on TV to get noticed and to create interest and want from people. Blackout is the dumbest thing they could do, especially with today's technology.

I think these pro teams need to cut the ticket prices by 70% at all times. I think they should have a very reasonable package to buy and watch from home to make up the difference of ticket prices. Like FSI being a paid channel.

That would show support and would easily make more money then ticket sales. And it wouldn't be the NBA package.

added: Please understand, I am thinking for others here, not just myself, I couldn't go on a regular basis if someone paid for the whole thing, I don't have the time to get there, 1 1/2 hour drive one way and I'm in a 50 mile radius. My kid is an adult and is in college and my wife would not go but once a year if I smiled right. And I definitely don't have a money issue as I work my rear off to have nice things. So, cost would be minimal for myself and a friend. It's all about time and simplicity.

In what world do you live in where it costs $300+ to go to a single Pacers game? Unless you're the Duggars, any family can go to a Pacers game quite cheaply if they use their money wisely. You don't have to sit courtside to enjoy the game. Balcony/Krieg Devault seats are still a ton of fun, parking is reasonable, and if you eat before you go to the game you don't need to buy concessions.

Just looked up prices. $15/ticket for a good game between Pacers/Nuggets. $60 to take a family of four to a game.

I can understand not wanting to drive in traffic, the hassle of an outing, the crowds, but that applies to every event everywhere. It's no excuse, Hoosiers just aren't coming out. I think that's an issue with marketing.

RWB
02-10-2012, 08:58 AM
Just looked up prices. $15/ticket for a good game between Pacers/Nuggets. $60 to take a family of four to a game.


I'm not trying to be a whiner here but this $15 dollar ticket is row 21 and 22 in the balcony. You get what you pay for and at that height it's not that appealing.

Edit>>> Nice of the Pacers to offer the Hilbert package. Hard to argue the front office is not trying when they have something like that. However it seems the reoccuring them is that mid level seating needs to be addressed.

HC
02-10-2012, 09:20 AM
Just because someone watches most of the games in their living room does not make them a casual fan. We barely have enough time around here to get the kids fed, homework done, and keep the house maintained let alone driving an hour and a half one way 2 to 3 times a week. Add to that the fact that Pacers games end past my kids' bedtimes, and the financial strain it would put on us. I live and die with this team, but it's not gonna happen. Nor am I just a casual fan. We save up and try to attend a few games a year, which is special to all of us.

graphic-er
02-10-2012, 10:51 AM
I'm not trying to be a whiner here but this $15 dollar ticket is row 21 and 22 in the balcony. You get what you pay for and at that height it's not that appealing.

Edit>>> Nice of the Pacers to offer the Hilbert package. Hard to argue the front office is not trying when they have something like that. However it seems the reoccuring them is that mid level seating needs to be addressed.

Only the first few rows in the balcony are worth the ticket price. If I had to had sit north of my Row 2 seats I wouldn't have bought my package. Better experience at home on the TV.

They are charging Lucas Oil prices to sit in the middle level.

Derek2k3
02-10-2012, 11:08 AM
I'm telling you, I'm with JMV on this one. You almost want to be careful what you wish for. I want the Pacers to have the financial success, but I don't want to be sitting next to Bandwagon McDbag when they become popular again.

Don't want to be super cynical, but that's gonna happen. 18k seats, there aren't 18k non-dbag fans that will show up that often.

I can put up with those losers, as long as they are the minority.

On the topic of getting fans to the game, they are doing a better job with ticket deals (2 for Tuesdays, the Hibbert All-Star pack etc...) which is what I see as the/a major deterrent.

I'm finishing up school, have a wife/2 jobs, and freaking love the Pacers. I live about 1-1/2 to 2 hours away, but absolutely would head to Indy 15+ times a year, and every game in the playoffs. In fact, this past season I went to every home playoff game.

But, when I jump on Ticketmaster and see lower/club level seats that will run me between $185-$350 for the two of us, it is basically impossible. Now, then I can jump on StubHub, get lower level seats for $50 or less, and I'm in business. I actually picked up 2 tickets, Sec 17 Row 17, $25 a piece.

So, I think they're on the right track with the ticket deals, but they have to find a way to compete with StubHub and others, otherwise people will continue to wait until they show up on a 3rd party site for nickels and dimes.


At the end of the day, winning is what gets it done. Don't be surprised when no-one comes to see the Nets et al when they travel to Indy. Once Indy is a known commodity, they become an "entertainment" option again, rather than something just for basketball diehards.

Derek2k3
02-10-2012, 11:22 AM
In what world do you live in where it costs $300+ to go to a single Pacers game? Unless you're the Duggars, any family can go to a Pacers game quite cheaply if they use their money wisely. You don't have to sit courtside to enjoy the game. Balcony/Krieg Devault seats are still a ton of fun, parking is reasonable, and if you eat before you go to the game you don't need to buy concessions.

Just looked up prices. $15/ticket for a good game between Pacers/Nuggets. $60 to take a family of four to a game.

I can understand not wanting to drive in traffic, the hassle of an outing, the crowds, but that applies to every event everywhere. It's no excuse, Hoosiers just aren't coming out. I think that's an issue with marketing.


I see your point, but tickets in the lower level are at least $155/seat. Mid-level is approx $115. Then Balcony is very affordable, $40 etc, some $14-$20, the $6 deals and so on. Unfortunately, the high balcony seats aren't really worth going to, especially if you have to jump through hoops to get to the game. Couple that with the type of people you get (I have a thread about my experience against the Bulls in the playoffs) and I'd never go mid or upper balcony.

NapTonius Monk
02-10-2012, 12:11 PM
I see your point, but tickets in the lower level are at least $155/seat. Mid-level is approx $115. Then Balcony is very affordable, $40 etc, some $14-$20, the $6 deals and so on. Unfortunately, the high balcony seats aren't really worth going to, especially if you have to jump through hoops to get to the game. Couple that with the type of people you get (I have a thread about my experience against the Bulls in the playoffs) and I'd never go mid or upper balcony.
That Bulls experience isn't the norm though. Most other games, those are diehards up there in Nosebleed, IN. I would hate them to start blacking out games. I usually high tail it over to my pops house, and we watch the games together when my work schedule permits. But this, personally, has been a very difficult financial year, and at the end of the day, the Pacers are a luxury. I bleed blue and gold, but there are just too many other necessities vying for my limited income as it is. When you're holding the rope at both ends, trying to make ends meet, you feel every inch you cut off the ends. We make it happen from time to time, but I'd imagine our case is not unique. I will says the Pacers have done a good job making it easier to go to games when we can go.

ejwallace
02-10-2012, 12:50 PM
One thing to mention here that hasn't even been touched upon is that watching on TV, you get play-by-play and color commentary. I am not claiming that this makes or breaks game attendance, but I have been to several games where I find myself wondering; What just happened? Why was that foul called? and on and on....Watching from your living room gives you the convenience of having someone else do the brainwork.

I like going to the games, as I tend to get into them by yelling, whooping and hollering, yelling at refs/players etc etc. I can only imagine the experience for someone that is more passive and doesn't get emotionally envolved. It takes a certain "type" of fan to actually attend games and "get into them", where anyone can sit at home, and with the power of DVR, never miss a thing....All the while having someone else tell you what you should and shouldn't think about things...

HC
02-10-2012, 01:02 PM
One thing to mention here that hasn't even been touched upon is that watching on TV, you get play-by-play and color commentary. I am not claiming that this makes or breaks game attendance, but I have been to several games where I find myself wondering; What just happened? Why was that foul called? and on and on....Watching from your living room gives you the convenience of having someone else do the brainwork.

I like going to the games, as I tend to get into them by yelling, whooping and hollering, yelling at refs/players etc etc. I can only imagine the experience for someone that is more passive and doesn't get emotionally envolved. It takes a certain "type" of fan to actually attend games and "get into them", where anyone can sit at home, and with the power of DVR, never miss a thing....All the while having someone else tell you what you should and shouldn't think about things...

I can relate to this. I don't mind going at all, but I generally need a beer to loosen up in that kind of environment around so many people.

MiaDragon
02-10-2012, 02:24 PM
I have a vague memory that the teams that get the best ratings are between 6 -10. Average would be more in the 3-5 range and down from there. But it makes a huge difference the size of the city.

If the Knicks get a 2.2 rating in NYC and the pacers get a 6.8 rating in Indy, there are still multiple times more people watching the Knicks than the pacers.

According to wiki the Pacers played in the highest rated regular season game against the Bulls in 95, it came in at 10.9. It was Jordan's first game back from his first retirement.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 02:30 PM
According to wiki the Pacers played in the highest rated regular season game against the Bulls in 95, it came in at 10.9. If was Jordan's first game back from his first retirement.

How many PD'ers were also in MSA for that game? I remember a whole bunch of 45 jerseys.

RWB
02-10-2012, 02:37 PM
How many PD'ers were also in MSA for that game? I remember a whole bunch of 45 jerseys.

Well a lot of Pacer season ticket holders were able to pay for a season's worth of tickets by selling that game. No harm in that when you consider it was a regular season game and a Pacer fan really doesn't give a crap that was Jordan's first game back.

Got to remember we had the opportunity to see him before, and actually I hated watching Jordan games with the lord of basketball getting every call.

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 02:45 PM
Well a lot of Pacer season ticket holders were able to pay for a season's worth of tickets by selling that game. No harm in that when you consider it was a regular season game and a Pacer fan really doesn't give a crap that was Jordan's first game back.

Got to remember we had the opportunity to see him before, and actually I hated watching Jordan games with the lord of basketball getting every call.

I'll never fault someone for selling their tickets for a profit. More power to you.

In a legion of mostly forgettable regular season games, that's one I'll never forget.

RWB
02-10-2012, 02:55 PM
I'll never fault someone for selling their tickets for a profit. More power to you.

In a legion of mostly forgettable regular season games, that's one I'll never forget.

Mackey you don't have to go that far my friend. Now if someone was to do that for a playoff game (including me) then may they rot in hell. :devil: Ok maybe not that bad, but I'd be angry. :D

Mackey_Rose
02-10-2012, 03:11 PM
Mackey you don't have to go that far my friend. Now if someone was to do that for a playoff game (including me) then may they rot in hell. :devil: Ok maybe not that bad, but I'd be angry. :D

As much as I hate going to a Colts' playoff game and seeing tons of Terrible Towels, or Dirty Sanchez jerseys, I don't blame the season ticket holders for paying for the other 16 games by watching one game on TV.

I wouldn't do it, but I think it's totally reasonable.

BillS
02-10-2012, 03:29 PM
This is going to go back to the discussion of the value of a ticket, I know it is.

Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.

People just need to stop making excuses and just say they would rather watch TV period. To sell the tickets at the levels some people seem to be demanding won't even pay for the Fieldhouse workers.

I spent years sitting in the balcony for sporting events before I was able to afford sitting lower down. There might be some :geezer: working here, but even after people use the whole "HD is so much better" argument it STILL feels more like "I'm entitled to $20 front row seats and free beer" to me.

All that said, sponsor money - especially the sponsors mentioned on the broadcasts - is WAY too important to risk having to give some of it back because games were blacked out. In the modern world, those TV eyes are just as important (if not to a certain extent MORE important) than the butts in the actual seats. Expect new arenas to be built with fewer direct-view seats and more "sports bar" type areas where you watch the games on TV from a comfy seat with lots of people around you.

Peck
02-10-2012, 03:33 PM
According to wiki the Pacers played in the highest rated regular season game against the Bulls in 95, it came in at 10.9. It was Jordan's first game back from his first retirement.

You see I don't recall that as Jordan's return game as I remember it being Dale Davis 20 rebound day to ruin the return of a former star.

Peck
02-10-2012, 03:35 PM
How many PD'ers were also in MSA for that game? I remember a whole bunch of 45 jerseys.

:rockon2:

I was there.

HC
02-10-2012, 03:35 PM
This is going to go back to the discussion of the value of a ticket, I know it is.

Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.

People just need to stop making excuses and just say they would rather watch TV period. To sell the tickets at the levels some people seem to be demanding won't even pay for the Fieldhouse workers.

I spent years sitting in the balcony for sporting events before I was able to afford sitting lower down. There might be some :geezer: working here, but even after people use the whole "HD is so much better" argument it STILL feels more like "I'm entitled to $20 front row seats and free beer" to me.

All that said, sponsor money - especially the sponsors mentioned on the broadcasts - is WAY too important to risk having to give some of it back because games were blacked out. In the modern world, those TV eyes are just as important (if not to a certain extent MORE important) than the butts in the actual seats. Expect new arenas to be built with fewer direct-view seats and more "sports bar" type areas where you watch the games on TV from a comfy seat with lots of people around you.

No, sorry...what you call an excuse is in fact reality for some people. I would love to be a sth, but once again as I've already stated the time nor money isn't there.

Unclebuck
02-10-2012, 03:43 PM
One thing to mention here that hasn't even been touched upon is that watching on TV, you get play-by-play and color commentary. I am not claiming that this makes or breaks game attendance, but I have been to several games where I find myself wondering; What just happened? Why was that foul called? and on and on....Watching from your living room gives you the convenience of having someone else do the brainwork.

I like going to the games, as I tend to get into them by yelling, whooping and hollering, yelling at refs/players etc etc. I can only imagine the experience for someone that is more passive and doesn't get emotionally envolved. It takes a certain "type" of fan to actually attend games and "get into them", where anyone can sit at home, and with the power of DVR, never miss a thing....All the while having someone else tell you what you should and shouldn't think about things...


Main reason why I like going to the games in person (besides the atmosphere, although it isn't all that great until the playoffs) but I get a much, much better sense of what is going on seeing it in person as opposed to watching on TV. I learn so much more about the players, teams, athletisicm, strength - I could go on and on. it is a compltely different experience. There is a reason scouts see teams and players in person as opposed to just watching it on TV.

ejwallace
02-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Main reason why I like going to the games in person (besides the atmosphere, although it isn't all that great until the playoffs) but I get a much, much better sense of what is going on seeing it in person as opposed to watching on TV. I learn so much more about the players, teams, athletisicm, strength - I could go on and on. it is a compltely different experience. There is a reason scouts see teams and players in person as opposed to just watching it on TV.

I agree with you on all points, however I would be willing to assume that neither of us could be considered "casual fans". I get so annoyed when I go to a game, and I see people sitting in the first couple of rows that aren't even paying attention to the game. You know the ones I am referring too...The ones that you see walking back and forth on the court to go buy drinks in the LockerRoom Bar, and miss over half the game just going back and forth....Yeah, I'm talkin about you Mr. AfflictionShirt....

To a more casual fan, that really doesn't have a grasp on the basics of basketball, having someone force feed you what is going on could be extremely beneficial....

BillS
02-10-2012, 04:12 PM
No, sorry...what you call an excuse is in fact reality for some people. I would love to be a sth, but once again as I've already stated the time nor money isn't there.

STH? I'm just talking about people who can't be bothered to go to a single game.

To reiterate things I've said in multiple threads, I understand that money is tight and people work odd schedules. The "odd schedules" thing doesn't matter - someone without the ability to get time off for a game wouldn't be going anyway, so it has no bearing in the "TV vs Attend" discussion. On the money side, though, I really think people either have an inflated idea of what it costs to go to a Pacer game vs. almost any comparable form of entertainment OR they just want the whole TV experience (including the cost of TV) while at the arena.

When asked "what price point would get you to the game and what do you expect for that price", those with a price point (those without also don't count because they wouldn't go anyway) far too often want courtside amenities for a balcony price.

Derek2k3
02-12-2012, 05:36 PM
Well a lot of Pacer season ticket holders were able to pay for a season's worth of tickets by selling that game. No harm in that when you consider it was a regular season game and a Pacer fan really doesn't give a crap that was Jordan's first game back.

Got to remember we had the opportunity to see him before, and actually I hated watching Jordan games with the lord of basketball getting every call.

I know this is off topic, but does anyone here remember what tickets were going for for that game? Had to be absolutely insane.

El Pacero
02-12-2012, 06:16 PM
The time argument kinda makes me wonder, if your schedule permits of course. We had at least ten Area 55 members who went to every game last season. They've got full time jobs, girlfriends, wives, kids, etc... and some of them drive an hour each way. They definitely sacrificed things to make it to every game and support the Pacers. It's not as easy or convenient as watching games on TV, but it's worth it.

Roaming Gnome
02-12-2012, 06:34 PM
From this STH's point of view... Don't black out ALL home games, but like in the past...black out SOME of the home games.

No need to give the non paying public as much access as those putting up hard earned coin & time.

No, I don't mean shutting those out... it doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING situation which a lot of you are making it out to be. 2 home games/month disappearing off the TV schedule would be enough of an annoyance to those that depend on getting all the games for the price of their cable bill would satisfy me.

We all know how Fox Sports usually broadcast about 70 games... Just make sure the 10 games that are not on broadcast are HOME GAMES so the STH's are rewarded by being able to see ALL the game. If STH's are invested enough with their time and money, it seems to be a no brainer that they would want the opportunity to see all the games!

During the broadcast a couple games ahead of the non televised games Chris & Quinn need to beat the drum of, "You need to get down to the Fieldhouse... Next Thursday's game against the New Jersey will be Radio Only. It's a good time to get out and be a part of the Pacers Experience!"

Roaming Gnome
02-12-2012, 07:01 PM
The time argument kinda makes me wonder, if your schedule permits of course. We had at least ten Area 55 members who went to every game last season. They've got full time jobs, girlfriends, wives, kids, etc... and some of them drive an hour each way. They definitely sacrificed things to make it to every game and support the Pacers. It's not as easy or convenient as watching games on TV, but it's worth it.

I so agree!!!

This may seem over the top to a lot of you, but my Pacer fandom was born during the '91 play-offs when I lived in Fort Wayne, IN. From 92-93 season till the opening of the Fieldhouse, I held many 10 game packages making the 2 1/2 hour trip each way while on a very limited budget. The year the Fieldhouse opened, I purchased my first 1/2 season ticket. Then that next season... I moved to Indy because I realized that my love for this team was worth the sacrifice. After my move, I got married with a child on the way and had to temper the amount of money that I put towards making games being on the same limited budget, but in 2003 my wife and I were able to finally be able to rub enough nickels together to get Full Season Tickets in the Balcony. Now this being my 8th season, we were finally able to rub a few quarters along with the nickels and move down from the Balcony.

To me, it was worth the sacrifice and it makes the reasons that I often hear of I don't have time, don't want to drive, too cold, parking/tickets yada yada yada... kind of fall on deaf ears.

Eddie Gill
02-12-2012, 07:21 PM
No need to give the non paying public as much access as those putting up hard earned coin & time.

No, I don't mean shutting those out... it doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING situation which a lot of you are making it out to be. 2 home games/month disappearing off the TV schedule would be enough of an annoyance to those that depend on getting all the games for the price of their cable bill would satisfy me.


Funny to talk about this 'non paying public' and in the next breath mention a cable bill. As a sports fan, the opportunity to watch live games in HD is the ONLY reason I pay for cable. While I don't have enough money to travel to Indy for all (or this year ANY) of the home games I would not consider myself a member of the non-paying public. Am I a non-attending member of the public? Sure. But for a lot of people, just paying a cable bill to watch the Pacers 70 times a year or so is as much as we can do. This group isn't on the fence about attending a Pacers Game. We are sold on the Pacers - we just don't have the kind of money to attend games this year. To me, blacking out this group of people is ultimately counter-productive. When I turn on the game only to find it blacked out, my first reaction wouldn't be 'Boy, guess I should get my butt down to the Fieldhouse and see this team in person'. I would feel betrayed by my team and angry at my cable provider.

Ignoring my specific circumstances, I think the Pacers need to be more concerned about the baby steps first. Get eyeballs watching Pacers highlights/coverage on the local news - then you can start worrying about getting butts in the seats. The local TV ratings seem to indicate the eyeballs finally coming back - blacking out games would only confuse and antagonize this group.

Roaming Gnome
02-12-2012, 09:15 PM
Funny to talk about this 'non paying public' and in the next breath mention a cable bill. As a sports fan, the opportunity to watch live games in HD is the ONLY reason I pay for cable. While I don't have enough money to travel to Indy for all (or this year ANY) of the home games I would not consider myself a member of the non-paying public. Am I a non-attending member of the public? Sure. But for a lot of people, just paying a cable bill to watch the Pacers 70 times a year or so is as much as we can do. This group isn't on the fence about attending a Pacers Game. We are sold on the Pacers - we just don't have the kind of money to attend games this year. To me, blacking out this group of people is ultimately counter-productive. When I turn on the game only to find it blacked out, my first reaction wouldn't be 'Boy, guess I should get my butt down to the Fieldhouse and see this team in person'. I would feel betrayed by my team and angry at my cable provider.

Ignoring my specific circumstances, I think the Pacers need to be more concerned about the baby steps first. Get eyeballs watching Pacers highlights/coverage on the local news - then you can start worrying about getting butts in the seats. The local TV ratings seem to indicate the eyeballs finally coming back - blacking out games would only confuse and antagonize this group.

I think you missed my point... I'm not talking about shutting you out, just making the games FSI NORMALLY doesn't broadcast be ALL HOME GAMES. Two fold the team adds value to STH's by giving them the advantage of seeing all the games. Gives an opportunity for PS&E to offer an exclusive time a couple times a season to say... Your only chance of seeing this game is "To be there".

Normally, most seasons you're going to miss 10 games if you watch them on TV. Most don't have the opportunity to get to road game, but have a chance to get downtown. Why cheat those that make every home game by not broadcasting portions of maybe a west coast trip because FSI doesn't think anyone is willing to wait till 10:30 to see us take on Blake Griffin and the Clippers.

dal9
02-12-2012, 11:22 PM
I think you missed my point... I'm not talking about shutting you out, just making the games FSI NORMALLY doesn't broadcast be ALL HOME GAMES. Two fold the team adds value to STH's by giving them the advantage of seeing all the games. Gives an opportunity for PS&E to offer an exclusive time a couple times a season to say... Your only chance of seeing this game is "To be there".

Normally, most seasons you're going to miss 10 games if you watch them on TV. Most don't have the opportunity to get to road game, but have a chance to get downtown. Why cheat those that make every home game by not broadcasting portions of maybe a west coast trip because FSI doesn't think anyone is willing to wait till 10:30 to see us take on Blake Griffin and the Clippers.

if it makes you feel better, i don't have cable or even High-Speed Internet anymore, so I can't see any of the games...

in all seriousness, i can see why ticket holders might feel like it enhances their experience if they are the only ones who see a game...but if you reflect about it, it shouldn't affect your experience...

graphic-er
02-12-2012, 11:48 PM
Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.


There are only 8 Colts games in a seaon at Lucas Oil. 8! So yeah they can charge a high rate for even craptacular seats.

There are 41 games at the Fieldhouse. They charge too much in the club level. It doesn't matter how great the view is, there is 41 games. Thats alot of inventory to be demanding $93 and $119 a ticket in the club level.

Now you might have Season tickets so you are getting them a much cheaper rate. But you are talking about going to just one game remember.

Come down on those prices and get rid of the servers.

Peck
02-13-2012, 12:10 AM
For those of you who used me as a punching bag when I suggested blacking out some of the home games (btw I would be fine with what Gnome is saying) and claiming the only way to get people to the games is to show all of the games on FSI.

How exactly did the Pacers get anyone to the games prior to FSI existing? I'm not sure how long they have been broadcasting the games but I know within the last decade during some seasons you were lucky to get half of the games on TV and back in the 90's and beyond....well I remember a year that TTV4 had 10 games and two were cut out to make way for I.U.

Please spare me the whole "you have got to get people to watch to come to the games" speech. Somehow they mananged to get decent crowds late in the 90's and early in the last decade without broadcasting every game.

Eddie Gill
02-13-2012, 02:17 AM
For those of you who used me as a punching bag when I suggested blacking out some of the home games (btw I would be fine with what Gnome is saying) and claiming the only way to get people to the games is to show all of the games on FSI.

How exactly did the Pacers get anyone to the games prior to FSI existing? I'm not sure how long they have been broadcasting the games but I know within the last decade during some seasons you were lucky to get half of the games on TV and back in the 90's and beyond....well I remember a year that TTV4 had 10 games and two were cut out to make way for I.U.

Please spare me the whole "you have got to get people to watch to come to the games" speech. Somehow they mananged to get decent crowds late in the 90's and early in the last decade without broadcasting every game.

The Pacers struggled to sellout MSA during the early 90's run - even a few first round playoff games. Playoff games obviously attracted more casual viewers who were able to watch the team during the playoffs, grow attached to the players, start going to games, and yes - sell out quite a few games in the latter part of the decade/early 00s.

BillS
02-13-2012, 09:41 AM
How exactly did the Pacers get anyone to the games prior to FSI existing? I'm not sure how long they have been broadcasting the games but I know within the last decade during some seasons you were lucky to get half of the games on TV and back in the 90's and beyond....well I remember a year that TTV4 had 10 games and two were cut out to make way for I.U.

Please spare me the whole "you have got to get people to watch to come to the games" speech. Somehow they mananged to get decent crowds late in the 90's and early in the last decade without broadcasting every game.

Well, first of course, after the initial big glow the Colts were not considered the primary Indy pro team - the Pacers were, especially in the mid-90's and beyond (until the Peyton years).

Second, radio broadcasts were a much more important part of a sports fan's repertoire in terms of keeping up with games. TV wasn't considered the only valid access to a team.

Third, that was the time when (as I recall) every team got to have at least one real national broadcast, not just hide on subscription TV.

ejwallace
02-13-2012, 10:24 AM
How would this effect people that pay for NBA League Pass? Would people that subscribe still get to see the blacked out games since they are now "legitimately" paying for them, or would they be blacked out as well?

The only thing that I see a blackout doing is bolstering sales of League Pass and guaranteeing that $169 not to be available for Pacers tickets...

I am a firm believer that blacking out ANYTHING is wrong. Take the 500 for example....They black that out in a 100 mile radius, or close to it. Do you know how many families that prevents from seeing the race? Let's be honest, with the economy, extra spending money is limited. People can't afford to take a family of 4 to see the 500 or a Pacers game. To me blacking out anything seems like discrimination against people who are strapped for cash.

There are plenty of other ways to get butts in the seats than to blackout games...

And before I get the $169 for league pass is a lot....that would be the approximate cost of 1 game for a family of 4, yet would let the whole family see EVERY Pacers game, home and away....Which one seems more cost effective to you??

BillS
02-13-2012, 10:53 AM
How would this effect people that pay for NBA League Pass? Would people that subscribe still get to see the blacked out games since they are now "legitimately" paying for them, or would they be blacked out as well?

Local teams are completely blacked out on League Pass.

ejwallace
02-13-2012, 11:04 AM
Local teams are completely blacked out on League Pass.

My understanding is local teams are only blacked out on League Pass if the rights to broadcast the game belong to the local station. So if it is being broadcast locally it will be blacked out, but if it is not being broadcast locally it won't....

When I had LP free preview, my "local" team is the Bulls, and I get CSNChicago which is like Chicago's FSI. At times, CSNChicago would be broadcasting a Blackhawks game or nothing at all, and I would be able to get the Bulls games via LP....Others I had to watch them on CSNChicago since they were broadcasting them and LP had them blacked out.....

It's simulare to what LP does when a game is available on TBS, TNT, or ESPN...You have to watch it on another channel if it's available, otherwise you can get it on LP....

Bball
02-13-2012, 12:29 PM
I am a firm believer that blacking out ANYTHING is wrong. Take the 500 for example....They black that out in a 100 mile radius, or close to it. Do you know how many families that prevents from seeing the race? Let's be honest, with the economy, extra spending money is limited. People can't afford to take a family of 4 to see the 500 or a Pacers game. To me blacking out anything seems like discrimination against people who are strapped for cash.


But the 500 is a once per year event. You miss the 2012 Indy 500 then you have to wait until 2013 to see the next one. If you miss the Pacers' Tues night matchup with the cellar dwelling NBA team then a couple of nights later they'll be playing again... and then again a few nights later.

There are SO many games in an NBA season that I don't see how blacking out a few random games is going to accomplish anything. Fans know they can just wait and see the next game. The eyeballs you lose on those few b/o games probably doesn't make up for the few people who buy tix so as not to miss the game. You risk creating bad vibes with some fans and breaking a connection with others. How many people watch a telecast versus best case scenario on filling the fieldhouse? Let's say 50,000 watch the game on TV. Black it out and at best 40,000 of those people will have no chance to see the game, even if the arena gets a sellout. I don't know what the real viewership numbers are but you see how that snowballs. (unless you're going to make that conditional blackouts)

And didn't the Pacers opt to NOT televise a playoff game in the not too distant past and catch a lot of heat for that? That's not the type of mood you want to be setting with your fanbase.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I'm pretty sure I know what it is not.

This season not withstanding, but overall I believe there's too many NBA games and so each game is not as important as it should be. Which means they aren't as compelling of a ticket for any one game. I doubt casual fans even realize this season is abbreviated.

Derek2k3
02-13-2012, 03:42 PM
Heads up to those of you who are talking about the difficult price point: There are $10 tickets available in the lower section for the 2/21 game vs. the Hornets. I just bought 6, total price was $70.94

StubHub.

:) Love it, I'll get to go to 2 Pacer games within a week (2/16, 2/21) and pay a grand total of $30/person. Be there!