Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

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

  • #16
    Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
    If anyone still actually questions why the NFL is, head and shoulders, better than the NBA, just read this article.
    Too bad the NBA can't play a majority of their games on a certain day of the week at either 1pm or 4pm that is commonly known for relaxing & watching said event. Event is the key word... Since the NFL is played only once a week most likely on Sunday, their games are easier to plan around if you want to be a STH or they are easy to make appointment television because you don't have to keep track of a schedule that is all over the place.

    Just sayin' the NFL has some inherent advantages that the NBA, NHL, or MLB couldn't have...
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
      Too bad the NBA can't play a majority of their games on a certain day of the week at either 1pm or 4pm that is commonly known for relaxing & watching said event. Event is the key word... Since the NFL is played only once a week most likely on Sunday, their games are easier to plan around if you want to be a STH or they are easy to make appointment television because you don't have to keep track of a schedule that is all over the place.

      Just sayin' the NFL has some inherent advantages that the NBA, NHL, or MLB couldn't have...
      The NBA does not have to play an 82 game schedule. Games would be more of an "event" if there weren't way too many.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

        Sad article, the deck is definitely stacked against smaller market team. Doesn't mean it's impossible to be competitive, it just means you have a much smaller margin for error. Your front office has to be dang near perfect with its decisions regarding drafting and personnel.

        The pacers have been alright in drafting, but by not being able to lure free agents amplifies bad picks like Shawn Williams and the verdict of Hans is still out.

        As far as personnel i agree with the majority on JOB, not investing in the future and being kept around is garbage. Not really sure what Larry is doing, but I'll leave it there.

        Remember before the brawl the pacers had a championship contending team. It could be done, it just takes time.

        I hope the league can figure some way to help the smaller market teams stay competitive. It's still not as bad as baseball, but if the super stars keep wanting to pair up together and win championships it will be hard to impossible to keep pace.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
          The NBA does not have to play an 82 game schedule. Games would be more of an "event" if there weren't way too many.
          Actually, I'm right there with you on cutting the number of games back to say.... 60! More emphasis on weekend games and a reduced number of back to backs. The reduced gate revenue would almost have to be backed by local revenue sharing to have a chance, though.
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

            I had the same feeling as the majority of this board when I first read the article and I also felt a kick in my guts. But after thinking about it for a little longer, I remembered me always admiring the model of a salary cap to provide equal opportunities. In theory, this model of a fixed budget you can spend on players helps preventing teams to gather the best players simply due to the attractiveness of the own market or the owner's willingness and financial power to spend big time.

            Compare this model that you established in the US in every sport with the situation we are dealing with over here in Europe. The determining factors to lure a free agent to a European team are money, success, and prospect of success. Simple as that. Teams do not have financially potent owners, they can only spend what they earned before (premiums, sponsoring money, advertising, ticket revenues, etc.). After a few years, the range between the successful and the unsuccessful teams becomes bigger and bigger and it is almost impossible to reduce or overcome the gap because we do not have the lottery that helps bad teams to get better.

            I know that a salary cap is hard to establish here, partly because our leagues have to compete with other leagues while you live in an autarky in terms of professional sports (and nevertheless crown yourself World Champions), but as I said at the beginning, I always looked up to the American model.


            Coming back to this text, I don't understand why the author thinks a 60:40 split would help making the league more competitive. Granted, in the last two years some owners looked for financial relief, but genererally they are minded to spend the money the salary cap allows them to spend. So I don't think money is the real issue and I don't think Indiana's inability to lure all-star caliber players is attributable to the fact that the Knicks or Lakers pay more.

            I understand that it is easier to sellout games in a big market and I do see the benefits of this for the owner. But it is what it is and you cannot discredit or even exclude big market teams for that and I would assume that the cost price has been higher when a big market team has been acquired. Taxes, a higher rent for the arena, etc. might be other factors to mention here.

            The factors that might be decisive for a free agent to sign with a big market team could be the opportunity to self-market yourself, the guarantee to play in front of a big audience (TV, radio, arena, etc.), the national coverage of certain teams, or the knowledge that some owners might be less reluctant to spend big and pay luxury taxes.

            Well, if you are really good and bring something special to the table, you can market yourself in every market. Do you think role players get more sponsorships deals in NYC than in Milwaukee? Do you think Ronny Turiaf will be the next face for Coca Cola now that he plays in the Big Apple? I highly doubt that but at the same time this might true for the elite players and, in fact, that is what the article is about. While it might be more difficult to market yourself in a smaller market, it is not impossible. Generally, it is difficult to overcome this disadvantage for smaller markets (although we are talking about Indy as a small market that has several hundred thousand inhabitants and a metropolitan area with more than a million people).

            Let's have a look at the other advantages free agents might see in playing in a big market. The sellout crowds - well, San Antonio's place is crowded, so was Market Square Arena when the Pacers were good. I don't think this is a real factor. If the team is bad, people stay away, if it is good, people purchase tickets. I trust the marketing department of my organization and trust the front office to make the most of the available players (yikes, this is hard to type in these days). Also, tickets might be more expensive in big markets to cover the rent and due to the demand, so I really don't see why smaller market teams should per se have a disadvantage.

            Big audience. Well, sure there are more people living in bigger markets and with the assumption that on average 10% of the people are interested in the local team, they do have more potential followers. But again, if you are successful that doesn't matter. Same with the national coverage to a certain extent (they will still have an ESPN Chicago studio when the Bulls suck). I remember seeing a lot of Hawks or Bucks games last year on NBA TV albeit domiciled in smaller markets.

            Last point, the owner is more willing to spend and that increases the chance of success. Yes, fair point. I have no argument against this disadvantage for small market teams. Yes, I would also pay more money if I got more money attributed to ticket sales, sponsorship deals, etc.! That is the point, where the NBA has to step in and make it impossible to shift the balance because some owner is financially potent while the other one has an aversion to spend. I'd plead for a hard cap like in the NHL (and in the NFL?). That would make it very difficult to have more than 2 All-Star players on your roster without totally exploiting your team (yes, I am looking at you Miami). So get rid of the luxury tax, force the New Yorks in this league to let good players go simply because they cannot afford to keep them - this would automatically help to make the league a more competitive one.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
              Actually, I'm right there with you on cutting the number of games back to say.... 60! More emphasis on weekend games and a reduced number of back to backs. The reduced gate revenue would almost have to be backed by local revenue sharing to have a chance, though.
              60 is still a ton of games. That should be plenty.

              I really wish the NBA would play more early afternoon weekend games. Especially after the football season is over the first week in February. It is nice to be able to go downtown for a 1 o'clock kickoff for a Colts game, and be home by 5 and enjoy the rest of my Sunday.

              I love the NBA, but I think from a marketing perspective, trying to convince the average fan that 82 games are necessary is impossible. I really don't think you need to play more than twice a week. Have one game every weekend, and one game during the week. This is one area where I think the college game has it right. College basketball maintains that event feel. If you follow a certain team, every game becomes either appointment television or an easy opportunity to plan on attending.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                Can Pacers, a small market team, win in the current NBA?

                by Rick Wagner on Jan 4, 2011 8:15 AM EST in Indiana Pacers News

                http://www.indycornrows.com/2011/1/4...he-current-nba

                I came across an interesting article last night on CBSsports.com that highlighted the Pacers' struggle to compete with the big-market teams. Danny Granger actually had quite a bit to say about this topic, almost sounding a bit bitter about the situation.

                I guess I am one to think David always has a shot at Goliath, but this view point obviously isn't universal (nor should it be). We have all seen the success the Pacers have had in the past, even making it to the NBA Finals in 2000 against the perennial NBA Goliath, the Los Angeles Lakers. This, as we all know, didn't turn into the Pacers' first NBA Champship, but a 6 game series with Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal and the Lakers celebrating with the O'Brien Trophy. There were countless Eastern Conference Championship appearances (5 over the last 20 years); however, no such luck pulling out the championship for the lowly Indiana Pacers. After the jump, check out which small market team can win in this NBA and more....

                These facts would certainly point to the difficulty in winning the NBA Championship as a small market team, but what about the San Antonio Spurs?! They are considered a small market team and have one three championships this decade. I am in no way saying the Indiana Pacers are the San Antonio Spurs or anything close to them. However, championships can obviously be won by a small market team....right??

                I believe a couple of things...first, big market teams definitely tend to have deeper pockets, which can easily lure most players...I mean, it's a job, they are looking for raises just as you and I are. Second, Indianapolis isn't necessarily where most people would take a vacation as some of the deeper pocketed cities are. However, I also believe that teams can build mainly through the draft (see Spurs, Oklahoma City Thunder, Utah Jazz, etc.). The Pacers have built up a strong core going forward (mainly through the draft), but they have money available this year. I completely understand that for some people Indianapolis is not the most entertaining city to live in compared to other options, but if we are able to throw some money towards a player won't he bite?

                So, the debate is out there....are small market NBA teams able to win in the current NBA? And, more specifically, are the Indiana Pacers able to win an NBA Championship in the current NBA? A lot of this comes up because of the CBA and the revenue sharing issue.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                  Originally posted by indianapolismarkus View Post

                  On the verge of a labor catastrophe, the league has become as popular as it's been in more than a decade and also more about the haves and have-nots than ever before. The Pacers could've followed the strategy adopted by the Knicks, Nets, Heat and Bulls last summer and chased free agents, but wisely put it off for another day. What would've been the point?
                  Pacers didn't have any cap room last summer - so that is just a false statement there



                  Granger didn't arrive in Indianapolis until after the infamous brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills in 2004, when the Pacers picked him 17th overall in 2005, but he has a good memory. Go back to the summer of '05, immediately after the current collective bargaining agreement was enacted, and you can't find a single significant free agent who has signed up to play in Indiana. And it's a problem that's hardly unique to the Pacers.
                  Not having any cap room at all and not wanting to pay the luxury tax has a lot to do with that.

                  Overall I enjoyed the article, but I still think small market teams can compete if they make smart decisions.

                  I would love to see an article on this topic from 1984 or 1985 - it was so much worse back then - not even close
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-04-2011, 09:52 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                    The NBA does not have to play an 82 game schedule.
                    Completely agree ... but neither does the vaunted NFL have to play regular season games into January and the Super Bowl well into February. Damn television "creep." I actually miss the good ol' days when you could watch the national anthem just before the station turned off for the rest of the night. I think about how much television tries to control our lives today and start singing, "Let it [television] snow, let it snow, let it snow."


                    "I think if he is and we pass on Leaf we'd be some dumb mother ****ers."

                    - Larry Bird to Kevin Pritchard before their pick on Draft Day

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                      Originally posted by thefeistyone View Post


                      It's still not as bad as baseball, but if the super stars keep wanting to pair up together and win championships it will be hard to impossible to keep pace.
                      for me MLB more interesting then NBA

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        Yup. And the whole point is that those top 15 players can pick and choose where they want to play. Every team who can would be willing to offer the max for these players, and they would still be mostly underpaid at that. That's where other factors like market size and management becomes important, and that's where small market teams are particularly disadvantaged.
                        I think there is a major problem with the pay structure. The players who are say 1-15 and get "max" contractsare the ones that probably deserve them.

                        It is the players from about 30-60 that are getting paid near max, and way more than they are worth relative to the higher tier. You have players who are making 1-2M on rookie contracts. Bad teams have to compile young, cheap players, which is the only way for bad teams to compete financially and attempt to have hope for the future. I think teams like Dallas, NY, Miami, LA, Boston, whoever else wants to spend frivolously should be paying a $2 for $1 luxury tax. I also believe that there should be a similar scenario for the owners where they pool their money like the players do and split it according to the health of the league. LA wants to be the swanky destination, make them pay for being swanky. NY has no problem paying out the nose to be high-profile. Miami will be in the LT for years for taking on Lebron and Bosh. Make these teams pay for their decisions. Right now, they are getting a free pass with the extra revenues they get from being competitive, which is a pretty direct result of having a payroll at 80M+.

                        There needs to be either revenue sharing or contraction. I think it looks horrible for the league to contract. I also think hockey has things right (for them) with a hard cap. Make ours harder. Basketball wants dream teams. Hockey wants better competition. That is why hockey is a much better run sport. The egos in hockey are secondary to winning. Not the NBA. David Stern would love it if was the Lakers versus Celtics every single year. Why even play the games if you know the four teams you want to be competitive every year.

                        Things like "The D(ouch)ecision" are an anomoly. There is no protection the league should put in place against that. I just think that this might go against something the league has prioritized for years, and that is for teams to have a significant advantage to keeping the players they have. Ironically, the "Bird Rule" comes to mind. Things like the decision will shape the future of player decisions. But in the end, it still comes down to money from both sides.

                        I just want to know what the platform is coming from the league office. What does Stern think is best for the NBA? Why is David Stern representing the owners? Because they have more money. That's right. The players will spend their money. A few will be mega-wealthy, but most of them won't maintain the welath that the owners will. I want to know from the league, what the ideal situation would be from the standpoint of the health of the league, not a biased negotiating tactic from the owners. Give us leadership Stern. Oh that's right. You aren't capable.

                        OK Rant over.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                          Originally posted by odeez View Post
                          This article is just depressing and it makes me sad to know it's true. Revenue sharing would be nice for the smaller market teams. Let's hope and pray it happens one day.
                          Sums up my feelings as well. Compared to LA, Chicago, Miami, Orlando, and New York, Indiana is no-mans land for Free Agents. Even places like Cleveland and Philadelphia are ahead of Indianapolis (I personally don't think they are better cities) as being more attractive to Free Agents.

                          The Pacers will probably have to select from the veteran minimum type players or overpay All-Star level players to come and play in Indy. Considering there are no All-Star level FAs to be had this summer (other than a disabled Yao Ming), What's the point in having all that capspace? I guess it would make it easier to sell the team.

                          This thread is very depressing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                            Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                            There needs to be either revenue sharing or contraction. I think it looks horrible for the league to contract. I also think hockey has things right (for them) with a hard cap. Make ours harder. Basketball wants dream teams. Hockey wants better competition. That is why hockey is a much better run sport. The egos in hockey are secondary to winning. Not the NBA. David Stern would love it if was the Lakers versus Celtics every single year. Why even play the games if you know the four teams you want to be competitive every year.
                            You lost me the moment you mentioned Hockey. Sure the players might have a better pay scale which allows the teams and owners to have some parity but Hockey is so low on the sports radar and makes so much less TV/gate/merchandising revenue that it doesn't really deserve to be in this conversation.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              If anyone still actually questions why the NFL is, head and shoulders, better than the NBA, just read this article.
                              The NFL is "better" than the NBA because the NFL administers a more popular game. Americans like watching football more than they do basketball. That has always been the case and always will be. The NFL could screw up a lot of things and America will always watch football.

                              It's "better" because it's not a superstar dominated league. It simply can't be. Not when there are 53 man rosters in the NFL vs. 12 man rosters in the NBA where one superstar who is a way better player than everyone else can absolutely dominate. That kind of stuff can't happen in football, where a superstar only plays offense or defense (but not both) and there are 21 other starting players on the roster.

                              The NBA and the NFL are two different games. One is basketball and the other is football. Football always has been and always will be more popular.
                              Last edited by d_c; 01-04-2011, 11:43 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Granger looks on as Indiana tries to keep pace with big markets

                                Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                                You lost me the moment you mentioned Hockey. Sure the players might have a better pay scale which allows the teams and owners to have some parity but Hockey is so low on the sports radar and makes so much less TV/gate/merchandising revenue that it doesn't really deserve to be in this conversation.
                                Why not, if NHL teams are able to sustain themselves and if fan interest is growing rather than waning? To refuse to learn from someone who is successful at their level simply because they are smaller (or less popular) than you is to blind yourself to a potential source of answers.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X