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

A thought for the new CBA

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

  • A thought for the new CBA

    As I keep reading about players dictating where they'll play in order to line up with other max contract players I had a thought for the new CBA as to how this could be addressed.
    I have no idea what the new max contract will be but what if a team was allowed to spend a maximum for 1, 2, & 3 players. Something like a max for 1 player could be 16 mil, any 2 players could not exceed 28 mil, and any 3 players could not exceed 36 mil. A loophole could be given to teams to retain their own players with a 10% exception for a player that had completed 1 full season for his team and a 20% exception for a player that had completed 2 full seasons. This might help teams to retain there own players in the same manner that Bird rights do. It might also cut back on players wanting to join with another superstar if they'd have to take a 25% pay cut to join with 1 star as a free agent and a 50% cut to join with 2 stars. Just a thought.
    Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

    Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

  • #2
    Re: A thought for the new CBA

    one thing i want to see is a buyout really mean a buyout. if a team and player agree to something, it should mean that the player is not only no longer with the team, it should mean that player is no longer on the team's books either. as it currently stands a buyout is hardly close to a real buyout.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A thought for the new CBA

      I think contracts longer than 3 years should be team options for anything past the 3rd year.

      I'm tired of players getting over paid for not producing. It's downright terrible for the game. It shouldn't take a team 6 years to turn things around. It's been hell for Pacers fan since the brawl and Pacers won't lose that "brawl" label til they start being relevant...how long ago was that?
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A thought for the new CBA

        Originally posted by clownskull View Post
        one thing i want to see is a buyout really mean a buyout. if a team and player agree to something, it should mean that the player is not only no longer with the team, it should mean that player is no longer on the team's books either. as it currently stands a buyout is hardly close to a real buyout.
        I'm not sure what you mean.

        Right now when a team and player agree to a buyout (and it has to be agreed to), said player is indeed no longer with team. That player can't re-sign with the same team (for at least a year I believe) under a different contract and his bought out contract can't be traded.

        The team pays the player whatever it is the agreed to buyout amount is spread out over the same number of years as the original contract. That amount still counts towards the yearly cap.

        The fact that the buyout amount still counts against the cap prevents a team with deep pockets like the Knicks from just buying out a big contract like Eddy Curry and instantly clearing massive cap space.
        Last edited by d_c; 01-28-2011, 11:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A thought for the new CBA

          a hard cap will end most of the 'all-star' teams. especially if the max contract stays at 30% of the cap. no one will be able to fit 3 max contracts without using up 30% of the cap. that just doesn't leave any money for the other 10 players. the most max contracts a team could offer is 2. that would spread out the max contract players and keep teams from doing what miami did.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A thought for the new CBA

            I go with the following as some of the needed items:

            1. Hard cap for obvious reasons.

            2. Franchise tag (like NFL). This will give teams the ability to retain a player and further attempt developing a new contract. At the same time, it will pay the player a very hefty salary to do so. The rules would also have to accommodate a team's ability to release players if necessary to fit the franchise tag amount under the hard cap.

            3. Lower salary and less guarantee in initial contracts of players when drafted.

            4. A trend towards actually lowering player salaries to make ticket prices more affordable for fans.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A thought for the new CBA

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              I go with the following as some of the needed items:

              1. Hard cap for obvious reasons.

              2. Franchise tag (like NFL). This will give teams the ability to retain a player and further attempt developing a new contract. At the same time, it will pay the player a very hefty salary to do so. The rules would also have to accommodate a team's ability to release players if necessary to fit the franchise tag amount under the hard cap.

              3. Lower salary and less guarantee in initial contracts of players when drafted.

              4. A trend towards actually lowering player salaries to make ticket prices more affordable for fans.
              Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

              I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

              I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.
              Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 01-28-2011, 01:23 PM.
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A thought for the new CBA

                Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

                I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

                I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.
                That is a great and fascinating question, and one that could go in many directions.

                As a theatre arts major and someone who wants to work in film/theatre, I would say that yes, prices are out of touch with the working class home. Now you can argue that you can get a Broadway ticket on the cheap if you have time and are willing to wait, and I will concede that point.

                However, sports tickets (and I am referencing the NFL more than the NBA because I do not go to many/any Wizards games) seem to be an outrageous price. Now the Redskins always have tickets on the aftermarket because we have such a large stadium, but I have heard horror stories about the Packers and other teams where it is next to impossible to get tickets.

                One could argue it is easy to get tickets on eBay, stub hub, etc, but unless the team is having a horrible year you still probably will have to hell out $60-$80 a ticket, pus parking ($25) and food if you eat at the game. At the minimum if you bring a family of 4 to the game you are easily looking at a night that cost you $300 - $400…and lord forbid your child wants snacks and or a drink.

                To be fair and perfectly upfront, I am a young person who just got a [new] car and am looking to get a house in the next 3 months, and also am working at an entry level position, so any cost is too much.

                That said even if I had the disposable income, I really feel like entertainment prices need a reality check. Without us, the fans, there would be no show.

                Sorry for the long post.
                ____

                As far as the CBA, I would love to see them shorten contracts, but I see no problem with the current language of the buyout clause. You have to be careful, because if you mess with it too much then you have teams buying guys out just because “they can” and have the disposable income to do so.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A thought for the new CBA

                  Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                  Too bad your #3 (sticking it to the players) wont effect ticket prices one iota. Just more profits into the owners pockets!

                  I do have an honest question.... Are NBA tickets really that un-affordable considering other forms of "live entertainment"? I mean other sports, live shows ie: Broadway type show, Vegas style entertainment, a concert, or maybe a night at the symphony? It just make me wonder if this is such a legit complaint anymore considering the price of a 1st run movie is more than sitting in the Balcony of Conseco Fieldhouse for an NBA game!

                  I know going to sporting events use to be a lot cheaper, but really... The price of entertainment, especially live entertainment in general has been keeping pace.
                  Gnome... it has to start somewhere. The vast majority of teams are in the red. The owners probably feel like they are entitled to some of the profit, after having absorbed losses for so long. So, lowering salaries will not affect ticket prices one iota, as you say.... at least not initially.

                  I do think after a period of time, that some of the ticket prices within the venue will begin to fall. For example, at Conseco, maybe the Founders level tickets will actually increase while the Club level and upper level tickets will decrease in such a way that the average ticket price does not decrease quite so much.

                  For a lot of years, I had 4 season tickets. After Conseco was built, I was very fortunate that a family member was a suite owner in Club level. My wife and I continued to attend all home games. As problems grew wiht the Pacers and their players, attendance began to drop and I was able to obtain extra tickets to the suite whenever I wanted them.

                  Since I recalled a lot of friends and people that I worked with always saying they would go to Pacers games if they could, but the expense was to great, I began taking a handful of them to each game. We could have been playing the worst team in the league, or even get totally blown out by the best teams and it didn't matter. As the evening wound down, by the thanks I received, you would have thought I had bought them a new car. Many had never been to Conseco and absolutely loved the experience. Some were just very appreciative that they finally got to see their favorite team in person from a good seat rather than having to sit at home and watch them on TV.

                  So, yes. I not only think, but am actually quite certain, that decent Pacers tickets are above the means of many hard-working families, both white-collar and blue-collar. They watch their expenses, and going to Pacers games is discretionary. Do they go to a few Pacers games, or do they have money to spend for the kids on a family vacation? Or, do they buy fewer presents at Christmas? Money is tight, especially for younger, single-income families with a couple of kids.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A thought for the new CBA

                    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                    So, yes. I not only think, but am actually quite certain, that decent Pacers tickets are above the means of many hard-working families, both white-collar and blue-collar. They watch their expenses, and going to Pacers games is discretionary. Do they go to a few Pacers games, or do they have money to spend for the kids on a family vacation? Or, do they buy fewer presents at Christmas? Money is tight, especially for younger, single-income families with a couple of kids.
                    I thanked you but want to take some exception with this.

                    I can remember being glad to get tickets in the balcony to see the Pacers. If we are saying that $10 for a balcony ticket is all well and good but the seats are so bad that they aren't worth $10 even when the team is playing decently, there's a real problem with arena design and marketing. I think that problem only exists if expectations are that ANY seat at the game has to be as good or better than the TV broadcast.

                    As one of my favorite folksingers, David Roth, sang:

                    So in a somewhat strident voice I grab my friend and claim
                    "I can't believe they stuck us way up here to watch this game"
                    Immediately the woman to my right does one of these
                    "Just what exactly's wrong with this location?" she decrees

                    "We come to every game" she says "and this is where we sit
                    These are our seasons tickets, sir, and you are full of envy


                    Money is tight, sure, but I think it is perception not reality that a Pacer game for a family of 4 has to be ridiculously more expensive than going out to the movies. I can remember going to games with my dad and not being bought food or souvenirs - I was still glad to go to the game. We're not talking about choosing between a vacation and a Pacer game, or Christmas presents and a Pacer game. We're talking about the difference - if you pay attention to costs - between a Pacer game and 2-3 movies, or a Pacer game and a full (not fast food) dinner out.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: A thought for the new CBA

                      I would love to see a price break down of the stadium.

                      I forgot the NBA had $10 seats (well at least the Pacers do, I do not think the Wizards do)

                      Though to be 100% honest, I had free tix to see the Wizards a few years back in the 400 level, problem is I have a HUGE fear of heights. Anything above the first level and my knees get shaky and palms get sweaty

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A thought for the new CBA

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        ...Money is tight, sure, but I think it is perception not reality that a Pacer game for a family of 4 has to be ridiculously more expensive than going out to the movies. I can remember going to games with my dad and not being bought food or souvenirs - I was still glad to go to the game. We're not talking about choosing between a vacation and a Pacer game, or Christmas presents and a Pacer game. We're talking about the difference - if you pay attention to costs - between a Pacer game and 2-3 movies, or a Pacer game and a full (not fast food) dinner out.
                        At one time or another, I've bypassed sitting in the stands and have attended games sitting in a lot of different areas of the fieldhouse. Among my favorite seats was the first row in the balcony.

                        But, not to be snobbish, there are a lot of folks that I know that simply will not attend a sporting event unless they have what they believe to be "adequate" or "good" tickets. And these are not necessarily people of means.

                        I would agree with anyone who would say that there is really not a horrible seat anywhere in the fieldhouse. But that is something that is sometimes difficult to convey to someone who has never been to Conseco and sat in the balcony. They want what they think are decent seats, but do not want to pay an arm and a leg to get them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A thought for the new CBA

                          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                          I would love to see a price break down of the stadium.

                          I forgot the NBA had $10 seats (well at least the Pacers do, I do not think the Wizards do)

                          Though to be 100% honest, I had free tix to see the Wizards a few years back in the 400 level, problem is I have a HUGE fear of heights. Anything above the first level and my knees get shaky and palms get sweaty
                          Looks like cheapest are $13, not $10.

                          I have a fear of heights and sat in the nosebleeds for the opening night in 1999. The rake is not as steep as a lot of venues, so I didn't have much of a problem with it.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: A thought for the new CBA

                            I believe we've had this conversation before but someone had mentioned a Pacers regular season game is not an event. Playoffs sure, but Wednesday night in January sounds more like a hassle than a treat. Simple fact is people are willing to pay for the once in a while show.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A thought for the new CBA

                              Originally posted by RWB View Post
                              I believe we've had this conversation before but someone had mentioned a Pacers regular season game is not an event. Playoffs sure, but Wednesday night in January sounds more like a hassle than a treat. Simple fact is people are willing to pay for the once in a while show.
                              True. There are too many NBA games. I may pay for a movie I want to see, but I'm not going to go 41 times. Plus, the movie is exactly the same every time (aside from outside things like distractions in the crowd or possible equipment failure) I go see it, whereas a live event like this can be greatly disappointing on any given night. Especially when it's a mediocre or worse team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X