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

Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

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

  • #16
    Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

    Originally posted by Bball
    And as a last thought for this go 'round... Could it be the Pistons and their fans actually did have their image hurt by 11/19 even tho the league went out of their way to minimize damage to Detroit and put the focus on Indiana?

    -Bball
    I don't see what you're getting at. I HIGHLY doubt 11/19 has anything whatsoever to do with the finals ratings, although I'm sure some people would love to hear that.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

      Originally posted by Bball
      And let's consider whether the 'star' marketing (as well as 'star' rules... IE: Cutting them slack in the games) have possibly had an effect on the casual fans as well).
      I'm positive it has. Every basketball fan I talk to who is a big fan of college ball hates the NBA. It's not even "real basketball" to them anymore. And you know what? I don't defend this game. Not when I see crappy officiating, star-treatment, traveling galore, a game that allows physicality with no whistle when a whistle is warranted. Then you have 'stars' being hyped as rookies, and the ones that are veterans are viewed as either spoiled kids who get paid too much, or they have bad reps. When I take all that into consideration, I feel like I'm a Pacers fan, but not an NBA fan. I get enjoyment from it, but I don't respect it.

      And as a last thought for this go 'round... Could it be the Pistons and their fans actually did have their image hurt by 11/19 even tho the league went out of their way to minimize damage to Detroit and put the focus on Indiana?

      -Bball
      I'm sure it did, but I don't think it effected the marketing of the league. Everyone I talked to or heard from about it who aren't really basketball/NBA fans all essentially said "That's Detroit for you". The rep was already there, 11/19 just dragged a highliter across it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

        Yes, the Super Bowl is hype. But that doesn't account for the other 6 months of the NFL.

        College football is also all about the teams, or to be more specific, the rivalries. Their postseason is abysmal, and there are still a good number of people who would say College Football deserves to be mentioned in the Big Four a lot more than MLB, NBA, or NHL.

        I'll get into the problems with the marketing of the individual later.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

          Interesting discussion.

          There are two different topics here.

          1) Why doesn't the NBA get better ratings. Even the highest rated NBA Finals of alltime got a fraction of the ratings the NFL gets.

          2) Why are the ratings lower when the big name stars aren't in the finals. In other words why are the ratings lower now than when Jordan was in every year.

          Did you know game #7 between the Pacers and Bulls in 1998 received higher ratings than any NBA game since 1999, finals included.

          As far as the late start hurting ratings. That is a myth, that simply is not true. Any ratings loss that might occur because the game end at midnight on the east coast is more than made up by viewers on the west coast. That is why Monday Night Football starts at 9:00 and often is not over until 12:30. The World Series does start a little earlier but the games are so long they rarely are over before 11:30 or midnight.
          The later the start the better the ratings.

          One of the biggest differences with viewing patterns for the NBA v NFL or even baseball. The hometown cities get similar ratings. In other words, if the Yankees and Minnesota Twins are in the world series the ratings in those two cites are about the same as they would be if the T-Wolves were playing the Knicks. But the ratings let's say in Boston for the same teams would be a much lower for the NBA than for baseball. And football is even a greater difference. In Boston these NBA finals are getting ratings in the 3's.

          As far as marketing the stars. I don't know. The NBA is very different. Stars are more important to winning in the NBA, the stars are involved in every single play. No other sport even comes close. Even the QB only plays half the game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

            I don't like star marketing in the NBA at all. It has worked though and it's tough to say it's been bad for the league. But here's why I don't like it. In part at least it's responsible for:

            - Preferential treatment for star players by the refs in games. This is my biggest gripe. I don't know if Stern has ever told a ref, "Be careful about blowing a whistle on a big name - a Jordan - that might take him out of the game." I DO know he's told refs that the league's about it's stars.

            - Refs - not all but a big portion - being intimidated by the star players. Again, it's hammered into the refs that it's s star's league. They're insignificant by comparison.

            - By the above, until last season, outstanding, star players with a mediocre supporting class (see the final Lakers championship team) had a better chance of winning a title than great teams, such as Detroit.

            The following is more in the "it bugs me but I can live with it" category:

            - A very transitory fan base. Fans who follow Jordan, not the Bulls. Or David Robinson, not the Spurs. When the player retires, they quit following the game. The NBA has been desperately searching for the post-Jordan messiah and I'm sure they hope they've found him in Lebron. We've all seen it in the forum - I'm here because XXX player has been traded to the Pacers. On the Knick forum we have a guy named Zekefan - guess why he's there? For chuckles, he still says Detroit will be sorry they chose Dumars over Isiah as GM. Evidently, the NBA doesn't care about these fans as long as they think they can pull new ones in with a new set of stars.

            The thing is, I don't think the star marketing is necessary. It works - it's one way to do it - but the NFL doesn't. Not much. Fans there are mostly fans of teams, not stars. How many Cowboys fans said they were Emmit Smith fans? How many Steeler fans said they were Terry Bradshaw or Lynn Swann fans? Doesn't happen. Star marketing is one way to sell your sport but it isn't the only way.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              Interesting discussion.

              There are two different topics here.

              1) Why doesn't the NBA get better ratings. Even the highest rated NBA Finals of alltime got a fraction of the ratings the NFL gets.

              2) Why are the ratings lower when the big name stars aren't in the finals. In other words why are the ratings lower now than when Jordan was in every year.

              Did you know game #7 between the Pacers and Bulls in 1998 received higher ratings than any NBA game since 1999, finals included.

              As far as the late start hurting ratings. That is a myth, that simply is not true. Any ratings loss that might occur because the game end at midnight on the east coast is more than made up by viewers on the west coast. That is why Monday Night Football starts at 9:00 and often is not over until 12:30. The World Series does start a little earlier but the games are so long they rarely are over before 11:30 or midnight.
              The later the start the better the ratings.

              One of the biggest differences with viewing patterns for the NBA v NFL or even baseball. The hometown cities get similar ratings. In other words, if the Yankees and Minnesota Twins are in the world series the ratings in those two cites are about the same as they would be if the T-Wolves were playing the Knicks. But the ratings let's say in Boston for the same teams would be a much lower for the NBA than for baseball. And football is even a greater difference. In Boston these NBA finals are getting ratings in the 3's.

              As far as marketing the stars. I don't know. The NBA is very different. Stars are more important to winning in the NBA, the stars are involved in every single play. No other sport even comes close. Even the QB only plays half the game.

              Well, the NFL only has 16 games, so each game is a big deal. There is a build up the whole week amongst fans for their teams game. Every game is huge in an NFL season. In the NBA, it doesn't matter if you blow off a couple games here and there, it's a long season. You can't do that in the NFL.

              Somehow, the Superbowl has become almost a national holiday. I think it gets huge ratings because it is a reasonable excuse to get together with friends and throw a party. For a lot of people, it's the party, not the game that matters.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                Saying that the low rating for this year's Finals somehow proves that team marketing vs. star marketing is a failure doesn't make sense to me. At what point until the Finals teams were set was any team marketing done? It seems to me that we still saw Shaq and LeBron and T-Mac being hyped, not the teams that were at the top of the conferences throughout the season. To me, it only proves that star marketing fails when none of the teams with the stars make the Finals ... and that's a "duh" moment.

                Before anyone concludes that team marketing would fail, let's figure out if the NBA has even bothered to try it since the heady days of MJ.
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                  Comparing the Super Bowl ratings to anything is unfair. It is not sorta like a national holiday, it is a national holiday. I dare you to try to not what the Super Bowl next year. I'm not talking about being at a Super Bowl party and not looking at the TV, I'm talking about totally doing something else. I've tried and after I decline about 3 Super Bowl part invitations, I gave up.

                  But it is fair to compare the NFC and AFC championship games to other sporting events. The highest rated NBA game ever was 1988 game #7 between the Pistons and Lakers, it got I believe a 21 rating. (that is not the largest audience because the population increases every season) But the NFC and AFC typically get ratings in the lower 30's.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                    Originally posted by BillS
                    Before anyone concludes that team marketing would fail, let's figure out if the NBA has even bothered to try it since the heady days of MJ.
                    When I first started typing my first post in this thread this is one of the thoughts I wanted to hit on. Re-reading what I wrote I never got around to it as I touched on some other stuff...

                    You hit the nail on the head of one of the major prongs in the topic.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                      One thing I'm confused about. Everyone always says, the league markets so and so. The league pushes players on us. The league does not market teams they market stars.

                      Besides the "I love this game" commercials which I don't believe have been on for a few years. Aren't the other commercials done by ABC, ESPN, or TNT. Aren't the shoe commecials done by private shoe companies. Who picks the national TV games, isn't that a joint venture between the league and TNT, and ABC/ESPN.

                      So when everyone says Lebron James is marketed "by the NBA" isn't it Nike, or whatever co wants him in their commercials and isn't it TNT, ABC, ESPN who wants him on TV.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                        I have no problem with the promotion of "stars." It's when it crosses the line into gameplay (star treatment) that it gets out of control.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck
                          One thing I'm confused about. Everyone always says, the league markets so and so. The league pushes players on us. The league does not market teams they market stars.

                          Besides the "I love this game" commercials which I don't believe have been on for a few years. Aren't the other commercials done by ABC, ESPN, or TNT. Aren't the shoe commecials done by private shoe companies. Who picks the national TV games, isn't that a joint venture between the league and TNT, and ABC/ESPN.

                          So when everyone says Lebron James is marketed "by the NBA" isn't it Nike, or whatever co wants him in their commercials and isn't it TNT, ABC, ESPN who wants him on TV.
                          UB,
                          You could very well be right but then that (to me) shows exactly where the NBA is dropping the ball and not running their own ads to counter that. IOW, the shoe company and the fast food joint might push a player upon us BUT the leage should understand that player, while possibly getting more popular, might not make the Finals. He might not even make the playoffs. Therefore, it is imperative that they (NBA) make sure and shine the spotlight on a the teams of the league. They should also do a better job of making sure unbiased officiating comes into play and that the game is understandable (IE: A charge should be a charge and a block should be a block and called as properly as possible and not based on the number of the jersey of a player involved).

                          They also need to counter the 'star' advertising of 'pushed' stars.... players who haven't really risen to the level of the hype and publicity they are receiving.

                          And getting some understanding that the "little things" on the court are generally not all that "little" and typically have more of an affect on the games than the windmill 360deg slam that Sportscenter shows over and over. I think many basketball purists already know that. Casual fans, and younger viewers, don't always know that.

                          They also don't need to turn off basketball purists who see the NBA game as more WWF than actual sporting event. You can't make a team game totally about the stars to the point of giving them special priveledges and not expect some backlash.


                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck
                            One thing I'm confused about. Everyone always says, the league markets so and so. The league pushes players on us. The league does not market teams they market stars.

                            Besides the "I love this game" commercials which I don't believe have been on for a few years. Aren't the other commercials done by ABC, ESPN, or TNT. Aren't the shoe commecials done by private shoe companies. Who picks the national TV games, isn't that a joint venture between the league and TNT, and ABC/ESPN.

                            So when everyone says Lebron James is marketed "by the NBA" isn't it Nike, or whatever co wants him in their commercials and isn't it TNT, ABC, ESPN who wants him on TV.
                            This is a very good point, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to answer it.

                            Marketing isn't all commercials, it is the way the games and players are presented, commented on, and pushed.

                            The product companies need the star power, so the star commercials will always exist. Perhaps the better way to state the problem is that the league doesn't do enough to promote the teams in order to overcome the star perception.

                            There are a lot of ways the league could increase team-oriented promotions and decrease the star perception. These would filter into the way the media promote games.

                            The object would not be to completely end the popularity of individual players, but to increase the popularity of the game as a whole, so that franchises without stars can prosper.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                              I went ahead and fixed your formatting issue.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Should the NBA go away from "star" advertising

                                But it was still Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, etc. Then it became Jordan, Pippen, Etc,etc.

                                Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                                You have to go for the stars I believe.

                                What saved the NBA in the 1980's? It was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. They were 2 easily marketable stars that attracted the masses. And of course, in the 90's you had the great Michael Jordan, who brought the league ratings.

                                The ratings for this years finals are awful. Nothing against the Spurs or Pistons, but that's just the way it is. Only true basketball fans care about watching this series. It takes flashy stars, something both of these teams lack, to draw large ratings from "casual" watchers. The ratings for this series should tell you that the NBA should not try to market teams. Just think of how much better they'd be with a Miami-Phoenix matchup. The top 2 MVP vote getters in Nash and Shaquille. 2 of the best young players in the game in Wade in Amare.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X