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

End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

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

  • #16
    Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

    Yeah he is getting old. Hard to see him get injured like that last year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
    press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

      I know I used to be vocal that Marvin was done, but the more I think about it the more optimistic I am. I mean, Andrew Bynum is 20 years old and his knee injury has had him out since January. I think it might very well take someone a year to recover from a knee injury as devastating as the one Harrison received.

      But still, he is 36. He obviously can't have that many years left, regardless of whether his knee is sound or not.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

        What is the typical age of a retiring wide receiver?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

          Lets start the James Hardy Chant. We need a big tall receiver

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

            Originally posted by Mal View Post
            What is the typical age of a retiring wide receiver?
            Sadly, many of them hold on way too long, so I'm not sure that's a big help. But production starts to tail off around 34 or so for a lot of guys. Jacksonville's Jimmy Smith, for example, retired at 37, though he had three so-so years -- by his standards -- beforehand.

            And he was a guy that probably got out earlier than most would.

            Cris Carter walked away after the 2002 season at 37, but he had an injury wash out the '02 season and was just a shell in 2001 (73 catches, 871 yards).

            Denver's Rod Smith retired in February, again, at 37. But he didn't play last year and had just 52 catches in 2006.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

              Wide Recievers tend to play a little longer because they can become possession players etc... There are a great number of WR's that have played into their late 30's but generally speaking 32-33 is where most see their productivity waiver and many retire around that time. Bill Brooks, Andre Rison, Al Toon, Herman Moore & Mark Clayton all retired at that age or earlier. But then again there's Kraft's list that excluded Henry Ellard, Art Monk, Irving Fryar, Tim Brown etc.. who all played past 35 and maintained an edge.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                I think that reports of Marvin's demise are vastly overrated. I definitely think he should be able to recover from his injury. He may lose a step but IMO, he'll still be a viable option this season and possibly the next.

                With that said, it's important that the Colts start grooming his future replacement too. Gonzo should be even better this season and it'd be nice to have at least 2 more prospects waiting in the wings.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                  Originally posted by James Bond View Post
                  I think we all just got too used to being really good. Not saying we're bad now, just saying we go so used to everything going right with the offense, when one small thing goes wrong we are more upset than other teams would be.
                  I disagree...kinda. This city has shown, time and time again, that is has no patience for losers, either as a team or individually. Each time a team earns a new accolade, the fan base sets the bar right at that accolade. Eventually, they can no longer top themselves, and the "fans" start grumbling. A couple bad years, and everyone's looking for the next hot thing in the city. When I was a kid it was IU, then IU/Purdue when Glenn Robinson was there. Then it was the Pacers. Now it's the Colts.

                  When the Colts inevitably have to rebuild (it is the NFL, after all), I seriously doubt Lucas Oil Stadium will remain more than half full, especially if the Pacers manage to rebuild and become a contender again.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                    Generally speaking, most WRs retire around 35-37. There are obviously always exceptions..You have the ageless wonder in Joey Galloway who is 37 or 38 and is still the #1 wideout on the Bucs and probably still runs a 4.4. Jerry Rice played effectively until he was 40 and Troy Brown was a great outstanding possession WR for the Pats and hes in his late 30s.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                      Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                      I disagree...kinda. This city has shown, time and time again, that is has no patience for losers, either as a team or individually. Each time a team earns a new accolade, the fan base sets the bar right at that accolade. Eventually, they can no longer top themselves, and the "fans" start grumbling. A couple bad years, and everyone's looking for the next hot thing in the city. When I was a kid it was IU, then IU/Purdue when Glenn Robinson was there. Then it was the Pacers. Now it's the Colts.

                      When the Colts inevitably have to rebuild (it is the NFL, after all), I seriously doubt Lucas Oil Stadium will remain more than half full, especially if the Pacers manage to rebuild and become a contender again.

                      Most cities are that way, Indy is no different.

                      Let's pick on Boston being a bandwagon town for a second. In 2004-2005, the Celtics averaged just 16,001 fans, or 81 % of the arenas 18,624 capacity (and they were actually a playoff team that year).

                      The Pacers that year averaged *more* fans, despite having a smaller stadium! They averaged 16,994 fans, despite having a smaller stadium than Boston (Conseco seats 18,345).

                      So are Bostonians bandwagoners as well? Looks like it. I mean, they had 2,000 empty seats a night 3 years ago, however, this year they sold out every game. That screams bandwagon to me.

                      This is the classic Boston Celtics we are talking about. This is a team that has won 16 championships. This is Larry Bird and Bill Russel's franchise. Yet they play in one of the largest metro areas in the US, which is always said to be one of the best sports town, and they had 2000 empty seats that year?

                      Maybe every city is like that? I'm not trying to pick on Boston, just trying to show that it's not just Indy who loses fans when the team goes downhill.

                      It never ceases to amaze me how people pick on Indy for attendance problems. Indy is one of the smallest metro areas in pro sports, and has millions and millions less people than many of the cities that it competes with, yet has stadiums that are relatively the same size. I'm sure that demand in New York for Knicks tickets has declined, but since New York has like 25 million in the area, the Knicks can almost always find 19,000 people to attend a game....even if demand has fallen by thousands.

                      Indy on the other hand has about 24 million less people than NY metro, but has a stadium that is just a few hundred smaller. So the lack of demand for tickets shows in the seats.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                        Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                        Most cities are that way, Indy is no different.

                        Let's pick on Boston being a bandwagon town for a second. In 2004-2005, the Celtics averaged just 16,001 fans, or 81 % of the arenas 18,624 capacity (and they were actually a playoff team that year).

                        The Pacers that year averaged *more* fans, despite having a smaller stadium! They averaged 16,994 fans, despite having a smaller stadium than Boston (Conseco seats 18,345).

                        So are Bostonians bandwagoners as well? Looks like it. I mean, they had 2,000 empty seats a night 3 years ago, however, this year they sold out every game. That screams bandwagon to me.

                        This is the classic Boston Celtics we are talking about. This is a team that has won 16 championships. This is Larry Bird and Bill Russel's franchise. Yet they play in one of the largest metro areas in the US, which is always said to be one of the best sports town, and they had 2000 empty seats that year?

                        Maybe every city is like that? I'm not trying to pick on Boston, just trying to show that it's not just Indy who loses fans when the team goes downhill.

                        It never ceases to amaze me how people pick on Indy for attendance problems. Indy is one of the smallest metro areas in pro sports, and has millions and millions less people than many of the cities that it competes with, yet has stadiums that are relatively the same size. I'm sure that demand in New York for Knicks tickets has declined, but since New York has like 25 million in the area, the Knicks can almost always find 19,000 people to attend a game....even if demand has fallen by thousands.

                        Indy on the other hand has about 24 million less people than NY metro, but has a stadium that is just a few hundred smaller. So the lack of demand for tickets shows in the seats.
                        I believe you are cherry-picking your numbers. The Pacers attendance numbers were inflated because it was the "support the post-brawl team" team and also Reggie's last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics were one year removed from being "the worst playoff team in the history of the NBA", the Red Sox had won a World Series that November, and the Patriots were in the middle of back to back Lombardi Trophies. I'd say comparing Indy to Boston that year is irrelevant.

                        The Kansas City Chiefs haven't been a playoff contender in years, yet they still sell out Arrowhead every game. San Francisco/Oakland have supported the Warriors despite both losing records and inept management. Ditto for the Sacramento Kings and Seattle Sonics. It took the "Jailblazers" to make Portland fans stay home, and they came back in droves the instant the bad character guys were replaced with lovable losers. The Chicago Cubs sell out almost every game, and they haven't won a title in a century.

                        While the Indy fan base isn't unique, they certainly aren't the norm. It also, in theory should be easier for us to support our teams, because we don't have MLB or NHL teams to steal season ticket dollars. And yet, we haven't managed to support both teams at a high level yet.

                        The only other city that I can think of that's as bad as Indy in terms of jumping on the bandwagon of a winner and jumping off again as soon as they lose is Miami. And I'm not saying the city is full of horrible pro sports fans. That distinction belongs to Atlanta. What I'm saying is that Indianapolis, in general, still has a college sports mindset, where you can use recruiting to have a good program every year and never have to rebuild. Indy sports fans don't really have the stomach for rebuilding, so any time there's some slippage, the fans go away because they aren't used to losing like that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          I believe you are cherry-picking your numbers. The Pacers attendance numbers were inflated because it was the "support the post-brawl team" team and also Reggie's last year. Meanwhile, the Celtics were one year removed from being "the worst playoff team in the history of the NBA", the Red Sox had won a World Series that November, and the Patriots were in the middle of back to back Lombardi Trophies. I'd say comparing Indy to Boston that year is irrelevant.

                          The Kansas City Chiefs haven't been a playoff contender in years, yet they still sell out Arrowhead every game. San Francisco/Oakland have supported the Warriors despite both losing records and inept management. Ditto for the Sacramento Kings and Seattle Sonics. It took the "Jailblazers" to make Portland fans stay home, and they came back in droves the instant the bad character guys were replaced with lovable losers. The Chicago Cubs sell out almost every game, and they haven't won a title in a century.

                          While the Indy fan base isn't unique, they certainly aren't the norm. It also, in theory should be easier for us to support our teams, because we don't have MLB or NHL teams to steal season ticket dollars. And yet, we haven't managed to support both teams at a high level yet.

                          The only other city that I can think of that's as bad as Indy in terms of jumping on the bandwagon of a winner and jumping off again as soon as they lose is Miami. And I'm not saying the city is full of horrible pro sports fans. That distinction belongs to Atlanta. What I'm saying is that Indianapolis, in general, still has a college sports mindset, where you can use recruiting to have a good program every year and never have to rebuild. Indy sports fans don't really have the stomach for rebuilding, so any time there's some slippage, the fans go away because they aren't used to losing like that.
                          Ah, I see. Boston gets an excuse for it's attendance problem, but Indy is just labled as a bandwagon city. It's OK to blame any Celtic attendance woes on the Patriots and Red Sox, but connecting the Pacers attendance woes to the Colts success just means Indy has a fickle fan base? And it's ok for Boston to abandon a team because it's the "worst playoff team ever", yet not OK for INdy to abandon the Pacers because they are lottery bound 2 years in a row? Nice double standards you have going there! Don't you realize the excuses you are using for Boston (other local teams successes, bad teams)are the exact same things you use to call Indy fickle?

                          I'm also confused as to what the Red Sox have to do with anything. They play from April-October and the Celts play from October-April. And it's not like the Red Sox weren't good in the 80's when the Celts were also good. Boston didn't have any trouble supporting them both at the same time back then.

                          Fine, I'll look at 05-06. No post brawl support and no Reggie. That year the Pacers filled Conseco to an 87.5% capacity (16,179) as opposed to the Celtics filling Fleet to a 86.2 % capacity (16,890).

                          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance?year=2006

                          So Boston averaged just 700 more fans a year than the Pacers that year, and left about 2000 empty seats in the stadium per game, despite having 3 million more people than metro Indianapolis.

                          If Indy had 3 million more residents, I honestly don't believe selling Conseco out would be a problem.

                          Last year the Celts filled to just an 85.9 % capacity, then coincidently they fill to 100% this year after getting KG and Ray, and becoming the beast of the east. That doesn't scream bandwagon to you? I thought Boston was like the best sports city in the United States, but it seems to me like they have had a little trouble supporting the team that has won 16 championships.

                          Let's not use the Chicago Cubs as an example. It is totally unfair to compare any team's attendance to the Cubs, because the Cubs are unlike almost anything in pro sports. They are a total way of life, and the losing for 100 years actually seems to make them more lovable. I think it is silly to think "If Chicago can do it with the Cubs, then you should be doing it."

                          The Cubs have been in Chicago longer than any human being has lived. Meanwhile, the Colts have been in Indy for a mere 24 years. When a foreign team comes to a city, it usually takes some time to build a fan base up.

                          I get that Arrowhead sells out. But the Chiefs have been a way of life in Kansas city for 45 years, which is almost twice as long as the Colts have been in Indy.

                          Besides, using Kansas City as an example to how a city supports it's major sports is a complete joke when you look at their support for the Royals. The Royals averaged a mere 19,961 fans last year, or 48% of the stadiums capacity.

                          http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attend...7&seasonType=2

                          Teams like the Cubs, Red Sox, Chiefs, Packers, etc will always have fans because they are a way of life in those cities.

                          Indy has done just fine. It is millions and millions smaller than most cities, yet has stadiums roughly the same size. Every city ride the bandwagon wave to some extent.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-27-2008, 07:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                            Thank you for not mentioning Portland and Seattle, which completely upends your entire argument.

                            But, sure, let's use the 05-06 NBA season. The Pacers won 41 games, making them a 6 seed, and Boston won 33 games, putting them in the lottery. Despite that, the Celtics sold 700 more tickets per game than the Pacers did, right? That doesn't say something about their respective fanbases? It certainly doesn't say what you're trying to convey.

                            And quit using percentages of capacity to try to prove your very shaky point. If the Pistons held their games at Ford Field and sold 22,000 tickets every game, would it make them a bad fan base because they sold less than half the tickets available? Like I said, quit massaging and cherry-picking your stats.

                            What are the numbers for Boston last year and the Pacers the last two years in terms of attendance? Both teams were bad, right?

                            What do the Red Sox have to do with the Celtics? Everything! That is, unless you live in a world where economics haven't been invented and when you buy season tickets for the Red Sox you can also magically afford Celtics tickets, because, you know, they don't play at the same time.

                            You want to use the Royals as an example of Kansas City not supporting the team? Wow, way to make my point for me! The Royals, a team which hasn't sniffed the playoffs since 1985, still sells more tickets per game than the Florida Marlins, who have won two World Series since 1997, and if you look at the history, any time they have anything approaching a chance at .500, they come out in droves. That's not bandwagon hopping, that's supporting a competitive team.

                            Face it, this town only has room in its collective conscious for one pro franchise. You need look no further than the year the Pacers won 61 games. In the years that the Colts sucked, there'd have been a virtual riot to pack Conseco. Instead, we put 16,556 butts in the seats every game. What's even more damning is that the Pacers average attendance that year as a ROAD team was higher than their average attendance as a HOME team. That means that other fans were more interested in seeing us play than our own city.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              Thank you for not mentioning Portland and Seattle, which completely upends your entire argument.

                              But, sure, let's use the 05-06 NBA season. The Pacers won 41 games, making them a 6 seed, and Boston won 33 games, putting them in the lottery. Despite that, the Celtics sold 700 more tickets per game than the Pacers did, right? That doesn't say something about their respective fanbases? It certainly doesn't say what you're trying to convey.
                              It says that Boston has 3 million more people in it's metropolitan area than Indy. It's absolutely pitiful that in 2004-2005 Indy averaged more fans a game then Boston, when Boston has MILLIONS OF MORE PEOPLE TO PULL FROM. It's funny that you harp on Boston averaging a mere 700 more fans in 05-06 while completely ignoring the fact that Boston has 3 more million people to pull from.

                              But like I said, you use excuses for Boston (Red Sox, Pats, lousy teams), yet use those same reasons to call Indy "fickle."

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                              And quit using percentages of capacity to try to prove your very shaky point. If the Pistons held their games at Ford Field and sold 22,000 tickets every game, would it make them a bad fan base because they sold less than half the tickets available? Like I said, quit massaging and cherry-picking your stats.
                              You're right. Using percent capacity would be silly if Boston had an arena that sat 50,000 and Indy had one that sat 18,000. But that's not how it is. Boston and Indy both have arenas that are in the 18,000's, so it is COMPLETELY RELEVANT TO USE % CAPACITY. And in the years I talked about, they were both in the 80's and Indy hung right there with them despite having millions of less people but a stadium that is the same size. That doesn't throw up a red flag to you? Boston, the team of Larry Bird and Bill Russell averaged roughly the same percent capacity in arenas the same size as the ole Indiana Pacers. That's inexcusable.

                              You're going to have to do far better than that weak argument. You're acting like Boston has an arena that is 5 times as big as Indy's, but in reality it's only a few hundred bigger. And since Boston has millions of more people in it, I think it is relevant to discuss percent capacities.

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                              What are the numbers for Boston last year and the Pacers the last two years in terms of attendance? Both teams were bad, right?

                              What do the Red Sox have to do with the Celtics? Everything! That is, unless you live in a world where economics haven't been invented and when you buy season tickets for the Red Sox you can also magically afford Celtics tickets, because, you know, they don't play at the same time.
                              I guess I am living in a world where economics don't exist, because Bostonians *ARE* "magically" all of the sudden affording Celts tickets now that they're good.(along with Pats and Sox). If people in Boston are so cash-strapped, then why have the Celtics conveniently sold all of their games out this year in which they win 60+ games (along with the Red Sox who continue their streak)? Did everyone in Boston all of the sudden get higher paying jobs in the last year, or are they jumping on the bandwagon? I'll go with the latter. You make it sound like it's financially impossible to go to Red Sox, Pats, and Celts games, but please try again. This year totally proves your point to be false.

                              It's funny how your economic reasoning (which I just showed was false) only applies for Boston. I've never seen you make those same excuses for Indy, instead you just rip it for being a fickle city. Do people in Indy not have jobs/families/other commitments as well? And actually, I think Boston is one of the more wealthy metro areas in the US, and it's certainly more wealthy than Indianapolis.

                              Edit: Boston is the 5th wealthiest large metro area in the US

                              http://ruennsheng.wordpress.com/2008...opolitan-area/

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post

                              You want to use the Royals as an example of Kansas City not supporting the team? Wow, way to make my point for me! The Royals, a team which hasn't sniffed the playoffs since 1985, still sells more tickets per game than the Florida Marlins, who have won two World Series since 1997, and if you look at the history, any time they have anything approaching a chance at .500, they come out in droves. That's not bandwagon hopping, that's supporting a competitive team.

                              Face it, this town only has room in its collective conscious for one pro franchise. You need look no further than the year the Pacers won 61 games. In the years that the Colts sucked, there'd have been a virtual riot to pack Conseco. Instead, we put 16,556 butts in the seats every game. What's even more damning is that the Pacers average attendance that year as a ROAD team was higher than their average attendance as a HOME team. That means that other fans were more interested in seeing us play than our own city.
                              Face it, this town is one of the smallest pro sport markets in the United States. It might even be the smallest multi sport city. Indy has stadiums that are relatively the same size as everyone else, yet millions of less people to pull from. And with the Colts, Indy has had to win over fans that were loyal to teams like the Bears or Bengals. It's not like KC or Green Bay where that's the only team people know. You can't just build a huge fan base over night.

                              Using population isn't an excuse, it's common sense.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-28-2008, 12:40 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: End near for wideout Harrison in Indy?

                                We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Indy is a small market, but so is Kansas City, and so is Milwaulkee. And both of those cities have proven that they will support two teams as long as both are competitive. I'm not convinced we have.

                                The only other thing I'd like to comment on is your belief that pro sports franchises don't compete against each other in the same city. If someone spends $300 on an authentic Peyton Manning jersey, that comes directly out of their household spending. That has a bearing on if they can afford a Danny Granger jersey later in the year. And while the larger markets have a larger base they can draw upon, it still, in the end, boils down to entertainment dollars and how you budget them into your household planning. My stance is that fans will sacrifice elsewhere to support multiple teams if they are really beholden to them. Maybe they put off buying a new car, maybe they buy a smaller house. But some markets have people who will sacrifice to support multiple teams, and others don't. I'd say ours is one that doesn't.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X