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 series of questions....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 16
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 16 template Next
  • #1

    A series of questions....

    Ok, everybody I want to explain something up front before I start.

    Frankly I want to turn over a new leaf, I want to put the past 7 seasons behind me and just jump headlong into the future of our club.

    In doing this I want to make a commitment to myself, I want to stop talking about Ron Artest, Jon Bender, Jermaine O'Neal, the 61 win season, Brad Miller, the brawl, Donnie Walsh, etc., etc.

    I'm not saying that I know I will hold true to this but I want to try.

    But I know before I even try to do this that there are several several posts left in me on these topics. So instead of trying to supress them and have them boil over at some point in time in the future, I think what I want to do is have a series of posts where I ask some questions and get feedback from people and also I will give my opinion.

    My goal is to have this done by the end of Summer so that when we go to camp I want to be focusing on the future.

    I say this because for the first time in 7 seasons I feel that the future is bright and there is no one on the team that I either dislike or frankly hate.

    I may end up just talking to myself here as I'm sure most of you are bored with seeing me talk about this stuff anyway. But I want to try it this way just to see if it works. If nothing else it will be something to talk about.

    So upfront I want to warn people. I am not going to hold back, in fact I am going to be the exact opposite of holding back on these because like I said I want to let it all out and let it go.

    So fair warning to Arcadian, Anthem and a few others of you that tend to frown whenever I express strong opinions. Enter this at your own risk. You will be seeing me say some things you won't like.

    I will start this series off with something that we discussed at the forum party.

    Frankly I did a p!ss poor job of getting this one out there because of my timing and by trying to combine to many topics all at once.

    I won't bother to rehash how it went bad at the party, I will just try and refocus here.

    STATEMENT

    While I believe that the economy, the winning % and apathy played a major portion into fans lack of attendance last season I also believe that there was a % of fans, no matter how small, that chose to punish the franchise for years of intollerable off court and on court behavior.

    I specifically believe that a certain % of fans were not punishing the franchise just because of player problems, but they were specifically punishing the management of the team and owners of the team for what they felt was breeding an environment where the players felt comfortable to have the off court on court issues.

    I do NOT believe that it was just one thing. Yes many people were upset about the brawl and 8 second saloon and club rio, etc., etc. etc.

    But I believe that it was a culmination of these events coupled with both the owners and Donnie Walsh using lawyer speak instead of taking decisive action against the players.

    Now I don't want to get into semantics about due process or mob mentallity. Those are all valid issues, but the empty seats spoke loud and clear as well.

    So far we have been told that this season they have already significantly improved ticket sales.

    This has been done without one more win on the board and without our economy making a major rebound.

    THE QUESTIONS

    1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?

    2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?

    3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?

    4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?

    5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?

    Ok, that is the first part of the quesiton section.

    Now I want a second section in this, probably could go up above but I want to seperate them.

    Here is where I will draw the fire, but in the spirit of my wanting to be free of all of this I will only say this. Bring it on.

    STATEMENT

    I do NOT feel as though the owners of the Pacers or their subordinate Donnie Walsh ever took any real responsibility for the brawl, nor any of the ensuing off court incidents.

    I speak only for myself here, I do not know if any other fan feels this way or not.

    Frankly I was ashamed of our club the night of the brawl but I was even more ashamed at the reaction of the upper tier in handling this.

    BillS made a wonderful point at the party in defense of Donnie and I absolutely agree with him. However in his defense of Walsh it also pointed out to me why I could not stand the way they reacted to the incidents.

    Remember now I am not just talking about the brawl itself, I'm talking about the culmanation of all of the events.

    Anyway, BillS point was that Donnie treated his players exactly how we would want our management or boss to treat us.

    That is an admirable quality btw, and frankly Walsh was always great about this. However Donnie for the majority of his career here dealt with grown men who acted like grown men. Sadly, IMO, the last seven years he was dealing with children and spoiled children at that. What was an admirable trait turned around and bit him in the @ss. Whether it was Ron continuing his assinine ways or Jamaal or any number of other players. Donnie was always patient, considerate and first to defend his players. Again noble traits to be sure.

    But there comes a point in time where people no longer deserve your defense and I think Walsh didn't realize it till it was to little to late.

    We had this great argument at the party about whether or not the Pacers ever took any responsibilty for the brawl. Duke Dynamite came up with some artcile that just said the Walsh apologized for thier part in the low point of sports. However reading furthing into that article, which I can't find now but I know someone will post to prove me wrong, I read every excuse in the world other than our players being in the wrong. I have since looked up all of Herb Simons quotes on the brawl and he is even worse that Walsh, frankly if he never spoke of the brawl again it would be a good idea. He states that we are going to back our players all the way.

    Now here comes the second part of my questions and understand I have no intention of rehashing the brawl, but if it happens then so be it.


    1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?

    2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?

    3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?

    4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?

    5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?

    There, feel free to answer whatever you want and feel free to flame away at me.

    Again, my goal is to talk about this now so that soon I will never have to talk about this again.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A series of questions....

    Nothing I really want to reply to, because that was then and this is now. Still a good post!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A series of questions....

      "Frankly I was ashamed of our club the night of the brawl but I was even more ashamed at the reaction of the upper tier in handling this."

      Most of the time in this forum I just post an occasional "Go Pacers" type of post. However, I feel that I must react to this. After the game, the analysts in the studio were doing things like calling the Detroit fan punks and saying that it was an outrage for there to be no security. It was not until the next day that anyone started blaming the Pacers. I am embarrassed that we as Pacer fans, and the team management, let the league and the media get away with this. The day after the attack I sent the following letter to Stern. I stand behind what I say in this letter and am real tired of the Pacers being blamed without any of the blame being levied on the Pistons, their fans, or their lack of security, not to mention the horrible job of handling this by the refs. Do I think Ron did the right thing, no....However, if you throw a cup full of beer into my face I'm going to react. Now considering that I haven't been in a fight for better than 40 years, that is quite a statement.

      David Stern November 21, 2004
      Commissioner NBA
      Olympic Tower,
      ffice:smarttags" />645 5th Ave.
      lace w:st="on">New York, NY 10022lace>
      fficeffice" />>>
      Dear Sir:
      >>
      As I write this I am awaiting word of your actions in regards to the basket ball game between the Pacers and the Pistons last Friday night. I realize this will not reach you in time to affect that decision but I feel moved to make my feelings known. I saw several things in this game that I have never seen in an NBA game. The security was non-existent, the only police I saw were standing out at the center of the floor. I saw a stadium security or usher punching Ron Artest from behind. I saw no effort by either the Pistons team or the Stadium officials to break up the fights or to protect the players. This is an outrage! Based on the provocation involved I feel that the FIRST thing you should do is suspend NBA basketball operations in lace w:st="on">Detroitlace> until the Palace and the Pistons can guarantee the safety of players from opposing teams. Unless you do this you are sending the message to those fans who started the incident that they can affect the outcome of the NBA season (in their teams favor) by starting provoking a fight with the players.
      >>
      AFTER you deal with the Pistons, then you should levy the expected suspensions against Artest, Jackson and Wallace. Jermain O’Neal should not be punished as he was the victim of a felonious assault when the chair was thrown at him. He was simply acting in self defense. Based on what has been done in the past I would think that 10 games for Artest, 15 games for lace w:st="on">Jacksonlace> (he was not provoked like Artest) and 10 game for Wallace for starting the whole thing would be a proper action.
      >>
      Regards,
      >>
      Go Pacers!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A series of questions....

        There's too much to digest right now to properly address everything but I'll talk about the brawl a bit.

        IMHO the Pacers found the one true WRONG way to handle it. TPTB actually found a way to handle it half-assed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with that. They ended up making it easy for the league to solely steamroll the franchise, and frankly, gave them a good reason to do it (because we weren't doing anything ourselves).

        IMHO TPTB should've been far more active on the PR front.

        As part of that, I believe they should've gotten out in front on the punishments and handed down our own punishments and put some public pressure on Detroit to do likewise and share in the blame. Our punishments should've come before Stern ever set before the mic and announced the league's decision. If anything, TPTB should've been begging and pleading with Stern to allow for the smoke to clear while the press and public disected our own self-imposed penalties (and whatever pressure we could share with Detroit), before making his own official decision and announcement. Buying a couple of days for a cool-down period wouldn't have hurt anyone.

        I'm not saying we should've given Artest 5 games and hoped that was good enough. I'm saying we should've handed out our own very serious penalties... but stopping short of totally gutting the team or even suspending Artest for the season. And with the team enforced suspensions add some anger management and medical interventions. Require Artest to actually meet some goals before his reinstatement.

        MAYBE Stern STILL would've cracked down on the Pacers the way he did.... But IMHO had we taken serious responsibility up front there's at least some chance he doesn't add to the suspensions or if he does, he gets put in a bad PR light by the public and press considering them too draconian or one-sided in light of the Pacers' own upfront and quick handling of the issue.

        But since the Pacers essentially did nothing, they left Stern with a clean slate to work with. ...And we were certainly the best option to take the entire hit. If you can minimize the NBA amd NBA champion's role in this and let the Pacers take the fall, you do it.

        EDIT: I also should add- You don't stop with the PR effort there and then pretend nothing happened. The next step would be cleaning up some of the mess that allowed the situation to brew in the first place and you do that either at the trade deadline or in the offseason. The Pacers did none of that either.
        Last edited by Bball; 07-16-2008, 04:43 AM.
        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

        • #5
          Re: A series of questions....

          Not to spoil Peck's fun -- by all means, have at your answer searching -- but, personally, I wonder what percentage of fans have out-and-out moved on from the whole thing. And moreover, how long ago did that happen?

          I know I did ... probably at least two years ago. I know what I saw, I know what I read and I know how I felt about it. I just didn't have a desire to punish myself over it.

          Any leftovers we've had since the troubled period ... well, I've known they were on borrowed time. This whole sequence of the past few years have been easy to predict. I couldn't have told you what players and exact results, but the end result seemed inevitable.

          Some answers, though.

          -- Absolutely some of the changes have resulted in a ticket upswing. Basketball didn't suddenly become more popular. You can write it off.

          -- No, the record was not the only reason for last year's attendance. That's silly.

          -- Economy alone? Nope. That's silly, too. There's always a ton of reasons for changes like that.

          -- Artest, Jackson and O'Neal are gone. That's all I need to know. It doesn't seem like it can be that simple. But it can be.

          -- The owners, and by proxy, the GM, aren't always in the business of doing the right thing. There could've been tons of reasons they reacted the way they did to the brawl. No. 1? They hadn't been in that situation before. They're human.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A series of questions....

            I remember the night of the brawl and it just ends up depressing me. For once Ron actually backed away from Wallace and everything was fine, sure Ron laying on the scorer's table was a bit much but enough to get stuff thrown at him? Back then I was willing to defend everyone on that team for any action they took cause it was just chaos and there is no telling what anybody would do given the situation. The night of the media seemed to be blaming both teams equally(IIRC), then down the road ron went even more crazy even wanting to box wallace and then eventually asking for his trade, jackson had his off-court issues along with cussing out rick, tinsley became the bum that he is, and having off-court incidents of his own. While the pistons went on to being a dominant team and have no problems afterwords, which in retrospect made it easy for the media to paint us as the bad guys.

            I think that's what ticked me off the most not the brawl but the fact that the fans stood by the team and then the team made the fans look like idiots for ever defending them. I also think our lack of success mixed with having to see reggie leave without a ring amongst all that was going on with the team jaded a lot of the fans.

            I'm sure as far as fans showing up the economy did have something to do with it as it has all over the country but the way the team has performed/behaved in recent years probably made the decision a little easier.

            I really don't want to forget about these hard times as a pacers fan. I think it will make the good times that are yet to come that much sweeter.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: A series of questions....

              A couple of quick points I want to make before I step away.

              1. Remember I am speaking of all of the issues, not just the brawl. Don't let the fact that the second part of my questions focused on the brawl distract from the fact that I am speaking about all of the incidents.

              2. I agree that a large portion of fans have moved on, moved on quite awhile ago and never want to look back. This is just my way of trying to do this as well.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: A series of questions....

                1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?

                No

                2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                No

                3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                No

                4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?

                No

                5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?

                Simply the Mrs. and I did not like the Indiana Pacers anymore. As many of you already know we've been going to Pacer games as a married couple since 1980. And after all those years we may have shook our heads in amazement on how bad they were during the Irvine years but we were never ashamed. We still went to the games when they were winning only 20 games.

                This last year we got more enjoyment waiving at Gnome and Hicks in 212 from our seats in 216. And as many know from private conversations we still went to games only because frankly we had the tickets and we couldn't even give them away in the Terre Haute area. We would usually drive to Plainfield and check out Metropolis shopping center for awhile. After the first quarter we would finally head on in to Indy and make it there at the start of the 3rd quarter. Shoot we were still paying the 8 buck parking fee so the economy factor while irritating still did not keep us away.

                You know I can't say we were trying to punish management or make some kind of statement especially since they already had our money. It is just hard for me to think as much as we love the Pacers they were able to make us loathe them that much.

                Back to the sunshine however. That's what was great about this forum party. You could sense it, people were smiling, put away the dour depressed feelings from the last ones because it was obvious there is a new direction and it's ok to put on those blue and gold shirts again (though hell we're diehard Pacer fans and never put them away in the first place

                P.S. On the brawl....Peck my friend I'm over it and have been for awhile. We've always pretty much been on the same page when it comes to Walsh and you know I believe the Donald should have had dirty knees after kissing Larry Brown's butt so much for saving his job.
                Last edited by RWB; 07-16-2008, 09:34 AM.
                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

                • #9
                  Re: A series of questions....

                  This is good stuff for a slow off-season.

                  1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased . . . what reasons are there?
                  There are as many answers as there are empty seats. A full house at Conseco includes a wide variety of diehards, blowhards, blind followers, lap dogs, casual fans, company seat users, free ticket users, one-time visitors, fans of the visiting team, people who came for the love of basketball, people who came for the love of giant foam fingers and thunder sticks, people who thought Reggie Miller was still on the team, people who came because their child was performing in the pre-game show, etc. There can't be a single answer. And quite honestly the answer of the diehard, multi-year season-ticket holders is no more important to the Pacers bottom line than the answers of those other people.

                  I've felt all along that character was vital. I disagreed with Seth and others who said that winning was the only thing that matters. We now have a resurgence of interest in and support for the team during an offseason, without a single additional win. So it becomes clear that character has played a part in that resurgence. I was right. Would the Winning-With-Thugs plan have also succeeded? Maybe. But the answer given by RWB just above mine suggests not. We'll never know.

                  The economy does not explain a drop in ticket sales. People were not spending LESS on Pacers games because they couldn't afford it. They were spending their money on DIFFERENT things because the Pacers were unappealing. I want you to understand that the people of Marion County spend over $2 billion a year on amusements. To sell out 41 home games at Conseco (average ticket price $48) would take only about $34 million.

                  At most, the Pacers are seeking to capture 1.7% of the recreational spending of Marion County, and the area from which the Pacers draw attendance is actually much larger than Marion County. Isn't it evident that there is plenty of money out there? If the Pacers don't get enough of it, it is their fault, and not the fault of the economy.

                  Last point: recreational spending overall dropped in Q2 of this year. It was the first drop in a long time (I can look it up if anyone demands to know). And it was during that decline in recreational spending that interest in and support for the Pacers has begun to rebound. Less total money spent on recreation: more spent on the Pacers, even while they they continue to look like a 35-40 game winner.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 07-16-2008, 09:31 AM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: A series of questions....

                    1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?
                    I am just going to briefly (I think) asnwer all your questions. I question if we really know ticket sales are increasing. We have heard tickets were sold at the draft party, and I think we can assume tickets have sold OK since. But one thing to keep in mind is a lot of businesses are cutting back on expenses, and probably Pacers tickets. So maybe while the sale to the general public is going well, sales to companies is probably dropping off. So I guess I'm not expecting tickets sold to be any better that last season. Probably fewer no-shows though

                    But to address your question, I think the trade of JO and the realization that Jamaal will follow has fans excited.


                    2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?
                    No, it was a big reason though. The amazing thing is how many people think that 36 wins is a horrible -


                    3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?
                    No, it wasn't much of the reason at all. Most tickets are sold before the season starts and the economy wasn't that bad last summer and early fall. Economy will be a bigger factor for this upcoming season.


                    4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?
                    No, not at all.


                    5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?
                    The brawl, the overall feeling that the players were thugs and that they weren't very good players either.




                    1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?
                    Dead wrong


                    2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?
                    I'm sure others believe as you do, but I don't think it is very widespread. But probably more accurately, fans don't think it through quite as far as you - fans know who is on the team and they blame the Pacers for that - whether they take responsibility - doesn't matter too much to most people. But when the players are no longer on the roster people notice that


                    3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?
                    I have heard you and Diamond mention about how unpopular Artest was at the fieldhouse. I never ever saw any indication that he was unpopular. Oh sure some didn't like him - but most fans were big fans of his until he asked to be traded. In fact I think he was more popiular at the fieldhouse than he was online.


                    4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?
                    No, his actions directly helped esculate things


                    5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?
                    No, he didn't start it, but he threw a security guard over the scorers table and rushed in to punch that one fan. In order of Pacers responsible - Artest - Jackson then JO. (I won't get into Pistons or Pistons fans responsibilities.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-16-2008, 09:26 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: A series of questions....

                      1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?
                      I think having moved most of the players involved in past issues and bringing in som enew exciting players is helping drive sales. I know I am planning on attending games again this year after skipping the last several.

                      2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?
                      no

                      3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?
                      no

                      4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?
                      no

                      5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?
                      I tend to think it is a combo of the economy, a bad team, and the lingering effects of many years of player issues that have contributed to this.
                      1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?
                      No, I agree with you. I think history shows that as the probelms just continued.

                      5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?
                      I do kind of feel that way, the little punk he KO'd came on the court in a riot. Jax and Artest earned there suspensions going into the stands, though I kind of understand where Jax was coming from, but I also can see the leagues point, the rest was bogus. The Pistons got off way to light compared to the Pacers, Stern wanted a quick scapegoat and he picked the Pacers.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: A series of questions....

                        Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                        I remember the night of the brawl and it just ends up depressing me. For once Ron actually backed away from Wallace and everything was fine, sure Ron laying on the scorer's table was a bit much but enough to get stuff thrown at him? Back then I was willing to defend everyone on that team for any action they took cause it was just chaos and there is no telling what anybody would do given the situation. The night of the media seemed to be blaming both teams equally(IIRC), then down the road ron went even more crazy even wanting to box wallace and then eventually asking for his trade, jackson had his off-court issues along with cussing out rick, tinsley became the bum that he is, and having off-court incidents of his own. While the pistons went on to being a dominant team and have no problems afterwords, which in retrospect made it easy for the media to paint us as the bad guys.
                        I think a huge problem with the brawl was that it broadcast internationally live. Living in Australia I never missed a Pacers game when they were broadcast on ESPN. Back then I was lucky enough to get one every couple of weeks. The brawl game happened to be the one they broadcasted live and I can tell you since the brawl there has been 2 games played on our airwaves.
                        Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: A series of questions....

                          If you’re trying to fill a swimming pool with a garden hose and you realize the hose is full of leaks and all you’re doing is pumping water on the ground…

                          You shut the freaking hose off. You use the water someplace else.

                          You can make the case the collection of guys on the Pacer team that lost control in Detroit were maybe good enough to win it all. But at this point it’s clear even if that was true they didn’t have the character to do so. Not even close.

                          So what. They gambled and it didn’t work out and they didn’t respond well as an organization.

                          It remains to be seen whether they still have the ability to work out of this. It’s not a given. They may suck for the next 30 years.

                          People feel good about steps taken but they have a looooooong way to go to get back to what they once enjoyed.

                          They need to catch a break with talent. They need the next special player who can get them back and they need smart enough people to keep talent flowing around him to build winning teams. With no murderers.

                          If they win people will all be back full force. Fans have never been the problem here.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: A series of questions....

                            Peck,

                            Very well written and on point. If only I could get that same type of thoughtful, literate commentary from callers to the radio program.

                            MJB

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: A series of questions....

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              As part of that, I believe they should've gotten out in front on the punishments and handed down our own punishments and put some public pressure on Detroit to do likewise and share in the blame. Our punishments should've come before Stern ever set before the mic and announced the league's decision. If anything, TPTB should've been begging and pleading with Stern to allow for the smoke to clear while the press and public disected our own self-imposed penalties (and whatever pressure we could share with Detroit), before making his own official decision and announcement. Buying a couple of days for a cool-down period wouldn't have hurt anyone.

                              I'm not saying we should've given Artest 5 games and hoped that was good enough. I'm saying we should've handed out our own very serious penalties... but stopping short of totally gutting the team or even suspending Artest for the season. And with the team enforced suspensions add some anger management and medical interventions. Require Artest to actually meet some goals before his reinstatement.

                              MAYBE Stern STILL would've cracked down on the Pacers the way he did.... But IMHO had we taken serious responsibility up front there's at least some chance he doesn't add to the suspensions or if he does, he gets put in a bad PR light by the public and press considering them too draconian or one-sided in light of the Pacers' own upfront and quick handling of the issue.

                              But since the Pacers essentially did nothing, they left Stern with a clean slate to work with. ...And we were certainly the best option to take the entire hit. If you can minimize the NBA amd NBA champion's role in this and let the Pacers take the fall, you do it.
                              I think that is far off base. First of all we had no time to do anything. The league essentially suspended everyone involved within a few daylight hours of the brawl. (The brawl took place at around 10:55 PM Friday night - temprorary suspensions were put into place I believe by 1:00 PM Saturday. Stern announced his ruling around 5:30 Sunday - I'll never, ever forget that weekend and where I was when the brawl happened and when the Stern announcement was made. I think it is unrealistic (to say the least) to think if the pacers had suspended polayers it would have changed anything the league did. No, nothing short of suspending the entire franchise would have helped.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 16 template Next
                              Working...
                              X