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

Pacers finances baffle me

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

  • Pacers finances baffle me

    We all know the Pacers are losing money. But take a moment and think about how they are losing it.


    The players' payroll this season is: $66.7 million according to HoopsHype and $66.9 acording to shamSports. That is a big part of the total expense, but not nearly the total corporate expense of Pacers Sports & Entertainment.

    Now look at ticket sales. The Pacers this season are averaging attendance of 13,861.

    The average ticket is down to $30.02.

    Now, do the math. Forty-one games of selling 13,861 tickets at $30.02 yields a little over $17 million. that is 26% of the players' salaries.

    Add in television revenues. Add in what teams under the tax get from teams over the tax. Add in sales of all those hats and jerseys that Duke Dynamite buys. Add in the beer that Heywoode drinks every time he goes to a game.

    How do all those get you up to the total cost of running the organization, which must be around $100 million.

    It baffles me that the Pacers stay in business. Or, let's say, how the whole NBA stays in business:

    Originally posted by nba.com
    Commissioner David Stern, in his State of the League news conference Saturday night (before the All-Star game), said that his teams were projected to lose $400 million combined this season, and had lost "at least $200 million" a year since the last CBA was ratified in 2005.

    I think it's been fair to say that the current business activities do not support the current structure, expense structure that we have."

    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/feature...tip/index.html
    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)

  • #2
    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    But that is just the average ticket price, that doesn't factor in corporate suites or the "Hollywood" seats. You can't just assume that every seat is $30+. Sponsorships have a major role in revenue as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      But that is just the average ticket price, that doesn't factor in corporate suites or the "Hollywood" seats. You can't just assume that every seat is $30+. Sponsorships have a major role in revenue as well.

      Show me.

      Lay out the figures of how Legends makes up the difference. If 500 people are sitting in Legends every game, and every one of them paid $500 (both estimatres are excessive), that would only amount to $10 million. And the reality is much less than that.

      (But actually I can "just assume that every seat is $30+." For every seat in Legends sold for multi-hundreds, there are enough $5 or $10 tix to drop the average for all tickets down to a mere $30. That is what the average means. )



      I understand that Pacers losses are only a few million and not the massive gap I can account for between ticket revenues and the payroll. The money is coming from somewhere to make PS&E a barely unprofitable enterprise instead of the blood-spurting crisis that ticket sales seems like. I just don't understand enough of the whole balance sheet to see how it works.


      .
      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


      • #4
        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

        What amount does every team get from TNT, ESPN/ABC that is their largest chunk of revenue. (2003 it was 26M per team) I am thinking it is in the 40M range today)

        a somewhat interesting article
        http://www.hoopchill.com/2009/07/nba...e-problem.html
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-08-2010, 10:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

          One of the irritating things about the NBA is they design things to make it extremely difficult for an outsider to figure out exactly how they're doing.

          Additional expenses:
          1. Payroll will not only include the players, but all the behind the scenes staff too. http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/staff_directory.html indicates they probably have another 100 or so employees. I didn't bother to count them up, and some are probably not paid or not paid much, but you're probably adding several million a year there, at the very least.
          2. Travel, lodging, and all that sort of stuff is not insignificant, as well as the cost of actually staging the arena.

          Additional revenues:
          1. Remember that the league has revenue sharing from TV, merchandising, and all sorts of stuff (CBA FAQ Q13). The Pacers are making money from televised games, merchandise sales, etc. I don't have a good estimate of how much, but I'd guess it's probably pretty close to the amount they make from gate receipts. Perhaps more.
          2. The league also has the escrow system in place, which means player salaries are actually quite a bit lower than they appear on paper. Player salaries in total are not to exceed 57% of "basketball related income". So 9% of their salaries were held in escrow last year and returned to the teams. Thus, player expenses weren't 67M, they were about $61M (CBA FAQ Q14).
          3. The team also divides up luxury tax proceeds, so the Pacers got about $3M from that last year.
          4. In addition to BRI, there's probably plenty of non basketball income. Which leads to...

          The big unknowns
          The arena deal, one time charges and various related shenanigans make it very difficult to tell exactly how much the Pacers are "losing" on the arena. This is a good starting point if you want to dig deeply. In a nutshell, my estimate is that many of the revenues associated therof have been collected by entities other than the Pacers, and on a one-time basis, while many of the costs have been amortized and counted against the Pacers.

          In plain old English, the guys that run the Pacers can assign revenues to other, tax-sheltered streams, and assign costs to the Pacers, treating them as a loss-leader. Which makes it easy, of course, to point to them and ask for better deals and handouts from the local governments.
          SportsTwo.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

            I don't know much about how the business side of the Pacers works... but do they get anything from concerts and other events held at Conseco?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              Show me.

              Lay out the figures of how Legends makes up the difference. If 500 people are sitting in Legends every game, and every one of them paid $500 (both estimatres are excessive), that would only amount to $10 million. And the reality is much less than that.

              (But actually I can "just assume that every seat is $30+." For every seat in Legends sold for multi-hundreds, there are enough $5 or $10 tix to drop the average for all tickets down to a mere $30. That is what the average means. )



              I understand that Pacers losses are only a few million and not the massive gap I can account for between ticket revenues and the payroll. The money is coming from somewhere to make PS&E a barely unprofitable enterprise instead of the blood-spurting crisis that ticket sales seems like. I just don't understand enough of the whole balance sheet to see how it works.


              .
              I said corporate suites.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                No NBA franchise makes its nut off ticket sales. I pretty much guarantee you that the biggest chunk of locally controlled revenue comes from sponsorships.

                Ticket sales are important not just for revenues but for EYES SEEING THE SPONSOR ADS. That's why discounting tickets to fill the arena is a good strategy, similar to why giving away issues of magazines is a good strategy.

                It's what makes the balance between serving your Season Ticket Holders (who are both known revenue and known eyes) and doing heavy in-season price cuts seem wrong to ticket holders.

                Now, I think the NBA recognizes that TV revenue is changing big time. Except for the top teams (or the teams in the most populated areas), more and more franchises are having to pay for TV rather than get paid for it. Because of this the huge network media contracts are going away, and you are starting to get more from NBALP and other subscription packages.

                This will be a big factor in the new CBA.
                Last edited by BillS; 03-08-2010, 10:11 AM. Reason: Clarified sponsorship revenue
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                  Michael Jordan bought the Bobcats for $175 millions. Mr. Johnson had paid a $300 millions expansion fee 7 years ago - not the greatest financial investment. Is this the first time a NBA franchise is sold at loss since Bird/Magic/Stern? I think it is, at least I can't remember another case.

                  Still, players make 57% of the "basketball-related income". That still excludes some substantial revenue, like part of important income sources like naming rights, sponsorships and luxury suites, for example. Per Forbes ranking, 12 teams delivered a negative EBITDA last season but the overall revenue didn't go down from about $120 millions per team while the salary cost was around $70 millions per team.

                  I suspect there's a lot of posturing in Stern's latest public speeches. And some owners simply don't care that much about the bottom line - that of their NBA franchise, which probably has a non-negligible affect on the overall numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the NBA needs deeper revenue-sharing mechanisms (or a contraction) more than new and drastic cost controlling mechanisms.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                    I said corporate suites.
                    Doesn't matter, the whole point of "average" is that if you multiply it by the total number of seats you get the same number as if you added up each seat's individual cost.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                      IDK how you guys feel about Bill Simmons, but he had a column about this last week or so: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/100224


                      I personally found it quite interesting.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                        Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                        IDK how you guys feel about Bill Simmons, but he had a column about this last week or so: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/100224


                        I personally found it quite interesting.
                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=51252

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                          meh...everything I wrote was oversimplified and based on not enough info.

                          This doesn't answer all the questions, but JayRedd's podcast with Larry Coon is a fascinating look.

                          http://www.bothteamsplayedhard.net/2...ent=FeedBurner
                          Last edited by count55; 03-08-2010, 10:30 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                            My apologies. That was posted a few weeks before I joined.

                            But, I'm glad to see you agree with me on it being interesting. I really hope this doesn't lead to another lockout. That "1999" season felt like it took an eternity to get "unlocked" and started up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                              Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                              My apologies. That was posted a few weeks before I joined.

                              But, I'm glad to see you agree with me on it being interesting. I really hope this doesn't lead to another lockout. That "1999" season felt like it took an eternity to get "unlocked" and started up.
                              Most definitely. Most of his points in this article are well-received. That and I've always felt that shortening the NBA season would be a great idea.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X