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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

    I'd rather salaries be tied to W/L%. But that will never fly with the NBPA.

    In general, the move has been to get away from incentive-based (statistics) contracts as they don't produce desired behaviors (they create ballhogs.)
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

      Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
      But isn't that exactly how things are now?
      Players get 57% of BRI. A big chunk of their salaries are held in escrow, and if the salaries are too high compared to revenue, that chunk of salary is paid back to the teams.
      I guess it just seems like that is not only hidden, it isn't like the teams get credit against the cap/tax for what will be coming back. It'd make more sense if the base pay went to them and the revenue portion came after the season.

      What I'm hoping for is something that more directly ties an individual salary to revenue, not the overall league salary (or team salary) total to revenue. Kind of the equivalent of "Base Pay plus Profit Sharing" that a lot of companies in the Real World have gone to.
      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


      • #63
        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

        Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
        So does your argument reduce to "there's a fundamental problem regarding the league's cost structure" because David Stern says so?
        No.

        My point is what BillS says here: " . . . any business where selling the product itself can't pay the basic costs is doomed to have problems."

        Does anybody think the IndyGo bus system is a brilliant commercial success? It is subsidized by the city because the money it raises on fares doesn't come close to covering the operating costs. It must adhere to a schedule and much of the time buses are almost empty, but nothing can be done in the short-term to correct the inefficiency. Most buses have advertisements on them and inside them to help defray the cost of operation which fares alone cannot cover. But I don't consider that ads for Kaplan College is anything the bus company should boast about having. From a business standpoint, there's a strong argument for not having buses at all in Indy, but we continue to have them because there is a vague notion that a first-class city ought to. A few thousand people derive a great benefit from the bus system, while to the larger community the bus company makes no sense.

        Sound familiar at all?




        (Yes, I am being harsh about the Pacers business model as a business model. As I've already said, the NBA provides good entertainment, so its just as a business that I'm faulting it. What I'm saying is really no worse than saying the defrag utility on my computer isn't very entertaining though I admit it does speed things up. It does something very well, but it doesn't do everything very well.)
        Last edited by Putnam; 03-11-2010, 06:46 PM.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          No.

          My point is what BillS says here: " . . . any business where selling the product itself can't pay the basic costs is doomed to have problems."
          I'd certainly agree with Bill's point, but it's not apparent to me that the business can't pay its basic costs.

          I mean, in this day and age, you can't separately look at the player salaries as they are and not look at the league's revenue streams as they are.

          Salaries are high because a big share of the league's basic revenues derive from its television revenue. Gate receipts are perhaps still the biggest single source of income, but the television, radio, internet, merchandise and marketing revenues the league (and the Pacers) generate certainly aren't ancillary in the way ads on the side of buses are.

          Fundamentally, the Pacers are selling an entertainment service, and something like TV rights and product endorsements are part and parcel of that. It's a way to enlarge their audience beyond what they can fit in the stadium every night.

          And here's the major point I'd like to get to. I don't know, for example, what the Pacers share of the league's TV contract is, but I know it'd be very difficult for the league to be losing money based on overall numbers. Look at the CBA FAQ and it shows the league had $3.6B in BRI for last season and only $2B in player salaries. So take that remaining $1.6B in BRI and split is 30 ways and you get approximately $51M per team. Even if you give something like 2/3 to the biggest 10 teams, the remaining 20 smaller teams would still get something on the order of $26M each.

          $26M seems like a fairly reasonable amount of revenue to cover the remaining costs and still have room for profit. It's certainly not so much that I can't imagine a particular team would lose money, even repeatedly, but as a whole, the basic business model of the league seems in order, at least until the next TV contract is negotiated (and when it is, I'd expect things to go down across the board, so again, I'm not really sure it affects the Pacers per se).

          Does anybody think the IndyGo bus system is a brilliant commercial success? It is subsidized by the city because the money it raises on fares doesn't come close to covering the operating costs. It must adhere to a schedule and much of the time buses are almost empty, but nothing can be done in the short-term to correct the inefficiency. Most buses have advertisements on them and inside them to help defray the cost of operation which fares alone cannot cover. But I don't consider that ads for Kaplan College is anything the bus company should boast about having. From a business standpoint, there's a strong argument for not having buses at all in Indy, but we continue to have them because there is a vague notion that a first-class city ought to. A few thousand people derive a great benefit from the bus system, while to the larger community the bus company makes no sense.

          Sound familiar at all?
          Well yes, but I'm actually an economics professor.

          More seriously, I think the bus analogy is wrong in that TV revenues, ads and merchandise licensing are a big and legit chunk of NBA money.

          I do think the bus analogy is a good one in another way though. If you think about buses, the real problem, and the reason they need subsidies, is that routes inevitably get overextended beyond the profitable ones. I see plenty of folks riding buses downtown. If you cut back from the 30 or so routes to maybe 20, and ran less frequently but at peak times that might lead to more few buses and less empty ones, an Indy bus system might make a profit.

          On the other hand, it might not, because you might make it impossible for a critical mass of people to conveniently get on the bus

          I think the NBA can be seen in a similar light. The really big market, popular teams are like the few central, popular bus routes. In many respects, you could look at that situation and say it doesn't make any sense for, say, the Lakers, Knicks, Bulls and Mavericks to be subsidizing the Pacers' existence if, in fact, they don't make money.

          But there are some legitimate reasons to do it. First, if you confine the big leagues to the top 10 or 15, or even 20 markets, you miss out on a whole lot of fans. Maybe they don't become fans of the NBA at all. Second, I'm not sure what the optimal number of teams is, but it's self-evident that if the league is too small, you it'd be kind of boring to see the same teams, filled with the same players, playing over and over.

          So maybe you could cut a couple small market teams and be fine, but it's hard to say. You'd lose some unknown level of revenue and long-term goodwill that ultimately translates into revenue in entertainment industries.

          (Yes, I am being harsh about the Pacers business model as a business model. As I've already said, the NBA provides good entertainment, so its just as a business that I'm faulting it. What I'm saying is really no worse than saying the defrag utility on my computer isn't very entertaining though I admit it does speed things up. It does something very well, but it doesn't do everything very well.)
          I guess I see it the opposite way. I think the NBA's basic model as a business is fine, but if I have a long-term concern about it, it's that the entertainment level it provides isn't what it could be.

          That's a problem because, if you think about it, there's a lot of competition for our entertainment dollars out there. Other sports, games, movies, the internet, doing things ourselves. There's a lot of ways to spend our money out there. And when I see the NBA, I see a league with a lot of really perverse, uncompetitive, and unentertaining incentives out there. The same teams win over and over and it's hard as hell for teams to change their direction. The Pacers are great evidence of that. It's basically going to be a 2-3 year process just to get out from under a set of bad decisions, never mind actually building back to something better.

          That's just way too freaking long. And it kills entertainment from the top down. The fans know we're not going anywhere and the players know they're not, and so they play like it. To a large extent, I think team management coasts for these reasons too. On another note, much of the basketball management in the league is just terribly unprofessional. Guys get hired into executive level positions with very little experience. They were players or color commentators, and suddenly they're coaches and GMs. It's worth noting that you almost never see stuff like that happen in the NFL. Because, basically, they've got their **** together and the NBA often doesn't.

          OK, I've kind of veered off into a general rant. But I think my basic position is these guys are just not great business people. They're sitting on a goose that lays golden eggs and quite frequently, they for some reason try to strangle the goose.
          SportsTwo.com

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

            As for the bus, is it a business or a service? If its a service, the subsidies are quite rationale. There's no doubt that professional sports are a business, but fans don't measure the success by the owner's profit margin either. Donald Sterling really is a good owner of a business, folks. But it makes it hard to root for his team on the court because its 100% business and he's not in it to win but to own a profitable team.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

              I have to say I'm really enjoying this thread...

              Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
              More seriously, I think the bus analogy is wrong in that TV revenues, ads and merchandise licensing are a big and legit chunk of NBA money.
              This is very true, but my train of thought comes from the amount of control the decision maker has over the revenue stream. I've talked in the past about local merchandising and local advertising being part of the local revenue stream, but it is odd to think that the league as a whole gets a TV contract with revenue while the Pacers (if I remember correctly) have to pay for the privilege of being broadcast on FSN. If that is correct, it would be interesting to know the amount and how it compares with our revenue from the shared TV income (especially after subtracting the payoff to the Spirits...)

              I'd count any "team generated" income (not just local, for instance, in the case of jersey sales of your player in a remote location) for the fixed funding, I only mentioned ticket sales as an easy shortcut.

              In general, you'd like your fixed costs to be able to be covered by revenue streams you have control over, and you'd like those revenue streams that could vary to have the associated costs drop if the revenues drop. That's an ideal, sure, but a real world example exists - sales commissions aren't just an incentive for the sales people, they are a way to make sure you aren't overpaying them in a time of low sales.
              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


              • #67
                Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                As for the bus, is it a business or a service? If its a service, the subsidies are quite rationale. There's no doubt that professional sports are a business, but fans don't measure the success by the owner's profit margin either. Donald Sterling really is a good owner of a business, folks. But it makes it hard to root for his team on the court because its 100% business and he's not in it to win but to own a profitable team.
                If the bus lines are a public service that requires a subsidy, it's a good indication the costs of providing them outweigh the benefits. If they can be profitably run, meaning that they provide more value to willing customers than the cost it takes to make it, a business should be willing to provide it. If we have to subsidize something, generally speaking it means the operators can't recover their cost on their own.

                But if that's the case, is it really sensible to subsidize them?

                Sterling is an interesting case. I'd agree Sterling is a good businessman, but only to a degree. He's got a profitable operation because he's extremely risk-averse and because, as I said in my prior post, having an NBA team is damn near a license to print money.

                That being said, he's also not spectacularly successful either. I mean, the Clippers are in a huge market and yet, compared to many teams, even in worse markets around the league, they're in the upper echelon on valuable teams. What this tells me is "nothing ventured, nothing gained".

                In the NBA, an owner can run a profitable business by playing it safe. On the other hand, if you want to really grow your brand, you're going to have to take risks or get extremely lucky (like having Duncan, Lebron or Derrick Rose or maybe John Wall bounce your way in the lottery).

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I have to say I'm really enjoying this thread...

                This is very true, but my train of thought comes from the amount of control the decision maker has over the revenue stream. I've talked in the past about local merchandising and local advertising being part of the local revenue stream, but it is odd to think that the league as a whole gets a TV contract with revenue while the Pacers (if I remember correctly) have to pay for the privilege of being broadcast on FSN. If that is correct, it would be interesting to know the amount and how it compares with our revenue from the shared TV income (especially after subtracting the payoff to the Spirits...)

                I'd count any "team generated" income (not just local, for instance, in the case of jersey sales of your player in a remote location) for the fixed funding, I only mentioned ticket sales as an easy shortcut.

                In general, you'd like your fixed costs to be able to be covered by revenue streams you have control over, and you'd like those revenue streams that could vary to have the associated costs drop if the revenues drop. That's an ideal, sure, but a real world example exists - sales commissions aren't just an incentive for the sales people, they are a way to make sure you aren't overpaying them in a time of low sales.
                In jobs where commissions work well, there are generally pretty good metrics for it. Out of every 100 folks that walk through the door, X% should buy a car. So your good sales people are the ones who make or exceed that percentage. And more importantly, the salesman's pay is directly attributable to his production. If he sells more cars, he gets more money. It's easy to see.

                I think it's really tough to figure in the NBA because in many respects their product (compelling basketball?) is dependent on factors out of their control. To take an absurd example, suppose the Pacers got to play the Nets 80 times a year. If they end up 70-10, it's gonna be nicer than 10-70, but it'd still not be very compelling. It'd be downright boring, and it's kind of hard to separate the Pacers' responsibility for the total product from the other teams'.

                To put it more simply, even if we're looking at local revenues, the Pacers sell more tickets when the Lakers are coming to town than when the Clippers are coming to town.
                SportsTwo.com

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I've talked in the past about local merchandising and local advertising being part of the local revenue stream, but it is odd to think that the league as a whole gets a TV contract with revenue while the Pacers (if I remember correctly) have to pay for the privilege of being broadcast on FSN. If that is correct, it would be interesting to know the amount and how it compares with our revenue from the shared TV income (especially after subtracting the payoff to the Spirits...)
                  FSN pays to show the games. The Colt's didn't pay for the Superbowl to be broadcast. Same thing. The networks make money from advertisers. Advertisers pay more for a larger audience. I have no idea what the Pacer's TV audience numbers are but a live broadcast from a professional team should draw higher ratings than other shows that FSN could show during the same time slot. If a team that FSN pays to broadcast does very well and more people watch, then they get lucky and can charge more for advertising. FSN shows games for many teams so while some markets like Indy might have low ratings, their other markets make up the difference.

                  FSN also makes the calls on broadcasting games in HD. It must not make financial sense to show all Pacer games in HD because of the ad revenue the network makes from the games. They pick the games that most people will be watching, not to please the fans, but to make more from advertisers.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                    Originally posted by AG77 View Post
                    FSN pays to show the games.
                    Do you have numbers or a reference? As part of the discussions about why they are on a cable-only station some time (like possibly multiple years) ago, I seem to recall pretty definitive statements that it was not the same as it used to be, that many teams were having to pay for the broadcast rather than the other way around.

                    That's an individual team thing, not a network thing or league thing and certainly not the case for the big $$ teams that everyone wants to watch. I'm not looking for comparisons to NFL teams or even to other teams, just a hint from someone as to what the FSN contract is and is worth.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                      a
                      Last edited by sweabs; 08-07-2010, 06:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                        Thanks, Sweabs. I wondered when you were going to weigh in on this.

                        Richard Peddie has worked on creating the ultimate fan experience from an entertainment standpoint.
                        Explain how he does this, please. And is there is lesson there for the Pacers?

                        Could the Pacers organization achieve the same entertainment/business success in Indiana? What would the ultimate fan experience for Hoosier basketball look like?


                        .
                        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


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                          I think it is probably more similar to the Cubs or the Knicks than anything that could be done for the Pacers.

                          Once a Tradition is established, it takes MORE than simply losing to devalue both a franchise and the experience of being at a game.

                          The Leafs (and the Cubs and the Knicks) are more of an Institution than a Sports Franchise. That makes them extremely durable, attendance-wise.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                            a
                            Last edited by sweabs; 08-07-2010, 06:01 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              I'd rather salaries be tied to W/L%. But that will never fly with the NBPA.

                              In general, the move has been to get away from incentive-based (statistics) contracts as they don't produce desired behaviors (they create ballhogs.)
                              I agree with you 1 million % on both counts.

                              I wish players were paid a nice salary sort of like they are now, (but a lot less) and then paid huge bonues for winning

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers finances baffle me

                                I do not believe these even matter for the Maple Leafs fanbase. It has almost become a 'status symbol' to get a Maple Leafs ticket, where you can brag to your friends.

                                "Once I was the king of Spain
                                Now the Leafs call me up to drive the Zamboni."
                                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

                                Working...
                                X