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 new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

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

  • A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

    In another thread, sweabs mentions how the owner of the Toronto Maple Leaves has built a profitable and well-loved tradition out of a team that is perpetually out of the top ranks.

    Here's that post. Here's an edited version:

    Originally posted by sweabs
    The Toronto Maple Leafs have been one of the lousiest hockey teams in the NHL for some time now. The media (all throughout Canada) constantly jokes about their laughable rosters and performances, and continuously makes an effort to ridicule the fans who continue to follow this team with blind allegiance.

    The businessman in charge - Richard Peddie. Under his leadership, the team has continuously underachieved and become the laughing-stock for most Canadian hockey fans.

    Yet, the team produces one failed season after the next - and the fans come out in groves!!! It is absolutely impossible to get a ticket to a Maple Leafs game.

    From a cultural standpoint, the Leafs come to represent something that is so cherished by Torontonians (and in many other parts of Canada). And they are, after all, playing "Canada's game."
    Now, here's the question. Is there potential for the Indiana Pacers to develop a similar tradition on something other than NBA hype?

    The Leafs rely on the natural Canadian affinity for hockey. Is there still a Hoosier affinity for basketball? If yes, how can the Pacers use it?

    • What if the Pacers always wore throw-back short shorts?
    • What if they built an offense that relied on passing and open Js?
    • What if they used a tenacious press defense?
    • What if they perennially had the most balanced payroll in the NBA?
    • ...and one of the smallest payrolls, too?
    • What if they relied on rookie/young players more than other teams?
    • What if they left out the hip-hop culture?
    • What if they made it a point of honor to always have at least one Hoosier boy or Indiana college product on the roster?


    Would any of these things help to build a fan loyalty that could survive years of losing?

    If Toronto can do it, why can't Indianapolis?
    Last edited by Putnam; 03-16-2010, 11:49 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)

  • #2
    Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

    Toronto's metropolitan area has almost 4 times the population of Indianapolis.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      Toronto's metropolitan area has almost 4 times the population of Indianapolis.

      So?




      .
      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: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

        I don't see that working. I know it wouldn't make me any more of a fan, it would make me maybe less of a fan because I would feel like they were just trying to fit to a certain image rather than worrying about winning games and eventually winning a championship.

        I think to keep fans and to get new fans they just have to make the right moves to become a winning team and always show that they're working towards that. All any fan wants is to see their team win a championship, even if that means having people on your team without squeaky clean images.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

          Players would hate the short shorts - I mean they really would

          If you ask O'Brien - he would say this current offense relies on passing and open Js.

          Press defense is a disaster in the NBA - they don't work. teams can break the press easily and score easily, and it wears out your players.

          Balanced payroll, means either you have no star players or you lose the star players as soon as their rookie contract is over. Either way in the NBA you need seasoned star players to win, so that would be a bad idea

          Rookie/young players lose games.

          Hiphop - no opinion on that

          Always having 1 hoosier is a mistake. Fans would complain even more if he isn't getting as a lot of playing time, plus why waste a roster spot by limiting your choices.

          I think each and everyopne of these (except the hiphop thing) would backfire and would keep us in the losing mode longer and not work in building fan loyalty

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            So?




            .

            You don't think if Indy had an extra 3-4 million ppl in the vicinity that attendance wouldn't go up? Of course it would. It's a fact of life, bigger cities have more ppl to sell tickets to. If you're selling a product, wouldn't you want to reach the largest audience? If you're not a contending team (which will automatically draw fans), you're burdened by this simple rule of economics.

            Look at the the NBA attendance for non contending teams. The bigger cities get the crowds everytime. Detroit, NY, GSW, Chicago, Toronto are all in the top half of attendance. NO, Indy, Sacto, Minny, Memphis, Charlotte, Milwaukee are near the bottom.

            NJ and LAC are exceptions b/c they have competing in town teams in NYK & LAL.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

              Count55, please excuse my brusque reply. When I say, "So?" I understand that, maybe, the answer to the question is "No" and Indiana cannot do what Toronto has done.

              But if that is so, size of city alone is not the reason. Attendance is not a fixed share of population, but a variable that depends on marketing and culture. Conseco Fieldhouse can only accommodate 1/10th of one percent of the people who live within an hour's drive. The reason attendance is poor is that people choose not to attend -- not that there aren't enough people.




              .
              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


              • #8
                Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                A few things here...

                Toronto, aside from being roughly the size fo Chicago, is the financial capital and HQ of many major corporations, so they have a continual stream of corporate ticket sales.

                Another factor is that Toronto is also the media capital of Canada, and therefore, the Leafs appear regularly on national broadcasts... Hockey Night in Canada is derisively viewed in Ottawa as "Hockey Night in Toronto"... their fan base has become nationalized as are the Cubs.

                Ironically, I was at a Leafs game in Toronto, against the Candiens, and there were visibly more Habs than Leafs fans (those wearing jersey's anyway) at that game... I'd say more 'hardcore' fans in Montreal.
                "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                Bob Netolicky

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                  I think the Pacers are doing all they can as far as the marketing goes. Indianapolis is the perfect place for a basketball team.

                  A problem is that they're nearly giving out free food and what not. They're spending more than they can afford because no one is paying for the food. Maybe once every few weeks, have some things like that, but not make it completely free. Maybe even a "BOGO".

                  The Pacers as a team need to start winning some more and make the playoffs. It'll get people interested again and watch them play during the season and of course the playoffs. Just win and play the younger guys.

                  I don't think we're in danger of losing the franchise in the city, it takes a lot for that to happen. The team will come around again and we'll probably get more sellouts and average a higher attendance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                    What if they built an offense that relied on passing and open Js?
                    I think this is what Bird and Simon thought they were getting.... I think this might be what O'Brien told them he'd bring.... I think he's probably still telling them that. But pay no attention to what O'Brien says....

                    I still remember Herb making a comment to the Conseco crowd talking about it good to see Indiana basketball back in the fieldhouse soon after O'Brien took over.

                    I personally think it would pay dividends to focus on a team that could play defense and was fundamentally strong. I do think many fans and casual fans believe there is no light at the end of the tunnel if those things aren't in place first.

                    I think tweaking the end of the bench and making trades for the sake of trades isn't a bad thing. You don't have to trade starters for starters... just shake up the end of the bench once in a while to keep things from getting stale. Don't force Diener to sit for 2-3 year for example. Use the D league some (to bring in players for the end of the bench for a shot or to send down... and I didn't mean Diener who wouldn't be eligible anyway).

                    Turn the lights down in the seats and make the focus on the court while the ball is in play.

                    Don't try and oversell the fanbase on any player. At best you inflate that player's market value and at worst you also inflate his ego.

                    I could see the PR value in giving an Indiana guy a shot on the Pacers... OTOH... in many cases you'd need to balance that with worries about what trading/cutting that guy would do as well. ...Or even what little playing time would mean to some fans. Also, you don't want to overreach to achieve that goal (IOW don't draft an Indiana guy 20 spots too high or trade a proven starter for a bench player just because he's an Indiana guy). OTOH... We have Troy Murphy- he's an Indiana college guy!

                    There's a lot the Pacers could and should be doing in a PR sense that they don't do IMHO. Whether it's simply better advertising or making for a better experience for the fanbase. Of course winning is the giant cure-all... and it's also a great way to hide several flaws that can bite you later...
                    Last edited by Bball; 03-16-2010, 02:22 PM. Reason: clarifying
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                      Personally I think the list of ideas that you presented would do NOTHING to help the franchise. You want the team to basically be IU of the 50-80's. Problem is the people that were advocates of that style (play & personnel) are either dead or well on their way. You don't make your team more marketable in today's world by reverting back to the way Indiana was 30-40 years ago. The world and people have changed tremendously since then.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                        Originally posted by Mosley
                        Personally I think the list of ideas that you presented would do NOTHING to help the franchise.
                        You are probably right. But don't get caught up in critiquing my list only. Is there another set of initiative that COULD accomplish what we're talking about?

                        So far, it sounds like people here are eager to stand in line with every other basketball fan in the US, demanding the same product for the same reasons.

                        The Onion Atlas describes us correctly.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          • What if the Pacers always wore throw-back short shorts?
                          • What if they built an offense that relied on passing and open Js?
                          • What if they used a tenacious press defense?
                          • What if they perennially had the most balanced payroll in the NBA?
                          • ...and one of the smallest payrolls, too?
                          • What if they relied on rookie/young players more than other teams?
                          • What if they left out the hip-hop culture?
                          • What if they made it a point of honor to always have at least one Hoosier boy or Indiana college product on the roster?


                          Would any of these things help to build a fan loyalty that could survive years of losing?
                          The only thing I can gleam from this list is, where is the "winning games" option? A Championship or two might make fans more comfortable with subsequent years of losing.

                          Just about everything on that list either has nothing to do with being a good franchise, or counter to it.

                          But hey, if you're happy so long as the plays are run straight out of Gene Hackman's playbook, there's none of that god awful hip-hop culture, the shorts are short (dear god why?) and there's a token Indiana homeboy or two on the roster, to each his own i guess.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 03-16-2010, 01:53 PM.

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

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            But hey, if you're happy so long as the plays are run straight out of Gene Hackman's playbook, there's none of that god awful hip-hop culture, the shorts are short (dear god why?) and there's a token Indiana homeboy or two on the roster, to each his own i guess.
                            Don't confuse that list as being what Putnam wants. It is essentially a list of all the things (well, except maybe the shorts) that have been discussed on here over the time since PD was started.

                            To me, I think part of the problem is the way the NBA as a whole is marketed (and the way marketing is limited). I've said in the past that I think the local team concept is given short shrift in favor of the 4-5 superstar marketing. I also think a marketing ban outside of a specific radius is bogus.

                            The problem also is the high expectations of basketball in Indiana, and the very real situation that if the NBA team doesn't meet those expectations there are various championship caliber teams at many other levels to spend your money on. I don't know how that works out in Hockey in Toronto.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: A new/old paradigm for the Pacers?

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              Count55, please excuse my brusque reply. When I say, "So?" I understand that, maybe, the answer to the question is "No" and Indiana cannot do what Toronto has done.

                              But if that is so, size of city alone is not the reason. Attendance is not a fixed share of population, but a variable that depends on marketing and culture. Conseco Fieldhouse can only accommodate 1/10th of one percent of the people who live within an hour's drive. The reason attendance is poor is that people choose not to attend -- not that there aren't enough people.




                              .
                              It seems much easier to draw people from a much deeper pool, and, though I have no empirical proof to support this supposition, Toronto appears to have a much larger pool of likely ticket buyers - more corporations and more people with that kind of disposal income. It is simply much easier to fill a house in Toronto than it is Indianapolis.

                              But....

                              Ultimately, the connection between Toronto and the Leafs is almost a century old. It is more closely comparable to the relationship between the Yankees and New York, the Red Sox and Boston, the Cubs and the Bears in Chicago.

                              Their stature and connection within the community preexists their current management and current woes. They are an organization that has 11 Stanley Cups and two pre-Stanley NHL championships. It's true that they haven't won a Cup in over 40 years, and they are on a five-year playoff drought, but they've been to the conference finals this decade, and the current problems don't negate the lifetimes spent forming the connection.

                              The NBA and the Pacers simply do not have that connection. Indiana prides itself on being the heart of basketball country, but that bond was never made through the NBA. It was made, first and foremost, through High School, and secondarily through college programs like Indiana and Purdue. This makes it almost impossible to attain the Cubs/Leafs lovable losers stature. People will simply go back to watching college and high school ball, or spend their money on the Colts.

                              Even at the height of their success in the '90's, the Pacers still largely played second fiddle to IU and Purdue basketball. Though usually over 15k for attendance, the Pacers only had one "sold out" year in MSA. Only the inaugural season in Conseco was a sellout.

                              In effect, there is no organic connection between the Pacers and Indiana's basketball roots, and cosmetic marketing efforts will ring hollow. Nobody's going to buy an "Indiana's game" approach if the product isn't good (meaning wins). In fact, it could end up backfiring. (Also, avoiding the "hip hop" culture is a singularly troubling approach.)

                              The Pacers must win, and they must win consistently for a period of years and years to connect on the level that will keep the house full during lean years.

                              Their run from the mid-90's to the mid-00's was a fantastic start to this, but much of the goodwill was squandered by the well documented embarrassments that the Pacers inflicted on themselves and the city. Had the team had a more normal decline, then I think we'd still have a larger core fanbase. However, what happened in a period of two or three years completely eclipsed the previous decade's work in the minds of many. Now that the team is losing, there's no reason for them come back.

                              Basically, I think you're reading the Toronto thing backwards. People aren't coming to see a bad product, because the Leafs have successfully packaged themselves as a cultural institution. The Leafs established themselves as an actual cultural institution long ago, and therefore, the front office is allowed to get away with more screwups. They're living off goodwill established in the past.
                              Last edited by count55; 03-16-2010, 02:35 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X