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

Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers receive a fraction

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

  • Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers receive a fraction

    Wow.

    Here is where the small market vs big market comes into play.

    Currently the Lakers get $30 m per year just from their local TV deal, that does not count radio and certainly doesn't count what every team gets for national TV.

    Not sure we know how much the Pacers get, but I think they get nothing from Fox Sports Indiana, but rather the Pacers pay them to broadcast their games and the pacers get the ad revenue? So who knows what that is, maybe $5 M at the most - probably less.

    But here is the kicker, the lakers have signed a new deal and if the reports are correct, the lakers are signing a $3 billion dollar deal for 20 years which is $150M per year . Reports deny it is that much, OK, what if it is 50% of that or $75M year. And we wonder why it is hard for the pacers to compete.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...-that-wil.html


    The business behind the show
    Lakers jilt Fox Sports and KCAL for Time Warner Cable

    Time Warner Cable has struck a massive deal with the Los Angeles Lakers to create two regional sports channels that will use the world champs as their backbone.

    There had been rumblings recently that the Lakers were looking to either start their own channel or find a new partner. The 20-year agreement between the cable giant and the National Basketball Association powerhouse is a major blow to Fox Sports West and KCAL-TV, the two current rights holders for the Lakers. Starting with the 2012-13 season, all Lakers games except for national telecasts will be available on cable only. That includes preseason, regular season and playoff games.

    One of the two as-yet unnamed cable channels will be Spanish-language network that will have its own prodcution team instead of just being a feed of the English-language channel.

    The loss of games to KCAL means that no Lakers games will be available on free over-the-air television. KCAL, which is owned by CBS Corp., currently carries 41 games. Of the 5.67-million TV homes in the Los Angeles market, about 620,000 do not subscribe to any pay-TV provider.

    Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Under its current deal with Fox Sports West, the Lakers were getting about $30 million a year in rights fees, people familiar with the situation said. Some industry observers pegged the 20-year pact at a value of $3 billion, a figure dismissed by Time Warner Cable.

    In a statement, Fox Sports said it had made the Lakers an offer that “would have paid them one of the highest local TV rights fees in professional sports. We did not believe that going higher was in the best interest of our business or pay TV customers in Los Angeles, who will bear the cost of this deal for years to come.”

    Time Warner Cable, which has about 2 million subscribers in Southern California, isn't looking to stop with the Lakers. In an interview, Melinda Witmer, executive vice president and chief programming officer of Time Warner Cable, said the company would be "looking at all available sports in the marketplace."
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-16-2011, 09:05 AM.

  • #2
    Re: why small market teams cannot compete: Lakers get how much from local TV in their new deal

    Don't the old ABA teams like us forfeit some of our TV money also. I wonder how a shared tv revenue affects the ABA teams?
    PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

    RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: why small market teams cannot compete: Lakers get how much from local TV in their new deal

      Hopefully the upcoming CBA gives the small market teams some breathing room. It seems like the gap between small and big market teams has been getting worse. It would be nice if the CBA would help to close the gap a little.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: why small market teams cannot compete: Lakers get how much from local TV in their new deal

        Originally posted by Richard_Skull View Post
        Don't the old ABA teams like us forfeit some of our TV money also. I wonder how a shared tv revenue affects the ABA teams?
        Yes it is a certain % of the national TV money. I forget exactly what it is. Last I saw it was around 5M per year the pacers have to give up - and it goes up every year if the national TV money goes up

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get zero

          What's interesting is that David Stern works for the owners. Half the owners are in Red ink and have been for a while and even some teams that have had a decade of success like San Antonio, are on shaky ground. Obviously Stern does not do a very good job of representing the interests of the smaller market teams. Why doe this guy still have a job?
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get zero

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            What's interesting is that David Stern works for the owners. Half the owners are in Red ink and have been for a while and even some teams that have had a decade of success like San Antonio, are on shaky ground. Obviously Stern does not do a very good job of representing the interests of the smaller market teams. Why doe this guy still have a job?
            That is a good question.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get zero

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              That is a good question.
              It is, with the way this league has been run it seems like he only represents about 6 teams.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                I think I'd rather see the NBA be more like the NFL than MLB.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                  Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                  I think I'd rather see the NBA be more like the NFL than MLB.
                  Me too, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Having only two real networks broadcast games makes it much easier to split TV revenue between the teams.

                  LAL and NYK shouldn't be punished, and by that I mean forced to give away some of their TV revenue, because other teams in the league don't have the population density as those two cities. (You can throw Chicago with WGN into that mix as well)

                  Let's use UB's numbers when he divided the amount by the reported half, 75million. Even if you took all of that money and split it evenly between the teams, that would give each one about 2.5mil. While that's not chump change to you or I, it is when you talk about the total cost of doing business even here in Indianapolis. I doubt that amount isn't goint to make or break whether or not the Pacers stay put.

                  Then you think realize that they aren't going to split that share, they aren't going to split half of it. I wouldn't want to split any of it, truthfully. But even if they do, each team is only going to get a couple hundred thousand dollars. That's a drop in the bucket.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                    at least we're not alone

                    we're not doing as bad as other teams from a financial stand point but it can be better

                    the league needs to stop favoring teams
                    In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                      Concerning what the Pacers (and nets, nuggets and spurs) give up....the old owners of the Spirits of St. Louis get 1/7th of these 4 teams' share of the national television revenue FOREVER. Back in 1976/77 when negotiations were taking place, Kentucky and St. Louis were in the way and to get them to go along with the deal (and not be included) they had to deal with them. I think John Y. Brown agreed to take something like 3 million, but the brothers who owned the Spirits (Silna?), got this deal and of course through the years it has ballooned into an even more incredible deal as tv revenues have grown. For a financially struggling team like the Pacers, the millions and millions they have given up to those guys, for doing nothing.. is sickening to say the least..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lakers get to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Me too, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Having only two real networks broadcast games makes it much easier to split TV revenue between the teams.

                        LAL and NYK shouldn't be punished, and by that I mean forced to give away some of their TV revenue, because other teams in the league don't have the population density as those two cities. (You can throw Chicago with WGN into that mix as well)

                        Let's use UB's numbers when he divided the amount by the reported half, 75million. Even if you took all of that money and split it evenly between the teams, that would give each one about 2.5mil. While that's not chump change to you or I, it is when you talk about the total cost of doing business even here in Indianapolis. I doubt that amount isn't goint to make or break whether or not the Pacers stay put.

                        Then you think realize that they aren't going to split that share, they aren't going to split half of it. I wouldn't want to split any of it, truthfully. But even if they do, each team is only going to get a couple hundred thousand dollars. That's a drop in the bucket.
                        The smaller teams getting a share of that money wouldn't put all of the teams in the black, but it would make it much harder for teams like the Knicks, Lakers, and to a lesser extent Bulls to scoff at the luxury tax, which is a part of what keeps them at the top of the league. The other part is the allure of endorsement dollars that, in some ways helps to break the salary cap system altogether. If two teams are offering the same paycheck, but one of them will make your time spent doing endorsements worth $10m more, you go to that team, no questions asked, right?

                        Either way, there are a lot of issues to discuss after the season.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                          Since86 - those are excellent points. I just want to add the luxury tax. That provides some money to the smaller market teams (as long as they don't go over the luxury tax threshold) but even that might be a couple of million.

                          I think that is why the smaller market teams want a hard cap to keep expenses down - that would likely help the smaller market teams a lot more than revenue sharing

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                            It's been a pretty boring afternoon at work, so to pass the time I calculated the rough figures for the lux tax.

                            There are 7 teams over the threshold, with about a combined 95.8mil over the luxury tax. Broken down to the remaining teams gets about 4.16 million per team.

                            The Lakers lead in salary at about 91.6mil per year. The median is about 66mil. That's a 25mil difference. There is a 16mil difference between the Lakers and the 6th highest paid team, Utah.

                            The Lakers DOUBLE Sac and Minny's total salary.
                            http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

                            Wikipedia also has two nice graphs on their NBA salary cap page.
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_sal...ry_Cap_history

                            The salary cap, and average player salary, has just about doubled in 10years. I don't see how that's sustainable if only a handful of teams are producing profit.


                            I'm not going to pretend like I'm some math whiz, but even I can tell that there is a bubble and it's about to burst. The NBA just can't keep on the pace that they currently are, and there are going to be a LOT of feelings hurt.

                            The more I look at the numbers, the more worried I get about a lockout. The NBA needs some MAJOR overhauls.

                            Retraction will probably be needed, because there is no way teams turning crazy profits, like the Lakers with their TV deal are going to want to share a big portion of the revenue. (And I don't think they should BTW)

                            There's just no way the current system can remain in place.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Lakers to get $150 m per year local TV. Pacers get maybe zero

                              The reason I want sharing of TV revenues is for competitive balance. I would like to see all teams to be on an even playing field when it comes to available resources for signing players.

                              Look at Pittsburg and the Pirates vs. the Steelers. Do the Pirates have a chance at the World Series? About the same as the Steelers do...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X