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

NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

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

  • NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2011...-start-to.html

    Monday, April 18, 2011
    NBA Playoffs: TNT Has Best-Ever Start to Postseason
    The 2011 NBA Playoffs got off to a record start on TNT, which had the most-viewed opening day of the postseason in Turner Sports' 27 years covering the NBA.

    TNT averaged a 2.8 U.S. rating and 4.542 million viewers for NBA Playoff coverage on Sunday, up 27% in ratings and 36% in viewership from last year (2.2, 3.336M), and the most-viewed opening day of the playoffs ever on Turner Sports.

    In particular, Sunday's Knicks/Celtics Game 1 drew a 3.6 U.S. rating and 5.989 million viewers, up 44% in ratings and 53% in viewership from last year (SA/DAL G1: 2.5, 3.925M), and up 64% and 86%, respectively, from 2009 (MIA/ATL G1: 2.2, 3.228M).

    The Celtics' win drew more viewers than every single first round playoff game -- on broadcast or cable -- last season.

    In addition, the game ranks as the second-most viewed first round game ever on cable, behind only Bulls/Celtics Game 7 in 2009 (6.987M). The previous second-ranked game was Celtics/Bulls Game 6 in 2009 (5.352M).

    Later in the night, Game 1 between the Nuggets and Thunder drew a 3.1 and 5.038 million viewers, up 55% in ratings and 69% in viewership from last year (POR/PHX G1: 2.0, 2.988M), and up 55% and 83%, respectively, from 2009 (NO/DEN G1: 2.0, 2.756M).

    Though it did not receive as much hype as Knicks/Celtics, Nuggets/Thunder drew more viewers than every single first round game on cable last year.

    In the early afternoon, Grizzlies/Spurs Game 1 drew a 2.0 and 2.836 million viewers. There was no game in the comparable timeslot (1 PM ET) last year or in 2009.

    For comparison purposes, the first game of last year's tripleheader (CHA/ORL G1, 5:30 PM ET) drew a 2.0 and 3.116 million viewers, and the first game of the 2009 tripleheader (PHI/ORL G1, 5:30 PM ET) drew a 1.8 and 2.756 million.

    (Numbers from Turner Sports)

  • #2
    Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

    Not surprising...this first round has been "March Madness-esque" so far. Most exciting 1st rd that I can remember.
    http://twitter.com/#!/makaveli1376

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

      I wish the POs wouldn't drag on like they do... The next round of games take forever to get through. TV scheduling...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

        Seems people are still watching despite all the supposed hate for superteams and superfriends. Evidently this is still a pretty compelling product for a lot of people..

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

          No clearly there needs to be more equality or else the NBA will fold. We need to go back to the 1980s where all 20+ teams had a chance to win every year. How can the NBA survive with only a few super teams and stars?
          Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

            If the popularity is all based on superteams and superfriends what happens when the "superteam" talent is fairly mediocre? When LBJ et al get over the hill there's no guarantee there will be anyone to follow them immediately.

            ANYTHING is successful when the product is fantastic. The bump is because of the increase in interest due to change as much as because people somehow suddenly love the NBA.

            The question is, can the league survive another drought like the one after the Jordan years, when every freaking good player was being hyped (unsuccessfully) as the "next" Jordan?

            Use the popularity being generated TODAY to build LONG-TERM loyalty to the game, and you won't have to answer that question.

            Or, quit fooling around and go ahead and contract to 6 superteams. Quit causing owners and cities to throw good money after bad.
            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


            • #7
              Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              If the popularity is all based on superteams and superfriends what happens when the "superteam" talent is fairly mediocre? When LBJ et al get over the hill there's no guarantee there will be anyone to follow them immediately.

              ANYTHING is successful when the product is fantastic. The bump is because of the increase in interest due to change as much as because people somehow suddenly love the NBA.

              The question is, can the league survive another drought like the one after the Jordan years, when every freaking good player was being hyped (unsuccessfully) as the "next" Jordan?

              Use the popularity being generated TODAY to build LONG-TERM loyalty to the game, and you won't have to answer that question.

              Or, quit fooling around and go ahead and contract to 6 superteams. Quit causing owners and cities to throw good money after bad.
              FWIW, the elite European soccer leagues (EPL and La Liga in particular) have the kind of inequality in terms of finances and competitive balance that dwarfs that of the NBA. Yet nobody seems to worry about those leagues losing fans.

              And right after the NBA lost Jordan, they did eventually find their next Jordan (Kobe not to mention Lebron). They had to fight through a small drought due to the the lockout, but then they got right back into their groove. The Lakers built another dynasty along with the Spurs. People watched.

              Truth be told, the NBA would have no qualms if it went back to the 80s and it was just the Lakers vs. Celtics every other year playing each other. It would be an easy cash cow. Contrast this with something like 2005 with the Spurs and Pistons in the Finals (which was one of the most well played, competitive and dramatic Finals series I've ever seen). That was a great series, but their ratings took a hit.
              Last edited by d_c; 04-19-2011, 03:29 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                FWIW, the elite European soccer leagues (EPL and La Liga in particular) have the kind of inequality in terms of finances and competitive balance that dwarfs that of the NBA. Yet nobody seems to worry about those leagues losing fans.
                I think that is the ultimate proof of the formula about building loyalty to teams, not just great players. They are huge on their players but fans grow up loving their team whether or not they have the flavor of the month.

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                Truth be told, the NBA would have no qualms if it went back to the 80s and it was just the Lakers vs. Celtics every other year playing each other. It would be an easy cash cow. Contrast this with something like 2005 with the Spurs and Pistons in the Finals (which was one of the most well played, competitive and dramatic Finals series I've ever seen). That was a great series, but their ratings took a hit.
                So wouldn't it be better if the Spurs/Pistons stuff was was through the roof like the Lakers/Celtics stuff? Wouldn't it make a better league AND bring in more (and more consistent) money? Isn't having a majority of franchises AND the NBA as a brand profitable better than having a few franchises super profitable and neglecting the rest so the brand can be profitable?

                The "cash cow" is easy, and I'm afraid the NBA falls into the trap of milking it until it is dry and then going to look for another cow. If they find it in time, great. If not ... oops.

                I think the league was starting to suffer before LBJ came along, because Kobe and Shaq vs no one else anyone really was excited about didn't work out well money-wise. You need someone else to play against, which is why I think the "superfriends" will work out for a while. But, again, marketing isn't about the easy path, it is about the one that helps you sustain the most consistent profits and growth. It's meant to help you minimize the variables over which you have no control - like if there will be another Greatest of All Time immediately following the current Greatest of All Time.
                BillS

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I think that is the ultimate prrof of the formula about building loyalty to teams, not just great players. They are huge on their players but fans grow up loving their team whether or not they have the flavor of the month.



                  So wouldn't it be better if the Spurs/Pistons stuff was was through the roof like the Lakers/Celtics stuff? Wouldn't it make a better league AND bring in more (and more consistent) money? Isn't having a majority of franchises AND the NBA as a brand profitable better than having a few franchises super profitable and neglecting the rest so the brand can be profitable?

                  The "cash cow" is easy, and I'm afraid the NBA falls into the trap of milking it until it is dry and then going to look for another cow. If they find it in time, great. If not ... oops.

                  I think the league was starting to suffer before LBJ came along, because Kobe and Shaq vs no one else anyone really was excited about didn't work out well money-wise. You need someone else to play against, which is why I think the "superfriends" will work out for a while. But, again, marketing isn't about the easy path, it is about the one that helps you sustain the most consistent profits and growth. It's meant to help you minimize the variables over which you have no control - like if there will be another Greatest of All Time immediately following the current Greatest of All Time.

                  The league was suffering through the doldrums before Stern, the Lakers, Bulls and Celtics dynasties. They were on the verge of going out of business with playoff games on tape delay and empty seats. And those were the days when teams like the Warriors and Bullets were playing for championships.

                  As far as basketball goes, this is the stuff the average American sports fan can watch. They want to watch superpowers and superteams. Tennis was popular in America with rivalries between superstars in the 80s and 90s. Now there are no such rivalries and its popularity has taken a huge hit in this country, despite an incredible level in quality of play.

                  Similarly, the only reason people still care about college basketball is the tournament. The brackets, the upsets, the office pools. It's still popular despite often times there being poor quality of play and several elite level players being 1 and done and going straight to the NBA. People love a big, 64 team single elimination tournament where anything can happen.

                  Now if you made the NCAA tournament into a 2+ month war of attrition with best of 7 playoff series, you would take away the appeal of why people like March Madness and college bball. People would lose interest. So in the case of the NCAA, it's not the quality of the product that people care about, but the circumstances under which they're presented.

                  The NBA/Stern has thrived because it understands sports is an entertainment landscape and it caters to what casual American sports fans want to see. I'm sure the NBA themselves have no problems with a Spurs/Pistons finals (I sure didn't), but when they look at the ratings, they understand what the casual fan finds more compelling.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I'm sure the NBA themselves have no problems with a Spurs/Pistons finals (I sure didn't), but when they look at the ratings, they understand what the casual fan finds more compelling.
                    Well, of course, the "conspiracy theory" builds on the idea that the NBA does have a problem with a Spurs/Pistons finals.

                    The situation in my mind, though, is that the NBA is riding on the coattails of those series that are compelling to the casual fan. Which is fine when they occur, but when they don't it is a problem.

                    If marketing people were to be willing to actually work on reaching that consistent market, they would be well served to look at turning those "casual" fans into "consistent" fans.

                    There's nothing that says you can't market the marquee matchups and hype the individual players. But, if you mix that with campaigns working to convert casual fans to consistent fans of their local team, you ADD the new casuals to the now higher across-the-board income base for the league. That helps everyone, especially the non-hype players.

                    An example - the "where amazing happens" ads, that essentially focus on the top of the top. As we've seen from the season highlights thread of a 37-win team, there are tons of "amazing" moments for every team in the course of a full season. Why not a version customized to the local team that runs on the local affiliate of network broadcast games (I think local ads for ESPN and NBATV and TNT can be done based on the service provider area as well, it isn't that hard). That means that people watching a hype matchup or player also see an ad for their local team and some of the great moments there.

                    Couldn't hoit...
                    BillS

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                      I still was shocked that New York/Boston game 1 wasnt on ABC, and now this further proves how stupid ABC was for opting for the Heat/76ers over that game. Just as many stars and 2 iconic teams > 1 "super" team.

                      TNT and ESPN/ABC will be fighting over who tries to get the games from the next round of Boston/New York vs Miami, that will clearly be the best series out of the 4 potential series to watch.
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                        Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
                        I still was shocked that New York/Boston game 1 wasnt on ABC, and now this further proves how stupid ABC was for opting for the Heat/76ers over that game. Just as many stars and 2 iconic teams > 1 "super" team.
                        That was not an option because the Bruins played in Boston on Saturday. So the Celtics could not play on Saturday. Although they could have scheduled the Celtics vs Knicks Sunday afternoon and move lakers vs Hornets to 7:00. But the Lakers game got better ratings Sunday

                        edit: by the way that is what they are doing Sunday. Lakers game is Sunday night, Celts game is late Sunday afternoon
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-19-2011, 05:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          That was not an option because the Bruins played in Boston on Saturday. So the Celtics could not play on Saturday. Although they could have scheduled the Celtics vs Knicks Sunday afternoon and move lakers vs Hornets to 7:00. But the Lakers game got better ratings Sunday
                          Yeah I guess there's always other things going on besides basketball. Who knows what would have gotten better ratings if both were on ABC on Sunday, but we'll never know and there's always the respect to the champions thing that I understand.
                          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                          ----------------- Reggie Miller

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                            Funny, folks Stateside forget the NHL playoffs are on and I have to remind people up here that the NBA playoffs are on... which is also why I have to watch each game at home.
                            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                            Bob Netolicky

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NBA Playoffs: TNT has best ever start to postseason

                              What a surprise the game with two of the biggest markets, and two cities that are already huge rivals has big ratings. Seriously does that really surprise people?

                              If the NBA actually tried to get local fans excited about the Pacers I guarantee this Pacers/Bulls series would have some pretty high ratings. The problem is there are no commercials with the Pacers as a focus. Yeah you might get a quick glimpse of Granger, but nothing substantial when you consider every Celtic player is in half the commercial.

                              By the way if it was all about the superteams the Nuggets/Thunder series wouldn't have had such high ratings. The reason they have high ratings is because people in OKC are excited for their team.

                              Look at the 90's. This league was huge in the 90's not because of superteams, and not even because of Jordan. It was huge because people were excited about their teams. Even with Jordan there was enough talent everywhere that everyone thought they had a chance, and most of the time that talent was actually drafted by that team. People were invested in their teams, and who their team drafted. Not in the superstar that they hope their team will sign. While the league may have needed the superteams in the 80's to get out of the gutter, it didn't really take off until the 90's when people were excited for their own team.

                              Look at how the NFL has succeeded. They do two things differently. First they have every almost every game on a non-cable network to make sure they can reach maximum viewership. That is just a duh move, everyone with a TV can get local channels. Secondly it is about the teams not the players. When a player leaves a team you don't see a max exodus to that players new team, instead you either see everyone trash talk that player or say ok who is replacing him. Most of what the NFL does is either looking out for the health of the players, or to make the sport more entertaining. The refs do not give blatant favoritism to star players, or make calls based on reputation or anticipation. They make a call because there is a good reason to make a call. If they do throw a flag that shouldn't have the say my bad there was no foul keep playing.

                              There is integrity in the league and the game. There aren't huge discrepancies between NFL rules and college rules, and those that are different are usually there to make it more difficult not easier. They also are about skill, and don't punish the team. They are more equivalent to having the 3-point line farther out than defensive 3 seconds or the no charge area.


                              As far as European soccer goes, that has less to do with the model and more to do with tradition. In other words see MLB up until the NFL started to dominate. Just because they are successful isn't always because it is actually better, it might just be because the fandom, the tradition, and the history are so ingrained that it doesn't matter. If you do not have that you have to find another way to succeed. that is why the NFL has been so much more successful than the NBA.

                              P.S. Tennis seriously?!? You are going to compare a team sport with teams that are tied to specific cities and states to an individual sport that has no teams tied to specific cities and states. They are two completely different monsters, of course an individual sport is going to thrive off of individual success and rivalries.
                              Last edited by Eleazar; 04-19-2011, 06:21 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X