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

ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

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

  • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Loyalty to what? A basketball team that throws you under the bus the minute you leave? Fans who only care about you as a basketball playing machine?

    Sports in America have nothing to do with loyalty, culture or tradition. Teams can trade or cut or toss off players and I don't hear a word about loyalty but as soon as a player puts himself in a position to decide for himself all you hear is "loyalty."
    What would you think if 3 owners decided to form a threesome and give their best players to one team to win a championship? Would you support that? For example, 3 teams could get together and put CP3, DWade, Lebron, SoftBosh and Dwight on the same team. In what decade do you think another team could contend with them, let alone beat them.

    Comment


    • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      Like I asked earlier, what rules? You said earlier you wanted $5 million a year for three years plus a first round pick. Isn't that what the Cavs got, a $15 million trade exception and a multitude of first round picks?
      Actually I said 10-15M per year for 3 years (i.e. 30-45M) but honestly after looking at the actual trade I don't think that's enough. It's better though. It would take some time to decide and I wouldn't strive for equal value but I think something along the lines of 75% value would be fair. With Lebron's value in the 30M/yr vicinity, just do the math. I don't expect some here to agree with that...but it's what I think would help avoid this situation.

      Edit: btw, looking at Miami's very late first round picks and the trade exception, it's not even close to 50% value. Nobody would trade Lebron for double that.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 05-22-2011, 12:10 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        What would you think if 3 owners decided to form a threesome and give their best players to one team to win a championship? Would you support that? For example, 3 teams could get together and put CP3, DWade, Lebron, SoftBosh and Dwight on the same team. In what decade do you think another team could contend with them, let alone beat them.
        What the? Why would three owners decide to do that?

        Comment


        • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Actually I said 10-15M per year for 3 years (i.e. 30-45M) but honestly after looking at the actual trade I don't think that's enough. It's better though. It would take some time to decide and I wouldn't strive for equal value but I think something along the lines of 75% value would be fair. With Lebron's value in the 30M/yr vicinity, just do the math. I don't expect some here to agree with that...but it's what I think would help avoid this situation.
          You want a team to pay another team 30-45 million just because they signed a player via free agency? This is ridiculous. I'm sorry, this is just stupid.

          How about we just get rid of free agency? Players have to play for the team they are drafted to unless they get traded. Screw players who are trapped in a terrible organization that doesn't want to win. Its more fair this way.

          Comment


          • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            What the? Why would three owners decide to do that?
            The owners are not allowed to form partnerships or collude so it's not happening. But to answer your question it would be to win championships. Yes, it could happen if it were allowed but...of course it would ruin the league...

            Comment


            • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              You want a team to pay another team 30-45 million just because they signed a player via free agency? This is ridiculous. I'm sorry, this is just stupid.

              How about we just get rid of free agency? Players have to play for the team they are drafted to unless they get traded. Screw players who are trapped in a terrible organization that doesn't want to win. Its more fair this way.
              What is stupid is someone who cannot see what the Cleveland situation does to the league. Thanks for teaching me a new word... L8R.

              Comment


              • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                The owners are not allowed to form partnerships or collude so it's not happening. But to answer your question it would be to win championships. Yes, it could happen if it were allowed but...of course it would ruin the league...
                Why would 3 owners of 3 different teams decide to trade their players to one of those teams so one could win the championship? It makes 0 sense.

                What is stupid is someone who cannot see what the Cleveland situation does to the league. Thanks for teaching me a new word... L8R.
                I see what the Cleveland situation does to the league, but I also see a team in Cleveland that didn't do much to keep LeBron. I'm saying teams need to be more responsible in building a team for their franchise guy rather than the NBA forcing the franchise guy to stay put. I'm not going to reward a franchise (Cleveland) for doing a terrible job in building a team.

                Comment


                • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  What would you think if 3 owners decided to form a threesome and give their best players to one team to win a championship? Would you support that? For example, 3 teams could get together and put CP3, DWade, Lebron, SoftBosh and Dwight on the same team. In what decade do you think another team could contend with them, let alone beat them.
                  This isn't far from what already happens. Who traded Pau Gasol to the Lakers from Memphis and led to them winning two titles? Former Lakers player and GM Jerry West.

                  Who traded Kevin Garnett to the Celtics, which led to them winning the title before that? Former Celtics player and Danny Ainge's pal Kevin McHale.

                  Comment


                  • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                    And to directly answer your question, owners can't team up because it's directly against the rules and structure of how sports work. Players are allowed to to go to teams together because that's how we've structured things.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                      I see your perspective, BnG, but from mine, the league was hurting pretty badly from having Lebron waste his prime on a team that hadn't made one creative move to pair him with another good player since they drafted him. Even among Cleveland fans who hate Lebron, there is a consensus of the ineptitude of John Paxson. Just think of the position the league would be in right now in MJ had been drafted by a perennial losing franchise and stayed there for his whole career. That may have constituted the biggest missed opportunity in the history of professional sports.

                      Cleveland deserves nothing for throwing away a once in a lifetime opportunity for that franchise. They were crap before they drafted Lebron and they're crap now. Orlando with Dwight is not much better, they've made so many silly, lazy trades for has-beens that they're writing their own tragedy.
                      Last edited by idioteque; 05-22-2011, 10:16 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                        Wait, the league was hurting pretty badly from having yet another team that sold out (or came close, I have to imagine) any arena it visited? It used to be CLE and MIA did that because of LeBron and Wade, now only one of them obviously does.

                        It was hurting pretty badly by CLE winning over 60 games multiple years and making appearances in the Finals, ECF, or semis for years?

                        Comment


                        • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Wait, the league was hurting pretty badly from having yet another team that sold out (or came close, I have to imagine) any arena it visited? It used to be CLE and MIA did that because of LeBron and Wade, now only one of them obviously does.

                          It was hurting pretty badly by CLE winning over 60 games multiple years and making appearances in the Finals, ECF, or semis for years?
                          MJ wasn't the MJ that was one of the first examples of globalization (not just in sports, but globalization, period) who was known by kids everywhere from Chicago to Calcutta until at least the midst of the first three-peat. Lebron has the potential of being that next guy, maybe not as well known as MJ, but better known and more well-liked than Kobe. The league has much more to gain from that than it does from the Cleveland market. It would have been nice if it could have had both, but Cleveland didn't bring in the complementary players that were needed.

                          Chicago wouldn't have been Chicago if they hadn't absolutely fleeced Seattle in trading Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen. Cleveland never made a similarly brilliant move and that condemned them. Instead they made a ton of lateral moves that never worked out.

                          Another interesting tidbit is that 3 years after drafting MJ, the Bulls had the tenth pick of the draft and got Horace Grant. A year after drafting Lebron, the Cavaliers had the tenth pick and drafted Luke Jackson.
                          Last edited by idioteque; 05-22-2011, 10:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                            Loyalty to what? A basketball team that throws you under the bus the minute you leave? Fans who only care about you as a basketball playing machine?

                            Sports in America have nothing to do with loyalty, culture or tradition. Teams can trade or cut or toss off players and I don't hear a word about loyalty but as soon as a player puts himself in a position to decide for himself all you hear is "loyalty." Please.
                            Fans have loyalty to teams OR to players, players may or may not have loyalty to teams depending on what motivates them. The question is whether league income is best served by just dumping the concept of a team as something that stays stable from year to year and simply pushing players and fans whose loyalty follows those players.

                            The pros of that approach are that the marketing can be the same nationwide, since you don't care if there is a local franchise. The hyped teams will sell out every arena they play, and the small number of hyped teams means putting only their games on national TV will draw large audiences and make big news.

                            The cons are that the teams without the hyped players will sell very few tickets if those players aren't on the opponents on any given night, the huge PR investment can go bye-bye on a single injury or scandal, and only those hyped player teams can operate on anything approaching a consistent business model.

                            In some ideal world, teams are loyal to their fans and players are loyal to their teams. Teams have a responsibility to put the best players on the court. Fans respect the players even when they end up somewhere else.

                            Reality breaks those conditions. Teams with lousy management aren't living up to their responsibilities. Players certainly have a responsibility to look out for themselves as well as for the sport. Fans get bitter when their hope is taken away.

                            The way to set up rules is to make sure that reward is commensurate with what motivates a player, and to level the playing field to allow good management to be successful. If a player is motivated to win a championship (do whatever it takes to get on a super team), then the top money shouldn't be available. If a player is motivated by money, then the best money should be available by staying with the original team. If a team management is pursuing a clearly flawed course (not including simple injury bad luck or economic conditions) they should not be rewarded with high draft picks or concessions.

                            Threading these goals together isn't easy, which is why the easiest thing is to just kind of give up on the old-fashioned notion of a sports league and try to get the biggest "entertainment" bang for the buck. Competition isn't necessary, just hype. The loser teams don't have to be in stable places, if they move around from city to city who cares? As long as there is at least one LeBron or Wade or Kobe or DRose out there, big bucks will come in and the individual franchises who don't have that player can just deal with it - what clout do they have, anyway?
                            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


                            • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                              Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                              MJ wasn't the MJ that was one of the first examples of globalization (not just in sports, but globalization, period) who was known by kids everywhere from Chicago to Calcutta until at least the midst of the first three-peat. Lebron has the potential of being that next guy, maybe not as well known as MJ, but better known and more well-liked than Kobe. The league has much more to gain from that than it does from the Cleveland market. It would have been nice if it could have had both, but Cleveland didn't bring in the complementary players that were needed.

                              Chicago wouldn't have been Chicago if they hadn't absolutely fleeced Seattle in trading Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen. Cleveland never made a similarly brilliant move and that condemned them. Instead they made a ton of lateral moves that never worked out.

                              Another interesting tidbit is that 3 years after drafting MJ, the Bulls had the tenth pick of the draft and got Horace Grant. A year after drafting Lebron, the Cavaliers had the tenth pick and drafted Luke Jackson.
                              All good points. Stern clearly wants to go overseas, particularly to Asia. The small market team's days may be numbered.

                              As for your examples, it's true. Not every management team is going to be the best. But are we concluding here that the best players should only play for the best run, high-profile teams? I understand some of that happens now, but it usually involves older players well into their prime who are chasing rings (e.g. Allen, Garnett, Payton, Malone, etc.). Is it time to just send the best players, even if they are 25 or 26 (before their prime) to the very best teams so they can create a dynasty where there is no competition at all? Perhaps Barkley and Reggie Miller should have joined Magic in LA years ago so they could rack up championships. They probably would have won 10 or 12 straight.

                              The NBA already has a bit of a WWF feel to it during the regular season. Many teams cannot afford any more fake basketball games in the regular season due to the fact their teams are outclassed for decade after decade. At some point fans are going to realize that this model will prevent their franchise from ever winning an NBA championship...and that they just might need to spend their time doing something other than following their team. This will probably form the basis for the NBA going global and reducing the footprint in the US in terms of the number of teams. Whether the Pacers survive that cut is hard to say.

                              Comment


                              • Re: ECF Playoffs 2011: Miami Vs. Chicago

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                All good points. Stern clearly wants to go overseas, particularly to Asia. The small market team's days may be numbered.

                                As for your examples, it's true. Not every management team is going to be the best. But are we concluding here that the best players should only play for the best run, high-profile teams? I understand some of that happens now, but it usually involves older players well into their prime who are chasing rings (e.g. Allen, Garnett, Payton, Malone, etc.). Is it time to just send the best players, even if they are 25 or 26 (before their prime) to the very best teams so they can create a dynasty where there is no competition at all? Perhaps Barkley and Reggie Miller should have joined Magic in LA years ago so they could rack up championships. They probably would have won 10 or 12 straight.

                                The NBA already has a bit of a WWF feel to it during the regular season. Many teams cannot afford any more fake basketball games in the regular season due to the fact their teams are outclassed for decade after decade. At some point fans are going to realize that this model will prevent their franchise from ever winning an NBA championship...and that they just might need to spend their time doing something other than following their team. This will probably form the basis for the NBA going global and reducing the footprint in the US in terms of the number of teams. Whether the Pacers survive that cut is hard to say.
                                I seriously doubt the NBA going global is going to do more than add a separate league that then perhaps plays the North American league in exhibitions and in the playoffs. To try to integrate a worldwide trip for, say, the Lakers to play away games in China and Europe, would be expensive, exhausting, and produce $0 television revenue in the US for those games (Americans aren't very good at staying up all night to watch sporting events).

                                The "unintended consequence", though, will be a serious drop-off in foreign players coming to North American teams and, as such, the end of the global appeal of any but the best of the best in any given 5-year span.

                                Ironically, for the revenue base to expand for the league going international the NBA will have to focus on marketing each global team locally, not just marketing LeBron James or Derrick Rose. Suddenly, every dollar they squeeze from a Bulls or Heat game in China becomes necessary rather than gravy, so they would need to get local fans to come to games between local teams or there won't be a team in China for the LeBrons to come and play.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X