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

David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

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

  • #16
    Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Simmons might have a big market bias, but he's basically right on one hand. The league over-expanded and as a result we have way too many bottom feeding teams. That's not saying small markets shouldn't have teams, instead it means that waaaaaay too many have been added over the past 20 years.

    Was it really necessary to create the Bobcats just two years after the Hornets left Charlotte? Did we really need the Canadian teams, which by most objective measures were a failure? The Grizz left after just 6 years and the Raptors haven't exactly set the world on fire.

    Stern over-expanded. That's not ripping on big markets, it's just stating the truth.

    Even Stern himself seems to realize the mistake:

    http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssp...48484/31322835

    The above post is pretty much wrong on every single count.

    The problem with the Hornets wasn't Charlotte, it was George Shinn. The Bobcats suck because they have poor management, not because they play in Charlotte.

    North Carolina is a massive basketball hotbed. It's absurd to criticize expansion into a market where basketball actually surpasses football.

    Also, FYI there were just as many bottom-feeding teams in the 80's and 90's. The only difference now is there are more good teams. There's a reason the 8th seed never even came close to beating a #1 for the first 10 years of the 16-seed format, and now it's not even a surprise when it happens.

    Also, as UB mentioned, the Raptors are relatively successful in Toronto.

    Of course, putting all that aside, Toronto is the biggest city in Canada, and bigger than any US city outside of New York, so one would would have trouble fathoming exactly in what universe Toronto is a "small" market to begin with....
    Last edited by Kstat; 08-15-2011, 09:01 AM.

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

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

      So contraction is a perfectly valid option, but the expansion of the league was the right thing to do?

      Wow, that makes a TON of sense.

      You can argue Char. should have a team. Okay, I agree. You can argue Toronto needs a team. Okay, I agree.

      But the league is too big. If Char. needs a team, then move one there. If Toronto needs a team, then move one there.

      But the league, as it's currently constructed, cannot support 30 teams, which is what Adam is saying. You latched on to the cities, rather than the total number of teams.

      You can put a team in Toronto, or back in NC, and not expand the league.
      Last edited by Since86; 08-15-2011, 02:46 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

        The NBA has expanded by one team over the last 16 years. That seems pretty stable to me....

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

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

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

          And yet how many have moved? That doesn't seem very stable to me......

          Maybe we have different definitions of the word "stable."
          Last edited by Since86; 08-15-2011, 03:30 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

            ...except you aren't criticizing relocation. You're criticizing expansion. Actually, you just advocated relocation in your previous post.

            Can't have it both ways.

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

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

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

              I'm gonna move my edit to a new post.

              I don't even know how you can up with one. Both Toronto, and the Griz were formed in 1996, which would make two teams in 16 years. Petty? Yes.

              Plus, that's ignoring the fact that 4 other teams were introduced just 8 years earlier.

              So 6 teams in 24 years, and out of those 6, 2 of them remain in the cities they started out in. Toronto and Orlando.

              The league is in a constant state of fluctuation. Whether it's expanding to Vancouver and then leaving for Memphis. Or the Hornets fleeing Charlotte and going to New Orleans only to be replaced two years later.



              I'm not trying to have it both ways. The league is too big and can't support 30 teams, that's the entire point. Toronto can have a team, that does well, while hurting the rest of the league. It's not like the status of the league is attached to the hip of every team. One city/team can be productive, while the rest of the league (as a whole) is going backwards.
              Last edited by Since86; 08-15-2011, 03:32 PM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                The more teams, the more diluted the talent. I would say that a smaller NBA would be a better league...but that's JMHO.

                Begin by dropping the Lakers, Bulls, Heat, Knicks and Celtics.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  The problem with the Hornets wasn't Charlotte, it was George Shinn. The Bobcats suck because they have poor management, not because they play in Charlotte.

                  North Carolina is a massive basketball hotbed. It's absurd to criticize expansion into a market where basketball actually surpasses football.
                  Both times there is one thing in common Charlotte.

                  Also North Carolina is a hot bed for college basketball. It is more like Indiana than New York. Indiana is a huge basketball hotbed, yet the team struggles to make money almost every year, and when the team is struggling struggles to put people in the seats. Indiana loves basketball, but unless the Pacers are winning really couldn't care less about the NBA and the Pacers.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    The above post is pretty much wrong on every single count.

                    The problem with the Hornets wasn't Charlotte, it was George Shinn. The Bobcats suck because they have poor management, not because they play in Charlotte.

                    North Carolina is a massive basketball hotbed. It's absurd to criticize expansion into a market where basketball actually surpasses football.

                    Also, FYI there were just as many bottom-feeding teams in the 80's and 90's. The only difference now is there are more good teams. There's a reason the 8th seed never even came close to beating a #1 for the first 10 years of the 16-seed format, and now it's not even a surprise when it happens.

                    Also, as UB mentioned, the Raptors are relatively successful in Toronto.

                    Of course, putting all that aside, Toronto is the biggest city in Canada, and bigger than any US city outside of New York, so one would would have trouble fathoming exactly in what universe Toronto is a "small" market to begin with....

                    Toronto might be a large city, but it's a "small market" from a practical standpoint. It's a cold city that isn't in the US. I'm sure it's a cool city, but it's just not an attractive place for upper-tier NBA players to play in. Every great player they've had (Carter, Bosh, McGrady) has left. Have they ever signed a big name? Don't think so. Big city, but let's face it, many NBA player simply aren't interested in playing in a Canadian city when other options are on the table.

                    "Relatively successful"? I don't know about that. Aside from the Carter-hype from 99-01, the team has been mediocre to downright horrid for the bulk of their existence. They've won only one playoff series.

                    Attendance wise, they've had some fantastic seasons while also having season of hovering in the mid 80's capacity wise.

                    http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

                    Again, when looking at the Canadian teams together, they were a failure. The Grizzlies couldn't have been any more of a failure in Vancouver and the Raptors at best have been "OK". That tips the scale towards "bad". They contributed absolutely nothing to the overall state of the NBA. The NBA did not need them.

                    And the issue with Charlotte isn't about whose fault it was. The fact is, the team left. Was it absolutely necessary to give a small market an expansion team just two years after the Hornets left? Seattle got screwed too and three years later, they don't look to be getting a team any time soon. And Seattle is a much larger market than Charlotte.

                    Why were the Bobcats necessary? Yeah, I realize Charlotte had good attendance at the beginning of the Hornets run, but that's because they got some absurdly lucky draft picks in Grandmama and Zo. That type of success is the exception to the rule for a young expansion team. What we've seen from the Bobcats is more of the norm. Mediocre team, mediocre attendance. It was completely unnecessary to put a team in Charlotte that soon. They add nothing to the league.

                    You saying there were more bottom-feeding teams back in the day puzzles me a bit. Every time you add a team, you dilute the overall talent pool a bit more and ensure that there will be another lottery team. And despite the expansion, look at all the years over the past decade where the east has only had 3 or so teams that you could take seriously. You're saying it's not a surprise when an 8 seed beats a 1, but that statement sounds a bit ridiculous when you look at all of the pitiful 8 seeds from the East over the past 10 years. Why does adding more teams mean there will be more good teams, when really all it's doing is adding more lottery teams?

                    The number of "good" teams in the NBA varies all the time and doesn't seem to really hinge on the number of teams in the league. In 2011, yes, there will clearly quite a few "good" teams in the league who were legit title contenders. But if you chipped a few of the bottom feeders off, that wouldn't change anything. Go back to 2007 (maybe the worst NBA season ever), when there were 30 teams just like now, and the number of "good" teams was drastically less than it is now. It varies.

                    Besides, I'm not saying we shouldn't have expanded at all. All I'm saying is that we did it about 4 or so times too many.

                    The fact that Stern is even looking at contraction is pretty much acknowledging that it was a mistake. It's hard to contract, so it probably won't happen. But I bet he wouldn't have added as many teams if he could do it over again.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-15-2011, 11:55 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      The fact that Stern is even looking at contraction is pretty much acknowledging that it was a mistake. It's hard to contract, so it probably won't happen. But I bet he wouldn't have added as many teams if he could do it over again.
                      Eh. I think you misinterpreted the interview here.

                      Stern spent most of his time on this subject highlighting that contraction hurts the player's union more than it does the owners (loss of thirty jobs, etc). I remember when I was smaller, I thought that mowing our family lawn was the coolest idea, and was pretty upset when my dad wouldn't let me. Then when he finally handed me the keys, I quickly realized how much it sucked. I think that Stern is handling this idea along the same lines.

                      "Sure, if the players want contraction, I'll be glad to talk about it... it's on the table".

                      Contraction won't happen, that's almost a guarantee. I think the whole point that Stern is making is that the NBA needs to cut expenses in order to generate profits which can be distributed back to players/owners. Right now the balance sheet is simply negative.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        Toronto might be a large city, but it's a "small market" from a practical standpoint. It's a cold city that isn't in the US. I'm sure it's a cool city, but it's just not an attractive place for upper-tier NBA players to play in. Every great player they've had (Carter, Bosh, McGrady) has left. Have they ever signed a big name? Don't think so. Big city, but let's face it, many NBA player simply aren't interested in playing in a Canadian city when other options are on the table.

                        "Relatively successful"? I don't know about that. Aside from the Carter-hype from 99-01, the team has been mediocre to downright horrid for the bulk of their existence. They've won only one playoff series.

                        Attendance wise, they've had some fantastic seasons while also having season of hovering in the mid 80's capacity wise.

                        http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

                        Again, when looking at the Canadian teams together, they were a failure. The Grizzlies couldn't have been any more of a failure in Vancouver and the Raptors at best have been "OK". That tips the scale towards "bad". They contributed absolutely nothing to the overall state of the NBA. The NBA did not need them.

                        And the issue with Charlotte isn't about whose fault it was. The fact is, the team left. Was it absolutely necessary to give a small market an expansion team just two years after the Hornets left? Seattle got screwed too and three years later, they don't look to be getting a team any time soon. And Seattle is a much larger market than Charlotte.

                        Why were the Bobcats necessary? Yeah, I realize Charlotte had good attendance at the beginning of the Hornets run, but that's because they got some absurdly lucky draft picks in Grandmama and Zo. That type of success is the exception to the rule for a young expansion team. What we've seen from the Bobcats is more of the norm. Mediocre team, mediocre attendance. It was completely unnecessary to put a team in Charlotte that soon. They add nothing to the league.

                        You saying there were more bottom-feeding teams back in the day puzzles me a bit. Every time you add a team, you dilute the overall talent pool a bit more and ensure that there will be another lottery team. And despite the expansion, look at all the years over the past decade where the east has only had 3 or so teams that you could take seriously. You're saying it's not a surprise when an 8 seed beats a 1, but that statement sounds a bit ridiculous when you look at all of the pitiful 8 seeds from the East over the past 10 years. Why does adding more teams mean there will be more good teams, when really all it's doing is adding more lottery teams?

                        The number of "good" teams in the NBA varies all the time and doesn't seem to really hinge on the number of teams in the league. In 2011, yes, there will clearly quite a few "good" teams in the league who were legit title contenders. But if you chipped a few of the bottom feeders off, that wouldn't change anything. Go back to 2007 (maybe the worst NBA season ever), when there were 30 teams just like now, and the number of "good" teams was drastically less than it is now. It varies.

                        Besides, I'm not saying we shouldn't have expanded at all. All I'm saying is that we did it about 4 or so times too many.

                        The fact that Stern is even looking at contraction is pretty much acknowledging that it was a mistake. It's hard to contract, so it probably won't happen. But I bet he wouldn't have added as many teams if he could do it over again.
                        Way off target here. You're labeling Toronto a small market team b/c players don't want to play there (which I disagree with, but that's for another day)? That has nothing to do with being a small or large market. Markets are defined by the audience they reach (population), ability to generate ad and ticket revenue, tv contracts, corporate sponsorships, etc. Toronto is hands down one of the largest NBA markets in the league and isn't a candidate for contraction. They have a huge avid fan base (go to their realgm forum), large tv contracts, solid attendance, corporate sponsorships, etc. I guarantee they are a profitable team and the farthest thing from a "small market." Based on your definition of "small market," the Clippers would qualify as well despite being in LA. Nobody wants to play there and they never win.To bring up the climate tops the cake - Chicago, Boston, and NY are just as cold.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                          Accept it, Toronto: You’re a small market franchise

                          By Austin Burton

                          2007: “Toronto as a market won’t ever be New York, L.A., Boston or Miami. Playing in a small market while not being a flashy guy isn’t a kiss of death, but (Chris) Bosh‘s low profile might not resonate with H.O.F. voters if he doesn’t win big (like Reggie Miller) or put up amazing numbers (like Karl Malone and John Stockton).”

                          2009: “More than LeBron, Wade or any other superstar, Bosh seems most likely to change teams in the much-hyped 2010 offseason. The NBA’s resident self-marketing guru and undercover comedian is just waiting to break out in a bigger market, i.e. New York, Miami or L.A.”

                          Two times I can remember calling the Raptors a small-market team, and two times I’ve incurred the wrath of the Toronto faithful. The arguments are the same: We’re the 4th-biggest city in North America … We sell out every Raptors game … What other team can say a whole country backs them? … Blah, blah and blah.

                          Whatever.

                          It’s time to face up to some truths. As a city, Toronto is not a “small market” by definition. Fine. But the Toronto Raptors are unquestionably a small market franchise within the framework of North American professional sports. (Might as well throw the Blue Jays in there, too.) And you can’t really argue against that.

                          How many times were the Raptors on ESPN, TNT or ABC last season? Three? Four? That’s probably even going too high. Even when the Raptors are good, like when they were one of the Top-3 teams in the East a couple years back, they have zero TV presence and zero profile this side of the border. In their most recent heyday, Raptors’ playoff games still got the NBA TV junior varsity treatment.

                          Bosh, the face of the franchise, is a great player and a charming personality and a nice guy. Do you know why he’s nowhere near as popular as Chris Paul or Ray Allen? Because he plays for the Raptors. Bosh has had to become the Black Seth Rogen and basically live on Twitter and uStream just to get some kind of mainstream attention, and he’s still less famous than Tay Zonday. But you know if CB4 played for the Heat or the Rockets with that same personality, he’d be a media force. The sight of kids or grown men outside of Canada rocking Bosh jerseys is rare enough — actually catching somebody in a Jose Calderon or Andrea Bargnani jersey would be like seeing Bigfoot walking down West Broadway.

                          The closest the Raptors have ever come to being a legit big-market organization was when they had Vince Carter in his prime. Vince was the most exciting player in the world for a time; and even then he could only get the Raps so close. When Vince left, so did the Toronto’s chances of reaching actual “big market” status. And when Bosh is gone next summer to, yes, a bigger market, and Hedo Turkoglu is the focal point of Raps’ marketing, expect that status to drop even more.
                          http://dimemag.com/2009/07/accept-it-toronto-youre-a-small-market-franchise/
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                            http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/...rs_321933.html

                            A satire piece from a no-name Dime Magazine journalist or Forbes Magazine stating facts that Toronto is a top 10 valued franchise. I rest my case.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                              Also, take a look at the reader comments from "your source". The journalist (if that's what you want to call him) gets blasted for that piece.

                              Facts are facts - Toronto is not a "small market" It may not be a winning team, but it's a large market. Were the Knicks a small market when they missed the playoffs many years in a row? The very definition of market is "a geographic region considered as a place for sales" and "a subdivision of a population considered as buyers."

                              Toronto is top 5 in the NBA by those standards.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: David Stern on Bill Simmons Podcast

                                Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                                http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/...rs_321933.html

                                A satire piece from a no-name Dime Magazine journalist or Forbes Magazine stating facts that Toronto is a top 10 valued franchise. I rest my case.
                                First off, Forbes isn't listing "facts." Those numbers are estimates. Forbes doesn't have access to the real numbers.

                                Secondly, Forbes says nothing about market size, nor how the franchise is viewed by the American public, which is exactly what the Dime Mag piece is centered around.

                                And besides, is Pheonix and San Antonio "large" markets as well? Those are the #8 and #9 teams on the list, you know, cities that are actually SMALLER than Toronto.

                                But anyways......


                                EDIT: Did you even read the article? Population size doesn't determine popularity/ratings, which is what the Dime Mag piece is all about.

                                While Toronto might have a large enough population to be considered a "large" market, how they are handled and recieved by TV say's otherwise. And that trumps population size, more often than not.

                                EDIT2: Before this goes on further, I can fully admit that Toronto is a large city, and is a major market. But the size of the market depends on a lot of other factors.
                                Last edited by Since86; 08-16-2011, 02:57 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X