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

Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

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

  • Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

    Should be interesting to see if the NBA changes their TV deals. Certainly looks like many are interested, which will drive up the rights package. Not sure where I want the NBA to go. Indicates here, that it won't be NBC - I would love that if nothing else for the theme song..

    I don't see the NBA leaving ESPN or TNT, although I could see them add another outlet, most likely it would seem is FOX

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013...hallenge-espn/

    An Early Look at NBA TV Rights: Will Anybody Challenge ESPN?

    After a busy few years of sports TV rights negotiations, only one major league is still available — the NBA.

    The current NBA television deals with ESPN and Turner Sports do not expire until after the 2015-16 season, but the league looms large as the highest-profile property left for bid. Over the past two years, television rights to nearly everything else — the NFL, Olympics, World Cup, Major League Baseball, NHL, NCAA Tournament and college football playoff — have been locked up through the twenties.

    Of the remaining properties, which include the second half of the NASCAR season and the Big East/Catholic 7, only the NBA has the ability to fundamentally change the sports TV landscape.

    That was not the case in the mid-2000s, the last time NBA TV rights became available.

    The league was floundering in television ratings and public perception, and there was little demand among the networks to set aside a few hundred million for TV rights. Incumbents ESPN and Turner Sports, essentially running unopposed, were able to hold onto the rights an additional eight years.

    Today, the NBA is in the midst of a five-year resurgence. Television ratings have broken records on cable in both the regular season and playoffs. On broadcast, where the league failed for years on ABC, ratings have soared back to NBC levels. The last three NBA Finals have averaged a double-digit rating, and four out of the last five NBA Finals have outdrawn the World Series in the same year.

    The league’s improved fortunes are not the biggest change from the mid-2000s. Today, FOX and NBC — which were not even in the conversation when NBA rights were last up for bid — are likely to express perhaps serious interest in acquiring rights. With FOX set to launch two 24-hour sports networks this summer and NBC in desperate need of content for NBC Sports Network, the NBA’s hundreds of hours of game inventory are tantalizing.

    As predicted by Sports Business Journal‘s John Ourand last year, the NBA could also look toward an unconventional outlet such as Google’s YouTube for a game package. That may sound outlandish, but the NBA has never shied away from taking risks — shifting almost entirely to cable in 2002 was proof of that — and the league already has a deal with YouTube through its Developmental League.

    More than three years before the next NBA TV deal goes into effect, here is an early look at the contenders: Fox Sports, NBC, ESPN, Turner, CBS, and Google.


    The Challengers

    FOX, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2
    • Absolutely. Fox Sports 1 may already be off to a good start, but the network will need more content in order to avoid falling into the same abyss as NBC Sports Network. The biggest sporting events on FS1 will air on Saturdays — baseball in the summer and college football in the fall — leaving the rest of the week fairly empty. A Wednesday-Friday package of NBA games would shore up that glaring vulnerability.


    • Acquiring ESPN’s NBA package would kill two birds with one stone — strengthening Fox Sports 1 and weakening ESPN.


    • The NBA is a good match for FOX in terms of attracting younger viewers — certainly a better one than older-skewing Major League Baseball. Last television season, FOX had the youngest median age of the four broadcast networks (46 years old), and easily led the Big Four among adults 18-34. From 2008-11, the median age for the NBA Finals (between 40 and 42 years old) was younger than that of the Super Bowl, the BCS title game, the NCAA Tournament title game, the Stanley Cup Final, the World Series and the Daytona 500. In 2011, the latter two events — staples of the Fox Sports line-up — topped 50 years of age.
    • It would make little sense for the NBA to move from the sure-thing that is ESPN to newcomer Fox Sports 1. ESPN is in more homes, is the far more established brand, and — most of all — is the go-to location for sports news. While NHL fans have perhaps overstated ESPN’s willingness to ignore leagues with which it does not have a relationship, the fact of that matter is that the NBA risks at least somewhat-reduced coverage on "SportsCenter" if ESPN loses the rights.


    • With that said, FOX could acquire the Turner Sports half of the contract. While that package has fewer regular season games (and still leaves ESPN in the picture), the numerous playoff games would be a boon in April and May. Of course, one then wonders whether the NBA would part ways with a long-tenured partner like TNT.
    • Early on, Fox Sports looks like the most legitimate contender to steal NBA rights from ESPN or Turner. Chances: 5.5/10
    NBC, NBC Sports Network
    • More than at any other point since losing the NBA, NBC needs to regain rights to the league. Not so much for the NBC broadcast network, which at least has the NFL and Olympics, but for struggling cable outlet NBC Sports Network.


    • NBCSN desperately needs another sport to go with the NHL. While adding the NBA would not solve NBCSN’s scheduling woes in the summer and early fall, the league would radically improve the network’s flagging television ratings.


    • Keep in mind, however, that NBC has been remarkably passive as of late. It was widely thought that NBCSN ‘needed’ Major League Baseball, and yet NBC passed without much resistance. The network’s big acquisitions in recent years have been second-tier (at least in the U.S.) events such as Formula 1 and the English Premier League. The last time NBC acquired a major sports league was 2005, when the network acquired Sunday night NFL rights.
    • The NBC broadcast network — a failure in primetime for a decade now — hardly provides a good promotional platform for NBA games. NBCSN, meanwhile, has had well-documented problems with both distribution and attracting a decent audience.


    • While "NBA on NBC" nostalgia appeals to some NBA fans, NBC has nothing to offer that the competing networks can’t provide.
    • John Tesh’s "Roundball Rock" will continue collecting dust well into the twenties. Chances: 3/10.
    The Incumbents

    ABC, ESPN, ESPN2
    • ESPN could survive without the NBA, but the league has been an important component of the network’s schedule for ten years. Other than college football, the NBA is the only regular sports program on ABC’s schedule.


    • The NBA Finals and BCS (soon to be the college football playoff) are the only major championship events to air on an ESPN network. Moreover, ESPN is completely shut out of the Major League Baseball, NFL and NHL playoffs as well as the NCAA Tournament. While that will change over the next few years — the network will get one baseball playoff game starting in ’14 and will likely get an NFL Wild Card game — the ‘Worldwide Leader in Sports’ will surely want to hold onto one of its few prestigious events.
    • The NBA needs ESPN more than ESPN needs the NBA. Few may recall, but there was a time when ESPN treated the NBA like a second-class sport — and, not coincidentally, this was also the time when the league was at its weakest. On the day of ABC’s first NBA Finals game, ESPN gave blanket coverage (including a two-hour “SportsCenter” special) to Sammy Sosa‘s corked bat. After the Pacers/Pistons brawl, on-air personalities such as Chris Berman made no secret of their distaste for the league. Until about 2008, ESPN hardly even promoted its own games.


    • It is a chicken-and-egg scenario — which came first, the NBA’s resurgence, or ESPN’s increased attention to the league? No matter what the answer, the NBA would be wise not to give ESPN any reason to turn its attention elsewhere.
    • Expect ESPN/ABC to continue broadcasting NBA games into the foreseeable future. Chances: 10/10.
    TNT, NBA TV
    • The NBA is the crown jewel of the Turner Sports line-up, and the relationship between the two parties stretches back nearly three decades. Thanks to long-term deals with the NCAA Tournament and Major League Baseball, however, Turner could survive the loss of NBA rights.
    • Turner has been a great partner for the NBA, but the league has shown in the past that it is willing to end a great relationship for more money (see: NBC in 2002). While ESPN’s promotional platform provides a distinct advantage over all challengers, Turner is more vulnerable. For one, Time Warner is the only major media corporation without a 24-hour sports network (Disney has ESPN, Comcast has NBCSN, News Corp. has Fox Sports 1, and CBS Corp. has CBS Sports Network). In addition, TNT and TBS are now in only 13 million more homes than Fox Sports 1 (currently Speed Channel), a gap that could potentially narrow as FS1 gains traction.


    • All of the factors that make the "NBA on TNT" one of the top sports programs on television could, theoretically, be replicated by another partner. Fox Sports — or, less likely, NBC Sports — could easily hire the personnel that have been key to TNT’s success.
    • Turner Sports is less of a sure thing than ESPN to hold onto NBA rights, but is still more likely than not to hold off FOX and NBC. Chances: 7/10.
    The Dark Horses

    YouTube
    • An online platform acquiring rights to a major sports league could be — to use the cliche — ‘a game-changer’ for the industry.


    • YouTube already streams live NBA D-League games, a move that could be seen as a precursor to a larger deal.
    • The NBA has been a trendsetter in the TV rights game for years. The league would likely relish being the first major sports league to sign a rights deal with an online platform.
    • It is unlikely the NBA would have Google replace any existing partner; instead, the league would probably create a new package of games. That alone makes a Google deal a somewhat more realistic possibility. Chances: 4/10.
    CBS, CBSSN
    • Nope.
    • Nope.
    • The only way CBS gets back into the NBA game is only if they partner with Turner for a combined bid. The only way Turner makes a combined bid is if the net pursues ESPN’s half of the contract — a fairly unlikely possibility. Chances: 0.5/10.
    (Median age information from Sports Business Journal; FOX demo data from Deadline.com)
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-18-2013, 10:03 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

    This could be significant for us. If the TV revenue is projected to go up a lot, it might tempt Simon to pay tax for a year until revenue goes up and takes us back out of it.

    I don't think I even get any of the other channels that are discussed though, so I hope they don't do anything but inflate the value of the contract.
    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

      How come the odds add up to 30/10? I get that with ESPN & Turner it could be 20/10 but where does the 30 come from? Is he assuming that a third major outlet is imminent to become part of the deal?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        The NBA needs ESPN more than ESPN needs the NBA. Few may recall, but there was a time when ESPN treated the NBA like a second-class sport — and, not coincidentally, this was also the time when the league was at its weakest. On the day of ABC’s first NBA Finals game, ESPN gave blanket coverage (including a two-hour “SportsCenter” special) to Sammy Sosa‘s corked bat. After the Pacers/Pistons brawl, on-air personalities such as Chris Berman made no secret of their distaste for the league. Until about 2008, ESPN hardly even promoted its own games.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          NBC....even if its just a game of the week Sunday format....I need the NBA on NBC.

          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


          • #6
            Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            NBC....even if its just a game of the week Sunday format....I need the NBA on NBC.
            I miss NBC's playoff / finals coverage the most. Not a fan of ESPN/ABC's crew...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

              Please be NBC.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                NBC did an excellent job with the NBA. Only Turner IMHO compares. ESPN/ABC have hurt the product IMO... or at least don't help it any beyond just giving the games a national platform.

                If NBC offered the same production values as before I think the NBA would be better off taking less $$$ from NBC to present its product in a more marketable and entertaining light than what they are getting from ESPN/ABC.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                  Just dump ABC's portion out, and add NBC as the main network channel, and that would be awesome. Fox Sports and Comcast I assume will still get the vast majority of the regular season NBA games, TNT can stay on, love Inside the NBA for a good laugh and got solid commentators. ESPN I could do without though as the article says, I really doubt they're going to let go so it's wild speculation.

                  Having Game of the Week stuff, playoff games here and there, and the NBA Finals on NBC would rock.
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                    ESPN probably really only wants the Heat, Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks games. Maybe NBC would be willing to pony up a reduced amount to get everyone else so they would be on national TV occasionally too.
                    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: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      ESPN probably really only wants the Heat, Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks games. Maybe NBC would be willing to pony up a reduced amount to get everyone else so they would be on national TV occasionally too.
                      No, the Sunday afternoon is where it is just the most popular teams. Actually ESPN shows the most diverse number of teams right now

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                        I would love to see NBC and NBC Sports get some games. I like NBC Sports for what they have provided so far and want to see them compete with ESPN. I find ESPN's coverage awful. If we could get NBC Sunday games, maybe some weekday games on NBC Sports and then the rest on TNT, FSN I would be happy.


                        @Pacers24Colts12

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                          Google. Keep your eyes on Google.

                          In the very near future they'll be launching a subscription TV package (eg you can get Sony Pictures content for $3/month). I don't know which studios/partners are involved yet, but they could get League Pass. I was told PlayStation would be getting League Pass two years ago but it didn't happen.

                          I'm all for NBA on NBC taking over ABC/ESPN with Turner still on board. That's my dream scenario, and UB can get his John Tesh theme song back.

                          Last edited by imawhat; 02-18-2013, 03:25 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            ESPN probably really only wants the Heat, Lakers, Bulls, and Knicks games. Maybe NBC would be willing to pony up a reduced amount to get everyone else so they would be on national TV occasionally too.
                            In fairness though how many Pacers games have been on ESPN vs TNT over the past three years? I don't know the number off of my head but my memory thinks that it's something like 3:1 ration for ESPN


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Plenty of interest in NBA TV rights

                              NBC Please (with turner as well)....I can't stand ESPN/ABC, its the music that bothers me the most
                              Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X