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

Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

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

  • Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

    I don't think the point being made here: that Indianapolis supported the Pacers in the past so that proves we are not racist - I don't believe that is a valid point. Afterall we are only talking about around 4,000 fewer people per game compared to the 2000 season. I am sure there are some people who have never been fans of the NBA and the pacers because of race - that is true today, true in 2000 and true in 1990. So it is a factor, one factor of many - at least a few dozen factors as to why attendance is down.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20130220/SPORTS15/302200099/Bob-Kravitz-Pacers-attendance-woes-not-tied-racism


    This was in 1999-2000, back before Indianapolis became a racist town. The Indiana Pacers, playing their first season at Conseco Fieldhouse, sold out every game.

    This was in 2004-05, the season of The Brawl, but still well before Indy turned virulently racist. The Pacers averaged 16,994 fans per game and had more than 13,000 full season ticket holders or season-ticket-holder equivalents.

    This was in 2008, before Indy’s latent, simmering racism reared its ugly head. The city, and the state, helped elect Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States, the first time Indiana had gone for a Democratic presidential nominee in decades.

    Since then, we’ve become a bunch of hood-wearing, cross-burning racists who simply won’t show up to Pacers games because we don’t like black people. Or so it has been suggested by Colin Cowherd, an ESPN talk-show host who is generally the smartest guy out there and has always been extraordinarily kind to me. (So I’ll repay his kindness by trashing his argument. Shows you what kind of guy I am.)

    You’re holding an organization to a standard that happens because of race,” he said the other day on his nationally broadcast show. “There’s no other explanation why people don’t go to Pacers games.”

    Well, actually, there is.

    There are a couple of reasons.

    Here’s the big one: The NBA season-ticket-buying culture in Indianapolis is dead, at least for now. That has nothing to do with race. That has everything to do with six years of really bad basketball.

    Here’s what Colin doesn’t quite get as he watches from afar in Bristol, Conn. After that 2004-05 season, pro basketball died here in Indianapolis. Ron Artest went crazy.

    Stephen Jackson, Jamaal Tinsley and others got in trouble. The team made the playoffs, but it was an unlikable team, and the Pacers were forced to trade off all those players in order to change the culture.

    The result was five or six years of nice guys who couldn’t play a lick of basketball.
    After having the 17th best attendance in the league in 2004-05 — and keep in mind, with the fieldhouse’s capacity, the best the Pacers can be is 13th — they dipped to 24th in 2005-06, then fell to 30th two years later, losing more than 3,000 fans per game. And it has remained near the bottom since.

    The bottom line is, you don’t rebuild a season ticket buying culture after just one year of reaching the second round of the playoffs. Especially not in a small, relatively soft market, a market hit hard by the bad economy, a market that has seen the Pacers lose corporate sales from the likes of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marsh and others.

    While the numbers are still paltry — 5,000 full season ticket holders and 7,000 full season equivalents — the fact is, the Pacers have increased attendance by about 1,000 a game, a 7.4 percent increase. Fans are not Pavlov’s dogs. They don’t react overnight. For now, they realize they don’t have to purchase a season ticket. Instead, they can get a deeply discounted ticket to any game they select, and do so at the last second.

    All of this frustrates the Pacers to no end, and they have meeting after meeting trying to figure out how to fill the house. But it’s going to take time. It’s going to take continued winning. It’s going to take the kinds of solid citizens who currently populate the Pacers’ happy locker room.

    Maybe I don’t believe race enters into the Pacers attendance equation because I don’t want to believe it. It’s entirely possible I am seeing the world through my preferred post-racial prism, that I am being protective and provincial.

    But I don’t believe that a few poll responses on an unscientific WTHR poll — a few mind-numbing responses referring to a great group of guys as “thugs” and “criminals” — is somehow representative of the civic mind-set.

    Where does race factor into attendance? It doesn’t. This team drew great crowds when Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and Antonio and Dale Davis were battling the Knicks and the Bulls. The team drew well in the early 2000s with Jermaine O’Neal and Co., and the big crowds continued to support the Pacers even after all hell broke loose in Auburn Hills, Mich., on Nov. 19, 2004.

    Atlanta, another city with a pretty good team, doesn’t draw for the Hawks. And that is a much more populated city with a huge black population. Is it race there, too? Do they hate Zaza Pachulia?

    Like the Pacers themselves, I would agree the team should be better supported. This is a very good team with a bunch of likable, approachable young players. They play the kind of basketball Hoosiers profess to love, a democratic style that features teamwork and selflessness.

    I also understand it takes time, a couple of years, to rebuild a season-ticket-buying culture.

    I would ask Colin to do this: Three years from now, if the Pacers are still a contender — and they should be — check back in with us. Let’s look at the attendance then. Let’s see if the Pacers are filling the house, or at least coming close.

    If they aren’t, well, then I’ll entertain the argument. Until then, no sell.

    The bottom line is, you don’t rebuild a season ticket buying culture after just one year of reaching the second round of the playoffs. Especially not in a small, relatively soft market, a market hit hard by the bad economy, a market that has seen the Pacers lose corporate sales from the likes of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marsh and others.

    While the numbers are still paltry — 5,000 full season ticket holders and 7,000 full season equivalents — the fact is, the Pacers have increased attendance by about 1,000 a game, a 7.4 percent increase. Fans are not Pavlov’s dogs. They don’t react overnight. For now, they realize they don’t have to purchase a season ticket. Instead, they can get a deeply discounted ticket to any game they select, and do so at the last second.

    All of this frustrates the Pacers to no end, and they have meeting after meeting trying to figure out how to fill the house. But it’s going to take time. It’s going to take continued winning. It’s going to take the kinds of solid citizens who currently populate the Pacers’ happy locker room.

    Maybe I don’t believe race enters into the Pacers attendance equation because I don’t want to believe it. It’s entirely possible I am seeing the world through my preferred post-racial prism, that I am being protective and provincial.

    But I don’t believe that a few poll responses on an unscientific WTHR poll — a few mind-numbing responses referring to a great group of guys as “thugs” and “criminals” — is somehow representative of the civic mind-set.

    Where does race factor into attendance? It doesn’t. This team drew great crowds when Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and Antonio and Dale Davis were battling the Knicks and the Bulls. The team drew well in the early 2000s with Jermaine O’Neal and Co., and the big crowds continued to support the Pacers even after all hell broke loose in Auburn Hills, Mich., on Nov. 19, 2004.

    Atlanta, another city with a pretty good team, doesn’t draw for the Hawks. And that is a much more populated city with a huge black population. Is it race there, too? Do they hate Zaza Pachulia?

    Like the Pacers themselves, I would agree the team should be better supported. This is a very good team with a bunch of likable, approachable young players. They play the kind of basketball Hoosiers profess to love, a democratic style that features teamwork and selflessness.

    I also understand it takes time, a couple of years, to rebuild a season-ticket-buying culture.

    I would ask Colin to do this: Three years from now, if the Pacers are still a contender — and they should be — check back in with us. Let’s look at the attendance then. Let’s see if the Pacers are filling the house, or at least coming close.

    If they aren’t, well, then I’ll entertain the argument. Until then, no sell.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-21-2013, 09:41 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

    I thought that was a petty good column.

    Also, I feel that people have this image of Indiana that the place is nothing but a bunch of hayseed hicks. However, 25% of the Indianapolis population is African American. There are literally hundreds of thousands of African Americans in the community who can also go to games.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

      Well said, Bob.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

        I've been through this argument too many times on PD so I'll just say I disagree with Kravitz and leave it at that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          I thought that was a petty good column.

          Also, I feel that people have this image of Indiana that the place is nothing but a bunch of hayseed hicks. However, 25% of the Indianapolis population is African American. There are literally hundreds of thousands of African Americans in the community who can also go to games.
          This is just an honest observation from my attending 21 games, 33 games, and 21 games over the past 3 years, but Young African American males do not seem like they enjoy going to Pacer games. They will sit there with the most bored look on their face like they could care less what happens. Even when there is a tremendous play, no reaction. Even during crunch time, no enthusiasm. Even when Grady tries to jolt the crowd to their feet, nope just gonna sit here. I this observation doesn't reflect all who go to games, but its just what I've noticed alot of the time.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

            I came in here expecting to hate this article. I'm very surprised to find that I agreed with pretty much everything Kravitz said. The part about the Atlanta Hawks was an excellent point. I'm African-American... if anyone was wondering.

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            I thought that was a petty good column.

            Also, I feel that people have this image of Indiana that the place is nothing but a bunch of hayseed hicks. However, 25% of the Indianapolis population is African American. There are literally hundreds of thousands of African Americans in the community who can also go to games.
            That's a good point. The few times I get to go to the games during the regular season, I don't see very many blacks there. Now during the playoffs, the attendance is more diverse but I noticed a lot of them were there to root for Lebron, DWade, and the Heatles last year and the Bulls the year before. The black community doesn't really seem to support the Pacers as much as they did back during the 2001-04 seasons. Maybe the black community would be a good marketing opportunity for the Pacers.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

              The article is good, but Kravitz, for effect, really exaggerates what Colin Cowherd said. I heard most of the radio program that day.

              Cowherd's point was that there is a nationwide "teflon" appeal of the NFL that the NBA simply does not share. There are probably many reasons for the phenomenon, wherein fans wildly root for the jersey in the NFL and don't care much at all about the character of the person wearing the jersey, while in the NBA the arrest records and attitudes of the players greatly affect fans level of attachment to the team. One difference is that the NBA markets the players while the NFL doesn't do it that so much.

              Another factor is that in the NBA the players are visible, you sit closer, you see their tattoos, you hear the hip-hop music culture that has been integrated into the arena experience, and maybe just since there are fewer players you seem to care more about their egos, attitudes, and vices. It's not hard for Cowherd or anyone to correlate ingrained negative images of NBA players with racial stereotyping. Cowherd went way too far in saying that it is maybe the main cause for NBA's non-telfon coating, compared to the NFL's telfon layer, and specifically indicating that Indiana was his prime example. As Pacers fans we were disgusted when they let us down (ala the brawl, arrests, laziness) and some people in our fan base said they'd never support those thugs again. Some people in many other fan bases would say the same thing. What's odd is that it sticks 8-9 years later, for a select few people anyway, with those players being long gone. In the NFL it wouldn't stick a week, unless your misdeeds reach a Michael Vick level. Even then, redemption is a couple of good games away.

              I think that there is a cultural bias for many that leads to lesser fan support for NBA players relative to NFL players in certain demographic groups, but I don't think it's greater than it has been at any time in the past, or specific to the Pacers in any way. I also think that it is a far less important factor than Cowherd thinks it is. I also don't interpret Cowherd's radio remarks (I don't follow twitter) as indicating that he thinks the phenomenon is at all unique to Pacer fans.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-21-2013, 11:04 AM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                At the Pacers best they never lead the league anywhere close in attendance. I have said it before and I will say it again the biggest problem is the Pacers are in a small a market with really tough competition for the entertainment dollar. There will always be the race factor for some people. We live in a fallen and broken world. But that is not the reason why they have not done better.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                  That's why so many people attend IU games. Right Colin Cow?


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                    There is a cultural element to even enthusiastic fandom. If Cody Zeller had the physical appearance as Chris "Birdman" Anderson, there would be less enthusiastic support for him. IU fans would still fill the arena, I think, though. And while a list of most beloved IU players would have Steve Alford, Cody Zeller, and Damon Bailey on it, it most certainly would have Calbert Cheaney, Alan Henderson, Quinn Buckner, Scott May, Isiah Thomas, Landon Turner, and now Victor Olidipo on it as well. Maybe Eric Gordon would be on the most beloved list too, if not for the stench of the Sampson era. The most beloved players played hard, played well, bought into the team concept, showed toughness, worked hard, got better at their craft, and contributed to some level of team success. Has nothing to do with skin color.

                    The most Pacers players played hard, played well, bought into the team concept, showed toughness, worked hard, got better at their craft, and contributed to some level of team success. They would be Reggie, Mel, Big Mac, Rajah, Paul, Roy, Danny. No difference. Has nothing to do with skin color. The butts somehow don't go into the Pacers seats as eagerly though, following the disappointments of the mid and late-90s. Why is the big question, and likely there isn't just one easy answer or one easy fix. But I think it's fixable.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                      There is a difference between being racist towards all black people, and being racist towards certain kind of black person. I heard Jermaine O'Neal being referred to as a "thug" more times than I can count because he had cornrows and tattoos and punched a dude that rushed the court during The Brawl. Meanwhile, Marvin Harrison was adored because he was a "clean cut nice guy", even though he turned out to be a literal murderer.

                      Now, is this the root of our attendance problems? I have no idea. But you can't sweep the issue under the rug by holding up a few examples of non-prejudiced behavior by the local population.

                      My guess is that enduring racial bias from the Artest-Jackson era is a factor for a (no pun intended) minority of former customers, but not for a majority of the people who stay at home.
                      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                      RSS Feed
                      Subscribe via iTunes

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                        Oh boy...
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                          Come on now, we were an Obama state just 4 years ago.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                            We had more white guys on our team at one point that the tv made fun. The attendance was terrible then. So It's not about race. It's all about paying money for fun entertainment and It's not fun to lose.
                            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                              This.

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              I've been through this argument too many times on PD so I'll just say I disagree with Kravitz and leave it at that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X