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

  • #61
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
    Sigh here we go, I have to respond but then I'm done here...



    Cool. I like Evansville. I lived there from 1985-97. Went to Plaza Park Middle School and lived near Division St. near Green River Rd. before they turned it into a bypass. My stepmom was born and raised there, and my dad met and married her 27 years ago while we lived there. I still have friends from there and I have been back many many many times, most recently in 2009 or so for a few days. Did some riverboat gambling among other things.



    Go back and re-read exactly what I said. What "fantasy world" did I describe?

    You said, and I quote...



    Any other place in the world? Really?.... Have you traveled much?

    I never said Evansville was a bad place, in fact I even said (referring to all of Indiana actually) "Great people for the most part." Please go back and re-read what I actually said, not what you seem to *feel* like I said.



    This is meaningless, what's your point? There is no racism in Evansville because there are black people and white people in the same place?



    I agree! In fact I never said otherwise.



    You have several black friends, cool... there couldn't possibly be racism in Evansville if you have black friends right?



    I never said that. Please show me where I said that.



    Totally agree.



    EDIT: Sorry, misread what you said here, I actually agree with this



    I think you have a pretty different idea of what "racism" is than I do. Racism isn't just overt hate crimes and fighting and name calling. It's MUCH more subtle and institutional than that. It's income and job disparity, education disparity, housing and job discrimination, and a whole host of other things.



    So did I. Greenwood High School class of 1992. I was editor of the school paper and had to go to MSA for Pacers games to take pictures of the school band or the color guard or whenever our choir would sing the national anthem, that sort of stuff. I got floor press passes for Pacer games and that's when I fell in love with the team. Chuck Person, Detlef, young Reggie etc.

    There was a total of ONE black kid in my entire high school until my senior year, when that kid's younger brother became a freshman. Then there were two black kids! (That doesn't have any correlation to racism, just sayin)

    Did you know that the head of the KKK resided in Greenwood for many years in the early 20th century? One of the town's claims to fame.



    Again, I think you unfortunately have a very superficial idea of what "racism" is. There's a LOT more to it than name calling or hate crimes.



    Thanks yeah, I lived 5 miles from there for 6-7 years and had close friends who went to their high school. What's your point.



    Thanks for the not-so-thinly veiled personal attack! Have a great day. I stand by every single word I said previously, which if you actually chill out for a second and re-read slowly, wasn't anywhere as accusatory as you seem to have taken it.
    1. I am sorry you took my post like it was directed exclusively towards you. I could have worded it better and made that clear. Again I apologize.

    2. I was directing it more towards the discussion in general, not you specifically. I do get offensive when people call my city more racist because it just simply is not true. It was like I was defending it against all the people that make that assumption. I do not think words carry as much weight as actions. I have seen white people make racist remarks then fall in love with a black person. Some people just make dumb and ignorant comments because they are human, and humans fear what is different than them. They later realize they are wrong or they did not really fully mean what they said in the first place. My point is that if racism really was that prevalent then hate crimes would occur more than they do, not that they are an exclusive measure of racism.

    3. You make great points about subtle racism. I know it exists, but I still stand to argue that it is no more prevalent in Evansville, or amongst whites. Races in all cities are racist. Any white person knows they may not survive in certain neighborhoods very long simply because of their skin color. Places like LA come to mind. I had a white friend from San Diego. He told me stories of all the racism he encountered because he was white from Mexican Americans. He was jumped several times and even stabbed once simply for being white. So what city do you speak of that has so much less racism than Evansville?

    4. Subtle racism exists in all races. White people just happen to be the majority in this country. I would debate that all countries have problems with subtle racism towards the minorities. I think if whites were the minority, they would have it tougher as well, because racism transcends skin color. Whenever a race has a majority that means there are more total racists, and it does cause some form of disadvantage for minorities, but the legal system has tried to remedy the situation through anti discrimination laws. The justice system may be racist, but that is an evil and corrupt system that needs reform regardless. I just have never witnessed racism hold back a qualified black person. All the black people I know that were good workers and people climbed the ladder just as easy as a white person, and easier in some cases because of affirmative action.

    5. I did not mean to direct the dumbasses comment at you. I was speaking of all the idiots on the Internet that spew off racist remarks. These idiots are a make up of all races. You just see more white ones because there are a lot more white people in this country than any race.

    6. I am done this time. I know I have crossed the line for this board and this discussion belongs in Market Square but I wanted to respond to your comments.
    Last edited by Midcoasted; 02-22-2013, 01:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply Midcoasted.

      It's complicated isn't it...

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

        Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
        I'm sorry but this is just not true. Ever spent time in Evansville? Martinsville?

        I love Indiana. I spent 31 years of my life living there. Crown Point, Evansville, Louisville area, Greenwood, and Bloomington. Great people for the most part. But there definitely is more racism in certain areas of the state (maybe not Indy so much anymore) than in some other parts of the country.

        Doesn't make it Indiana's "fault" per se, there are complex forces at work, economically, culturally, historically... but all places are not the same, sorry.
        100% agree. I've heard racist talk and had to cope with it simply to maintain social decorum. I've been in many converstations where people say things that they don't even realize is racist. AT WORK last year someone emailed out a photoshop of Obama as a monkey. AT WORK. No one flinched, no one was hauled into HR, and the general reception was "ha ha".

        Also it's not been that long ago that we had a Klan rally down at the courthouse, like the early 90s as I recall. This is the truth from a lifer Hoosier who has also had the chance to briefly live in a few other places. Indy Metro is interesting and has a decent level of diversity, but it's a drastically different demographic just 20-30 miles from the circle.



        Plus Kravitz response was way over the top. He took Cowherd's points and twisted them into hyperbolic strawmen. Colin never said it's KKK time and hoods in Indy. He said that in some of these markets fans feel uncomfortable with a product built around people that look different and perhaps come from a different culture.

        And don't even get me started on "but HS or NCAA players are black and get support" because the sad truth there is that those roles are perceived as "controlled" young men, not rich 20 somethings able to do whatever they want and imposing their culture on you. It can feel almost like a passive aggressive thing where the black kids are allowed to be controlled by a white coach, but look out when it comes to a black NCAA coach in the state. Indiana had a brief run, and you have IUPUI, the metro college.

        But if IU had a president, AD, and so on that promoted what might be considered a classic "black school" climate like Grambling, with the marching band styles, players with different fashion sense, etc. Well then skin would crawl for a good portion of the fanbase.



        Indiana is also not the most racist area I've been too. There are certainly a lot more overt issues in placers like the Carolinas, Alabama and Mississippi. Indiana is just a few steps up from "overt" and is now in the "I don't have any problem with them, I just don't like their hip hopping and bling and all the gang problems like at Black Expo". And maybe this is only 30% of the area or 40%, whatever. It's still more than other places have. So just because lots of people aren't that way doesn't mean it's not an issue still in setting the cultural mood.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Sports. Where complete strangers call another complete stranger racist, because they don't go to games.

          Considering how awful WNBA attendance is, you all must be sexist too. Make sure to punch your mother.
          Women can't play quality basketball, it's boring to watch because they kinda suck.

          Sexist or not sexist? Because that's the reason the attendance for the WNBA is lower. To me it sounds like the perception of the sport product is being based directly on a gender based stereotype. It may be built on some truth, but it's got nothing to do with a hate crime on a woman. Mom can't throw a ball does NOT equal punch your mom.



          And there is a difference between racism in the traditional sense of open hostility and the general discomfort of being cultural out of synch. Kings of Comedy were pretty damn funny, but they didn't sell a lot of tickets to white people. That's not just random chance.


          And of course this goes both ways, or multi-ways. It also goes for nationalities, regionalism, etc. There is a reason why soccer and hockey aren't as popular in the US. But that doesn't make it wrong to note it and say "maybe soccer just isn't for Americans, maybe they just shouldn't try to support a pro-league" much in the way Colin is saying "maybe the NBA just isn't for Indiana and maybe it has less to do with costs (low) and style (team based instead of single star).



          I think the subconscious racial views played a huge part in how the brawl, Rio, 8 Seconds and Cloud 9 were perceived. If someone followed Larry Bird back to the Conrad and took shots at him, the fans wouldn't wanted to run him out of town or blamed him for it. Just like fans will trash a black player that fathers a kid out of wedlock or maybe doesn't do a great job of supporting them, but gives Larry a free pass on his first daughter.

          So the Pacers had won over fans and they did have some actions that should have made fans not like those particular players. But they should know or could easily know that those problematic players are long gone, and yet they've clung to the "thug" image which tells me it's more about how they view NBA players in general.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

            Are there idiots who hate the Pacers & NBA because of race? Yes, I am absolutely certain that there are.

            Those people did not attend Pacers games in the past (with maybe the exception of back in the 80's and very early 90's wearing their Kelly Green) the aren't attending Pacers games now and they will never attend Pacers games in the future.

            So to me they are not an issue nor should they be. In fact wasting any moment of your life thinking about them is a loss.

            Again I am just stunned that the attendance is even an issue right now. This year is so much better than it has been in the past few years it's not even funny.

            One thing though that Bob did point out in his article that I did not know and am glad that he did. Due to the capacity we can only ever be as high as 13th in the NBA in attendance.


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

            Comment


            • #66
              Well said Seth. Thank you. Yiu were able to accurately describe the problem without upsettung people.

              I think there are two schools of thought in white america. "Racism doesnt really exist" crowd and thise who see major problems with how our society treats minorities. I think the problem, as you said, is thos who think racism is a minor issue believe racism means "kkk." Where as systematic racism is something you cannot see unless you're looking for it.

              The subtle racism in our society whether it is from individuals or the media is a major problem we must solve. It doesnt mean people intend to cause harm. They just dont realize it. Calling an african american a "thug" for instance is extremely offensive but many people dont realize it.

              Comment


              • #67
                That was on my phone.

                Apologies for any errors.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                  Again, yes, racism exists in Indiana. I made that very clear in my first post. I've witnessed it first hand. I have three adopted sisters that are not white like the rest of my family. I've seen some of the looks we get once we get a certain distance from the safety of Indy and it's burbs. I heard the racist things that the black players on my high school team had to hear as well when we beat Lebanon in Sectionals. I've seen it.


                  But it is not the reason the Pacers can't sell out games every night. It's probably not even in the top 50 reasons. 1.) These people typically don't live that close to the fieldhouse. For most areas I've had this experience in (and again sure there are some racists still even in metro Indy, but we all know it is extremely, extremely rare, Indy is now a very diverse place) it would be a minimum one hour both ways to attend a Pacers game anyway. 2.) These areas I've also had these experiences in are typically pretty hard hit by economy themselves. The fieldhouse sit 18,165. If racists were the only issue the Pacers had to deal with when marketing the team or filling up the stadium or even the primary issue or even a top 5 or 10 issue, the fieldhouse would be full every night because it's just not that big of an issue specifically for the Pacers.

                  It's a societal issue, one we should want to eradicate, yes, but not one that the eradication of would lead to a sudden increase in support of the Pacers.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 02-22-2013, 11:33 AM.


                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                    Maybe Kravitz can do a new article about the attendance being tied to couch potato-ism.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Also it's not been that long ago that we had a Klan rally down at the courthouse, like the early 90s as I recall. This is the truth from a lifer Hoosier who has also had the chance to briefly live in a few other places. Indy Metro is interesting and has a decent level of diversity, but it's a drastically different demographic just 20-30 miles from the circle.
                      And I've seen something similar in Terre Haute. A Klan rally of 10 white sheeted buffoons making fools of themselves. Of course they were eclipsed big time by the crowd of over a hundred folks yelling back at the POSs. And to clarify the anti Klan folks were from the Terre Haute area (not brought in from the outside). Funny thing also is the crowd was 90% white and 10%black.

                      Indiana as a whole is no worse or better than anywhere else, but it sure seems we get stuck with that label. Gee I believe with little effort we might discover there is racism even on the east coast where Cowherd is from.
                      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                        So the idea that racism is connected to attendance, does this only apply to the NBA or something?

                        http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/depth/_/...anapolis-colts

                        4 of 11 starters on the Colts offense are white and 1 of 11 starters on defense are white. The depth chart shows the starting tight end is white and Dwyane Allen is listed as the fullback but Allen was 4th in receiving yards on the team with over 500 and is listed as a tight end on the stat sheet while Cody Fleener had 280. So I'm counting Allen as the starting tight end despite what the depth chart shows. Also worth noting aside from just 5 of the 22 starters being white, the third leading receiver and back up running back are both black and contributed with 780yds receiving and 420 yards rushing. Point is, the team was centered around 18 black players, 5 white players and 1 Hawaiian player not including special teams. And of the five white starters, three were offensive lineman. Nobody goes to the game to watch offensive lineman or buys their jerseys so that leaves two white players actually worth watching, the QB and SS. That didn't seem to hurt attendance...

                        http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/sort/homePct

                        I'm assuming the Pacers attendance being down has to do with the fact that a lot of people can't afford to go to games. I know a number of people who are struggling to save their homes and avoid foreclosure. When your options are keeping a roof over your head, electricity on, water running, heat running, food on the table, phone, internet, insurance, gas etc. or going to a game, the choice is easy for most. And a lot of people who can afford to the games, can't afford to go to both Colts and Pacers games. With football being more popular, more people would rather go to football games. Then you factor in there are only 8 home games in the NFL and 40 in the NBA. We're just finishing up 11 home games in the span of 29 days. We also had a stretch earlier in the season of 7 home games in 15 days. 11 home games in 29 days is a home game every two and a half days, and 7 home games in 15 days is a home game every other night. Unless you've been preparing for the whole offseason for the season and bought season tickets, a lot of people don't have the money or aren't invested in the NBA enough to put forth that much time and money. It's not just tickets, it's also gas and the potential of paying for parking, eating at the game or eating out, multiple tickets for an entire family or paying a baby sitter. That adds up really quickly for just that 15 day and 29 day span. Or if you're a casual fan, that's a lot of time to devote to basketball over the course of 15 days-29 days.

                        Maybe I'm wrong but I think race playing a part in attendance is the farthest factor from making a difference in attendance being down. I think it has everything to do with some people not being able to afford it at all, others not being able to afford 40 home games and some that can afford it, they spend their money on going to Colts games. Or maybe they're fans of Hoosier football, Hoosier basketball, Notre Football, Notre Dame basketball, Purdue football, Purdue basketball, Butler basketball, Bulls, Bears, Bengals, Reds, Cubs, White Sox etc. and they spend their money seeing them instead. You can't afford to do it all and the majority of people prefer football over basketball. There are also a number of people who prefer baseball over basketball and a lot of people prefer college sports over pro sports. I really don't think race plays much of a factor if at all in attendance but that's jmo I guess.
                        Last edited by TOP; 02-22-2013, 11:28 AM.
                        "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Are there idiots who hate the Pacers & NBA because of race? Yes, I am absolutely certain that there are.

                          Those people did not attend Pacers games in the past (with maybe the exception of back in the 80's and very early 90's wearing their Kelly Green) the aren't attending Pacers games now and they will never attend Pacers games in the future.

                          So to me they are not an issue nor should they be. In fact wasting any moment of your life thinking about them is a loss.

                          Again I am just stunned that the attendance is even an issue right now. This year is so much better than it has been in the past few years it's not even funny.

                          One thing though that Bob did point out in his article that I did not know and am glad that he did. Due to the capacity we can only ever be as high as 13th in the NBA in attendance.
                          But wouldn't that be assuming that everyone with larger arenas fill theirs? If we filled our arena and a team with a larger arena didn't fill theirs, couldn't we surpass 13th?
                          "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Calling an african american a "thug" for instance is extremely offensive but many people dont realize it.
                            So what word CAN be used for a person who chooses a violent lifestyle that isn't considered racist?

                            When I grew up, a thug was more likely to refer to the guy selling protection for the Mafia - I have no idea when the decision was made that it was racist, who I should be checking my vocabulary with to have it approved, and what word I'm allowed to use instead.

                            Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                              Thug has no racial connotations. If anyone thinks it does that is their own issue.


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Kravitz: Pacers attendance woes not tied to racism

                                It's absolutely become much more common place to call black athletes a "thug" disproportionately to white athletes. Not guys that get in legal trouble or anything, just guys that commit hard fouls and stuff like that. I wouldn't necessarily call it a slur, but it absolutely has gained racial connotations in the last decade or so.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X