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

Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

    http://www.indystar.com/viewart/2013...ility-Rankings

    USA TODAY Sports' Adi Joseph and Sean Highkin will be counting down NBA teams based on watchability for the upcoming 2013-14 seasons. We'll go one team a day, from least-watchable to most, giving you an idea of what to keep an eye out for this season. Today, we continue with the No. 15 Indiana Pacers:

    2012-13 record: 49-32, reached Eastern Conference finals.

    Adi Joseph's 2013-14 record projection: 55-27, third seed in Eastern Conference playoffs.

    Two best players (2012-13 numbers): SF Paul George (17.4 points, 7.6 rebounds, 4.1 assists, 1.8 steals a game), C Roy Hibbert (11.9 points, 8.3 rebounds, 2.6 blocks a game).

    Overview: The Pacers made the leap to elite during the postseason, driving the Miami Heat to seven games before bowing out. They spent the offseason building the depth they lacked in that series. George, Hibbert, David West and George Hill formed a balanced core, but the return of Danny Granger and additions of Luis Scola and C.J. Watson should be the biggest boon. Indiana absolutely can win a championship with this roster, especially if George and Hibbert pick up where they left off in the playoffs.

    WHY YOU CAN'T MISS THEM

    The emergence of a star: George was welcomed into stardom last season, with Granger's absence opening the door to his larger offensive role and first All-Star appearance. But the Heat series put him on the map, particularly his enormous shots in a Game 1 overtime loss. He's one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA, and his offensive game seems to improve game-by-game. The Pacers are making a strong (and now almost certainly successful) effort to keep him. Even LeBron James recognized.

    The biggest good player in the NBA: Oklahoma City Thunder center Hasheem Thabeet stands at 7-3, an inch taller than Hibbert. But you won't see Thabeet too often, while Hibbert's good for 30 minutes a game as an elite defensive center. And he's enormous enough to dwarf even other NBA big men.

    All defense, all day: The Pacers held opponents to 42.0% shooting, 32.7% from three. Both were best in the NBA. Everyone on the court can defend at all times, and coach Frank Vogel has stressed that identity. Bringing in assistant coach Nate McMillan should only help.

    JUST TRY TO IGNORE...

    The attendance: Despite the massive strides on the court, the Pacers have not consistently put fans in the seats. The only playoff teams with smaller average crowds last season were the Atlanta Hawks and Milwaukee Bucks. The poor attendance even caused one radio shock-jock to suggest racism was its root.

    Nationally televised games (times p.m. Eastern):

    » Wednesday, Nov. 6 vs. Chicago Bulls, 7, ESPN
    » Saturday, Nov. 9 at Brooklyn Nets, 7:30, NBATV
    » Wednesday, Nov. 20 at New York Knicks, 7, ESPN
    » Wednesday, Dec. 18 at Miami Heat, 7, ESPN
    » Friday, Dec. 20 vs. Houston Rockets, 8, ESPN
    » Saturday, Dec. 28 vs. Brooklyn Nets, 7, NBATV
    » Thursday, Jan. 16 vs. New York Knicks, 7, TNT
    » Saturday, Jan. 18 vs. Los Angeles Clippers, 7, NBATV
    » Monday, Jan. 20 at Golden State Warriors, 10:30, TNT
    » Wednesday, Feb. 19 at Minnesota Timberwolves, 8, ESPN
    » Friday, March 7 at Houston Rockets, 9:30, ESPN
    » Wednesday, March 19 at New York Knicks, 8, ESPN
    » Monday, March 24 at Chicago Bulls, 8, NBATV
    » Wednesday, March 26 vs. Miami Heat, 8, ESPN
    » Monday, March 31 vs. San Antonio Spurs, 7, NBATV
    » Friday, April 11 at Miami Heat, 7:30, NBATV
    » Sunday, April 13 vs. Oklahoma City Thunder, 6, NBATV

    NBA watchability rankings:

    » 30. Phoenix Suns
    » 29. Utah Jazz
    » 28. Charlotte Bobcats
    » 27. Philadelphia 76ers
    » 26. Orlando Magic
    » 25. Milwaukee Bucks
    » 24. Los Angeles Lakers
    » 23. Sacramento Kings
    » 22. Atlanta Hawks
    » 21. Boston Celtics
    » 20. Brooklyn Nets
    » 19. Dallas Mavericks
    » 18. Toronto Raptors
    » 17. New York Knicks
    » 16. Minnesota Timberwolves
    » 15. Indiana Pacers
    So.

    The only reason it looks like we're "unwatchable" is because of the small crowds - who don't come because they are constantly being told the team is "unwatchable". Well played, USA Today.
    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...
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    http://www.indystar.com/viewart/2013...ility-Rankings



    So.

    The only reason it looks like we're "unwatchable" is because of the small crowds - who don't come because they are constantly being told the team is "unwatchable". Well played, USA Today.
    Astute analysis, Bill
    Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

      To be fair, they've ranked us ahead of both NY teams, as well as old favorites like the Lakers and Celtics. So whatever they're using to put together this list, it's not the usual biases.

      What surprises me a bit is that the Pistons, the Wiz, and the Cavaliers are all ranked ahead of us in watchability. We're not all that much younger than those teams, and we're actually good. So yeah, I get that hot young teams will get some attention, but surely that argument applies to us as well?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

        It's absolutely asinine that we made it to Game 7 of the ECF's, yet don't have one single ABC Sunday game.

        The Knicks have six ABC games compared to our zero. I'm sorry, but that's just absolute BS. I completely understand that the Knicks play in the largest media market in the country, but this should not be a 6 to 0 ratio after we completely manhandled them in the playoffs.

        The NBA has an extreme bias towards its big market teams. And it's not like the Knicks have Michael Jordan or even Lebron James. The only team that they've eliminated with Melo is a sad AARP Celtics team that didn't have Rondo.

        http://www.nba.com/knicks/schedule
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-23-2013, 12:34 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          It's absolutely asinine that we made it to Game 7 of the ECF's, yet don't have one single ABC Sunday game.

          The Knicks have six ABC games compared to our zero. I'm sorry, but that's just absolute BS. I completely understand that the Knicks play in the largest media market in the country, but this should not be a 6 to 0 ratio after we completely manhandled them in the playoffs.

          The NBA has an extreme bias towards its big market teams. And it's not like the Knicks have Michael Jordan or even Lebron James. The only team that they've eliminated with Melo is a sad AARP Celtics team who didn't have Rondo.

          http://www.nba.com/knicks/schedule
          They're just myopic when it comes to TV schedules. Go for the given eyeballs rather than try to cultivate more national interest in something different.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            They're just myopic when it comes to TV schedules. Go for the given eyeballs rather than try to cultivate more national interest in something different.
            Yep. It's just all so boring and predictable. I wouldn't be whining if the Knicks had 5 ABC games and the Pacers had 3. But the 6 to 0 ratio for the upcoming season is inexcusable given what took place in last year's playoffs. That 6 to 0 ratio perfectly sums up everything that is wrong with how the NBA markets itself.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              They're just myopic when it comes to TV schedules. Go for the given eyeballs rather than try to cultivate more national interest in something different.
              And it's one of many reasons why the NFL runs circles around the NBA when it comes to national exposure. Sure the NFL national exposure gets a bit carried away with the NFC East, but by and large the NFL does an excellent job of dividing up SNF and MNF so that plenty of teams get national exposure. And the NFL talking heads on ESPN do a great job of talking about the league as a whole, whereas they always focus on the same few teams when they talk about the NBA.

              A Pacer team that took the Heat to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals doesn't have a single ABC game, while the Knicks have 6. Perfectly sums up everything that's wrong with how the NBA markets itself.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-23-2013, 12:43 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                I'm very shocked that the NBA didn't schedule at least 1 Heat or Knicks vs. Pacers game on a Sunday Afternoon considering how highly rated the series were during the playoffs. They really dropped the ball there.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                  Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                  I'm very shocked that the NBA didn't schedule at least 1 Heat or Knicks vs. Pacers game on a Sunday Afternoon considering how highly rated the series were during the playoffs. They really dropped the ball there.

                  Two Knicks-Bulls games on ABC, but not one Knicks-Pacers ABC game, even though they met in the playoffs last year.

                  Yeah, there's no big market bias in the NBA. None....

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                    Not sure what you are all complaining about we are on ESPN 8 times. ESPN is part of ABC. Besides, the Sunday afternoon games are not the end all be time slots of the NBA. They are not big rating draws in the Indianapolis Area. People here love NFL and NASCAR on Sundays. I'm alittle more miffed that we did not get more TNT games. I think TNT needs pick night of the week and make it a showcase game like Thursday nights or something.. TNT has the clout to make it like Sunday or Monday night football. But they seem more concern with start times that gel well with the West Coast and Pacific Time Zone.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                      Not sure why you're miffed about their lack of TNT games, they have 7 games on NBAtv. NBAtv is part of TNT.
                      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Not sure why you're miffed about their lack of TNT games, they have 7 games on NBAtv. NBAtv is part of TNT.
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                          Not sure what you are all complaining about we are on ESPN 8 times. ESPN is part of ABC. Besides, the Sunday afternoon games are not the end all be time slots of the NBA. They are not big rating draws in the Indianapolis Area. People here love NFL and NASCAR on Sundays. I'm alittle more miffed that we did not get more TNT games. I think TNT needs pick night of the week and make it a showcase game like Thursday nights or something.. TNT has the clout to make it like Sunday or Monday night football. But they seem more concern with start times that gel well with the West Coast and Pacific Time Zone.
                          The NFL is irrelevant here. ABC doesn't start regularly showing Sunday games until the NFL season is finished because they know that the NBA would get demolished if it were stacked against the NFL. The first ABC games are on Christmas. Then they don't show anymore until January 26, which is the Sunday in between championship weekend and the Super Bowl. They start airing games regularly on Feb 9, the weekend after the Super Bowl.

                          I agree that TNT games are important too, but those games go up against the Thursday network television shows which are popular. The Sunday ABC games are definitely the biggest time slot. It's just disgusting that the Knicks have 6 of them when we have 0. If the ratio was 5 to 3, then I'd be crying over spilled milk. But 6 to 0 is a disgrace.

                          Heck, the Spurs made the freaking Finals, yet only have one ABC game.

                          There are 15 ABC games that involve just 8 franchises: Oklahoma City, New York, Miami, LAL, San Antonio, Chicago, LAC, Houston.

                          San Antonio and Houston each only have one. The Clipps have two. The rest the games pretty much revolve around the same five teams: OKC, NY, Miami, LAL, and Chicago.

                          http://www.nba.com/schedules/national_tv_schedule/ABC/

                          There's such a sickening bias to the same few teams. It's all so boring and predictable. You take the Heat to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals, but you can't even get an ABC game, while a team you bulldozed in the semis gets 6.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            The NFL is irrelevant here. ABC doesn't start regularly showing Sunday games until the NFL season is finished because they know that the NBA would get demolished if it were stacked against the NFL. The first ABC games are on Christmas. Then they don't show anymore until January 26, which is the Sunday in between championship weekend and the Super Bowl. They start airing games regularly on Feb 9, the weekend after the Super Bowl.

                            I agree that TNT games are important too, but those games go up against the Thursday network television shows which are popular. The Sunday ABC games are definitely the biggest time slot. It's just disgusting that the Knicks have 6 of them when we have 0. If the ratio was 5 to 3, then I'd be crying over spilled milk. But 6 to 0 is a disgrace.

                            Heck, the Spurs made the freaking Finals, yet only have one ABC game.

                            There are 15 ABC games that involve just 8 franchises: Oklahoma City, New York, Miami, LAL, San Antonio, Chicago, LAC, Houston.

                            San Antonio and Houston each only have one. The Clipps have two. The rest the games pretty much revolve around the same five teams: OKC, NY, Miami, LAL, and Chicago.

                            http://www.nba.com/schedules/national_tv_schedule/ABC/

                            There's such a sickening bias to the same few teams. It's all so boring and predictable. You take the Heat to Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals, but you can't even get an ABC game, while a team you bulldozed in the semis gets 6.
                            You should have been alive to have to witness when CBS had the NBA, it literally was a revolving 4 teams. NBC did a little bit better but not by much.


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

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Indiana Pacers No. 15 in NBA Watchability Rankings (USA Today)

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              You should have been alive to have to witness when CBS had the NBA, it literally was a revolving 4 teams. NBC did a little bit better but not by much.
                              What made NBC solid was that it had the regional games. ABC has been a giant step back because they show one game at a time to the entire country.

                              Comment

                              Previous template Next
                              Working...
                              X