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

Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

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

  • #46
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    My guess is that their "research" consisted of them saying, "New York is the largest market in the United States, so let's put them on a lot. The Pacers play in a tiny market.....meh."

    We know that New York didn't earn the 6 ABC games to our 0 through pure basketball merits. Yes, the Pacers-Knicks series was a massacre from the standpoint that the 54 win Knicks believed it was their destiny to play the Heat in the ECF's. It was a way different set of circumstances than our 2011 series with Chicago because we were a 37 win 8 seed who were getting our first playoff experience against the 62 win 1 seed. No one in their right mind would have ever picked the Pacers to win that series. However, plenty of people were expecting the 54 win Knicks to beat the 49 win Pacers. By that context, yes, it was a massacre. The Knicks were never a threat to the Pacers in that series. They had a fourth quarter in Game 2 where they couldn't miss and then were able to take advantage of Hill's absence in Game 5. Outside of that, it was complete and utter domination at the hands of the Pacers.

    The NBA is shoving the Knicks down our throats because for years they have been DESPERATE for that franchise to come back to life. There's no doubt that having a good team in NYC is a nice thing for the NBA. The problem is that unlike the Lakers, Heat, or Bulls, NO ONE across the rest of the country cares about the Knicks. The only people outside of New York who like the Knicks are NY transplants who have moved elsewhere. In most parts of the country, it is generally considered socially unacceptable to be a Knick fan. They haven't won a championship since 1973. They've never had a Jordan-Shaq-Bird-Magic-Kobe-Lebron type star on their team. There is nothing appealing about them aside from the fact that they play in a cool arena in Midtown Manhattan.

    The NBA very much influences the teams that are on national TV. They make the schedules. There would be nothing to put on ABC if the league didn't schedule the games. The league and its TV partners work together to schedule the national games that they think are most appealing. It is like this in every sport.

    ABC appearances by team:

    Knicks - 6
    Heat - 6
    Lakers - 5
    Bulls - 5
    Thunder - 4
    Clippers - 2
    Spurs - 1
    Rockets - 1

    So the defending WCF champion Spurs have one game, the Rockets have one, and the Clippers have two. The rest of the games are split between the same 5 teams: OKC, LAL, Chicago, Miami, NY. It's all so boring and predictable. This is one of many reasons why a league like the NFL runs circles around the NBA. The NFL understands that its league exists beyond 5 teams. If you prove through your play on the field that you're worth putting on prime time, then the NFL gives you SNF and MNF games (see the Colts this year). Meanwhile, the ECF finalist Pacers have 0 ABC games, the WCF finalist Grizz have 0 ABC games, and the WCF champion Spurs have 1 ABC game. Yes, the NBA is very fair and rational when it comes to giving teams those ABC games. We gotta have the Knicks on 6 times because people across the country are just dying to watch that team who got manhandled in the semis!

    Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem if it was a 5 to 3 ratio in favor of the Knicks. But 6 to 0 when the 0 team eliminated the 6 team and then went to Game 7 of the ECF's? Come on, that's bad. If a league's main goal is to deliver a quality product to it's national audience, then there is simply no justifiable reason for putting the Knicks on ABC 6 times to our 0 when we pounded the Knicks and made the Conference Finals.
    I agree with your sentiments completely, but I think you're making a presumption that the NBA currently has a lot of influence over what games ABC shows. Given that ABC is the "buyer", they will naturally maximize their choices towards *viewership* and not *game quality*, as butts in couches is the metric that allows ABC to charge more for ads.

    BTW, in the list above, the "small markets" are only there because they're playing a large market team (NY, LA, Chi) or Miami.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      You know now that I think about it Wes Matthews was guarding Danny Granger the night Danny went off for 44 vs. the Jazz.



      I bet Matthews hates playing the Pacers.
      This video gives me the sads. Also the straight up block by Roy at like 4:10 leading to a Granger 3 is some hella good foreshadowing.

      Actually Roy and Danny run some beautiful two man stuff at the start of the 4th before Roy is benched for Troy Murphy LOL...oh JOB
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-03-2013, 05:00 PM.


      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        I agree with your sentiments completely, but I think you're making a presumption that the NBA currently has a lot of influence over what games ABC shows. Given that ABC is the "buyer", they will naturally maximize their choices towards *viewership* and not *game quality*, as butts in couches is the metric that allows ABC to charge more for ads.

        BTW, in the list above, the "small markets" are only there because they're playing a large market team (NY, LA, Chi) or Miami.
        I referenced to Sollozzo in a Colts thread, and had no luck finding it again, but there's an article floating out in the internet universe that talks about professional sports leagues and TV media's relationship, and how the sports leagues have much more influence with them than we realize.

        ABC isn't the driver here, because they have competition that wants to get into the game. The NBA can set it's own goals, and if ABC doesn't want to play ball, they can shop their goals to NBC or CBS or any other network that would kill to have them.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

          There's no way that a sports league like the NBA or NFL would sell national broadcasting rights without maintaining some (and likely substantial) input on the decisions of what games will be shown. I'm pretty sure that in the NFL, Goodell and one of his henchmen set the prime time schedule themselves (obviously both CBS and NBC would want a game like Manning returning to Indy, so someone at the league has to make the final call). In the NBA, there has to be someone directly close to the commissioner (if not the commissioner himself at times) who works with ABC/ESPN/TNT to schedule the games. Nationally televised games have a domino effect on the league's popularity, so there's no way that the league would just stand by and let the networks schedule everything themselves.

          ABC can't schedule the Thunder and Knicks to play on Christmas. The league makes the schedule. It's a give and take type of thing.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

            Ah ha. Remembered I started a thread on it, so it was easy to find that way.

            http://deadspin.com/bottom-line-how-...spn-1189693507

            It gives the ancedotal story about how the NFL got ESPN to cancel Playmakers, which was a fictional show about football players, which was getting good ratings and good feedback from critics.
            What happened last week with League of Denial, a partnership between ESPN and Frontline, was familiar to anyone who remembers the fate of Playmakers. The show was the handiwork of then-executive VP Mark Shapiro, who's the guy quoted up top. It was a strange creature to begin with. One of ESPN's first cracks at a scripted series, it followed the players and coaches of a fictional pro football team, the Cougars, in a league that was never identified as anything other than "The League." And it was, for a basic cable channel with the family sensibilities of a CBS sitcom, daring.

            Players used drugs. They got injured. They slept with each other's girlfriends. They got into fights. They struggled with their weight. They struggled with being gay. They committed crimes. All things real NFL players do and have done.

            The show was critically solid and a commercial hit, drawing ratings better than anything on the network other than Saturday night college football and Sunday night NFL. Naturally, the NFL hated Playmakers as much as everyone else loved it. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, without having watched an entire episode, called up Disney's then-CEO, Michael Eisner, to complain. Gatorade, a major NFL sponsor, pulled its advertising.

            "The NFL opposed the show," Shapiro would later tell the Los Angeles Times, "and week after week we heard their complaints, objections and concerns."

            In the recent ESPN oral history Those Guys Have All the Fun, Tagliabue stated the terms of the NFL-Bristol relationship with bracing, if sententious, candor. He cited a conversation with Eisner in which the CEO alluded to previous unflattering portrayals of the league, such as in the book North Dallas Forty. Eisner's suggestion was that the NFL had been down this road before.Tagliabue recalled his response:
            North Dallas Forty, are you kidding me? It's got nothing to do with this issue. The author of North Dallas Forty did not have a contractual relationship with the NFL. He was an independent author, a former player, who was not under an obligation to present NFL football, NFL players, NFL teams in a way that makes it a valuable, credible, respected product. You [Disney and ESPN] have that obligation, and I think what you're doing here is directly undercutting that. People want to watch sports when they can respect the athletes. This program leads them to have a view of the athletes that leads them to disrespect the athletes
            In response, ESPN removed Playmakers commercials from its Sunday Night Football broadcasts. The show was allowed to play out its 11-episode order, but after the final episode—"Week 17" aired in November—no one expected it to come back. Despite the ratings, ESPN had much more to lose: It was in negotiations with the NFL to renew its contract for Sunday Night Football, and as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel put it, ESPN "did not want to risk getting canceled by the NFL."

            The decision to kill the show was made in January, but ESPN waited until after the Super Bowl to announce it. "We didn't want to rain on the NFL's parade," Shapiro told the Los Angeles Times.

            Other networks approached ESPN about picking up the series, but SportsBusiness Daily reported that Bristol summarily turned them down for fear of further upsetting the NFL.

            Shapiro said the league's reaction was "the primary factor" in the show's end, and declared to the New York Times that ''ESPN is intoxicating for the NFL." (Shapiro was still drunk on Playmakers, though. According to Those Guys Have All the Fun, he met with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman before the 2004-05 lockout and proposed a sort of Playmakers for hockey, which could air during a work stoppage. Bettman demurred.)
            Then there is Stern.
            Sometimes, Stern's approach was more akin to working the refs. During the 2008 NBA draft, as Kansas power forward Darrell Arthur plummeted down the board, ESPN's Ric Bucher, citing three front-office sources, reported that an "undisclosed kidney issue" was sandbagging Arthur's prospects. (His agent would later explain that rumor was based on a pre-draft blood test indicating abnormally high levels of creatine; followup bloodwork, however, had determined Arthur's kidneys were "completely normal.")

            Arthur was still on the board when Bucher broke into the draft broadcast with his report. The forward fell to the 27th pick, and then got traded three times over the next few hours, eventually winding up in Memphis. Stern was furious with ESPN, according to a source. The network's reporting was affecting the course of a live event it was televising. The commissioner pulled aside a producer and said as much, their discussion stretching on so long that the announcement of the Boston Celtics' pick at the end of the round was delayed—inexplicably, to viewers at home.

            Stern had reason to believe his bawling out ESPN would work. "Bottom line is that Stern usually got his way," Shapiro said in Those Guys. "He'd scream and scream and we'd cave."

            A year ago, former Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy—who'd once called David Stern the biggest dick in sports—was up for an analyst job on ESPN's NBA Countdown. In Van Gundy's telling, he'd reached an agreement with Bristol, only to have ESPN renege.

            Van Gundy saw Stern's hand at work. "What I find fascinating … you have to give David Stern and the NBA a lot of credit," he said on Dan LeBatard's radio show. "ESPN pays the league, and then the league tells them what to do."

            What cost him his job was the same thing that cost Frontline a high-profile partner in its NFL head-injury investigation. It was the basic absurdity of a mongrel business like ESPN's. "You gotta have no balls whatsoever to pay someone hundreds of millions of dollars," Van Gundy said, "and let them run your business."
            The example I remember watching/listening to myself was the night of the Brawl, and then the following coverage the next day and after, and how vastly different it was. I'll get fitted for my tinfoil cap, if need be, but I fully believe that night was their real reactions, and the rest was contrived to toe the NBA's line.
            Last edited by Since86; 12-03-2013, 05:13 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              There's no way that a sports league like the NBA or NFL would sell national broadcasting rights without maintaining some (and likely substantial) input on the decisions of what games will be shown. I'm pretty sure that in the NFL, Goodell and one of his henchmen set the prime time schedule themselves (obviously both CBS and NBC would want a game like Manning returning to Indy, so someone at the league has to make the final call). In the NBA, there has to be someone directly close to the commissioner (if not the commissioner himself at times) who works with ABC/ESPN/TNT to schedule the games. Nationally televised games have a domino effect on the league's popularity, so there's no way that the league would just stand by and let the networks schedule everything themselves.

              ABC can't schedule the Thunder and Knicks to play on Christmas. The league makes the schedule. It's a give and take type of thing.
              I take both of your points (and would love to see the article you referred to Since86), but I would caveat with: it depends on what the NBA prioritizes. If the NBA's strategy is to maximize immediate profits, then they lose leverage with the networks. If ABC comes and says, we'll give you $x dollars above any counteroffer from the other networks if you guarantee us y ratings, then who actually has the leverage? This pushes towards the kinds of schedules you see this year, which are guaranteed to draw certain large, local audiences.

              OTOH, if the NBA had a long term "grow awareness" strategy, then networks would lose leverage, because extra money wouldn't/shouldn't influence them. The schedules over the last couple of years seem to suggest the former is actually happening.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Despite our improvements in the bench relative to last year, the first six minutes of the second and fourth quarters (and this comment may tickle Peck) make me act like a Star Trek captain and yell "Red alert, brace for impact!"....and then "Damage report?" In the second quarter, thanks to Scola, the evasive maneuvers worked. In the 4th though, we were assimilated.
                Aldridge, MoWill and Lillard was able cause asevere hull breach in the ship that Scotty couldn't even fix.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                  Anybody got an idea why C.J. sat at the end and OJ played instead? Didn't make sense to me.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    You know now that I think about it Wes Matthews was guarding Danny Granger the night Danny went off for 44 vs. the Jazz.



                    I bet Matthews hates playing the Pacers.
                    Haven't heard that Reb Porter voice in so long I almost started to think, "Wtf was up with Grady's voice that night?"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      The Knicks did start last season pretty well 18-5. They did win 5 more games last season than the pacers. They do have a true recognizeable star on their team. Pacers did not especially when the schedule came out in late July.

                      So the Pacers beating them 4-2 is a massacre?? (no one ever suggested the Bulls massacred the Pacers when they best us 4-1 in 2011)

                      They don't pick the teams willy nilly, through their research they believed the Knicks were a better ratings draw than the pacers. (Knicks are awful now, so things have changed)

                      Also keep in mind the TV broadcasters pick the teams they want. Unless it is in their contract with the NBA they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz. If the NBA tells them to show the Utah Jazz, they aren't going to show the Utah Jazz unless they are contractually obligated to do so.

                      I suppose I find it understandable that the Knicks were scheduled 6 times and the pacers none.
                      Nobody is saying the Pacers should have an equal amount of games on ABC. People are saying they find it at the very least quite odd that the team that took out the Knicks in 6 games and took the two-time NBA Champions to the maximum 7 games couldn't get ONE game on ABC, while the Knicks got 6 of what is it a total of 25 games? That's what is so pathetic about it.

                      It's "logical" the big market teams get more or much more games, but it's not normal (IMHO) that they pretty a huge number of games, while other very good teams get... none. I think that's the issue.
                      Last edited by Mourning; 12-04-2013, 07:17 AM. Reason: spelling error correction
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        Anybody got an idea why C.J. sat at the end and OJ played instead? Didn't make sense to me.
                        we needed points thats why. obviously hes the better 3 point shooter

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                          Originally posted by MrHale View Post
                          we needed points thats why. obviously hes the better 3 point shooter
                          Well, no.

                          CJ - 31%
                          OJ - 29%

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                            Because who ever they brought in had to guard Matthews, and OJ is a bigger body.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                              Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                              Nobody is saying the Pacers should have an equal amount of games on ABC. People are saying they find it at the very least quite odd that the team that took out the Knicks in 6 games and took the two-time NBA Champions to the maximum 7 games couldn't get ONE game on ABC, while the Knicks got 6 of what is it a total of 25 games? That's what is so pathetic about it.

                              It's "logical" the big market teams get more or much more games, but it's not normal (IMHO) that they pretty a huge number of games, while other very good teams get... none. I think that's the issue.

                              Exactly.

                              I understand that the New York TV market and MSG appeal make the Knicks more valuable to the league than the Pacers. I get it. Thus, I wouldn't be fussing if the Knicks had 5 ABC games to something like 3 for the Pacers. But the 6 to 0 ratio after we bulldozed the Knicks and took the Heat to Game 7 of the ECF's is a complete and utter joke. If going to Game 7 of the ECF's isn't enough to get one ABC game, then what in the hell is? This league has a blatant flagrant bias towards large market teams and "stars". 3 of the 4 Conference Finalists have just one combined ABC game: Pacers have 0, Grizz have 0, and Spurs have 1. I guess that the Spurs coming within a hair of the championship is only worth one ABC game for the following season. The Pacers, Grizz, and Spurs all play in small markets and prior to this season, none had a big time "star". Now PG has certainly evolved into a true superstar this season, but he wasn't yet considered a big time star before the season started.

                              Like I said, most of the ABC games are some combination of NY-LAL-CHI-MIA-OKC. It's all so boring and predictable. I have no problem with those teams getting games, but Christ, give teams like the Pacers and Grizz a chance on ABC. This league doesn't reward team quality.

                              It's just one of many reasons that the NFL runs circles around the NBA. The Colts had a good season in 2012, so the NFL gave them multiple prime time games in 2013 (two SNF games and a MNF game). If you're good, the NFL rewards you the following season with prime time exposure. It doesn't matter what market you play in.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-04-2013, 10:13 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Catching dysentery on the Oregon Trail

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                                If going to Game 7 of the ECF's isn't enough to get one ABC game, then what in the hell is? This league has a blatant flagrant bias towards large market teams and "stars". 3 of the 4 Conference Finalists have just one combined ABC game: Pacers have 0, Grizz have 0, and Spurs have 1. I guess that the Spurs coming within a hair of the championship is only worth one ABC game for the following season. The Pacers, Grizz, and Spurs all play in small markets and prior to this season, none had a big time "star". Now PG has certainly evolved into a true superstar this season, but he wasn't yet considered a big time star before the season started.
                                I guess it goes back to the question who do you blame? The viewing public or the NBA/TV partners who don't put on the lesser known teams. (I don't think market size matters very much. If Lebron played in Muncie Indiana the Muncie Widcats would be on the maximum number of times)

                                No the league doesn't reward team quality they reward TV ratings. Certain teams get better ratings than others even if they are comparably good. And yes I know Bills argument that if the pacers are never on TV then they wil never be known and will not get good ratings and therefore won't be on TV. I get that. But look at the Thunder. Very small market team (that right now is one of the best rating draws in the NBA) How did they become a top TV draw? Very slowly. Become good is the first step, get or build recognizable star players and slowly build.

                                The veiwing public has to take some blame also. The average casual NBA viewer would rather watch the Clippers style of ball than the Pacers, Grizzlies, Spurs style. A lot of fans don't want to see David West or Duncan's fundamental style and would rather watch the Clippers' Griffin flying around dunking the ball.

                                Pacers popularity is building with their great start and the buzz that is creating along with Paul George. But it takes time to build that and once built we'll be complaining about too many national TV games involving the Pacers. Pacers are a likeable team that will become a pretty good ratings draw, but it takes time.

                                And no the NBA is not the NFL. Cannot compare the two. The NBA is more like MLB, but even that is hard to compare.
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-04-2013, 10:33 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X