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

High Ratings on Television

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

  • #46
    Re: High Ratings on Television

    This is going to go back to the discussion of the value of a ticket, I know it is.

    Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.

    People just need to stop making excuses and just say they would rather watch TV period. To sell the tickets at the levels some people seem to be demanding won't even pay for the Fieldhouse workers.

    I spent years sitting in the balcony for sporting events before I was able to afford sitting lower down. There might be some working here, but even after people use the whole "HD is so much better" argument it STILL feels more like "I'm entitled to $20 front row seats and free beer" to me.

    All that said, sponsor money - especially the sponsors mentioned on the broadcasts - is WAY too important to risk having to give some of it back because games were blacked out. In the modern world, those TV eyes are just as important (if not to a certain extent MORE important) than the butts in the actual seats. Expect new arenas to be built with fewer direct-view seats and more "sports bar" type areas where you watch the games on TV from a comfy seat with lots of people around you.
    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


    • #47
      Re: High Ratings on Television

      Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
      According to wiki the Pacers played in the highest rated regular season game against the Bulls in 95, it came in at 10.9. It was Jordan's first game back from his first retirement.
      You see I don't recall that as Jordan's return game as I remember it being Dale Davis 20 rebound day to ruin the return of a former star.


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

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: High Ratings on Television

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        How many PD'ers were also in MSA for that game? I remember a whole bunch of 45 jerseys.


        I was there.


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

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: High Ratings on Television

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          This is going to go back to the discussion of the value of a ticket, I know it is.

          Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.

          People just need to stop making excuses and just say they would rather watch TV period. To sell the tickets at the levels some people seem to be demanding won't even pay for the Fieldhouse workers.

          I spent years sitting in the balcony for sporting events before I was able to afford sitting lower down. There might be some working here, but even after people use the whole "HD is so much better" argument it STILL feels more like "I'm entitled to $20 front row seats and free beer" to me.

          All that said, sponsor money - especially the sponsors mentioned on the broadcasts - is WAY too important to risk having to give some of it back because games were blacked out. In the modern world, those TV eyes are just as important (if not to a certain extent MORE important) than the butts in the actual seats. Expect new arenas to be built with fewer direct-view seats and more "sports bar" type areas where you watch the games on TV from a comfy seat with lots of people around you.
          No, sorry...what you call an excuse is in fact reality for some people. I would love to be a sth, but once again as I've already stated the time nor money isn't there.
          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: High Ratings on Television

            Originally posted by ejwallace View Post
            One thing to mention here that hasn't even been touched upon is that watching on TV, you get play-by-play and color commentary. I am not claiming that this makes or breaks game attendance, but I have been to several games where I find myself wondering; What just happened? Why was that foul called? and on and on....Watching from your living room gives you the convenience of having someone else do the brainwork.

            I like going to the games, as I tend to get into them by yelling, whooping and hollering, yelling at refs/players etc etc. I can only imagine the experience for someone that is more passive and doesn't get emotionally envolved. It takes a certain "type" of fan to actually attend games and "get into them", where anyone can sit at home, and with the power of DVR, never miss a thing....All the while having someone else tell you what you should and shouldn't think about things...

            Main reason why I like going to the games in person (besides the atmosphere, although it isn't all that great until the playoffs) but I get a much, much better sense of what is going on seeing it in person as opposed to watching on TV. I learn so much more about the players, teams, athletisicm, strength - I could go on and on. it is a compltely different experience. There is a reason scouts see teams and players in person as opposed to just watching it on TV.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: High Ratings on Television

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Main reason why I like going to the games in person (besides the atmosphere, although it isn't all that great until the playoffs) but I get a much, much better sense of what is going on seeing it in person as opposed to watching on TV. I learn so much more about the players, teams, athletisicm, strength - I could go on and on. it is a compltely different experience. There is a reason scouts see teams and players in person as opposed to just watching it on TV.
              I agree with you on all points, however I would be willing to assume that neither of us could be considered "casual fans". I get so annoyed when I go to a game, and I see people sitting in the first couple of rows that aren't even paying attention to the game. You know the ones I am referring too...The ones that you see walking back and forth on the court to go buy drinks in the LockerRoom Bar, and miss over half the game just going back and forth....Yeah, I'm talkin about you Mr. AfflictionShirt....

              To a more casual fan, that really doesn't have a grasp on the basics of basketball, having someone force feed you what is going on could be extremely beneficial....
              Last edited by ejwallace; 02-10-2012, 04:09 PM.
              http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: High Ratings on Television

                Originally posted by HC View Post
                No, sorry...what you call an excuse is in fact reality for some people. I would love to be a sth, but once again as I've already stated the time nor money isn't there.
                STH? I'm just talking about people who can't be bothered to go to a single game.

                To reiterate things I've said in multiple threads, I understand that money is tight and people work odd schedules. The "odd schedules" thing doesn't matter - someone without the ability to get time off for a game wouldn't be going anyway, so it has no bearing in the "TV vs Attend" discussion. On the money side, though, I really think people either have an inflated idea of what it costs to go to a Pacer game vs. almost any comparable form of entertainment OR they just want the whole TV experience (including the cost of TV) while at the arena.

                When asked "what price point would get you to the game and what do you expect for that price", those with a price point (those without also don't count because they wouldn't go anyway) far too often want courtside amenities for a balcony price.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: High Ratings on Television

                  Originally posted by RWB View Post
                  Well a lot of Pacer season ticket holders were able to pay for a season's worth of tickets by selling that game. No harm in that when you consider it was a regular season game and a Pacer fan really doesn't give a crap that was Jordan's first game back.

                  Got to remember we had the opportunity to see him before, and actually I hated watching Jordan games with the lord of basketball getting every call.
                  I know this is off topic, but does anyone here remember what tickets were going for for that game? Had to be absolutely insane.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: High Ratings on Television

                    The time argument kinda makes me wonder, if your schedule permits of course. We had at least ten Area 55 members who went to every game last season. They've got full time jobs, girlfriends, wives, kids, etc... and some of them drive an hour each way. They definitely sacrificed things to make it to every game and support the Pacers. It's not as easy or convenient as watching games on TV, but it's worth it.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: High Ratings on Television

                      From this STH's point of view... Don't black out ALL home games, but like in the past...black out SOME of the home games.

                      No need to give the non paying public as much access as those putting up hard earned coin & time.

                      No, I don't mean shutting those out... it doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING situation which a lot of you are making it out to be. 2 home games/month disappearing off the TV schedule would be enough of an annoyance to those that depend on getting all the games for the price of their cable bill would satisfy me.

                      We all know how Fox Sports usually broadcast about 70 games... Just make sure the 10 games that are not on broadcast are HOME GAMES so the STH's are rewarded by being able to see ALL the game. If STH's are invested enough with their time and money, it seems to be a no brainer that they would want the opportunity to see all the games!

                      During the broadcast a couple games ahead of the non televised games Chris & Quinn need to beat the drum of, "You need to get down to the Fieldhouse... Next Thursday's game against the New Jersey will be Radio Only. It's a good time to get out and be a part of the Pacers Experience!"
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: High Ratings on Television

                        Originally posted by El Pacero View Post
                        The time argument kinda makes me wonder, if your schedule permits of course. We had at least ten Area 55 members who went to every game last season. They've got full time jobs, girlfriends, wives, kids, etc... and some of them drive an hour each way. They definitely sacrificed things to make it to every game and support the Pacers. It's not as easy or convenient as watching games on TV, but it's worth it.
                        I so agree!!!

                        This may seem over the top to a lot of you, but my Pacer fandom was born during the '91 play-offs when I lived in Fort Wayne, IN. From 92-93 season till the opening of the Fieldhouse, I held many 10 game packages making the 2 1/2 hour trip each way while on a very limited budget. The year the Fieldhouse opened, I purchased my first 1/2 season ticket. Then that next season... I moved to Indy because I realized that my love for this team was worth the sacrifice. After my move, I got married with a child on the way and had to temper the amount of money that I put towards making games being on the same limited budget, but in 2003 my wife and I were able to finally be able to rub enough nickels together to get Full Season Tickets in the Balcony. Now this being my 8th season, we were finally able to rub a few quarters along with the nickels and move down from the Balcony.

                        To me, it was worth the sacrifice and it makes the reasons that I often hear of I don't have time, don't want to drive, too cold, parking/tickets yada yada yada... kind of fall on deaf ears.
                        Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-12-2012, 07:04 PM.
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: High Ratings on Television

                          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                          No need to give the non paying public as much access as those putting up hard earned coin & time.

                          No, I don't mean shutting those out... it doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING situation which a lot of you are making it out to be. 2 home games/month disappearing off the TV schedule would be enough of an annoyance to those that depend on getting all the games for the price of their cable bill would satisfy me.
                          Funny to talk about this 'non paying public' and in the next breath mention a cable bill. As a sports fan, the opportunity to watch live games in HD is the ONLY reason I pay for cable. While I don't have enough money to travel to Indy for all (or this year ANY) of the home games I would not consider myself a member of the non-paying public. Am I a non-attending member of the public? Sure. But for a lot of people, just paying a cable bill to watch the Pacers 70 times a year or so is as much as we can do. This group isn't on the fence about attending a Pacers Game. We are sold on the Pacers - we just don't have the kind of money to attend games this year. To me, blacking out this group of people is ultimately counter-productive. When I turn on the game only to find it blacked out, my first reaction wouldn't be 'Boy, guess I should get my butt down to the Fieldhouse and see this team in person'. I would feel betrayed by my team and angry at my cable provider.

                          Ignoring my specific circumstances, I think the Pacers need to be more concerned about the baby steps first. Get eyeballs watching Pacers highlights/coverage on the local news - then you can start worrying about getting butts in the seats. The local TV ratings seem to indicate the eyeballs finally coming back - blacking out games would only confuse and antagonize this group.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: High Ratings on Television

                            Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
                            Funny to talk about this 'non paying public' and in the next breath mention a cable bill. As a sports fan, the opportunity to watch live games in HD is the ONLY reason I pay for cable. While I don't have enough money to travel to Indy for all (or this year ANY) of the home games I would not consider myself a member of the non-paying public. Am I a non-attending member of the public? Sure. But for a lot of people, just paying a cable bill to watch the Pacers 70 times a year or so is as much as we can do. This group isn't on the fence about attending a Pacers Game. We are sold on the Pacers - we just don't have the kind of money to attend games this year. To me, blacking out this group of people is ultimately counter-productive. When I turn on the game only to find it blacked out, my first reaction wouldn't be 'Boy, guess I should get my butt down to the Fieldhouse and see this team in person'. I would feel betrayed by my team and angry at my cable provider.

                            Ignoring my specific circumstances, I think the Pacers need to be more concerned about the baby steps first. Get eyeballs watching Pacers highlights/coverage on the local news - then you can start worrying about getting butts in the seats. The local TV ratings seem to indicate the eyeballs finally coming back - blacking out games would only confuse and antagonize this group.
                            I think you missed my point... I'm not talking about shutting you out, just making the games FSI NORMALLY doesn't broadcast be ALL HOME GAMES. Two fold the team adds value to STH's by giving them the advantage of seeing all the games. Gives an opportunity for PS&E to offer an exclusive time a couple times a season to say... Your only chance of seeing this game is "To be there".

                            Normally, most seasons you're going to miss 10 games if you watch them on TV. Most don't have the opportunity to get to road game, but have a chance to get downtown. Why cheat those that make every home game by not broadcasting portions of maybe a west coast trip because FSI doesn't think anyone is willing to wait till 10:30 to see us take on Blake Griffin and the Clippers.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: High Ratings on Television

                              Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                              I think you missed my point... I'm not talking about shutting you out, just making the games FSI NORMALLY doesn't broadcast be ALL HOME GAMES. Two fold the team adds value to STH's by giving them the advantage of seeing all the games. Gives an opportunity for PS&E to offer an exclusive time a couple times a season to say... Your only chance of seeing this game is "To be there".

                              Normally, most seasons you're going to miss 10 games if you watch them on TV. Most don't have the opportunity to get to road game, but have a chance to get downtown. Why cheat those that make every home game by not broadcasting portions of maybe a west coast trip because FSI doesn't think anyone is willing to wait till 10:30 to see us take on Blake Griffin and the Clippers.
                              if it makes you feel better, i don't have cable or even High-Speed Internet anymore, so I can't see any of the games...

                              in all seriousness, i can see why ticket holders might feel like it enhances their experience if they are the only ones who see a game...but if you reflect about it, it shouldn't affect your experience...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: High Ratings on Television

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post

                                Saying they are charging "Lucas Oil Rates" for Pacer tickets is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but seats with a HELL of a lot better view of the floor go for a HELL of a lot less at the Fieldhouse. I've been to numerous Colts games that cost a lot more than my front-row Club level tickets at the Fieldhouse, and essentially ended up watching the game on television because I couldn't see the field.
                                There are only 8 Colts games in a seaon at Lucas Oil. 8! So yeah they can charge a high rate for even craptacular seats.

                                There are 41 games at the Fieldhouse. They charge too much in the club level. It doesn't matter how great the view is, there is 41 games. Thats alot of inventory to be demanding $93 and $119 a ticket in the club level.

                                Now you might have Season tickets so you are getting them a much cheaper rate. But you are talking about going to just one game remember.

                                Come down on those prices and get rid of the servers.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X