Tweet
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
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.
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
-
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
I posted something... somewhere... asking if the first thing management needed to be doing was putting a team on the floor that played "Indiana basketball".
The comments about people (Indiana especially) not being all that enthralled by the NBA are probably true. And the Pacers have become everything they don't like about the NBA. Off court shenagins and on court boring, if not selfish, basketball.
It's OK to go to Jermaine for an iso play if you need ONE basket but how many people want to see him the focus of the whole game for seemingly EVERY possession? ...every game... And with limited success to boot...
I know I want to see an offense that flows. I want the scoring to come from within the flow of that offense. Ball sharing. Screening. Movement.
I don't want to see a team that is so reliant on any one player getting so many touches while everything else has to grind to a halt.
And I want to see hard work, hustle, over-achieving, and solid team defense on the other side of the court.
I bet I'm not alone.
-BballNuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
WHAT?? What's that you say? I CAN'T HEAR YOOoouuuu!!Originally posted by Unclebuck View PostEver notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Wifey: Oh yeah, and Jeff Foster. That makes 3.
KW: Sorry sweetie, you're a day late.
Wifey: Oh, and Austin Croshere
KW: sighDon't thank me, I'll kill ya.Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
And how many people were turned off by the throwing of a camera, flipping the bird at Pat Riley, and a player from Indiana that actually liked playing in Indiana not being re-signed.You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Good post. But, I believe your estimate of six years in the 1990's as glory years is too high.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
Are there attendance figures for the ABA years? My recollection is that regular season attendance was not all that great. The Pacers in the ABA didn't play to full houses all the time.
By and large the Pacers have been supported best when they reached the top tier of the league in terms of success.
Recent attendance figures may also have been inflated by the buzz about the new Conseco Fieldhouse. Much of that buzz has worn off.
It'll take consistent winning and, I think, fair prices for fans to fill Conseco regularly again.
For Indiana sports fans, despite all the bullcrap, it's all about winning. At every level. High school, college, and professional. Go to a high school basketball or football game of a team with a mediocre record. Look at the attendance figures at IU, Purdue, Butler, etc. when the ball wasn't going in the hoop as often as it needed to do. Plus, don't forget, it wasn't long ago the Colts were finding it difficult to sell out. The rise in Colts attendance has correlated with the winning more than with the arrival of Peyton Manning.Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Originally posted by Peck View Post
I don't remember Reggie making $20M in a single season. JO is a "max player" pay wise (ahem) and I simply think the Indy fans cannot fathom a player making that kind of money without delivering championships. I really think there is a link between his pay and the way he is "treated" (or not treated) by the fans.Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Can anyone really take Kravitz seriously anymore? I mean really? Hes a joke. Unfortunately him being a joke is what keeps him having a job. If we just ignored everything he wrote hed get fired and the city and its general sports fan base would be better off. Boycott Bob.
Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
It probably has something to do with Reggie's picture being on MSA.Originally posted by Peck View Post
Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Exactly my history with his articles. He really lost me when he kept trashing the 13-0 Colts up through about 7-0, when he finally got on board. With that team he finally saw how idiotic some of the fanbase was as they gave up on them when they lost to PIT, as if 13-0 happens to every team.Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
WTF is he talking about. They made the playoffs last year. Cassell has some fame, Brand is known but clearly left in the shadow of other greats specifically because of the team he plays for.a semi-marquee opponent in the Los Angeles Clippers
All the rest of that team? Yeah, ask the fans as they went into Conseco. You think most of them knew who Livingston is?
Don't let me stop you from running out the MSA numbers in 1998...and just so you know it wasn't just a capacity issue, they didn't sell the place out on a regular basis. The only season long sell-out of ANY arena came in 99-00...the brand new Fieldhouse paired with their only run to the Finals. Gee, is that all it takes? (note the sick level of sarcasm)Or does everybody just think I'm all wet on this issue? If you do please explain the mediocre attendance during the 61 win season?
But of course you'll be the first to admit that everyone hated rooting for Dale, Reggie, Rik, Jax, and Tony.
I'm so caustic about this Peck because it's all skew. Factually the team has only sold out one time, Conseco's first year. People thought the team was CHOKERS after the 99 playoffs. People would have loved to see Reggie traded for a star that could get them over the top after they missed the playoffs in 97.
They had to hire Bird just to ensure support for the building of Conseco.
How many times must it be repeated - past performance based on the quality of product on the field/court has proven beyond any doubt that the Indy fanbase is insanely fickle and deeply demanding of wins. It is NOT the savvy market that it is sometimes portrayed as, which is why you can go to a game and find people sitting next to you who don't know who Troy Murphy or Mike Dunleavy are yet. Seriously.
Largest full-season home crowds
1) 99-00
2) 00-01
3) 04-05 (Reggie final year)
4) 01-02
5) 03-04 16,545
Note that the BRAD MILLER team, the team with 2 all-stars and the AS coach and leading the East at the break, doesn't even make the top 5.
Freaking 1998, the greatest team they ever had, wasn't even their best MSA attendence.
1) 95-96 16,438
2) 94-95
3) 97-98 15,739
So MORE FANS went to see the "unlikeable" 03-04 team than the classic 1998 team. They couldn't even sell out MSA on a regular basis. Repeat that to yourself over and over till the truth sinks in.
And the ABA team..well it fell short of selling out the Fairgrounds on a regular basis too. It maxed to 16,600 in 1971 (vs Kentucky), but the list of largest crowds from 3-10 are all down in the 11,550-12,000 mark, and the BEST regular season numbers are averages of 8,500 per game.
By Sellouts, noting that MSA peaked at roughly 16,700 (ignoring the rare SRO nights) while Conseco seats 18,345
1) 99-00 41
2) 95-96 29
3) 00-01 25
4) 94-95 24
5) 04-05 15
6) 98-99 15
7) 03-04 11
The ABA teams had 2 seasons of 11 sellouts. 11 out of 40-41. For ABA champ teams no less.
Compared to where the crowds peaked out during the Conseco opening and its aftermath the 03-04 team looks small, but the reality is that while Indy hasn't grown in decades according the the census and has in the last 5 years featured a HIGHLY competitive NFL team taking in sports entertainment dollars too, the JO teams have all fared well in attendence.
The attendence now DESTROYS the attendence that came out to watch the awful, horrible, unlikeable and unwatchable Detlef, Reggie, Person, Smits, M. Williams era teams. (again, note the sarcasm) Why? Because they hadn't won much yet and the whiny, fickle fans couldn't be bothered to watch a team that wasn't going all the way (until they almost did a couple of seasons later).
You know, because that's the spirit of Hoosier Hysteria.
(all data taking from last years Pacers Media Guide - data through 04-05)
Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
BTW, if you doubt my version of Hoosier Hysteria (that it's total BS), take a trip up to Mackey. Even before the old bulldog retired it was already getting some serious empty seat nights.
That's the "pure" game with good kids that are graduating and playing the game the right way. Too bad losing trumps all that when it comes to fan interest.Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View PostExactly my history with his articles. He really lost me when he kept trashing the 13-0 Colts up through about 7-0, when he finally got on board. With that team he finally saw how idiotic some of the fanbase was as they gave up on them when they lost to PIT, as if 13-0 happens to every team.
WTF is he talking about. They made the playoffs last year. Cassell has some fame, Brand is known but clearly left in the shadow of other greats specifically because of the team he plays for.
All the rest of that team? Yeah, ask the fans as they went into Conseco. You think most of them knew who Livingston is?
Don't let me stop you from running out the MSA numbers in 1998...and just so you know it wasn't just a capacity issue, they didn't sell the place out on a regular basis. The only season long sell-out of ANY arena came in 99-00...the brand new Fieldhouse paired with their only run to the Finals. Gee, is that all it takes? (note the sick level of sarcasm)
But of course you'll be the first to admit that everyone hated rooting for Dale, Reggie, Rik, Jax, and Tony.
I'm so caustic about this Peck because it's all skew. Factually the team has only sold out one time, Conseco's first year. People thought the team was CHOKERS after the 99 playoffs. People would have loved to see Reggie traded for a star that could get them over the top after they missed the playoffs in 97.
They had to hire Bird just to ensure support for the building of Conseco.
How many times must it be repeated - past performance based on the quality of product on the field/court has proven beyond any doubt that the Indy fanbase is insanely fickle and deeply demanding of wins. It is NOT the savvy market that it is sometimes portrayed as, which is why you can go to a game and find people sitting next to you who don't know who Troy Murphy or Mike Dunleavy are yet. Seriously.
Largest full-season home crowds
1) 99-00
2) 00-01
3) 04-05 (Reggie final year)
4) 01-02
5) 03-04 16,545
Note that the BRAD MILLER team, the team with 2 all-stars and the AS coach and leading the East at the break, doesn't even make the top 5.
Freaking 1998, the greatest team they ever had, wasn't even their best MSA attendence.
1) 95-96 16,438
2) 94-95
3) 97-98 15,739
So MORE FANS went to see the "unlikeable" 03-04 team than the classic 1998 team. They couldn't even sell out MSA on a regular basis. Repeat that to yourself over and over till the truth sinks in.
And the ABA team..well it fell short of selling out the Fairgrounds on a regular basis too. It maxed to 16,600 in 1971 (vs Kentucky), but the list of largest crowds from 3-10 are all down in the 11,550-12,000 mark, and the BEST regular season numbers are averages of 8,500 per game.
By Sellouts, noting that MSA peaked at roughly 16,700 (ignoring the rare SRO nights) while Conseco seats 18,345
1) 99-00 41
2) 95-96 29
3) 00-01 25
4) 94-95 24
5) 04-05 15
6) 98-99 15
7) 03-04 11
The ABA teams had 2 seasons of 11 sellouts. 11 out of 40-41. For ABA champ teams no less.
Compared to where the crowds peaked out during the Conseco opening and its aftermath the 03-04 team looks small, but the reality is that while Indy hasn't grown in decades according the the census and has in the last 5 years featured a HIGHLY competitive NFL team taking in sports entertainment dollars too, the JO teams have all fared well in attendence.
The attendence now DESTROYS the attendence that came out to watch the awful, horrible, unlikeable and unwatchable Detlef, Reggie, Person, Smits, M. Williams era teams. (again, note the sarcasm) Why? Because they hadn't won much yet and the whiny, fickle fans couldn't be bothered to watch a team that wasn't going all the way (until they almost did a couple of seasons later).
You know, because that's the spirit of Hoosier Hysteria.
(all data taking from last years Pacers Media Guide - data through 04-05)
I'm not exactly sure who you are talking about wanting to trade Reggie after 97. God knows I was about crucified on the star for not being opposed to all trades for Reggie, but I'll be the first to tell you there were less than a handfull of us who would have traded him for the right price.
But everybody I knew, talked to & had season tickets with would rather have gouged out thier eyes than to talk about trading Reggie, so on that point I have no idea what you are talking about.
Now do I agree that the fan base is fickle? Um, yes.
However I'm contending that winning (in this case) is not the absolute cure for what ills us.
I'm just contending that the group of players that occupied Pacers uniforms from 01 to 06 did not appeal to the local fan base on a mass level.
The team as structured now might have a better chance but it will take a year or two to get this back on the right track.
I use the 61 win season because by definition it was our greatest team in the regular season for the NBA years. I just never believed that the team was "over" with the fans.
However it's hard to put a stat on "over" so I will, as always, just say it's my opinion.
I'm just going off of what I witness first hand. I've been a season ticket holder in one capacity or another since 1985. I only missed 1 playoff home game ever & I can tell you that the buzz in the fieldhouse during the last 6 years barely beats what I remember from the 88-93 years. There are a few more people here now though, but I will also say that newer attendance is also inflated because of the corperate ticket plan that did not exist for all companys back in the late 80's early 90's
I'm really not even sure why you are arguing with me on this because for the most part I agree with you.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
I've said it before and I don't think anyone agrees with me but I think several fans, and some hardcore fans as well, were disillusioned when the 90's team wasn't allowed to run its course.
-BballNuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
------
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
-John WoodenComment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
It is very, very hard to like this Pacers team...even after getting rid of Jackson...Comment
-
Re: Bob Kravitz: is asking where was everybody -is he now trying to be funny
Why? We got a good group of guys. A great young core. Some guys that show flashes of brilliance...Why is this team hard to like?Originally posted by Stryder View PostComment
Comment