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

Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

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

  • #46
    Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

    Originally posted by alamo1978 View Post
    Just FYI, here's the link to go complain:

    http://www.nba.com/email_us/contact_us.html

    I'm sure it won't help much now, but it's worth pointing out.
    I sent them an email.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

      Ya, I sent the NBA a short/sweet lil "memo" mentioning this little incident and how they're losing credibility.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

        Guess who these people were talking about. And this was in 2006-2007

        "He gets all the calls, that's what makes him special.'' - Gerald Wallace

        "It's unbelievable what he gets away with.'' - Bob Hill

        "I can't believe he has the audacity to complain to the refs, he should be grateful for what they've done for him in his career. He is what he is today because of them." - P.J. Brown

        "He travels on that spin move. He picks up that pivot foot... everybody knows it. ****** can cover so much ground when he makes that move. As you know, he can go 20 feet with that spin move and get to the basket." - Phil Jackson

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Why was it more severe? it was a harder hit. All hits are not the same.
          Ehhhh.... gotta disagree with ya there, bud. The hits were under the same type of "frustration" situations, and both hits were equally forceful, imo. I don't really see how Smith's hit was less forceful than Wade's hit. They both happened on fast breaks with full force, shoulder/body thrown into a defenseless player, with no intention of making a basketball play.

          Collison is little, man. He's 6'0", 160 lbs, soaking wet. Wade is 6'4", 220 lbs. He's got 60 lbs on him, and he's *muscular*.

          Collison also had nothing to do with.... why Wade thought he had reason to be frustrated. It was DJones who defended Wade on the previous play. Dahntay is actually Wade's size --- and Wade avoided him. Wade didn't get one of his BS flops called, so he immediately went after the nearest little guy on the court and plowed him into the ground. And then acted afterwards like he still wanted to confront Collison about something, and Collison, to his credit, popped right up and walked away from Wade. Who knows what thoughts were goin' through Wade's head, but "common sense" and "being a man" wasn't one of them. Wade didn't go after the bigger guy who defended him on the previous play --- he sprinted down the court and plowed the littlest guy on the court. Just a complete p*ssy move.

          Collison did absolutely nothing wrong, and he could have seriously been hurt. Wade has a history of hauling off and plowing people like a 10 year old when things don't go his way.
          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-16-2012, 03:35 PM.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

            To pour a little gasoline on the fire:

            http://www.foxsportsohio.com/05/16/1...94&feedID=3725

            The NBA had ample reason to suspend Dwyane Wade for two games.

            Yes, it’s the playoffs, and, yes, it would have hurt the Miami Heat, but what Wade did to Darren Collison in the Indiana Pacers’ win Heat warranted a suspension because it was a dangerous play that can’t be justified.

            Instead, the NBA chose not to upgrade Wade’s flagrant foul or suspend him, which is nothing if not inconsistent.

            With 9:27 left in Indiana’s 78-75 win, Wade lowered his left shoulder into Collison’s back as Collison was streaking down the court for a layup. This was no “basketball play.” It was a football play. And Wade is lucky Collison was not injured.

            Wade made no play on the ball. In fact, he hit Collison before he had the ball. He hit him just inside the three-point line, and Collision didn’t stop tumbling until he was at the baseline.

            As Joe Friday would say, those are the facts, ma’am.

            Add it all up. A blindside shoulder at the three-point line that sends a guy flying to the baseline, that brought the risk of considerable injury, that was totally unwarranted (except for Wade’s unhappiness a foul wasn’t called when he attempted a shot at the other end) — this is basketball? To call it anything but an outrageous cheap shot does not do it justice.

            The NBA had precedent.

            In late March, New Orleans’ Jason Smith made a similar play against Blake Griffin of the Clippers. Smith lowered his shoulder and hit Griffin as the Clippers’ star was about to take off for one of his spectacular dunks.

            Smith was suspended for two games.

            Smith received a flagrant 2 foul for his shoulder check. He was ejected. Wade was given a flagrant 1. He was not ejected.

            That was one of the differences in the two hits. Griffin had the ball, Collison did not. Griffin saw Smith coming, Collison never knew Wade was about to hit Collison. Both those truths make Wade’s hit more wrong — and dangerous.

            The other difference: Smith hit a superstar. Collison was hit by a superstar — though the way Wade is racking up cheap-shot fouls, it’s getting more difficult to admire his super play.

            So far this season, in addition to the shoulder shot to Collison, Wade forcefully shoved Rip Hamilton out of bounds while “defending” the Bulls guard in April and broke the nose of Lakers star Kobe Bryant with a hard foul in the All-Star Game.

            In last year’s playoffs, Wade lowered his shoulder and ran through a screen set by Celtics guard Paul Pierce that led to double technicals. Wade also was involved in a tussle that led to Celtics guard Rajon Rondo dislocating his elbow in the playoffs when Wade dragged Rondo to the floor, an action many in Boston still consider a dirty play.

            But back to this year’s playoffs.

            In the Heat’s first-round matchup with the Knicks, New York guard Mike Bibby lost his shoe. Wade picked it up and threw it to the bench, a small-minded action that didn’t seem to please Bibby.

            Then came the behind-the-back hit to Collison, after which the home crowd was more interested in complaining about the previous non-call than recognizing Wade’s cheap shot.

            Had that play happened in Indiana, Pacers fans would have raised the roof. And rightly so.

            There are a lot of reasons to not like the way Wade acted and reacted in and after that loss. The non-call he complained about was 50-50 at best, yet he acted as if he’d had his nose broken without a call. He took that frustration out on Collison in as amateurish a way as he could.

            Then came his postgame remarks that the Pacers celebrated the win too much. This from the guy who, during the most over-the-top celebration of a free-agent signing, called the Heat’s talented trio the greatest ever — before they’d even played a game together.

            Choose a word —entitled, petulant, spoiled. Wade is making them all fit.

            But none of that is the reason the NBA should have acted regarding Wade’s hit on Collison.

            The league should have acted because Wade made a non-basketball, dangerous play against a defenseless guy, a play that could have resulted in serious injury and was prompted only by the hurt feelings of the guy who committed the foul.

            The NBA should follow the precedent it already set and suspend Wade.

            He earned it.

            Hard to disagree here.
            Last edited by docpaul; 05-16-2012, 03:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              That was a terrible call. Haslem fouled PG. (but what does that prove excepot that the refs make some bad calls from time to time)

              Question: How do you or can you prove "superstars receive favoritism" from the refs? Can you prove that by showing a few bad calls? No, you really need to do a reakdown of every call, every non-call over hundreds of games. if someone does a study like that I would be very interested. But for every horrible call that proves star bias, i can show a horrible call disproving star bias. And neither of us would prove a thing really

              I do acknowledge in the post that I linked to that referees miss calls. Fine, it happens. No, you cannot prove that superstars receive favoritism from the refs by showing a few bad calls. That's not what is upsetting to me about this video - it's not about the refs. It's about the superstar favoritism in the media and by the league in general.

              The fact that it was promoted during the game and after the game on the NBA's site as a Miami heat highlight plays right into the theme of superstar favoritism that is being discussed in this thread. It was a blatant foul, a terrible call as you acknowledge. It doesn't look like Wade even touches the ball. Why is it that the league feels comfortable promoting it as an example of the kind of great plays DWade makes? I do not think there is an intentional, planned conspiracy going on. However, in a league that promotes superstars as a way to draw fans in, there tends to be a narrative setup each game around what the superstars are doing. It is concerning to me that the obvious video evidence that the play was something other than a great play by Wade is not enough to disrupt the narrative of "look how awesome Wade is." And this is not an isolated incident, I have seen blown calls labeled as superstar highlights before, but I don't see that happening with comparative nobodies.

              No, it's not a study of every video highlight the NBA has ever posted. I am aware that my subjective evaluation of these things may be biased. But do you have any sense of why such a play can be picked up and labeled as a great block by Wade? Do you think it has nothing to do with his stature in the league?
              Last edited by gummy; 05-16-2012, 03:32 PM.
              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                It's infuriating how these refs pick and choose. They're all about protecting the players, but it's sick that they play favorites. You see it in the NFL too and it sucks. Just call the game like it should be called. It's not going to ruin the popularity or ratings. People watch because they love the sport and the NBA/basketball is very popular.
                The NBA finals ratings tell a different story. The San Antonio Spurs have been involved in the three lowest rated NBA finals in the post tape delay era.

                In the height of the Bird-Magic-Jordan era (1985-1999), two NBA finals had abnormally low ratings: Portland-Detroit in 1990 and Houston-New York in 1994.

                And since 2000, the Lakers have played in the five highest rated finals (although the Mavs-Heat were tied for fifth). I hate agreeing with Colin Cowherd, but he's right on this point. We say we want to see Butler - VCU, but we really want to see Kentucky and North Carolina. The ratings bear that out.

                And for the record, I'd much rather be watching the Bulls and Celtics than Sixers - Celtics.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                  Yep, that is dead on.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                    Originally posted by shags View Post
                    The NBA finals ratings tell a different story. The San Antonio Spurs have been involved in the three lowest rated NBA finals in the post tape delay era.

                    In the height of the Bird-Magic-Jordan era (1985-1999), two NBA finals had abnormally low ratings: Portland-Detroit in 1990 and Houston-New York in 1994.

                    And since 2000, the Lakers have played in the five highest rated finals (although the Mavs-Heat were tied for fifth). I hate agreeing with Colin Cowherd, but he's right on this point. We say we want to see Butler - VCU, but we really want to see Kentucky and North Carolina. The ratings bear that out.

                    And for the record, I'd much rather be watching the Bulls and Celtics than Sixers - Celtics.
                    You likely prefer to watch because you want to see one of them lose, because they have dislikable personalities likely combined with tremendous skillsets. But if a boring team is better --- they shouldn't get penalized, or the other team shouldn't be "assisted" just because so many people want to watch them lose. You can't sit here and tell me you actually want Chicago or Miami to actually win a title, so why else would you want to watch them? Because you hate 'em... you wanna see 'em lose... so why not lose to the Pacers? Those, boring... boring Pacers, who actually play some decent basketball.

                    I do not believe Miami is a better team than Indy. I do believe they have 2-3 "superstars" who are entertaining to watch, and I do believe they get "help" in the form of a lack of upholding to the standards that other teams are held to. They aren't a better team though, and I don't see a reason as to why they should advance just for the sake of "ratings".

                    I don't really give a ***** about ratings. I want my team to win, and I want them to have a fair and equal chance to succeed. The only people who care about ratings is Stern and his good squad flunkies, obviously, and unfortunately... and it shows in the product on the floor, which is increasingly lacking in quality.
                    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-16-2012, 03:51 PM.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                      Originally posted by shags View Post
                      The NBA finals ratings tell a different story. The San Antonio Spurs have been involved in the three lowest rated NBA finals in the post tape delay era.

                      In the height of the Bird-Magic-Jordan era (1985-1999), two NBA finals had abnormally low ratings: Portland-Detroit in 1990 and Houston-New York in 1994.

                      And since 2000, the Lakers have played in the five highest rated finals (although the Mavs-Heat were tied for fifth). I hate agreeing with Colin Cowherd, but he's right on this point. We say we want to see Butler - VCU, but we really want to see Kentucky and North Carolina. The ratings bear that out.

                      And for the record, I'd much rather be watching the Bulls and Celtics than Sixers - Celtics.
                      That is exactly right. It differs depending on the sport. For example Butler vs Duke was one of the highest rated championship games ever. Duke has a very large built in audience and half hate them so a cinderella vs Duke was huge . The next year without Duke the ratings were not good.

                      NFL is pretty immune to this.

                      The NBA is not. Underdogs in the NBA don't really exist by the nature of the 7 game series and how good the superstars are. I dont remember the last real underdog in the NBA finals. But the NBA does benefit from the hatred factor. if fans love to see the Heat lose, that alone will bring millions to the NBA finals.

                      I hate to admit it, but the NBA is more dependent upon having the right teams and star players in the finals than the other sports - by a wide margin.


                      if you look at these NBA playoffs, the Thunder right now would appear to be the third most popular team TV ratings wise in the NBA. Behind only the heat and lakers. People like to watch the Thunder.

                      if the Thunder play the heat in the Finals the NBA will be very happy. Thunder much better for ratings than the Spurs.

                      if the pacers play the Spurs oin the NBA Finals, it would be one of the two or three lowest rated NBA finals ever.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        ...if the pacers play the Spurs oin the NBA Finals, it would be one of the two or three lowest rated NBA finals ever.
                        I agree........ aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, I don't care. Not my concern.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          if the pacers play the Spurs in the NBA Finals, it would be one of the two or three lowest rated NBA finals ever.
                          I stick to my guns that this is because the NBA doesn't bother trying to pre-market teams in order to make such a matchup interesting to the casual fan. If they spent even 30% of their money on promoting teams regardless of market or who plays on them - only based on how they are doing that season - they'd realize a HUGE benefit in both finals ratings and future ratings.

                          Unfortunately, since it is easy to market the superstars, that's what they do to the exclusion of all else. They wouldn't even have to stop marketing superstars - heck, the SPONSORS will market the superstars FOR them - they just could do additional promotion in order to give themselves something other than putting all their eggs into the "damn, I hope we have a superstar in the finals" basket - that's what makes them seem to be overprotective of the basket.
                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I stick to my guns that this is because the NBA doesn't bother trying to pre-market teams in order to make such a matchup interesting to the casual fan. If they spent even 30% of their money on promoting teams regardless of market or who plays on them - only based on how they are doing that season - they'd realize a HUGE benefit in both finals ratings and future ratings.

                            Unfortunately, since it is easy to market the superstars, that's what they do to the exclusion of all else. They wouldn't even have to stop marketing superstars - heck, the SPONSORS will market the superstars FOR them - they just could do additional promotion in order to give themselves something other than putting all their eggs into the "damn, I hope we have a superstar in the finals" basket - that's what makes them seem to be overprotective of the basket.
                            How do you explain the Spurs then. People over the years have sampled them and have decided they don't want to watch the Spurs. (the lowest rated series in the first round of the playoffs this year? Spurs vs Jazz)

                            And yet the Thunder get some of the highest ratings in the nBA nationally.

                            People watch who they want to watch.
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-16-2012, 04:02 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                              The problem with the NBA is they have always marketed stars and not the teams themselves. I think it's a horrible way of going about it personally. Small market teams are wildly popular in the NFL, while in the NBA, they are pretty much dead in the water.


                              @Pacers24Colts12

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Superstar favoritism is hardly ever more blatant

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                How do you explain the Spurs then. People over the years have sampled them and have decided they don't want to watch the Spurs. (the lowest rated series in the first round of the playoffs this year? Spurs vs Jazz)
                                Did you really see any marketing of the Spurs as a team? Everything I've seen and heard in the national media has been the Big Three, DRose, Kobe, Rondo/Garnett/Pierce, some Durant, and lots of Lin/Melo/Amare.

                                I don't mean just mentioning the name of the team when you do a standings rundown. I mean actually centering a marketing campaign around something other than a bunch of highlights from the same players over and over and over and over and over.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X