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

Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

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

  • Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

    Sports Media Watch has been running a 4 part series on just who watches what sport. There was a thread about age, income level ane gender. Here is an article about diversity. The headline is NBA viewing audience is the youngest and most diverse. (to see some of the graphs and such, click on the link.

    58% of NBA viewers are minority viewers.

    I find this interesting and without getting into it in a sports forum, I think this helps explain why for some segments of society the NBA just isn't on their radar. By that I mean it is not that they watched and didn't like, but that it is not on their possible menu of things to watch - especially on a national level. (I wonder how much of the audience compared to other sports comes from urban areas - NBA has to lead in that category also)

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014...s-tv-audience/

    The NBA is a veritable melting pot compared to the other leagues when it comes to minority viewership. Of the events analyzed in the ‘demo reel’ series, the NBA Finals easily had the highest percentage of African American, Hispanic and Asian viewers.

    African Americans made up between 32% and 38% of the audience for the NBA Finals, with viewership ranging from 5.1 to 8.4 million. Only the WNBA Finals had a higher percentage of African American viewership, ranging from 34% to 42% of the audience, and no other event attracted more than 3.5 million (NCAA Tournament title game).


    Between 15% and 17% of the NBA Finals audience came from the Hispanic demographic, easily outpacing the World Series (8-10%). Hispanic viewership ranged from 2.1 million to 4.1 million; no other event examined earned more than 1.8 million (World Series Game 6).
    Finally, Asian viewers made up a more modest 7-8% of the NBA Finals audience, but that was still ahead the other events analyzed. Only the U.S. Open singles finals had a comparable percentage of Asian viewers (6-7%). Between 1.0 and 1.9 million Asian viewers watched each game of the NBA Finals; the only other event to top one million viewers in the demo was the NCAA Tournament title game.

    Overall, between 55% and 61% of the audience for the NBA Finals was from the African American, Hispanic or Asian demographic. The series averaged nearly 10.2 million viewers across the three demographics, compared to an average of 12.1 million for the other six events combined.


    Other than the NBA Finals, the event with the largest minority audience was the NCAA Tournament Final Four, which averaged 4.2 million viewers across the three demographics. The Final Four had a healthy percentage of African American viewers (14-15%), but lagged behind among Hispanic (4-5%) and Asian (4%) viewers. The Bowl Championship Series also had solid African American representation (8-12%), but less impressive numbers among Hispanics (2-6%) and Asians (2-3%).

    Of note, the Louisville/Michigan NCAA title game attracted more viewers in the African American, Hispanic and Asian demographics than the Alabama/Notre Dame BCS title game — even though the BCS game had nearly three million more viewers overall.

    In an encouraging result for tennis, the U.S. Open singles finals had a strong percentage of African American viewers. For the women’s final, which featured Serena Williams, African Americans made up 28% of the audience. The demo made up 13% of the audience for the Rafael Nadal/Novak Djokovic men’s final, also a good percentage. The Hispanic and Asian demographics each made up just 6-7% of the audience, but that at least compares favorably to the Final Four and BCS.

    The World Series was one of only two events in which the Hispanic demographic made up a larger percentage of the audience than African Americans, but the numbers were not exactly large — between 8% and 10%. African Americans made up just 6-7% of the audience for each World Series game, and Asians just 3%. Overall, the three demos made up just 16-20% of the audience for each game.

    The Stanley Cup Final was an especially weak performer among minority viewers. African Americans made up between 1% and 5% of the audience for each game, Hispanics made up between 2% and 6%, and Asian viewers made up between 3% and 4%. Overall, the demographics made up just 6-13% of the audience for each game, making the Stanley Cup Final easily the least diverse sporting event examined.

    Full data on race is available on the following page. Previous ‘demo reel’ posts are available here: age/income and gender.

  • #2
    Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

    Here is link to a chart of a complete breakdown for each game.

    http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014...tv-audience/2/

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

      Here is a re-cap an overview of all this and why it matter. it is rather striking the difference between college basketball and the NBA.

      http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014...-demographics/

      Demo Reel: Final Thoughts on Sports TV Demographics

      few thoughts on sports TV viewership after the “Demo Reel” series.

      The NBA is in Great Shape
      • The NBA Finals was the youngest-skewing event of those examined and the most diverse. No other event had a larger percentage of Hispanics, Asians, kids 2-17, or adults 18-34, and only the WNBA Finals attracted a comparable percentage of African Americans. On average, more than a quarter of the audience for the series was made up of minority viewers under the age of 35. Overall, the NBA Finals was the second-most viewed event of those examined, trailing only the Final Four — which had an older, less diverse audience (more on that next). The only downside? The NBA Finals had the second-smallest median income of any event examined, ahead of only the WNBA Finals.


      The NBA/College Hoops Divide
      • It is striking to see just how different the audiences are for the NBA Finals and Final Four, two events that on the surface are fairly similar. The median age for the Final Four was nearly a decade older than that of the NBA Finals, and the audience for the games was dramatically less diverse — just 23% of the Final Four audience was African American, Hispanic or Asian, compared to 58% of the NBA Finals audience. The Final Four also attracted a more affluent audience than the NBA Finals. Despite the obvious divide between the two events, they averaged similar numbers in 2013 — 18.3* million for the Final Four and 17.7 million for the NBA.


      The NHL is Advertiser Friendly


      • The NHL may not have the numbers of the other leagues, but it skewed younger than every event but the NBA and had the most affluent audience of the events examined. Advertisers thirst for young audiences with disposable income, and the NHL would be in great shape if it could attract more viewers. One problem — 2013 was an unusually good year for the league, and the numbers may drop back to Earth this season. Another problem — the Stanley Cup Final had the least diversity of any event examined.

      Tennis, or at Least the U.S. Open, is More Diverse Than Thought

      • Despite the perception of tennis as not being particularly diverse, only the NBA and WNBA Finals had a larger percentage of minority viewers than the U.S. Open singles finals among the events examined. More than a third of the audience for the singles finals was African American, Hispanic or Asian. For the Serena Williams/Victoria Azarenka women’s final, a full 41% of the audience was made up of minority viewers. For the Rafael Nadal/Novak Djokovic men’s final, the percentage was a smaller — but still impressive — 27%.

      Maybe the World Series Really Has Lost a Generation

      • It is almost cliche to suggest that Major League Baseball has lost younger viewers, but the numbers for the 2013 World Series were still notable — nearly half the audience was over the age of 55, and the series’ median age hovered in the mid-50s. Combine that with a fairly non-diverse audience, and the Fall Classic does not appear to be in great shape.

      Sports TV is Not a Man’s World

      • Yes, men watch sporting events in greater numbers than do women, but female viewers consistently made up more than a third of the audience for the events examined. Considering the virtual absence of women in substantive roles on sports telecasts — only a select few have moved beyond the sidelines — it would seem that the networks are out of touch with their viewers.

      * 18.3M viewers for the Final Four is approximate, not official. CBS/Turner Sports does not release averages for the three-game Final Four.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

        I'm not sure including 2-year olds in their numbers is right, but interesting nonetheless.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post


          The NBA/College Hoops Divide
          • It is striking to see just how different the audiences are for the NBA Finals and Final Four, two events that on the surface are fairly similar. The median age for the Final Four was nearly a decade older than that of the NBA Finals, and the audience for the games was dramatically less diverse — just 23% of the Final Four audience was African American, Hispanic or Asian, compared to 58% of the NBA Finals audience. The Final Four also attracted a more affluent audience than the NBA Finals. Despite the obvious divide between the two events, they averaged similar numbers in 2013 — 18.3* million for the Final Four and 17.7 million for the NBA.
          Interesting. This explains a lot. Back when the Pacers were having attendance problems, this idea was talked about a lot as a factor in Indiana (where high school and college hoops are super popular).

          The audiences do seem to be pretty different. Anecdotally I've run into this as well, my dad is a big Duke fan and watches college ball all the time but almost never watches the NBA. OTOH I rarely watch college ball except for the NCAA tournament.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

            Originally posted by rabid View Post
            Interesting. This explains a lot. Back when the Pacers were having attendance problems, this idea was talked about a lot as a factor in Indiana (where high school and college hoops are super popular).

            The audiences do seem to be pretty different. Anecdotally I've run into this as well, my dad is a big Duke fan and watches college ball all the time but almost never watches the NBA. OTOH I rarely watch college ball except for the NCAA tournament.
            I love basketball in general, the NBA is hands down the best form of the game IMO. The difference talent is just insane. With that said I prefer watching college basketball this year and am slowly morphing into a college first watcher, and leaning to getting into the college game instead of the NBA(in terms of my career). I still watch every Pacer game and normally try to watch an NBA game each day(even though I haven't really been able to this year). I have kind of flipped my watching style (I watch 2-3 college games a day and if I am lucky I watch some NBA). I use to wait and watch all of my college tape during the dry period in the summer. I hate running into people who say they love college because it is "purer" basketball that is just horse **** even worse is the people who say the players play for the "spirit" of the game in college.

            I still think HS hoops is the best in Indiana I love watching the top teams play, but I find it an inefficient use of my time. I could watch many games on TV instead of just watching one HS game live.


            With that said I know plenty of people like your Dad who say they love college, but hate the NBA. I just don't get how that can be possible I just shake my head.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              With that said I know plenty of people like your Dad who say they love college, but hate the NBA. I just don't get how that can be possible I just shake my head.
              It's always baffled me too. I honestly don't get it, the only thing I can think of is that they've never even tried watching the NBA. If you're a basketball fan I don't understand how you'd write off the best level of it in the world. I love college ball but the product is so inferior it's nuts, over half the time it's just flat out bad basketball. I mean, I guess I could think of some reasons, but this isn't the place to discuss it I guess.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Except for NBA, not much diversity in Sports TV audience

                What always strikes me about anti-NBA people is the way their complaints are phrased very similarly, wherever you read them or hear them (they don't call traveling, there's no defense, the players are lazy). It reminds me so much of when LeBron did the Decision and the complaint was "It's not that he left Cleveland, it's how he did it." The same complaint, phrased the exact same way, over and over again. What that meant, to me at least, was that people had bought into a narrative but hadn't put any real thought into it. Which is why it's been possible for LeBron to totally flip his reputation by winning a couple titles. The narrative was structurally weak and folded when a better one came along.

                So what I think that means is that the NBA might be hurt by an outdated narrative now, the problems aren't structural like baseball (it's boring for younger viewers) and football (concussions).

                Comment

                Working...
                X