Pacerpundit

10 games and counting

So the Pacers play the Wizards tonight in an attempt to end their ten game losing streak.  From my vantage point, Pacer fans have abandoned their team in droves.  "These guys stink" is a common refrain heard from Pacer fans and not in the Major League kind of "they're losers but they're OUR losers" way, but more of in a "I used to be a Pacer fan, but now I can't stand NBA basketball" kind of way.

I have to admit, even for me, a die-hard Pacer fan (and some might say a Pacers apologist), the creeping doubt has crossed my mind.  But more than being frustrated with the team, I'm frustrated with our fans.   This has been compounded by witnessing what has gone on with the Colts - the fair weather fans are so quick to jump on and off the bandwagon.  For some reason, this phenomena seems more prevalent in Indy than anywhere else - maybe I'm just seeing it that way.

As for the performance of the team, it's probably not as bad as it seems.  Still, having watched most of the bad losses, I can't help but feel that this team just isn't good.  Even when our team's effort is there, we are just outmatched.  We're not only getting beaten, we're getting killed.

So if there are any Pacer fans still out there, keep hope alive.  The good news is that in spite of our recent horrible performance, thanks to the weakness in the East, we are still in the playoff picture.  Maybe they can turn it around and if not . . . there's always the lottery - and this is a great year to be in the lottery.

Bad boy, bad boys....

In light of the newest "strip-club-scandal".....I'm sad to say....that at the detriment of this teams' talent level, we need to clean house of the "bad apples" in this group if the team would like to remain in the fans' good graces. It isn't New York, it isn't LA, it's Indianapolis.....and I would argue that the city would get behind, and go see a team of "good guys" that is 49-49 more than they would a Police Blotter squad at 55-43. I realize that winning cures all when it comes to team issues, but I think even if we get 10-15% less talent than we shp off to get rid of these guys, we'll be better off in the long run.

Don't get me wrong. I get the fact that most athletes will frequent a strip club now and then, and I'd say 99% go out drinking and clubbing at least occasionally. Nothing wrong innately with either of those things in my mind. But think about that...if 99% go out drinking/clubbing and proabably 60-70% hit the strip clubs occasionally...then why is it that our guys have talked to the cops twice in the last 6 months? Obviously one of a few things is occuring. Either...

-they are getting too drunk to make smart decisions - not good
-they just aren't making smart decisions in general - not good
-they aren't thinking about the consequences, and are instead "defending their ego" - not good
-and clearly they don't give a damn what certain decisions could do to their team, it's success and it's image - not good

So I say....goodbye Mr. Tinsley, occasionally you were great, more often you were lazy, hurt and apathetic and you clearly don't make decisions in the game or in life based on the good of the team. Mr. Daniels, loved your potential, but you were in two inccidents in 6 months, and my guess is you just picked the wrong guys on the team to hang out with. Or possibly, a few drinks and the site of a thong somehow wakes you from your "laid back" personality and bring out the ego beast.

And then there was 1

Jermaine O'Neal now remains as the only player suspended in Detroit still on the Pacer's roster. Purged of Artest, Jackson, and Johnson....the pacers move on one step more in getting back in the fan's good graces......and in my opinion, improving the team.

I realize as a player Jackson wasn't the liability most thought he was, but as a person, with a history, it was time for a new zip code for Jax. Can't really say I can think of a moment during his stint as a Pacer whereI have a fond memory. But good luck in Golden State, and beware of the strip clubs with rainbow flags out front...it may not be what you're looking for.

Conversly, as a person, I'm sad to see Harrington go. Good kid, long, positive history with the team and city, but it just wasn't working out between he and Jermaine on the court. He was becoming more and more discontent and was speaking up about it. Truly, good luck in GS Baby Al.

Sarunas was, unfortunately, a bust for the most part. One of my favorite pet guys on the team, he just didn't live up to the "Best player in Europe" tag he had coming in. Though markedly improved from last year on defense he still remained a liability.....and when his shot wasn't falling, he was a 1AST/1TO kind of guy. He wasn't going to stay with us after next year anyway.

As for the new guys....

Diogu could be another Walsh stroke of Genius. At the end of last season, when he got the minutes....he was a 16 and 9rb guy with over a block a game. I'll take that from a 23 yr old with limited experience. Some more minutes and experience, he could be a stud.

Murphy has had seasons of double double genious in his recent history. He's had multiple 20rb games can shoot the mid-range and even long range jumper.

Dunleavy is a solid all around player. Nothing special anywhere, but he's solid, and smart in most categories. As mentioned in various media sources...he may be trade bait for Maggette..which would be pretty nice.

If you're a stat freak, and it means nothing....we just picked up 3 guys drafted in the first 15 picks(2 in the first 10)....so at some point these guys had some crazy potential.

Unlike our Pundit here, I don't think it's time to trade Jermaine. He's playing some of the best basketball of his life, is still relatively young and a solid person in the community(and this is Indiana...."good guy" tag can't be underated). We've added 2 more solid people in Murphy and Dunleavy...both of which compliment his game well. I don't know what Diogu is like as a person, but no sketchy history so far(knock, knock, knock). But for now, 6'9", 23yrs old, 255lb, long arms, good footwork, is all I need to know.

As for Saturday, when was the last time you were this excited to see a game in mid January?

Go Pacers!

Pacers-Warriors Trade

The Pacers finally made a move trading Al "Don't Call me Baby Al" Harrington , Whoo Jackson, Saras and Josh Powell to the Warriors for Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, Ike Diogu and Keith McLeod.  Here are my random thoughts:

I guess the Pacers finally figured out (i) that Harrington and JO play the exact same position, (ii) that what their team really needed was shooters and (iii) that Carlisle was not going to turn them into a run and gun team.    Hmmm . . .  Where have I heard that before?

Donnie Walsh has made so many great moves I have a hard time second guessing him.  Remember how pissed people were when we traded Dale Davis for JO?  Whoops!

I bet this is similar to the deal we were going to do with the Warriors for Artest before they killed the deal.  Please note that Donnie Walsh, whom everyone criticized for the Artest-Stojakovic deal, has now gotten the players he wanted (Stojakovic turned into Harrington and Harrington turned into these guys), while also getting rid of Jackson.  Also note, Stojakovic is out for the season and may have permanent damage to his back.  Donnie Walsh has ruined the careers of more GMs . . .

I am not as low on Stephen Jackson as many people around here. Still, this is probably addition by subtraction.  This is a good PR move to get rid of him.  Most of the fans here absolutely hate him - Indiana fans just will not support a mediocre team with "bad guys" on it (as they perceive Jackson to be).

Harrington was incredibly inconsistent this year.  He also said some weird things recently.  He really struggled at the 3.  I don't think he was happy on the court here.  Look for him to do well in Golden State.

Keith McLeod is a throw in, but we will need him as a backup 2 guard.  For a fringe NBA player, he can score.  It will be interesting to see who starts at 2.  Marquis Daniels has been awful this year, but he is the only true 2 guard.  Could we start Dunleavy and Granger at the 2-3?  Not sure we want Dunleavy guarding some 2's (or 3's for that matter).

Apparently the plan is to build a team around JO by surrounding him with shooters.  Murphy is  a good compliment to him because he is a good rebounder and shooter.  It is a mistake to build around JO, in my opinion.  A better move would be to ship JO.  He is a great player, but he is not the type of player that can carry a team by himself anywhere.  If the P's were going to make a move, I wish they had traded JO instead.  Donnie probably couldn't find any takers. 

Don't sleep on Diogu.  The Pacers love him.  He has the potential to be a pretty good player.  I would guess he is the reason we did the deal.  He is a potential home run.

This deal ties up our salary cap for the next four years.  Murphy and Dunleavy both have moderate to big contracts.

Apparently we think Tinsley will stay healthy this year.  If not we've only got 50 year old Darrell Armstrong and unproven Orien Greene backing him up now.

Overall, I am excited about this deal.  We really aren't losing that much in Harrington, Jackson and Saras.  We aren't gaining that much in Murphy.  Dunleavy certainly has been a disappointment and is not a "star" player, but is young and has talent.  A change of scenery could be good for him.  Diogu is the wild card - again could be a home run if given time (both in years and minutes).  In essence we are trading the knowable for the unknown.  This trade makes us a little worse on paper right now.  In the future (as in maybe later this season), it could make us better, maybe even propel us to the top 4 in the East, which is a weak conference.  In any event, it is a move.  And Pacer fans have been asking for a move for a while. 

Still Bitter

This article was enough to wake me out of my blogging slumber.  In it, Chris McClosky states that the Pistons don't consider the Pacers rivals anymore.  Well, of course they don't.  And it has nothing to do with Ben Wallace and Ron Artest not being there.  It has to do with the Pistons doing quite well since the Brawl and the Pacers . . . pretty much sucking. 

What I take issue with in McClosky's article is this:

Still, the Pistons know they will be stepping into a hostile environment tonight. They know they have been scapegoated by Pacer Nation. Everything that's gone wrong the past couple of years, in their eyes, has been directly attributable to the Pistons.

He just doesn't get it.  If Pacer fans hate the Pistons, it must be scapegoating, right?  There couldn't be, you know, like a real reason.  Is there some scapegoating?  Sure.  Do some Pacer fans blame the Pistons for everything that's gone wrong with the team. Probably.  But this makes it seem like the Pacer fans are have no reason for their hate for the Piston organization.  Oh, we have one big reason to hate them.

Let's review the Brawl.  Clearly mutual responsibility .   I'm not saying the Pacers players weren't stupid for doing what they did.  I'm not saying it was OK for Artest to go in the stands or Jackson to follow him, etc., etc..  But, the Piston fans and organization share a very large share of the blame.  And, it wasn't just a few "bad apples."  It was a whole bunch of them that turned this into a riot.  We had the initial cup thrower.  The guy throwing cheap shots at the back of a players head after Artest went in the stands.   A guy throwing a chair.  Guys running on the court to attack the players (guys who got what they deserved, by the way).  And lots and lots of beer thrown at the players as they left the stands.  Go listen to John Saunders and the rest of the ESPN crew's comments immediately after the incident.   They sure knew who should bear the brunt of the blame

Again, the Pacers were not innocent bystanders.  The leage can't punish the fans and refused to punish the Piston organization.   So they punished the only people they could punish, the Pacer players, and they came down hard.  Recall who won that game on 11/19/04:  the Pacers.  In my opinion, we were the best team in the league that year.  The Brawl absolutely destroyed our team and it devastated our fans. 

What price did the Pistons pay for the Brawl?  Hardly anything.  In fact, their fans and organization actually benefited from the Brawl, didn't they?  It sure resulted in a knock out blow to the Pacers, their main rival.  So much so, that, according to McClosky, this isn't even a rivalry anymore.   

The Brawl should have been a bad outcome for both teams.  Instead the Pacers were the big losers and Detroit benefited.  And that, Mr. McClosky, explains why we are still bitter.

Marquis Daniels

Marquis Daniels does not seem to be giving us much.  He is not a good three point shooter and we seem to need that.  Even though he has moved to the starting lineup, I'm not sure he meshes well with two post players like JO and Al Harrington.  He is more of a slasher and I think we need another shooter on the floor with our post players.  He and Tinsley might be worst shooting backcourt in teh NBA.  Thankfully, Granger has really been shooting it well lately. 

NCAA Tax Exemption - Part IV

Now we get to the rub of the matter.  The NCAA makes a compelling argument that athletics are related to its educational (and therefore nonprofit) purpose (here).  However, the specific activity, if regularly conducted, must be directly related to the nonprofit purpose.  Again, the production of income which is used for the nonprofit purpose is not enough to be directly related.  If the activity is not directly related, it is subject to Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT).

The IRS long ago found that ticket sales were not subject to UBIT.  When challenged about broadcast revenue it could find not distinction.  Their reasoning:

an audience for a game may contribute importantly to the education of the student/athlete

in the development of his/her physical and inner strength and to the education of the student body and the community-at-large in heightening interests in and knowledge about the participating schools. In regard to the student-athlete, the knowledge that an event is being observed heightens its significance, which raises the levels of both competitive effort and enjoyment. Attending the game enhances student interest in education generally and in the institution because such interest is whetted by exposure to a school's athletic activities. Moreover, the games (and the opportunity to observe them) foster those feelings of identification, loyalty, and participation typical of a well-rounded educational experience.

The IRS makes two claims here.  First, is that an audience helps “the development of his/her physical and inner strength” of the participant.  The second is that it heightens “interests in and knowledge about the participating schools.”  Let me address the second claim first.

As if it were not obvious, I established in Part III that the principal purpose of big-time college athletics is the direct and indirect production of income for the university.  This goes hand in hand with increasing the public’s interest and knowledge about the schools.  This, in turn, increases their revenues.  This is not an educational purpose.  Moreover, as I argued before, the federal government has no interest in raising awareness of one school over another. 

Turning to the other argument, this notion that an audience gives additional educational benefit to its students is tenuous.  Even if we concede that the players at the University ofTexas got more educational benefit out of playing in the nationally televised Rose Bowl, than say, a player in the Division III field hockey championship, this benefit is only marginal.  A marginal benefit is not enough.  Instead, the activity (in this case the championship game) must be substantially related to the educational purpose.  The defending national championship Division I football program graduated 29% of its players compared to 74% of its student body.  Given the apparent inverse relationship between educational performance and big-time college athletics, this notion that the educational benefits are better seems crazy to me. 

The IRS position was based on its interpretation of Congress’ intent.  Chairman Thomas is signaling that that intent might change . . .  

NCAA Tax Exemption - Part III

The NCAA makes a compelling argument that participation in athletic competition fosters its educational mission.  Its hard to disagree in principle.  However, here's the heart of the matter:

Q.  Educational institutions in other NCAA divisions spend a fraction of the amount Division IA schools spend on their football and men’s basketball programs. These higher expenditures are ostensibly for educational purposes. What additional educational value is received by participation in Division I-A athletics beyond that which is received by participation in other division or intramural athletics? If additional educational value is derived from participation in Division I-A athletics, does the additional educational value justify the higher expenditures?

A. Generally speaking, educational institutions in other NCAA divisions spend a fraction of the amount Division I-A schools spend on any of their other educational programs. For example, the budget for the mathematics department, as well as the athletics department, at Ohio State University is larger than the budget for the mathematics department, or athletics, at Defiance College in Ohio. Even though each institution has invested to a considerably different level, both are providing a quality educational experience and meeting the expectations of their students. In fact, because of higher amounts of outside revenue to support athletics at Ohio State, the athletics budget at Defiance – or any other Division II or III institution – is considerably higher as a percentage of institutional resources than at Division I schools. Is the difference in the educational experience of students at a large public university quantitatively better than at a small private college? It may or may not be, but we generally don’t try to make that quantitative differentiation. We understand that there are different approaches for a variety of reasons and to accommodate a diversity of circumstances. A more robust athletics program is often identified as one of the advantages of attending a larger school. The range and cost of programs – in athletics as well as in academics – are largely responsive to expectations of students, parents, alumni and others, as well as the financial circumstances of each institution and are difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, all NCAA member institutions conduct their athletics programs consistent with the academic missions of their respective campuses.

The question is, if the "educational" benefits an athlete receives from participating in sports is what justifies the exemption of the activity, what additional benefits do football players at say, Ohio State, get, that football players at a Division III school not get?  The NCAA says, basically, the math budget is higher at Ohio State than it is at a division III school, so who's to say what method is best.  Yes, but the math budget is higher because they have thousands of more students.  But what justifies the additional marginal cost PER STUDENT of big-time division I athletes.  Certainly its not the additional educational benefits received by those students.  Indeed, statistics cited elsewhere in the NCAA's response, suggest the relationship is inverse.  That is, the big time athletes get less educational benefit than the participants at small schools and in less visible sports.  Their graduation rates are drastically lower, etc, etc.  

The obvious answer is that Ohio State spends more per football player than a Division III program not because its program provides better educational benefits to the athletes, but principally to generate income for Ohio State.  This income is certainly generated directly through ticket sales, bowl revenues, tv income, merchandise sales, etc.  But it is also generated indirectly.  The success of the football program increases the exposure of the school and increases (dramatically) alumni donations and participation.  This is all fine and good, but Thomas' point is that this mission is NOT a permissible nonprofit activity (see post I).

NCAA Tax Exemption - Part II

There are a couple of comical non-sequiturs in the NCAA's response.  Here's one (quoting only part of the Q&A):

Q.  Some representatives from college athletic organizations have justified the tax-exempt status of college sports based on claims that high-visibility programs help sustain a large pool of student applicants and generous financial contributions. Neither of these arguments is valid from a Federal standpoint. Federal taxpayers have no interest in increasing applicant pools at one school opposed to another.

A.  Many nonprofits engage in activities designed to increase membership, visitors and revenues. Symphony orchestras schedule “old warhorses” that attract more patrons, visibility and contributions than less-“accessible” works. Similarly, art museums schedule “blockbuster” shows of popular artists or artistic movements designed to draw crowds, raise visibility and, again, to encourage membership and contributions. Many charitable organizations advertise in one form or another – on television, on radio, in the print media and by direct mail.

The NCAA is avoiding the question.  The question is, what interest does the federal taxpayer have in exempting income derived from activities whose primary purpose is to get more students to attend (and alumni to donate to) one university versus another.  The NCAA characterizes the issue as one of a non-profits right to promote its activities.  Symphonies are not usually directly competing with other symphonies.  The NCAA members, by contrast, are directly competing.  What Thomas is asking, and what the NCAA is not answering, is what interest does the federal government have in subsidizing this competition.  If the mission of the NCAA member institutions is to promote education, should they really care whether a student chooses their university over another credible institution?

NCAA tax exemption - Part I

For my first sports business post, I want to take on the fascinating issue of the NCAA's tax exemption.  For those of you who don't know me, I am not being sarcastic.  I actually find this stuff interesting. 

By way of background Bill Thomas, the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commission, sent Myles Brand, the NCAA President, a letter questioning the NCAA's tax exemption.  Thomas noted:

To be tax-exempt . . . the activity itself must contribute to the accomplishment of the university's educational purpose (other than through the production of income). How does playing major college football or men's basketball in a highly commercialized, profit-seeking, entertainment environment further the educational purpose of your member institutions?

Brand's answer is at http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/10/house_questions.html.  In this series of posts I will address the NCAA's response.