didnt read this last part. Are you really that dumb? African americans make up something like 14% of the nation. The majority of every nba market (outside of possibly atl, depending how you define it) is white. Also, Indy is something like 30% black. There are only something like 9 nba cities (just the metro not the media market) that have a higher %, and those are places like cleveland, detroit, memphis new orleans, milliwaukee. Only one major market has a higher % black population and that is chicago. so, basically, every city in the central division is in the top 10 in % black population. and many the other places are indy's other closest cities, like memphis.
I wonder if you, or the cow herder, have ever been to the midwest? It doesnt sound like it.
Beat me to it.
Anyone who thinks Indianapolis is "mainly white" has never been there. The city is way above the national averages for black residents.
Why am I not surprised that Cowherd is talking out of his @ss? He is just trying to turn a completely non-controversial issue into something more interesting than actually is. I would urge him (and the OP) to look up the city demographics before making such a grand leap, though. It might make you look stupid.
I would urge him (and the OP) to look up the city demographics before making such a grand leap, though. It might make you look stupid.
Why don't you read my OP again. Is there anything about race or demographics in it?
There were articles published in the aftermath of the Palace incident, in which a number of Indianapolis residents were adamant that the issue had forever killed their desire to support the team -- no matter that none of the players involved were currently on the roster.
Its a problem if a team is putting out a good product and still lacks local support.
Why don't you read my OP again. Is there anything about race or demographics in it?
There were articles published in the aftermath of the Palace incident, in which a number of Indianapolis residents were adamant that the issue had forever killed their desire to support the team -- no matter that none of the players involved were currently on the roster.
Its a problem if a team is putting out a good product and still lacks local support.
Whoops... My fault. I was referring to Scholar's post, a few down from your OP.
As to your post...
The Pacers have a good team, so the product is there. In fact, over the past couple decades, they've been consistently good. No, not championship level good in the last five years, but still a quality team.
Definitely not worthy of being in the bottom tier in the league in attendance, especially considering Indiana's love for basketball.
Maybe the whole lack of star power thing has some merit?
Last edited by RedBlackAttack : 02-23-2013 at 06:16 PM.
If a top 5 SF in the NBA, at 22 years old, doesn't excite people enough to come out and watch the game or one of the leagues better dunkers doesn't spark a little bit of interest for under 20 dollars for a good seat...
It may be time to consider moving.
George isn't a household name yet. This is his breakout year, and if he does something special in the playoffs, he will become a superstar.
Harden is having a breakout year too, but the difference is that Harden was already a well-known name before going to Houston.
Things will turn around. In many markets, when you struggle for a long time, and then encounter success, it takes a LONG time to change the perception that the fans have of you.
Re: Should the Pacers leave Indiana?
