Jump to content

Trayce Jackson-Davis


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hoosier10 said:

I completely understand what you’re saying- I would never pay a dime for rumors about a teenager.  Especially with all the info on social media today. On the other hand,  the guys running the paysites are just trying to make a living.  They are just like anyone else providing a service that consumers are willing to pay for.  

The strange phenomenon, that allows these sites to operate, is grown men paying for rumors about 14-18 year olds.  The paysites are just taking advantage of them, and why not?  Money’s money.  

I all too well understand the need to generate revenue. Particularly, if one's business model is top heavy in terms of having to pay staff members, in order to make a living. My issue is hiding stuff behind a paywall, that is available on line for free for others to read.

And then of course, we appreciate all the HSN members who are willing to share information with us for free.

More proprietary content, and less hiding behind paywalls, info that is free to all, is what I am getting at. We are fortunate that we have a member, TDH , who is willing to share his content with us, for free. He and I both feel that should be the way of the future.... or else get away from proprietary information all together.  John Decker, Terry Hutchins and Albers, are all testaments as to what happens to a site, when one hides information, behind a paywall. And thinks they can make a living by doing it that way.  They all tried. And they all failed.  

It is my conviction, there is a way to generate even greater revenue, through other methods, than hiding everything behind a paywall. Take a look at TDH's business model as an example.   Very little information, in this day and age is proprietary.  Even in this thread we had a valued member, sharing what I gather was paywall info, based on the source. And even get praised for it.  Was a day, that would never happened. Why, I recall, back in John Decker's day, any member who shared paywall information on Hoosier Nation, would have been banned for life, instead of getting praised for doing so.   Just , another example of the changing times. 

Your very first sentence proves the point I have been making for some time now.  And I thank you for that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, milehiiu said:

I all to well understand the need to generate revenue. Particularly, if one's business model is top heavy in terms of having to pay staff members, in order to make a living. My issue is hiding stuff behind a paywall, that is available on line for free for others to read.

And then of course, we appreciate all the HSN members who are willing to share information with us for free.

More proprietary content, and less hiding behind paywalls, info that is free to all, is what I am getting at. We are fortunate that we have a member, TDH , who is willing to share his content with us, for free. He and I both feel that should be the way of the future.... or else get away from proprietary information all together.  John Decker, Terry Hutchins and Albers, are all testaments as to what happens to a site, when one hides information, behind a paywall. And thinks they can make a living by doing it that way.  They all tried. And they all failed.  

It is my conviction, there is a way to generate even greater revenue, through other methods, than hiding everything behind a paywall. Take a look at TDH's business model as an example.   Very little information, in this day and age is proprietary.  Even in this thread we had a valued member, sharing what I gather was paywall info, based on the source. And even get praised for it.  Was a day, that would never happened. Why, I recall, back in John Decker's day, any member who shared paywall information on Hoosier Nation, would have been banned for life, instead of getting praised for doing so.   Just , another example of the changing times. 

Your very first sentence proves the point I have been making for some time now.  And I thank you for that. 

 

John Decker, thought he broke a story once....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said:

John Decker, thought he broke a story once....

It was  you, 0708, who broke the story on Sampson. On a Friday night.  Decker, deletedyour post.  The very next Friday night 0708, undeterred came back, with the exact amount of the payout.  Having had conversations with the both of them over the week, Decker left 0708's post stand.  No other site had that initial information. However, when the newspapers picked up on the story.... it was Decker and not 0708 who got credit for breaking the story.   I was in the middle of all of that.  And found it reprehensible that Decker failed to give 0708 the credit due for breaking the story.

And it's members, like you, I treasure the most. Not some guy who gets paid to do this "stuff" and either can't get the story.... or gets it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, milehiiu said:

I all too well understand the need to generate revenue. Particularly, if one's business model is top heavy in terms of having to pay staff members, in order to make a living. My issue is hiding stuff behind a paywall, that is available on line for free for others to read.

And then of course, we appreciate all the HSN members who are willing to share information with us for free.

More proprietary content, and less hiding behind paywalls, info that is free to all, is what I am getting at. We are fortunate that we have a member, TDH , who is willing to share his content with us, for free. He and I both feel that should be the way of the future.... or else get away from proprietary information all together.  John Decker, Terry Hutchins and Albers, are all testaments as to what happens to a site, when one hides information, behind a paywall. And thinks they can make a living by doing it that way.  They all tried. And they all failed.  

It is my conviction, there is a way to generate even greater revenue, through other methods, than hiding everything behind a paywall. Take a look at TDH's business model as an example.   Very little information, in this day and age is proprietary.  Even in this thread we had a valued member, sharing what I gather was paywall info, based on the source. And even get praised for it.  Was a day, that would never happened. Why, I recall, back in John Decker's day, any member who shared paywall information on Hoosier Nation, would have been banned for life, instead of getting praised for doing so.   Just , another example of the changing times. 

Your very first sentence proves the point I have been making for some time now.  And I thank you for that. 

 

I’d just add that I hope a great number of these guys looking to generate revenue dabbling in this type of “journalism” are doing so as a side gig, not a primary source of income. 

For so many, if this is their bread and butter, they’re likely not doing too well financially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Max said:

Not to continue this off topic but what did an Ad ever do to anyone? I do not mind them at all....

Have you ever been over to ITH?  Their website used to be very nice, but they've got so many ads that it's slowed down their website to the point of it being unbearable to navigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, StLHoosier said:

Have you ever been over to ITH?  Their website used to be very nice, but they've got so many ads that it's slowed down their website to the point of it being unbearable to navigate.

I think AB does a good job. Besides his White Sox takes (which makes him sound like a Purdue fan) I think he does a pretty good job. No problem with people making $ off a product....but I choose sites based on ease. If it takes me 5 pop ups to get to an article on twitter...i just unfollow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Max said:

Not to continue this off topic but what did an Ad ever do to anyone? I do not mind them at all....

One becomes two, two four, and so forth. It gets so far out of control on some places that you have maleware and adware on top of that. Not at all places of course but like posters have said it can turn a good site unreadable like ITH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

I think AB does a good job. Besides his White Sox takes (which makes him sound like a Purdue fan) I think he does a pretty good job. No problem with people making $ off a product....but I choose sites based on ease. If it takes me 5 pop ups to get to an article on twitter...i just unfollow. 

AB does a great job, and they bring good information/articles to the table, but I'm not going to sit there trying to get one of their articles to load for 5 minutes, when I can get similar information somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Max said:

Not to continue this off topic but what did an Ad ever do to anyone? I do not mind them at all....

Just my opinion here. I'm a big golf fan. Used to watch most tournaments. You ask what does an ad do to everyone. Last week at Quail Hollow I jumped on treadmill to watch Tiger. For the one hour I was on....there was 18 minutes of actual golf coverage. To answer your questions. Ads pay the bills I get it....but they piss us off. Which is why the cable industry is following a very similar parallel to the newspaper industry unless they change their game up. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Just my opinion here. I'm a big golf fan. Used to watch most tournaments. You ask what does an ad do to everyone. Last week at Quail Hollow I jumped on treadmill to watch Tiger. For the one hour I was on....there was 18 minutes of actual golf coverage. To answer your questions. Ads pay the bills I get it....but they piss us off. Which is why the cable industry is following a very similar parallel to the newspaper industry unless they change their game up. 

 

 

It’s ruined CBB for me as well. I’ve been thinking of starting a thread on fixing it for a few days now. A minimum of 10 stoppages in action and long breaks during the stops has ruined it for me. A 40 minute game shouldn’t be two hours long and you shouldn’t have a break every ~7minutes followed by a ~3minute stop. That’s absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, btownqb said:

I watched ESPN/BTN Plus on my phone... no ads. What's the difference? Why do those golf things have so many ads? 

So you get a blank screen at under 16, 12, 8, 4, half time, 16, 12, 8, 4. Add in 5 coaches time outs. That’s flat out unacceptable. There’s 1 stoppage in action  (half time) in the the worlds most popular game and they make that work financially perfectly fine. It’s simply greed to the maximum and I can’t even get into CBB outside of IU and March because of it. 

4 quarters, no mandatory commercial timeouts and shorten the duration of coaches time outs. Simple fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

So you get a blank screen at under 16, 12, 8, 4, half time, 16, 12, 8, 4. Add in 5 coaches time outs. That’s flat out unacceptable. There’s 1 stoppage in action  (half time) in the the worlds most popular game and they make that work financially perfectly fine. It’s simply greed to the maximum and I can’t even get into CBB outside of IU and March because of it. 

4 quarters, no mandatory commercial timeouts and shorten the duration of coaches time outs. Simple fix.

This is if you're watching on the CBS Sports app or I'm confused? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ADegenerate said:

It’s in every college basketball game. They force timeouts every four minutes. 

coaches only get 4 TOs now. And what were you saying their was one stoppage in? the Super Bowl, I assume that's what you were saying as the world's most popular sporting event? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, btownqb said:

coaches only get 4 TOs now. And what were you saying their was one stoppage in? the Super Bowl, I assume that's what you were saying as the world's most popular sporting event? 

Ok so there’s 16 timeouts. 8 media time outs and 4 coaches timeouts each for a 40 minute game. Who wants to watch ads for over half the duration? In European football there is no stop in play and 1 halftime break and they make that work. Throwball (nfl) is the absolute worst. There’s like 11 minutes of actual game play in a three hour event.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ADegenerate said:

Ok so there’s 16 timeouts. 8 media time outs and 4 coaches timeouts each for a 40 minute game. Who wants to watch ads for over half the duration? In European football there is no stop in play and 1 halftime break and they make that work. Throwball (nfl) is the absolute worst. There’s like 11 minutes of actual game play in a three hour event.

 

Rarely are all the TO's taken. But I wish they would go to quarters and take away one of the TV TO's. 4 quarters... under 5 in each quarter is a TO and obviously the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. 

The TOs don't bother me and I hate soccer, so I'll never watch that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, btownqb said:

Rarely are all the TO's taken. But I wish they would go to quarters and take away one of the TV TO's. 4 quarters... under 5 in each quarter is a TO and obviously the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. 

The TOs don't bother me and I hate soccer, so I'll never watch that. 

You can hate soccer all you want and it has nothing to do with the game itself. It’s the principal and the point of the flow of the game. You don’t need infinite timeouts to monetize the game. 

No, 16 are rarely used but about 12 of them are. You can’t tell me that that doesn’t seriously impact the eb and flow of the game. I’m on my phone more than I’m watch a CBB game. How am I a supposed to care or get into a game as a neutral with all those breaks?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ADegenerate said:

You can hate soccer all you want and it has nothing to do with the game itself. It’s the principal and the point of the flow of the game. You don’t need infinite timeouts to monetize the game. 

No, 16 are rarely used but about 12 of them are. You can’t tell me that that doesn’t seriously impact the eb and flow of the game. I’m on my phone more than I’m watch a CBB game. How am I a supposed to care or get into a game as a neutral with all those breaks?

 

Not sure. That's your opinion, nothing wrong with it... it just doesn't bother me. I think taking out one TV TO would do wonders. I think we could shorten halftime by 3-5 mins as well. 

I wish the games started at 645-650 and the second one started at 910-915. I cannot stand when the first one runs over. (I know you are going to go back to the amount of TOs again, but I just don't see that changing). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Not sure. That's your opinion, nothing wrong with it... it just doesn't bother me. I think taking out one TV TO would do wonders. I think we could shorten halftime by 3-5 mins as well. 

I wish the games started at 645-650 and the second one started at 910-915. I cannot stand when the first one runs over. (I know you are going to go back to the amount of TOs again, but I just don't see that changing). 

I like your quarters and 1 under 5 break as a start. shorten half-time by about 3 minutes like you said.

They usually adjust tip offs to account for games running over (9:07, changed to 9:17 at times etc) but I’m fine with what you suggested there as well. 

I enjoy college basketball of course but it needs some tweaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...