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.
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
-
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
Ten reasons Team USA won't win the gold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Sheridan
ESPN Insider
SAPPORO, Japan -- Here we are on the eve of Day One of the World Championship, and my heart tells me to go ahead and pick Team USA to win the gold. The U.S. players have developed a great camaraderie, they finally have a head coach who knows which buttons to push, and their confidence is not compromised by any misplaced cockiness.
The problem, however, resides a few inches south of my heart.
Down there, in my gut, I can't bring myself to pick them. Not when my gut keeps telling me to listen to my brain, and not when my brain keeps seizing upon what I perceive to be their shortcomings -- size and shooting, to name two -- and flashing back to images from 2002 in Indianapolis and 2004 in Athens, and even from competitions that preceeded those two debacles.
Can D-Wade and LeBron overcome Sheridan's 10 reasons they won't win?
The talent is there, but the experience is not. The will is there, but the wisdom is not. And while the camaraderie may be great, the on-court chemistry is still a work in progress.
I look at a roster headlined by tri-captains Dwyane Wade, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, I rehash everything I've heard them say about making good after their third-place showing in Athens, and I'm tempted to buy into the rah-rah dynamic, dub these guys The Redeem Team and tell y'all how great they're going to do down south in Saitama when the medal round comes along.
But I just can't do it.
Here are 10 reasons why:
1. The experience factor. Most of the better teams in this tournament have been playing together for years and years, not just a few weeks. The players from Argentina have been together since they were on their national junior squad, giving them almost a decade of experiencing these types of tournaments together. The international game is more of a team game than the NBA game, and nothing builds a team quite like growing up together as a unit. Team USA can't compete in this category.
2. The 3-point factor. The international 3-point line is nearly three feet closer to the basket than the NBA line, putting a huge premium on the outside shot. This U.S. team has more shooters than the 2004 Athens team had, but there's still no Ray Allen or Michael Redd. And if Joe Johnson pulls a Richard Jefferson and suddenly can't hit the broad side of a barn, trouble lurks.
3. The officiating factor. Squirreled away in a tiny hotel room somewhere here is a referee who can't wait to see LeBron James alone on a breakaway -- not to see him dunk, mind you, but to whistle him for traveling. FIBA referees seem to take a perverse pleasure in seeing the U.S. lose, and if you don't believe me, go ask Tim "FIBA Sucks" Duncan.
4. The familiarity factor. Everyone around the world watches NBA basketball, but try to find a single U.S. player who watches Euroleague games. The opponents known the Americans' tendencies inside and out, but most of the international players are mysteries to Team USA.
5. The physicality factor. FIBA referees will call hand-checking fouls like they're going out of style, but they'll let players get away with armed combat underneath the basket without calling a foul. That doesn't bode well for skinny Chris Bosh, and it'll be an eye-opener for young Dwight Howard.
6. The overconfidence factor. The U.S. will cruise through the opening round, but the quality of the opponents they'll see in the single-elimination medal round will be a whole different matter. If Team USA's confidence gets artificially high after the first week, it won't enter the medal round with the healthy respect for its opponents it needs.
7. The rock-hard, slippery ball factor. The U.S. team been practicing since Day One with the slightly smaller Molten ball used in FIBA tournaments, but those balls are broken in. It'll be a different story down the road when some tournament lackey breaks out a brand new ball for a U.S. game. Happens every time.
8. The food factor. If you don't like Japanese food, you can subsist over here on American fast food. But try eating that stuff for three weeks, and watch your energy plummet in inverse proportion to your climbing cholesterol count.
9. The smell factor. This is a little disgusting, but it's true: Some of these teams stink, literally. Players on international teams travel to and from the arenas in their uniforms, and many players forsake showers as a result. I got a real close look at Argentina during the Worlds in Indianapolis, and I do not believe Fabricio Oberto, Luis Scola or Andres Nocioni bathed during the entire tournament. B.O. may be repulsive, but it also keeps defenders a few extra inches away.
10. The fear factor. International teams are no longer afraid of U.S. teams, and since they always go into games against Team USA as underdogs, they play with a looseness that often works in their favor.
We didn't even list the fatigue factor, and that'll be a big deal, too. It always is.
I've been covering U.S. national teams since the 1996 Olympics, each tournament leaving a snapshot in my mind not of dominance, but of deterioration. Team USA always shows up with the most talent, but always leaves looking the most exhausted.
In Atlanta 10 years ago, Karl Malone was at the airport and on a plane back home just a couple of hours after the U.S. team used a strong surge at the start of the second half to break open a close game and defeat Yugoslavia for the gold. The bombing in Olympic Park, the substandard accommodations at the since destroyed Omni Hotel and the unyielding heat and humidity had drained all the enthusiasm out of Team USA, and Malone's determination to put it all behind him as quickly as possible ended up being a precursor for what I'd see from future U.S. national teams over the next decade. It was always the same in the end: Exhaustion sapped their spirit, and when all was said and done, the U.S. players just wanted to get home.
Four years ago in Indianapolis, the limousines were lined up outside the Westin Hotel on what we journalists were calling "The Darkest Night." It was the Saturday before the gold medal game between Argentina and Yugoslavia, and Team USA had just been thumped by Spain in the fifth-place game to finish 6-3 in the tournament.
Most of the U.S. players dashed back to their rooms, hastily packed their bags and jumped into their limos for the drive to Chicago and flights to points beyond. The coaching staff and officials from USA Basketball convened in the hotel bar late that evening and tried to find a bright side, reasoning that the sixth-place finish might somehow be good for USA Basketball because there would never again be a fear among players of being on the first U.S. team of the Dream Team era to lose.
Team USA came back the next year with a loaded team that romped through the Tournament of the Americas qualifying tournament in Puerto Rico, putting a thorough beating on Argentina in the gold medal game. But a year later, with apathy and terrorism fears peaking, more than two-thirds of that team had jumped ship heading into the Athens Olympics.
It was there that we got to see the beginning of Larry Brown's fall from grace, his stubborn refusal to play James, Wade and Anthony contributing to Team USA's putrid performance in the opening round when it lost to Puerto Rico and Lithuania and had trouble defeating the host country, Greece, before moving on to the medal round and getting back-picked and backdoored to death against Argentina in the semifinals.
I still remember it like it was yesterday -- the USA defeated Lithuania for the bronze, and then I sat in the press tribune and watched the medal ceremony after Argentina defeated Italy for the gold. U.S. forward Richard Jefferson stood furthest to the right on the medal podium, his eyes repeatedly shifting to his right as he stole a glance at the gold medals draped around the necks of Ginobili, Pepe Sanchez, Ruben Wolkowyski and the rest of the Argentines, whose flag-waving, shirt-throwing celebration seemed to last almost an hour after the gold medal game ended.
I still recall how mystifying and absurd it was to be gazing down upon Allen Iverson wearing a flowery wreath on his head (don't ask me why the IOC makes athletes wear those things; I wish I knew the answer) and a bronze medal around his neck. I have never seen any player looking as uncomfortable as he did at that moment.
Some might say all that history should mean nothing, but I can't buy into that argument. To me, it means a lot. The cycle keeps repeating, and I am unconvinced that it will not repeat itself again three Sundays from now.
Spain, featuring Grizzlies star Pau Gasol, enters the tourney on a roll.
I expect the U.S. team to roar through the opening round, tested by no one other than Slovenia, and I expect complacency to set in prior to their Round of 16 single-elimination game on Sunday, Aug. 27. They'll win that one in a game that ends up being closer than it should have been, and they'll be so awakened and rejuvenated for their quarterfinal match that they'll emerge from it considered shoo-ins for the gold.
But then the semifinals will arrive, and Team USA will run into that Basque-etball buzzsaw, Spain.
That's the one I'm picking Team USA to lose, and I see Pau Gasol's team going on to defeat Argentina in the gold medal game.
Team USA will win third place over Greece, and Wade, Anthony and James will have another bronze entry for their sock drawers.
In two years, maybe I'll be ready to pick them to win the gold medal in Beijing. For now, I believe Espana es Numero Uno, y Argentina es Numero Dos.
We'll eventually see a true Redeem Team in 2008, but for now, in my opinion, Team USA is working its way up the learning curve. As an American, I hope I'm wrong. But as a seasoned and trained objective observer, that's the way I see this thing unfolding.
We'll know by Labor Day whether I was right.
Chris Sheridan covers the NBA and international basketball for ESPN Insider. To e-mail Chris, click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/print?...368&type=story -
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
He's really grasping at straws. How about the "other teams are pretty good, there are going to be some good, hard games that either team can win depending on who steps up" factor? Or if we lose do we have to blame it on the fact Argentinians don't shower?Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
If we lose I hope someone has the balls to get up there and say we lost to a team that played better than we did, and stops moaning about officials and crap like that.
P.S. Tim Duncan is a whining sissy both in the NBA and in FIBA, I don't take his complaints too seriously.2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore BulldogsComment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
The team will loose because of slippery balls and smell opponents.
And they paid him to write this article.Comment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
Okay.Originally posted by Chris Sheridan
Despite all those factors, I still think the US will win it this time.Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
Bum in Berlin on MyspaceComment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
I can't believe food would be a factor. If TeamUSA isn't bringing their own cook with them, then they're morons.This space for rent.Comment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
I'm not gonna dignify this with further response...thanks for the article UB.Comment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
as a "seasoned and trained objective observer" Sheridan sure knows how to come up with dumb statements
I mean his reasons 1, 4, 8, 10 are more or less good. seriously, even the head of our NT has told that food seems to be the bigest problem so far. there's not enough variety and portions are waaay to small. but he expects that thing to improve soon as Japanese seem to be very sorry for such inconviniences anyways, these four reasons is not enough to play down US' chances, imho.
reasons 2, 5 and 6 are rather weak. I doubt they can have a signifficant influence and seem a bit made up to prove the point.
however, the most interesting reasons are 3, 7 and 9. all of these are plain dumb, to put it the mild way. if they were included not for fun and the author really believes what he wrote, then, I'm afraid, Sheridan is pathetic
and his prediction for 1-4 finishers seems logic (compared to the remainder of the article), but it would be too simple..
kComment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
I think coach K will make a big difference for the USA. Not that Larry Brown and George Karl are bad coaches but Coach K sems to always have the pulse of whatever players he coaches. One advantage that the USA has is their defense is far superior to what any other team can play. Coach K will exploit that advantage where past coaches have not.Comment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2549313Originally posted by Len Pasquarelli-20 Reasons the NFL is better than College Football
Who wants to bet Sheridan's bosses told him "OK, you're gonna be our bad cop for the World Championships...to keep it interesting" and then yesterday told him to come up with ten reasons the U.S. won't win. Even if only a couple are legit. At least Pasquarelli admitted it...Comment
-
Re: Sheridan says Team USA won't win it all
Chris Sheridan is with the terrorists... according to Dubya's logic.
What a completely asinine article.
I hope that was his attempt at humor (which failed of course), because if he really believes the whole "smell" and "food" thing, he needs to be committed.Comment
Tweet
Comment