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

Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
    I don't what you guys are reading but I take it as Bird saying......

    Lance is never going to be a Pacer but we can't just come out & say that for a couple days.
    I've wondered about that.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

      It's clear from the statement: he won't ever play as a Pacer. He might not always be a knucklehead, but right now it's a bad bet. Larry just got done telling him how important it was to keep it together - and now this? It's a bad betrayal.

      Best thing for Lance is for his career to get put on hold and take a big long look in the mirror. If they can't rescind the contract, he ought to be man enough to give them the money back - it would be the right thing to do, but more importantly it would be the smart thing to do, because everyone in the league will hesitate to invest in him if they think it's just throwing their cap space down a rathole.

      He's awfully young; he may not realize that his whole future now hangs in the balance. If I were advising him, I'd tell him that it's time to take some extraordinary actions. Apologies are not enough, especially not the formulaic mumblings that are the norm for transgressing athletes nowadays.

      Best thing for the Pacers: just get out, and be glad it didn't happen in the playoffs.

      :
      Last edited by O'Bird; 08-17-2010, 11:16 AM.
      :

      "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

      "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

      "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

        Well, wait a minute, folks. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law? Suppose for a moment Lance didn't push her but she really did fall? Or maybe, they did get into some kind of altercation where he did push her but she tripped and fell? Is it possible he didn't slam her head into the steps but instead looked to see if she were injured but stepped back in a hurried shocked panic after discovering the girl was unconscious and what looked to be him slamming her down was just him releasing her head in shock over what just happened?

        Okay, a very faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar reach, but if I didn't know for a fact of a similar incident occuring to a old friend of mine from long ago, I'd swear there was no way he's innocent either especially with his short, but questionable track record.

        Bird is correct, however; he should wait until all the facts are in before deciding what action to take next. But I if Lance receives anything less than "charges dropped/case dismissed", he's outta here. No doubt about it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          With all the experience this front office has had dealing with this type of ****, I would hope that they'd be able to put together the Kubla Khan of "response statements" at this point.
          My guess is that the Pacers PR department has a standard template with "fill in name of troubled Player" throughout the draft. In fact are we sure this isn't the same PR response from the last time this happened?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

            Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
            It's clear from the statement: he won't ever play as a Pacer. He might not always be a knucklehead, but right now it's a bad bet. Larry just got done telling him how important it was to keep it together - and now this? It's a bad betrayal.

            Best thing for Lance is for his career to get put on hold and take a big long look in the mirror. If they can't rescind the contract, he ought to be man enough to give them the money back - it would be the right thing to do, but more importantly it would be the smart thing to do, because everyone in the league will hesitate to invest in him if they think it's just throwing their cap space down a rathole.

            He's awfully young; he may not realize that his whole future now hangs in the balance. If I were advising him, I'd tell him that it's time to take some extraordinary actions. Apologies are not enough, especially not the formulaic mumblings that are the norm for transgressing athletes nowadays.

            Best thing for the Pacers: just get out, and be glad it didn't happen in the playoffs.

            :
            Clear from the statement. Good. Glad you believe it is, and hopefully, assuming Lance is guilty, you are right in your assessment of the situation.

            Rescind the contract? What precedent or provision is there under the current CBA to rescind the contract? And, if there is, why hasn't it been used by teams, including the Pacers, prior to now?

            As far as being "man enough" to give the money back, that expectation is bordering on the ridiculous. There would be ramifications both for Lance (presuming he is guilty) and the woman he allegedly did this to, as well as their child. In my opinion, it would be selfish, not manly, of Lance to attempt to preserve a chance at an NBA career by giving back money that ultimately, at this point, is likely earmarked primarily for the woman and their child. If he is guilty, the odds of him playing in the NBA, at this point, are about as high as Roy Hibbert becoming deadly from beyond the arc (and don't get any great ideas about that, either, we need to just let Walton do his job).

            I also believe that the NBA as a league is becoming less and less likely to employ players with a history of significant violations of the law, and I would assume the new CBA will reflect just that. To believe that there are teams that would willingly pick up a player with this transgression in his history that is not already under contract with their own franchise is dubious at best, regardless of potential, especially with the current situation the league faces economically.

            Yes, Lance needs to take extraordinary actions. It is simply a question of what choices of actions he actually has, at this point, and when he will have any opportunity to take any appropriate actions that are not dictated by the courts and authorities. He gave up the vast majority of his freedoms, especially with the alledged severity of this attack.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

              It's clear to me from the tone of the statement that Lance will not wear a Pacer uniform unless we ultimately find that the charges are made up (0.1% chance).

              The question is whether you

              1) cut him ASAP (my choice) or

              2) put him in a Tinsley-like limbo state until the 90 days or whatever pass, assuming that he does no jail time. Then maybe, just maybe, some of those NBA teams that paid attention to his summer league press clippings would be buffoonish enough to overlook the character issue and trade something (future 2nd rounder) for him.

              Choice #2 seems not worth it, enduring 90 days of justifiable criticism for a future pick and saving the value of the contract (assuming that it can't be voided-- and why the heck don't they put STRONG character clauses in there????)
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...e=NBAHeadlines
                follow me @TruenoPanda - lets talk Pacers!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                  Does the CBA allow for "character issues / concerns" to be included?
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    2) put him in a Tinsley-like limbo state until the 90 days or whatever pass, assuming that he does no jail time. Then maybe, just maybe, some of those NBA teams that paid attention to his summer league press clippings would be buffoonish enough to overlook the character issue and trade something (future 2nd rounder) for him.
                    according to the espn trade machine anyway, lance can be traded on 22 aug, or 30 days after he was signed. that's not too long to wait.

                    assuming we decide to trade lance, i suppose we should be able to get a 2nd rounder back. we did get a couple of 2nd rounders for shawne, albeit low ones.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                      One minor thing I noticed :

                      In Brunos most recent cloumn on Pacers.com he talked about the exciting young players that DC will play with :

                      He mentions Danny, Tyler, Rush, George, AND...........

                      Magnum Rolle!

                      No mention of Lance, which normally I would say could be a slight oversight, but you mention Rolle who has no contract and is offically not on the team yet?

                      I think LAnce has to flat out beat this case to stay here
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                        Well, that's encouraging, I guess.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                          Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable for the court of law. In the court of public opinion, that sort of latitude is only afforded to those who otherwise are reasonable citizens. He already plead guilty in the past to one crime and apparently was up to enough suspected no-good that the Pacers hired a private investigator to scout him. Any early judgment calls on this case made by those in the media and the public is justified; I'm sorry, but that's a consequence of a bad reputation. This is why the youth of today who are publishing their adventures on Facebook and Twitter need to understand that reputation is important and can be destroyed by a single action.

                          That said, I still want him balling on the court even if he has to wear GPS on his ankle.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Does the CBA allow for "character issues / concerns" to be included?
                            Yes. The question is not "is there anything at all" but rather "how much bite does it have?"

                            Section 7. Unlawful Violence.

                            When a player is convicted of (including a plea of guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere to) a violent felony, he shall immediately be suspended by the NBA for a minimum of ten (10) games.


                            Section 8. Counseling for Violent Misconduct.

                            (a) In addition to any other rights a Team or the NBA may have by contract or law, when the NBA and the Players Association agree that there is reasonable cause to believe that a player has engaged in any type of off-court violent conduct, the player will (if the NBA and the Players Association so agree) be required to undergo a clinical evaluation by a neutral expert and, if deemed necessary by such expert, appropriate counseling, with such evaluation and counseling program to be developed and supervised by the NBA and the Players Association.
                            For purposes of this paragraph, "violent conduct" shall include, but not be limited to, sexual assault and acts of domestic violence.

                            (b) Any player who, after being notified in writing by the NBA that he is required to undergo the clinical evaluation and/or counseling program authorized by Section 8(a) above, refuses or fails, without a reasonable explanation, to attend or participate in such evaluation and counseling program within seventy-two (72) hours following such notice, shall be fined by the NBA in the amount of $10,000 for each day following such seventy-two (72) hours that the player refuses or fails to participate in such program.
                            http://www.nbpa.org/sites/default/files/Article%20VI.pdf

                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                              Originally posted by indyaway View Post
                              Innocent until proven guilty is only applicable for the court of law. In the court of public opinion, that sort of latitude is only afforded to those who otherwise are reasonable citizens. He already plead guilty in the past to one crime and apparently was up to enough suspected no-good that the Pacers hired a private investigator to scout him. Any early judgment calls on this case made by those in the media and the public is justified; I'm sorry, but that's a consequence of a bad reputation. This is why the youth of today who are publishing their adventures on Facebook and Twitter need to understand that reputation is important and can be destroyed by a single action.

                              That said, I still want him balling on the court even if he has to wear GPS on his ankle.
                              If sometime in the future you hear something to the effect that the Pacers are suing a private investigator firm you'll know what it's about..

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                Clear from the statement. Good. Glad you believe it is, and hopefully, assuming Lance is guilty, you are right in your assessment of the situation.
                                It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. The statement reminds us that the Pacers players were warned about not only not doing bad **** but also to stay away from where trouble can happen. Whatever the law finds about the former (and it looks really bad), Lance indisputably did not avoid the latter.

                                That Larry Bird says that he is personally disappointed is not surprising - there can be no doubt that Lance got a very careful discussion about the Indiana franchise's need for its players to stay out of trouble, and not many weeks have passed before Lance was unable to "keep it together." He betrayed a personal trust with Larry Bird, who had told the media that he himself had made mistakes when he was young and everyone deserves a second chance. Will he now go in front of the media and say that everyone deserves a third chance?

                                No, he won't ever play as a Pacer.

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                Rescind the contract? What precedent or provision is there under the current CBA to rescind the contract? And, if there is, why hasn't it been used by teams, including the Pacers, prior to now?
                                First of all, what I said was "if they can't rescind the contract"; I wasn't claiming to know that they could. The CBA is not the only issue; all sorts of things get put into contracts, and I'm betting that you don't know what is in Lance Stephenson's any more than I do. On the other hand, morals clauses and cancellation clauses on the basis of criminal conduct are old traditions in contract law. Given the Pacers' recent history and their public sensitivity on the issue, I would not blithely assume that such clauses were absent from the contract of a contract partner who had screwed up in the past.

                                In any case, no matter what: putting him on the court would be a PR nightmare for the team, and the chance of them risking further alienation of the fan base is zero.

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                As far as being "man enough" to give the money back, that expectation is bordering on the ridiculous.
                                I never called it an expectation. I said it is what he SHOULD do; I said, "...he ought to give the money back." I think I said that plainly, and furthermore that that would be the smart thing to do as well as the right thing.

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                ... In my opinion, it would be selfish, not manly, of Lance to attempt to preserve a chance at an NBA career by giving back money that ultimately, at this point, is likely earmarked primarily for the woman and their child. If he is guilty, the odds of him playing in the NBA, at this point, are about as high as Roy Hibbert becoming deadly from beyond the arc...
                                So you think that the Pacers should pay for Lance's legal troubles? That's very generous of you, but I cannot agree.

                                I'm a little more cynical about his NBA prospects than you are, but there are leagues worldwide that he could play in, earning a handsome living. He has a very marketable skillset (which would have suited the Pacers' offense to a T, now damnably irrelevant).

                                Lance told us he was attracted to the profession of the law; it looks like he'll get some education in it. One door closes and another one opens?
                                :
                                Last edited by O'Bird; 08-21-2010, 01:31 AM. Reason: Burnishing the Legend
                                :

                                "Defense doesn't break down on the help, it breaks down on the recovery." - Chuck Daly

                                "The first shot does not beat you." - Chuck Daly

                                "To play defense and not foul is an art that must be mastered if you are going to be successful." - Chuck Daly

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X