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:
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

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

SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

    Personally, I enjoy the WNBA as a league and would hate to see a time when the very best talent is siphoned off by the NBA. I have wondered a time or two how Catch would look playing with the boys. There's no doubt in my mind that she's more skilled than some players in the NBA, has more heart than most and very probably is stronger than some of them too. I don't know if that necessarily translates to playing with NBA players though, especially through an 82 game season.

    I hesitate to post this because it seems sure to bring in the kind of drive-by negative comments people post all over ESPN. But, it's a fairly big story right now, it's interesting, it tells us a lot about the evolution of women's ball and the WNBA, it mentions Tamika, and I'm fairly confident in the ability of most people around here to discuss this respectfully, ya go.

    Weekly Countdown: A woman's place could soon be in the NBA

    by Ian Thomsen

    This will be the sports equivalent of putting a man on the moon ... and I'm not the only believer.
    5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

    David Stern thinks it will happen. On Tuesday in the conference room outside his NBA office in Manhattan, I asked the commissioner whether we'll see a woman playing in his league someday.

    "Sure," he said matter-of-factly. "I think that's well within the range of probability."

    He went on to explain his reasoning as well as jokingly ask that I seek out other opinions, so that he wouldn't appear to be pushing this most progressive and liberating pursuit down the throats of his players, coaches and executives. But he knows, I know and now you know there is a good chance it's going to happen, simply because the most important man in basketball has hereby declared it could and should happen.

    The context is important, because this was not some kind of pet project that he leaked to me. Last month an SI editor asked me to come up with several thoughts on professional basketball for the next decade, and one of my predictions was that a woman will be playing in the NBA. Then I decided to ask Stern about it. Last week I requested a meeting with Stern and I made sure to mention that I would be asking him about the possibility of a woman playing in his league, because I didn't want to catch him off guard. You'll be able to see that he had thought about this, and that he fully realized the impact of what he was saying.

    How else was he going to answer such a question? If he'd said no -- that there will be no women playing in the NBA -- then he might have been viewed as criticizing or diminishing the talent of his own WNBA. Therefore, some will respond to Stern's declaration by accusing him of cynically trying to prop up the women's league.
    My own impression is that Stern was not seeking to take on the goal of signing a woman to play in the NBA. But now that he has answered the question, I am certain he will embrace the mission.

    Stern's entire career demonstrates that his perspective and ambitions eclipse the needs of the WNBA. If a woman were to play in his league -- and play well -- it would have the liberating impact of Jackie Robinson's 1947 breakthrough of baseball's color barrier, but on a much greater scale. This would make news around the world. Thanks to Stern's stubborn success in feeding NBA video to every continent, women almost everywhere would have access to and be personally inspired by the pictures of a woman playing in the league of Michael Jordan and LeBron James. It would be an athletic achievement without precedent.

    I asked if we might see a woman playing NBA basketball within a decade.

    "I think we might," said Stern. "I don't want to get into all kinds of arguments with players and coaches about the likelihood. But I really think it's a good possibility."

    It would be a huge story. "It would be a ridiculous story,'' agreed Boston Celtics coach Doc Rivers, meaning that the level of interest would be preposterous. "It would be great for everyone ... if it can happen. The key is whether the person is playing, or is she just on the team? The story will die down if she's just on the team and not playing a lot. But if she is playing and helping the team improve and win, then it really is a huge story."

    The ultimate goal of developing a woman player is an unexpected but natural progression for Stern, who has used social initiatives such as Basketball Without Borders -- in which NBA players run clinics and camps around the world -- to help grow his business internationally. The success of a woman player would introduce the NBA to enormous audiences who wouldn't otherwise have been interested.

    "The public would be excited about it," said New Jersey Nets general manager and interim coach Kiki Vandeweghe. "Whether you're in China or Europe or Africa, basketball is a common language and it breaks barriers. It's a language that's spoken all over the world, and this is another barrier that it would bring down. It's exciting, and it's a logical next step."

    The pursuit of "the first woman" will also create new respect for the WNBA. From now on every great player in that league will be viewed from a new perspective. Is she good enough to play with the men? What does she need to improve in order to make that leap?

    Some NBA owners will be interested in hiring the first woman player, even if it's only to sell tickets. "That would work if you had the right woman, and particularly if she were a player who played," said Nets president Rod Thorn. "Initially it would be, 'Wow, I've got to see this, I never thought this would happen so I've got to see it ...' If she were a solid player and a contributor, then definitely it would help."

    Women's basketball continues to improve tremendously. When I asked Dallas Mavericks All-Star Dirk Nowitzki whether a woman could play in the NBA, he asked me if I was serious. I don't think he meant disrespect; it was just that he had never considered the possibility. "Skills-wise, yeah," he said, meaning they could shoot and handle the ball at an NBA level. "But physical-wise, it's tough. Even all the little guys are pretty strong in this league and pretty athletic."

    Many in the league will doubt whether a woman can match the speed and strength of the world's best male players. "I don't think its going to be physically possible," said a league GM who asked to remain anonymous. "I think they have the necessary skill sets: If you give me the best of the best in the WNBA and put them on the (free throw) line with the best of the NBA, I think you'll see they shoot the ball as well as men.
    "But think about the overall speed, athleticism and strength (in the NBA). They can't take the pounding, the wear and tear, the quickness, the strength. It's not possible for them right now. Why does (women's coach) Pat Summit at Tennessee have boy managers? It's because she wanted her team to play against the boy managers (in practice) because they're better than the girls on her bench. Many programs across the country have done that.

    "I love the discussion, it's great for basketball and it doesn't hurt the NBA one bit. Would someone do it for PR? Maybe. But it's not going to happen. They can't play."

    Stern acknowledged the skepticism while tempering it. "If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like.

    "An issue that I have is when you look at tennis, and this is the argument against me," continued Stern. "As great as the women are, and actually in some cases I think their serves are served at a higher speed than men on the tour, like Serena's (Williams) first serve --you still get the sense that they wouldn't do well on the men's side of the tour.

    "But in basketball, where it's a five-person game and you have zones and you can do a variety of other things -- a fast person with a good shot that can play on the team? I think we could see it in the next decade or so ... I'll leave it to the real experts to talk about the muscle factor. But there's going to be a very strong woman who has all the moves, who's going to want to play, and she's going to be good."

    Thorn emphasized that the terms of the debate will continue to change because women players keep improving. "I'm a fan of the WNBA -- I go to games, I watch games -- and the athletic ability of women basketball players has made such a jump up in the last five or six years it's unbelievable," said Thorn. "I don't think it's a complete leap of faith to say somewhere down the road someplace there may be somebody that's good enough to play.''

    Who is to say that the women's equivalent of LeBron James won't show up as a freshman at Tennessee or Connecticut four or five years from now? By launching the discussion now, Stern will has abruptly created an environment in which pro and con will hash it out, and in that way the league will prepare itself eventually for the day when a woman shows up for the opening of NBA summer league in Las Vegas.

    NBA rules changes have opened the door. This discussion would not have been possible a decade ago, when the NBA enabled a more physical style of play on the perimeter 15 feet beyond the basket. "With the hand check, the strong defenders could just stop you," said Thorn, 68. "K.C. Jones -- I remember him my first year in the league -- he would put his hand on your waist and just move you wherever he wanted to move you. Now if you tried that, you'd have three fouls before you'd get started and you'd be on the bench."

    Now when you see smaller NBA guards running free on the three-point line, think about whether an athletic woman could do the same things. "That was designed to create opportunities for skilled players," said Stern of the abolition of hand-checking. "So the question becomes: When the woman comes with the high skill set, will she be able to play? And I think the answer is yes, I think so."

    The model may be WNBA MVP Diana Taurasi, the 6-foot swingman who led the Phoenix Mercury to the league championship. She can shoot, handle the ball, she's strong and -- as important as anything -- she is aggressive. In order to overcome the physical deficiencies, the first woman in the NBA would be a terrific shooter and ballhandler with the vision to make plays for others, and she would have to be fearless and confident and outrageously athletic, by WNBA standards.

    "But you don't know" said Vandeweghe."We have a lot of guys in our league who are specialty players -- they come in and can just flat shoot it. Who's to say that somebody from the WNBA couldn't do the same thing?"

    Much as Branch Rickey carefully chose Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier based on his skills as well as his temperament, so is Stern likely to urge his teams to be patient in making sure the first woman is equipped to succeed. Maybe she'll be the next generation of Los Angeles Sparks star Candace Parker, or Tamika Catchings of the Indiana Fever.

    "I wouldn't say it's implausible because I think people have been saying that about different groups of people forever and they've been proven wrong," said New York Knicks president Donnie Walsh. "I'm sure there'll be a girl who'll be on this level, and if there is, she'll probably play in the NBA.

    "I look at the WNBA games and I'm amazed at how good these girls are," continued Walsh, 68. "I told Larry Brown once, 'I think they're better than you and I were in college.' He got mad at me, but I was serious. I said, 'Larry, they're just like we were. They play under the rim, they're not jumpers, they can't dunk and all that. But they know how to play and they can drive, they can shoot. They're good.'"

    The first woman will be greeted with newfound respect.Ann Meyers Drysdale, now GM of the WNBA champion Mercury, remains the only woman to sign an NBA contract. She had been a three-time All-America guard at UCLA before signing in 1979 with the Indiana Pacers, who released her before that season.

    "I had been liked by the media at that time," said the 5-9 Meyers, but that changed when she joined the Pacers. "I recall at the press conference that I was attacked pretty good by the media. You know: what are you doing, you're taking some guy's job, you can't compete, you're too slow, you're going to get hurt, you're too small, da-ta-da. But somebody gives you an opportunity, you're supposed to say no?"

    It will be different this time because of players like Meyers Drysdale and Nancy Lieberman, who will coach the new NBA D-League franchise in Dallas after a playing career that included games in the men's minor-league USBL as well as on the summer league teams of the Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz. The escalation of women's basketball over the last decade has made Taurasi and Parker stars in their own right, to the point that you now see LeBron James and Kobe Bryant attending U.S. women's games at the Olympics.

    But it's important that the NBA get this right the first time. "If she was truly a full-time player rather than a modern day Eddie Gaedel," said Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of the dwarf who played major league baseball in a 1951 publicity stunt, "it would be enormous."

    Would the other players respect her?

    "If she could play," answered Cuban. "If it was a marketing ploy, they would resent her taking a job."
    That's why, in order for this to have universal meaning, I'm convinced Stern and the NBA will wait for the right player to come along. If she really is the LeBron James of women's basketball, then she'll be welcomed by the stars throughout the NBA, and in turn the best players on her NBA team will have no choice but to respect her.

    If anyone is going to be nervous, it will be the opponents playing against her. "That's right, the guys trying to guard her won't want to get beat," said Dallas Mavericks assistant coach Dwane Casey. "I see the women's game coming closer and closer to the men's game. You see NBA coaches who are now coaching in the WNBA and you see them using a lot of the same principles -- offensive schemes, pick and roll, defensive sets. The physical part will be the worst for a woman, and it will be on defense more than anything else.

    "But technically, all of the things they need are already there," said Casey, 52. "Before I leave this earth I'll see it -- or at least I'll be close to seeing it."
    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

  • #2
    Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

    Skills? Some could, sure. Strength and speed? I just don't see it.


    • #3
      Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

      What was Stern supposed to say, no? It would have put him in a terrible spot PR wise.

      I don't know if it is possible or not. The most likely scenario I see is if you could get someone who could really, really shoot and run off screen and had a deadly shot, it is possible. But she would have to also be physical enough to not be a huge defensive liability.

      I guess I do see it as somewhat possible. But it would take a real special player.


      • #4
        Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

        Putting a top flight WNBA player against Lebron or Kobe and it would be a joke, just from the athleticism standpoint. Sure if it was a jump-shooting contest they could come fairly close, but seeing Lebron drive by and dunk on some woman's head is not a pretty sight.

        We're just getting to a point where a few women can dunk (and not sure if one has dunked an NBA ball yet), give it another 10-20 years and maybe things will have changed quite a bit but its going to take a generation gap before we see this sort of thing seriously happen.
        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

        ----------------- Reggie Miller


        • #5
          Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

          There are NBA players that look like jokes against LeBron/Kobe, etc. I think that's the wrong measuring stick. The question if I'm a GM is "Would this woman help the team, could she be a part of the rotation?"

          I still wouldn't want to see it happen though because clearly if it did the NBA would be robbing the WNBA of its very best talent. I'm not sure how many women would want to do it either - I mean, I guess it's the NBA, the best basketball league in the world but...if you could be an MVP candidate/face of the league in the WNBA or a rotation player in the NBA...I know which I would pick.
          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider


          • #6
            Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

            Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
            Putting a top flight WNBA player against Lebron or Kobe and it would be a joke, just from the athleticism standpoint. Sure if it was a jump-shooting contest they could come fairly close, but seeing Lebron drive by and dunk on some woman's head is not a pretty sight.
            Sort of like what Lebron would do to Diener ??


            • #7
              Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

              I hope it never happens. Not that I'm being sexist, but I like it the way it is now (NBA/WNBA). I've started to really enjoy women's bball over the last few years. I like it because it's not as athletic. It's seems more fundamentally sound and I enjoy the two seperate leagues for different reasons and I don't want them to tamper with that. I know the article's not saying they're looking to combine the leagues, I just don't want the best female players to leave the WNBA.


              • #8
                Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                Sort of like what Lebron would do to Diener ??
                Shoot, a Catchings or Swin Cash would run circles around Ball Boy. Of course, that's not really fair, Bill Simmons has said he could take Diener.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                • #9
                  Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

                  Interesting story, I just don't see it. There are a lot of gifted male athletes playing overseas right now who couldn't make it in the NBA. Too many numbers to overcome.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....


                  • #10
                    Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)


                    • #11
                      Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

                      Perhaps it is time we reconceptualize the notion of gender.


                      • #12
                        Re: SI: 5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

                        And a response from a SLAM writer:

                        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider