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

Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

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

  • Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8644587/maryland-terrapins-rutgers-scarlet-knights-talks-join-big-ten-conference-sources-say


    The University of Maryland is in serious negotiations to join the Big Ten Conference, sources told ESPN on Saturday.

    If Maryland goes from the ACC to the Big Ten, Rutgers of the Big East is expected to follow suit. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers would give the Big Ten 14 members as the league gears toward negotiations on a new media rights deal when its first-tier rights expire in 2017.

    No date has been set for a potential announcement, though it could come as soon as Monday.

    Maryland president Wallace Loh has been handling the conversation with Big Ten officials, a source said.

    One source told ESPN that Maryland athletic director Kevin Anderson has informed key staffers that there are ongoing discussions.

    One stumbling block for Maryland could be finances. Maryland's athletic department has recently dropped sports because of budget issues, and the ACC recently raised its exit fee to $50 million.

    Maryland and Florida State were the only two of 12 schools that voted against a $50 million exit fee out of the ACC, but lost the vote. Loh was quoted in the Washington Post on Sept. 13 that he was against the hike from $20-50 million on "legal and philosophical" grounds. The Post reported that Loh said Maryland planned to be in the ACC for years to come.

    A source told ESPN that the Big Ten has been itchy about further expansion since Notre Dame made its official move to the ACC two months ago in all sports other than football. The source said the Big Ten can justify Maryland and then possibly Rutgers since they are all contiguous states to the Big Ten footprint.

    One source told ESPN that Loh and Anderson don't have ACC ties so there wouldn't be a strong emotional pull to stay with the conference. Loh is a former provost at Big Ten member Iowa.

    However, the chancellor of the Maryland system, Brit Kirwan, has been on the Maryland campus for 30 years and has strong affiliation for being a charter member of the ACC, according to a source.

    One source with Maryland ties said there is a strong affinity for the ACC and making the move to the Big Ten may not be a unanimous decision among the school's board of regents.

    Big Ten officials did not respond to numerous requests seeking comment. ACC officials also did not respond to a request for comment. Maryland officials would not comment when asked after the Terps' football game on Saturday.

    If these dominoes were to fall then Connecticut would emerge as the most likely candidate to fill Maryland's spot in the ACC. The ACC will be at 14 members in 2013-14 with the addition of the Big East's Pittsburgh and Syracuse and 15 in all sports except football when Notre Dame joins, which could be as early as fall 2013.

    Rutgers' exit fee from the Big East would be less expensive. The buyout to leave the Big East is $10 million if the school provides 27 months' notice. However, the league has allowed West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse to leave the league without honoring the 27-month requirement by paying a higher exit fee.

    The Scarlet Knights would be the ninth member of the Big East to leave or announce they were leaving the league since 2004. Six of those defections have occurred in the past year -- Pitt, Syracuse and Notre Dame to the ACC; TCU and West Virginia to the Big 12 and Rutgers to the Big Ten.

    The Scarlet Knights were charter members of the Big East's football conference, which began in 1991.

    Maryland also was a charter member of the ACC, one of eight schools to start the league in 1953.

    Both Maryland and Rutgers are members of the AAU (Association of American Universities), something vital to Big Ten presidents.

    The addition of the two East Coast schools would dramatically stretch the Big Ten's footprint. With Maryland holding down the Beltway, Rutgers offering up the New York market and Penn State's strong eastern ties, the league has a solid anchor in the mid-Atlantic states.

    Maryland and Rutgers also would make the nation's richest conference even wealthier. Last season, each Big Ten school received a record $24.6 million in shared revenue, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. One source said the success of the Big Ten Network is an intriguing factor for Maryland.

    If the two schools join the Big Ten, it would reopen what many thought was a stable time in the conference realignment process. The Big Ten joins the SEC as a legitimate 14-team superconference, while the ACC drops to 13 football members and likely will pursue another all-sports member to get back to 14.

    ACC commissioner John Swofford said at ACC media day and during the news conference when the Irish were added that the league wouldn't go beyond 14 football members and could easily exist with an odd number (15) in men's and women's basketball. But if a football member were to leave, the ACC would likely have to make a move.

    Maryland, meanwhile, will become only the second school to leave the ACC. South Carolina was the other, leaving in 1971 to become an independent. The Gamecocks are now members of the SEC.

    In the past few years, the nation's top five conferences -- SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC -- have added a total of 10 new members, causing a domino effect throughout the college landscape from coast to coast.
    Rutger's footballs pretty solid, no reason they couldn't be a long term second tier Big Ten school. Maryland basketball's a sleeping giant, can't say I'd be too excited about Mark Turgeon being able to recruit Indiana easier.

  • #2
    Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

    Just plain silly.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
      http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8644587/maryland-terrapins-rutgers-scarlet-knights-talks-join-big-ten-conference-sources-say




      Rutger's footballs pretty solid, no reason they couldn't be a long term second tier Big Ten school. Maryland basketball's a sleeping giant, can't say I'd be too excited about Mark Turgeon being able to recruit Indiana easier.
      This kind of thing and others have made college sports completely unwatchable for me.... Is their a more corrupt institution (other than IU) that the NCAA??

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

        I am for it, Rutgers would add a top 25 team to be B1G, which would make the conference stronger, Maryland adds a team that IU can beat, and it on the rise like IU, they would be my 2nd favorite team in bball, Maryland is a good team Rutgers brings nothing
        Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 11-17-2012, 09:39 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

          Obviously this whole thing is driven by athletics, but they're both great fits academically as well. Both are strong research institutions. They probably bring more from an academic perspective than athletically really.

          Plus it gives Delaney something of an excuse when he pushes for the conference championship game/tourney to be in NYC.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

            We don't need no Joiiiisey teams in the freaking Big 10.

            At least IU could probably beat Maryland in football.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

              I hate this. I was fine with adding Nebraska but conferences shouldn't have more than 12 teams. If you think basketball scheduling is unbalanced now, wait until you start playing more teams once than twice. Traditional rivalries will be destroyed all for the sake of putting more money in the commissioner's pocket.


              Conference expansion has become my biggest pet-peeve in college athletics. Stupid, money-driven idea that will totally collapse in about 20 years.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                Chatter on Twitter (take that for what it's worth) says the deal with Maryland is done.

                Ugh. I'm not a fan of this at all. I was okay with Nebraska, but now this? Seriously?
                Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                  Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
                  Chatter on Twitter (take that for what it's worth) says the deal with Maryland is done.

                  Ugh. I'm not a fan of this at all. I was okay with Nebraska, but now this? Seriously?
                  whos twitter

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                    Of course it's a done deal. There's what, maybe like 20 schools that wouldn't jump at the chance to join the Big Ten? Maryland and Rutgers certainly aren't two of them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                      Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                      whos twitter
                      Andy Katz and reporters who cover Maryland sports, including Dan Hellie. A few of the IU sports guys I follow have been retweeting the posts of their colleagues.

                      Updated ESPN story: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...en-move-monday

                      Sunday, November 18, 2012
                      Maryland uber-booster favors move

                      By Brett McMurphy, Dana O'Neil, Andy Katz
                      ESPN.com

                      Under Armour founder and Maryland uber-booster Kevin Plank is "100 percent" behind the Terrapins moving from the ACC to the Big Ten, a regent told ESPN on Sunday.

                      The University System of Maryland's Board of Regents will meet at 9 a.m. Monday to vote whether to accept an invitation to join the Big Ten Conference, a source told ESPN.

                      Plank is "heavily involved behind the scenes with board members," a regent told ESPN on Sunday. The source added that several of the 17 board members were "miffed" that they were not included in the process until the late stages, so the vote could be close.

                      Plank declined comment at Saturday's game but insisted he is not involved in Maryland's athletic decisions.

                      If Maryland goes from the ACC to the Big Ten, Rutgers of the Big East will then follow suit, a source said. The Rutgers announcement could be as early as Tuesday, sources said. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers would give the Big Ten 14 members as the league gears toward negotiations on a new media rights deal when its first-tier rights expire in 2017.

                      There is not a consensus among Maryland athletic department officials, a source said. The school is leaning toward the move but there is still time for the school to decide to stay in the ACC, according to the source.

                      Maryland president Wallace Loh has been handling the conversation with Big Ten officials, a source said. One stumbling block for Maryland could be finances. Maryland's athletic department has recently dropped sports because of budget issues, and the ACC recently raised its exit fee to $50 million.

                      Maryland and Florida State were the only two of 12 schools that voted against a $50 million exit fee out of the ACC, but lost the vote. Loh was quoted in the Washington Post on Sept. 13 that he was against the hike from $20-50 million on "legal and philosophical" grounds. The Post reported that Loh said Maryland planned to be in the ACC for years to come.

                      A source told ESPN that the Big Ten has been itchy about further expansion since Notre Dame made its official move to the ACC two months ago in all sports other than football. The source said the Big Ten can justify Maryland and then possibly Rutgers since they are all contiguous states to the Big Ten footprint.

                      One source told ESPN that Loh and athletic director Kevin Anderson don't have ACC ties so there wouldn't be a strong emotional pull to stay with the conference. Loh is a former provost at Big Ten member Iowa. However, the chancellor of the Maryland system, Brit Kirwan, has been on the Maryland campus for 30 years and has strong affiliation for being a charter member of the ACC, according to a source. One source with Maryland ties said there is a strong affinity for the ACC and making the move to the Big Ten may not be a unanimous decision among the school's board of regents.

                      Rutgers' exit fee from the Big East would be less expensive. The buyout to leave the Big East is $10 million if the school provides 27 months' notice. However, the league has allowed West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse to leave the league without honoring the 27-month requirement by paying a higher exit fee. The addition of the two East Coast schools would dramatically stretch the Big Ten's footprint.

                      With Maryland holding down the Beltway, Rutgers offering up the New York market and Penn State's strong eastern ties, the league has a solid anchor in the mid-Atlantic states. Maryland and Rutgers also would make the nation's richest conference even wealthier.

                      Last season, each Big Ten school received a record $24.6 million in shared revenue, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. One source said the success of the Big Ten Network is an intriguing factor for Maryland.

                      If the two schools join the Big Ten, it would reopen what many thought was a stable time in the conference realignment process. The Big Ten joins the SEC as a legitimate 14-team superconference, while the ACC drops to 13 football members and likely will pursue another all-sports member to get back to 14. Connecticut would emerge as the most likely candidate to fill Maryland's spot in the ACC.

                      Dana O'Neil, Brett McMurphy and Andy Katz are college sports reporters for ESPN.
                      Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                        https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/sta...48475140259841

                        Maryland's board of regents unanimously approves move to Big Ten, source tells ESPN.
                        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                          Maryland I don't mind as much. I don't really love adding Rutgers though. They are the living, breathing definition of mediocre.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                            You gotta admit, us snatching an ACC team and Delaney basically saying "$50 million exit fee? you know what conference this is?" is pretty awesome. Think about what that's gotta make the ACC higher ups think.

                            The end game's still 16, eventually. No one really likes that from an athletic standpoint, but it'll bring huge amounts of money to Purdue and IU with the way the conference's revenue sharing is. The conference's media rights are up for bids in 2017, that's the only major football TV contract available until like 2025. Fox is trying to buy the YES network, Fox owns 51% of the BTN. And when it goes to 16 teams is when we add another brand name program. Not every member of a conference is supposed to be a powerhouse. This is the future of conferences, either adapt or be left behind. Delaney's pretty much been ahead of the curve the whole way.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten?

                              I would much rather pick up Maryland and Virginia than Rutgers. Also the idea that we needed the NYC market is a myth IMO, you can already get the BTN in NYC and according to my buddy who lives in NYC no one really views Rutgers as an NYC school they are firmly Jersey. The B1G really missed it when they didn't go hard for Syracuse IMO.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X