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

2012-2013 Butler Basketball

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

  • #16
    Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

    Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
    I don't think it's all money. I think he wants to win, which you can do at Texas but he knows he can win multiple national titles at these other schools, at a cash cow where basketball is the second option...do you think that's his idea of a bump up?
    I don't think it's all about money for him. I hope I wasn't insinuating that. Clearly it isn't. He's already turned down quite a few significant raises from other places. I'm looking at you Oregon, Illinois, Wake Forest, etc. I just believe there is a threshold where the money becomes too much to turn down. Couple that with a place that has the resources to provide a major winner and it's going to be a very, very tough decision.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

      What percentage of program revenue is Stevens's salary? Is there somewhere this stuff can be found out?

      Any historical cases where a school our size retained a coach on his level for the long haul?
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
        What percentage of program revenue is Stevens's salary? Is there somewhere this stuff can be found out?

        Any historical cases where a school our size retained a coach on his level for the long haul?
        http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news...fits/index.htm

        I can't find up to date numbers. In 2010 Butler's reported basketball revenue was $1,729,756. Their reported expenses? $1,729,754. Seriously. Obviously, both numbers have increased pretty substantially since then but I'd guess the revenue is in the $4-5 million area. Gonzaga was a shade above $4 million in 2010 and I'd think they'd be pretty comparable. That would put Brad's salary at about 20-25% of program revenue. I can't imagine it'd be possible to increase that percentage. The best chance of offering him a somewhat competitive salary is to increase revenue. Which is why the eventual move to the Big East-ish conference that is being created, and the TV dollars that go with it, is a no-brainer.

        Historical cases? Sure. Coach K at Duke and Mark Few at Gonzaga are the most obvious.
        Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 12-17-2012, 05:01 PM.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

          Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
          People thought that if Matt Painter left Purdue a couple years back for Missouri, that Stevens will go to Purdue
          And those people were dumb. I'm sure Purdue would've tried, but it wouldn't have happened.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

            Prez Danko statement on realignment

            http://www.indysportslegends.com/201...erence-rumors/

            I greatly respect—and agree with—the collective conviction of the “Catholic 7” to control their own destiny or someone else will. Butler, too, has controlled its destiny proactively, for example, when it made the decision to join the outstanding Atlantic 10 Conference and through its values-based approach to athletics.

            The fact that Butler is now being mentioned prominently as a potential candidate to join the “Catholic 7” universities in a new athletic league, is a tribute to the success of our athletic program overall and our men’s basketball team, in particular.

            Our team has proven consistently and continuously that it is one of the very best in the nation, and that they are one of the biggest brands in men’s college basketball. This national prestige naturally leads to speculation about Butler’s athletic future.

            Our administrators, our coaches, our trustees and our team will continue to do what is right for Butler and its students. Decisions will be made, first and foremost, with the University’s strong values and The Butler Way at heart. Our uncompromising commitments to integrity, to placing one’s team above oneself, and to the academic and personal growth of each of our student-athletes will remain paramount.
            Not exactly a "we're sticking with the A10."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/18/news...fits/index.htm

              I can't find up to date numbers. In 2010 Butler's reported basketball revenue was $1,729,756. Their reported expenses? $1,729,754. Seriously. Obviously, both numbers have increased pretty substantially since then but I'd guess the revenue is in the $4-5 million area. Gonzaga was a shade above $4 million in 2010 and I'd think they'd be pretty comparable. That would put Brad's salary at about 20-25% of program revenue. I can't imagine it'd be possible to increase that percentage. The best chance of offering him a somewhat competitive salary is to increase revenue. Which is why the eventual move to the Big East-ish conference that is being created, and the TV dollars that go with it, is a no-brainer.

              Historical cases? Sure. Coach K at Duke and Mark Few at Gonzaga are the most obvious.
              Very nice, thank you.

              A google for "Coach K salary" was completely, utterly discouraging.

              The Mark Few google was better.

              Has Few ever generated the kind of demand Stevens is capable of generating right now? I know Gonzaga is a solid program, but I have no idea how this guy is considered among the ranks of great coaches. Could he leave and land a top 5 salary somewhere?
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                Has Few ever generated the kind of demand Stevens is capable of generating right now? I know Gonzaga is a solid program, but I have no idea how this guy is considered among the ranks of great coaches. Could he leave and land a top 5 salary somewhere?
                Honestly, probably not. But I know he's turned down offers in the $2 million area. And that puts him squarely in the ranks of the elite paid coaches. Of course, Brad has also turned down such offers and I would think he'd be more likely to get an offer that leaps directly into the Cal, Pitino, K, Donovan, Izzo, etc. like mega deals than Few would.

                http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...ase/53827374/1

                That is the list of coaches last year's tournament and their total pay. It's basically about what you would expect. The only one I was pretty surprised by was Buzz Williams making nearly $3 million at Marquette and Roy Williams and Jim Boeheim making under $2 million at UNC and Syracuse respectively.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  Not exactly a "we're sticking with the A10."
                  No kidding. He may as well have come out and say, "of course if this league forms like we expect we're goners." And who could blame him?

                  While TV dollars for the college basketball regular season may be peanuts compared to football or March Madness, I'd think ESPN would pay a pretty penny for the rights to this league.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                    No kidding. He may as well have come out and say, "of course if this league forms like we expect we're goners." And who could blame him?

                    While TV dollars for the college basketball regular season may be peanuts compared to football or March Madness, I'd think ESPN would pay a pretty penny for the rights to this league.
                    Indeed, wouldn't blame em a bit. Opposite really, I'd blame em if they DIDN'T do it. The A10's a really nice league, but it wouldn't hold a candle to this. Then down the line who knows what happens with UConn and Cincy (and Xavier might be in this league too). If the hoops program really does basically finance the entire athletic department they'd honestly be stupid not to do it.

                    And I think they're already there as a big time program but if/when Stevens leaves then who knows. But this happens, there's no reason for them to drop off, they'd be in a power conference in the middle of recruiting nirvana playing big time games on the reg. Stevens is getting some pretty nice recruits now, but he'd have the chance to be a player for true top tier guys.

                    Really, I love it for Butler, but not for Purdue. Last thing we need's another in state power.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                      On Butler as the new Duke, they have a lot in common, school wise, smaller private school in a basketball rich recruiting crop, but my understanding is that they don't spend nearly as much on their program as Duke. That could be a factor. Close as Butler came to wining it all, he might look at another place as a new challenge and better opportunity. Or not.

                      I actually think Butler will be fine long term. People forget they had a long line of successful coaches before Stevens.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                        Comparing Brad Stevens to Mark Few is a big insult to Stevens.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                          Texas is the biggest sleeping giant in basketball in my opinion. You put Brad Stevens in Austin, I'd be stunned if they didn't win a title within a 7 years.
                          It's pretty sad that Barnes struggles as much as he does with the recruits he brings in. I mean they have a top 10 class almost every year and they are a bubble team or a 6 seed almost every season. It's completely ridiculous.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Comparing Brad Stevens to Mark Few is a big insult to Stevens.
                            Mark few is a damn fine basketball coach.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                              Mark few is a damn fine basketball coach.
                              This is an argument for another thread probably, but I think Few is actually pretty overrated. There are a number of reasons for this, but mainly he's been trying to do what Stevens did in back to back years for over a decade and hasn't been able to do. He recruits and plays in a watered down area for college basketball. The midwest and the east coast are the bed of basketball talent and competition. Don't get me wrong here Few is a good coach, but Stevens IMO is establishing something much bigger at Butler than Few ever could at Gonzaga. So to say that Stevens is doing at Butler what Few did at Gonzaga is IMO a slight to Stevens.

                              I mean Stevens is 13 years younger, we really need to understand that. He has only been at Butler for 5 years and he already has two more final four appearances than Few's 0. Few has made 4 Sweet 16's, so Stevens is almost there on that and I think he could likely claim number 3 this year.

                              Stevens is the best coach in college basketball right now. I firmly believe that. I have a lot of faith in Crean and Stevens toyed with him. Stevens has also toyed with Roy Williams already this season.

                              Their two losses were against Illinois when finally Butler's talent gap and fatigue could not be closed by Stevens game plan, and to Xavier who unfortunately for Stevens also loves to play his brand of basketball.

                              Butler's talent level the back to back national title games was firmly mediocre, especially the second time. I don't say that to be cruel because those kids played their butts off, but it is what it is. The same is true of this year's team IMO, but Stevens just puts these kids in the perfect spot to succeed Roosevelt Jones is the perfect example of this, Stevens gets him the ball in the correct spot every single time he runs a play for him.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 2012-2013 Butler Basketball

                                Texas's complacency with Mack Brown and Rick Barnes really legitimately baffles me. They're probably the richest athletic department in the country by a large margin, have all the positives in the world, and are just cool with being the giant that gets made fun of.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X