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

Brady Hoke to Michigan

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

  • Brady Hoke to Michigan

    www.mgoblue.com Jan 11 2011

    ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- University of Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon announced today (Tuesday, Jan. 11) the hiring of Brady Hoke as the 19th coach in the 131-year history of Michigan football. Hoke arrives in Ann Arbor after spending the past eight seasons as a head coach at Ball State (2003-08) and San Diego State (2009-10).

    "We are pleased to announce the hiring of Brady," said Brandon. "He is a terrific coach and will be a great ambassador and leader for our football program. We look forward to having him build a championship program on the field and in the classroom."

    Hoke spent eight seasons in Ann Arbor before embarking on his head coaching career. He mentored the Wolverines defensive line all eight seasons, a group that helped Michigan rank annually among the nation's best in rushing and total defense. Hoke coached three linemen to All-America honors during his tenure -- William Carr (1996), Glen Steele (1997) and Rob Renes (1999) -- and had five players earn first-team All-Big Ten accolades.

    A member of Michigan's staff during its 1997 national championship season, Hoke helped the defense lead the nation in rushing defense at 89 yards per game and 2.7 yards per carry. Michigan's team posted 5-3 records against Michigan State, Ohio State and in bowl games during Hoke's tenure on the staff.

    Hoke was named the 2010 Mountain West Conference Coach of the Year after guiding the Aztecs to a 9-4 overall record and 5-3 conference mark. He led SDSU to its first bowl game in 12 years, a 35-14 victory over Navy in the Poinsettia Bowl. Six of his players earned first-team All-MWC honors in 2010, including running back Ronnie Hamilton, the league's freshman of the year. In his first season at San Diego State, Hoke had five players named to All-MWC teams, while 11 players were MWC All-Academic selections.

    Hoke took the leadership position at his alma mater, Ball State, in 2003 and built it into a championship program before departing after six seasons for the West Coast. He mentored players to 35 All-MAC selections in six years en route to a pair of bowl game appearances in 2007 and '08. The 2008 season marked the best season in program history, as the Cardinals tallied a school-record 12 wins and completed an undefeated Mid-American Conference regular season. His team won the West Division championship in 2008 and shared the division crown in 2007.

    Hoke has 28 years of collegiate experience, with assistant coaching stints at Grand Valley State (1983), Western Michigan (1984-86), Toledo (1987-88), Oregon State (1989-94) and Michigan (1995-2002).

    A 1982 graduate of Ball State University, Hoke earned four letters (1977-80) with the Cardinals. He was part of the only two teams in school history to post undefeated conference seasons: as a player in 1978 and as head coach in 2008. Hoke led BSU to the 1978 MAC championship, and as a team captain in 1980 earned All-MAC second team honors.

    A native of Dayton, Ohio, Hoke graduated from Fairmont East High School in 1977. Hoke and his wife, the former Laura Homberger, have one daughter, Kelly.

    Brandon will formally introduce Hoke at a press conference Wednesday (Jan. 12) at 1 p.m. EST. Live video of the press conference will be available on MGoBlue.com.

    The media opportunity will be held at the Junge Family Champions Center located between the Michigan Stadium and Crisler Arena tunnels. The press conference is not open to the public. Both Brandon and Hoke will be unavailable for media interviews until tomorrow's press conference.
    I really think this is one heck of a hire.

    He may not have been the big name but this guy has been able to turn around two programs I don't care if they weren't BCS schools. I think Coach Hoke has what it takes to succeed at Michigan and I hope he does.

  • #2
    Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

    Its 12:15 and Michigan still sucks!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

      Somebody on this board called this months ago, right around the time IU fired Bill Lynch, perhaps even earlier. Kudos to you, sir.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

        Since said that if Hoke went anywhere it would be to Michigan.

        Here's the thing, if you're Michigan are you really happy with this hire?

        Can you be? I know they are saying all the right things, but you got turned down by a guy who played QB there in Harbaugh and then Les Miles and you got turned down pretty quickly.

        You had to settle for number 3 at best of the guys you wanted.

        Michigan just seems lost in the wilderness to me.


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

          I think the fans would be happy because he is a "Michigan guy", which RichRod was most certainly not. Of course, I'd point out he's a Lloyd Carr guy, but, and I mean this sincerely, beggars can't be choosers.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

            I still think they should have given RichRod a 4th year, I don't care if he's not a "Michigan Guy" if he had ripped off 10+ wins next season he would be a "Michigan Guy".

            So if Hoke goes 0-12 every year, it will be OK because he's a Michigan guy?

            Just bologna to try and make yourself feel better by saying that.

            RichRod installed an entirely new offense, one that is unique in the Big Ten and harder to prepare for and was just now churning big numbers and you don't even give him a full class cycle to do it. Just mind boggling IMO.

            Should have fired the D-Coordinator and given Rich one more year.

            Hoke would have been there next year too, and with an extra year of evidence of performing in the Mountain West to show he could actually cut it.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

              Ball State's program was in a complete mess when Hoke arrived. I mean straight shambles, after Bill Lynch drove it off of a cliff.

              Facilities were awful, couldn't get recruits, awful coaching. It was just bad bad bad bad bad.

              Hoke not only turned it around, but turned it around putting a team together that was 12-0, ranked in the top 15, and well on their way to a MAC Championship before Nate Davis decided to put vasoline on his hands against Buffalo. Then SDSU came calling, while Hoke was negiotating with BSU. Pres. Gora didn't want to make the obligation, not to Brady, but to his staff and to continue upgrading the facilities. Just to shed some light, the football offices aren't even part of the stadium. They're located over a mile away in a building that connects to the basketball arena. Ball State even has metal freaking bleachers on the east side of the stadium, and there are no plans in the works right now to even change it. Some of the other MAC schools are getting, or already have, indoor facilities. That's not going to happen at BSU for atleast another 10years. If ever.

              Brady didn't want to leave Muncie. But they made it crystal clear the adminstration wasn't going to fight along side of him. He was fighting a losing battle and winning, for the time being.

              He then made SDSU into a 9win team this year, and one of those losses was to TCU 40-35. They lead pretty much the entire first half by 14, when TCU had only trailed for a total of 9secs for the whole season, got down by 20+ and stormed back.

              He's tougher than nails, and will get his teams to play that way. Ex-players rave about him. A couple of my buddies who played for him will just talk and talk about how great of a coach and person he is, and about how disciplined he gets his football teams.


              Personally, I think it's a great hire for UM. If he fails, it won't be because of a lack of vision or being unprepared. He was routinely getting recruits to come to Muncie with bigger offers to schools in the Big Ten and Big East, and he will need to be able to land even bigger fish, but I have faith.

              And BTW, I hate Michigan. But I'm actually starting to rethink it. I don't know if I can bring myself to root against him, even if it means I have to root for that freaking school.

              Michigan is his dream job, and he made sure everyone knew it. He's not going to ever get satisfied with merely being there. He wants to turn them into a national contender year in and year out. I think he can.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I still think they should have given RichRod a 4th year, I don't care if he's not a "Michigan Guy" if he had ripped off 10+ wins next season he would be a "Michigan Guy".

                So if Hoke goes 0-12 every year, it will be OK because he's a Michigan guy?

                Just bologna to try and make yourself feel better by saying that.

                RichRod installed an entirely new offense, one that is unique in the Big Ten and harder to prepare for and was just now churning big numbers and you don't even give him a full class cycle to do it. Just mind boggling IMO.

                Should have fired the D-Coordinator and given Rich one more year.

                Hoke would have been there next year too, and with an extra year of evidence of performing in the Mountain West to show he could actually cut it.
                Yes, Hoke would have been available next year. But after you go after Harbough, the writing's on the wall. How would Rodriguez be able to recruit with the blade swinging over his head?

                Considering Michigan couldn't beat a winning team, it would be highly unlikely they win 10 games next year. The simple matter is UM took the OSU route and gave up on good to gamble on great. They lost, and as Since points out, at least Hoke has a history of picking up the pieces.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                  I just don't know that there were pieces to pick up. The team Carr left behind was really, really terrible. That's not RichRod's fault, he is a guy who has shown he can win pretty much anywhere too, even more so than Hoke.

                  He was instilling a whole new system and the offense finally looked like it was clicking.

                  I guess my opinion is they never should have gone for Harbaugh unless they were 100% sure they could get him, but clearly that wasn't the case as it only took Harbaugh about one milisecond to shoot them down.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Ball State's program was in a complete mess when Hoke arrived. I mean straight shambles, after Bill Lynch drove it off of a cliff.

                    Facilities were awful, couldn't get recruits, awful coaching. It was just bad bad bad bad bad.

                    Hoke not only turned it around, but turned it around putting a team together that was 12-0, ranked in the top 15, and well on their way to a MAC Championship before Nate Davis decided to put vasoline on his hands against Buffalo. Then SDSU came calling, while Hoke was negiotating with BSU. Pres. Gora didn't want to make the obligation, not to Brady, but to his staff and to continue upgrading the facilities. Just to shed some light, the football offices aren't even part of the stadium. They're located over a mile away in a building that connects to the basketball arena. Ball State even has metal freaking bleachers on the east side of the stadium, and there are no plans in the works right now to even change it. Some of the other MAC schools are getting, or already have, indoor facilities. That's not going to happen at BSU for atleast another 10years. If ever.

                    Brady didn't want to leave Muncie. But they made it crystal clear the adminstration wasn't going to fight along side of him. He was fighting a losing battle and winning, for the time being.

                    He then made SDSU into a 9win team this year, and one of those losses was to TCU 40-35. They lead pretty much the entire first half by 14, when TCU had only trailed for a total of 9secs for the whole season, got down by 20+ and stormed back.

                    He's tougher than nails, and will get his teams to play that way. Ex-players rave about him. A couple of my buddies who played for him will just talk and talk about how great of a coach and person he is, and about how disciplined he gets his football teams.


                    Personally, I think it's a great hire for UM. If he fails, it won't be because of a lack of vision or being unprepared. He was routinely getting recruits to come to Muncie with bigger offers to schools in the Big Ten and Big East, and he will need to be able to land even bigger fish, but I have faith.

                    And BTW, I hate Michigan. But I'm actually starting to rethink it. I don't know if I can bring myself to root against him, even if it means I have to root for that freaking school.

                    Michigan is his dream job, and he made sure everyone knew it. He's not going to ever get satisfied with merely being there. He wants to turn them into a national contender year in and year out. I think he can.
                    I'm sold.

                    He's not a sexy hire, but I think he will get the job done.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      I just don't know that there were pieces to pick up. The team Carr left behind was really, really terrible. That's not RichRod's fault, he is a guy who has shown he can win pretty much anywhere too, even more so than Hoke.

                      He was instilling a whole new system and the offense finally looked like it was clicking.

                      I guess my opinion is they never should have gone for Harbaugh unless they were 100% sure they could get him, but clearly that wasn't the case as it only took Harbaugh about one milisecond to shoot them down.
                      RichRod's problem was the system he was putting in though. You aren't going to win consistantly in the Big Ten with a option offense. It just isn't going to happen.

                      The Big Ten churns out linebackers like no other conference in college football. The other schools get too good of players at that position, and the coaches are too good to get by with that type of style.

                      They might be able to handle Northwestern, but you aren't going to beat OSU or Penn State playing like that. Too fast, too disciplined.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                        Maybe, but I guess my point is we'll never really know. The offense certainly made great strides this year. IMO the bigger issue is that the 3-3-5 offense is the most asinine creation known to man and that was really the decision that made no sense. Which is why I suggested firing the D-Coordinator.

                        For the record, I like Hoke, I'm just not sure Michigan knows what they're doing right now.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Brady Hoke to Michigan

                          Everyone I know who is familiar with Hoke thinks this is the absolute best possible hire.

                          Michigan will be back.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X