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

My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

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

  • #16
    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

    Originally posted by A-Train
    Do you believe the NBA, as a whole, is a better product now than it was 15-20 years ago?
    That would be a relative view from my side certainly, since I only seen NBA games of that era on reels, and "restored" dvd's.

    I think it is better sold these days, to say the product is better or worse would mean there is an independant measure that allows us to compare, but seeing the stars of those days and the ones of today, is there really an improvement?

    If the measurement is pure turnover, then yes it has improved, quality of play however is not measurable but relative, so who am I to judge that.
    Certainly you are not suggesting that the HS players of today make the "play" less then it was then?
    Just in case you are: there are plenty of "great players" that came from HS into the ABA, who set that trend, it was possible uinder a "hardship" clause.
    And unless you want to prove that current superstars as KG, JO, TM, KB are lesser players then their pre-decessors then there is not point in trying to prove that HS players "lessen" the product.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

      Originally posted by A-Train
      Do you believe the NBA, as a whole, is a better product now than it was 15-20 years ago?
      that would totally depend on what criterion ur using....

      as a whole...my personal opinion would be yes....

      and the fact that it is marketed on a much grander scale would have a tendency to back that up

      it would be somewhat hypocritical to argue that an inferior product was more successful

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

        Originally posted by foretaz


        and the fact that it is marketed on a much grander scale would have a tendency to back that up
        How is it that more marketing means better product?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

          Originally posted by able
          And unless you want to prove that current superstars as KG, JO, TM, KB are lesser players then their pre-decessors then there is not point in trying to prove that HS players "lessen" the product.
          Kobe Bryant is the only one of those players you mentioned that has even gotten a whiff of a championship.

          Product to me doesn't mean how well a player can play as an individual, it means how well a team, as a whole, understands the game and plays together.

          I don't believe there are too many HS'ers out there who truly understand the game as well as a "professional" should.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

            Originally posted by A-Train
            How is it that more marketing means better product?
            u have to have a 'better' product to have successful marketing...

            if the increased marketing was not received in a positive manner, then u could definitely argue that the product wasnt better....

            the fact that the product has been so well received globally indicates the product is better....

            more marketing doesnt guarantee a positive reception....ultimately the product dictates the success....not the marketing...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

              Originally posted by A-Train
              Kobe Bryant is the only one of those players you mentioned that has even gotten a whiff of a championship.

              Product to me doesn't mean how well a player can play as an individual, it means how well a team, as a whole, understands the game and plays together.

              I don't believe there are too many HS'ers out there who truly understand the game as well as a "professional" should.
              my guess is this isnt a high school thing.....this is a player in general thing....

              whether they went to college or not probably doesnt have much to do with it....

              ur talking about how the game has changed....and the high schoolers really have very little to do with that...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                Originally posted by A-Train
                Kobe Bryant is the only one of those players you mentioned that has even gotten a whiff of a championship.

                Product to me doesn't mean how well a player can play as an individual, it means how well a team, as a whole, understands the game and plays together.
                That of course is no argument, please name players who were not drafted out of HS and made an impact so high in the draft that their team became a contender.
                One of the charachteristics of the draft is that the team that ended worst in the previous season has the chance to draft first. This would mean that 1 player made such an impact that they went to contender straight away.
                That by my knowledge has not happened before.
                The nearest would be SanAn the year after they drafted TD, (i.e. his second year int he league) but Mr. Robinson had something to do with that to I would say.

                Most of the players I named do make an impact that is great enough to carry a team, but to carry a team or be a contender are different beasts all together.

                Originally posted by A-Train
                I don't believe there are too many HS'ers out there who truly understand the game as well as a "professional" should.
                That can not be blamed on them, but only on the person drafting them for selecting them and not making sure that said understanding is entered into the head of said player.

                But if I look at that list and "add" LeBron and Wade then I think that none of them fail or failed to "understand" what it is to be an NBA player.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                  I really don't understand people that are so against this age limit. This whole argument that this is to "protect the owners from themselves" is stupid. The purpose is to improve the quality of the NBA game, which should be to the benefit of fans, teams, and the league.

                  As a fan, it really doesn't concern me that an 18 year old has to wait to make millions playing basketball. He should be better as a 19 year old player than he was at 18, which is good for me as a fan. I do not care if it is "fair" that a player who wouldn't pan out misses out on his paycheck because one year separated the reality of who they are as a player from their high school legend. Again, all of these players that are weeded out, it's better for me as a fan. It might suck for those players, but if they can't maintain their game and life for one year then I do not weep for them and they didn't deserve to be in the NBA anyway.

                  As far as the injuries go ,if Lebron goes to college and blows out a knee, he might slip to the end of the lottery or at worst late first round. Still, he gets an opportunity to play in the league and prove that he is over the injury. He still brings in a healthy paycheck for a few years and if he shows well he will still be a max. player after his first contract. The only person I would feel for is the player who gets injured and it costs him an opportunity to play in the league at all. It would suck but that's called LIFE. They could just as easily get injured their senior year in high school and it would cost them but that doesn't mean we should move the age limit down to 17. We all have mitigating circumstances that we have to deal with as we try to achieve our goals in life. Just because I look like potential CEO when I get hired by a company doesn't mean that will materialize. Maybe I will die of cancer in two years. Maybe a drunk driver will hit me some night and leave me mentally handicapped. It sucks, but that's life and we all live with such risks daily.

                  In short, it's absurd to be outraged by this age limit. About the only negative I see from this is that it MIGHT cost one or two kids the opportunity to play in the NBA due to injury. On the other hand, the players drafted will be less of a question mark than they were a year earlier meaning the chances of a bust is less, which is good for the NBA. Players that spend a year or two in college might learn some fundamentals that they otherwise wouldn't have worked on in a typical NBA practice. They might end up better players for it in the long run. Outside of an injury, which I discussed above, I can't see a circumstance where a player would actually come out as a worse player in the long run. Again, this is good for the NBA. This WILL improve the NBA game and has NO CHANCE of hurting it in the long run. I think an age limit of 20 would be optimal and be best for the league, but 19 is a start.
                  Can we get a new color commentator please?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                    Your arguments here wouldn't hold water in a hat.

                    Where is a talented player more likely to improve, in the NBA training and playing with the worlds best or in college?
                    Do you really think LeBron would have grown better in college, or Kobe, or KG or Wade?

                    A better product does not relate to age but to abillity, which is not age related.
                    A better product is achieved in many ways but the age limit is not one of them.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                      Originally posted by able
                      Your arguments here wouldn't hold water in a hat.

                      Where is a talented player more likely to improve, in the NBA training and playing with the worlds best or in college?
                      Do you really think LeBron would have grown better in college, or Kobe, or KG or Wade?

                      A better product does not relate to age but to abillity, which is not age related.
                      A better product is achieved in many ways but the age limit is not one of them.
                      When I disagree with the entire premise of your argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

                      There is no doubt in my mind that the NBA is NOT the place to be working on fundamentals. Kids that have not learned these in high school (judging by many high school entries, very few have) are far better off to learn these and work them into their games in college than try these things against the best players in the world right off the bat. You don't learn to run before you learn to walk, and the game of basketball is no different in my opinion. I think a player like Kwame Brown is one player that I think might have developed into an all star player if he had gone to college. Instead, he jumped right to the pros and his confidence was shattered when he was trying to learn things and work on things against the best players in the world. He was having no success when doing the things that everyone told him he should be doing because he was trying them for the first time against the best players in the world. Had he went to college or a developmental league first, I have little doubt that he would be a much better player today.

                      Even if I suscribed to your theory that they are better off learning the basics against the best players in the world, which I don't, there is no need to waste my NBA dollar, as a fan, on teaching a kid the basics of the game. I don't care to watch it. Let him learn those elsewhere and fill out his game. I don't want to pay to watch him develop basic post moves or the use of his off hand. Let me pay to watch the best player today, not the player that will be better in 2 years.

                      By the way, Wade did play in college (all 4 years I think, but I could be wrong about the # of years). I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up. Lebron is the exception that came into the league and was immediately worthy of a starting position. KG and Kobe could've spent a year in college and nobody would've missed much. I don't believe they would be any less of a player today if they had.

                      A better product may not be based on age, but I do believe it IS based on experience. Experience is in no small part based on age, although not exclusively. An age limit WILL bring in more experienced players into the league and improve the product. There is absolutely no other reasonable point of view.
                      Can we get a new color commentator please?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                        Originally posted by Reggie4Three
                        When I disagree with the entire premise of your argument, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

                        There is no doubt in my mind that the NBA is NOT the place to be working on fundamentals. Kids that have not learned these in high school (judging by many high school entries, very few have) are far better off to learn these and work them into their games in college than try these things against the best players in the world right off the bat. You don't learn to run before you learn to walk, and the game of basketball is no different in my opinion.

                        Even if I suscribed to your theory that they are better off learning the basics against the best players in the world, there is no need to waste my NBA dollar, as a fan, on teaching a kid the basics of the game. I don't care to watch it. Let him learn those elsewhere and fill out his game. I don't want to pay to watch him develop basic post moves or the use of his off hand. Let me pay to watch the best player today, not the player that will be better in 2 years.

                        By the way, Wade did play in college (all 4 years I think, but I could be wrong). I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up. Lebron is the exception that came into the league and was immediately worthy of a starting position. KG and Kobe could've spent a year in college and nobody would've missed much. I don't believe they would be any less of a player today if they had.

                        A better product may not be based on age, but I do believe it IS based on experience. Experience is in no small part based on age, although not exclusively. An age limit WILL bring in more experienced players into the league and improve the product. There is absolutely no other reasonable point of view.
                        Let me address this part by part (highlighted)

                        Please tell me where I said it was the place to work on fundamentals, I did not, in actual fact I said that they would get better, which is meant to be by way of the rigours of an NBA team, the phylosophie behind it and the fact that their opponents are so much better in practise as well as the trainingstaff and surroundings.
                        If a team picks a player that does not have fundamentals, then let the team burn their money any which way, but I think they would consider that bad business.

                        Then if you state that Kobe and KG were not worthy of a starting in the NBA and would have not been worse of coming later into the league then I guess I better keep my opinion to myself.

                        of course it was the year in college till he was 19 that made Spencer Haywood the highest scorer in the ABA (30pts) in his rookie season and Julius Erving should have finished college as well, he would have been so much better.

                        In the case of Spencer Haywood there was a lawsuit (ok ok ok several) but the judge ruled that it was his decision if he wanted to work for a living and if someone wanted to pay him, and he wanted to do it then that was it.

                        I am simply amazed some of you can not see the consequences of this decision and the obvious game played by the owners.
                        By "forcing" the "hardship" cases to the NBDL they haev themselves a nice minor league for little money, can put their hands on lottery picks for pennies thus save themselves millions upon millions, add to that the shortening of the guarantee on rookie contracts with more options for the owners, and the players have lost major money here.
                        Each owner CAN save himself around 30 million with this age limit.
                        And you want to argue that the 900 million in savings is less important then a perceived rise in quality which can in no way be proven..

                        yeah
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                          Originally posted by able
                          Let me address this part by part (highlighted)

                          Please tell me where I said it was the place to work on fundamentals, I did not, in actual fact I said that they would get better, which is meant to be by way of the rigours of an NBA team, the phylosophie behind it and the fact that their opponents are so much better in practise as well as the trainingstaff and surroundings.
                          If a team picks a player that does not have fundamentals, then let the team burn their money any which way, but I think they would consider that bad business.

                          Then if you state that Kobe and KG were not worthy of a starting in the NBA and would have not been worse of coming later into the league then I guess I better keep my opinion to myself.

                          of course it was the year in college till he was 19 that made Spencer Haywood the highest scorer in the ABA (30pts) in his rookie season and Julius Erving should have finished college as well, he would have been so much better.

                          In the case of Spencer Haywood there was a lawsuit (ok ok ok several) but the judge ruled that it was his decision if he wanted to work for a living and if someone wanted to pay him, and he wanted to do it then that was it.

                          I am simply amazed some of you can not see the consequences of this decision and the obvious game played by the owners.
                          By "forcing" the "hardship" cases to the NBDL they haev themselves a nice minor league for little money, can put their hands on lottery picks for pennies thus save themselves millions upon millions, add to that the shortening of the guarantee on rookie contracts with more options for the owners, and the players have lost major money here.
                          Each owner CAN save himself around 30 million with this age limit.
                          And you want to argue that the 900 million in savings is less important then a perceived rise in quality which can in no way be proven..

                          yeah
                          1. Players lacking in fundamentals get drafted all the time. It's only bad business if they don't then put in the time to develop and complete their game. I think this is what should be done by the time they enter the NBA and you seem to think that the NBA is the best place for them to do this. Bad business isn't drafting a player that lacks some fundamentals. They can develop those. Bad business would be to pass up supreme talent and let another team get them because they're going to need 2 years to develop instead of taking a player that is better now but might not ever be a superstar. Therefore, it is now bad business to make your team better now because you could be paying for it big time down the road. It should NEVER be bad business to put a better product on the floor NOW. That's why the age limit is here, and that's why it's a good thing.

                          2. Kobe and KG were not worthy of starting spots in their first year in the league. Lebron and Stoudamire were. I'm still confused about Wade. Did you not know that he went to college?

                          3. I don't know that what players end up becoming has anything to do with them coming into the league too early. I still want to watch the best players in the world when I watch the NBA. I don't want to watch the best potential, but the best players. There's a big difference between the two.

                          4. I have no idea how each owner is going to save 30 million by this. That logic is totally lost on me. I think giving them the option to put players in the NBDL will actually cost them more money and cutting the guarantee on rookie contracts will just allow them to replace a player more easily (and yes, they'll have to pay the replacement too) and get rid of busts more quickly. If a player is drafted, their contract is set and guaranteed no matter if they are on the NBA roster or sent to the NBDL as I understand it. Of course, if a player is sent to the NBDL, then there is another roster spot available on the NBA roster. Therefore, the owner will now be paying 2 players instead of just the one he was paying before.

                          You seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of a player while I'm looking at it as a fan. In short, all I care about is the product on the floor. I don't care who pockets more money (neither the owners or players will be starving) as long as the product is better. The product will obviously be better even if you choose not to see that. I'm actually shocked that anyone could argue otherwise.
                          Can we get a new color commentator please?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                            The NBDL and the NBA have different pay-scales, never the two shall meet.

                            henceforth the math: savings on guaranteed contract 3.5 mio for the top 1.5 for the bottom, avg 2.5 mio for 7 years (duration of the cba) = 17.5 mio
                            savings on getting the draftpick of next year (HS kid) into the NBDL:slary 150 thousand tops, 2 - 3 year contract when "called" up minimum payment schedule NBA = avg 650 thousand, if player had been 1st round pick : (we are talking second year earliest here) 1 mio minimum savings over 2 years = 3.5 mio per year after the 1st year hence 5 times 3.5 mio = 17.5 mio
                            including a failure or two the total savings come down to 30 mio per team = 900 mio for the league.
                            Does the product improve?

                            Considering players that are not ready get little or no playing time, the "normal" 7 - 9 player rotation will be used, with 14 players on the roster most picks, whether college or HS will see exceptionally little playing time, exceptions to be considered, like LeBron (yes I was mistaken about Wade, sorry) and Wade (in this case valid example) and others.
                            Other talented players get developped more slowly, but would another pick see playing time? in short no

                            Henceforth the draft (barring exceptions) has very little influence on the "product" on the floor per direct.

                            Now that takes away your argument one would say.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                              Originally posted by able
                              The NBDL and the NBA have different pay-scales, never the two shall meet.

                              henceforth the math: savings on guaranteed contract 3.5 mio for the top 1.5 for the bottom, avg 2.5 mio for 7 years (duration of the cba) = 17.5 mio
                              savings on getting the draftpick of next year (HS kid) into the NBDL:slary 150 thousand tops, 2 - 3 year contract when "called" up minimum payment schedule NBA = avg 650 thousand, if player had been 1st round pick : (we are talking second year earliest here) 1 mio minimum savings over 2 years = 3.5 mio per year after the 1st year hence 5 times 3.5 mio = 17.5 mio
                              including a failure or two the total savings come down to 30 mio per team = 900 mio for the league.
                              Does the product improve?

                              Considering players that are not ready get little or no playing time, the "normal" 7 - 9 player rotation will be used, with 14 players on the roster most picks, whether college or HS will see exceptionally little playing time, exceptions to be considered, like LeBron (yes I was mistaken about Wade, sorry) and Wade (in this case valid example) and others.
                              Other talented players get developped more slowly, but would another pick see playing time? in short no

                              Henceforth the draft (barring exceptions) has very little influence on the "product" on the floor per direct.

                              Now that takes away your argument one would say.
                              Draft picks have a set contract. I do not think this will change although I have not read the new CBA so I can't guarantee it. I would be willing to bet alot of money that anyone drafted and sent to the NBDL will still be paid according to their draft status. I would be shocked if the PA gave the owner's that. Aside from that, getting players that aren't ready off the NBA court DOES improve the product. A garbage man making $5 million a year is still a garbage man. The fact that the players get less, and I don't think they will, doesn't make them less of a player. They also aren't any better if they get paid more. If the player is ready to help a team, they will be on the NBA roster. If not, they'll be in the NBDL and I can watch a capable player instead in the NBA. And as far as player rotations go, some teams may use a rotation not including these players and some do. Even for those that don't, let's not forget that injuries and suspensions happen and teams often use these players not originally in their normal rotation.

                              Therefore, the product on the court can only get better with this. If they really wanted to improve it they would set it a year higher. I don't think your argument has much merit.
                              Can we get a new color commentator please?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                                If you go back to this thread

                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=12939

                                the article indirectly makes the arguement that the age limit is uneeded. Acording to this writer, 4 of the best picks were high schoolers, and T-Mac isn't one of them, while the high schoolers only made up 2 of the worst picks. How does this rule apply to foriegn players, many of whom start playing professionally early on?

                                This is just the owners trying to save themselves from themselves, nothing more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X