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

QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

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

  • #16
    Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

    I'll probably be coming back and adding/changing stuff, but here's my first shot:

    Officiating - Rip down the iron curtain.

    A few years ago, Matt Millen (back when he was a great TV analyst, before he became a horrible GM) went to ref school as part of a multi-part feature for Fox. They went through all the policies and procedures he had to learn (which was overwhelming for even a former NFL player), the guided film study, the workouts, and they ended with him calling part of a preseason scrimmage, where they had a camera on him so we saw what he did.

    It was a magnificent piece. It showed how hard officiating is, how hard they have to prepare off the field and work on the field, it showed how tough their grading procedures are, and, most importantly, it humanized the refs. He talked with a bunch of them about dealing with coaches and players, working through gray areas like bump zones and holding, etc.

    Now, I'm not saying something like that would solve anything, too many would laugh it off as a fluff piece. But it's an example of the openness that the NFL has that the NBA has fiercely guarded against.

    They need to open up the books. They need to open up on the grading process. Donaghy graded out to where he ref'd 5 playoff games last year. Why was that?

    Most importantly, they need to publicly announce fines and suspensions against refs. Stern always argues that puts too much pressure on the refs, that they'd be under too much scrutiny. Bull****. That's what they do in the NFL, and those are part time employees, not full like the NBA.

    Now, yes, you can certainly argue that NBA refs have a really hard job, and this, along with the stigma they'll have now, will just make it harder. Here's my solution: Pay them more money! It's a very hard job, and they'll face more pressure than ever. They should be compensated appropriately. And, a nice byproduct of this is they'll hopefully be less likely to fall under the thumb of the bad guys, just like the players are less likely.

    Lastly, as part of them getting more money, I'd expect one more thing: Stop the showboating. No more Bavetta dance, no more throwing out mascots, etc. The game is entertainment, but their job is serious, solemn, "sacred", to quote Stern. They may think they're playing up to the crowd or whatever, but the call they made just ****ed off one team of players and half the fans, and all that does is foster emnity for the ref.

    As for instant replay, frankly I'm against it. Games take long enough as it is. If you want to give coaches a challenge or two, limit to game changing situations or playoffs or whatever, okay, but I just don't see it as a solution. They've messed with it in the NFL forever, and now college too, and it still doesn't solve much of anything.

    I'll come back later to tackle other areas.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

      not enough jeff hornasecks and reggie millers in the league. i mean, true class act guys that people just flat love.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

        First of all, anything relative to a reduction of the salary structure just isn't going to happen. Any such movement toward that would result in a prolonged strike which would damage the game even more. There is nothing on either side that is done for the "good of the game". It's either what is good for the owners or what is good for the players.

        Somebody mentioned an "educational consideration". That isn't going to happen either. There are bricklayers making more than people with college degrees now. The NBA shouldn't even touch this.

        Even though I don't think a challenge system is practical, it or something like it is going to have to be instituted now. What has happened is going to dictate it. Nor can it be limited to the 4th quarter. That's just too easy to get around.

        Superstar treatment. This has always, always been a contention of mine. Why was Patrick Ewing allowed to take four running steps across the lane? Why did Michael Jordan need ANY kind of calls? I have always argued if you gave the average guy those same advantages they would move into the star category. It's always been BS.

        NBA basketball is on the same course as about every other American sport in it's own actions downgrading its perception. Stern is about to move into the Bud Selig arena.

        Does the NBA need to be saved? The more important question is does it matter? The old saying "you can't help those who won't help themselves" is a perfect description.
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          To restore peoples faith, I would say the NBA needs a challenge system in the 4th quarter of games where the coach can challenge a refs call. Give each coach say five challenges.

          What would happen at a challenge would be the two refs who didn't make the call would look at replays and both of them would have to agree in order to change the call.
          I don't think this would work.

          The largest issue most people I know who don't watch a ton of basketball have with the game is how ridiculously slow and boring the last two minutes of a close game are. They really have an attention span problem caring about what happens in between all the fouling and free throws that so often take place in the final minute especially.

          To all of us, it makes perfect sense and we understand that that is the strategy that must be used to get back in the game and that you have to take a timeout to advance the ball to half-court and to set up a play (all while the audience watches another commercial) that will take as litte time as possible off the clock.

          I personally have no problem with it. It's all game strategy and very necessary. But I do think the average casual fan much prefers the NCAA system of no half-court advancement and fewer team timeouts that leads to mad dashes (Tyus Edny) and long, chaotic prayer shots (Bryce Drew) than this calculated, methodical system of the NBA.

          I'm not saying the way the NBA does it needs to change, but adding in any more stoppages and commercials and downtime will only make endings that are extremely anti-climactic to many fans even more so.

          Originally posted by BigDawg44 View Post
          not enough jeff hornasecks and reggie millers in the league.
          I'm not sure the solution for the NBA is more really, really, ridiculously bad-looking people.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

            I don't know that the NBA needs to be saved, but getting rid of Stern would be a good place to start. Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's a miscarriage of justice (or something like that) that the public doesn't know how the refs are graded or if and when they ever get in trouble. If it's true that the league knew that the ref was gambling and they told him to stop they should all be fired.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

              1.Put more than the same 3-4 teams on national tv. That would make more people watch the games because i'm sure that people get tired of seeing Lebron or the Pistons every week.

              2.Call the games fair and quit giving star treatment to players.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                i want to change my statement from before. the nba needs more greg odens. not size and talent. but personality and character. that was the example i was searching for. i think that if we can find more people like greg oden and not stephen jackson. more people will be drawn to the game because they want to see the people succeed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                  Playoffs

                  I've been against changing the playoffs for a long time, but this year changed my mind.

                  First of all, there's no reason why they shouldn't re-seed after the first round. Every, single, other sport does it. It's ludicrous to have the defacto NBA Finals in the second round.

                  I don't believe in a 1-16 seeding, though, not when intra-conference play is much higher than inter-conference play. Plus, keeping the conferences will cut down on travel. However, I do subscribe to the Wilbon proposal, of doing away with the conference finals and seeding the top-4. We would have had Phoenix-Cleveland and San Antonio-Detroit, with almost definitely a Phoenix-San Antonio finals.

                  A byproduct of this is making the Finals would really mean something. How many of us hate hearing Portland fans say they would have won the in 2000 if it hadn't been for that 4th quarter? I think that's bull, we would have matched up great against them, but we'll never know. If it'd be re-seeded, we would have played Portland, and LA would have played NY, and there'd be no doubt we were the second-best team that year, as opposed to that year's East fodder.

                  Then there's the argument of cutting playoff games. I really don't see that happening, because of the lost revenue. However, they should condense the schedule. Stern's got it in his head that a majority of people are going to watch every single playoff game. That's bull, especially with 7 game series. Go back to the days when you had concurrent games on TNT and TBS, or ESPN and ESPN2. If a game's a snoozer, chances are the viewer will switch to the other game, which is a lot better than turning the game off. And in the days of Tivo and League Pass, it's not like people who want to watch every single play won't have options.

                  Television coverage

                  Along the same lines, they need to do a better job with their TV coverage. As many have said on here, they should get back to the "game as an event" methodology, where you know there's gonna be the Sunday double-header on ABC, or Wednesday games on ESPN. All we have now is the TNT set in stone, and they've benefited from that being an event.

                  Another thing I'm for is what Hicks has talked about, more strategy, more telestrator, etc. Hardcore fans will love it and casual fans will learn there's more to the game than 4 guys standing around watching the 5th (as long as Rick's not coaching, that is.)

                  Since we're stuck with ESPN/ABC for the next millenium, it seems, they need to get better people. All the talent goes to TNT, and rightly so, because people know they've got their **** together.

                  Miscellaneous

                  At the Stern luncheon, I asked him two questions.

                  One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

                  Stern stopped me halfway, saying he didn't want me to give away his playbook. Of course, as we know he still went for the straight 1-year, and that was what he got.

                  I think we can all agree that that rule helped the league tremendously this year, culminating with the Oden-Durant debate. I still think there's room for improvement, whether making it a 2-year rule or through other mechanisms, to encourage college play. It gets back to the days where the NCAA was our feeder system, not only developing talent but developing market value for name players.

                  My other question was about his European push, when he was talking about possibly placing teams overseas. I was skeptical and instead suggested trying NBDL teams over there first, but he said they would either "go big or go home." He then talked about NBDL expansion, which we're now seeing come to fruition with our Mad Ants. Hopefully, they'll continue to develop the D until it's a true minor league system that teams can rely on.

                  As for Stern's international aspirations, I would rather he puts those off. Marketing is one thing, but I'd rather fix what we have before trying to expand a flawed product.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                    FIRE DAVID STERN AND HIS POSSE

                    then hire someone who could run the NBA.
                    Barak Obama anyone??
                    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                      Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                      First of all, anything relative to a reduction of the salary structure just isn't going to happen. Any such movement toward that would result in a prolonged strike which would damage the game even more. There is nothing on either side that is done for the "good of the game". It's either what is good for the owners or what is good for the players.

                      Somebody mentioned an "educational consideration". That isn't going to happen either. There are bricklayers making more than people with college degrees now. The NBA shouldn't even touch this.
                      Even though I don't think a challenge system is practical, it or something like it is going to have to be instituted now. What has happened is going to dictate it. Nor can it be limited to the 4th quarter. That's just too easy to get around.

                      Superstar treatment. This has always, always been a contention of mine. Why was Patrick Ewing allowed to take four running steps across the lane? Why did Michael Jordan need ANY kind of calls? I have always argued if you gave the average guy those same advantages they would move into the star category. It's always been BS.

                      NBA basketball is on the same course as about every other American sport in it's own actions downgrading its perception. Stern is about to move into the Bud Selig arena.

                      Does the NBA need to be saved? The more important question is does it matter? The old saying "you can't help those who won't help themselves" is a perfect description.

                      Dat be me. There have always been "bricklayers" making more than degreed people. That isn't the point. Industry pays for experience. Two applicants may warrant two seperate pay scales because industry is willing to pay for experience. We're not talking about CEO pay vs. janitor pay, I'm talking about two candidates for the same job. In industry the more experienced candidate will be offered the job sooner and at a higher starting salary than the one fresh out of school.

                      AND I am talking at a time after the house of cards falls down and the entire league is having to be re-built, because I see that happening. Loyal NBA fans will be there but the casual fan is going to disappear. At that point the league is going to evolve or become less than the NHL.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post

                        At the Stern luncheon, I asked him two questions.

                        One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.

                        Stern stopped me halfway, saying he didn't want me to give away his playbook. Of course, as we know he still went for the straight 1-year, and that was what he got.


                        I think we can all agree that that rule helped the league tremendously this year, culminating with the Oden-Durant debate. I still think there's room for improvement, whether making it a 2-year rule or through other mechanisms, to encourage college play. It gets back to the days where the NCAA was our feeder system, not only developing talent but developing market value for name players.

                        My other question was about his European push, when he was talking about possibly placing teams overseas. I was skeptical and instead suggested trying NBDL teams over there first, but he said they would either "go big or go home." He then talked about NBDL expansion, which we're now seeing come to fruition with our Mad Ants. Hopefully, they'll continue to develop the D until it's a true minor league system that teams can rely on.

                        As for Stern's international aspirations, I would rather he puts those off. Marketing is one thing, but I'd rather fix what we have before trying to expand a flawed product.
                        WOW!! He's such a smart man I guess I gotta like him afterall.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                          The league can be saved. But it's going to be a hard sell. I can't see a way to frame the Donaghy mess in which the league is not in serious, serious trouble.

                          I think Stern's done. I wouldn't be unhappy about that particular bit of fallout, either. The man was good for the league at a particular time, but I think too many fans regard him as part of the problem, now--and his work on behalf of the league of late has been atrocious. (Suspending the two Suns during the playoffs being one of a number of mind-bogglingly dumb moves; if Donaghy isn't karmic payback for that decision, I don't know what could be.) Stern's the guy, after all, who is believed by a great many reasonable people to have rigged draft lotteries. (I don't believe this myself, but I've been tempted.) So step one is a new commish.

                          As far as transparency's concerned (and I agree with all that's been written here on the subject so far)--that new commish has to reach out to anyone who'll listen. In all seriousness, whoever gets the commish job should camp on Bill Simmons' doorstep. Simmons' readership is vast (and well-earned). If he can be convinced of a post-Donaghy NBA's legitimacy, then so can others.

                          (As far as I'm concerned, Simmons should be appointed acting commish--he cares deeply about the game and the league.)

                          I add my agreement to the chorus: no more preferential treatment to stars. A few years back I tried to convince a friend who didn't know basketball all that well (but who liked the NCAA tournament) that he should watch the NBA. After watching only a few playoff games, and with no prior experience, he was enraged. As mad as we diehards get about preferential treatment, I do think it's worse for new fans.

                          While I'm asking for the moon, they can go ahead and get rid of all those !$%@# odd camera angles and aerial shots during televised games.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                            Originally posted by the 'stache of smits View Post
                            While I'm asking for the moon, they can go ahead and get rid of all those !$%@# odd camera angles and aerial shots during televised games.
                            Yes please. Everybody's talking up HD, but I can't watch it when they have the wire camera because it gives me vertigo.

                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                              Am I the only one left who thinks Stern should stay and that he is a great commissioner and has been great for the NBA. Seems like I am


                              EDit: for those who want the NBA to re-seed after each round or at any point during the playoffs. I hope you are prepared for a longer playoff season and longer layoffs between games and between series as teams have to wait to see who they play.
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-23-2007, 02:30 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: QOD - What, if anything can be done to save the NBA?

                                One was about the age limit negotiations in the then upcoming CBA negotiations. I threw out the notion I'd heard of setting a sliding-scale on rookie contracts, where, in effect, the length of the contract is impacted by how long they played in college. For example, if somebody claims financial need and wants to join the league after high school, that's fine, but their rookie contract is 7 years (with various outs for the team if he's a bust). If he goes to college and stays for 4 years, than his rookie contract is only 3 years. This would combat the notion that players enter the league early so they can get done with their rookie contract earlier and get their payday. There'd be no long-term financial incentive for early-entry. You could even set the scale where in effect the college graduate would get paid the same over 3 years that the HS'er would get paid over 7.



                                I love that idea.
                                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                                RSS Feed
                                Subscribe via iTunes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X