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

Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Jermaine physically isn't what he used to be, but he still looks very effective on help defense. He erased shot after shot. Scorer gave him 6 blocks but it seemed like more. Whenever you guys took him out and put Murphy in at center, it was basically a free lane to the basket for the Warriors. In fact I felt having Murphy in there for a couple stretches in each half is what kept the Warriors in the game. Biedrins has a deep thigh bruise from the game against Memphis and Nellie was careful using him. Jermaine mostly had his way inside, but he forced a few shots in the 2nd half against double/triple teams. He's just never been a great passer out of the post.
    There are 2 parts to JONeal's rather ineffective post-offense:

    1 ) I still think that the rest of the team does a VERY POOR job of moving around to get not only open...but in a place where JONeal can pass the ball to.

    2 ) When he does try to take the ball to the hoop...but is cut off in the paint.....I think that he commits before realizing that the paint is closed off to him and ends up trying to force the ball into the hoop. It really looks like he's trying to push the ball into the hoop rather then take a good shot. He did that 2 or 3 times in the game where he started off from the the right side of the basket...tried to bull his way into the paint then saw 2/3 players there guarding and he ended up doing a fadeaway shot that just clanked off the basket.

    I blame the players lack of rotating to JONeal's side more then his inability to take a good shot in the paint and settling for a forced shot.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      "I wouldn't want it any other way," said Dunleavy, who spent his first 4½ NBA seasons with the Warriors. "I couldn't care less. It's hard to pay attention and care about something somebody says when you have no respect for them. They can do whatever they want."
      I do wish that he would take the high-road in regards to this.....but I admit that I am glad that he publically said that no love for the Oakland fans.

      The only thing that I was really happy with him was that he was able to step up and play very well.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

        The commentators were mentioning that the W's often start out slowly because they are playing 1 on 1 instead of as a team. It seems like the P's do the opposite in their losses. Come out strong with a lot of movement then slowly revert to more individual play.

        Not a bad outing, but not a win. Hard to tell if Mike went away towards the end or whether there was just to much isolation play.

        JO looked good, but when he dribbled until Ellis was able to steal the ball of the weak side it killed me.

        I was thinking that last night was a good example of how to play with JO. Tonight may be the example of when JO is solid, but we needed different things from him.

        Agree with above post - guys need to move to get to where JO can dish to them.
        ! Free Rick Sanchez !

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          The main thing is that he underperformed. But on top of that, he kind of gave off the vibe of "It's not my fault because I play the game the right way". He was picked high. A lot was invested in him. Trades were made just to accommodate him. Coaches were hired specifically for him. Lineups were changed just to try to get him going. Through it all, he could just never get going and the view was that he never dug deep enough to try to take the bull by the horns.

          It just wasn't the right situation for anyone and he needed to go, just like Stephen Jackson.

          They really don't care that much about Murphy. He got paid big and underperformed but the fans never viewed him as a snob the way they viewed Dunleavy.
          Could you elaborate on what you mean by "trades were made to accomodate him"?

          I'm not going to fault him for the Warriors picking him as the 3rd pick in the draft...I'm not going to fault him for the Warriors conceding to overpay him they didn't have to during a time when EVERYONE was being overpaid. I can understand that he has always underperformed.....and that a change in scenery was really needed......but he is what he is what he is.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I do wish that he would take the high-road in regards to this.....but I admit that I am glad that he publically said that no love for the Oakland fans.

            The only thing that I was really happy with him was that he was able to step up and play very well.
            We hate him and he hates us. We think he's a snob who underperformed and he thinks we're crude fans with no basketball knowledge. We boo him and he tries to stick it to us.

            It's all good. I have no problems with anything because it really doesn't matter. The Warriors are better off after the trade and so is Mike. It's all part of sports: You cheer for who you like and boo who you don't. That's what makes being a fan fun.

            He performed well tonight, as I would expect anyone with any pride to do. Good for him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

              Originally posted by efhead View Post
              I was thinking that last night was a good example of how to play with JO. Tonight may be the example of when JO is solid, but we needed different things from him.
              Although a win is a win....I'm not going to look at the Kings game as a guage of how to run "Small ball". The Kings were severely undermanned and frankly were in a state of disarray with KMart's return and having to depend on Francisco Garcia and John Salmons as their primary scorers.

              Tonight "Small Ball" only worked for the 1st 3 QTRs cuz the Warriors played down to us......but in the end....the Warriors beat us at their own game.

              I will have to see how Small-Ball works against a fully manned team that isn't used to playing Small ball and don't continually run. We have only played Small Ball against the Suns, Kings and Warriors....2 of which are used to running a smaller lineup.

              But I'm not entirely convinced that this offense will work. I really think that we have to use pair Foster with Murphy more often. Murphy's poor defensive weaknesses really stand out and forces JONeal to play more defense. I am guessing that he was really tired by the end of the game.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Could you elaborate on what you mean by "trades were made to accomodate him"?

                I'm not going to fault him for the Warriors picking him as the 3rd pick in the draft...I'm not going to fault him for the Warriors conceding to overpay him they didn't have to during a time when EVERYONE was being overpaid. I can understand that he has always underperformed.....and that a change in scenery was really needed......but he is what he is what he is.
                Our then best player (after Arenas ditched us), Antawn Jamison, was traded specifically so Dunleavy could get into the starting lineup and assume his natural SF spot. Eric Musselman was then canned a year later, and a big reason for that was because he didn't get along with Dunleavy.

                I don't fault Dunleavy for a lot of things either. I'd lay 95% (or more) of the blame with Warrior management.

                But angst between the fans and Dunleavy runs further than just his underperformance on the court and his contract (as Murphy was probably even more overpaid but fans don't really give a sniff about him).

                We didn't like him, but it's not like we hate every ex-Warrior. Again, watch what happens when Jason Richardson makes his return. You'll see a completely opposite reception.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                  I just got back from the game and wanted to chime in with my observations. Pretty simple stuff, Baron and Monta are just too damn good.

                  Tinsley: He was somewhere else tonight. I was shocked to see that he had 11 assists. JT was very careless with the basketball tonight. Him and Granger had a pretty good confrontation/argument after Granger dropped his no-look pass. He also had words with Dunleavy over a few different plays (including the final play) Overall, he just seemed a step slow. Normally, he's the loudest PG in the league when it comes to calling for the outlet, tonight I didn't hear him once. We need him to bring it every night if we want to improve, otherwise we have to really look into dealing him. I know the Warriors have more talent, but the fact that we can't win a game when JO, Granger and Dunleavy all play well speaks volumes about Tinsley's value and importance to this team.

                  Diener: I want to know what little Travis Diener could have possibly siad that could warrant a T. As for his play, a pretty predictable dud tonight following his breakout game. Warriors' guards are way too talented for him to have an impact especially when his shot isn't falling (the airball was disgusting)

                  JO: I'm not a JO guy but he was a monster tonight. We need to convince him that every guy he goes against is an ex-Pacer (Harrington and Croshere guarded him 90% of the game) Both putbacks late in the game were not his fault. If we're going to play small Granger, Dunleavy and even Rush better crash the boards and cover the weakside.

                  I was hoping to see the final play called for Rush, but instead we dumped it into JO hoping they would double down (they didn't) and he'd kick it out to the open shooter. Simply having Tinsley and Dunleavy interchange was not the smartest idea.

                  I'm glad I'm not the only one upset with Foster getting a DNP-CD. Murphy should be the one not playing. I don't care that Foster can be an offensive liability, he brings energy and gives us second chances when most of our perimeter shots don't go in. (He looked pretty pissed after the game sitting in a golf cart in a corner of the hallway/tunnel waiting for the bus to leave)

                  My final thought: I know he has fallen out of the rotation, but where the hell was Ike? He wasn't even in a suit. Did he have to accompany Harrison back to Indy?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                    Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
                    I just got back from the game and wanted to chime in with my observations. Pretty simple stuff, Baron and Monta are just too damn good.

                    Tinsley: He was somewhere else tonight. I was shocked to see that he had 11 assists. JT was very careless with the basketball tonight. Him and Granger had a pretty good confrontation/argument after Granger dropped his no-look pass. He also had words with Dunleavy over a few different plays (including the final play) Overall, he just seemed a step slow. Normally, he's the loudest PG in the league when it comes to calling for the outlet, tonight I didn't hear him once. We need him to bring it every night if we want to improve, otherwise we have to really look into dealing him. I know the Warriors have more talent, but the fact that we can't win a game when JO, Granger and Dunleavy all play well speaks volumes about Tinsley's value and importance to this team.

                    Diener: I want to know what little Travis Diener could have possibly siad that could warrant a T. As for his play, a pretty predictable dud tonight following his breakout game. Warriors' guards are way too talented for him to have an impact especially when his shot isn't falling (the airball was disgusting)

                    JO: I'm not a JO guy but he was a monster tonight. We need to convince him that every guy he goes against is an ex-Pacer (Harrington and Croshere guarded him 90% of the game) Both putbacks late in the game were not his fault. If we're going to play small Granger, Dunleavy and even Rush better crash the boards and cover the weakside.

                    I was hoping to see the final play called for Rush, but instead we dumped it into JO hoping they would double down (they didn't) and he'd kick it out to the open shooter. Simply having Tinsley and Dunleavy interchange was not the smartest idea.

                    I'm glad I'm not the only one upset with Foster getting a DNP-CD. Murphy should be the one not playing. I don't care that Foster can be an offensive liability, he brings energy and gives us second chances when most of our perimeter shots don't go in. (He looked pretty pissed after the game sitting in a golf cart in a corner of the hallway/tunnel waiting for the bus to leave)

                    My final thought: I know he has fallen out of the rotation, but where the hell was Ike? He wasn't even in a suit. Did he have to accompany Harrison back to Indy?
                    Hmmm... ironic you mention that because the game stats don't even list him as a DNP but do have Harrison on there. I was thinking this was just a mistake but now that you point out that he wasn't even there.....

                    I wonder....


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                      O'Brien seems very happy with Mike

                      (On Mike Dunleavy) “He was three assists away from a triple double that speaks for itself. He played a very good game and he’s been a wonderful, wonderful addition to our basketball team and I wouldn’t trade him for anybody.”

                      I was hoping to see the final play called for Rush, but instead we dumped it into JO hoping they would double down (they didn't) and he'd kick it out to the open shooter. Simply having Tinsley and Dunleavy interchange was not the smartest idea.
                      Yeh im with ya, Tinsley has taking a game winning shot, so has JO, so has Granger.

                      So why not try and get Rush open for a look. In my mind his probably our best 3 point shooter.

                      know he has fallen out of the rotation, but where the hell was Ike? He wasn't even in a suit. Did he have to accompany Harrison back to Indy?
                      Warriors TV broadcast said Ike was inactive tonight and he was back in Indy, not sure why though??

                      Man we deserved to win, lets get them on our home court. I expect all you Indiana fans going to the game to cheer our pacers on!

                      AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                        Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                        So...what was the deal on the DNP for Jeff Foster???
                        I'm sure it had to do with the fact that Austin Croshere was there. Those two are a drunken brawl just waiting to happen.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post


                          Caption this.

                          It's immediately after JT misses the "drawn-up" three at the end that would've tied it.

                          You mean we seriously traded jackson for you?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                            Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                            Somebody please go back and count the number of times we've lost a lead of 15 or more.

                            easy formula to solve this problem

                            x = games won

                            b = games played.

                            z = games where we had over a 15 point lead and lost it

                            b-x=z

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                              Anybody see Jack kiss Stacy and say "Thank you baby" after the game during his postgame interview?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                                This little blurp from the star today might explain things about roster spots. Ike wasn't on the
                                active rooster



                                The Pacers have to keep Harrison on the active roster, meaning they'll only have 11 players available each game.


                                .
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-14-2008, 11:55 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X