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

Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

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

  • Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

    Scoop Jackson article from espn.com

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...2&sportCat=nba

    If you checked the calendar (and if you were paying extremely close attention, as maybe millions of New York Knicks fans are), you'd realize the first anniversary of Isiah Thomas' four-year contract extension is upon us.


    Now, some of you will ask how in the @#$% he gets to go into the second year of that extension. Some of you will scream for his head to be Ginsued (many will want owner James Dolan's dome to meet the same fate and share the same plate). Some will go the Jerry Krause route and wonder what kind of blackmail Thomas has to have as leverage against the Knicks in order to maintain his position as coach and president of the organization.



    Thomas and the Knicks have become the laughing stock of professional sports. Everything said and written about them has been both fair and fair game. "The biggest problem at Madison Square Garden is Isiah Thomas," March 5's Daily News headline read. ("The Mets of the '60s lost year after year this way and became as much a punch line of sports as a punching bag. At least they had Casey Stengel and were lovable losers. The Knicks are just losers. It happens on the watch of Isiah Thomas," Mike Lupica wrote under that headline.) Johnnie Cochran, on his best day, in his best suit, with his best rhymes, couldn't defend them from ridicule. In the world of sports, Thomas and the Knicks have found their own island and decided to drown on it. Alone. And the world of sports has been more than happy over the past three years to isolate this incident of professional suicide. It's become the perfect sports tragedy.


    The problem with this -- and this tends to happen a lot in sports -- is that Thomas and the Knicks actually are not alone on this island of hopeless sports dysfunction. But you'd never know it. For the past three years, we've acted as if he and the Knicks are the only team that has embarrassed the league and as if he is the only basketball Hall of Famer that has run a franchise that once was relevant and respected within walking distance of hell.


    And if I said Larry Bird has done more collateral damage to the Indiana Pacers than Thomas has done to the Knicks, you'd probably stop reading.


    Well, before you do …


    It was only four years ago that the Pacers were 61-21 and the top seed in the Eastern Conference playoffs. Only eight years removed from playing in the NBA Finals, the Pacers have become the best-kept tragedy in sports. From 44 wins in 2004-05 to 41 in 2005-06 to 35 in 2006-07 to the 25 they have so far this season. From incomparable to irrelevant. The whole time, Bird has been there, watching the tragedy unfold.


    Now, it would be unfair to Bird to blame him for everything that has gone wrong with the Pacers. He had no control over The Brawl, no control over injuries that have taken games away from Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley. But if bad things -- such as shootings at nightclubs (Stephen Jackson), charges stemming from a bar fight (Tinsley and Marquis Daniels), incidents involving handguns (Tinsley and Shawne Williams), failed drug tests (David Harrison), arrests at players' homes of a suspected rapist (an associate of Daniels) and a suspected murderer (an associate of Williams) -- continuously happen under your watch, when is it time to give misery (Thomas and the Knicks) some company?



    Yes, there's an $11.6 million sexual harassment lawsuit that found Thomas responsible and Madison Square Garden liable and unbelievable infighting that has reached "All My Children" levels, but that's not off par with the off-the-court incidents and activities that have plagued the Pacers. Which makes it only fair to at some point ask whether we place some responsibility on Bird the same way we do on Thomas for harboring and manifesting a climate that has been counter-conducive to the well-being of a franchise that is in the business of winning.


    Thomas made questionable moves in taking risks on Eddy Curry, Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis and is blamed for the lack of production by Zach Randolph, among other things. What is the difference between that and the decisions that have been made with respect to Ron Artest, Jackson and Tinsley and the lack of production by Daniels (who, like Randolph, was supposed to be the prize catch that would begin a franchise turnaround)?


    What's the difference between Jamal Crawford and Mike Dunleavy? Is there a Thomas signee who is draining the Knicks' payroll the way Troy Murphy is draining the Pacers' payroll?


    The only difference, the only real difference, between these two teams that truly stands out is that during this period, the Pacers lost one of the greatest players in NBA history when Reggie Miller retired. That would affect any team. It was something neither Bird nor CEO Donnie Walsh had control over. But it was something for which they could have been better prepared.


    (Now, keep in mind, the other difference in this twisted analogy is Larry Brown's effect on the Knicks, but it could be equated to The Brawl's effect on the Pacers. Thomas inherited his role as the coach of the Knicks after Brown departed New York with $18.5 million of the team's money. At the time, this could not have been avoided  not that Thomas should have been the one to replace Brown, but can you imagine the heat he would have taken had he not hired Brown to help save the Knicks when Brown was available and originally willing?)


    The Pacers' attendance is the worst in the NBA, according to The Indianapolis Star -- down from being one of the league's most consistent hometown draws. Their salary-cap situation, according to Bill Simmons, is the worst in the NBA and won't change until 2010. Yet, we make Zeke out to be the "Why Does This Man Still Have A Job?" (John Hollinger, New York Sun) president and Bird "a man trying to understand what has happened in his game" (Mike Lopresti, USA Today). Same situation, parallel results, identical effects … opposite coverage.


    The Pacers have become the Cincinnati Bengals of the NBA. But again, you'd never know if you depended on the sports media tell you. Is racism or regionalism the reason one is vilified and the other isn't? Is it the franchises they run, or the personalities and executive track records of the two that make it easy to attack one and not the other? Is the richness of one franchise's history that much greater than the other's that it eclipses the significance of the other's downfall?


    Choose all of the above, and you still will come up without an answer. Know, though, on this anniversary of Isiah Thomas' continued destruction of the Knicks, he will remain singled out as what not to look for in a president of basketball operations, while Larry Bird's plight will gather sympathy, and no one will notice the mirror images of the two.


    Those who decided to continue reading will ask whether I would have written this column had the roles been reversed -- if Bird was in New York ruining the Knicks and Thomas was in Indiana, silently and unnoticeably watching the Pacers disintegrate during his reign.


    My answer to that is simple: I wouldn't have to. My friends in the media -- unlike this time -- would already have done it for me.


    Scoop Jackson is a columnist for Page 2.

  • #2
    Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

    Not a well written article, and his similarities are forced at best, but he still makes an excellent point.

    Still, cue everyone trashing the guy.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

      Yeah he's right, were all a bunch of racists. Isn't if funny that every time a black coach or GM or whatever fails, we find someone willing to play the race card. This article is file 13 material and so is the writer.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        The Pacers have become the Cincinnati Bengals of the NBA. But again, you'd never know if you depended on the sports media tell you. Is racism or regionalism the reason one is vilified and the other isn't? Is it the franchises they run, or the personalities and executive track records of the two that make it easy to attack one and not the other? Is the richness of one franchise's history that much greater than the other's that it eclipses the significance of the other's downfall?
        This is the only time he brings it up! He doesn't even say that that's the reason. I think Scoop is actually leaning more heavily toward it being regionalism why Bird doesn't get as much flak as Isiah.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

          Yeah, he had me only questioning the soundness of his proclaimed parallels. And then he went THERE. Saying "the media" maybe racist because it picks on one and not the other. He didn't have to go there at all.

          Try this one on for size: One is in New York, a media center. The other is not.

          Look at the way the media treated the Giants all year.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

            I think we're missing his point a bit. I don't think he's giving a reason necessarily. He leaves that for our imagination...though he does give suggestions, including LA's bigger market theory. I think his main point is that Larry Bird is doing the same **** to the Pacers that Isiah is doing to the Knicks and that people should notice because it's tragic.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

              Isiah made willfully stupid decisions. He traded for Francis when he had Starbury. He traded for Randolph when he had Curry. He drafted Renaldo Balkman way too high. He threw a ridiculous amount of cash towards Jerome James and Jared Jefferies. None of these moves made sense at the time, and they still don't now.

              Bird has been forced into many of his bad decisions. Now, they are still bad decisions. But he isn't even in the same ballpark as Isiah.


              Scoop is right about one thing: the national media hasn't been treating Bird harshly enough.
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                Scoop is right about one thing: the national media hasn't been treating Bird harshly enough.
                If Isiah managed to turn the Knicks around and get them into the middle of the playoffs he'd be the darling of the East Coast media. If Bird managed to turn the Pacers around he'd be pretty much ignored unless the Pacers actually won the championship.

                During the 2000 Finals I seem to remember seeing more discussion about why the Knicks weren't in the Finals than there was discussion about the Pacers being there.

                It works both ways. If you get the front page for just showing up, sometimes that will be bad stuff.

                The reason Bird isn't villified on SportsCenter or whatever is that the Pacers simply don't get national TV because no one cares about them.

                "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" - Oscar Wilde
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                  LOL, that is a funny article.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                    Bird's not close to Isiah's ballpark in the "idiot who is completely clueless about managing or coaching basketball" category.

                    However he IS close to Isiah, if not worse, in the damage done to a franchise. It may not have all been his fault, but the Pacers are far, far worse relative to where they were when Bird started than the Knicks are compared with where we were when Isiah started. Things had been heading downhill but there was still hope right up to the Murphleavy trade. That one was a franchise-killer. Of course Isiah's made 3 or 4 of those.

                    The other difference is with Bird there's still hope just because he isn't a completely clueless idiot with his head stuck up his ***.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                      That's a pretty retarded article IMO. I don't see how anyone would be able to aggree with it. The comparisons and similarities are way forced. Zeke is on a level of his own. Full stop.

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                        Just a pretty poor article all around written by a guy who in general is a pretty poor writer. I wouldn't overanalyze it.
                        Last edited by d_c; 03-13-2008, 04:04 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                          Isiah has a whole laundry list and hx of being a tool all the way back to being a player and almost every stop along the way, Bird doesn't.

                          New York is a tough sports town, Indy isn't.

                          Walsh/Bird just became Bird this year, adds to the extended pass, maybe.

                          Indy has never went above the luxury tax, NY was for a long time, I think.

                          Knicks have been quite a bit worse in recent history than the Pacers.

                          I'm not saying Bird shouldn't be accountable, he should. I'm just saying why they aren't being compared at the same level, which is the whole point of Scoops article besides playing the race card.
                          Last edited by Speed; 03-13-2008, 04:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                            I think Tony and Mike on PTI said it best the other day: This (mess with the Pacers) is a team-wide, franchise-wide failure. You can't pin it on one guy. You pin it on ALL of them. Together.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Interesting ESPN article by Scoop Jackson on Bird/Isiah

                              Originally posted by Scoop View Post
                              The Pacers have become the Cincinnati Bengals of the NBA. But again, you'd never know if you depended on the sports media tell you.

                              Choose all of the above, and you still will come up without an answer. Know, though, on this anniversary of Isiah Thomas' continued destruction of the Knicks, he will remain singled out as what not to look for in a president of basketball operations, while Larry Bird's plight will gather sympathy, and no one will notice the mirror images of the two.
                              I like Scoop, but clearly he's not been anywhere near Indy or paid the least bit of attention to their national coverage.

                              They are WORSE than the Knicks, because as he says, they are IRRELEVENT. No one even cares to watch the train wreck. They are "ho hum". If the Knicks are moved to Vegas it's a major story elsewhere, if the Pacers are moved it's slightly less outrageous than the Sonics. In fact a lot of people would think "sure, makes sense".


                              And then you get to the view of Bird. WHO HAS THIS VIEW? He's slaughtered locally and I'm in strong doubt that any other team is looking to hire him. If the Simons fired Bird in a few months would Scoop really expect him to get another GM job?


                              Finally we have Isiah. Oh, the whitey writers would have come after Isiah if it was reversed? Really Scoop, because maybe you already forgot that Isiah WAS HERE. He F'bombed the CBA, watched Ron go on his worst tear of behavior as the team went from league best to swept out in a first round upset, and yet still got hired in NY to a general sentiment of "sure, he seems to know talent, he drafted Damon after all."

                              Being surprised by the turn in NY with Isiah is equivilent to being surprised if Ron acts up in Sacto. If you couldn't see it coming after his FINANCIAL/LEGAL issues with the CBA paired with how good the team got the next year under Rick (and without Brad Miller) on the COACHING front, then you were blind (or blackmailed apparently).

                              It is because Isiah's screwups were not in NYC that he was still maintaining some level of "hey, he might be a good hire". Fans in NY were HAPPY when they got him, despite his problems the previous 3+ years.

                              They didn't care what had gone on in BFE Indy, it didn't register with them, just as Bird and the Pacers don't register now...except that often they do make national stories for incidents despite this.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X