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

ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

    I'll probably do this every week.

    PACERS: 7th in the East, 14th Overall

    2008-09 Power Rankings: Week 1
    RANK (LAST WK)TEAMREC.COMMENT
    1 (2)Lakers3-0The Lakers' average margin of victory is down to 21.7 ppg after they could squeak out only a seven-point win Saturday night at Denver. That qualifies as the closest thing to a flaw we've seen during L.A.'s flashy start.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Lakers fifth | See Lakers chart
    2 (3)Hornets3-0We were kidding when we talked up that 7-0 preseason, but a 3-0 start is the real deal. Especially because the Hornets opened on the road, played Phoenix and Cleveland next and didn't have Chandler for two of the W's.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Hornets 13th | See Hornets chart
    3 (1)Celtics2-1This might strike you as a steep drop for the defending champs, and you might even be right. Boston's problem is that the Lakers and Hornets were that good last week … and the Celts' showing in Indy was that bad.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Celtics 16th | See Celtics chart
    4 (6)Rockets3-0Here's a good "Did You Know?": Houston is 19-0 in its past 19 regular-season games with a healthy Yao Ming. That's a nice little stat to spice up Tuesday's showdown pitting Yao, Ron-Ron and T-Mac against Pierce, KG and Ray Ray.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Rockets seventh | See Rockets chart
    5 (7)Pistons2-0Sounds as if the new coach had no issues with us for starting the new season with Detroit outside the top five. Says Michael Curry: ''We've earned the right for people to ask, 'Has this team made its last run?'''
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Pistons third | See Pistons chart
    6 (12)Raptors3-0You might be wondering whether a team from Canada was eligible to be recorded as the first U.S. Army Team of the Week in Power Rankings history. We promise: (Uncle) Sam Mitchell's Raps were indeed in the mix.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Raptors 27th | See Raptors chart
    7 (9)Jazz2-0The bad news: No word yet on a firm return date for D-Will from that ankle sprain. The good news: Utah hasn't really needed him yet and, based on a quick look at the schedule, probably won't until a Nov. 11 visit to Philly.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Jazz ninth | See Jazz chart
    8 (11)Suns2-1I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Rush, if you wish, to proclaim that the Suns' window has closed. I prefer to keep trying to peer into the window to see how their radical changes play out. Play it how you want.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Suns fourth | See Suns chart
    9 (4)Cavaliers1-2The Cavs are used to these kinds of starts. They've posted a losing record after three games in all but one of LeBron's six seasons. The new twist is LeBron's slow start shooting the ball as he adjusts to a tweaked offense.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Cavaliers 14th | See Cavs chart
    10 (5)Spurs0-2Memphis. New York. Even Oklahoma City. All three of those teams won a game before the Spurs did, which suggests that as good as Tony and Timmy look, we might have undersold how much they'll miss Manu.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Spurs first | See Spurs chart
    11 (10)Mavericks1-1Two games in is too soon to get a real read on the new Mavs. Yet it already seems safe to suggest that this team won't come close to infuriating the locals as the Cowboys have. No matter what happens.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Mavericks second | See Mavs chart
    12 (20)Hawks2-0The Hawks didn't just beat two teams everyone expects to see in the East's top eight at season's end. They started 2-0 for the first time since 1999. So this is your first U.S. Army Team of the Week: Hollinger's Hawks.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Hawks 29th | See Hawks chart
    13 (8)76ers1-2Just three games in, Philly already has rung up two big letdowns by losing the home opener to Toronto and blowing a fat lead in Atlanta. The Sixers can only hope folks have been too drunk on Phillies Euphoria to notice.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: 76ers 20th | See 76ers chart
    14 (22)Pacers1-1The Celts suffered only three double-digit L's last season in their return to championship glory. This season? They already have one, thanks to the blowout party Indy threw to celebrate Danny Granger's new contract.
    Overall Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Pacers sixth | See Pacers chart
    15 (17)Bulls2-1Did any high-profile rookie out there have a better Week 1 than Derrick Rose? You have to go all the way back to MJ (Elias looked it up) for the previous Bulls rook to have a 26-point game within his first three outings as a pro.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Bulls 26th | See Bulls chart
    16 (13)Magic1-2Perhaps the drop here should have been steeper. Based on the standards set by last season's 16-4 start, Orlando pretty much ran unopposed for the unwanted mantle of Week 1's Most Disappointing Team.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Magic 18th | See Magic chart
    17 (14)Trail Blazers1-2That triumphant escape at the buzzer against the fabled Spurs had to cheer you up, Blazermaniacs. Or at least temporarily distract you from the usual round-the-clock fretting about Oden and the future of the franchise.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Blazers 22nd | See Blazers chart
    18 (15)Nuggets1-2Iverson is no longer a team captain, has barely averaged 13 shots a game so far and holds a big expiring contract. Add up all those variables, and you really can't be surprised to be hearing A.I.'s name in trade speculation.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Nuggets 11th | See Nuggets chart
    19 (18)Warriors1-2Biedrins has scarfed down 10 straight double-doubles dating to last season and has averaged 16.6 ppg and 14.6 rpg in that span. Not that anyone knows it with all the Monta/Harrington/front-office drama.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Warriors 19th | See Warriors chart
    20 (21)Bucks2-2Two road victories this quick, irrespective of the opposition, must be regarded as big news for a team that went 7-34 outside of Milwaukee last season. But any injury to our beloved Redd, mind you, is bigger news.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Bucks 24th | See Bucks chart
    21 (29)Grizzlies1-2Rudy Gay's jumper to take down Orlando wasn't merely a buzzer-beating baseline dagger. Call it a history-defying J, too. The Grizzlies, remember, previously had played seven home openers in Memphis but won zero.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Grizzlies 23rd | See Grizzlies chart
    22 (27)Nets1-1An opening night win at Washington surprised what's left of the Nets as much as anyone. Credit team prez Rod Thorn for sugarcoating nothing when asked whether his team has any playoff hope: "On paper, probably not."
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Nets 10th | See Nets chart
    23 (16)Wizards0-2The Wiz still have a way to go to match the depths of last season's 0-5 start. A home loss to Jersey on opening night, however, is just not good enough for a team that prides itself on its ability to cope without Arenas.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Wizards 17th | See Wizards chart
    24 (25)Bobcats1-1Not sure how nostalgic Larry Brown will be for the Bobcats' games this week against the Pistons and Knicks, but it should be a tad easier to face his old teams now that he has won a game after that 0-8 preseason.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Bobcats 30th | See Bobcats chart
    25 (26)Knicks1-2The Knicks have little choice if they want to read about something else in this space. They'll just have to waive the untradable Marbury and eat his $21.9 million salary, else Steph will continue to be the story.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Knicks 28th | See Knicks chart
    26 (23)Heat1-2Not exactly a happy start for D-Wade's Heaters. The bench looks as thin as advertised, Shawn Marion has a busted nose and ugly road defeats to the likes of New York and Charlotte were particularly painful.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Heat 15th | See Heat chart
    27 (30)Thunder1-2Progress? As a Seattle rook, Kevin Durant had to wait nine games for win No. 1. As an Okie, KD's wait was only three games. P.J. Carlesimo spoke for everyone involved when he admitted, "Any win feels good, honestly."
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Thunder 25th | See Thunder chart
    28 (24)Timberwolves1-2The Wolves are supposed to be one of the league's better bad teams, if there is such a thing. Yet that's a difficult claim to make after any glee gleaned from a 1-0 start was wiped out by a fall-from-ahead loss in OKC.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Wolves 12th | See Wolves chart
    29 (28)Kings0-3We promised they'd be scrappy, if nothing else, but the Kings haven't even reached those modest heights on their Brad Miller-less road trip. They were swept on a back-to-back in Miami and Orlando by a combined 44 points.
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Kings eighth | See Kings chart
    30 (19)Clippers0-3The Clips lost to the less-rested Lakers by 38 when Baron Davis was available. What will it be like Wednesday when the Staples Center co-tenants hook up again if both Baron (hip) and Camby (heel) can't go?
    Power Rankings, 2002 to 2008: Clippers 21st | See Clippers chart
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

    We're tied with Atlanta and Memphis for biggest jump the first week (8 spots). I'd say our win over Boston was the most head-turning game of the first week of the season.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

      It looks like that win, and probably the close loss @ Detroit, actually earned us a little respect. It's a long season, but there are some trends here that will likely continue. I love that Orlando and Cleveland started 1-2.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

        From Hollinger:

        I mentioned in the first edition of this feature that in the opening days of the season, I look for blowouts, especially unexpected ones. I believe that Indiana's eye-opening 95-79 dismantling of Boston on Saturday gave us our first qualifier on that account. The Pacers even led by as many as 25 points in the fourth quarter.

        If you hadn't been taking Indiana seriously as an Eastern Conference playoff team, you certainly need to. Indy's first two games were against fearsome opposition -- at Detroit, then home against the defending champs -- and the Pacers played both games without Mike Dunleavy, who ranked second on the team in scoring with 19.1 points last season.

        Yet Indiana came out of those two games smelling like a rose. The Pacers played the Pistons very tough in the Palace before falling by six points in the opener, then ran the Celtics off the court on Saturday. For Indiana to come away from that twin bill at plus-10 suggests it might be even better than my optimistic preview anticipated.

        How'd the Pacers do it? Guard Marquis Daniels has started in Dunleavy's place and, at least so far, has managed to hold down the fort (13.42 PER through two games). The trio of Rasho Nesterovic, Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster has held down the middle now that Jermaine O'Neal plays for the Raptors, while T.J. Ford gave the team a wholesale upgrade at the point.

        Dunleavy's knee problem is a real concern, especially if Daniels reverts to last season's form, but more help could be on the way, too. Indiana still has Jamaal Tinsley hanging in limbo but might be able to parlay him into a rotation player if it plays its cards right on the trade market.

        Yes, it's only two games, and 80 more of these things are left. But in this limited sample, Indiana is the team that has done the most to change my perception of it.

        John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. To e-mail him, click here.


        Well, it's official: we've been noticed. Let's hope this isn't the season's high-point.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

          Yeah, but this guy sways too easily. He's got his foot in his mouth.

          If someone else would have wrote this, I'd love it.

          But yeah, we've made it.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

            I actually think Hollinger's the best NBA guy at ESPN. He bases his opinions on actual performance and not reputation like so many others seem to do.

            I we could go at least 2-1 this week, we may be near the bottom of the top-10 in next week's rankings.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

              it's good to see that we are getting some respect.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                Great to see us up there, but I see a lot of peaks and valleys this season. Kind of like what you see from a good rookie- they look like an All-Star one game and a 10th man the next.

                I don't think the defensive intensity we've displayed is sustainable for an 82 game season. But there will be plenty of flashes of it which will make this team a fun one to watch develop.

                If we draft correctly and play our cards right we could be among the elite in the East in 3 years. That's what I'm hoping for. I love the success on the court in Week 1, but I'm still just thrilled that we're FINALLY headed in the right direction.

                FWIW though I love seeing us five spots ahead of Dubs

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                  we are sitting at 13 in the power rankings of nba.com with the highest jump from last week (+10)

                  http://www.nba.com/powerrankings/

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                    Originally posted by xtacy View Post
                    we are sitting at 13 in the power rankings of nba.com with the highest jump from last week (+10)

                    http://www.nba.com/powerrankings/
                    coolz

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                      I thought it interesting to see the overall rankings from 02 to 08 had the Pacers sixth. Spurs, Mavs, Pistons, Suns, Lakers, and then INDIANA.

                      That is mighty good company over the last six seasons, and I think we are heading on the path to returning to greatness. I think that the talent upgrade doesn't have to be earth-shattering when we've finally gotten rid of all the players who were seemingly setting the example of tuning out the coaching staff for personal agendas.

                      GO PACERS!



                      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                        That win against Boston was huge
                        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                          Power Rankings are irrelevant. I look at the standings not one thinks of my team, who has a limited knowledge of the NBA.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                            Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                            Power Rankings are irrelevant. I look at the standings not one thinks of my team, who has a limited knowledge of the NBA.
                            Well, I think it's a stretch to say that Stein has a limited knowledge of the NBA, but Power Rankings are irrelevant. They're the Sports Journalist equivalent of playing with the trade checker. They have no impact other than to make fans talk. They don't effect playoff seedings or the results of the games.

                            Fortunately, this isn't a beauty pageant/exhibition season like College Football, and the outcome is decided on the court.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN Power Rankings Week 1

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              Well, I think it's a stretch to say that Stein has a limited knowledge of the NBA, but Power Rankings are irrelevant. They're the Sports Journalist equivalent of playing with the trade checker. They have no impact other than to make fans talk. They don't effect playoff seedings or the results of the games.

                              Fortunately, this isn't a beauty pageant/exhibition season like College Football, and the outcome is decided on the court.
                              Someone was listening to Colin Cowherd yesterday, or its just a huge coincidence cause thats exactly what he said yesterday.

                              Back on topic, its good to see the Pacers getting some love. Didn't Stein have us last in the division? This is a little knee jerk reaction from him, maybe he just realized we actually have a talented squad.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X