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

Thread title

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

  • #16
    Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

    Sweabs - good post. I don't have much to add because I don't understand posts that are longer than two sentences and don't have a fart joke.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Ok well if Applebee's told me to go **** myself, right after I paid my bill, I'd still be pissed at them.

      Maybe you're different.

      I guess I feel like we treat athletes like they are better than us. Sorry, but I don't bow to Lebron James, yeah he's really good at his job, but I'm pretty good at my job too. You're probably pretty good at yours so on and so on. You would never treat your paying customers the way Lebron treated Cleveland last night, even once your services were rendered. At least I would hope you wouldn't.
      you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing retail, Point of Purchase customer service with private contract work. Its completely different. Lebron met the terms of his contract, and decided that he did not need another one from that particular employer. Thats business. Lebron Jame is not at risk if he pisses off the fan base in Cleveland at the end of his contract.
      Last edited by graphic-er; 07-10-2010, 08:17 PM.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Should it?

        The NBA in particular has chosen more and more to try to wean fans from cheering for a team and toward cheering for a half-dozen superstars. The teams exist only to showcase the superstars, and teams without a superstar exist only as a foil for the superstars when they come into town.

        How long can a sports league exist in this way, when there aren't enough superstars to go around?

        The question is whether or not the league exists to provide huge incomes for the players and the league office, or whether it exists to provide a continuity of professional sporting events around the country.

        If the former, then they are certainly there,

        If the latter, then loyalty isn't just not a thing of the past, it is VITAL.

        Of course, I am talking about loyalty of FANS to a TEAM even when the team isn't one of the Big Five. But to GET to that, you need loyalty of players, whether forced (by league rules such as the NFL Franchise Player rule) or unforced (like players choosing to stay with their team as opposed to taking opportunities elsewhere).

        I am afraid, however, that the NBA Management has decided that a few players who can command "top" ratings (which, I believe, are not even close to NFL ratings) for the year is the best profit model, while other teams are left to struggle because they don't affect the league's bottom line. I think this will lead to a contraction within the next decade, as there simply aren't enough superstars to go around - especially if they decide to triple-up on the lucky 4 or 5 teams at the top of the league.

        As I said to UB on another thread, I think NBA management is not just OK with that, they desire it. Fewer teams may screw much of the country, but if they can sell twice or three times as many seats for ten times as much in the biggest market then they make their money with less hassle and - since the number of places for players becomes much more restricted - ultimately drive player salaries down for an even HIGHER margin.
        This also gets into the realm of profit sharing. Does profit sharing motivate owners and GMs to put the best product on the field or rely on the top teams to generate profit for everyone? In the NFL, you have alot of teams that just coast by year after year. But it certainly helps the small market teams stay in the black on the financials. Where as in the NBA, your teams financial success is more determined on your regional market size. IE. the LA Clippers who have been a disaster for longer than anyone can remember and yet still they pull the profit in because they are LA.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

          Originally posted by sweabs
          Eek. I was hoping to get a few more responses, but thanks to those who have chimed in so far. Perhaps the lack of responses illustrates, in some capacity, an answer to my question.


          Is there some truth to this, or is it part of some mythologized past? Is there ever any way to know for sure whether one is acting out of "loyalty"? What is "loyalty"?

          Furthermore, if one accepts the idea that "loyalty" once existed - what has led to its deterioration? And are professional sports better or worse without it?

          Of course Loyalty is a thing of the past. It is this way in every facet of business. In most fields employers have completely victimized the work force in the perpetual race to the bottom we are experiencing here in America. Loyalty has been replaced with fear. Loyalty is a product of investment from both sides, being treated as an asset rather than a liability or expense to the bottom line.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

            If you want loyalty, adopt a dog.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing retail, Point of Purchase customer service with private contract work. Its completely different. Lebron met the terms of his contract, and decided that he did not need another one from that particular employer. Thats business. Lebron Jame is not at risk if he pisses off the fan base in Cleveland at the end of his contract.
              When you order food at applebee's you are entering into a contract with Applebee's. It's short term, but it is a contract in the most simple of terms. There is an offer, consideration, acceptance.


              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing retail, Point of Purchase customer service with private contract work. Its completely different. Lebron met the terms of his contract, and decided that he did not need another one from that particular employer. Thats business. Lebron Jame is not at risk if he pisses off the fan base in Cleveland at the end of his contract.
                I would argue he is at risk, or at least his image is.

                A really good thread, and some great discussion.

                My opinion is athletes do not owe a franchise any thing, though personally I liked the old school mentally of "hell if I am going to join them, I am going to beat them instead" better.

                I personally think all of this is a moot point (except for in Celvland) if Lebron handled this better. If he just has a basic press conference, people in CLE would be mad but the rest of the world would go about their business. Lebron did himself no favors by turning this into a spectacle, and I am sure referring to himself in the third person during his (joke of an) interview with Jim Gray.

                I will sign off with this: THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE. THIS IS SPORTS.

                We have young men and women fighting a war, who are risking thier lives on a daily basis. We have people trying to find jobs, who are begging for work out of college. It is kind of sad who seriously some poeple take sports now a days. Yes it is an escape from reality, but you should never want to kill a fan for catching a ball. You should never HATE a grown man for leaving your franchise. If it one thing to have a rivalry, it is another to burn his jersey in the street.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                  One last thing "loyalty" does not exist any more. It is just another reason why I loved Reggie Miller (and Darell Green, etc etc).

                  I have older friends who have stayed with some companies 13-15 years. I have another friend who is the same age as me, and in 4 years has been in 3 different companies. He almost moved every 3 months before finally settling down.

                  I am not saying there is anything wrong with either approach, but loyalty from both employees and employers IMO is a thing of the past.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                    I am sure there are people out there who disagree with me, and that is cool.

                    Perhaps part of it is the fact I have taken a step back on being so extreme with sports in the past, partly because of time (and financial) constraints, and partly because being a Pacers, Notre Dame, Redskins, and O's fan will do that to you.

                    I still contend sports are an escape from reality for me, a chance to wish I was running onto FedEx or running out of the tunnel into Conseco, and caring about men who make 10X that night then I will make in my life, but that is just me

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                      Originally posted by sweabs
                      But I believe this is what I was alluding to in my original post. Even look at the types of words you're using to describe this scenario...as a fan, no less! And as billbradley points out, this thinking permeates to all realms of professional sport (franchises, owners, athletes, fans, etc.).

                      So I'm wondering - as fans, what is it that we want? What do we want to experience? Can a radical paradigm shift away from the aforementioned narrative have any sort of impact on athletes, organizations, owners, etc.? Are professional sports always doomed to this type of thinking? Because some of you make reference to the fact that it didn't used to be this way. Perhaps fans at that time were not talking about products, markets, goods, salary negotiations, etc. - maybe they were experiencing something closer to basketball? Or is it just some nostalgic, but fabricated illusion? And what sort of effect would such thinking have on other parties?
                      I will take a shot at your questions

                      As a fan of basketball, I want to enjoy what I'm watching, but I don't expect to experience true joy from what I'm watching. Mere enjoyment is the culmination of what one can get from basketball or professional sports, a "witness" if you will. I can only attain true joy and happiness by my own actions and accomplishments, because I believe true joy cannot be taken away. Athletes are like beer, candy, two hours in a movie theatre, or whores: enjoy them while you have them, but don't expect them to be a gift that keeps on giving because that's not what they're there for. And I'm totally fine with that. I don't want what I value most in life to be something someone else can take away with one decision.

                      I don't think there can be a radical paradigm shift away from this current line of thinking, ever, as long as the NBA remains as popular as it is. We have to remember that years ago when athletes ingratiated themselves more with the fans, the NBA was a niche sport and wasn't even hardly ever televised live, even during the Finals. So the players didn't have the breathing room to act however they wanted, they were much more accountable to the customer at that time. Now, however, everyone is the customer, and if you **** a million of them off, there are 20 million out there that are still ready to embrace you.

                      The paradigm has also shifted because athletes now make so much more money than most in society, and are so sequestered from mainstream society, I think they lose touch of what the average people really want and how much they really care about sports. Athletes were not so wealthy years ago and were much more exposed to and hand things in common with the average fan. By being intimately familiar with something most people are really obsessed with but aren't intimately familiar with, you lose touch of how much it means to some people. Look at how so many politicians are labeled as "losing touch" after being in power for so long. They forget how important their actions really are to everyone else. So yes, I do think that people may have been experiencing "more" than what we experience now as athletes and fans were once more intimate with one another and shared some of the same hopes and dreams.
                      Last edited by idioteque; 07-11-2010, 12:27 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                        I think this just shows that fans take sports way to seriously. I read that Lebron was booed at Carmello's wedding in NY. So you are going to try and disrupt someones big day because a player did not pick your team to go play for? Fans taking sports this serious leads them to forget that this is a business. Players have to do what is best for them because the team only cares about the team. Gilbert got upset not because he felt betrayed by a great friend. He got upset because he lost his cash cow and had to write some scathing letter to try and keep the fans interested in now his abysmal team.

                        Another thing that is created because fans care to much is this idea that fans are entitled to more then what they get. Fans pay to be entertained and cheer for their team. The players go out there and are paid to win a championship and entertain the fans and that is it. They do not owe anything else, but to try and win a title and entertain the fans along the way. Lebron fulfilled his contractual obligations with the team and moved on. Even if Lebron just called Broussard and told him what his decision was fans would still be outraged, burned his jerseys, and said he owed them more.

                        Loyalty in any sport be it NFL, NBA, or MLB is dead and both sides are to blame. Look at the NFL with their non guaranteed contracts. Fans get upset when a player holds out like Chris Johnson who far exceeds his contract and wants a raise, but then they do not blink an eye when the team just cuts a guy because he might have lost half a step. There should be no loyalty from these players because the league will use them up till the point they cannot play anymore then they will get rid of them.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                          Fans are only loyal to the great players. Sure fans are loyal and expect players such as Lebron James and Reggie Miller to be loyal. But fans have zero loyalty to 95% of the other players, they would trade any of the "other players" in a second if it helps their team win. So why fans get upset when certain players change teams is beyond me.

                          If Earl Watson came out in the media and ripped the Pacers for not showing any loyalty this summer, fans would laugh and tell Earl sorry that is life, we'll trade you or not re-sign you in a second if it helps our team.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Fans are only loyal to the great players. Sure fans are loyal and expect players such as Lebron James and Reggie Miller to be loyal. But fans have zero loyalty to 95% of the other players, they would trade any of the "other players" in a second if it helps their team win. So why fans get upset when certain players change teams is beyond me.

                            If Earl Watson came out in the media and ripped the Pacers for not showing any loyalty this summer, fans would laugh and tell Earl sorry that is life, we'll trade you or not re-sign you in a second if it helps our team.
                            But that implies some kind of fan loyalty to a team. Those guys like Earl &c will be ignored when we get to the place where teams don't matter any more, they'll just be ignored because they aren't marketed.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                              We should always remember that these professional athletes are like ordinary employees, only that their like Hollywood celebrities that play sports rather than act on TV. There is still loyalty on the part of players when they play for their team and when they are under the team's contract. Just like celebrities that are loyal to their TV stations when they have shows there an when they are under contract with the network. Or just like an employee who is loyal to his company while he/she is working for that company.

                              It's business. People come, people go. That's it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Modern-Day Professional Sports & the Athlete

                                Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
                                It's business. People come, people go. That's it.
                                There's a point to which this analogy goes too far.

                                Do people cheer for IBM? Do they line up at the store to root for WalMart against KMart? Do folks gather at Retailer Bars to cheer on the sales report results between Sears and Pennys?

                                No, of course they don't.

                                Sports teams are the b*****d child between a business and an emotional civic enhancement. What they SELL is emotion, not a tangible good.

                                The concept of being a fan of a TEAM means you want what is best for your TEAM because you want your TEAM to be the best. Most fans do this from an emotional attachment.

                                Therefore, when a player makes a business decision, that is fine, but trying to use the emotional tie to your advantage (and, come on, a one-hour special for a 30-second decision is COMPLETELY emotional - it wouldn't make any money otherwise) and, more, disrespecting the existing emotional tie means you give up the "business decision" high ground.

                                In the perfect league for the PLAYER, teams would mean nothing, fans would not care about teams except that their favorite players are on them, and so forth. I think a lot of players lose sight of the fact that this won't necessarily mean all players get the goodies - only the top ones. Also, how does the business survive if no one has any reason to buy the product that, for whatever reason, lacks those marketable players or the winning record?

                                Ultimately, unless you control the outcome, it is sports and someone loses. We used to build character by taking the losses with the wins and staying consistently loyal to the team through those droughts. Now, it seems like "win or be famous" is the only mantra - and I believe this hurts the character of our society more than people want to admit.

                                So, how do we reconcile that with a world where the player should be allowed to market his skills? What we are seeing now is that the salaries are so high (or, perhaps, that non-salary compensation like endorsements makes salaries irrelevant, the effect is the same) that the "player choice" is becoming less about money and more about putting a winning team together. The system is not currently built to handle that motivation - building super teams is really not fair to the teams not included in the player decision, but there is nothing to stop it or handicap it (tampering has become a joke) or to at least compensate the fans of the teams (like Cleveland) who see their emotional investment go the way of the underwater mortgage.

                                If any kind of traditional team fandom is to survive - and I have opined often that this is simply not a goal of NBA Management, in fact I think it harms their vision of the profitable path - there has to be a reason to stick to your team through thick and thin. This can only be emotional, as far as I can see, and denying it or stomping on it will not help teams to survive.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X