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

Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...markets-chance

    by
    Bob Kravitz

    Herb Simon looks at his Indiana Pacers, his small-market team with its small-market revenues, and wonders how he will compete in the years to come. He's not alone. Ownership all throughout the NBA, in places not named Miami, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, are asking how they are going to challenge the big-market hegemony when all the superstars are colluding to go to the Heat, Knicks, Lakers and others.

    LeBron James and Chris Bosh to the Heat. Carmelo Anthony to the Knicks. Deron Williams to the New Jersey/Brooklyn Nets. Dwight Howard threatening to leave Orlando. Leaving Cleveland, Toronto, Denver, Utah and Orlando to wonder how they can compete -- much less survive -- in a league that gets top-heavier each passing month.

    "I'm a little concerned about the gravitation away from the smaller teams,'' Simon said. "If Green Bay can win (an NFL) championship with 100,000 population, then we should be able to win a championship, too.''

    I don't have an issue with the megastars who use their power to join other stars in the bigger markets. That's their right. They are simply taking full advantage of a system that gives them the opportunity to win titles and maximize their brands. What we're seeing is the AAU-izaton of the NBA, with the top players wanting to join other stars to form super-teams, just like they did throughout the summers of their youth.

    But the NBA has to put a brake to this trend, before the league becomes a collection of four or five super teams and 25 others that have absolutely no hope to compete for titles.

    "We need to even the playing field and do something about the disparity in revenues,'' Simon said. "It shouldn't be only the large markets who win championships. So I think the owners are very united on the tack we want to take to make the system fairer for everybody.''

    It used to be that superstars tended to remain with their teams because of the Bird Exception, which gave the original team the opportunity to pay its player more money, with more years on the contract, than anybody else.

    Now, though, the money is so huge everywhere, superstars are saying, "Look, I'm making more than I'll ever spend in six lifetimes. I'll take $8 million less to play in Miami and win championships.''

    Again, I don't blame them. Didn't we always criticize them for being all about the money? Now they're showing they're all about the championships and the lifestyle.

    But the system has to change with this upcoming collective bargaining agreement.

    There needs to be more revenue sharing, to start.

    There also needs to be either a hard salary cap -- right now it's softer than my midsection -- or the ability to apply an NFL-like franchise tag on top players.

    A professional league is only as strong as its weakest members. The NBA is going to benefit wildly in the short term from this talent migration to the big markets; fans love super teams, and the league's ratings are showing that. But in time, you're going to end up with 20 teams or more struggling to compete, struggling to put fannies in the seats. At some point, the Heat, Knicks and Lakers have to play somebody.

    One of the many reasons the NFL matters more than any other American professional sports league is that everybody has a reasonable chance to compete for a title. There are revenue disparities between teams, but generally, revenue-sharing and the salary cap give well-managed franchises a chance to win a Super Bowl. Like the Saints and Colts. Like the Packers and Steelers.

    Now, there are exceptions to the rule in the NBA. The San Antonio Spurs play in a smaller market and currently have the league's best record. That's because they've drafted brilliantly -- not just Tim Duncan as the no-brainer No. 1 choice, but Tony Parker (28th pick, one pick after Jamaal Tinsley), Manu Ginobili (57th pick), DeJuan Blair (37th) and George Hill (26th). Brilliant management and talent evaluation can overcome a middling (13th) payroll.

    There's the Oklahoma City Thunder, another small-market team. They've rebuilt by bottoming out, then striking gold in the draft with Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook.

    It can be done. But it's becoming more and more unlikely.

    The current salary cap is $58.04 million, and teams begin paying a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax when they exceed $70.307 million. Some teams paying the luxury tax (Lakers, Magic, Mavericks and Celtics) are among those expected to contend for a title.

    The Pacers are 22nd in the league in payroll.

    "Money still matters a great deal,'' Simon said. "That's why you see the people who can spend the most money have the most talent right now.''

    Don't blame the superstars for exercising their rights. But if the NBA fails to forge a new agreement that gives the Pacers of the world a chance to compete, the league is in deeper trouble than it knows


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

    Hmm, Bob wrote this and I didn't hate it.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

      Wish he would have described some possible solutions.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

        Superteams have ALWAYS dominated the NBA. There's just more than 2 now. Small market teams have always been and always will be able to compete for championships. They just have to be well run. San Antonio is a perfect example. Don't believe that it is an exception, they have a team of developed talent around their one superstar who they immediately partnered with and let make organization and lineup descisions. Miller did the same thing with Karl Malone and Stockton in Utah. The 90s Pacers did it as well to a lesser degree. Most NBA teams today, however, get a star player and immediately start
        hunting for a better one. The goal should always be about putting a team together that has chemistry enough to excel together, not individually.
        Protect the Promise!!!!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

          I think comparing the NBA to the NFL serves very little if any purpose. The busines models are so different, there aren't that many possibilities of differences in revenue in the NFL because they make most of their money on national TV. Local TV which is a huge difference maker in the NBA is a non-factor in the NFL

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

            Kravitz hit's it right on the head with this one. I think there's a lot of ways to address this and it may need to be addressed in more then one way. The new CBA needs to keep free agency but it needs to discourage superstars from piling up on one team. A hard cap, franchise tag, and limiting the # of max contract players on 1 team all might help.
            Hoopfanatic: I disagree with you on several points.
            First the trend we're seeing now is a lot different then anything we've seen before. Jordan didn't join with Hakeem while he was in his prime to win a title. Larry didn't go to LA to join with Magic. That's what we're seeing right now. It needs to be stopped or the nba is going to lose even more fans in all the small market teams once it's obvious that their teams don't stand of chance of ever competing for a title. San Antonio is the exception and while I'd love to see them win the title this year over L.A. Boston, or Miami it's not going to happen. And they are the lone exception for a small market team to win a title in recent history.
            A complete lack of parity happened during the Lakers/Celtics title years of the 80's and look at how well that worked out for the Pacers.
            I agree with putting together a good team and it needs chemistry but no team with a bunch or role players and one fringe star is ever going to beat what Miami and LA have going in a 7 game series. NY will be there is they're allowed to pick up one more star.

            I like what I'm reading from Simon. I hope he's very outspoken with the other owners to try to focus on parity in the next cba.
            Last edited by Pacerized; 02-28-2011, 09:07 AM. Reason: typo
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I think comparing the NBA to the NFL serves very little if any purpose. The busines models are so different, there aren't that many possibilities of differences in revenue in the NFL because they make most of their money on national TV. Local TV which is a huge difference maker in the NBA is a non-factor in the NFL
              Right now, the NFL is the Gold Standard in the entire world for how a professional sports league should be grown and maintained. Saying you shouldn't compare the NBA to that is saying that you don't want the NBA to be that. What the NFL has done IS possible for the NBA, IF the NBA and their owners want it.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that I agree with a Kravitz column. It must be the Herb Simon factor.

                Considering Herb has been one of the staunch supporters of Stern and the league leadership, this really plays into the idea that owners are starting to dissent from the "what's good for the Knicks is good for the league" perspective.

                It may presage a longer lockout than many hoped, but it certainly means the owners have an understanding of what they need to come out with.

                I just hope someone can get creative.
                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: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                  How about this....

                  The minimum salary for players is tied to the player with the top salary on that team.

                  example: The top player on a team makes $8,000,000. Lets say they put in a 20% rule, all other players on that roster must have a salary of at least 1.6.

                  I know you could still have guys taking less money to chase a ring but it might limit the number of large contracts that a team can carry.

                  Just a thought

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                    I know you could still have guys taking less money to chase a ring but it might limit the number of large contracts that a team can carry.
                    I think the idea of limiting large contracts was one of the targets of Kstat's proposal, and I think it is the only thing that might work. Taking a pay cut is one thing, taking a ridiculous pay cut is another.
                    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

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                      The issue is not that the players are willing to take less money to be in big market teams. The issue now is that they are demanding a trade with a sign and trade deal to get that cash and destination.

                      The players have too much control. It is time for a hard cap and signing bonuses (with waiver policies). It is time for pensions to be honored with long term players with the money saved on those waived contracts. Lets reward those who worked after they received the big pay day.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                        There NEEDS to be a hard cap, much fewer exceptions, and revenue sharing. Right now with all the exceptions the rich/big market teams get to spend so much more that it isn't even funny.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                          Originally posted by oxxo View Post
                          There NEEDS to be a hard cap, much fewer exceptions, and revenue sharing. Right now with all the exceptions the rich/big market teams get to spend so much more that it isn't even funny.
                          Agreed. The luxury tax didn't really work the way the current CBA intended. There needs to be a hard cap as well to help distribute some of the players and keep owners from loading up on multiple max salaried players.

                          Some of my suggestions are:

                          1. Set a limit of only 2 max-salary players per team.

                          2. Offer teams over the cap 2 mid-level exceptions per season or at least make it available for 2 players every other season.

                          3. Make one Franchise tag available per team. However, once a team has used it to re-sign their top free agent, you can no longer use it for as long as that player is under contract. The Franchise player also cannot be traded for at least 3 seasons or half of the term of the contract, whichever is shorter.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I think comparing the NBA to the NFL serves very little if any purpose. The busines models are so different, there aren't that many possibilities of differences in revenue in the NFL because they make most of their money on national TV. Local TV which is a huge difference maker in the NBA is a non-factor in the NFL
                            You kind of surprised me with your post.

                            Although no agreement will ever be "perfect", the NFL CBA does as good a job as is possible at establishing parity among its teams.

                            As for the NBA, I think a hard cap and a franchise tag are absolutely essential. I also believe that revenue sharing of gate receipts, perhaps a 60-40 split would be helpful.

                            If the hard cap is set at the current LTE, then there might as well not be a hard cap at all... at 70M a large percentage of teams will still lose money. Set at the current salary cap (58M) or lower, it is much more likely that small market teams might make money and that limit would also prevent teams from stockpiling three or more superstars... unless one or more is willing to accept a very low salary.

                            Another thing that might prove useful would be to allow teams only 3-4 years to get below the hard cap. The penalty for being over should be much more severe... perhaps a 3-to-1 payment of salary dollars over the limit that is to be split ONLY among teams below the hard cap... as well as maybe a forfeiture of 1st round draft choices until the team is under the hard cap.

                            These are desperate times and it takes desperate measures to achieve parity and restore financial well-being for all franchises.
                            Last edited by beast23; 02-28-2011, 10:25 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz talks with Simon about small market teams & new CBA

                              Simon is a good owner and has done well managing this team the past years.

                              I don't think there's too many top big market teams in the league.

                              The Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, and Bulls (who built up from the draft) are the ones that'll probably be the top.

                              Miami's market is average.

                              Down the road, I think the league is gonna have new contenders (hopefully us) with all the top veteran teams players retired or older and signed with different teams.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X