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

September 15th: The first deadline

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

  • September 15th: The first deadline

    http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/stor...new-labor-deal

    Sept. 15 has been set as the deadline for a new collective-bargaining agreement to be reached before the NBA starts to cancel training camp and preseason games, league sources tell Hoopsworld.

    Should even one preseason game be canceled, advertisers and sponsors would start pulling commitments and season ticketholders would likely start asking for refunds, sources told the website.

    There is reportedly a negotiating session scheduled for Wednesday in New York, which will be attended by top executives on both sides, including NBA commissioner David Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver, and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter and president Derek Fisher. Still, there is little optimism that much progress will be made this week.

  • #2
    Re: September 15th: The first deadline

    How anyone is supposed to believe this is anywhere even close to being resolved is beyond me. The players and owners have met one time and it's been almost 2 months. I never in my wildest dreams thought the season would really be lost.. But the more I hear and the less I see, it just seems imminent. Sad news for us Pacer fans who desperately want to see our team grow with each other.
    Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

    Passion. Pride. Pacers.

    It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
    #31 & Only

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: September 15th: The first deadline

      I have basically no hope of anything getting done in time for this deadline (it would take a MASSIVE acceleration in talks), but I'm hoping that once we get into mid-to-late October things will finally get serious.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: September 15th: The first deadline

        Even it there was some agreement before then, you still need a Free agency period. First Pacer preseason game is 10/11/11.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: September 15th: The first deadline

          I'm interested to see how things go Wednesday.

          If they break off talks, right away, and go into PR mode, we have big trouble ahead.

          The best we (fans) can hope for is they start to get quiet and keep meeting, imo, with little to no leaks of information.

          I wish they'd get a mediator, now!! I think the owners don't want a mediator because they don't want a comprimise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: September 15th: The first deadline

            Why aren't they meeting more? Seems like the more often you meet, the quicker you can come to reach a deal. Is it a waiting game to see who cracks first? This is just petty and lame.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: September 15th: The first deadline

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I have basically no hope of anything getting done in time for this deadline (it would take a MASSIVE acceleration in talks), but I'm hoping that once we get into mid-to-late October things will finally get serious.
              I wonder what would be the next "deadline" or "milestone" that would be set after Mid-September?

              At best, we're probably looking at a shortened season starting in January......but I have a question to those that remember the 1999 lockout.....since the season was shortened...did they create a totally new schedule once the season started?

              or

              Did they just pick up the existing season when the schedule starts?
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                Why aren't they meeting more? Seems like the more often you meet, the quicker you can come to reach a deal. Is it a waiting game to see who cracks first? This is just petty and lame.
                This is my entire stance, too. And I may have my facts crooked, but I keep hearing how they aren't in talks at all. Why the hell not? Your entire business depends upon the progress of negotiations, and you're not negotiating?

                What the hell else are you doing then?
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                  Originally posted by Pacers4Life View Post
                  How anyone is supposed to believe this is anywhere even close to being resolved is beyond me. The players and owners have met one time and it's been almost 2 months. I never in my wildest dreams thought the season would really be lost.. But the more I hear and the less I see, it just seems imminent. Sad news for us Pacer fans who desperately want to see our team grow with each other.

                  No one believes it is anywhere close to being resolved. They basically haven't even started negotiating.

                  However I would not jump to your conclusion that canceling the season is immiment. I mean it might be canceled in the end, who knows, but that won't be known for sure until January and we are a long, long way off from that

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                    Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                    Why aren't they meeting more? Seems like the more often you meet, the quicker you can come to reach a deal. Is it a waiting game to see who cracks first? This is just petty and lame.

                    No reason to meet until one side or the other is willing to change their offer.

                    if I am willing to pay you $20 but you want $40. OK, say we meet, I raise my offer to $22, you say nope, I want 40. that ends negotiations and I won't meet with you again until I know you are comijng off your $40. if there is a deadline in 6 weeks, I am not going to neogiate against myself, I will just wait. The ball is in your court

                    there is no reason to meet until there is either a deadline or until one side or the other is willing to compromise which typically never happens until a deadline is near.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-29-2011, 02:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I wonder what would be the next "deadline" or "milestone" that would be set after Mid-September?

                      At best, we're probably looking at a shortened season starting in January......but I have a question to those that remember the 1999 lockout.....since the season was shortened...did they create a totally new schedule once the season started?

                      or

                      Did they just pick up the existing season when the schedule starts?

                      completely new schedule. But they will wait until the last possible moment to start canceling regular season games. In 1999 no regular season games were cancelled until October 13th, and my guess is if it looked like things were moving towards a possible setlement they could push that back a few days

                      Here are the key dates from 1999


                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998%E2...99_NBA_lockout

                      After negotiations between the sides broke off on June 22, the lockout started nine days later. Teams were barred from making player transactions and holding workouts and meetings for the duration of the work stoppage.[3] An early byproduct of the lockout was the exclusion of NBA players from the U.S. national team that played at the 1998 FIBA World Championship. USA Basketball, the governing body for the sport in the U.S., elected to send a team consisting of lower-level professional players and amateurs.[8] Negotiations resumed at an August 6 bargaining session, the first since the start of the lockout. NBA commissioner David Stern and several owners left the talks after the NBPA presented an offer that included increased revenue sharing between teams.[9]

                      By September 25, 24 exhibition games were canceled and training camps were postponed indefinitely as a result of stalled talks.[10] Further negotiating sessions took place in October and November, but no agreement was reached.[11] The season's first two weeks were officially canceled on October 13, and 99 games scheduled for November were lost as a result. It was the first time in NBA history that games were canceled due to a labor dispute.[12] On October 20, arbitrator John Feerick ruled that the owners did not have to pay players with guaranteed contracts during the lockout.[13] Feerick's decision gave the owners leverage in bargaining talks. Another factor favoring the owners was that their teams received money from the NBA's television broadcasters, whose contracts with the league called for payments to be made if games were not played.[14]

                      Further games were canceled as the lockout continued through November and December,[11] including the 1999 All-Star Game, which had been scheduled to be played on February 14, 1999 at the First Union Center in Philadelphia.[15] Discussions during the lockout were characterized by frequent hostility between the players and owners. One example of the heated nature of the talks came at an early December bargaining session, when Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter became involved in what CBS News called "an extremely heated, expletive-laden screaming match".[16] Both men temporarily walked away from the bargaining table,[16] and indicated after the session that the entire season might be canceled.[17] Although the 1998 portion of the schedule was not played because of the lockout, 16 NBA players participated in a December 19 exhibition game in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The event's organizers intended to give NBPA members a share of the money raised, but the idea proved controversial, and charities ultimately received the proceeds.[18]


                      [edit] Settlement

                      On December 23, Stern announced that he would recommend canceling the season if there was no deal by January 7, 1999.[11] As Stern's deadline approached, the NBPA showed signs of division from within.[19] Highly paid players were seen as the ones most affected by the disputed issues, rather than the union's membership as a whole.[20] Agent David Falk, who was considered an influential voice for the players,[20] represented NBPA president Patrick Ewing and nine players on the union's 19-person negotiating committee.[21][22] The NBPA scheduled a meeting in New York City on January 6, where players would vote on a proposal by the owners that the committee had recommended opposing. Several players, including Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwon, wanted the vote to be conducted by secret ballot, while others indicated a desire to return to competition regardless of how the vote went. Kevin Johnson stated that most players "were just ready to throw down [fight] Wednesday at our meeting if an agreement hadn't been reached."[23] Faced with a splintering union, Hunter moved to resume talks with Stern.[19] On January 6, the day before Stern's deadline, he and Hunter reached an agreement, which was ratified by the NBPA later that day and by the NBA Board of Governors on January 7.[24]

                      Widely viewed as a victory for Stern and the owners,[19][23] the agreement was signed by both parties on January 20, officially ending the lockout after 204 days.[25] It capped players' salaries at between $9 million and $14 million, depending on how long they had played in the NBA. A rookie pay scale was introduced, with salary increases tied to how early a player was selected in the NBA Draft. The Larry Bird exception was retained, though maximum annual pay raises were capped. New "average" and "median" salary cap exemptions, which the NBPA had proposed, allowed teams to sign one player per category even if they were over the spending limit.[24] The league's minimum salary was increased to $287,500, a $15,000 raise from before the lockout.[26]


                      [edit] Reaction and aftermath

                      The lockout prompted indifference among most American sports fans, who thought that greed was shown by both sides.[27][28] A CBS News–New York Times poll conducted in October 1998 showed that, while most fans' opinion of professional basketball was unaffected by the work stoppage, 29 percent reported that their views had become more negative.[29] The same poll showed that fans backed the NBPA in the dispute by a 36–29 margin, while the general public supported the owners 24 percent to 22 percent. One-quarter of basketball fans who responded to the poll did not know enough about the lockout to give an opinion, along with 45 percent of the general public.[29] Media members were frequently critical of the owners and players. Sportswriter Tony Kornheiser described the labor dispute as one "between tall millionaires and short millionaires."[30] An article in Newsweek termed the lockout "an incomprehensible and unconscionable dispute between rival gangs of millionaires".[23] Time's Bill Saporito believed that each side was damaged by the lockout, in terms of financial losses and negative publicity.[31] Stern said that he had made concessions in the agreement, while Hunter said that the parties "both blinked."[19][31]

                      The 1998–99 season, which began on February 5, 1999,[32] was shortened to 50 games per team, as opposed to the normal 82.[33] As a result of the 204-day lockout, 464 regular-season games were lost.[34] In addition to the lockout, the NBA's popularity was affected by the second retirement of Michael Jordan, who had been largely responsible for an increase in fan interest during his career.[35] The average attendance during the shortened season was 16,738 fans per game, down 2.2 percent from the 1997–98 average of 17,117 spectators per contest.[36] Ticket sales fell nearly two percent further in the opening months of 1999–00,[35] and remained under 17,000 per game for the following three seasons.[36] The league also saw television ratings drop for three consecutive seasons after the lockout.[37] In the years following the lockout, a higher percentage of players signed contracts worth the maximum amount possible under the cap. Some young players, such as LeBron James, began signing shorter contracts that allowed for more flexibility in team choice and salary.[34] The agreement expired in 2005, and both sides became concerned about the possibility of another work stoppage. A fourth lockout in 11 years was prevented, however, when a six-year CBA was reached in June.[38]

                      [edit] Notes
                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-29-2011, 02:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        I wonder what would be the next "deadline" or "milestone" that would be set after Mid-September?
                        I think what it is is that they have to hack off the schedule one month at a time. So if Sep. 15th is the line now, I'm assuming it'll be roughly each month that another 'deadline' comes long.

                        Next time the victim will be the month of November's games. Then December, then January, then finally they'll just call off the season if they can't get an agreement sometime at the top of 2012.

                        I'm crossing my fingers for only losing November and December, but I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          This is my entire stance, too. And I may have my facts crooked, but I keep hearing how they aren't in talks at all. Why the hell not? Your entire business depends upon the progress of negotiations, and you're not negotiating?

                          What the hell else are you doing then?
                          On the surface, I completely agree, but I think it's because both sides realize that neither one is going to budge until money begins to be lost, so it's a matter of waiting for the bleeding to begin. I find that stupid, but understandable.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                            I still sense a different relationship between the owners and players than in 1999 - it is better now. Or at least it seems better

                            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...urn=nba-wp7917

                            August 29, 2011

                            The NBA’s players can win the PR war, but they should attempt to end the mess


                            The kids are back in school, the NFL is about to spark up, and the NCAA isn't far off from tipping off its own hoops season. September is a few days, and the NBA has made absolutely no inroads or advancement as it "attempts" to bargain with its players. The 2011 lockout is about to finish its second full month, and absolutely nothing has been accomplished.

                            Outside of, surprisingly, a warming lack of blowhard dialogue from either side. David Stern and his owners haven't gone too far over the top in presenting their case, and no player has really done much to either embarrass or take away from the message emanating from the other side.

                            Training camps are set to start just about a month from now, though. And if you think a July 1st mindset -- a dogged adherence to pre-lockout talking points, and absolutely no consideration for the lives and fortunes lost by potentially losing a single preseason week to this lockout counts as any sort of advancement -- then you're probably part of the legal counsel representing either side of this mess. The owners and the players don't have a car to park, a ticket to take, a section to sweep, a keg to change, an ankle to tape, or a column to type up. No wonder they haven't moved an inch.

                            This doesn't mean there hasn't been some advancement. At this time, back in 1998, the North American sporting world had its eyes fixed upon Sammy Sosa and (mainly) Mark McGuire as they chased down Roger Maris' home run record with a litany of locker room supplements and not a dose (no pun intended; and this is from a St. Louis Cardinals fan) of shame. With Michael Jordan all but retired and the eyes of a sports-mad nation fixed elsewhere, the NBA's players could afford to act like absolute morons as they "argued" their side of a Collective Bargaining Agreement that (somehow, smartly) just handed Kevin Garnett(notes) a $121 million deal just two years after he graduated high school.

                            Still, the players screwed it up. Not the deal, which worked out in their favor. Instead, it was the way they attempted to articulate their case, while hoping that Kevin Garnett's contract somehow turned into [David Falk's client's] contract.
                            And this time around, the players are acting their age. And, according to Howard Beck of the New York Times, this is no co-incidence:
                            "It was a huge emphasis," Derek Fisher(notes), the president of the National Basketball Players Association, said in a telephone interview. "The reality is, we're in a great position, where guys have worked to put themselves in this place where they can potentially earn millions of dollars."

                            […]
                            At Fisher's direction, the union last fall distributed a 56-page lockout handbook to its 400-plus players. Tucked between tabs on "budgeting" and "player services" is a section devoted to "media," with talking points on everything from the N.B.A.'s financial losses ("vastly overstated") to franchise values ("Warriors just sold for $450M").

                            But the key point, perhaps, is this simple reminder: "Please be sensitive about interviews or other media displays of a luxurious lifestyle."
                            Things have changed, and that goes beyond David Falk-sponsored athletes like Patrick Ewing or Kenny Anderson speaking as if the rest of the NBA-watching public was making an average of nearly eight figures a year.

                            In 1998, you had newspapers, and TV. That was it. You'll have to believe me when I tell you I wrote for the most popular non-mainstream NBA website (years before these things were called "blogs"), as evidenced by its status amongst the six NBA sites (your typical 2011-era NBA bookmarks, plus Nando.net and The Sporting News) you would see upon typing in "NBA" into any search engine. And our take didn't make a dent in anyone's line of thinking.

                            touch idiocy of some NBA players during the 1998 lockout, we still fell on their side because we knew better about what owners should have done better with the 1995 CBA.
                            In 2011? We know better. And the 2011 lockout is the owners' fault.

                            But if the 2011 lockout results in missed NBA games? Then it will be the players' fault.
                            This is not a change of heart. The owners had the blueprint in place to at least come close to working with shared revenue streams and various aspects of the 1999-era Collective Bargaining Agreement (especially as modified in 2005) to keep salaries under control and say "no thanks" when it came to overpaying players and using smarts and analytics to sign a reasonable replacement for half the price.

                            Those owners declined. I don't completely agree with Malcolm Gladwell's assertion that owning an NBA team is a show-offy mess, but he's not far off. The owners could have, and especially should have, done better since 1999. If the summer of 2004 was no indication, than various summers since then should have been. This lockout is their fault. This lockout is the owners' fault. They bargained a bad deal, and then somehow utilized the worst aspects of it while they bid against themselves for players who didn't deserve what a supposedly player-grating CBA should have resulted in.

                            Why should this burden fall on the players? Why should they take the fall for pound-foolish business practices gone wrong? Why should a player earning a second contract in 2015 pay for an owner that foolishly bought his team for 200 percent of what it was worth in 2005?
                            I can't tell you. There's no legitimate reason why. Mortgaging the future of the type of player who will gladly take the jobs of NBA Players Association leaders like Derek Fisher and Maurice Evans in 2013 should be no concern to either Fisher and Evans (that old deli; or comedy team), current players that will stick with this league beyond 2015, or the rookies drafted last or this year. The NBA's players shouldn't give in.

                            But they should. And beyond all the rhetoric, they know it. It's not that it's their turn, but … well, it's their turn.

                            The players made out in 1995. They made out in 1999, and they killed it again in 2005. Their fault? Hardly.

                            Their burden, to a game that owes them so much? To a group of incoming players set to sign to a league years from now? A league that North Americans could want nothing to do with for years on end following a missed 2011-12? Catosprophic for those impending NBA-types that are a few years away.

                            Talk about the future employees that could be hurt by a bad deal, NBAPA. Try and remove the rhetoric and consider the future employees that will be hurt by a deal that costs all of 2011-12, NBAPA. You think that Jim in the Titans hat gives a crap about some 2014-15 rookie? He cares about a boring Thursday night next February, because 'Community' is too "meta" for him, and he doesn't even know what "meta" means. I'm right there with him. I got the "Dinner With Andre" reference, I loved it, but I also like the Spurs/Nuggets game.

                            Jim also wants to watch the early LeBron and Derrick Rose(notes) contest, and the halftime bits that feature Charles Barkley. Why don't you get that, players and owners? This won't last.

                            The players? They've "given up" quite a bit. Now it's time to see how the other side feels.
                            The players took on rookie contracts so as to save payrolls to make it so the Milwaukee Bucks and Dallas Mavericks could afford to pay players 2-through-15 after the rookies were signed to guaranteed deals. They took on massive guaranteed contracts that were grandfathered into an era that supported ridiculous deals spent with no smart plan in place. The players dealt with an "average player" contract in the Mid-Level Exception that handed out five or six years to average players, forgetting of course that average players usually don't play that way after a year or so.

                            This is the owners' fault. This is their mess. But if the players want to keep goodwill, as discussed in the piece written by Howard Beck, then they have to step up. They have to understand that it is their turn.

                            Back in 1998, nobody was excited. Jordan was gone. Rodman was in Los Angeles with something called a "Carmen Electra" (read: kids? She was like Kim Kardashian, except she was a lot funnier). Nobody really cares about the NBA in late August of 2011, and they shouldn't. But that doesn't mean the goose is less golden.

                            This squawking bird is better off. It's a mess, no doubt, but that mess brings in the ratings. Players should know this. Times are different -- back in 1997-98, there were three nationally televised nights on TBS and TNT to work through. Right now? TNT's Thursday night (with 26 NBA teams, and all their players potentially watching, off the clock) reigns supreme. When Ernie Johnson Jr., Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley discuss the "issues" of the week, players pay attention. They're watching. You know they are.

                            Times are more engaged. And the world's lots larger than it looks today, now that the internet and easy texts are at an arm's length. But, somehow, that brings everyone closer.
                            And though the players are under no obligation to settle for anything; they're sort of obligated to understand what came before them, how things were perverted, how they (and players that will never sniff the NBA again) took advantage, and what they should do from here on out.

                            It's on them. This is the owners' mess.

                            And this is the players' duty. The percentages in their favor have to come down. They have to help buy gas, on that jet ride from Orlando to Memphis. They have to fall back.
                            Again, this lockout is the owners' fault.

                            But if the NBA doesn't play a game in November? That's on the players. Don't stop for a second before blaming anyone else.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: September 15th: The first deadline

                              I will blow out the candles on my 46th birthday cake that day and make a wish, then.

                              Wish me luck!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X