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

Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

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

  • #76
    Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    An empty chair could have won with da Bulls...and da Lakers of 2000-2002.

    Phil is supposed to be a great people manager, yet he failed to manage the most talented team he ever had with this list of all-stars: ...Karl Malone, Gary Peyton, Horace Grant, Derek Fisher, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant.

    How do you not get it done with that talent?
    They were old and over the hill. They might have won if Malone had not got injured. The fact is the Bulls and the Lakers didn't win anything with those same players you mention until Phil came along. I think he has another ring as a player too.....

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

      Those claims about John Wooden are unsubstantiated. Furthermore; Bob Knight is not without error. However, it seems as though John Wooden thought that Bob Knight was a great coach:
      “People think I don't like him,” Wooden said of Knight more recently. “I don’t think there's ever been a better coach than Bobby Knight. Do I like the way he teaches? No, I don’t. I never cared for it, but nevertheless.”

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

        Originally posted by 1984 View Post
        Those claims about John Wooden are unsubstantiated. Furthermore; Bob Knight is not without error. However, it seems as though John Wooden thought that Bob Knight was a great coach:
        The claims about Wooden are substantiated and the players involved have even admitted it. The NCAA finally got involved in 1980 when Larry Brown was the coach and their were sanctions including a ban in tournament participation. The booster also had a federal case but he died four days before he was to be served on that one. Much has been written about this and even Wooden didn't deny it saying only he did the best that he could..... Knight never had any use for John Wooden because he was a cheater, pure and simple.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

          This is a great article:

          Read the complete article, HERE.

          If you’re still waiting to see the kind statement former Indiana University basketball coach Bob Knight releases about the late John Wooden, you can probably cease the vigil.

          Knight and Wooden were giants of the sport, and no two men advanced the game, and quite frankly, advanced the business of the game, more than these two.

          But the truth is, they didn't like each other.

          Knight has publicly stated that Wooden let the likes of Sam Gilbert, a notorious booster who allegedly provided some UCLA players with gifts in violation of NCAA rules, remain far too close to the Bruins’ program.

          Knight was even quoted as saying you won’t find anyone like Gilbert loitering around the IU program while he was coach. Clearly, Knight thought Wooden turned a blind eye to things he shouldn’t have, allowing UCLA alums to buy talent that fueled the school's magical hoops run of the 1960s and 1970s.

          Wooden respected Knight’s coaching ability, but quite frankly, didn’t like the way he went about it. And he wasn’t shy about saying so publicly.

          “I wouldn’t want anybody I love to play for Bob Knight,” Wooden once said.

          Wooden did soften somewhat.

          “People think I don't like him,” Wooden said of Knight more recently. “I don’t think there's ever been a better coach than Bobby Knight. Do I like the way he teaches? No, I don’t. I never cared for it, but nevertheless.”

          Not exactly a resounding compliment, but Knight was never effusive in his praise of Wooden either—despite the 10 national championships he compiled at UCLA.

          Knight, ever respectful of the men who walked his career path before him and the history of the game, often lavishes praises on the likes of Henry Iba and Clair Bee, but rarely, if ever, on the so-called Wizard of Westwood, a deity in the sport of college basketball, especially in Indiana, where Knight most notably plied his trade and won three NCAA national titles.

          Maybe part of the rift was merely competitive juices flowing in opposite directions. Their teams collided more than once on the hardwood in the 1970s.

          Despite their differences, the on-court wars and their different approaches, the two actually have some very important similarities.

          First, neither one came anywhere close to maximizing their own personal fortune in the sport of college basketball.

          Wooden, amazingly, never made more than $32,500 annually. Least you think this was just a product of Wooden’s era, remember, there were no shortage of coaches knocking down $150,000 or more in the mid and late 1970s.

          Unthinkable that some coach somewhere during the same era in college basketball would make four or five times as much as Wooden. But he never complained about it.

          Knight too lived on a relatively small salary. Sure he knocked down five to 10 times what Wooden did, but only half of some of his Big Ten counterparts. Again, to think Knight’s pay wouldn’t be tops in the Big Ten year-in and year-our is kind of crazy. But that’s the way it was, and IU didn’t have to enter the arms race until Knight’s departure. Now, IU pays coach Tom Crean in excess of $2 million annually.

          Knight and Wooden certainly helped commercialize what we now know as March Madness, but neither imbibed much in the fruits of their own labor.

          Money clearly never moved these two titans.

          Two things did move this complex duo; winning and principle.

          And it was those two things that likely drove a wedge between them. Both men wanted to win so bad, maybe they never quite got over their on-court run-ins, or the inevitable comparisons that dogged them.

          You think Knight still doesn’t dream about Steven Downing’s fifth foul in the 1973 NCAA tournament game against UCLA. Think again.

          For both men, living by principle meant doing things their way—and only their way. Knight wasn’t the only one of the two to tell players my way or the highway. Ask Bill Walton—and his beard—about that.

          Problem was, their ways were far different. Wooden was a golly doggone kinda guy, while Knight never met a swear word he couldn’t make good use of in a practice or game-time huddle.

          Wooden liked to philosophize, Knight preferred to intimidate.

          Though their teaching styles were vastly different, both valued education on and off the court, with graduation rates that far exceeded NCAA mandates.

          Both were seen as mavericks, even radicals, in their coaching styles.

          Both got results.

          Both thought they played it straight by the book.

          In the end, both were fiercely loyal to the players who stayed loyal to them, and to the game they loved without reservation.

          They were both madly possessed with winning and doing things right, and Knight and Wooden both thought they chose the correct path to that end.

          And who am I to say otherwise?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

            Originally posted by 1984 View Post
            This is a great article:

            Read the complete article, HERE.
            Nonetheless, Bobby ran a clean program. UCLA had paid athletes and Wooden damned well knew all about it. Therefore he was a scum bag cheater.....

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              Nonetheless, Bobby ran a clean program. UCLA had paid athletes and Wooden damned well knew all about it. Therefore he was a scum bag cheater.....
              Blu: go chew on something else:


              I say that with all the respect in the world, and no malice intended.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                The Pistons team a few years ago...response to spreedom..
                Last edited by SIR-LANCE-ALOT; 12-30-2012, 07:13 PM. Reason: Response to spreedom

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                  Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                  They were old and over the hill. They might have won if Malone had not got injured. The fact is the Bulls and the Lakers didn't win anything with those same players you mention until Phil came along. I think he has another ring as a player too.....
                  But Shaq won the next year...and Kobe got two more after that and a finals appearance. He may get another one this year and Phil is no where to be seen...but the Lakers are loaded with talent.

                  Yes, Phil is better than Del Harris. But his first year in Chicago prior to MJ, Pippen and Horace maturing, Phil didn't take the Bulls any further than Doug Collins. They both went to the ECF. Once the players got a little more experience, they became successful. This had little to do with Phil Jackson.

                  The players liked the man. He was an interesting fellow. But he was no strategic genius like Popovich, Rick Carlisle and Larry Brown. Phil just had the best players for just about his entire coaching career.

                  Edit: ...and the two years without Jordan, they still had Pippen, Kukoc, Grant, etc., and lost in the second round both times. That team was all Jordan.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-30-2012, 07:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    The claims about Wooden are substantiated and the players involved have even admitted it. The NCAA finally got involved in 1980 when Larry Brown was the coach and their were sanctions including a ban in tournament participation. The booster also had a federal case but he died four days before he was to be served on that one. Much has been written about this and even Wooden didn't deny it saying only he did the best that he could..... Knight never had any use for John Wooden because he was a cheater, pure and simple.
                    Link? I'd like to read about this.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      Link? I'd like to read about this.
                      I already posted one. Search "John Wooden NCAA Violations" and there are numerous articles about it and how the NCAA turned its head. Several of the players called this booster "Papa" and he was around the team facilities all of the time. Even Bobby Knight knew his name.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                        As mush as I hate to defend OlBlu, he's mostly on the money here. Sam Gilbert provided UCLA players with illegal benefits during Wooden's years there. No question about it. Wooden has never been found to know about Gilbert's involvement with his players. But I find it highly unlikely that a man as prepared and detail oriented as Wooden failed to notice his jobless and poor players were running around LA in new cars...

                        There have been many many articles, including a 1981 investigation piece by the LA Times regarding Gilbert, UCLA, and these allegations. The LA Times article is even referenced on Wooden's Wikipedia entry and linked to in the bibliography at the bottom.
                        Last edited by travmil; 12-30-2012, 08:03 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          But Shaq won the next year...and Kobe got two more after that and a finals appearance. He may get another one this year and Phil is no where to be seen...but the Lakers are loaded with talent.

                          Yes, Phil is better than Del Harris. But his first year in Chicago prior to MJ, Pippen and Horace maturing, Phil didn't take the Bulls any further than Doug Collins. They both went to the ECF. Once the players got a little more experience, they became successful. This had little to do with Phil Jackson.

                          The players liked the man. He was an interesting fellow. But he was no strategic genius like Popovich, Rick Carlisle and Larry Brown. Phil just had the best players for just about his entire coaching career.

                          Edit: ...and the two years without Jordan, they still had Pippen, Kukoc, Grant, etc., and lost in the second round both times. That team was all Jordan.
                          Phil was a great ego manager. That is where his greatness ends. In the NBA though that is sometimes all you need from a coach to have a great team.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            Phil was a great ego manager. That is where his greatness ends. In the NBA though that is sometimes all you need from a coach to have a great team.
                            Yes, but even Popovich is better at that.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Yes, but even Popovich is better at that.
                              The spurs have egos? That team is full of great guys for the most part...outside of the occasional headcase
                              Last edited by Dgreenwell3; 12-30-2012, 09:23 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who is the best basketball coach of all time?

                                Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                                The spurs have egos? That team is full of great guys for the most part
                                Funny how it works when you have the right coach.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X