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

The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

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

  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

    It's not just a Christmas complaint. The general public is most likely to watch an ABC game.

    Lakers, Knicks, Pacers games on ABC for the whole year? I think the tally is six, six, ZERO.

    It's market driven for sure, but still a ridiculous oversight. And considering the high ratings for ESPN for Heat-Pacers and even Rockets-Pacers, and a record high rating for a Pacers game on NBATV, IIRC, the TV executive assumption about people in general not being interested in teams from lesser markets (other than SA and OKC) is seriously flawed.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-25-2013, 11:00 AM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

      Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck View Post
      Instead of getting all upset about the Pacers not playing on Christmas, why are we not happy that the team gets to spend Christmas with their family....just saying
      To he fair, the entire league gets to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas morning with family. They do set that time aside every year.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Yes, shockingly a New York team has a better chance at a Christmas game than an Indiana team. Welcome to real life, which is not always fair.

        That said, neither team was supposed to be bad this season, and Indiana admittedly got snubbed. The spurs get snubbed quite a bit in Christmas Day, yet they're playing this year.

        Is OKC a big market? They're playing today. It's likely with the growth in the popularity of the pacers that they will be playing on Christmas next season. I can't imagine getting upset over something so silly as a Christmas Day snub. It's just petty.

        The Christmas snub is just a noticeable example from a season's worth of snubbing, i.e. 6 ABC games for the Knicks compared to 0 for the Pacers. Do I expect the Knicks to get some favoritism because they play in New York? Yes, so I wouldn't be complaining if the Knicks had something like 5 ABC games to our 3. But a 6 to 0 ratio after the Pacers whooped the Knicks in the playoffs last year shows just how lopsided the NBA's marketing biases are to New York. It's perfect evidence to support the fact that the NBA has a severe big market bias. It's the only way to explain the 6 ABC games for the Knicks compared to 0 for the Pacers. The Christmas Day games today are a key example because it's arguably the NBA's biggest regular season day.

        Oklahoma City is rare because they have two of the best superstars in the game and have made the Finals, so they have become impossible to ignore. It's like how the Cavs used to get a lot of national games with Lebron. But I'm not saying that the Pacers should get as many national games as OKC. All I'm saying is that we should be one of the 10 teams playing on Christmas today, and also that we should be getting a couple of ABC games.

        If you're good in the NFL, you get SNF and MNF games the next year. The Colts had a good season last year, so they were rewarded with two SNF games and a MNF games this season. The NFL has an NFC East bias, but it's not so bad that it causes them to unfair to the rest of the teams. The NFL by and large does an an excellent job of giving a huge number of teams an opportunity to perform on its biggest stage. No, I'm not saying that the NBA can ever be as popular as the NFL, but they are both professional sports leagues, so it's fair to look at what another league is doing.

        And spare me all of the haughty "life isn't fair" talk. It's an NBA forum and this is an NBA complaint. It's not as if this issue turned me into Scrooge when I was opening Christmas presents last night.

        Comment


        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          It's not just a Christmas complaint. The general public is most likely to watch an ABC game.

          Lakers, Knicks, Pacers games on ABC for the whole year? I think the tally is six, six, ZERO.

          It's market driven for sure, but still a ridiculous oversight. And considering the high ratings for ESPN for Heat-Pacers and even Rockets-Pacers, and a record high rating for a Pacers game on NBATV, IIRC, the TV executive assumption about people in general not being interested in teams from lesser markets (other than SA and OKC) is seriously flawed.
          This is a somewhat more valid complaint, though not as relevant anymore since most everyone with a tv has access to basic cable now.

          I'd also counter that all four Heat Pacers games are either on NBA tv or ESPN. Still an oversight that ABC or TNT couldn't pick one up. Doubtful that happens again.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            The Christmas snub is just a noticeable example from a season's worth of snubbing, i.e. 6 ABC games for the Knicks compared to 0 for the Pacers. Do I expect the Knicks to get some favoritism because they play in New York? Yes, so I wouldn't be complaining if the Knicks had something like 5 ABC games to our 3. But a 6 to 0 ratio after the Pacers whooped the Knicks in the playoffs last year shows just how lopsided the NBA's marketing biases are to New York. It's perfect evidence to support the fact that the NBA has a severe big market bias. It's the only way to explain the 6 ABC games for the Knicks compared to 0 for the Pacers. The Christmas Day games today are a key example because it's arguably the NBA's biggest regular season day.

            Oklahoma City is rare because they have two of the best superstars in the game and have made the Finals, so they have become impossible to ignore. It's like how the Cavs used to get a lot of national games with Lebron. But I'm not saying that the Pacers should get as many national games as OKC. All I'm saying is that we should be one of the 10 teams playing on Christmas today, and also that we should be getting a couple of ABC games.

            If you're good in the NFL, you get SNF and MNF games the next year. The Colts had a good season last year, so they were rewarded with two SNF games and a MNF games this season. The NFL has an NFC East bias, but it's not so bad that it causes them to unfair to the rest of the teams. The NFL by and large does an an excellent job of giving a huge number of teams an opportunity to perform on its biggest stage. No, I'm not saying that the NBA can ever be as popular as the NFL, but they are both professional sports leagues, so it's fair to look at what another league is doing.

            And spare me all of the haughty "life isn't fair" talk. It's an NBA forum and this is an NBA complaint. It's not as if this issue turned me into Scrooge when I was opening Christmas presents last night.
            The nfl has 17 Monday night games and 17 Sunday night games. That's 34 total.

            The nba plays a grand total of 15 games on abc this season, including two today.

            The math doesn't really allow for the nba to hand out abc showcase games to every decent team. Brooklyn and golden state, both mega market teams and popular preseason picks, didn't make the cut either. The Knicks do have a staggering amount of appearances (they won't next season), but, again, real life stuff. Santa Claus isn't real either.

            I'm thinking the ABC schedule had far less to do with who the nba wanted people to see and more with what ABC wanted to show. I recall seeing the pacers on NBC a lot in the 90's back when they had the contract. But it's far easier to complain about the big mean nba than a faceless broadcasting company.

            And we really don't need to go over the "fairness" (which is a joke) and "popularity" of the nfl for the umpteenth time, as it's been played out and really just a backhanded way of complaining about the nba.
            Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 11:29 AM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

              I can't remember all the particulars but the the Pacers playoff TV ratings were abysmal last year. People on this board may not like it but this Pacers team just might not resonate with a national audience. Who cares about national TV games anyway? It's not like a win counts for double. We could play 82 games on public access for all I care.

              Comment


              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                I think it takes a bit longer for a smaller market to get notoriety because of the smaller built in audience, and the ABC games are ridiculously exclusive. The pacers, if they keep having a great season, will make it there next season and the terrible seasons the bulls and Knicks are having will eat into their numbers. The lakers will continue to be shown because, well, Kobe.

                I'm more shocked the warriors didn't get one. That's a really popular team in a huge market.
                Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 11:39 AM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                  One more thing to keep in mind, ABC has a totally different motivation and mindset for showing sports than ESPN or TNT. ABC is a broadcast network and their sole goal is to use the live broadcast aspect of sports to get ratings. ESPN and TNT are cable channels and have a little more leeway to show interesting matchups. They make money in totally different ways and they use sports in totally different ways. ABC doesn't not show Pacers games to diss the Pacers, they don't show them because the Pacers don't make them money.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                    The Pacers have Lance Stephenson. He is must watch television!!! Its a shame that the national market can't see him, and are stuck watching Jason Kidd try and coach
                    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      The nfl has 17 Monday night games and 17 Sunday night games. That's 34 total.

                      The nba plays a grand total of 15 games on abc this season, including two today.

                      The math doesn't really allow for the nba to hand out abc showcase games to every decent team.

                      And we really don't need to go over the "fairness" and "popularity" of the nfl (which is a joke) for the umpteenth time, as it's been played out and really just a backhanded way of complaining about the nba.

                      Fine, I'll just look at the 19 Sunday Night (I'll count the Thursday season kickoff game and Thanksgiving game) games and compare them to the 15 ABC games. Seems like a pretty fair comparison considering both can be considered the marquee games of their respective sports. Sure, there are 4 more SNF games than ABC NBA games, but if ABC had five more then they would all just be some sort of combo of the Lakers/Heat/Thunder/Bulls/Knicks.

                      Number of SNF games by team:

                      Broncos - 4
                      Cowboys -4
                      Steelers -3
                      Ravens -2
                      Giants -2
                      Niners -2
                      Bears -2
                      Texans -2
                      Redskins -2
                      Colts -2
                      Patriots -2
                      Eagles -2
                      Saints -2
                      Seahawks -1
                      Falcons 1
                      Packers 1
                      Vikings 1
                      Chiefs 1
                      Panthers 1
                      Bengals 1

                      It looks like 20 NFL franchises got at least 1 SNF games. Wow, that's pretty good. It shows a league that tries its hardest to give most teams a fair chance of SNF. If you had a good season in 2012, then you were virtually guaranteed at least 1 SNF appearance. Sure they are a bit biased towards teams like the Broncos, Cowboys, and Steelers, but overall that's pretty fair. That's 20 different teams in just 19 weeks.

                      Now let's look at NBA on ABC appearances by team:

                      Knicks - 6
                      Heat -6
                      Lakers -5
                      Bulls -5
                      Thunder -4
                      Clippers -2
                      Spurs -1
                      Rockets - 1

                      Wow, that's just 8 franchises in 15 games, compared to 20 franchises in 19 SNF NFL games. The Spurs and Rockets each have one, and the Clippers have 2. Outside of that, the ABC games revolve around the same five franchises: LAL, Miami, NYK, Chicago, OKC. It's all so boring and predictable. No one is saying that the NBA can ever be the NFL. But they are both professional sports leagues, so it's fair to draw some comparisons. It's not as if I'm comparing the NBA to bible study. There are definitely things that the NBA could learn from the NFL to improve it's product, and this is one of them. The NFL is very good at making sure that most of it's league gets the opportunity to shine in its marquee SNF games, whereas the NBA acts as if its league revolves around the same 5 franchises. The Spurs, Grizz, and Pacers were all three Conference Finalists last year, yet there is only ONE ABC game between the three of them (SA). Awful awful marketing.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                        The nfl has much bigger say over who plays on NBC than the NBA does on who plays on ABC.

                        The NFL also doesn't wait 2 full months before televising an NBC game....

                        The NBA's showcase games are TNT anyway. Those are the events held for the fans. ABC games are broadcast just because ABC owns ESPN and ESPN has the contract. ABC only wants the playoff ratings.

                        If ABC could opt not to show any nba regular season games outside of Christmas and just broadcast playoff/finals games, they would. They most likely agreed to show a certain number of regular season games on ABC, but demanded a say in what teams they would show.

                        San Antonio came within one shot of winning the title last season. They are on ABC once, and they only get that game because it's a finals rematch against the heat.
                        Last edited by Kstat; 12-25-2013, 12:00 PM.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                          The most exciting player to watch in the entire NBA is playing for Indiana, Lance Stephenson, and nobody can see him. Blake Griffin is old news. ABC/ESPN are morons!!!
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                            People will watch a Rams game on ABC. They won't watch a Pacers game on ABC. It's not bad marketing, it's market economics. If people watched Pacers games then they'd put them on ten times a year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              The nfl has much bigger say over who plays on NBC than the NBA does on who plays on ABC.

                              The NFL also doesn't wait 2 full months before televising an NBC game....
                              The NFL is dumb as well. Andrew Luck, the best young QB since Peyton Manning, has only had ONE MNF game so far
                              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                The most exciting player to watch in the entire NBA is playing for Indiana, Lance Stephenson, and nobody can see him. Blake Griffin is old news. ABC/ESPN are morons!!!
                                I'm with you, I think Lance is objectively the funniest player I've ever seen in the NBA.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X