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

IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

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

  • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

    Bills, the gist of it is they are going to be losing anyway. The playoffs at all might be a pipe dream let alone advancing. And to what end? Nobody is suggesting 0-82 and there will be very little difference between 35-47 or 28-54 for example. 41-41 would be a miracle itself and again to what end? What is there to gain by milking out maybe an extra 10 wins, staying the course, and throwing the kitchen sink at games to make it happen versus thinking bigger picture at this point?

    We're not talking about blowing up the '99 team or the 2000 team versus giving them another run. FA, age, and now a significant injury has decimated this team for the short term.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      There is no one answer. No fans are not going to flock to the fieldhouse to watch a D league roster get handed their butts every game by every team in the NBA.
      Agree.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      But guess what, fans are not going to flock to the fieldhouse to watch a group of middling players who have zero chance to win a title and no superstar to see for a show either.
      Disagree.

      As I've said before, all casual fans want is for there to be a good chance their team is going to win when they come to the games. If that happens - and all it really takes is an over 50% record at home, I think - they will CREATE a local "superstar" to be the guy they cheer for. We've seen it happen over and over, to the point even people here on PD get accused of just being fanboys for some player who "isn't really that good".

      If the truth of the NBA is that teams need to either be directly in the running for a championship or have a nationally anointed superstar to cheer for in order to survive, it would be a 16 team league.

      Market this team as guys who play basketball hard and fight every minute, prove it by actually winning some games rather than getting laughed off the floor, and there will be strong attendance. I'm not quite stupid enough to think sellouts - though I'd bet should the team by some miracle go undefeated at home they would start drawing huge crowds to see them win - but we'd not be back to 8000+ butts in the seats.

      Using the JOB years forgets that there were multiple reasons not to watch the team - not just the record, but the continuing recovery from both the brawl stigma and the retirement of the most popular player for over a decade. Here, now, we only have one thing to fight against - the talent level.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        The trio of an old West/Hibbert & Hill strikes fear into the heart of no one and I'm sorry but I think 30 wins might be a challenge for this team, we will see, but if you asked me right now that is where I think I would put us.
        I know you're way down on Roy and I'm not sure how you feel about Hill and his ability, but do you really feel the Bulls roster minus D.Rose is close to 20 wins better than what the Pacers will have next year?

        Comment


        • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          There is no one answer. No fans are not going to flock to the fieldhouse to watch a D league roster get handed their butts every game by every team in the NBA.

          But guess what, fans are not going to flock to the fieldhouse to watch a group of middling players who have zero chance to win a title and no superstar to see for a show either.

          We've had this debate before. The casual fans will show up to watch one of the best teams in the NBA (last season team certainly fit that bill) or they might show up a few games to watch a superstar type player who was exciting (Paul also fit that bill).

          Remember during the O'brien years we really weren't one of the worst teams in the NBA record wise, we were but they would always manage to get into 9th or 10th, and the fans stayed away buy the thousands.

          I've already made it clear, before Paul ever got injured and even before Lance left, I thought we needed to retool the team. Well thanks to Lance's decision and Paul's injury the team has essentially been gutted. The trio of an old West/Hibbert & Hill strikes fear into the heart of no one and I'm sorry but I think 30 wins might be a challenge for this team, we will see, but if you asked me right now that is where I think I would put us.

          So to me I think it would make much more sense to try and get help in here for Paul for 2016 when he can come back healthy and ready to go.

          I'm sorry but the window for this team as constructed IMO closed with that loss to Miami. Lance Stephenson leaving to me further sealed the window shut. Paul George's injury barred and shuttered the window like a Miami shop keeper sealing up for a Hurricane.
          I really do not want PG being the primary defensive stopper for the team. He is too valuable offensively.
          I agree with you all tho I felt the team was never going to win at title because of the slowness of the team at the big position. One slow guy maybe but not 2 or 3 slow players. In any case I am ready for a re-tool. Probably will have to wait until the trade deadline to start the process.

          Here is a defensive player. Ron Artest with a stable personality. That is what is needed to pair with PG and then a mobile big. Can we get Miles back? Can we trade for Dragic?

          PG
          Stanley
          Dragic
          Miles
          PF to be determined?

          http://www.nbadraft.net/players/stanley-johnson
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Bills, the gist of it is they are going to be losing anyway. The playoffs at all might be a pipe dream let alone advancing. And to what end? Nobody is suggesting 0-82 and there will be very little difference between 35-47 or 28-54 for example. 41-41 would be a miracle itself and again to what end? What is there to gain by milking out maybe an extra 10 wins, staying the course, and throwing the kitchen sink at games to make it happen versus thinking bigger picture at this point?

            We're not talking about blowing up the '99 team or the 2000 team versus giving them another run. FA, age, and now a significant injury has decimated this team for the short term.
            In all seriousness, do you think that (say) accepting the inevitable, basically telling fans not to bother coming to games this year, developing available young players, and getting a single possibly top-10 pick will put us in a position to win big in 2015-2016? Or will it put us in a position to start rebuilding in 2015-2016, with potentially another 3-4 years before the team is a "contender" again?

            See, to me, I don't think the advantages gained by a single top-10 pick (and don't even talk about getting the #1 pick, it is not going to happen) justify starting from scratch. I don't think we lose that much by gutting it out one year. It takes multiple years of being bad (and sometimes not even by then) to realize the benefits of top-10 picks.

            I'm looking at building long-term loyalty to the franchise rather than continuing on the "if they can't win it all I'll do something else" mentality that is prevalent. That's tilting at windmills, but that's how you create a franchise that survives the inevitable ups and downs.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

              Originally posted by Mourning View Post
              Ehmmm... I only remember the physical altercation with Evan, who wasnt the brightest either, and a verbal spat with Hill. That Lance got into multiple fights is something I had not heard or read before. Do you happen to have a link to the article stating that?
              It was in the Woj article that Broke the Evan Turner fight, I'll try to find it.

              Comment


              • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                I know you're way down on Roy and I'm not sure how you feel about Hill and his ability, but do you really feel the Bulls roster minus D.Rose is close to 20 wins better than what the Pacers will have next year?
                Minus a healthy or semi healthy Rose? No, not 20 games better but 10-15 sure. A healthy or semi healthy Rose? For sure.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                  Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                  Ehmmm... I only remember the physical altercation with Evan, who wasnt the brightest either, and a verbal spat with Hill. That Lance got into multiple fights is something I had not heard or read before. Do you happen to have a link to the article stating that?
                  Oops, I apologize, the quote was "Turner wasn't the first Pacer to lose his temper with Lance, and Stephenson's nature suggests he probably won't be the last" so I remembered it differently and exaggerated it, and I apologize for that. However I think my point still stands that Lance got on the nerves of nearly every Pacer during the season. Here is the link if you are interested.

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/news/pacers-...JmMQR2dGlkAw--

                  Comment


                  • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    In all seriousness, do you think that (say) accepting the inevitable, basically telling fans not to bother coming to games this year, developing available young players, and getting a single possibly top-10 pick will put us in a position to win big in 2015-2016? Or will it put us in a position to start rebuilding in 2015-2016, with potentially another 3-4 years before the team is a "contender" again?

                    See, to me, I don't think the advantages gained by a single top-10 pick (and don't even talk about getting the #1 pick, it is not going to happen) justify starting from scratch. I don't think we lose that much by gutting it out one year. It takes multiple years of being bad (and sometimes not even by then) to realize the benefits of top-10 picks.

                    I'm looking at building long-term loyalty to the franchise rather than continuing on the "if they can't win it all I'll do something else" mentality that is prevalent. That's tilting at windmills, but that's how you create a franchise that survives the inevitable ups and downs.
                    Bill at some point in time you are going to have to let this go. This franchise has already survived the inevitable ups and downs and is still standing.

                    Every time we have a down year you need to not panic and feel as though Herb is going to move us to Seattle.

                    The fans of Indiana are just like fans in any other city/state, they support the team. We have a very strong and in my opinion large core group of die hards. We just are a weak market for casuals. But that is not limited to the Indiana Pacers that is just the nature of central Indiana.

                    Okay you don't want to use the O'Brien years and I will agree that for the most part a lot of what you said was right, there was a lot of damage to fix.

                    So let's look at another time in our history that the team did exactly what some of us are saying to do now. In 2000 we went to the NBA finals, the very next season we came back to a team that wasn't even close to the team that we left. Your man Walsh decided that we weren't good enough and could not compete with the Lakers (I to this day disagree with this call) so he in essence blew it up and retooled the team.

                    Did the fans abandon the franchise? No, we had the normal dip in attendance that you get when you are not a title team but for the most part fans stuck it out. The new fieldhouse had a lot to do with that as well but not that much IMO.

                    Fans are not stupid. Nobody is going to be mad at the franchise because something happened that was out of their control. Now some might be mad at the Lance thing but for George, no nobody is going to blame the franchise.

                    However not blaming them doesn't mean they are going to take the time to drop money to go watch the team when its 12 degrees in February playing the Sacramento Kings (no offense VF21) when they can just go home turn on their large flat screen TV and watch the game at no additional cost.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      In all seriousness, do you think that (say) accepting the inevitable, basically telling fans not to bother coming to games this year, developing available young players, and getting a single possibly top-10 pick will put us in a position to win big in 2015-2016? Or will it put us in a position to start rebuilding in 2015-2016, with potentially another 3-4 years before the team is a "contender" again?

                      See, to me, I don't think the advantages gained by a single top-10 pick (and don't even talk about getting the #1 pick, it is not going to happen) justify starting from scratch. I don't think we lose that much by gutting it out one year. It takes multiple years of being bad (and sometimes not even by then) to realize the benefits of top-10 picks.

                      I'm looking at building long-term loyalty to the franchise rather than continuing on the "if they can't win it all I'll do something else" mentality that is prevalent. That's tilting at windmills, but that's how you create a franchise that survives the inevitable ups and downs.
                      You don't tell fans anything. Casual fans won't know the difference and hard core fans will understand it's part of the process. The disconnect seems to be the idea that the team as it is now can win and grow enough to matter for a year or more down the road when there's inevitable changes that will be facing us then anyway. Like I said, losing Lance changed things but losing PG to a bad injury has decimated the immediate future. We can either get ahead of the curve and look at the big picture or tread water. The fans will always return when the team is winning and ultimately contending. We know we'll be getting PG back and hopefully at 100% eventually. The question is what kind of a team will he be coming back to?
                      Last edited by Bball; 08-04-2014, 11:08 AM.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                        I would support moves for the future (youth) more then seeing this team fumbling. It would be depressing to see this team go through struggles of handling losing more then the last 1/3 of last season.


                        I know this team can move West, Hibbert, Scola and Watson for good pieces for the future.

                        Obviously, this is a risk, getting the right trades and youth, but that's why these guys have great value. These guys are not much of a risk at all and West, Hibbert and Scola can greatly improve a team at very little risk and teams will be throwing all kinds of deals on the table. It's up to the FO to make the right deals.
                        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                        Comment


                        • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Minus a healthy or semi healthy Rose? No, not 20 games better but 10-15 sure. A healthy or semi healthy Rose? For sure.
                          Not to take what you said SO literal, but that team last year won 48 games. So that would AT LEAST put the Pacers in the mid 30's as far as wins are concerned.

                          To think we would struggle to win 30 games is a bit of a stretch is all I'm getting at. I don't see why this team can't win 40ish games and compete the same way the Bulls did without Rose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                            I think IMO people are missing the point of why we wouldn't tank. No we won't win a title, but that's doesn't mean you just tank. I think you can see a lot of people here don't think the Pacers will win more than 30 games, if we don't tank and play hard and play well and win say for example 43 games then we are proving to everyone Paul's supporting cast is good enough to win a title if he can come back 100%. That is IMO why we don't tank, let's try to win and prove to PG and people here are supporting cast is better than we thought.

                            Comment


                            • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                              I think IMO people are missing the point of why we wouldn't tank. No we won't win a title, but that's doesn't mean you just tank. I think you can see a lot of people here don't think the Pacers will win more than 30 games, if we don't tank and play hard and play well and win say for example 43 games then we are proving to everyone Paul's supporting cast is good enough to win a title if he can come back 100%. That is IMO why we don't tank, let's try to win and prove to PG and people here are supporting cast is better than we thought.
                              We lost Lance Stephenson from last year's team a couple of weeks ago. Then we lost PG last week. Oh, and we lost Roy Hibbert after the ASG. I think some of you expecting us to be over .500 will be in for a shock.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: IF They Tanked - How Would You Support Them?

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Agree.



                                Disagree.

                                As I've said before, all casual fans want is for there to be a good chance their team is going to win when they come to the games. If that happens - and all it really takes is an over 50% record at home, I think - they will CREATE a local "superstar" to be the guy they cheer for. We've seen it happen over and over, to the point even people here on PD get accused of just being fanboys for some player who "isn't really that good".

                                If the truth of the NBA is that teams need to either be directly in the running for a championship or have a nationally anointed superstar to cheer for in order to survive, it would be a 16 team league.

                                The Pacers have had a winning record at home every season for something like 24 straight years. It's the longest active streak in the NBA. Even in the putrid late 2000's, the team still managed to win the majority of its games at home. It was more likely than not that the fans would see those O'Brien teams win home games, yet the team had awful attendance. So getting fans in the seats goes much much much deeper than just giving your fans a "good chance" of seeing the team win.

                                The fans in Central Indiana are great fans. We have historically had very good support for such a small market. Every fan base goes through its lulls. The Celtics fanbase and attendance was down before the Big 3 were formed. Look at all of the struggles in places like Detroit and Philly, which are leaps and bounds larger than Indy. For a small market, we have done very very well with the fans.

                                I'm not a fan of tanking for multiple years because it's not good to ingrain your new young players with a repeated culture of losing, and often the tanking never pans out. Bird showed that you don't need to completely tank in order to build a good team. That being said, we are in a very unique situation right now. We will have a rough season this year that at best will end in a 7 or 8 seed, but next season we will hopefully get back one of the best players in the game. The most important thing right now is maximizing the team that PG returns to. Running West/Hibbert/Hill into the ground so that we can go 39-43 is not going to do anything to help PG. Either trade West for good young talent or keep him fresh so that he can help PG in 15-16. A top 10 pick is more likely to help PG than the 15th pick.

                                No one is saying that you tell guys to throw games, but we need to give guys like Solo a ton of minutes as opposed to riding vets into the ground so we can possibly earn the right to get bulldozed by Cleveland. Play Cope and Allen a ton of minutes instead of draining West's gas tank. Something like the 8th pick in next year's draft could be very very very good when PG is in the prime of his career. That will mean a lot in the prime of his career, but OTOH would anyone really care years down the road that we were an 8 seed in 2015 that got drilled by Cleveland? Big picture. We're not talking about building an entire team through tanking. Instead, this is about getting just one lottery draft pick that has better odds of panning out than the 15th pick.

                                The fans around here aren't stupid. They appreciate what has been built here over the last couple of seasons and will understand that a freak injury ruined our title chances next year. Most people will understand if we have a strategy that tries to maximize the talent of the team PG returns to in 15-16. No matter what, we're not going to have the attendance and excitement that we had last year. We have to accept that. But if you have a good team around PG when he comes back, everyone will immediately come back.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-04-2014, 11:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X