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

Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

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

  • #16
    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


    Hmmmm.....

    I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

    I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

    I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?

    My take was that in the absence of a realistic move capable of landing us a superstar, our cap space meant very little. Signing our own guys amounted to another year we just saw - and a playoffs that saw a rejuvenation of the fan base - with strong potential to improve.

    Why take a risk and shake things up, when you can all but guarantee a high playoff seed until 2014 when we regain financial flexibility and can reexamine our needs with a couple years of continuing to solidify some of the returning locals.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

      Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
      My take was that in the absence of a realistic move capable of landing us a superstar, our cap space meant very little. Signing our own guys amounted to another year we just saw - and a playoffs that saw a rejuvenation of the fan base - with strong potential to improve.

      Why take a risk and shake things up, when you can all but guarantee a high playoff seed until 2014 when we regain financial flexibility and can reexamine our needs with a couple years of continuing to solidify some of the returning locals.
      I DON'T THINK (or maybe hope) that the FO and the Simons are okay with being just good enough to make the playoffs. But at the same time one has to wonder whether or not we really can attract "big name" FA when we have cap-space available. Though it's kind of unfortunate, building a team full of 2nd and 3rd tier players and hoping their hardwork, cohesiveness and the potential for one of our young vets to break out and become a very good player can help with advancement in the playoffs is a sound option for a team that may not have other REALISTIC options to improve the team--outside of overpaying in FA of course.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

        Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
        Some pretty good points in here but I don't see any mention of how our young guys that are working hard to improve their game. No mention of PG here or that Augustin will play a vital role coming off of the bench. I guess I am still old school in thought as a good deep team can beat a team with a few star players. I don't think our young guys were prepared on just how hard it is when you get past the first round in the playoffs. I see us being much better than last year with a full training camp and players getting accustomed to their roles. I do like most of our additions to the team with the exception of hoping to keep Barbosa. It will be a tougher year coming up with Philly getting Bynum and the Celtics getting stronger and younger. I am just glad they are not in the central.
        The idea that a solid, deep team can beat a team with a few starts isn't old school thought. It's just a belief in an exception to a rule that has been proven since James Naismith first nailed a peach basket on the wall.

        Basketball has always been driven by stars. It always will be. There are only 10 guys allowed on the court at a time. A single star can trump a team. Multiple stars on the opposition are a death knell.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


          Hmmmm.....

          I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

          I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

          I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?
          For one thing, he said it in the context that bolder moves would almost certainly mean committing to taking a step or two BACKWARDS this season.

          For another, why would I argue with an SI article? Not like the writer is going to read my response.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


            Hmmmm.....

            I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

            I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

            I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?
            I think that is exactly the case and a few of us here have been saying that all along and some of us think it is the reason Bird quit the team..... ... Bird was all Gung Ho on coming back but wanted to talk to Simon. He had that talk and quit. You don't need a wire tap to understand what transpired. ...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

              The NBA is getting closer and closer to MLB. There are a handful of teams that can spend the money to load up their roster. The rest of MLB just has to sit back and deal with the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, etc.... buying up all the talent and winning World Series. There's another group that maybe makes the playoffs or comes really close - enough to satisfy their fan base. And then there's the group that concedes on opening day and pretty much just grooms players for the big market teams to get later on. Yeah - every now and then you get Tampa making a run with a low payroll, but the MLB equation is easy. Spend money, win games, win titles.

              Same in the NBA. Big Market teams don't care about going over the cap - they'll just pay the penalty tax and move on. Until the NBA goes to a hard cap like football, this is what it's like.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                The NBA is getting closer and closer to MLB. There are a handful of teams that can spend the money to load up their roster. The rest of MLB just has to sit back and deal with the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, etc.... buying up all the talent and winning World Series. There's another group that maybe makes the playoffs or comes really close - enough to satisfy their fan base. And then there's the group that concedes on opening day and pretty much just grooms players for the big market teams to get later on. Yeah - every now and then you get Tampa making a run with a low payroll, but the MLB equation is easy. Spend money, win games, win titles.

                Same in the NBA. Big Market teams don't care about going over the cap - they'll just pay the penalty tax and move on. Until the NBA goes to a hard cap like football, this is what it's like.
                The new CBA should help a little moving forward, but yeah, a hard cap should be looked at.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  For one thing, he said it in the context that bolder moves would almost certainly mean committing to taking a step or two BACKWARDS this season.

                  For another, why would I argue with an SI article? Not like the writer is going to read my response.

                  But even you have to admit that this takes it out of the context of being "local conspiracy" people. I mean you now have a national writer forwarding the thought so doesn't that mean those of us who have thought that over the years aren't as crazy as some of you "not you, but the collective you" might have thought.

                  It doesn't help that he brought back the one person who I always accused of that behavior (until the very end, I think he really tried to be a title contender at the end of his first run).


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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                    I think that is exactly the case and a few of us here have been saying that all along and some of us think it is the reason Bird quit the team..... ... Bird was all Gung Ho on coming back but wanted to talk to Simon. He had that talk and quit. You don't need a wire tap to understand what transpired. ...
                    It is my belief that Bird left more for medical reasons and will be back... Donnie even stated that he is just keeping his seat warm for a year... I believe it was in the interview where Donnie was explaining the offseason moves... And unless I hear straight from Bird that having his hands tied is why he left I won't believe it... And yes Blu... You do need a wire tap to know that... Minds can change awfully fast...

                    It is also my belief that management just made the best personel moves that were possible to be made... Am I missing some monster deal that could have been made that makes sense?

                    Deron wasn't a possibility due to Crooklyn being able to offer way more money... Nash would only sign with a Western team to be close to his children... Dwight would have never resigned here... And Joe Johnson (while a top 5 SG) is vastly overpaid and would have put us in financial hell... And NOLA would have just matched an offer for Gordon... Or it would have cost us good parts of our roster to get him through a trade and his injury history makes that MUCH more risky... Also Scola and Brand were not possibilities due to timing... The agents for Hill and Hibbert did not want to wait any longer...

                    People can claim all they want that they could do better than the person running an organization but unless you're the one sitting in that chair you don't know the entire situation like that person does... You have no idea what was discussed that was possible to be done and what advantages/disadvantages the organization is facing to make it happen...

                    To quote John Goodman in The Big LeBowski for those that think they could've done better or claim to KNOW management's objectives... "You're out of your element, Donnie!"
                    Last edited by J7F; 08-15-2012, 12:00 PM.
                    Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                      Originally posted by J7F View Post
                      It is my belief that Bird left more for medical reasons and will be back... Donnie even stated that he is just keeping his seat warm for a year... I believe it was in the interview where Donnie was explaining the offseason moves... And unless I hear straight from Bird that having his hands tied is why he left I won't believe it...

                      It is also my belief that management just made the best personel moves that were possible to be made... Am I missing some monster deal that could have been made that makes sense?

                      Deron wasn't a possibility due to Crooklyn being able to offer way more money... Nash would only sign with a Western team to be close to his children... Dwight would have never resigned here... And Joe Johnson (while a top 5 SG) is vastly overpaid and would have put us in financial hell... And NOLA would have just matched an offer for Gordon... Or it would have cost us good parts of our roster to get him through a trade and his injury history makes that MUCH more risky... Also Scola and Brand were not possibilities due to timing... The agents for Hill and Hibbert did not want to wait any longer...

                      People can claim all they want that they could do better than the person running an organization but unless you're the one sitting in that chair you don't know the entire situation like that person does... You have no idea what was discussed that was possible to be done and what advantages/disadvantages the organization is facing to make it happen...

                      To quote John Goodman in The Big LeBowski for those that think they could've done better or claim to KNOW management's objectives... "You're out of your element, Donnie!"
                      CHURCH!!!!!

                      WHAT I HAVE BEEN PREACHING ALL SUMMER!! Thank you sir!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


                        Hmmmm.....

                        I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

                        I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

                        I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?
                        Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

                        The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          But even you have to admit that this takes it out of the context of being "local conspiracy" people. I mean you now have a national writer forwarding the thought so doesn't that mean those of us who have thought that over the years aren't as crazy as some of you "not you, but the collective you" might have thought.

                          It doesn't help that he brought back the one person who I always accused of that behavior (until the very end, I think he really tried to be a title contender at the end of his first run).
                          It also isn't a thought you have to dig deep into mountains of research to come up with. A team that has had pretty much the worst attendance in the league over the last 5 years and finally pulled itself into contention is ALWAYS going to face a very tough decision when it comes to taking a huge risk the very next year and going back into the basement of attendance instead of building on it. It's not like somehow the Pacers are the only team ever faced with it or who ever will be faced with it. It also it isn't like it's a no-brainer that you shoot for the moon and expect fans to stick with you if it blows up in your face and you go 20-62 after dumping fan favorite players for guys with (unrealized) upside.

                          But we're back to the basic argument. Risking the future of the franchise on a championship or (quite literally) bust is to some folks the only way to run a team and to other folks an unacceptable risk at the best of times. Trying to build on success before going for the championship is a better economic decision for some and a cop-out for others. I don't know how you change anyone's mind when the 1999-2000 Finals team isn't considered a good enough example of how building toward a championship could work. Again, for some around here, "try" doesn't exist - either you succeeded or you sat on your rear making no deals, raking in money and laughing all the way to the bank with your useless second-round team.

                          I won't argue against anyone saying they played it safe this year. I WILL argue against people saying it shows that ownership simply isn't interested in a championship, they just want to make safe money - mainly because I defy anyone to FIND safe money around here that doesn't have a Colts horseshoe already on it.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

                            The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.
                            Your going to take a lot of guff for this statement from some but if we are being honest I think there might be some truth to that last paragraph of yours.


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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Your going to take a lot of guff for this statement from some but if we are being honest I think there might be some truth to that last paragraph of yours.
                              Yep and as a "business man" I agree with the Pacers FO but as a fan I hate it.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Nobody made a huge deal about it because that's how the majority of the people feel about the team, by just reading PD I can tell that many posters are just happy to be competitive and be the "under dogs" every year.

                                The Pacers to me have done a great job in creating this illusion that been "under dogs" is great, they also use the "small market" excuse pretty well and now with the new CBA they are going to have an even bigger excuse to be "under dogs" for a long time(because they get money at the end of the year not matter what) why lose money to win a championship when you can make money by been "under dogs"? smart business if you ask me.
                                And this is where I start to get . It is not like the only way to win a championship is to go for a home run signing of one or two stars. Heck, it's not even like teams with one or two stars are guaranteed to get a championship (Cavs? Knicks? Thunder for crying out loud?)

                                The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"

                                What I'm satisfied with is BUILDING a guaranteed high contending team (and you are joking if you say you have a way of building a guaranteed CHAMPIONSHIP team), especially now when we are coming out of the doldrums. To remain a team in Indianapolis we have to guarantee fans that good things will happen rather than hitting them with another year where their expectations are completely hosed up and no one knows whether to attend games or not until after the All-Star break - again.

                                If you are accusing Simon of being Donald Sterling and only in it to make profits, I'm thinking you are sadly mistaken.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X