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

Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

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

  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

    Troll.
    Last edited by 1984; 08-17-2012, 02:46 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

      Far be it from me to tell others how to be a fan, but I would never devote so much time to something that I only focused on the negatives. Sports are great, but unless you enjoy taking the wind out of others' sails and being "right" with the abject failure of your favorite team I'd recommend additional hobbies.

      Comment


      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Can you name 3 other small market teams from the last 15 years that have won a championship though? No it's not IMPOSSIBLE, but it's definitely unlikely if not improbable. You can't argue with the history of the NBA over the past 15-20 years or so and the fact that the championship has mostly gone to teams within a larger market. Obviously there are a variety of factors that go into these numbers, but I don't think its a total coincidence that most times the teams from the larger markets win championships.
        The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

        Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

        At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.
        Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-17-2012, 03:00 PM.


        Comment


        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          When people bring up the small market, it's not that it's impossible, but rather that it's a lot harder to do. Which is completely 100% true.
          I kind of agree with this but at the same time I see San Antonio winning multiple Championships, I see teams like Cleveland and Orlando making it to the finals at least one time(like the Pacers in 30 years?), Utah in their time at least made it to the finals twice, Seattle made it one time.

          I guess what I'm trying to say is that many posters in PD and fans in general love to give the Pacers front office the longest leash available, anytime something doesn't happen it's because "we are an small market team", or "we couldn't get X player because we are an small market team", that's when I feel that the excuse is overuse, people try to make themself feel better by repeating the same BS over and over again.

          To me having a competent front office and good ownership triumphs over some fake "small market team complex", to me players are not signing with Indy for other reasons than just been "an small market team" and nope I'm not talking about the weather either.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

            Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

            At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.
            Funny that I was typing something similar at the same time, yep a lot of people don't want to admit that well run franchises like the Lakers attract players because they are "well run franchises" the same thing happens in SA, Boston, Miami, etc, you can have the biggest market in the world(see NY) but if you don't have an smart owner and a good FO you are screwed.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

              Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

              At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.
              Well when I mentioned the larger markets I only meant in the NBA. The NFL has long shattered the idea that only large markets work well. Also, the Nets are in a fairly large market, obviously not NY or LA but much bigger than a lot of other markets.

              However, I actually agree with you on a lot of your post. I've always felt that teams like the Lakers are ran VERY well. I'm a big believer that you make your own luck, and the Lakers have definitely done that over the past 30 years or so. They get the very best when it comes to their FO, as well as their coaching staff. When you add those factors to the fact that they also are VERY aggressive, they easily make their own success.

              With that said, it makes it a lot easier to do these things when 1. your television market helps the money flowing in, and 2. your owner is willing to go well over the luxury tax threshold and will spend inordinate amounts of cash in order to keep your team in championship contention. These are the only true advantage I see a bigger market team has over a smaller market team.

              Comment


              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                How are we defining small market? Tampa Bay area has 4 million+ people in/around it and Orlando is only an hour or so away with another 2 million+. The Miami Marlins are in the Miami area with 4 million+ in the area. What is the dividing line?

                Comment


                • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                  Nice well thought out post mattie. I agree with a great deal of it, and some I'd don't agree, I still have some optimism left.

                  It's just nice to read a real discussion, except for a few that has to constantly make ridiculous hyperbole statements saying how bad player X is and how every other playoff team in the league has a better roster than us.
                  "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Well when I mentioned the larger markets I only meant in the NBA. The NFL has long shattered the idea that only large markets work well. Also, the Nets are in a fairly large market, obviously not NY or LA but much bigger than a lot of other markets.

                    However, I actually agree with you on a lot of your post. I've always felt that teams like the Lakers are ran VERY well. I'm a big believer that you make your own luck, and the Lakers have definitely done that over the past 30 years or so. They get the very best when it comes to their FO, as well as their coaching staff. When you add those factors to the fact that they also are VERY aggressive, they easily make their own success.

                    With that said, it makes it a lot easier to do these things when 1. your television market helps the money flowing in, and 2. your owner is willing to go well over the luxury tax threshold and will spend inordinate amounts of cash in order to keep your team in championship contention. These are the only true advantage I see a bigger market team has over a smaller market team.
                    Ok well the Simons have plenty of money to spend and showed throughout the 90s and early 2000s that they are more than willing to spend on players to win, so I don't think that is a disadvantage you could say the Pacers have


                    Comment


                    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                      Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                      How are we defining small market? Tampa Bay area has 4 million+ people in/around it and Orlando is only an hour or so away with another 2 million+. The Miami Marlins are in the Miami area with 4 million+ in the area. What is the dividing line?
                      I don't know that it has ever been defined. I mean in all reality when you consider how easy it is for suburbs and the metro area around Indy to get downtown the Pacers actually have a pretty large market to pull from.

                      I mean the Colts and Jax are largely regarded as the two smallest markets in the NFL other than Green Bay, but in terms of incorporated cities in the US they are 11th and 12th on that list, bigger than a place like San Francisco, but SF has more surrounding population. Within Indy's "city limits" there are more people than within the "city limits" of SF, Boston, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore.

                      I think more than big market, you're dealing with things like team history, management, weather... how many people a city has doesn't really matter IMO. If the Timberwolves had won 16 NBA championships and were still well run like the Lakers are lots of players would want to play for them too.

                      In a lot of ways, just like kids playing college ball want to play at UK, KU, UNC, Duke, IU, UCLA, etc. the average basketball player is probably going to be influenced to want to play for the Lakers, Celtics, etc. heck even Bynum is pretty pumped to be with the 76ers. Certain franchise names are worth more and that has little to do with market and a lot more to do with past success, but it's not impossible to build a team even with no history behind the franchise.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-17-2012, 04:13 PM.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I don't know that it has ever been defined. I mean in all reality when you consider how easy it is for suburbs and the metro area around Indy to get downtown the Pacers actually have a pretty large market to pull from.

                        I mean the Colts and Jax are largely regarded as the two smallest markets in the NFL other than Green Bay, but in terms of incorporated cities in the US they are 11th and 12th on that list, bigger than a place like San Francisco, but SF has more surrounding population. Within Indy's "city limits" there are more people than within the "city limits" of SF, Boston, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore.

                        I think more than big market, you're dealing with things like team history, management, weather... how many people a city has doesn't really matter IMO. If the Timberwolves had won 16 NBA championships and were still well run like the Lakers are lots of players would want to play for them too.

                        In a lot of ways, just like kids playing college ball want to play at UK, KU, UNC, Duke, IU, UCLA, etc. the average basketball player is probably going to be influenced to want to play for the Lakers, Celtics, etc. heck even Bynum is pretty pumped to be with the 76ers. Certain franchise names are worth more and that has little to do with market and a lot more to do with past success, but it's not impossible to build a team even with no history behind the franchise.
                        Random thought from someone who lives 2 minutes from jaguars stadium: Jacksonville is a huge city that is hard core spread out (at one time I heard it was the largest square footage city in the nation, and driving from one side to the other could take hours.....dont know if that is true or not). That said, one thing I do know is the jags sucked at attracting fans to come to games, people just did not want to drive.

                        Of course, part of that could have nothing to do with "market size" and everything to do with "college football is a religion" down there. Hell, Florida - Georgia was one huge block party, and possible just as large a game (if not bigger) then Dallas - Washington from the local area.


                        Random thought from a Redskins fan: Large market or not, IMO a competent front office (and a little bit of luck) is more important then location.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                          Random thought from a Redskins fan: Large market or not, IMO a competent front office (and a little bit of luck) is more important then location.
                          No doubt, at this moment I'm waiting for SA to start the rebuilding process to see how they school "small market teams" in how to rebuild the right way.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            No doubt, at this moment I'm waiting for SA to start the rebuilding process to see how they school "small market teams" in how to rebuild the right way.
                            Heh, I think the part where you and I differ is I don't think things are going too poorly with how we're being run. Granted this summer was not up to last year's, but I still could see some logic behind it. I'm kind of waiting to the trade deadline of this season to reserve judgement.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                              I don't think you can lump Orlando and Tampa in the same market in any kind of way. Almost no one is driving from one city to the other to watch a game. I've lived in Orlando.

                              There may be other markets where this applies, but not Orlando/Tampa.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Anytime somebody uses the "small market bs" as an excuse somebody in the Pacers front office smiles, they have done a good job in making people believe that.

                                The more People believe that bs the less pressure the Pacers FO has to deliver a championship.
                                Especially since San Antonio completely obliterates that excuse.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X