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

Spurs to be punished for resting players

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

  • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

    Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
    I guess if you take then to the game and sit them on the bench in street clothes the fans at least get to see them in person?
    If Stern wants to be a d*ck.....then I'd say that the difference would be that they'd have to be sitting on the bench in uniforms. If Pop wants to be safe...then play 1 minute then sit for the rest of the game.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

      Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post
      It's probably been mentioned already but Popovich screwed up by sending those guys back to San Antonio. He could have kept them on the bench and decided not to play them. I don't have a problem with resting guys but doing it the way he did was bush-league, IMO.
      That's one of the problems I had with what Pop did. Giving a player a DNP-CD is one thing. Sending them home and then not telling the league about it until right before the game is what got them in trouble this time based on what Stern said.

      IIRC, A coach is supposed to report his lineup of active and inactive players by a certain time before each game. Part of the reason is so the opposing team can adjust their gameplan or at least know who they can expect to match up against. My guess is that Pop didn't do this.

      Comment


      • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

        http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--da...194828970.html

        Some stuff I had never heard about before in this story. Might even deserve its own thread considering it goes well beyond the Spurs issue. Stern looks more and more like Vince McMahon (sp?) every day.

        Comment


        • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
          IIRC, A coach is supposed to report his lineup of active and inactive players by a certain time before each game. Part of the reason is so the opposing team can adjust their gameplan or at least know who they can expect to match up against. My guess is that Pop didn't do this.
          Doubtful. Why fine him for something that generates controversy if you can fine him for actually breaking a hard rule like reporting rosters?
          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: Spurs to be punished for resting players

            Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
            http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--da...194828970.html

            Some stuff I had never heard about before in this story. Might even deserve its own thread considering it goes well beyond the Spurs issue. Stern looks more and more like Vince McMahon (sp?) every day.
            That was outstanding. Thanks for linking it.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

              You are welcome J. After reading it one realize just how inept Knicks management has been. Was that illegal stuff before Donnie got there?

              Comment


              • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                I would like to know how Danny Green was chosen.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                  Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                  I would like to know how Danny Green was chosen.
                  He must have some kind of injury we don't know about
                  Smothered Chicken!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    That is a logical fallacy. No matter how good oddsmakers are, they aren't perfect. And teams "beat the odds" all the time, even if it happens less often than not. But you didn't see the Spurs play with their guys, so you can't make that assessment.

                    Furthermore, if in fact the stars DID play and the backups were doing so much better, they would have played more and the old guys still would have had the chance to rest. Personally, I would take a tired Duncan and Parker over anybody on their team almost 100% of the time and you are lying if you say you wouldn't.

                    Also, since the odds are only a prediction, you cannot treat them as if they actually happened.
                    You are most definitely incorrect. Of course my argument is wrong, it wasn't supposed to be right. What it does do is shine a light on Stern's argument reaction and show how incorrect he is. I'm not sure why Stern is angry, but most people seem to feel it's because the Spurs didn't field a competitive product, hence disrespecting fans and sponsors. Your point about odds, and backups playing, just proves my point that Stern has no point.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      You are most definitely incorrect. Of course my argument is wrong, it wasn't supposed to be right. What it does do is shine a light on Stern's argument reaction and show how incorrect he is. I'm not sure why Stern is angry, but most people seem to feel it's because the Spurs didn't field a competitive product, hence disrespecting fans and sponsors. Your point about odds, and backups playing, just proves my point that Stern has no point.
                      How am I incorrect? And why would you post something that was purposefully incorrect? They can't both be wrong because my post was a direct rebuttal to the argument you posed in yours. My point about odds proves nothing about Stern. If it does and I'm missing something huge, please inform me how it relates.

                      A competitive product is not really the issue IMO. For one isolated game, any team in the NBA can beat any other team in the NBA. It is why even the worst teams in the NBA usually rack in about 10-20 wins a season. They have a great coach, and it's not really surprising they overachieved for most of one night.

                      The rationale behind the fine seems to be that they didn't play what is recognizeable as the Spurs. Yes, the Spurs have other players that play, and if those 4 don't play they are still technically the Spurs. But the four who were sent home combine to use up 49% of the Spurs minutes in games they are a part of. You had fans in Miami expecting to see those players, fans considering tuning into TNT expecting to see those players, fans who perhaps couldn't watch the game expecting to see the result of a game featuring two powerhouses, and millions of dollars being spent by sponsors and advertisers expecting those Spurs to be present.

                      Basically the Spurs gave a big middle finger to everybody involved. And yes, I do believe it is different resting your players as opposed to resting your players by sending them home on a flight the night before. They purposefully elected to not have their best team available when there was no valid reason they shouldn't be. They conceded the result of the game was meaningless. Sure they would still liked to have won, but they expected to lose because they sent home their best players.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        How am I incorrect? And why would you post something that was purposefully incorrect? They can't both be wrong because my post was a direct rebuttal to the argument you posed in yours. My point about odds proves nothing about Stern. If it does and I'm missing something huge, please inform me how it relates.

                        A competitive product is not really the issue IMO. For one isolated game, any team in the NBA can beat any other team in the NBA. It is why even the worst teams in the NBA usually rack in about 10-20 wins a season. They have a great coach, and it's not really surprising they overachieved for most of one night.

                        The rationale behind the fine seems to be that they didn't play what is recognizeable as the Spurs. Yes, the Spurs have other players that play, and if those 4 don't play they are still technically the Spurs. But the four who were sent home combine to use up 49% of the Spurs minutes in games they are a part of. You had fans in Miami expecting to see those players, fans considering tuning into TNT expecting to see those players, fans who perhaps couldn't watch the game expecting to see the result of a game featuring two powerhouses, and millions of dollars being spent by sponsors and advertisers expecting those Spurs to be present.

                        Basically the Spurs gave a big middle finger to everybody involved. And yes, I do believe it is different resting your players as opposed to resting your players by sending them home on a flight the night before. They purposefully elected to not have their best team available when there was no valid reason they shouldn't be. They conceded the result of the game was meaningless. Sure they would still liked to have won, but they expected to lose because they sent home their best players.
                        Let's start with your first statement. You were incorrect because you were rebutting something that was never a statement. It was the assertion that an argument could be made, and my assertion that there could be an assertion was correct. By playing fresher players it is possible that the Spurs increased their chances of winning, and there are statistics out there to back that up. I never said it was correct.

                        As for your argument, I'm a little confused. In the second paragraph you say a competitive product is not the issue (which is good, because it was a competitive product), but then in the last paragraph you state the Spurs conceded the result of the game was meaningless, which is a problem. So competition doesn't matter as long as you admit the outcome is important? Is that why teams can tank at the end of the year (a massive middle finger to fans). Because when teams tank at the end of the year, they are admitting the outcome is important, but competition isn't. If competition is the point, the Spurs came out and should have won that game, therefore they were competitive. But based on your third paragraph, I think you are saying the problem isn't competition, it isn't importance or result, but lack of star players. If that is the only real issue, then why don't we have some "games" where star players come out on the court and just wave at people.

                        Furthermore, please show me the viewing figures of the game vs other TNT games, and also provide the Thursday night football games each Thursday night basketball game was up against, and then we can begin to decide whether resting players had an effect on TNT. Currently, I am of the opinion that the resting of players actually increased viewing figures. As the public is king, this would indicate that resting star players actually increased interest in the game.

                        Furthermore, of course it is different to rest players at home vs resting them on the road. At home they don't have to travel all day, they can eat with their families, sleep in their beds, and actually rest. On the road they are travelling for hours and not really resting up. It is logical that if you are going to rest players from a road game, and it is the last road game, you are not going to make them show up. That would defeat the purpose.

                        As for a middle finger to Stern, I couldn't care less. Stern's job is to run the league, not hold personal grudges against people, players and teams because they don't do what he wants. Technically, the Spurs broke no NBA laws, regulation, rules or by-laws. Stern has no justification for his anger or his punishment from any logical basis, except the obvious: He is insecure.

                        My point is this, Stern has embarrassed and turned off more potential fans with his irrational rants, inconsistent punishments, and obvious personal vendettas than the Spurs and Popovich will ever do by playing the game they way the think it should be played. Furthermore, I will assert, and happily argue, that Popovich has done much better at his job over the last 13 years than Stern has at his.
                        Last edited by Rogco; 12-01-2012, 10:30 PM. Reason: spelling
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


                        • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          Let's start with your first statement. You were incorrect because you were rebutting something that was never a statement. It was the assertion that an argument could be made, and my assertion that there could be an assertion was correct. By playing fresher players it is possible that the Spurs increased their chances of winning, and there are statistics out there to back that up. I never said it was correct.
                          Are you really trying to convince me that I'm wrong because I was arguing against an assertion that an assertion could potentially be made? Besides making it look like you were just trolling to begin with, I was arguing against the logic used. The fact that you don't personally hold the belief is irrelevant.

                          Excellent point. Also, couldn't an argument be made that playing fresh players gave the Spurs a better chance of winning? Not only did they cover the final spread, but they covered the initial spread as well, indicating that the idea to rest the older players and play fresh players actually improved the Spurs chances of winning.
                          The above quote is what you wrote originally. And what I have bolded is what I really was arguing against. I wasn't arguing against you personally, I was arguing against the statement that you proposed. Again, whether or not you believed it or were just trolling is irrelevant because what you said could actually be a valid point to think about, even if it is probably incorrect.

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          As for your argument, I'm a little confused. In the second paragraph you say a competitive product is not the issue (which is good, because it was a competitive product), but then in the last paragraph you state the Spurs conceded the result of the game was meaningless, which is a problem. So competition doesn't matter as long as you admit the outcome is important? Is that why teams can tank at the end of the year (a massive middle finger to fans). Because when teams tank at the end of the year, they are admitting the outcome is important, but competition isn't. If competition is the point, the Spurs came out and should have won that game, therefore they were competitive. But based on your third paragraph, I think you are saying the problem isn't competition, it isn't importance or result, but lack of star players. If that is the only real issue, then why don't we have some "games" where star players come out on the court and just wave at people.
                          I may have made it unclear. What I meant to say is that even if it was a competitive product, it was not the intended product. This is a league that is driven by spectators, so when people either pay or make time to see the Spurs they should see the Spurs. And if the Spurs want them to sit out they should at least be there available to play if the need arises or AT LEAST there in street clothes supporting their team. The integrity of the contest was compromised because one team's management elected to greatly reduce their chances of winning.

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          Furthermore, please show me the viewing figures of the game vs other TNT games, and also provide the Thursday night football games each Thursday night basketball game was up against, and then we can begin to decide whether resting players had an effect on TNT. Currently, I am of the opinion that the resting of players actually increased viewing figures. As the public is king, this would indicate that resting star players actually increased interest in the game.
                          Even if I cared about the actual viewing figures, it would be impossible to tell. Because the fact is that most people seem to disapprove of David Stern and he came out with a very strong, well publicized statement right before the game against the Spurs. It is a massive compounding variable.

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          Furthermore, of course it is different to rest players at home vs resting them on the road. At home they don't have to travel all day, they can eat with their families, sleep in their beds, and actually rest. On the road they are travelling for hours and not really resting up. It is logical that if you are going to rest players from a road game, and it is the last road game, you are not going to make them show up. That would defeat the purpose.
                          You know Orlando is only about 3 hours from Miami, with about 22 hours between. Which gives plenty of time for a good night's sleep, let's round up and say 5 hours travel total where all they have to do is sit, and a restful day. Even if they sleep 9 hours, they still have enough time for 8 hours of rest before coming and sitting in a padded chair courtside for 3 hours. Yeah, I think I could manage that day without stress.

                          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                          As for a middle finger to Stern, I couldn't care less. Stern's job is to run the league, not hold personal grudges against people, players and teams because they don't do what he wants. Technically, the Spurs broke no NBA laws, regulation, rules or by-laws. Stern has no justification for his anger or his punishment from any logical basis, except the obvious: He is insecure.

                          My point is this, Stern has embarrassed and turned off more potential fans with his irrational rants, inconsistent punishments, and obvious personal vendettas than the Spurs and Popovich will ever do by playing the game they way the think it should be played. Furthermore, I will assert, and happily argue, that Popovich has done much better at his job over the last 13 years than Stern has at his.
                          And there we have it. You don't like this fine because you don't like David Stern, not because of any lack of justification. Also, it did break an NBA regulation. You should read up on things like that before you use the opposite as argument support.
                          Time for a new sig.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                            Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                            And there we have it. You don't like this fine because you don't like David Stern, not because of any lack of justification. Also, it did break an NBA regulation. You should read up on things like that before you use the opposite as argument support.
                            They broke the well defined "contrary to the best interest of the league" clause. Thats best defined as - they pissed off David Stern. Pop had done this before and the league was ok with it - even issued a statement saying such. So lets not pretend that the Spurs broke a long standing, well defined league rule.

                            Can you definitely state where the line is?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                              They broke the well defined "contrary to the best interest of the league" clause. Thats best defined as - they pissed off David Stern. Pop had done this before and the league was ok with it - even issued a statement saying such. So lets not pretend that the Spurs broke a long standing, well defined league rule.

                              Can you definitely state where the line is?
                              No, I can't. But I don't have to. Like all suspensions, fines, and other disciplinary actions the league determined the punishment individually. So let's not pretend that the NBA deviated from their usual method of punishment. The statement:

                              The Spurs’ actions were in violation of a league policy, reviewed with the NBA Board of Governors in April 2010, against resting players in a manner contrary to the best interests of the NBA.
                              He was well within his rights to fine them. Considering the "best interest of the NBA" will almost always be a financial one when you're thinking from the viewpoint of the league it makes sense.

                              Have you considered the possibile future ramifications if the league didn't come out with any kind of statement for a nationally televised game? I know if I was looking to buy tickets to a Spurs game in this situation in the future, then I would look at the schedule and see if it was toward the end of a rough stretch for them. If it was, I would consider not buying a ticket to that game because though the Spurs are my 2nd favorite team, I don't know all of their players very well. I like them because I love the style of basketball they play, but I don't want to see that style sans Parker and Duncan. The point of the probably excessive fine is that they want future ticket buyers to think that they won't consider doing it.
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Spurs to be punished for resting players

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                No, I can't. But I don't have to. Like all suspensions, fines, and other disciplinary actions the league determined the punishment individually. So let's not pretend that the NBA deviated from their usual method of punishment.
                                I don't believe there is anything unusual about the fine. It's Stern doing what Stern typically does - pimp the league out to the sponsors to the point the line between sport and entertainment becomes blurred. Remember him changing the freakin ball? I suppose you believe that was a good move as well because Stern decided to do it, he is all powerful, therefore it most have been right.



                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                He was well within his rights to fine them. Considering the "best interest of the NBA" will almost always be a financial one when you're thinking from the viewpoint of the league it makes sense.

                                Have you considered the possibile future ramifications if the league didn't come out with any kind of statement for a nationally televised game? I know if I was looking to buy tickets to a Spurs game in this situation in the future, then I would look at the schedule and see if it was toward the end of a rough stretch for them. If it was, I would consider not buying a ticket to that game because though the Spurs are my 2nd favorite team, I don't know all of their players very well. I like them because I love the style of basketball they play, but I don't want to see that style sans Parker and Duncan. The point of the probably excessive fine is that they want future ticket buyers to think that they won't consider doing it.
                                First - Pop has done this before and other than some very minor grumbling, its not been a huge deal. the only reason we are still talking about this is Sterns reaction. Otherwise it would have went away pretty damn quickly - just as it had before. Second - if you want to penalize the Spurs for doing this, then just dont put them on TV in these scenarios. They have historically been a poor TV draw anyway. Most importantly - how about the league try to address the issue like the NFL is attempting to do - by adjusting the schedule? How about you work to eliminate 4 games in 5 night scenarios. Not only do you eliminate this supposed huge issue, but you lessen injury risk, and you improve play. Believe it or not, players play better when they are healthy and rested. But it's more important for Stern to be in control than it is to fix the root of the damn issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X