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

Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

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

  • Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

    They both sound like morons

    However Irsay should've just not said anything ... by responding on Twitter just makes him look infantile.. the media says this for shock value and he took the bait.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ully/#comments

    Tony Kornheiser calls Jim Irsay “bozo,” Irsay calls Kornheiser “chump”
    Posted by Michael David Smith on May 17, 2011, 7:33 PM EDT

    APColts owner Jim Irsay and former Monday Night Football commentator Tony Kornheiser have engaged in a war of words today, with Kornheiser ripping Irsay on the radio, Irsay ripping Kornheiser on Twitter, and both parties landing some verbal jabs.

    Caught in the crossfire was Kornheiser’s former Washington Post colleague Sally Jenkins, whom Kornheiser called “shrew-like” for the tone of her own commentary on NFL owners.

    It started with Kornheiser scoffing on his radio show at Irsay’s claim that he could get an NFL labor deal hammered out by sitting down with Colts center Jeff Saturday.

    “What inflames this is a complete bozo, like Jimmy Irsay,” Kornheiser said. “Jimmy Irsay, who inherited his team. Worked very hard in the American way. He was in what Dan Jenkins used to call ‘The son business.’ He inherits a team, and now he says, ‘Jeff Saturday and I could hang out, we could go clubbing, we could work this out on a napkin at Ralph’s Boathouse.’”

    For the record, it was actually Rick’s Boatyard where Irsay said he and Saturday could do a deal. And while Kornheiser is right that Irsay inherited his team from his father, just about anyone who has observed the Colts through the years would agree that Irsay has been an effective owner, far more effective than his dad.

    But Kornheiser wasn’t done, saying that Irsay is viewed as a joke among his fellow owners, who would be much more likely to listen to someone like Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

    “Jimmy Irsay, the rest of the owners wouldn’t trust Jimmy Irsay to call a cab for them,” Kornheiser said. “Just so we understand that. They would not. Now, when the Krafts of the world, Kraft says, ‘This is hurting us with fans,’ he’s a reasonable guy. They would trust Kraft. There’s four or five owners that the other owners would trust to get involved in this.”

    When Irsay heard about that, he went on Twitter and responded.

    “T.Kornheiser is a mean-spirited chump! When he can win 115 games n a decade,build a top 3 stadium,win n host a Super Bowl,then he can chirp!” Irsay wrote. “I think he used 2 b Bill Tobin’s mailman…but that would b an insult 2 mail men! I just droppin’ knowledge…”

    So now that we have Irsay’s response, the next question is whether Sally Jenkins, who wrote a column criticizing NFL owners, will also offer a response to Kornheiser’s comments during the same segment of his radio show.

    “I read Sally’s shew-like, hysterical column in which she just bangs the owners around, constantly, constantly, constantly,” Kornheiser said. “I’m really sick of that.”

    So, to be clear, Kornheiser is sick of members of the media criticizing the owners. But he’s happy to use his radio show to call one owner a bozo.

  • #2
    Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

    Kornheiser is a moron. Ripping Irsay because he inherited the team? Are you serious? Yeah, he inherited the team.....like a billion other sports owners have. Inheritance is just a part of business. Some are born into more fortunate situations than others and that's just life. Just because Irsay was born into a privileged world doesn't mean that he isn't great at what he does. Ask anyone who knows one iota about the Colts and they will tell you that Jim is an infinite better owner than his dad.

    Kornheiser saying that the other owners "wouldn't trust Jimmy Irsay to call a cab for them" shows just how little Kornheiser knows. Um, Tony, the other owners awarded Irsay's cold-weather city with a Super Bowl. Indy is an unconventional Super Bowl location so clearly there was something impressive with the package we put together. Robert Kraft, who Kornheiser is drooling over in this article, had this to say about Irsay:

    "I voted for Indianapolis because of Jim, because I like him and respect what he's done there," says Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0929/083.html

    Hmm, looks like other owners do indeed respect Irsay. The owner of the Colts biggest rival gave him a ringing endorsement, which I think says quite a bit. Clearly, the elite owners in the NFL respect Irsay. Of course, if Kornheiser did 10 minutes of research he would understand this.

    Irsay has been an owner in the NFL for almost 15 years now. He has had one of the most successful franchises in the NFL over that time span, has built a palace of a stadium, and has been awarded a Super Bowl despite being in a landlocked cold-weather city. He has clearly earned the respect of his fellow owners, as is evidenced by Robert Kraft's comments.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-18-2011, 02:17 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Kornheiser is a moron. Ripping Irsay because he inherited the team? Are you serious? Yeah, he inherited the team.....like a billion other sports owners have. Inheritance is just a part of business. Some are born into more fortunate situations than others and that's just life. Just because Irsay was born into a privileged world doesn't mean that he isn't great at what he does. Ask anyone who knows one iota about the Colts and they will tell you that Jim is an infinite better owner than his dad.

      Kornheiser saying that the other owners "wouldn't trust Jimmy Irsay to call a cab for them" shows just how little Kornheiser knows. Um, Tony, the other owners awarded Irsay's cold-weather city with a Super Bowl. Robert Kraft, who Kornheiser is drooling over in this article, had this to say about Irsay:

      "I voted for Indianapolis because of Jim, because I like him and respect what he's done there," says Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

      http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0929/083.html

      Hmm, looks like other owners do indeed respect Irsay. The owner of the Colts biggest rival gave him a ringing endorsement, which I think says quite a bit. Clearly, the elite owners in the NFL respect Irsay. Of course, if Kornheiser did 10 minutes of research he would understand this.

      Irsay has been an owner in the NFL for almost 15 years now. He has had one of the most successful franchises in the NFL over that time span, has built a palace of a stadium, and has been awarded a Super Bowl despite being in a landlocked cold-weather city. He has clearly earned the respect of his fellow owners, as is evidenced by Robert Kraft's comments.


      I can understand why people don't take Irsay seriously I know I don't especially when you respond so immaturely on Twitter. I would've ignored him and moved on.

      By reacting he gave TK what he wanted.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
        I can understand why people don't take Irsay seriously I know I don't especially when you respond so immaturely on Twitter. I would've ignored him and moved on.

        By reacting he gave TK what he wanted.

        Meh, who doesn't get carried away on twitter these days?

        Kornheiser is the one that started with the immaturity. He said the other owners wouldn't trust Irsay to call a cab which is a flat out lie. Robert Kraft, who is clearly one of the more respected owners in the NFL, said that he respected what Irsay has done here. If the owner of our chief rival is saying that then that's all I need to hear. That shows how ignorant and misinformed Tony Kornheiser's comments were and they didn't deserve to be responded to with class or maturity. I'm glad Irsay took to twitter, because that will probably only irritate Kornheiser more. We all know that Kornheiser has a massive ego that can't handle any criticism whatsoever...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kornheiser

        Go to the "Criticism" portion of his wikipedia page. Time and time again, he has proven himself to be an egotistical maniac who can't handle any criticism.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Meh, who doesn't get carried away on twitter these days?

          Kornheiser is the one that started with the immaturity. He said the other owners wouldn't trust Irsay to call a cab which is a flat out lie. Robert Kraft, who is clearly one of the more respected owners in the NFL, said that he respected what Irsay has done here. If the owner of our chief rival is saying that then that's all I need to hear. That shows how ignorant and misinformed Tony Kornheiser's comments were and they didn't deserve to be responded to with class or maturity. I'm glad Irsay took to twitter, because that will probably only irritate Kornheiser more. We all know that Kornheiser has a massive ego that can't handle any criticism whatsoever...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kornheiser

          Go to the "Criticism" portion of his wikipedia page. Time and time again, he has proven himself to be an egotistical maniac who can't handle any criticism.


          Wilbon brought it up on PTI yesterday and he laughed it off..

          Which is what Irsay should've done to begin with.

          Twitter is not private.. once you put it out there its forever...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

            If it takes Bozo and Clarabelle to end the lockout I'm all for it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

              For the record its not Ralphs Boathouse, its Ricks Cafe Boatyard
              Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                When I hear Irsay speak, I'm not overly impressed by him. However, the proof is in the pudding. He hired and has hung onto Polian, which was his biggest accomplishment. Also, he tapped into the fear of the local fan base that he'd move the team to California at just the right moment so that he could bend the city over a barrel, and has somehow done that with very little upset by the populace.

                Impressive? No. Effective? Yes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                  When I hear Irsay speak, I'm not overly impressed by him. However, the proof is in the pudding. He hired and has hung onto Polian, which was his biggest accomplishment. Also, he tapped into the fear of the local fan base that he'd move the team to California at just the right moment so that he could bend the city over a barrel, and has somehow done that with very little upset by the populace.

                  Impressive? No. Effective? Yes.


                  Has very little to do with Irsay and a lot more to do with Manning.

                  If it was Ryan Leaf most people here would've packed that Mayflower on their way out of town.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                    When I hear Irsay speak, I'm not overly impressed by him. However, the proof is in the pudding. He hired and has hung onto Polian, which was his biggest accomplishment. Also, he tapped into the fear of the local fan base that he'd move the team to California at just the right moment so that he could bend the city over a barrel, and has somehow done that with very little upset by the populace.

                    Impressive? No. Effective? Yes.

                    Uh, maybe because the RCA Dome was old and a POS?

                    Seriously, why would anyone be upset that the city got a new stadium, considering the shape of the RCA Dome, and considering the perks that come along with LOS.

                    Damn you Indy, I hate the fact you get to host the NCAA FF every 5 years!!! What a stupid agreement.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      Has very little to do with Irsay and a lot more to do with Manning.

                      If it was Ryan Leaf most people here would've packed that Mayflower on their way out of town.
                      Irsay hired the man who chose Manning over Leaf. Sometimes you do make your own luck.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        Irsay hired the man who chose Manning over Leaf. Sometimes you do make your own luck.
                        But Manning is the one fans care about... Irsay and Polian are another story.. especially Polian.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Uh, maybe because the RCA Dome was old and a POS?

                          Seriously, why would anyone be upset that the city got a new stadium, considering the shape of the RCA Dome, and considering the perks that come along with LOS.

                          Damn you Indy, I hate the fact you get to host the NCAA FF every 5 years!!! What a stupid agreement.
                          RCA Dome was more than adequate for a small market team. It wasn't a cathedral to football, but it was functional, and the Colts weren't losing money. LA was a boondoggle, as has clearly been shown by their subsequent inability to get a team.

                          However, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the deal where the Colts basically make money from the building, and the city pays all the expenses, and paid to have the thing built.

                          I've been to a grand total of 0 events inside Lucas Oil Stadium. I've also paid 2% sales tax on every purchase I've made in the last 2+ years to support the stadium I've never utilized. So no, I was perfectly happy with the RCA dome, because it didn't cost me any money to not use it.

                          As for the NCAA FF, the RCA Dome had been used in that capacity in prior years, and could have been used again. NCAA HQ is in Indy, it's not like they're not going to hold it in their back yard because of 10,000 fewer seats.

                          At any rate, Irsay capitalized on his position at the exact right time. Lucas Oil Stadium will be seen as a huge mistake within 5 years. The team will have a few bad years, the fans will flee, and I'll still be paying 2% sales tax so that 30,000 people can sit in 70,000 seats instead of 55,000.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                            Actually, the RCA Dome WAS (and still is) costing you money for not using it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                              RCA Dome was more than adequate for a small market team. It wasn't a cathedral to football, but it was functional, and the Colts weren't losing money. LA was a boondoggle, as has clearly been shown by their subsequent inability to get a team.

                              However, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the deal where the Colts basically make money from the building, and the city pays all the expenses, and paid to have the thing built.

                              I've been to a grand total of 0 events inside Lucas Oil Stadium. I've also paid 2% sales tax on every purchase I've made in the last 2+ years to support the stadium I've never utilized. So no, I was perfectly happy with the RCA dome, because it didn't cost me any money to not use it.

                              As for the NCAA FF, the RCA Dome had been used in that capacity in prior years, and could have been used again. NCAA HQ is in Indy, it's not like they're not going to hold it in their back yard because of 10,000 fewer seats.

                              At any rate, Irsay capitalized on his position at the exact right time. Lucas Oil Stadium will be seen as a huge mistake within 5 years. The team will have a few bad years, the fans will flee, and I'll still be paying 2% sales tax so that 30,000 people can sit in 70,000 seats instead of 55,000.
                              I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying in principle, but it's pure fantasy. The RCA Dome was no longer adequate to host an NFL team, much less the NCAA Final Four. Not in today's world. With the popularity of the NFL and college basketball today, we would have lost the Colts and the Final Four in the next couple of years to someone had we not built LOS. Someone else would have been willing to compel their taxpayers to pay the bill and build a much better stadium in terms of the NFL, while the Final Four would have moved to an NFL city that already has a stadium like Arizona, Detroit, Houston, etcetera. The RCA Dome was the smallest stadium in football and I believe had the least number of luxury boxes.

                              I'm not a fan of public funding for athletic stadiums at all, but that's my realist take on things.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X