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

Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

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

  • #61
    Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    There is a reason they call it a lottery - like those things people buy at the gas stations.
    Actually, they call it the lottery because of the lottery used to determine the top-3 picks.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Dallas - yes they got Dirk - through a draft day trade. They got Josh through a late 1st round pick. But their current team isn't built through the draft. In fact all those lottery picks they did get in the 90's were traded away and their current team is built through trades and a little luck - a great coach.
    Dallas got Dirk through the draft. They traded their pick (Robert Traylor) to Milwaukee to take Dirk. They drafted him.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Suns - Marion and Amare were late lottery picks - but nash was a free agent pickup and I guarantee you he would not have gone to a team that had been a lottery team for 4 years or if the team hadn't been in Phoenix.
    The Suns were 99-147, combined, the 3 seasons prior to Nash signing there, including a terrible 23-59 record the season the previous season.before Nash signed with them.

    And what your failing to mention is - sure a lot of the key players on these contending teams (but none of the superstars) weren't originally drafted by their current teams, but draft picks and/or drafted players were used to acquire them. For example, the Pistons didn't draft Ben Wallace, but they did draft Grant Hill who was used to acquire Ben Wallace.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I believe it is much easier to attract free agents and to make trades when you are a .500 team than a lottery team.
    Doesn't matter since the Pacers wont be under the cap anytime soon. Besides, the rebuilding teams almost always have the most money, which is why whenever a big time free agent switches teams, its to a losing team (at the time). Examples: Joe Johnson the Hawks, Carlos Boozer to the Jazz, Larry Hughes to the Cavs - most above average FA's don't switch teams. The few that do go to the teams with the most money.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Spurs - They won the lottery when they got Duncan - they were bad in the right year and they beat the odds to get the right pick. But Parker and Manu were late, late 1st round picks.
    Manu and Parker are irrelevant. The Spurs won their first championship before either were in the NBA. The Spurs live and die with Tim Duncan - who they got through the draft.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I could go on, but the idea that we could be bad for 1 year or 2 years get a lottery pick and just like that we are a 55 plus win team isn't supported by history - and those pacers fans who "want to get bad" those fans for the most part either have never been through being a fan of a really bad team or maybe they just forget what it's like.
    The thing is, we have....
    • Good management that will draft winning players
    • An Established All-Star PF
    • An already solid cast of youngsters to work with (Granger, Ike, Shawne, Hulk)
    • Decent role players (Quis, Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley, Foster)
    This isn't your average rebuilding-from-scratch process. This is finding that one talent that will take us to the next level. That talent - guaranteed - is Acie Law. He's twice the player Chauncey Billups was at this same stage in their careers, and will be available at #10. For that I would gladly lose, especially when as of now we're nothing more than equal to the 2003-2004 Boston Celtics - arguably the worst playoff team in NBA history and the team that we swept by an average of about 20 points a game.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

      Originally posted by DaCoop View Post

      The thing is, we have....
      • Good management that will draft winning players
      • An Established All-Star PF
      • An already solid cast of youngsters to work with (Granger, Ike, Shawne, Hulk)
      • Decent role players (Quis, Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley, Foster)

      This isn't your average rebuilding-from-scratch process. This is finding that one talent that will take us to the next level. That talent - guaranteed - is Acie Law. He's twice the player Chauncey Billups was at this same stage in their careers, and will be available at #10.
      That is a decent point. OK, so what happened to your theory that losing is good. Unless you only want to lose this season get the draft pick you covet Acie Law (who I don't know from Tracy Law) and we'll never be a .500 team again - easy as that.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

        Anyone who thinks this is a .500 team now might be kidding themselves. Hope I am wrong. We'll soon see.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          That is a decent point. OK, so what happened to your theory that losing is good. Unless you only want to lose this season get the draft pick you covet Acie Law (who I don't know from Tracy Law) and we'll never be a .500 team again - easy as that.
          Here you go UB.....Tracy Law but I'm not sure if she can play Basketball though...
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            i think the point is that we shouldn't be freaking out right now. yes they look terrible but so did the colts for that stretch specifically defense and suddenly it clicked. yes we've had a few huge losses YET we're still #6 in the east at the moment. so the end of the world is not upon us.
            Exactly my point. Of course the Pacers weren't looking like the best team in the NBA prior to the trade or this bad stint of losing, so I don't expect a Colts' outcome, but I can see them returning to 5th-6th seed form and maybe even winning a playoff series.

            Right now that would come as just as much a shock as the Colts winning the SB would have been to Colts fans 1 hour after watching that TEN loss. And if you don't believe me, go ask Shade.



            Buck, I think if you search you might find that someone has already done a draft pick success study. I recall reading some pieces in recent years, basically due to this same kind of discussion. It's not that good, it's something like 50/50 in the top 10 and much worse after that.

            And not 50/50 you get Duncan, 50/50 you DO NOT GET stuck with a dud. It's very slim that you get a player like Duncan. Just look at the AS team and where each player came from in the draft in the last 10 years. That will give you some idea of your odds of drafting an AS level player (ie, not that great).


            Besides, even at 13-14 they have a slim shot to get a 1-3 pick anyway. That's why they call it the lottery.



            Okay, I found the article I was recalling, a great piece done over at 82games.com

            Article by Ryan Reed
            Originally posted by Ryan Reed in article
            There is a statistically a much greater chance that your team is going to draft a player who contributes nothing to the overall success of your franchise than there is a chance of drafting the next superstar

            Also, here's part of an analysis series NBADraft.net put up, they did it by college experience (Frsh, Soph) and used Hollinger's PER to evaluate players.

            Sophmore Eval

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              That is a decent point. OK, so what happened to your theory that losing is good. Unless you only want to lose this season get the draft pick you covet Acie Law (who I don't know from Tracy Law) and we'll never be a .500 team again - easy as that.
              If you don't know who Acie Law is, you should start watching some college basketball. I think you've said before that you don't like college ball, but all I can do to that is shake my head.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                If you don't know who Acie Law is, you should start watching some college basketball. I think you've said before that you don't like college ball, but all I can do to that is shake my head.
                College ball = slower, dumber, less skilled, less athletic, and one of the most severe economic power abuse systems in all of sports since the Olympics were limited to "amateurs".
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                  Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                  College ball = slower, dumber, less skilled, less athletic, and one of the most severe economic power abuse systems in all of sports since the Olympics were limited to "amateurs".
                  Professional ball= faster, even dumber, horrible fundamental, too athletic, and gives way too much money to the players.

                  But you know what? I love watching both, but if given the choice between the two college would win every time.

                  I think I'll be preaching on deaf ears, so I'll keep it short. IMHO there is a big difference this season at the college level than it has been in the past, and I give credit to the NBA's age rule. Players like Durant would never set foot on campus, now they're forced too, and it benefits both the player and the sport.

                  This is my favorite part of the year, I can't wait for the madness.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    Bingo - there we are.

                    That's different than what Mr. Split Personality thinks. Evidently losing eventually means winning - just look at World Champion teams like the Hawks and the Warriors.
                    Or the Spurs?
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                      Just look at the Pacers last few top 15 picks...

                      Fred Jones
                      Austin Croshere
                      Erick Dampier
                      Eric Piatkowski
                      Scott Haskin
                      Malik Sealy
                      Dale Davis
                      George McCloud
                      Rik Smits
                      Reggie Miller
                      Chuck Person
                      Wayman Tisdale
                      Steve Stipanovich
                      Clark Kellogg
                      Herb Williams


                      There was a time when the Pacers selected well with high draft picks. The trend shows they've not done so well as of late.
                      I'm in these bands
                      The Humans
                      Dr. Goldfoot
                      The Bar Brawlers
                      ME

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                        Originally posted by DaCoop View Post
                        The thing is, we have....
                        • Good management that will draft winning players
                        • An Established All-Star PF
                        • An already solid cast of youngsters to work with (Granger, Ike, Shawne, Hulk)
                        • Decent role players (Quis, Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley, Foster)
                        Apart from losing and team chemistry, I believe the Pacers have an equally big problem looming on the horizon. That “Established All-Star PF” that you refer wants to win and he wants to win now.
                        fficeffice" />>>
                        With the desire to compete for a championship #1 on JO’s list of priorities, I think the biggest risk to the Pacers is the possibility of him electing his player option after next season, or at the very least, pursing free agency with another team after two more years.
                        >>
                        Since JO walking away without the benefit of a trade is a huge risk, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the Pacers do not pursue a trade involving Jermaine in the off-season. And what that might involve, who knows? High draft picks? Expiring contracts? Role players? Starting players?
                        >>
                        And that is if we continue the way we are, and actually make the playoffs.
                        >>
                        Now, let’s consider where we will be if the Pacers fail to make the playoffs. In that event, I believe that the Pacers trading Jermaine this coming summer is an absolute certainty. We cannot be put in the position where we might lose JO for nothing after the following season.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Professional ball= faster, even dumber, horrible fundamental, too athletic, and gives way too much money to the players.

                          But you know what? I love watching both, but if given the choice between the two college would win every time.

                          I think I'll be preaching on deaf ears, so I'll keep it short. IMHO there is a big difference this season at the college level than it has been in the past, and I give credit to the NBA's age rule. Players like Durant would never set foot on campus, now they're forced too, and it benefits both the player and the sport.

                          This is my favorite part of the year, I can't wait for the madness.
                          This subject has been beaten into the ground so many times.

                          Fundamentals are NOT lacking any more in the NBA than in the NCAA. Look at FT% of pro players vs. NCAA. I'm trying to find the article that read the "NCAA players are better at fundamentals" myth the riot act, so give me some time.

                          They are not better at the game. Never have been, never will be.

                          There are many out there that consider the NBA age rule nothing more than indentured servitude. But I'll admit that it is not nearly as bad as the NFL/NCAA Football system.

                          What does NCAA ball have over the pros? The game environment is much more fun for spectators. I prefer NCAA cheerleeding teams over NBA strippers - I mean - "dancers". They play live music instead of DJ bull****. They don't need an MC. They don't need silly contests or annoying sound affects. They don't play stupid sound affects during game play.

                          NBA franchises everywhere need to try and figure out why they have a less enjoyable experience yet typically charge more money.

                          I would prefer everything the NCAA does off the court, but the gameplay at the NBA level is a zillion times (to be scientific ) superior.

                          Off to find the stat book ...
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                            Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                            Or the Spurs?
                            Minority example.
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                              Team work=fundamentals. The NBA is hardly the poster child for teamwork.

                              Also, you can have horrible shooting fundamentals, and still hit a FT. No, I'm not trying to say that college players are better shooters fundamentally, but what I am saying is that statistics can't be used to show which level is fundamentally better.

                              You can offer ft%, shooting%, TOs, assists, any stat you want and it won't change my opinion.

                              Please show me where I said they were better at the game? You'll fail to find it. I would much rather watch college players, because they play the game in a manner in which it should be played. I get tired of watching all the Starbury's and Tinsley's do their Rucker Park act. It just makes me want to get sick.

                              That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Mark & Slick: the Pacers are a team in crises, close to unravelling

                                We should've kept Freddy. I miss those explosion dunks.
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
                                press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X