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

NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

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

  • #16
    Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    I'm with the NBA on this one. The players make so much now that it's detrimental to the league itself. The inmates are running the asylum.
    Exactly!!! I wouldn't mind if they have a lock out and corral some of those out of control salaries.
    12/27/2005 at Spurs - SamBear - 3

    1/2/2008 vs Memphis - SamBear - 19


    4/9/2014 - Luis Scola also recorded a season high with 24 points and Evan Turner added 23 for Indiana.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

      This is great. This is really going to improve the product on the floor, which is all i care about. As someone already said, its rich people vs. rich people, why should we have to side with the players? End of the day they will still be millionaires.

      I don't see how ownership can really be painted the bad guy here, with so many teams losing money, something has to be done. This is a far better solution than contraction... It is great news for small market teams (ahem, us) in general, a lot less worries about the team moving because they are losing money. I guess people who don't actually live in Indiana don't care, they will root for the team regardless, but its a really big issue with the locals here.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

        Originally posted by able View Post
        I will admit they make a lot of money, but they have special talents and one wrong landing ends it all.
        and no, they dont all make that much, think of guys like Roy or AJ, if something happens to their health now, (someone lands on their knee, back or something similar) and they are wheelchair bound, tell me if they were really that lucky.
        They could hurt themselves skiing, riding a bicycle, rollerskating--you get the picture. Playing a basketball game for $165000 per game hardly makes me want to cry for them. Players who are considered undesireable still get $17M. Guys who are in the league for two years and are 19 years old walk away with a million or two. It's not jealousy that makes some of us unsympathetic-it's the total insanity of the system. Guys retire when they want and still receive their entire contract for a couple of years? The union has invented a system that does not work for anyone other than athletes.

        Let's face it if there were no LeBrons, Wades, or Kobe right now would the nba fold? Absolutely not.
        Last edited by speakout4; 02-07-2010, 02:36 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          Let's face it if there were no LeBrons, Wades, or Kobe right now would the nba fold? Absolutely not.
          without other superstars to take their place ? yes, tv contracts would crumble and attention would drop even further then it is already doing

          but hey, what do i worry, i'm with oz, heck cut pay by 50-%

          that way i can see them in europe whenever i want, at times that suit me better and less cost

          Don't forget they play the same game, pay lotsa money and less games, and tax free money as well (not to mention that the euro is a lot more stable then the dollar)

          GO OWNERS!
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

            2011 is going to be a long year

            Foyle says owner proposal goes too far

            BOSTON -- In the strongest comments yet by a players' union official since NBA owners made a new collective bargaining proposal, first vice president Adonal Foyle of the Orlando Magic said the offer put forth last week by commissioner David Stern's office was "ludicrous."

            That was the first word out of Foyle's mouth when he was asked Sunday to characterize the owners' new labor proposal, which was given to the union late last week as the sides took one of the first major steps toward replacing the collective bargaining agreement that expires at the end of the 2010-11 season

            "I think it's a proposal that's far-reaching," said Foyle, the union's second-in-command behind president Derek Fisher. "This [new proposal] has gone too far. It wants a hard cap, it basically will create no middle class, and which, in effect, means none of the Bird rules would apply," Foyle said, referencing the so-called Larry Bird exception that allows teams to exceed the salary cap to retain their own free agents.

            Foyle, who was a member of the union's negotiating committee during 2005 collective bargaining talks and was a player rep for the Golden State Warriors during the 1998-99 lockout, went on to call the owners' proposal "rash" and "unfair."

            In addition to a hard salary cap to replace the current system of a "soft" cap, with its accompanying luxury tax penalties for teams that exceed a certain payroll threshold ($69.9 million this season), owners have asked that contracts be shortened to a maximum of four years, Foyle said.

            "I think when you look at the current CBA as it stands, it benefits both the players and owners. This is an agreement where we can quabble with different things within it, but it's an agreement that gives some things to both parties involved," Foyle told ESPN.com.

            "A system like that would be too restrictive, and it doesn't jibe with what we think the league is. We have been willing to negotiate a guarantee that we don't get over a certain threshold, and no other businesses do that. We hold back 9 percent of our income so that the owners can make sure they are covered on the back end. We have given up a lot of stuff, and they have given up a lot of stuff, so I think to start off a negotiation in this rash a term, I think it's unfair," Foyle said.

            Foyle said the union was particularly taken aback by the gravity of the owners' demands after the sides had held several cordial meetings in advance of the league submitting the initial proposal.

            "That's what I think was what most surprising to all of us. The meetings, in our estimation, had been quite constructive. We were seeming to get a sense of where everybody was, and we went through why we think [the current agreement] should be extended," Foyle said. "But I think a proposal like this is the first time they're saying: 'This is the way we want to go with the league.' "

            The union's executive board will meet with team player representatives at All-Star Weekend to discuss the owners' proposal.

            The union's executive director, Billy Hunter, has declined to publicly comment on the owners' proposal since it arrived on his desk last week. Fisher, too, has declined substantive comment.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

              Originally posted by able View Post
              without other superstars to take their place ? yes, tv contracts would crumble and attention would drop even further then it is already doing

              but hey, what do i worry, i'm with oz, heck cut pay by 50-%

              that way i can see them in europe whenever i want, at times that suit me better and less cost

              Don't forget they play the same game, pay lotsa money and less games, and tax free money as well (not to mention that the euro is a lot more stable then the dollar)

              GO OWNERS!
              No Kobe or LeBron in Europe. I'm surprised anyone over there even goes to a game. People are fans of a team with or without superstars and as long as there are fans there will be tv contracts, etc.

              GO 19 Year old millionaires!
              Last edited by speakout4; 02-07-2010, 05:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                The owners are the ones with the financial risk here. I realize these sweetheart deals with local government is skewing that these days but ultimately, if a team loses money the players still get paid.

                What risk do the players really have?

                Nobody is asking the players to play for free.

                Nobody is forcing them to sign contracts.

                I will assume players have insurance against career ending injuries mitigating their risk even more.

                The problem I see isn't even so much what a player gets paid for one year, it's that player underperforming for YEARS and getting paid what he's paid. Usually with an escalating salary per year. And besides performance issues there are attitude issues, off court problems leading to PR problems for teams... both things that ultimately likely lead to on court problems (and/or affect the bottom line).

                Teams need a way to mitigate mistakes for the strength of the game and the league.

                I seriously doubt any NEGOTIATED deal is going ultimately to screw either side too awfully much. IMHO the player side got a little too much in recent previous deal(s) and it's going to swing back the other way now. I think the Jordan era NBA was a stronger product overall and that helped the players. The market has now changed. The owners needs some of that back.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                  There are a couple of things I would like to see come out of these negotiations.

                  1. The hard cap. This would even the playing field, protecting the smaller markets (and smaller ownership bank accounts) from those owners who could care less about paying the luxury tax. I guess you could say it is an odd necessity, but true non the less, that it protects the owners from themselves (or each other).

                  2. I would like to see the agreement and player contracts written in such a way that a team has a better chance to terminate, without repercussion, the contracts of players whose conduct is at minimum detrimental and at maximum illegal.

                  3. To coincide with number two, I would like for the league to be able to strip an owner of his franchise if he is found guilty of any felony. The league could run the team until a suitable new owner is determined. The same would hold true for any GM, other front office person or coach. They would lose their job if found guilty of a felony.

                  4. Along with the hard cap would be a reduction in the number of regular season games, and a reduction of first and second round playoff series to a best of five format.

                  5. The WNBA, as it is now, would be abolished. It has been nothing but a drain since day one. If several people decided they wanted to form a women's league not associated with the NBA, fine. Let them have at it.

                  6. Finally, and most important. Free pizza and beer for all Pacers fans!

                  By the way, I think maybe some people are getting way too upset, way to soon by the first news coming out of all this. I am quite sure the owners and the players are both putting out opening stances much more rigid than what they will settle for. Much the same as we have been discussing demands by GM's in the trade threads
                  Last edited by Tom White; 02-07-2010, 06:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    EDIT; The more I think about it the more I think Peck is right. Stern will see to it that legacy contracts won't hamstring teams with the Stars. Like the Laker's and Boston's of the NBA world.
                    you know what, i started out thinking this was going to be impossible. a contract is a contract right? but it seems the owners want the new rules to apply to pre-existing contracts retroactively. holy smokes.

                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...e=NBAHeadlines

                    The proposal, a source familiar with talks said, includes rollbacks that could reduce maximum guaranteed salaries, both for veterans such as Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, as well as up-and-comers like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose, to almost a third of what they would have been eligible for under the current agreement.

                    Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any pre-existing deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits.
                    i'd like to see how the owners think they can go around revising already signed contracts.
                    Last edited by wintermute; 02-08-2010, 04:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      you know what, i started out thinking this was going to be impossible. a contract is a contract right? but it seems the owners want the new rules to apply to pre-existing contracts retroactively. holy smokes.

                      http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...e=NBAHeadlines



                      i'd like to see how the owners think they can go around revising already signed contracts.
                      Is that something the players union could even agree to? Wouldn't that have to be a decision made by each individual contract holder?

                      I could see the players' union agreeing to stand aside and allow owners and players to restructure pre-existing contract and accept whatever was agreed to without complaining (like they would complain if a player accepted a buyout for some crazy cheap number). And when I say "I could see" I only mean I can understand how that situation would be an option. Not, that I could see them actually making that concession easily.

                      ..And how many players would agree to accept a new deal with lesser terms than their existing deal?
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                        Does anyone think a hard cap would in effect benefit the big market teams more? If the max contract a superstar can get is 8mil say, then sponsorship is going to be a much larger proportion of a players income. If all the stars then go to the markets where they can pull in the best sponsorship dollars, this might be counterproductive in terms of balancing the league.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                          Originally posted by skyfire View Post
                          Does anyone think a hard cap would in effect benefit the big market teams more? If the max contract a superstar can get is 8mil say, then sponsorship is going to be a much larger proportion of a players income. If all the stars then go to the markets where they can pull in the best sponsorship dollars, this might be counterproductive in terms of balancing the league.
                          I think superstar players are going to get national exposure no matter what team they play on. See Peyton Manning for an example of a player doing well in sponsor income yet playing for a smaller market team.

                          I'm not sure what it says about the NBA that recent ads feature Larry Bird and Charles Barkley.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                            Originally posted by wintermute

                            (Perhaps the biggest shocker: The owners' proposal includes a provision that would require any pre-existing deals to be revised to conform to the new deal's limits.)

                            i'd like to see how the owners think they can go around revising already signed contracts.
                            If the players agree to have the contracts revised then it can happen. They can do anything. Negotiation is all about pushing as hard as you can for as long as you can.

                            This is the sort of thing the owners could use to drive a wedge into the players' solidarity.




                            .
                            Last edited by Putnam; 02-08-2010, 08:15 AM.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post

                              i'd like to see how the owners think they can go around revising already signed contracts.
                              Similar to the way the Clinton administration instituted a retroactive tax increase that even raised the taxes owed by people who had died between January and June of that year.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                                [QUOTE=Bball;956684]

                                I'm sure of two things with regard to that.

                                Those guys know more about the game of basketball than any current players.

                                If you put that dream team back together, and took them back to the ages they were when they were playing, they would trounce any all-star team you could put together from today's players. It wouldn't even be close.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X