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

Interesting comment by JO.

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

  • #76
    Re: Interesting comment by JO.

    Originally posted by Los Angeles
    I don't think anyone said that.

    Let's say that I want to dam up a river to make a power station that will power a nearby town and make me lots of money.

    In doing so, I will flood a Native American reservation.

    Let's assume that in this situation, I'm motivated by greed, and the needs of the town, not by hatred towards Native Americans.

    If you were living on that reservation, you'd still question why only people on the reservation get the down-side of this plan. In this case, the plan is not implimented BECAUSE of racism, but the RESULT of my plan could still be considered discriminatory.

    Get it?
    Yeah. That is a good analogy. I don't believe there are any racial undertones here (I think the fact that most HSers are black is just reality, nothing more/less), but I can see why someone of the race in question might go there. But I still think they're wrong.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Interesting comment by JO.

      Also, I COMPLETELY agree that the solution is a farm system. That would be fantastic for many reasons, not to mention it would solve this HS problem because if they initially "suck" and aren't ready for the spotlight or whatever, you can put them in the "minors" so they can get playing time while the "grown ups" can continue playing in the "majors".

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Interesting comment by JO.

        Originally posted by Hicks
        Yeah. That is a good analogy. I don't believe there are any racial undertones here (I think the fact that most HSers are black is just reality, nothing more/less), but I can see why someone of the race in question might go there. But I still think they're wrong.
        I think JO is wrong if he's implying that Stern's main reason for implementing an age limit is race related.

        However, I can see where he is coming from. If you look up here in Canada, we have kids leaving home at the age of 14 to go play in Junior hockey leagues. You have kids in the Domincan at the age of 16 doing similar things for baseball. Perhaps it is a cultural thing?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Interesting comment by JO.

          JERMAINE, You should listen to uncle Reggie ..

          O'Neal thinks racism might have something to do with the NBA's desire to put an age limit in the next collective bargaining agreement. "In the last two or three years, the rookie of the year has a been a high school player. There were seven high school players in the All-Star game, so why we even talking an age limit?" O'Neal said.
          Yes Mr Oneal, but what happened to other Rookies in the league? Why do i see the rest of Hundreds of Rookies sitting in the bench for a couple of years?

          "As a black guy, you kind of think that's the reason why it's coming up.
          What does Race got to with it? I still dont understand..

          You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey.
          In Baseball you dont have to have a grown up Mind and grown up Physical body.. nobody will HIT you, its not a Physical sport, there are no fouls, there are almost no Injurys, u just need to be skilled in baseball nothing else..
          In Hockey you have loads of Protection, even a car can drive over you without the player taking so much damage, you dont get at top 6 fouls in hockey, you get 1 foul and you are fouled out for some minutes..
          In Basketball you must already have a NBA mind and body, Injurys occure 24/7, its one of the most physical games.. most of young players knows only to play BasketBall, they didnt learned how to take care of their body!

          To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. army and fight the war at 18 why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"
          In the army you get a weapon even if you are 5 feet tall and you shoot down 7 foot Talibans with ease.. in NBA you dont have a weapon, and a 7 footer will just crush your young and weak body and the next day you will look like if a train hit you, now im not saying that ALL young players are like this, but 60-70% of them Are!

          I have no desire to have a race debate. God views men as either good or bad by what they do, not their color, so why should we be different?
          Another racial thingy, still dont understand what Race got to do with it?


          Now this is what Reggie would say people and i think he is correct.. not only what i would say.. just wanted to proove that Jermaine is a little bit wrong.
          You agree with Reggie or Jermaine?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Interesting comment by JO.

            Originally posted by btowncolt
            I don't think Reggie would say a single thing you just claimed he would.....

            Hehe yea, but i got this source from Inside NBA nr. 43 magazine from year 1995, i remember he interviewed back then and they asked him exactly the same question about age... and there is 1 page Reggie talking about this matter he pretty much said he was against it.. and he was asked about this on Tv Daily Show, he said there not much accept that he was still against it

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Interesting comment by JO.

              95 was a different world in terms of the straight-to-the-NBA phenomenom.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                On the subject of Jermaine O'Neal's comments on an NBA age restriction, Reggie thinks players would be better served going to college first and he disagrees with the views of his teammate.
                The Dan Patrick Show

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                  My mistake, then.

                  Here's a pretty decent article...

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                    Originally posted by Anthem
                    My mistake, then.

                    Here's a pretty decent article...

                    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
                    yea very interesting, thx m8

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      Almost any older player would say exactly that.

                      Why?

                      The high schoolers are taking their jobs (cue South Park).......
                      They must be jelous of young kids like Lebron James coming in and kicking their asses

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                        didn't notice this posted already...

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...n/050414&num=0
                        By Scoop Jackson
                        Page 2


                        Let's say there was no color issue; let's say everyone in America was green. Green like the dollar bill. Green with envy.


                        Now let's say there's a group of people, all green, all American, standing at a bus stop on their way to work. The bus pulls up, driver opens the door and the bus driver says, "Good morning everyone! You all know the drill ... dark green people to the back, light green people sit in the front."

                        At some point we all knew it would come to this. But it didn't have to come to this. The "R." Racism. The word. Groundhogged it's ugly little head again. This time out of the mouth of Jermaine O'Neal. His words inexact: "Racism is part of the NBA's [David Stern's] reason to implement an age restriction on entering the league." I'm paraphrasing. But the point is out. And once out, it stays out, like the cork on the Verve Cliquot.


                        Somewhere in Toronto, outside the U.S., Jermaine O'Neal got caught off guard, and caught up. Someone asked him a question. An American question. Unparaphrasing. "Is it because you guys are black that the league is trying to put an age limit on the draft?"


                        The question demanded an answer. A real one. Not one of those scripted, toeing-the-company-line responses. So Jermaine gave the Charles Barkley answer. The Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman-on-Larry Bird answer. He gave the answer that many needed to hear, but hundreds were afraid to say. For lack of misunderstanding and misquotes, O'Neal basically called David Stern's intent to mandate an age requirement for induction into the NBA race related.


                        Then came the drama.


                        Everyone from Stephen A. to Mike & Mike in the Morning found a way to disagree with O'Neal's comment and assessment.


                        "Racism in the NBA?" you could hear them say. "Never. That's un-American."

                        Most didn't understand where O'Neal was coming from – straight felt that he is more than off base with his opinion. They voiced through phone calls on talk radio that he is dead wrong. One even went so far as to call his comment "stupid." Not necessarily a reflection of O'Neal the person ... but damn.


                        Let's define stupid. Stupid is Barry Bonds still working out with Greg Anderson. Stupid is Mike Tyson still fighting for a title shot. Stupid is the Lakers not getting at least one All-Star in return for Shaq.


                        An NBA superstar finding something racially motivated when the principals involved are specifically of one race? That's conscious. And in an era when apathy runs through the DNA of black athletes everywhere, the fact that one would even pose the question should get him Nobel Prize recognition.


                        Dr. King often said, "A man that doesn't stand for something will fall for anything." And while no one is saying Jermaine O'Neal is the MLK of the NBA, his wherewithal to approach the subject should be appreciated more than anything, if not applauded.


                        Even if he's wrong.


                        The problem is ... he isn't.


                        *****


                        To know him, you'd understand. He's very soft-spoken, quiet, almost humble at all times. But he doesn't shy away from two things: the truth, and what he believes. He asks questions. That's what we sometimes don't see or hear. We jump to conclusions, when really he's simply a young man asking the world questions – questions that he'd love to have answered.


                        Months ago, he asked this one: "What Would You Do?" He asked the question in response to the situation that got him suspended for a third of the NBA season. He never said he was right. He never backed away from his actions. But he did ask us, asked anyone who wasn't him at that particular moment in the Palace at Auburn Hills last November, to put ourselves in his Shox there, to see the situation from his vantage point, to process the scene in our minds. And then ask ourselves ... what would we do?


                        He sits in a chair, relaxed. Button-up game tight, white MLB cap to the back, smile hidden. He allowed NBA Nation into his house. Confronting the issue head on. This is what he does for a living, besides play ball. He asked a question.


                        "What's the debate about?" he said inside a mini-media interrogation. "I just want to understand better why an age limit is coming up. That's all.


                        "I'm not playing the race card, I'm not calling anybody a racist. I'm just talking about the facts. The product and economic reasons can't be the reason, because the league is doing well and the prime faces of the NBA are of high-school players. So why are they trying to change that? It doesn't make sense to me."

                        Questions.


                        "It's not about race," he said to Matt Winer, as his former Portland Trail Blazers mentor Greg Anthony listened in (and, at times, tried to clarify the situation for O'Neal). "This is about an opportunity at life. We're talking about transition – young black athletes making a successful transition. It's been going on for 30 years. I just want to know why."


                        Why the change? Why fix something that ain't broke? Why mess with these kids' opportunity for a better life when the demand is high and they own the supply? Why, when Freddy Adu in the MLS just signed on last year at age 14? Why now?


                        The fact is that while 76 percent of the players in the NBA are black, almost 100 percent of the players who will be affected by the "delayed entry program" will be black. And more than color or race, economics is at the core of this. Nearly all of the players who make themselves eligible for the NBA draft directly out of high school do so to immediately better their family's financial situation. And now, all of a sudden, with nothing concrete at which to point that says "players under the age of 20 have been bad for professional basketball," a decision is going to be made on their behalf that will directly change the course of their lives?


                        O'Neal is one of the success stories of the rule that's about to be changed. He went straight from Eau Claire High School in South Carolina to the NBA. Yet when he asks the question – "Why?" – America seems to have a problem with it because of his injection of color into an equation that was all black to begin with.


                        If you were David Stern, what would you do?


                        A radio host in LA said of "the Jermaine O'Neal ordeal," every time you bring race or color into the conversation, another component appears.


                        One that most white Americans don't want to face. One that most blacks don't want to relive.


                        But does that mean it doesn't exist?


                        Ric Bucher said there exists a "resentment toward younger players" in the league, but that it's "generational, not racial."


                        Ric Bucher is white. Ric Bucher is right.


                        But when it comes to amateur basketball players under the age of 20 making themselves available to be drafted into the association, there's only one generation that counts. And inside that generational box, the color is no longer coded. It's specific.


                        How many white basketball players have entered the NBA draft out of a U.S. high school? One. His name: Rob Swift.


                        How many European/foreign basketball players have entered the NBA draft out of high school without professional experience? None. Even if they're younger than 20, they can play professionally in Europe before entering the NBA, like Darko Milicic (who was 18 his rookie season).


                        Ever since Kevin Garnett re-broke the rules in 1995, every basketball player under the age of 20 without professional or college experience (outside of Mr. Swift) who has come into the L has been black. All the young kids who have listened to the people around them (including NBA scouts and GMs) telling them they can make the "jump" and who then jumped, have been black. All of the ballers who have used the NBA as an economic refuge, eliminating drastic below-poverty-level situations the minute they became eligible to vote or join the army, have been black.


                        Recognize a theme? A color scheme?


                        It is not race at the base of Stern's quest to install an age limitation for entrance into the game, but it is race at the base of who that rule will directly affect. And that's the "fact" that Jermaine O'Neal is ultimately trying to get at. Yes, the players union wants to protect the 10-year vets who have been losing roster spots to these young studs in the way that seasoned actors are losing roles to rappers in Hollywood. But why keep the young brothas from that opportunity when no one is "holding a .45 to the head of these owners and GMs making them draft these kids."


                        He made a suggestion by answering a question. In the end, all he said he wanted was an answer. But in America, when someone like him, like Jermaine (or Kobe, or KG, or Amare, or McGrady, or LeBron) who's been through the fire, says they feel that there might be racial "undertones" in the decision to cap the age limit on coming into the league – and no one wants to listen – it suggests that there are bigger problems than the one O'Neal is suggesting.


                        The fact that Jermaine O'Neal made the "suggestion" that race might be an element, a component in the decision to advance the age requirement, is not stupid, is not unwarranted, is not racist. Given that the law will only affect people of Jermaine's color, his answer to someone's question isn't stupid, ignorant or asinine.


                        It's justified.


                        But we live in America. Home of the free, land of opportunity. A country where they want to shift the age limit for someone to be able to make millions, but not the age limit to be able to die for it.


                        And just because the overwhelming majority of the people the new rule would affect are of one color ... well, in America, what's racist about that?


                        I'm only asking a question. Get it?


                        Scoop Jackson is an award-winning journalist who has covered sports and culture for more than 15 years. He is a former editor of Slam, XXL, Hoop and Inside Stuff magazines; and the author of "Sole Provider: 30 Years of NIKE Basketball," "Battlegrounds: America's Street Poets Called Ballers" and "LeBron James: the Chambers of Fear." He resides in Chicago with his wife and two kids. You can e-mail Scoop here.
                        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                          See post #63.
                          “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


                          • #88
                            Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                            This was pretty good, by Burns:

                            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...nnsi&type=lgns
                            E-mail Question of the Week

                            What do you think of Jermaine O'Neal's comments that the NBA's plan to implement a minimum age rule is racist? -- C. Dickey, Valparaiso, Ind.

                            I think O'Neal got it partly right. There does seem to be a racist component to the debate -- at least in terms of the public clamor over the need for an age limit. As he points out, nobody gets upset about all the teenage hockey players, tennis players and figure skaters who don't go to college. Why should young African-American kids be denied the same opportunity to chase their dreams?

                            But the NBA (unlike some of the public) isn't being racist here. It's simply trying to put the best product on the floor for all those folks paying $100 a ticket. The fact is teams are drafting a lot of young kids not because they can play now, but for their potential three or four years down the road. With only 12 spots on each roster, that means less quality on the bench for the present. As long as a minimum-age rule comes with the blessing of the players association, through the collective bargaining process, the NBA has a right to do it.

                            Move We'd Like to See

                            More players speak up like Jermaine O'Neal

                            Whether you agree with O'Neal or not, it is refreshing to see a star player speak up about a social issue he cares about. One of the unfortunate developments of our PR-obsessed sports culture now is that so few players are willing to say anything that might risk hurting their endorsement potential. The days of outspoken voices like Bill Russell or Muhammad Ali challenging our views and igniting debates about important social issues seemingly have gone the way of Chuck Taylors. Here's hoping O'Neal won't hesitate to speak up again -- and that more will follow his lead.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                              Originally posted by Ragnar
                              Man I would LOVE to have a minor league Pacer team with James Jones, David Harrison and maybe Bender on it. (well not this year mind you) Talk about getting people in other parts of the state involved. If the people in Fort Wayne had a Fort Wayne Pacers with the young up and comers they would watch those guys once they made the main team.

                              I think the answer to the minor league system would be to have it be only a half a season. That way your younger players would get playing time but still be available to the team for a post all star break push. Have the championship game for the minor league be at the all star festivities. Replace that absurd skills challenge with a game that matters and I think you would get more people watching.
                              CBA owners let Isaih buy the league BECAUSE he said 'his connections' would enable him to sell the league to the NBA as it's minor league.
                              THE NBA WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Interesting comment by JO.

                                On Friday, I think, I saw the O'neal comment make news on Jim Rome. It was in the fan reaction part, some fan e-mailed Jim and, he basically called Jermaine ignnorant. And, I thought Jim was going to agree, but Jim dissed the fan and said Jermaine is one of the leagues better person and he said that Jermaine is a very smart guy.
                                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X