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

Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

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

  • #61
    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
    And yet he should have the choice to do that if he wants.
    He should, I personally would never support anything that restricts this choice (I'm not a fan of RFA or Franchise Tags). At the same time the league should incentivize teams and players to not create super teams, or make it difficult to create super teams without the players taking a lot less than they would elsewhere.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

      JJ ReDick has a fairly big mouth. Anyway...

      @JJ - As for the last 6 years LeBron moved and formed another super team. Also, the Spurs were already a dynasty. There isn't parity. I hope JJ knows that. Dude is dense.

      Next, fair trades are fine. The issue is when player decide to team up. I thought we all learned about fairness on the playground where the captains picked teams. SMH.

      As for players having freedom, they do. They can play in the NBA or the playground or the Y. The ONLY reason they might have mobility in the NBA is because the OWNERS have decided to ALLOW it. The OWNERS could dictate whatever they want but they are seeking to maximize profits which means they are fine with a lack of parity. If parity filled the coffers, you can be sure they would have different rules. This fantasy that the players are driving this bus is getting ridiculous.

      Also, to JJ. It's really not about forcing parity. It's about creating an even playing field for trades and player acquisition. If an owner is wise enough to craft a trade to help his team, great. If he picks just the right player or mix, great. But colluding shouldn't be allowed. Owner A shouldn't trade all of his good players to Owner B just to make B's team great. Similarly, players shouldn't collude unless you want to move out of the realm of competition into purely entertainment. Personally, I think the NBA has already done that. Is it good for the league? Financially the answer might be yes. But for people who understand and want fair competition, not just on the floor but in the war room determining how to build teams, it certainly isn't good. It's akin to the playground game where the Captain of Team #1 gets to pick the 4 best players available. It's not fair. It's not really going to be competitive. But you might see a lot of fast breaks and slams and highlight reels for pre-teens to watch.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-15-2016, 04:11 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        JJ ReDick has a fairly big mouth. Anyway...

        @JJ - As for the last 6 years LeBron moved and formed another super team. Also, the Spurs were already a dynasty. There isn't parity. I hope JJ knows that. Dude is dense.

        Next, fair trades are fine. The issue is when player decide to team up. I thought we all learned about fairness on the playground where the captains picked teams. SMH.

        As for players having freedom, they do. They can play in the NBA or the playground or the Y. The ONLY reason they might have mobility in the NBA is because the OWNERS have decided to ALLOW it. The OWNERS could dictate whatever they want but they are seeking to maximize profits which means they are fine with a lack of parity. If parity filled the coffers, you can be sure they would have different rules. This fantasy that the players are driving this bus is getting ridiculous.

        Also, to JJ. It's really not about forcing parity. It's about creating an even playing field for trades and player acquisition. If an owner is wise enough to craft a trade to help his team, great. If he picks just the right player or mix, great. But colluding shouldn't be allowed. Owner A shouldn't trade all of his good players to Owner B just to make B's team great. Similarly, players shouldn't collude unless you want to move out of the realm of competition into purely entertainment. Personally, I think the NBA has already done that. Is it good for the league? Financially the answer might be yes. But for people who understand and want fair competition, not just on the floor but in the war room determining how to build teams, it certainly isn't good. It's akin to the playground game where the Captain of Team #1 gets to pick the 4 best players available. It's not fair. It's not really going to be competitive. But you might see a lot of fast breaks and slams and highlight reels for pre-teens to watch.
        While I agree with your main premise, the owners actually don't have a choice anymore in the matter. If they tried to do such a thing the NBAPA would sue them for anti-trust and win the suit in a landslide. That is why there is a CBA to begin with. So the owners can collude on certain rules the actually hurt the players ability to maximize their income and ability to move between teams. The reason the players agree to it is because it is better for the league that there are certain restrictions as it helps the league to be more profitable, which helps them to earn more money.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          The ONLY reason they might have mobility in the NBA is because the OWNERS have decided to ALLOW it. The OWNERS could dictate whatever they want but they are seeking to maximize profits which means they are fine with a lack of parity. If parity filled the coffers, you can be sure they would have different rules. This fantasy that the players are driving this bus is getting ridiculous.
          While I think that the owners are needed, there is no NBA without the stars. We should not suggest a Railroad Baron mentality among the owners and we should not suggest a super-pact of monopolies through the freeness of the players. Incentivizing (Like Eleazar suggests) is the same as giving big corporations tax breaks to create jobs. But what happens if you decrease a caphold on a drafted person to 20%? It creates more room for a mega star to sign before that same team's mega-star is re-signed.

          Like I said any "fix" will create an altogether new problem. Franchise tags won't work on low-rostered leagues. Hard caps will only create another league as players will leave the NBA. Right now I think there isn 't much that will change to prevent super teams from forming unless free agency is reformed altogether. And then you are talking losing an entire year of revenue for just 10 years of play.
          Last edited by Major Cold; 07-15-2016, 04:33 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            Hard caps will only create another league as players will leave the NBA.
            With the amount of startup money it would cost, that would be next to impossible.

            Players can threaten that all they'd like, but players would probably have to play free for years in order for that to happen while also competing with an already established world wide player in the NBA who would crush them like cockroaches.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              JJ ReDick has a fairly big mouth. Anyway...

              @JJ - As for the last 6 years LeBron moved and formed another super team. Also, the Spurs were already a dynasty. There isn't parity. I hope JJ knows that. Dude is dense.

              Next, fair trades are fine. The issue is when player decide to team up. I thought we all learned about fairness on the playground where the captains picked teams. SMH.

              As for players having freedom, they do. They can play in the NBA or the playground or the Y. The ONLY reason they might have mobility in the NBA is because the OWNERS have decided to ALLOW it. The OWNERS could dictate whatever they want but they are seeking to maximize profits which means they are fine with a lack of parity. If parity filled the coffers, you can be sure they would have different rules. This fantasy that the players are driving this bus is getting ridiculous.

              Also, to JJ. It's really not about forcing parity. It's about creating an even playing field for trades and player acquisition. If an owner is wise enough to craft a trade to help his team, great. If he picks just the right player or mix, great. But colluding shouldn't be allowed. Owner A shouldn't trade all of his good players to Owner B just to make B's team great. Similarly, players shouldn't collude unless you want to move out of the realm of competition into purely entertainment. Personally, I think the NBA has already done that. Is it good for the league? Financially the answer might be yes. But for people who understand and want fair competition, not just on the floor but in the war room determining how to build teams, it certainly isn't good. It's akin to the playground game where the Captain of Team #1 gets to pick the 4 best players available. It's not fair. It's not really going to be competitive. But you might see a lot of fast breaks and slams and highlight reels for pre-teens to watch.
              You seem to be extremely against NBA players having a choice on what team they play for. Obviously, they can demand a trade, but still the teams have some power in that. You seem to have an issue with unrestricted free agency in the NBA. I have some questions for you.

              Are you against other professional athletes having true free agency, a choice on where they want to play, or is it just the NBA?

              Are you against college athletes choosing the best college sports program for them?

              Are you against students choosing the best college for their futures?

              Are you against a citizen changing jobs (or even careers) to move to what could be a better situation, or should everyone have to stay in their current job until their company decides they don't need them anymore?

              Thank you.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                Originally posted by shags View Post
                You seem to be extremely against NBA players having a choice on what team they play for. Obviously, they can demand a trade, but still the teams have some power in that. You seem to have an issue with unrestricted free agency in the NBA. I have some questions for you.


                Are you against other professional athletes having true free agency, a choice on where they want to play, or is it just the NBA?


                Are you against college athletes choosing the best college sports program for them?


                Are you against students choosing the best college for their futures?


                Are you against a citizen changing jobs (or even careers) to move to what could be a better situation, or should everyone have to stay in their current job until their company decides they don't need them anymore?


                Thank you.

                Much of this has to do with competition. Some of it has to do with strategy. I don't like knowing a year in advance of the NBA finals which two teams are going to be competing for it. We all know right now that GS is back in the finals next year yet we go through an entire season watching western conference teams slog through the regular season games that really lack any meaning because they will not beat GS.

                As for other professional sports, I only care about football and you don't have the same problem. For one, there are 22 players, not 5, so a super team is kind of hard to put together.

                As for college, there are a lot more programs out there. Durant went to Texas. Paul went to Fresno State. LeBron didn't go to college. Larry Bird went to Indiana State and took that team to the NCAA finals. Magic and Michigan State won it all. The very best players in the NCAA come from everywhere. Yes, there are strong clubs but there are less games and therefore they are more meaningful. The big 10 tournament has meaning. A single elimination tournament by student athletes is simply too unpredictable. Check out your brackets and did you have Villanova winning it? I'm not saying there is a tremendous amount of parity but it's not like the NBA where teams mail it in because the season runs on for 82 games. It's just really a waste of time afaic.

                As for students choosing the best colleges, no problem. It's not a athletic competition. It really has nothing to do with this. I'm not interested in following Johnny who is Acing his tests at Stanford.

                As for a citizen changing jobs, that's irrelevant. The NBA is a product as a whole. One team cannot stand by itself like a company can. Again, this is about athletic competition. It's about teams having a strategy that isn't wrapped around cheating. Collusion by owners is every bit as bad if not worse than players cheating the game.

                Riddle me this. How would you feel if Paul decides to say, join the Spurs and we plug in the great CJ Miles to take his place? ...Or the Simons decide to invest in the Bulls. So they trade Paul for their trash. The Simons get a great ROI in the huge Chicago market for their money, much better off financially than the tiny Indy market. Their deal includes revenue from Paul George jersey sales that skyrocket as his star rises in Chicago. The Pacers of course go 20-62 for the season. The first example is a distinct possibility. The second sounds like a stretch but it is possible as the league becomes more entertainment and money than competition.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  It's about teams having a strategy that isn't wrapped around cheating.
                  If you don't like it, it's cheating. Got it.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Collusion by owners is every bit as bad if not worse than players cheating the game.
                  Players agreeing as free agents to join the same team does not fit any definition of "collusion." I'm not entirely sure you know what the word means.

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Riddle me this. How would you feel if Paul decides to say, join the Spurs and we plug in the great CJ Miles to take his place?
                  If the spurs somehow find max cap room? No issue at all. And Indiana can deal with it like every other NBA team does.

                  We lost a better player than that in Grant Hill 16 years ago. 4 years later we won a championship. Losing a player in free agency isn't a death sentence unless you allow it to be.



                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  ...Or the Simons decide to invest in the Bulls.
                  ...which they cannot do unless they sell the Pacers. And why are we still pluralizing "Simon?"

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  The second sounds like a stretch but it is possible as the league becomes more entertainment and money than competition.
                  ....this hilarious tinfoil moment brought to you by Reynolds Wrap.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 07:20 PM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                    Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                    While I think that the owners are needed, there is no NBA without the stars. We should not suggest a Railroad Baron mentality among the owners and we should not suggest a super-pact of monopolies through the freeness of the players. Incentivizing (Like Eleazar suggests) is the same as giving big corporations tax breaks to create jobs. But what happens if you decrease a caphold on a drafted person to 20%? It creates more room for a mega star to sign before that same team's mega-star is re-signed.

                    Like I said any "fix" will create an altogether new problem. Franchise tags won't work on low-rostered leagues. Hard caps will only create another league as players will leave the NBA. Right now I think there isn 't much that will change to prevent super teams from forming unless free agency is reformed altogether. And then you are talking losing an entire year of revenue for just 10 years of play.
                    I think you have the cart before the horse. People seriously underestimate what it takes to run a successful and wildly profitable business.


                    Hard caps are probably the only thing keeping some measure of competition and they are not going to drive players into another league that becomes successful.


                    I do think free agency should be reformed. I would not mind some freedom of movement but I don't think any of the top players should be able to go to either of the top 2 teams in the league. I'm not sure where to draw the line exactly, but Durant's move would not be allowed. Also, players would be ranked around the league and under no circumstances would a team above .500 be allowed to acquire more than one great player in one season.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Hard caps are probably the only thing keeping some measure of competition
                      They're there to make the owners richer.
                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I would not mind some freedom of movement
                      How magnanimous of you.

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      I'm not sure where to draw the line exactly, but Durant's move would not be allowed.
                      Oh boy, here it comes...

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Also, players would be ranked around the league and under no circumstances would a team above .500 be allowed to acquire more than one great player in one season.
                      While we're essentially reducing them to numbers at the mercy of literally whatever we want them to do, perhaps we could auction them off as well...

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        If you don't like it, it's cheating. Got it.



                        Players agreeing as free agents to join the same team does not fit any definition of "collusion." I'm not entirely sure you know what the word means.



                        If the spurs somehow find max cap room? No issue at all. And Indiana can deal with it like every other NBA team does.

                        We lost a better player than that in Grant Hill 16 years ago. 4 years later we won a championship. Losing a player in free agency isn't a death sentence unless you allow it to be.





                        ...which they cannot do unless they sell the Pacers. And why are we still pluralizing "Simon?"



                        ....this hilarious tinfoil moment brought to you by Reynolds Wrap.

                        LOL. You don't even recall Piston history. Detroit got Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins in return for damaged goods. Grant Hill was never the same after injuring his ankle prior to that sign and trade.

                        Anyway...the owners can indeed change whatever they want to about the NBA including if they can invest across franchises. I think you are really missing the point. They could change the league to a soccer league if they wanted. They could close it down entirely and take up basket weaving. They own it. O. W. N. Understand?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          LOL. You don't even recall Piston history. Detroit got Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins in return for damaged goods. Grant Hill was never the same after injuring his ankle prior to that sign and trade.

                          Anyway...the owners can indeed change whatever they want to about the NBA including if they can invest across franchises. I think you are really missing the point. They could change the league to a soccer league if they wanted. They could close it down entirely and take up basket weaving. They own it. O. W. N. Understand?
                          Do you understand what a collective bargaining agreement is?

                          The owners can't use the toilet without the players signing off on it beforehand. You seem to live in a fantasy world where the owners can make all the changes they want without being sued for antitrust.

                          The NBA, like every other major league, is allowed to exist in this country only through collective bargaining. Otherwise the NBA would constitute an illegal monopoly. The CBA make it impossible for the owners to act unilaterally. This entire premise is absurd.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 08:37 PM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Do you understand what a collective bargaining agreement is?

                            The owners can't use the toilet without the players signing off on it beforehand. You seem to live in a fantasy world where the owners can make all the changes they want without being sued for antitrust.

                            The NBA, like every other major league, is allowed to exist in this country only through collective bargaining. Otherwise the NBA would constitute an illegal monopoly. The CBA make it impossibly for the owners to act unilaterally. This entire premise is absurd.
                            Nobody is required to sign a contract. I think that's what you are missing. That's why the owners can lock out the players as long as they want to.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                              Here is something for you to chew on:

                              1. Antitrust litigation and NLRB charges take too long for players to wage effective legal battles: Both the NFLPA and NBPA thought that by decertifying (or, similarly, disclaiming interest) and filing antitrust lawsuits, owners would be threatened by the prospect of paying treble damages, likely in the billions of dollars. This strategy had a fundamental flaw: antitrust litigation, especially complex antitrust litigation involving novel issues — such as those posed byTom Brady et al. v. NFL and Carmelo Anthony et al. v. NBA — takes years. Owners, or at least their lawyers, knew that. They knew the lockouts would be settled long before there could be an imminent possibility of losing a trial and paying billions of dollars in damages.The same dynamic was true of the players’ unfair labor practices charges with the National Labor Relations Board. Both NFL and NBA players hoped to persuade the NLRB that the leagues made unreasonable demands in order to engineer prolonged lockouts. The NLRB, however, never acted on the charges, and gave little indication as to when they would.The legal process was therefore too slow for the players to effectively use the law as a weapon against the leagues.

                              2. Federal labor law protects the rights of owners to conduct lockoutsWith the prospect of obtaining money damages too far into the future, a better strategy for the players was in seeking injunctive relief — namely, an order from a judge enjoining a lockout until a full trial could be heard. NFL players temporarily obtained this relief from U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson.But, as NFL owners expected, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit quickly reinstated the NFL’s lockout. This expectation was based on the Norris-LaGuardia Act, a federal labor law that prevents federal courts from issuing injunctions while labor and management are at impasse. While interpretation of the Act in the context of professional league lockouts remains a source of controversy and while other federal appellate courts might have favored the players’ interpretation, the courts involved with the players’ litigation clearly spoke in favor of the owners.One caveat: if the NHL locks out its players later this year and if the NHLPA decertifies — which means that each player becomes independent and can file litigation in a court nearby where he plays — expect the players to file antitrust litigation in a federal court in California or Arizona. Both states have NHL teams, meaning the league has sufficient nexus to each state to defend itself in court. More importantly, both states are governed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is regarded as more pro-labor than other federal circuits and which may embrace a view of the Norris-LaGuardia Act favorable to players. It is also possible NHL players could file litigation in Canada, which features stronger labor laws.The NHL, for its part, would probably seek to move any litigation to New York, where league headquarters are based and where case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is favorable to its interests. The league might instead seek to defend itself in Minnesota or Illinois, both of which are states governed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the NFL.

                              Source: http://www.sloansportsconference.com/

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I think you have the cart before the horse. People seriously underestimate what it takes to run a successful and wildly profitable business.


                                Hard caps are probably the only thing keeping some measure of competition and they are not going to drive players into another league that becomes successful.


                                I do think free agency should be reformed. I would not mind some freedom of movement but I don't think any of the top players should be able to go to either of the top 2 teams in the league. I'm not sure where to draw the line exactly, but Durant's move would not be allowed. Also, players would be ranked around the league and under no circumstances would a team above .500 be allowed to acquire more than one great player in one season.
                                It sounds to me like you don't consider players in the NBA as human beings, but rather as "property" of the owners should the players decide to play in the NBA. And the owners should be allowed to keep their "property" as long as they see fit. When they don't want the "property" any more, the players can choose to play for another owner in the NBA (or another country, or on the playground, or at the Y.) Once they choose to play for another owner in the NBA, they become "property" of that owner until the owner decides they don't want the "property" any more.

                                And so on and so forth.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X