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

Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

    Hicks comment in the postgame thread about the fanbase not demanding a title here got me thinking.

    There's obviously a different mentality with the Colts fanbase than the Pacers fanbase. For the Colts since 2003, the mentality amongst the fanbase has been "Championship or Bust". But while the Pacers fanbase as a whole over the past few years has accepted upper mediocrity, the Colts has been held to an extremely high standard, and finally that standard was rewarded.

    I'm not comparing the expectations of the 03-07 Colts to the 03-07 Pacers. I'm comparing the expectations of both franchises as a whole, Reggie years to present.

    The Colts had to have felt the pressure, and that was good. The Colts organization knew everyone was extremely disappointed after the 2 postseason losses in NE, and especially after the Steelers, and I'm sure they read the columns and heard the disappointment. I think that the building pressure helped translate into a Superbowl victory.

    Have the Pacers ever felt that same pressure as the Colts? It seems to me that mediocrity was accepted with the Pacers. The Pacers making ECF's was always treated as being impressive, but if the Colts would have just made the AFC Title game and lost to NE, it would have been treated as a total failure.

    Why have the Colts been held to a higher standard with fans demanding success, while wherever the Pacers end up is treated as being ok?

    From the Colts 2003 AFC Title game appearance, it took them 3 more seasons to get to the Superbowl and ultimately win it (yes, they made the AFC title game in 95, but that was pre-Manning and was kind of a fluke as it was surrounded by bad seasons on both ends).

    Yet it took the Pacers 6 more seasons after their first ECF appearance in 1994 to finally make the finals. Were they as scrutinized as heavily as the Colts were in the 3 year period it took them from their first AFC title game appearance to this year when they finally made it? The Colts felt far more pressure in those 3 years by the fanbase and media than the Pacers ever felt in the 6.

    How come it was ok to accept that the Pacers were beaten by one of the greatest dynasties ever in 1998 by the Bulls, yet it was unacceptable to most fans that the Colts were beaten by a great NE dynasty in 2003 and 2004 and were labeled "chokers."

    Why is it that Pacers management can get a free pass year after year, yet the Colts can win 4 STRAIGHT division titles, but fans in the Colts forum here question Dungy and Polian and wondered if it was time for a change when things started to go a little sour at the end of the year. 4 Straight division titles. A very impressive feat. Yet fans were actually calling for changes in the front office and in the coaching department.

    Can you imagine if the Pacers ever won 4 straight division titles? I think that a statue of Walsh would be erected infront of Conseco. He would be treated as a god throughout the local media and fanbase. Just making the playoffs would be treated as ok.

    Why is it an ok excuse to say "it's hard to win a title in the NBA, all you can do is build a solid team, there are no guarantees" when the Pacers are eliminated, yet when the Colts were eliminated in the 3 years preceding the superbowl, everyone was labeling them "chokers", and questioning the front office and coaching.

    I'm guilty of this. I think everyone who is a Colts/Pacers fan is. It's unbelivable to me how 2 teams that play in the same city and are covered by the same media and basically watched by the same people are treated in totally opposite manners.

    With the Colts, a championship was demanded (and delivered). With the Pacers, upper mediocrity has always been accepted.

    It took Manning 3 years to get to the SB after his first AFC title game appearance. He won the Superbowl. It took Reggie 6 years to get to the finals after his first ECF's appearance. His team lost the finals.

    Yet I'm sure that if Reggie would have never gotten to the finals, he would have still been treated as a god by people in Indy. The mentality would have been "We were awful before he came, he put us on the map." I'm almost positive that if he wouldn't have gotten to the finals, that Reggie would be treated basically the same.

    The Colts weren't anything when Manning came. He put the franchise on the map within no time at all. Yet to win a place in the city's heart, he HAD to win a Superbowl.

    I know Manning as a football player is lightyears better than Reggie as a basketball player, yet it still amazes me how such opposite standards can be held to players/teams in the same place.

    What if Donnie Walsh had ever felt the pressure that Bill Polian has these past few years? Walsh has always been given a free pass by the media, yet Polian felt the pressure year after year that he had to win a superbowl. Maybe if Walsh would have ever had that kind of pressure put on him, he would have had to have made a couple of more moves.

    I don't think we'll ever see a title for the Pacers until the fanbase and media basically demand one as they did for the Colts.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

    I don't find it surprising at all. I think it has a lot more to do with realism.

    The Colts have been an elite team for the past few seasons. They have been structurally performing on that high level for sometime now and that creates new ambitions aswell.

    The Pacers have only been an elite team for one season really since going to the finals. After that it was all down hill, lesser talent, chemistry issues, etc.

    And though the Pacers have one of the better big men, they don't have superstar like the Colts have (or the Mavericks or the Cavaliers or Miami, etc)m, while the supporting cast has not gotten better, while you the opposite with the Colts.

    We can demand a championship, but how realistic is that? Extremely unrealistic the past few seasons IMO. Doesn't mean I'm not a fan anymore or don't want us to win the grand finale... It just means that currently we don't have the means to realistically go all the way or to change things quickly to let us do that quickly with a high rate of success.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

      Because they won 4 straight division titles. Had a chance to get the perfect season twice. They've won 76% of their regular season games in the last five years and 70% over the last 8. They have some of the best players in the league.

      The Pacers on the other hand have been in a rebuilding/falling apart mode in the last 8 years. Since the Finals appearance, they've won 56% of their games, have lost in the 1st round of the playoffs 4 times, have seen their one true superstar retire, have seen most of their better players traded for lesser players and currently have one player that could be considered one of the best. There is a possibility they may miss the playoffs all together this year.

      These two teams are traveling different paths right now. Just like when the Pacers were expected to win the Championship in the late 90's the Colts were lucky to be over .500 and in the playoffs. The Pacers had been to the Eastern conference finals 4 of the six seasons prior to the finals team and the Colts were hovering around 500 and backing their way into the playoffs.

      Then.....Pacers were supposed to win and Colts were crap.

      Now......Colts are supposed to win and Pacers are crap.

      Like everything in life it's cyclical.

      P.S. w/o the 61 win season the Pacers are playing 52% ball since the finals.
      I'm in these bands
      The Humans
      Dr. Goldfoot
      The Bar Brawlers
      ME

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

        Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
        Because they won 4 straight division titles. Had a chance to get the perfect season twice. They've won 76% of their regular season games in the last five years and 70% over the last 8. They have some of the best players in the league.

        The Pacers on the other hand have been in a rebuilding/falling apart mode in the last 8 years. Since the Finals appearance, they've won 56% of their games, have lost in the 1st round of the playoffs 4 times, have seen their one true superstar retire, have seen most of their better players traded for lesser players and currently have one player that could be considered one of the best. There is a possibility they may miss the playoffs all together this year.

        These two teams are traveling different paths right now. Just like when the Pacers were expected to win the Championship in the late 90's the Colts were lucky to be over .500 and in the playoffs. The Pacers had been to the Eastern conference finals 4 of the six seasons prior to the finals team and the Colts were hovering around 500 and backing their way into the playoffs.

        Then.....Pacers were supposed to win and Colts were crap.

        Now......Colts are supposed to win and Pacers are crap.

        Like everything in life it's cyclical.

        P.S. w/o the 61 win season the Pacers are playing 52% ball since the finals.
        Pretty much what I meant, but better articulated .

        Regards,

        Mourning
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

          Hey thanks for quoting before I edited for errors.
          I'm in these bands
          The Humans
          Dr. Goldfoot
          The Bar Brawlers
          ME

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

            I'm not just talking about the past few years with the Pacers, I'm talking about the Reggie years.

            Were the Reggie Pacers ever called out from 94-00, the time it took them from their first ECF appearance to finally get to the finals, in the way Manning & Co. were called out from 03-06?

            It took Manning's teams half the time to get to the SB from their first AFC title game appearance, yet those teams probably had about 1000X the pressure the Pacers ever did during the long period of 94 to finally getting to the finals.

            It would have been a sin to call Reggie a choker after his 12 point performance against Orlando in game 7 of 95, or his 8 point performance in game 6 of 99 when NY eliminated us.

            Yet if Manning played decent in the playoffs, he was called a choker if the Colts lost.

            Whatever the Pacers did between 94-00 seemed to be ok (with the exception of 1997). It was ok to lose to a great dynasty like Chicago. It was good just to make the ECF's. The mentallity with the Colts has been the opposite. A superbowl was demanded.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

              Yes, let's all demand a championship just like the Colts fanbase and sell-out every game and scream until we're hoarse and our ears are ringing.

              Who's with me?.....

              (Seems like probably about 7,000 people are with me, if you leave out the parts about the hoarseness and ringingness)
              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                (Seems like probably about 7,000 people are with me, if you leave out the parts about the hoarseness and ringingness)
                To prove your point I'll bring a counter Saturday if you're willing to stand on the steps there and click, click, clickity click, click, click the whole time.

                On second thought maybe I'll use it to fakeout the ushers. Usher "Sir, can I see your ticket's?" Me "Can't you see I'm clicking here. Mr. Walsh insisted I get an accurate count. Now stand back and remove thyself from my path. I've got a job to do." Click, click, click.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                  Because Reggie wasn't the best of his generation, but Peyton Manning will probably end up as the greatest person to ever play the sport of football.

                  The Pacers were never the best team in a given year, and Reggie was never the best player. How can you expect to be the champions if you are not the best? Hope of a title, root for a title, believe a title is possible, sure. But expect? That's illogical.

                  But the Colts are clearly the best team of this generation, just as Peyton Manning is clearly the best player (I'm talking on paper, Pats fans). In fact, Manning is head and shoulders above all other players. If a team is the best, it is fair to expect a title.

                  As a fan, I am satisfied when a team plays to potential, elated when they exceed their potential, and disapointed when they don't meet potential. The 2007 Colts met their potential (and they weren't before). The 2007 Pacers are falling a bit short of their potential (but they are not as short as many posters would have you believe). The Reggie-era Pacers, in my opinion, were exceeding their potential, which is why so many people remember them so fondly despite their failures.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                    Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                    Hey thanks for quoting before I edited for errors.
                    Sorry?
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                      I've thought about this before too. To me, I think Pacer fans realized we were never really the best team in the league. We always had some sort of glaring weakness, or some team that always had our number (Bulls). Even when we reached the Finals, yes it was a great accomplishment, but we were facing a dominant center in Shaq, and a great guard in Kobe. Reggie would have great games in the playoffs, but it just wasn't ever enough to get over the top.

                      The Colts on the other hand, I think many years we thought we had the best team, then just struggled badly in some playoff games. The Colts would play great in the regular season, then very badly in the playoffs.
                      Sorry, I didn't know advertising was illegal here. Someone call the cops!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                        The Colts have had the best player in the NFL at the most important position for 3 or 4 season now. It stands to reason the Colts would have higher expectations than the Pacers. When the Pacers acquire the best player in the NBA, I would expect the expectations to match the Colts.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                          Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                          Because Reggie wasn't the best of his generation, but Peyton Manning will probably end up as the greatest person to ever play the sport of football.

                          The Pacers were never the best team in a given year, and Reggie was never the best player. How can you expect to be the champions if you are not the best? Hope of a title, root for a title, believe a title is possible, sure. But expect? That's illogical.

                          But the Colts are clearly the best team of this generation, just as Peyton Manning is clearly the best player (I'm talking on paper, Pats fans). In fact, Manning is head and shoulders above all other players. If a team is the best, it is fair to expect a title.

                          As a fan, I am satisfied when a team plays to potential, elated when they exceed their potential, and disapointed when they don't meet potential. The 2007 Colts met their potential (and they weren't before). The 2007 Pacers are falling a bit short of their potential (but they are not as short as many posters would have you believe). The Reggie-era Pacers, in my opinion, were exceeding their potential, which is why so many people remember them so fondly despite their failures.
                          Dead on all accounts Flava and saved me 10 minutes of my life touching on each of those subjects

                          Really it's not like we haven't been playing for a championship 3 years before this year, and this year being a "rennovation" according to Donnie. I mean the whole little slogan that the Pacers had for two years straight was "one goal" and lets face it a whole bunch of outside circumstances saw to it that that was never going to happen. The Colts have never had to deal with having Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne and James were suspended for the rest of the year and two Colts players suspended for 6 or 7 games, you can imagine what would happen to the Colts given those circumstances.

                          During the years when Reggie was in his prime and we made all those runs deep into the playoffs we VASTLY exceeded expectations but lets be serious Reggie was up against the best that ever played the game of basketball if it wasn't for Michael Jordan, both Patrick Ewing and Reggie Miller probably would have got a ring, i'm pretty sure of it. I mean that would have been like asking Jim Harbaugh every year to take us to the superbowl(even though one year he should have) and win it against Dallas who was dominant back then.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                            So when Mora said "playoffs?!?", Colts fans were expecting a title?

                            They couldn't even sell out all their games in 96, following the run to the AFCC in PIT.

                            And why do you think Pacers fans were so PO'd about the upset to DET? After the first 6 games of that playoff run everyone in Indy assumed that the Pacers were finally going to win it all with home court in the Finals.


                            The expectations of the Colts was never SB till about 2-3 years ago. It's only been 2 seasons that they even sold out the season tix.

                            I mean how could anyone talk about high expectations with the Colts when the Titans fans bought 5000 seats to their divisional playoff game (a home game with the chance to go to the AFCC game on the line?) They sure as heck didn't have that issue this year. That's because fans believed and wanted to see it in action.


                            When the Colts beat SD and Manning threw his record TD, I stopped at the ticket window and bought 4 tickets together for the Denver playoff game right then. They weren't pre-sold out, and these seats were pretty decent, about 8th row around the goal line (upper). You think that happens in NE or GB?

                            Few fans believed the Colts would do anything, and until the brawl the Pacers were still the most likely to win the first major title. How quickly people forget. The whole point of that Nov 19 win in DET was that it proved a point, swapping Jack for Al tweeked the team and they were ready to get some revenge and do it right.

                            After that the attention turned back onto Manning as he first did the TD thing, then the Colts did the 13-0 thing with a solid defensive start that year, and then the 9-0 start this year.


                            The Pacers didn't just suffer the wrath of expectations in 03-04 either, but also when they lost to ATL, then missed the playoffs entirely, and then got bounced by the Knicks in 99. All 3 of those endings upset the fanbase and worked as further proof that Reggie was never going to get to the Finals. It was the high expectations that made people bitter like that, unlike the reaction in 94-95 when people were thrilled just to get to the ECF.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers and Colts: far different standards by the fanbases

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              The Colts have had the best player in the NFL at the most important position for 3 or 4 season now. It stands to reason the Colts would have higher expectations than the Pacers. When the Pacers acquire the best player in the NBA, I would expect the expectations to match the Colts.
                              It's not like the Pacers were beat by the best player every year. Only in 98 and 00 was the best player on the team that eliminated the Pacers.

                              In 94, Ewing was solid, but not the best player in the league by any means. In 95, Shaq was a stud but was still just a young buck. We swept Shaq's Magic the year before. An emerging Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant shouldn't have cost us that series.

                              The Knicks certainly didn't have anything close to the best player in 1999. That one will always hurt. That was our best to win a title.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X