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

Q&A with Herb Simon

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

    Yeah I remember hearing that but I think is stupid, Lakers would give OKC whatever they have and more for Westbrook and never look back, same with Boston and many other teams.

    Whatever GM that has a chance to get Westbrook and he doesn't get him because of his so called "high salary" he needs to get fired on the spot.
    Worse than Conley? Blake Griffin? Andre Drummond? Otto Porter? Hassan Whiteside? Ryan Anderson? Chandler Parsons?

    This is probably the dumbest thing Zach Lowe has ever said.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

      Yeah I remember hearing that but I think is stupid, Lakers would give OKC whatever they have and more for Westbrook and never look back, same with Boston and many other teams.

      Whatever GM that has a chance to get Westbrook and he doesn't get him because of his so called "high salary" he needs to get fired on the spot.
      Sure, that's your opinion. But if an NBA executive and Zach Lowe and Kevin Arnovitz all think that way, the odds are a fair amount of the league does so as well. And these are guys who voted for Westbrook for All-NBA this year, so it's not like they think he's terrible.

      So to say that 29 other teams would snap him up on the spot is not true. Maybe the Thunder find a team or two who would be willing to take the gamble and trade good assets for him, but they probably aren't getting teams in a bidding war for Westbrook.

      The problem with Westbook is he already declined a little this year and has had intermittent knee issues. His game is completely dependent on athleticism, so age or injuries can cause him to fall off a cliff at some point. That point clearly is not now, since he's still a great player. But he's not an MVP type player anymore, he can fall off that cliff at any point, and he has the 3rd largest contract in the league each of the next 4 years.

      If he maintains being a top 15 player that whole time, he can be worth that contract. Even if he does it 3 of the next 4 years it would likely be worth it. But that's pretty unlikely.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
        And at this point you can't go into the tax like you want really. Plus what is the point of improving the team right now? There is a chance that Vic might not be back til mid-season. That's why I said if KP wants to go that direction he can take bad contracts for future picks. Even by doing this the Pacers still can be competitive.
        I just threw up man. Thanks.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

          Sure, that's your opinion. But if an NBA executive and Zach Lowe and Kevin Arnovitz all think that way, the odds are a fair amount of the league does so as well. And these are guys who voted for Westbrook for All-NBA this year, so it's not like they think he's terrible.

          So to say that 29 other teams would snap him up on the spot is not true. Maybe the Thunder find a team or two who would be willing to take the gamble and trade good assets for him, but they probably aren't getting teams in a bidding war for Westbrook.

          The problem with Westbook is he already declined a little this year and has had intermittent knee issues. His game is completely dependent on athleticism, so age or injuries can cause him to fall off a cliff at some point. That point clearly is not now, since he's still a great player. But he's not an MVP type player anymore, he can fall off that cliff at any point, and he has the 3rd largest contract in the league each of the next 4 years.

          If he maintains being a top 15 player that whole time, he can be worth that contract. Even if he does it 3 of the next 4 years it would likely be worth it. But that's pretty unlikely.
          You're making the mistake of believing that's actually what he thinks. Hes on a podcast and is trying to come up with debates. We dont even know if an executive really said that to him.


          It seems far fetched to me, downright stupid really.
          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

            You're making the mistake of believing that's actually what he thinks. Hes on a podcast and is trying to come up with debates. We dont even know if an executive really said that to him.


            It seems far fetched to me, downright stupid really.
            Lowe is pretty conservative with things like this. He's not a hot take artist like many in the sports world. I would be quite surprised, even shocked really, with his track record if he was throwing it out without sources.

            Comment


            • #81
              I hear what alot of fans are saying about the Pacers (Herb Simon) not going over the luxury tax (LT) to acquire an All-Star caliber player to play alongside Victor, but Herb makes a good point when comparing the Thunder's record to our own (even if such a comparison may be in isolation). Basically, he's saying both teams had similar records this year and ended the season with the same 1st-round exit results. The only difference: OKC went over the LT and paid more for their mediocre seasonal record than the Pacers did.

              That said, I also understand where many fans are coming from on "tanking" in any fashion in an attempt to move up the draft lottery ladder. But here's the thing: There's a limited supply of MJ's Kobe's and LeBron's in the world. Find such talent is rare. There's no guarantee that the rookie you pick will pan out. Moreover, the way the NBA is structured today, there's little assurance that the player you spend years developing will stick around after 3-4 years. In short, the Reggie Miller's, Kobe Bryant's and Dirk Nowinski's of the world are pretty much done. So, why tear down your team - a team that has a long history of being competitive - on the possibility of acquiring that one NBA-ready, All-Star caliber player especially if it means you all but forsake the rest of your team?

              If I'm mgnt, I would go after these pie-in-the-sky trades being advertised* right now especially not after your team netted 48 games WITHOUT its leading scorer/franchise player. You stick with your core group (Oladipo, Turner, Sabonis), add your up-and-coming rookie talent into the mix (Holiday), try to bring back one or two FAs (Bogdanovic first, T. Young second), work on improving the skills of your other more dependable "role players" (McDermott and Leaf) and go out and recruit players who can fill the holes far better than the players you let walk or choose not to return. But you don't hang your hat on the draft. You improve through it, but you don't make it your saving grace.

              *Sources:
              1) Bradley Beal - https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...fseason#slide0
              2) Michael Colney - https://bealestreetbears.com/2019/05...b-description/
              3) Jimmy Butler - https://clutchpoints.com/3-reasons-j...ndiana-pacers/
              Last edited by NuffSaid; 05-10-2019, 02:19 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                Lowe is pretty conservative with things like this. He's not a hot take artist like many in the sports world. I would be quite surprised, even shocked really, with his track record if he was throwing it out without sources.
                Yeah but I know hes smarter than that. I just listed 5-6 off the top of my head that are clearly worse contracts. He knows that as well. Westbrook isn't even a bad contract. But he IS topic of conversation.
                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                  Worse than Conley? Blake Griffin? Andre Drummond? Otto Porter? Hassan Whiteside? Ryan Anderson? Chandler Parsons?

                  This is probably the dumbest thing Zach Lowe has ever said.
                  CP3, John Wall (max contract just starting next year), Hayward, Horford, Millsap, Wiggins, Kevin Love, Batum and many others that I would put in front of Westbrook's worth to a team.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                    Worse than Conley? Blake Griffin? Andre Drummond? Otto Porter? Hassan Whiteside? Ryan Anderson? Chandler Parsons?

                    This is probably the dumbest thing Zach Lowe has ever said.
                    I would agree that Lowe isn't right, but I wouldn't take most of those names that you mentioned. Half of those are but players but with expiring contracts, or good players with less years than Westbrook left.

                    Other than Wall, I would put Wiggins, CP3, Love, Hayward, Batum, and Griffin as worse. So I would put Westbrook as the 8th worst contract in the league. That's still pretty terrible though.

                    Now, maybe he has more trade value than a few other guys only because some team might decide that they want to win next year and be willing to take the massive pain later. That might be a slightly different discussion. But over the life of that deal, it's likely going to be pretty ugly.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      How much better does Westbrook's triple double average make the Thunder? He's had at least one other superstar on the team for the vast majority of his career and early on they had 2 others. They made 1 trip to the Finals in the Westbrook, Durant, Harden (Ibaka was on that team, too! They were stacked), then 2 Conference Finals (sound familiar?) and three consecutive first round exits. While paying the tax in each of the last 3 seasons. Why would anyone trade for a guard who shoots 29% from three and 65% from the free throw line while making a salary starting at $38.5M. He can't get it done with Durant or PG as his running mate, how would anyone think that trading for him would help a team? Other than to put some butts in seats.

                      Who would trade for a center who has been played off the floor in 3 straight first round series? He can't stay on the floor against smaller teams and can't take advantage of other centers (as we saw last year against Gobert and the Jazz and this year against Portland). On top of that he's owed $75M over the next 3 seasons. He doesn't shoot or stretch the floor and failed to take advantage of Enes Kanter last round.

                      The Thunder have 1 player with positive trade value and he's legitimately a beast in Paul George. He is better than anyone on the Pacers, including a fully healthy Oladipo. The only conceivable path to OKC getting better is trading PG's $1 for a $.50 piece, a quarter and a couple dimes.

                      The Pacers on the other hand have Oladipo, who coming off an injury has almost no trade value, Turner (on a reasonable contract for a defensive stopper who also shoots 39% from deep at 23 years old), Sabonis and cap space. They could sign and trade Sabonis (since they are not a luxury tax team, they have that option available which OKC does not), they could take a large contract back in a trade, they could use the cap space to sign someone outright. Neither the Pacers nor OKC are close to winning a title, but the Pacers definitely have more flexibility in taking the next step than the Thunder.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post
                        How much better does Westbrook's triple double average make the Thunder? He's had at least one other superstar on the team for the vast majority of his career and early on they had 2 others. They made 1 trip to the Finals in the Westbrook, Durant, Harden (Ibaka was on that team, too! They were stacked), then 2 Conference Finals (sound familiar?) and three consecutive first round exits. While paying the tax in each of the last 3 seasons. Why would anyone trade for a guard who shoots 29% from three and 65% from the free throw line while making a salary starting at $38.5M. He can't get it done with Durant or PG as his running mate, how would anyone think that trading for him would help a team? Other than to put some butts in seats.

                        Who would trade for a center who has been played off the floor in 3 straight first round series? He can't stay on the floor against smaller teams and can't take advantage of other centers (as we saw last year against Gobert and the Jazz and this year against Portland). On top of that he's owed $75M over the next 3 seasons. He doesn't shoot or stretch the floor and failed to take advantage of Enes Kanter last round.

                        The Thunder have 1 player with positive trade value and he's legitimately a beast in Paul George. He is better than anyone on the Pacers, including a fully healthy Oladipo. The only conceivable path to OKC getting better is trading PG's $1 for a $.50 piece, a quarter and a couple dimes.

                        The Pacers on the other hand have Oladipo, who coming off an injury has almost no trade value, Turner (on a reasonable contract for a defensive stopper who also shoots 39% from deep at 23 years old), Sabonis and cap space. They could sign and trade Sabonis (since they are not a luxury tax team, they have that option available which OKC does not), they could take a large contract back in a trade, they could use the cap space to sign someone outright. Neither the Pacers nor OKC are close to winning a title, but the Pacers definitely have more flexibility in taking the next step than the Thunder.
                        You are trying way too hard to pretend Westbrook makes too much and Pacers are in such a great position compared to OKC.


                        Fact is Pacers have been in "great positions" forever and they never do s*** with it, so lets stop pretending like they are going to do anything with cap space because they never do.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                          You are trying way too hard to pretend Westbrook makes too much and Pacers are in such a great position compared to OKC.


                          Fact is Pacers have been in "great positions" forever and they never do s*** with it, so lets stop pretending like they are going to do anything with cap space because they never do.

                          I'm willing to give KP the benefit of the doubt. Let's let the man work and we can resume b*tching about the job he's doing on July 2nd. As an aside, I would never insinuate that a worker/labor is making too much money. Westbrook is getting his, good for him. I just would not want the Pacers to be paying him that kind of money and I think a lot of other teams feel the same way.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            WTHR posted an article today showing some renderings of the plaza and public spaces.

                            I know that construction work is obviously expensive, but can someone please explain how building some plazas and skating rinks is $360 million of work? By contrast, the Bucks ENTIRE NEW ARENA cost about $524 million according to the articles I found online.

                            $360 million to update an arena that is totally fine is just gargantuan and seems totally unnecessary. I hate to keep harping on this but Iím just not finding any concrete substance to justify that amount. Seems just utterly crazy on its face.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-10-2019, 04:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              WTHR posted an article today showing some renderings of the plaza and public spaces..
                              Something else that I gleaned from the article:

                              https://www.wthr.com/article/funding...council-monday

                              A proposal to contribute $360 million in tax revenue toward the Indiana Pacers' expansion of Bankers Life Fieldhouse will be introduced at Monday's City-County Council meeting.

                              The hearing comes after the first two hurdles were already cleared: state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 7 and the city's Capital Improvement Board, which owns the Fieldhouse, signed off on the funding sources.

                              SB 7 doesn't include any new taxes or tax increases. It allows, among other things, the CIB to use revenue from several hospitality taxes that were set to expire in 2027, but now will be extended through 2040.
                              So, the locals aren't funding this.

                              AND -

                              https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...es/2879274002/

                              The deal would also include a significant expansion of the Indiana Convention Center, which tourism and city officials say would launch Indianapolis into the upper echelon of convention cities.

                              Under the terms being discussed, the city would direct $138 million from similar special taxing districts for a 300,000-square-foot expansion of the center on Pan Am Plaza, including a 50,000-square foot ballroom. A covered walkway over Capitol Avenue would connect that space to the main convention center.
                              So it's just not the Fieldhouse benefiting from the deal.

                              It's the old saying - you gotta spend money to make money. Conventions are a HUGE business for the city and BLF does more than just Pacers games. Having the facilities to attract and host conventions and various shows generates big $$$ for the city and people.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Some of yíall seem absolutely miserable being a fan of the Pacers. Iíd bail if I wasnít having fun anymore tbh

                                Ownership isnít going to change its philosophy anytime soon. Even when Simon is gone. Theyíll still have that same mindset. And BLF definitely is modern but I do understand wanting to constantly upgrade it but making the city pay for upgrades every 5-6 years is kinda lame

                                I donít mind the Simon approach.
                                Super Bowl XLI Champions
                                2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X