Originally posted by Grimp
View Post
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.
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](https://www.pacersdigest.com/core/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
![laugh](https://www.pacersdigest.com/core/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
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
Woj: Celtics coach Ime Udoka facing possible suspension for violation of organizational guidelines
Collapse
X
-
Danger Zone
- 1 like
-
Originally posted by Rogco View Post
I think Boston has too much talent to fall that far. Hopefully though this will knock them down a bit. If that pick falls into the teens that would be a big win. Next draft season we'd get to listen to the pundits discuss how the Pacers got a decent pick in a loaded draft, and hopefully Brogdon will recover from his injuries soon.Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!
- 1 like
Comment
-
I would be real surprised if he ever returned to Boston tbh
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ve-immediately
Boston Celtics suspend coach Ime Udoka for 2022-23 season, effective immediately
The Boston Celtics have suspended coach Ime Udoka for the 2022-23 season, the team announced Thursday night.
The team cited violations of team policies in its announcement. Sources previously told ESPN that Udoka had an intimate relationship with a female member of the franchise's staff.
The suspension is effective immediately, and a decision about Udoka's future with the Celtics will be made later, the team said.
"I want to apologize to our players, fans, the entire Celtics organization, and my family for letting them down. I am sorry for putting the team in this difficult situation, and I accept the team's decision. Out of respect for everyone involved, I will have no further comment," Udoka said in a statement.
Comment
-
Well, sounds like it goes further than just the hook-up:
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...-investigation
The Celtics suspended coach Ime Udoka for the upcoming season after a monthslong investigation by an external law firm that found multiple violations of team policies, team owner Wyc Grousbeck said Friday.
RYAN - any inside info ??
Comment
-
Originally posted by PacerDude View PostWell, sounds like it goes further than just the hook-up:
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...-investigation
I doubt that we'll ever hear the true details though. Regardless - moronic move(s).
RYAN - any inside info ??
Comment
-
https://www.si.com/nba/2022/09/23/im...-wyc-grousbeck
Ime Udoka’s Suspension Clouds Celtics’ Future
Boston leadership declined to elaborate on the nature of Udoka’s suspension, doing little to clarify a murky situation for an NBA title favorite.
Wyc Grousbeck looked shaken. Brad Stevens, too. Hours after the Celtics announced a season-long suspension for Ime Udoka, an unprecedented punishment for what the franchise termed “a violation of team policies,” the two most powerful men in Boston’s organization struggled over the course of a 28-minute press conference to explain why Udoka was no longer a part of it.
“It was a long, thorough process,” said Stevens. “Obviously it’s been a hard time.”
The Celtics issued a terse, three-sentence statement announcing Udoka’s suspension on Thursday. On Friday, they revealed little more. Grousbeck declined to delve into the team’s investigation of Udoka, citing privacy reasons. He said the Celtics learned of an issue with Udoka over the summer and that the team has hired an outside legal firm to investigate. The investigation, Grousbeck said, “had some twists and turns” before revealing “a volume of violations.” He said Udoka’s suspension will run through June 30—but made no commitments to Udoka coming back.
“We haven’t made any decision about going forward,” Grousbeck said. “I don’t have a substantive answer to that.”
What a mess.
It’s impossible to overstate Udoka’s impact on the team’s success last season. He was the architect of the NBA’s top-rated defense. His pointed—and often public—criticisms were an energizing cudgel for a team that badly needed to be clobbered by one. Under Udoka, Jayson Tatum regained his All-NBA status, Grant Williams developed into a reliable rotation player and Marcus Smart won Defensive Player of the Year. Robert Williams III, after having his toughness questioned by Udoka early in the season, dragged an aching left knee around for two months in the playoffs.
The players deserve the bulk of the credit for Boston’s trip to the Finals. Udoka deserves plenty of it, too.
And now he’s gone.
Was a season-long suspension necessary? Grousbeck believes so. “I personally feel this is well-warranted and appropriate and backed by substantial research and facts,” he said.
Udoka’s violation, multiple sources told Sports Illustrated, was what Boston deemed an inappropriate relationship with a female staffer. But we don’t know how it started, how it ended or what happened to bring it to the front office’s attention—and how all of that may have impacted the punishment. The Celtics, for now, are not saying.
“I want to apologize to our players, fans, the entire Celtics organization, and my family for putting the team in this difficult situation,” Udoka said in a statement. “I accept the team’s decision. Out of respect for everyone involved, I will have no further comment.”
Ime Udoka
Udoka will miss the entire season after having an inappropriate relationship with a female staffer.
What was Udoka thinking? If nothing else, he had to know a relationship with a subordinate—and as head coach, anyone outside of the upper reaches of the front office is a subordinate—was dangerous. In a lengthy interview with SI last week, Udoka expressed excitement about the Celtics’ season. He raved about the addition of Malcolm Brogdon and opened up about the new wrinkles in the game plan he hoped would spark Boston’s late-game offense. “We want to hit the ground running,” Udoka told me. Now he has to wonder whether he will ever be back.
What were the Celtics thinking? This has hardly been a clinic on crisis management. ESPN, which aired Friday’s press conference under a flashing banner “UDOKA UNDER FIRE,” as if Udoka were taking heat for a five-game losing streak and not serious allegations of misconduct, first reported a Udoka problem Wednesday evening with The Athletic revealing key details—specifically the improper relationship with a staffer—hours later. A full day passed before Boston announced Udoka’s suspension, which allowed social media sleuths to ID every woman who works in the organization and baselessly connect several of them to the story. On Friday, Stevens’s voice cracked as he reflected on how the women working for the team have been treated.
“Nobody can control Twitter speculation, rampant bulls---,” said Stevens. “But I do think that we as an organization have a responsibility to make sure we’re there to support them now, because a lot of people were dragged unfairly into that.”
What, now, is Stevens thinking? The Celtics will name Joe Mazzulla interim head coach, Stevens confirmed. Mazzulla, 34, is considered a rising star in the coaching ranks, a candidate for the Jazz job last summer—a job that, ironically, went to Will Hardy, Udoka’s lead assistant—who played a key role in developing the Celtics’ defense last season. But Mazzulla is young, with three years of NBA coaching experience and two years as a head coach, at Division II Fairmont State, in the college ranks. Asking him to take over a title contender is a tall order.
Did Stevens consider coaching the team himself? Grousbeck said there was a discussion about it. “A brief one,” Grousbeck said. Stevens was more defiant. He called Mazzulla “the best choice by a long shot.” He said Mazzulla, who spent two seasons on Stevens’s staff, “is an exceptionally sharp and talented person.” As to Mazzulla’s own checkered past—he was arrested twice while in college at West Virginia, including once, in 2009, for domestic battery stemming from an incident at a bar—Stevens claimed to have no issues with Mazzulla’s character. "That shaped him into who he is today, and in a good way,” Stevens said. “He is 110% accountable for that. I believe in him.”
Still, the most qualified coach in Boston now is Stevens. He’s just a year removed from ending his own successful eight-year run on Boston’s bench. He knows the players. He knows the staff. As basketball minds go, Stevens is brilliant. Perhaps Stevens sees something in Mazzulla. Grousbeck called Mazzulla “passionate,” praising his energy. Stevens did hire Udoka, who was far from an obvious choice. But if the Celtics struggle early, the pressure will build for Stevens to rejoin the bench.
For months Boston has ranked among the betting favorites to win an NBA championship. It has been compared favorably to Milwaukee and Philadelphia, penciled into Finals matchups with the Warriors and Clippers. And maybe the team will still get there. But the Celtics who hoped to pick up where last season left off is in need of a new leader to steer them. Udoka was critical to Boston’s success last season. We’ll soon learn whether his absence will impact this one.
“This will be an unbelievable challenge,” Stevens said. “But I’m really confident in the team and coaching staff that’s going to take the court on Tuesday.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Banta View PostAny word yet on her suspension?
It is common practice for executives at certain levels to have a clause that does not allow fraternizing with subordinates.
You can argue all you want that it takes two to tango but the bottom line is when you sign those contracts you know darn well those rules are in place
One theory I heard last night (or maybe I read it on twitter, IDR) was that Udoka or his camp leaked the story a day early to make it not sound as bad. Stories started coming out yesterday that while this was consensual the other party continued to receive unwanted advances (or something to that effect). The Celtics hired a law firm to investigate after the complaints were made - which screams of CYA mode by the organization
It’s hard to say what’s true and what’s not - and due to the embarrassment factor I imagine the Celtics will keep everything as hush hush as possible.
All that to say, ignoring the personal choice of cheating on a significant other, there is zero reason to suspend/punish the other party in this case.
- 4 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.
It is common practice for executives at certain levels to have a clause that does not allow fraternizing with subordinates.
You can argue all you want that it takes two to tango but the bottom line is when you sign those contracts you know darn well those rules are in place
One theory I heard last night (or maybe I read it on twitter, IDR) was that Udoka or his camp leaked the story a day early to make it not sound as bad. Stories started coming out yesterday that while this was consensual the other party continued to receive unwanted advances (or something to that effect). The Celtics hired a law firm to investigate after the complaints were made - which screams of CYA mode by the organization
It’s hard to say what’s true and what’s not - and due to the embarrassment factor I imagine the Celtics will keep everything as hush hush as possible.
All that to say, ignoring the personal choice of cheating on a significant other, there is zero reason to suspend/punish the other party in this case.
They're probably asking because if this is a consensual affair between two people who work there and are colleagues it would be believed they were following the same rules. Unless she's connected to someone higher up in the organization and the rules don't apply to her(which is a rumor I've heard about this). I see why people are wondering this..
If it wasn't consensual? Why not just fire him(which I'm sure they will anyways but suspending him is more about making sure other teams won't hire him for the season).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peck View PostHas there ever been anyone who has been the head coach for both the Celtics and Lakers? If not, I suspect there soon will be.@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
Comment