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

Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

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

  • #31
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

    history is your guarantee count. no, history does not guarantee that a top 10 pick as your best player will win you a championship, but history does guarantee that WITHOUT a top 10 pick being your best player, you will not win a title.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      The Pacers wouldn't have the Zircon of the trade, Ike, either. The Pacers could had:

      Thaddeus Young
      Julian Wright
      Al Thornton
      Rodney Stuckey
      Nick Young
      Sean Williams
      Marco Belinelli
      Morris Almond

      and others to just mention a few.
      Kids gonna be one hell of a player
      STARBURY

      08 and Beyond

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        No first-round draft choices. No intriguing young players, unless you're intrigued by Shawne Williams. No expiring contracts. Nothing.


        http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TS15/806190433

        I just quit reading after like the third paragraph...
        what about granger?
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

          the pacers will never be able to lure in top free agents being the small market, midwest team that they are.
          Yes, because they pay with dirt here and all the "fun" cities are always flush with tons of cap space for every FA available. Why just ask Al Harrington about his choice between LA, PHX, DAL, NY or MIA.

          And lord knows that OKC (at the time) smelled like good times to Peja.

          Billups, key part of the Pistons, signs to play in Detroit which says good weather, great economy, happy times all over it.



          Croz - ALL TEAMS have top 5 players on their roster. I mean your logic says the Pacers are all set. Just having Dunleavy means it's in the bag.

          Top 5/10 players tend to make it in the NBA and over 10 years of drafting that's 50/100 players. Simple math proves that at least 4-5 teams MUST have some top 5 talent even if those teams are made of nothing but picks that high.

          Reality shows that talent is spread to some degree, especially when top 5 guys end up being less than stellar. Without even looking I'd suggest that you could go back and show the WORST 5 teams for all those seasons and list a few top 5 draft picks that were on those rosters. Thus "proving" by your messed up logic that a top 5 pick means you're team is probably going to finish in the bottom 5.


          I've had to say this before, if EVERYONE has something then it's presence doesn't indicate anything. All title teams also wore shoes, played to at least 5,000 fans a night, used a basketball during their games, had a scoreboard in their arena, and won at least 1 road game. None of those items indicates that a team is a champ because it's true for every team.



          BTW, do you even know how the Lakers got the pick for Magic? It sure as heck wasn't tanking into a top 5 pick.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-20-2008, 03:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

            the difference naptown, is that the pacers organization has felt the need over the past however many years to rely mostly on picks OUTSIDE of the top 10 to try to improve their chances at a title. when acquiring talent, history says it's the top 5-10 picks that deliver. not mid-late 1sts.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

              The small market argument has always been ridiculous in an age where the Spurs are the best team of the decade.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                the difference naptown, is that the pacers organization has felt the need over the past however many years to rely mostly on picks OUTSIDE of the top 10 to try to improve their chances at a title. when acquiring talent, history says it's the top 5-10 picks that deliver. not mid-late 1sts.
                Bigger impact - Reggie or Rik
                Bigger impact - Dale or Tisdale
                Bigger impact - Jackson or Person
                Bigger impact - Croshere or Bender

                And Dale, not a top 10, gets you JO, also not a top 10, and the Pacers end up with 2 all-stars at different points, first Dale and then JO. No top 10 pick involved at all.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-20-2008, 03:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  history says it's the top 5-10 picks that deliver. not mid-late 1sts.
                  History also says that top 5-10 picks flounder, flop and cost your team badly. Going for a top 10 pick for your reasoning makes as much sense as avoiding it because of guys like Kandi-taser.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                    Originally posted by Fool View Post
                    The small market argument has always been ridiculous in an age where the Spurs are the best team of the decade.
                    and who on the spurs was signed via free agency? duncan (1) parker (28) ginobili (57) were all draft picks by the spurs.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Bigger impact - Reggie or Rik
                      Bigger impact - Dale or Tisdale
                      Bigger impact - Jackson or Person
                      Bigger impact - Croshere or Bender

                      And Dale, not a top 10, gets you JO, also not a top 10, and the Pacers end up with 2 all-stars at different points, first Dale and then JO. No top 10 pick involved at all.
                      and you know what, the pacers are still without an nba championship...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                        I'm not sure the argument should be about whether to just set a date on the calendar and then decide to start throwing games...

                        It seems to me the idea would be to look at your team and realize when it's about to go nowhere, options are limited, etc and then simply not put a bandaid on it and try to milk out a few extra games.

                        IOW... Get with the coach and ownership and lay out the plan to accept some losses because you're going to be losing anyway. The main thing is to let the coach know it's OK to use the bench and try and develop some players even at the risk of losing a few games. Set a bigger and more longer term goal than just making the playoffs at all costs.

                        The argument shouldn't have to be "The fans won't accept losing" when the reality is the fans are going to have to accept losing because the team at most is a 39 win team. So you TRY to win within certain constraints, and you do it while developing players and a system rather than giving minutes to vets who won't be part of the future anyway and whose input might get you a couple of extra games in the win column... at the expense of getting minutes and experience for some young guys on the team. Players who either will be part of the future or you need to see their growth for evaluation of just where they do fit in (or how they can be used in future trade).

                        You also don't need to make lateral trades that might net a couple of extra victories if all goes well.

                        Once you are already in a bad place, you can try and make some lemonade from it or you can throw the kitchen sink at the season and prolong the drought by setting a goal of being the worst team in the playoffs.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                          If Croz's view of having to get top 1-5 picks is indeed true, then the Sonics are locks in a couple of years to win it all.

                          08) #4 Bayless?
                          07) #2 Durant
                          07) #5 Green
                          06) #10 Sene

                          And when they stink again next year, they'll have another top 10 pick to go along with their 08 #24 pick. They are on the fast track laying the ground work to be surefire great in a couple of years, IF you choose to believe this view.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                            they're not a lock, but they sure as hell will have better assets and a better chance at it than the pacers with our yearly mediocrity. all anybody has to do is look at the list i provided. the vast majority of championships were won with top 5 draft picks being the team's best player with top 10 picks also winning their share. not sure why people continue to argue history.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              IOW... Get with the coach and ownership and lay out the plan to accept some losses because you're going to be losing anyway. The main thing is to let the coach know it's OK to use the bench and try and develop some players even at the risk of losing a few games. Set a bigger and more longer term goal than just making the playoffs at all costs.

                              The argument shouldn't have to be "The fans won't accept losing" when the reality is the fans are going to have to accept losing because the team at most is a 39 win team. So you TRY to win within certain constraints, and you do it while developing players and a system rather than giving minutes to vets who won't be part of the future anyway and whose input might get you a couple of extra games in the win column... at the expense of getting minutes and experience for some young guys on the team. Players who either will be part of the future or you need to see their growth for evaluation of just where they do fit in (or how they can be used in future trade).
                              That's all well and good if you are a team with a captive fan base. For a professional team competing for eyes and bucks, not playing your fan draws for some weeks at the end of the season might get you a bigger draft pick who will come into his own - after the team moves to another city.

                              I really think the team laid a better base for next season from the fan's perspective by showing they were trying to get that last playoff spot rather than laying out and trying to convince a public who have never seen a Pacer #1 pick that somehow they might get one by being worse losers than they already were.

                              Everyone seems to sneer at the idea that there have to be butts in the seats, but you can't pay an FA or hold onto your huge draft pick once he developed if you can't get more than 8,000 people in the Fieldhouse.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                they're not a lock, but they sure as hell will have better assets and a better chance at it than the pacers with our yearly mediocrity. all anybody has to do is look at the list i provided. the vast majority of championships were won with top 5 draft picks being the team's best player with top 10 picks also winning their share. not sure why people continue to argue history.
                                Nobody's arguing with history.

                                I think everybody will agree that great players win championships, and great players tend to be high draft picks.

                                The problem is that high draft picks don't really tend to be great players. This is where the real argument lies: tanking to get a higher pick.

                                I wanted to address this:

                                Originally posted by naptown seth
                                BTW, do you even know how the Lakers got the pick for Magic? It sure as heck wasn't tanking into a top 5 pick.
                                This is really interesting, because the Lakers have won almost a quarter of the titles listed in croz' earlier post (9 of 40). Of their key players who were named, only West and Baylor were taken with their own pick. That is to say, the pick that they earned based on their prior year's record. These two get great big asterisks because (A) they were drafted at a time when there were only 8 teams in the league, so everybody got a top 10 pick (and some got two) and (B) they were drafted in 1960 and 1958 respectively...long before the title in 1972. (And, somewhat to BillS' point, Baylor was drafted by the Minneapolis Lakers, while West was taken the summer after the final season in Minneapolis).

                                Goodrich was a Territorial pick, and every other key player mentioned in your list (Wilt, Kareem, Wilkes, Magic, Worthy, Scott, Shaq, Kobe, Rice) was acquired through trades. Yes, the Lakers did make the selections for Magic & Worthy, but the picks actually belonged to the New Orleans Jazz and the Cleveland Cavaliers, respectively, and were acquired through Trade/Free Agent (Goodrich) compensation.

                                So, no tanking to be seen...at least none that helped the host city's (Minneapolis) fanbase.

                                The Celtics and the Bulls each claimed 6 titles during this time frame.

                                The Celtics acquired 6 of the 12 Top 10 picks listed with their own pick (Havlicek, Jones, Cowens, White, Bird, Pierce). Havlicek and Jones get the same * as West and Baylor above (they were both actually the last picks of the first round in their years), while Jo-Jo White was drafted 9th in 1969, after they won a title. The other six (Howell, Russell, Parish, McHale, Garnett, and Allen) were all acquired through trades.

                                The Bulls basically had 2 of their own Top Ten Picks: Jordan and Horace Grant (for first three peat). In 1987, the Bulls had the #8 pick (Nugs traded it to the Knicks for Darrell Walker, then the Knicks traded it to the Bulls for Jawann Oldham (for chrissakes)), and drafted Olden Polynice, who they then traded (straight up, as far as I can tell) to Seattle for Scottie Pippen.

                                Of these teams, the Bulls might make the strongest argument for "becoming good by being bad" if it weren't for the fact that they've spent the last decade being a poster child for how badly tanking can go. In the 10 years since their last title, they've managed only 3 playoff appearances, 1 playoff series win (in four tries), and a combined record 289-499 (.366). Since 1999, they've had 9 top ten picks, two of which (Jay Williams & Marcus Fizer) are already out of the league (though they get a pass on Williams). Last year's 33-49 team had 7 (count 'em, 7) Top 10 picks play for them at one time or another (Gordon, Hinrich, Noah, Deng, Joe Smith, Gooden, Hughes).

                                Now, you may wish to use Boston as the poster child for why tanking works. After all, they blatantly tanked last year, then won the title this year. Problem is, they succeeded in much the same way Christopher Columbus did...an unbelievably fortuitous **** up. Had everything gone according to Danny's "blueprint" last year, the Celtics would most likely have been sitting here with either Oden or Durrant, debating whether they should take OJ Mayo or Jerryd Bayless. Where Columbus blundered into the New World, Ainge blundered into Garnett.

                                If you look over the course of the last 40 years, building a champion has required a combination of good drafting, smart trades, and deft player development. While, as acknowledged earlier, there is ample evidence that champion players make champion teams, and champion players are often high draft picks, there is very little, if any evidence to say that tanking leads to championships.

                                The Pacers are not in a position to win a title in the near future. They will need to make smart moves to even return to contention, and it will take time. However, I feel much better picking 11th and knowing that the players that will surround our newest draft pick play hard and are committed to winning than I would feel bringing the 6th or 7th or 8th pick into a locker room that had spent the last year being told it was OK to lose. That, for sure, is not going to win you a championship.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X