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

"College Hoops no match for the NBA"

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

  • #46
    Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

    Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
    What I hate about the NBA is that they have taken the physicality out of the game. Go back and watch some games from the early 90's (the best era ever in the NBA, IMO) and watch the Pistons-Bulls-Celtics in particular. Or the Pacers-Knicks series as well. Those were wars. Nowadays any hard foul is a flagrant. Players won't play hurt anymore. The business aspect of it has surpassed the competition aspect of the league. Those games back then were physical battles. And they were entertaining to say the least and basketball at it's best. You don't see those types of playoff series anymore. Nowadays you can't even play defense.

    And that is trickling down to college. It seems more physical than the NBA to me still. But not for long. But, I miss Dale Davis going in the locker room to pop his shoulder back into socket and actually returning to the game. Nowadays he would miss 4-6 weeks. These players today aren't challenged physically. You can't even guard them, so what if they show great skill? A basketball game isn't designed to be a show, it's supposed to be competition. I just don't see much of that anymore. The game is rigged for high scoring and ESPN highlight dunks. I still watch mainly because I love basketball to death.

    For my taste, college at least still captures the essence of what basketball is supposed to be. The absolute best might not be playing that night, but that doesn't mean it's not the best game. Better atmosphere, bigger emphasis on coaching, rules that create a more level playing field, less "superstar" influenced, etc. JMO
    Actually, the NBA changed around the rules to "soften" the game because people were complaining that the physicality was taking the scoring out of the game and making it "less watchable". I agree with you that I liked the physicality of the late 80s and early 90s, but a lot of people didn't

    As far as coaching, the NBA is a simply at a much higher level. The schemes, matchups and adjustments made during a single game and especially during a 7 game playoff series just completely outclasses what's seen in college.

    College is obviously a lot less superstar influenced simply because there are so few of them in the NCAA. And the ones that are there aren't there for very long. As far as the level playing field, it's going to be more diluted because there are more teams sharing the talent and a players can't stay for longer than 4 years (so no true dynasties), however even with those factors you're always going to have the perennial powerhouses at the top of the heap grabbing the best recruits and ultimately competing for the championships.

    You'll still get your share of upsets (which is the thing everyone loves about college ball), which are bound to happen in a single elimination 64 team tourny, but ultimately it's the top dogs coming out on top; even in an NCAA landscape with far more teams than the pro game.
    Last edited by d_c; 04-09-2009, 12:57 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

      You can't compare college crowds to pro crowds, not in any sport. When your at a college game you have more of a connection to the team. You go to class with the guys you are cheering for. They are a reflection of your school. Plus its a bunch of 20 year old kids going crazy for multiple hours. College sports are of a different breed. I believe they are more fun to attend.

      But when we talk about quality of game, the pros have it. I love college basketball and despite what this author said, i do follow the entire season, just like I follow the Pacers all season. My biggest complaint about college ball is the shot clock. 35 seconds is too long. Shorten that, scores go up, pace goes up, more fun to watch. PSU won a game 38 to 33 over Illinois this year. Even as a PSU fan, that was painful to watch. I like good defense, but come on. The pros have the better athletes and better skilled players. And it should, they are getting paid. And there are 30 pro teams while there are hundreds of college teams. The games should be more entertaining in the NBA because the NBA is more about entertainment than the NCAA.

      I like both. If Im watching one on TV, i will chose NBA. If I am attending one in person, give me the student section. I got chills the first few times standing in the student section in Beaver Stadium. And now our basketball games have the same atmosphere. Its something special about college sports.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        Depends on what you mean by that.

        I think that three things have hurt college basketball: (1) proliferation of early entry candidates to the NBA, (2) the too-short three-point line that made complete caricatures out of game plans, and (3) the dispersion of talent to more schools.

        I don't know if the third is your sportscenter phenomenon, but it allowed more players to go to more schools where they could be "the man" and still get plenty of TV exposure. It made more teams competitive, but the top teams, and I mean all the way through the top 25, aren't as good as they were previously.

        The NBA has also been damaged by early entry. Though there have been plenty of success stories, there have also been a lot of players who leapt too soon, relied too much on innate ability, and therefore were never as good as they could have been.

        The NBA was more seriously hurt by expansion. Thirty teams is at least five too many, and I'd rather see us back at the 23 team level, but that's not going to happen.

        Finally, though it is not as bad as it has been in the past, the league has begun to confuse slowing the game down and playing clutch and grab with actually playing defense. This season's average Defensive Rating (points per 100 possessions) is 108.2, which would be the second worse of any season during the "run-and-gun" '80's. However, the combined points per game of about 200 is about 16 points lower than any season during that decade. The scoring isn't down because the better defense is being played...it's down because teams are getting fewer possessions. On average, there are about 18-20 fewer possessions per game between the two teams.

        Coaches in the '90's figured out that it looked better to lose 85-80 than it did to lose 110-105. They also figured that, if they had a talent deficit, they would, on balance, lose more possessions than they won to more talented teams. While that's certainly an admirable strategem in terms of winning and losing, it had the unavoidable side effect of making the game itself worse. Like a boxer who constantly goes to the clinch against a quicker opponent, many teams ugly up the game in an effort to stay close and steal a victory. As a result, the better teams get good at grinding out those types of games, and, in some cases, build themselves for that express purpose. The 2004 Pacers were just such a team.

        Again, it's an effective and admirable strategy when it comes to winning. Also, it can be accepted, or even enjoyed by the fans of the team employing it successfully. However, it makes it really hard for fans to create a great deal of enthusiasm unless "they have a dog in the fight." It's an exaggeration, but in some ways, this NBA has developed a face that only a mother can love. (By the same token, it makes it hard for NBA fans to watch other levels or forms of basketball.)

        You could see a little backlash against this during the Euro player frenzy in the earlier part of this decade, and you could see some of the effects in the failures of Team USA.
        Stuff like this makes it pretty unnecessary for me to ever try to add anything to these conversations anymore.

        I would, however, throw in the (relative) success and aesthetic beauty of D'Antoni and the Suns (and in a lesser sense, Nellie's Mavs/Dubs, Ray/Rashard's Sonics and the quick hitter-focused Wizards) as probably that largest factor of the "backlash" you mention in the last paragraph.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

          I find his argument about higher scores resulting from higher offensive skill to be a bit lacking. While I do agree that the NBA has superior talent, maybe the reason NCAA games have lower scores is due to the game being 8 minutes shorter, the possessions being allowed to last 11 seconds longer, 1 and 1 free throw opportunities rather than a guaranteed 2 shot foul, truly legal zone defenses, no clock stoppages in the last two minutes, and less automatic calls vis a vis big names like Dwyane Wade.

          Bringing up "one juncture" in a tournament regarding foul calls is circumstantial evidence. Granted, I could give you anecdotes about how the college games that I have watched are, on average, scrappier than the NBA, but since I do not have the foul statistics in front of me, I'll just conclude by saying that citing a solitary game does not prove anything about a league-wide (association-wide?) trend.

          Nevertheless, I really liked his article because it delves into the essence of sports themselves, which is always refreshing. Thanks for posting this, UB!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Never been to Duke or Kansas - but just watching it on TV I think most NBA playoff crowds are as good as those places. From a TV viewing perspective.

            I have been to every Pacers home playoff game and have been to several home IU games and Pacers playoff crowd is comparable to IU's crowd
            I've been to all the Pacers playoff games since 2003, and they are maybe comparable to an IU game against Morehead State in November. They are fun, and very loud don't get me wrong, but they do not compare. It's just too corporate in the NBA.
            It's the students, the band, the alumni, all of these things. When the greatest timeout in basketball occurs at an IU game you can barely hear yourself think.

            As far as noise coming across on TV, LOL come on UB, you know that they muffle sound in every game to make it easier to hear the commentators. How can you pass judgement on how loud tourney games are by watching them on TV?
            Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk chant at KU
            [yt]ddXfc0mQfxc[/yt]

            [yt]qDUhf1k1p3Y[/yt]

            Under 8:00 minute timeout at IU

            [yt]f3_eozGUays[/yt]

            [yt]AJuSKvy5ReI[/yt]
            Last edited by Trader Joe; 04-09-2009, 03:13 AM.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

              Originally posted by Indy View Post
              I've been to all the Pacers playoff games since 2003, and they are maybe comparable to an IU game against Morehead State in November. They are fun, and very loud don't get me wrong, but they do not compare. It's just too corporate in the NBA.
              It's the students, the band, the alumni, all of these things. When the greatest timeout in basketball occurs at an IU game you can barely hear yourself think.

              As far as noise coming across on TV, LOL come on UB, you know that they muffle sound in every game to make it easier to hear the commentators. How can you pass judgement on how loud tourney games are by watching them on TV?
              Don't take this the wrong way but you truely have never seen a playoff crowd then at Indiana.

              The fieldhouse by nature is very poor acousticaly so therefor you do not get a loud crowd noise on most nights, however the playoff atmosphere has not truely been here since the NBA finals in 2000.

              There is just no comparison to the playoffs of 2003 and beyond because frankly the crowds just were not into it as much. You can say that the Detroit series was loud, but a lot of that had to do with Detroit fans being present.

              Like U.B. I have been to every single playoff home game the team has had in the NBA minus one game (game 5 vs. Detroit, I was out of state when that occured) and I can tell you that the three loudest games I have every been to were in order.

              3.) Game 3 NBA finals 2000
              2.) Game 6 E.C. finals 1994
              1.) Game 2 First round playoffs 1994

              Honest to God my head was numb for about an hour after that game, I'm not kidding. It was do damn loud in there it was painful.

              Look again arguing crowds is pretty much a waste of time, as many of you have said there is an entire built in fan base to attend those games (student body) and in some cases the college is the only game in town and often times the center of the culture in certain city's.

              Also let's not forget that a lot of college arena's seat about 1/2 the capacity of some NBA arena's. I'm pretty sure the entire Mackey arena would fit in the lower bowl of the fieldhouse. So what seems like a large capacity rowdy crowd is often about 8-9 thousand.

              Again to go to the point of the original idea, while certainly you can add that probably half of the people who attend NBA games are not real fans and are often there for either a night out or some other reason. You can not tell me that every single person that attends the college game is a fan of the game or even the team. Often times it is "the event" that they are going to see.

              How many times have you heard that they love the atmosphere, the kids, etc., etc....

              Like Count so eloquently said before me, I find all of that to be nonsense and a distraction. However I am not a hyporicte as I would have zero problems if the team would get rid of the in fieldhouse announcers, games, boomer, bowser and Gasp yes even the pacemates. I am there for the game, the rest is just a distraction.

              My ideal game would be that at each quarter break they put Slick and Mark Boyle on the screen and they would break down the quarters and what the team needed to do in the upcoming period. Then at half time they would get a direct feed to NBAtv and we would get an update from around the league after which we would go to the TV crew who would break down the stats and give us thoughts on what to look for in the second half.

              At time outs they would show classic moments from years gone by and maybe even some from around the NBA.

              In other words put the focus back on the d@mn game. Yes I know that the little kids will be bored and the wives who have been drug along will not be happy.

              I also know this would never happen, but as I said in my ideal game this is what it would be like.

              Hey at least I didn't say that we would have a Dale Davis retrospective at the half.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                To me the crowd and the band is part of the game of basketball and has been for some time. There isn't piped in noise or anything like that. The William Tell overture played at the IU games is played by the band etc. I concede, I maybe haven't seen a "true" Pacer playoff game. However, I left every SINGLE Big Ten IU game last season with a head ache. Every one. And yes, it's a pointless argument in the end, but you just can't compare a good college crowd to a good NBA crowd, you really can't.

                The piped in noise, the over zealous music, all of that stuff is totally pointless to me. However, you find me something in the NBA like the Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk chant. That happens at every Kansas game home or neutral site.

                Cameron Indoor is a basketball pilgrimage. It might as well be a barn.

                EDIT: Obviously, I'm not here to degrade the NBA, I love the game and the Pacers. But, and don't take this the wrong way UB, but this thread has the feeling that you are saying College basketball=inferior. Which just to me isn't an accurate thing to say or a comparison you can actually make.
                Last edited by Trader Joe; 04-09-2009, 03:40 AM.


                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                  Originally posted by Indy View Post
                  To me the crowd and the band is part of the game of basketball and has been for some time. There isn't piped in noise or anything like that. The William Tell overture played at the IU games is played by the band etc. I concede, I maybe haven't seen a "true" Pacer playoff game. However, I left every SINGLE Big Ten IU game last season with a head ache. Every one. And yes, it's a pointless argument in the end, but you just can't compare a good college crowd to a good NBA crowd, you really can't.

                  The piped in noise, the over zealous music, all of that stuff is totally pointless to me. However, you find me something in the NBA like the Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk chant. That happens at every Kansas game home or neutral site.

                  Cameron Indoor is a basketball pilgrimage. It might as well be a barn.

                  EDIT: Obviously, I'm not here to degrade the NBA, I love the game and the Pacers. But, and don't take this the wrong way UB, but this thread has the feeling that you are saying College basketball=inferior. Which just to me isn't an accurate thing to say or a comparison you can actually make.
                  I'll agree with everything you are saying, however I want to say that the bands are as pointless to the game itself as the piped in music is in the NBA.


                  Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                    The most 'recent' 'loud' game I can remember attending at Conseco was when the Pacers were playing Boston and Tinsley goaded Pierce into a technical as he was fouling him to stop the clock. It was Pierce's 2nd "T" and so he got sent to his room without supper and we got to pick who would shoot his FT's... IIRC we picked a rookie. Conseco got awfully loud... and he bricked them.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      The most 'recent' 'loud' game I can remember attending at Conseco was when the Pacers were playing Boston and Tinsley goaded Pierce into a technical as he was fouling him to stop the clock. It was Pierce's 2nd "T" and so he got sent to his room without supper and we got to pick who would shoot his FT's... IIRC we picked a rookie. Conseco got awfully loud... and he bricked them.
                      That rookie was Kendrick Perkins.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        That rookie was Kendrick Perkins.
                        You can't expect me to remember everything!
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                          If the NBA would promote teams instead of driving the likes of Kobe, LeBron, Shaq and Dewayne down everyone's throat the NBA might be a more enjoyable experience for me. But they do so I don't.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post


                            For my taste, college at least still captures the essence of what basketball is supposed to be. The absolute best might not be playing that night, but that doesn't mean it's not the best game. Better atmosphere, bigger emphasis on coaching , rules that create a more level playing field, less "superstar" influenced, etc. JMO
                            I want to comment on your bigger emphasis on coaching part. When I first read that I was ready to really argue with you. But then I thought well maybe the key word is emphasis. Because there is no doubt there is a ton more coaching going on in the NBA than in college. Some of it is just a time factor. NBA players don't have to go to class, there are fewer time restrictions. There is just a lot more coaching in the NBA. The scehemes are so much more sophisticated. But in the media college coaches get all the pub and college coaches have more control of things - but not always in a good way. But as far as game plans and preparing a team for a game there is not contest

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              EDIT: Obviously, I'm not here to degrade the NBA, I love the game and the Pacers. But, and don't take this the wrong way UB, but this thread has the feeling that you are saying College basketball=inferior. Which just to me isn't an accurate thing to say or a comparison you can actually make.

                              IMO it is inferior. Especially if you strip away a lot of the built in advantages and just focus soley on the game. Take away the crowds, take away the brackets, office pools, the alumni, the one and done. The NBA game IMO is sooooo much better. If you switched games IMO the NBA game would thrive in the NCAA format/built in advantage.

                              I'm sort of sorry I got off on the tangent of crowds - my only reason in doing so is because when I sit down to watch a game on TV - if there is a full arena and if they are emotionally into the game it increases my enjoyment of the game. Not to say I haven't seen some great NBA games when there have been 8,000 fans in the seats and has been completely dead.

                              Don't get me wrong, for many years I liked college ball as much as the NBA. Up until probably 1992 or 1993 I loved the tournament - watched every game - used to stay up until 2 AM to watch what used to be CBS' late Thursday and Friday night first round games. I would often skip school or adjust my work schedule to watch the afternoon games - but over the years I liked the college game less and less and the NBA game more and more. And I think what sealed it for me was following the Pacers in the playoffs - after that I was sold.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: "College Hoops no match for the NBA"

                                The article was total bs and nothing more than a hatchet job on the college game. Who in their right mind would argue that the college teams play better basketball than the pros? Apples and oranges, I happen to like apples and others prefer oranges, no big deal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X