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

The Fire JOB Thread...again

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

  • #91
    Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    Am I the only one who wouldn't be upset if Bird decided to step down after this season? We give Obie a lot of crap, but I don't think the front office deserves a pass on this one.
    Probably not, but there would only be a handfull of you.

    I started a thread about this, and it died pretty quickly. What could he have done differently? The job he did this offseason was pretty good considering the limitations due to the cap. Just a few games ago, Hibbert was exceeding expectations.

    Rush is the only question mark really on his time here, other than the obvious of hiring JOb.

    No matter how many times Bill Simmons says it. Larry will never be the actual Jesus and he will never be able to turn water into wine. (or crappy players with crappy contracts into good players with good contracts. atleast not until next season when Murphy will be one hot comodity.)
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      Am I the only one who wouldn't be upset if Bird decided to step down after this season? We give Obie a lot of crap, but I don't think the front office deserves a pass on this one.
      I think the franchise is just trying to get these two seasons over with. So Bird probably figures he may as well ride Jim's contract out at this point and move on when the roster (hopefully) gets an upgrade that summer.

      Still, I'm concerned long-term about O'Brien "ruining" our young players (at least as Pacers) to where we have to trade them before they look good.

      It's still early on that front, and I suspect they will all have more chances to shine later. At least I think/hope so.

      But if two weeks from now it's the Jeff/Troy show and the minutes for the young guys stays low, then I think something needs to give with O'Brien.

      Either tell him to change, or replace him.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Probably not, but there would only be a handfull of you.

        I started a thread about this, and it died pretty quickly. What could he have done differently? The job he did this offseason was pretty good considering the limitations due to the cap. Just a few games ago, Hibbert was exceeding expectations.

        Rush is the only question mark really on his time here, other than the obvious of hiring JOb.

        No matter how many times Bill Simmons says it. Larry will never be the actual Jesus and he will never be able to turn water into wine. (or crappy players with crappy contracts into good players with good contracts. atleast not until next season when Murphy will be one hot comodity.)
        The hiring of Obie in the first place I don't have a problem with. That team was an absolute trainwreck and wasn't going to go anywhere. We needed a low-cost guy to come in and be cool with a few rough seasons. That I get.

        I knew when I posted that someone would bring up the "what would you have done differently with the cap restrictions and all" argument. It's a fair point to be sure, and I don't really have any major gripes with the moves he's made in free agency.

        My main problem is this: What is this team's identity? What is the identity we are going for? We draft players that would be better suited in a slower paced game, yet we have a coach who preaches a helter skelter style of play. Hibbert is about the worst fit imaginable for Obie's system. I understand that Obie isn't going to be here as long as Roy, but these are important years for him from a developmental standpoint. Playing in a style that makes his shortcomings glaring has to be hard on his confidence.

        Even if Hibbert, Hansbrough, and Rush pan out, can you really win with a team like that? That's a slow, defenseless frontcourt regardless of how much progress they make.

        I also think that Obie's system would be moderately effective with better ball movement. As near as I can tell, the only player we have on our roster that moves the ball well (and moves well without the ball) is Dunleavy. Everyone else jacks up the first shot that is available to them (besides Rush, primarily because he ****s himself when he gets the ball).

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

          Jim was a quick fix bandaid. I don't have the problem with the hire, I have a problem with the extension. (although I have a huge problem with the firing of Rick, but anyways.....)

          They weren't going to get a well established coach that had the capability to take them to the next level. It was either JOb or a rookie head coach.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

            Lots of good points here, especially from Bball and Brad8888.

            I was particularly struck by this line in the article:

            O'Brien has kept Rush in the starting lineup, primarily to maintain his confidence, even though Dahntay Jones has outperformed him.

            Does anyone really think that the mere fact of leaving Rush in the starting lineup while simultaneously telling everybody that Dahntay has outplayed him is doing wonders for his confidence? Brandon is not stupid. He is probably well familiar with the idea that he's only getting minutes because there's a perception that he will totally collapse otherwise. How on earth could that do good things for his confidence?

            Dear Coach: How about praising the kid in public for the good things he does on defense to go along with the criticism of his offense. That's going to do a hell of a lot more good than all these mind games about starting.
            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

              Originally posted by gummy View Post
              Lots of good points here, especially from Bball and Brad8888.

              I was particularly struck by this line in the article:

              O'Brien has kept Rush in the starting lineup, primarily to maintain his confidence, even though Dahntay Jones has outperformed him.

              Does anyone really think that the mere fact of leaving Rush in the starting lineup while simultaneously telling everybody that Dahntay has outplayed him is doing wonders for his confidence? Brandon is not stupid. He is probably well familiar with the idea that he's only getting minutes because there's a perception that he will totally collapse otherwise. How on earth could that do good things for his confidence?

              Dear Coach: How about praising the kid in public for the good things he does on defense to go along with the criticism of his offense. That's going to do a hell of a lot more good than all these mind games about starting.
              Shh, don't say anything to him!

              Even if they are coming out in public saying he's being outperformed, for Brandon not to know he is being outperformed by Dahntay doesn't make sense. It should be common sense to him.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                If Brandon doesn't know by know that he sucks- then this franchise is more screwed than I thought. He's being given every chance to succeed- I wonder if this is a mandate by Bird..

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                  From today's Wells article:

                  "Hibbert's minutes have fluctuated and O'Brien has removed him from the starting lineup based on matchups. O'Brien has kept Rush in the starting lineup, primarily to maintain his confidence, even though Dahntay Jones has outperformed him."

                  So, if Roy had chosen to be an unconfident wuss, would he have kept his starting position?
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    From today's Wells article:

                    "Hibbert's minutes have fluctuated and O'Brien has removed him from the starting lineup based on matchups. O'Brien has kept Rush in the starting lineup, primarily to maintain his confidence, even though Dahntay Jones has outperformed him."

                    So, if Roy had chosen to be an unconfident wuss, would he have kept his starting position?
                    Seriously, WTF. If I were Roy, I would demand a trade. I wouldn't be able to take Jim's crap. Roy has outplayed every player in his position, Rush the exact opposite, and Jim goes with this change. Roy was a top player on this team all season until two poor games, and since he has barely player.
                    "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                    Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                      Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                      Seriously, WTF. If I were Roy, I would demand a trade. I wouldn't be able to take Jim's crap. Roy has outplayed every player in his position, Rush the exact opposite, and Jim goes with this change. Roy was a top player on this team all season until two poor games, and since he has barely player.
                      There could be arguments that Hibbert has ( at times ) outplayed Murphy.....but it's arguable whether he should be ahead of Foster in the rotation. At best......I'd argue that Foster and Hibbert ( assuming that he could stay out of foul trouble ) should share equal minutes at the Center spot.....but realistically ( due to his foul trouble ) I can see arguments that suggest that Hibbert should be the 2nd or 3rd ( depending on where you'd rank Murphy and Hibbert ) Big Man in the rotation.

                      Frankly, I'd really prefer to not have Murphy and Hibbert sharing the floor at the same time. I'd hope that Hibbert is only paired with anyone in the PF/C rotation other then Murphy. Basically anyone else that would play the PF spot.....Granger, Foster, Hansbrough, Solo or McRoberts would be a better option then Murphy. We do not need the 2 least athletic Big Men sharing the floor at the same time.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 12-01-2009, 06:04 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        There could be arguments that Hibbert has ( at times ) outplayed Murphy.....but it's arguable whether he should be ahead of Foster in the rotation. At best......I'd argue that Foster and Hibbert ( assuming that he could stay out of foul trouble ) should share equal minutes at the Center spot.....but realistically ( due to his foul trouble ) I can see arguments that suggest that Hibbert should be the 2nd or 3rd ( depending on where you'd rank Murphy and Hibbert ) Big Man in the rotation.

                        Frankly, I'd really prefer to not have Murphy and Hibbert sharing the floor at the same time. I'd hope that Hibbert is only paired with anyone in the PF/C rotation other then Murphy. Basically anyone else that would play the PF spot.....Granger, Foster, Hansbrough, Solo or McRoberts would be a better option then Murphy. We do not need the 2 least athletic Big Men sharing the floor at the same time.
                        I'll argue it.

                        For the first 12 games of the season Roy had better stats across the board than Jeff Foster has ever had. Even in rebounding Roy was avg. 9+ per game and this was in less than 30 min. a game.


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post


                          Probably not, but there would only be a handfull of you.

                          AND I"M ONE OF THEM!

                          Bird hasn't done anything exceptional another GM couldn't have done.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                            Seems to me that JOB is confused of what he wants to do and what he is supposed to do.

                            He's all but admitted his extension was so that he was able to develope the younger players.

                            This team is building for the future, the playoffs is a nice goal, but they aren't going farther than the second round at MAX. So develope the players for the future, see what Indiana has in it's players.

                            Granger is clearly part of the core.

                            Indiana has question marks with the veterans. The pacers have Dunleavy, Murphy, Ford, Watson, Diener, Foster, Dahntay Jones.

                            I think it's safe to say two years from now, Murphy, Diener and Foster won't be around. I get the feeling Ford isn't really wanted either.

                            Dunleavy is a question mark too, how he heals and how much the pacers want to pay for him. Personally, I think NBA teams need three stars to compete or be a top team. I think they have it in Roy and Granger. Dunleavy's good, quite clearly a leader, but I think shooting guard is the easiest position to get that third star. And the pacers have to really decide if Dunleavy is going to be that player. Granted, they could play Granger at the 4 and Dunleavy at the 3 and find a shooting guard...But truthfully, I'm not sure where the Pacers want to go with Dunleavy.

                            In the case of Jones, I think he's found a place here. I'm not sure with Watson, he depends on a lot of factors.

                            For youth, the pacers have Hansborough, Price, Roy, Head, Rush, SJones, McRoberts.

                            Of the youth, Hansborough is the only one to be given all of the abilities to succeed.

                            He gets consistent minutes. That's the key. Rush and Roy don't get to play through their mistakes. Price, SJones, Head and McRoberts don't get to play.

                            But the pacers expect Hansborough, Price, Roy, Rush and probably McRoberts, SJones and Head to all be here three years two years from now.

                            So essentially the Core isn't being given the opportunity to develope. And that would be excuseable, if the veterans were winning, but they aren't.

                            Still JOB tries to squeeze as many wins out of the veterans as he can, instead of doing what his contract extension was for.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                              Originally posted by Sookie View Post



                              So essentially the Core isn't being given the opportunity to develope. And that would be excuseable, if the veterans were winning, but they aren't.

                              Still JOB tries to squeeze as many wins out of the veterans as he can, instead of doing what his contract extension was for.

                              Could it be Herb feels making the playoffs is priority #1, and that development of the youth isn't? Getting the Pacers back into the playoffs is just more important at the present time, thus the extension of Jimmy to take the pressure off of him to play the young'ns. Herb said he was going to take a more active role in running the Pacers, and at the end of the day he's in charge with the signing off on decisions. Jimmy didn't get an extension w/o Herb giving the final ok. If O'Brien gets canned b4 his contract is up, I will have no sympathy for the money Herb has to pay O'Brien and his replacement. He made the final decision to give Jimmy the extension.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Fire JOB Thread...again

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Could it be Herb feels making the playoffs is priority #1, and that development of the youth isn't? Getting the Pacers back into the playoffs is just more important at the present time, thus the extension of Jimmy to take the pressure off of him to play the young'ns. Herb said he was going to take a more active role in running the Pacers, and at the end of the day he's in charge with the signing off on decisions. Jimmy didn't get an extension w/o Herb giving the final ok. If O'Brien gets canned b4 his contract is up, I will have no sympathy for the money Herb has to pay O'Brien and his replacement. He made the final decision to give Jimmy the extension.
                                That wasn't my impression. If you play the youngins you are more likely to lose, so there's more of a risk of getting fired *supposedly* So getting an extension would be reason to take the risks with the youth.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X