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

Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

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

  • #76
    Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Seth,

    I don't think you'll be taken very seriously about wanting Tyler to do well as long as you continue to celebrate his nose being broken with that avatar and as long as you take more opportunities than anyone else on the board to point out what's wrong with him while often refusing to celebrate what he does right; spending about 20% of your words giving lukewarm acknowledgment to his positives, at best.
    True, but let's not forget the legion of posters that take every good Hansbrough play and shove it in Naptime's face. He's only giving as bad as he's getting. I have no horse in this debate - like you, I'm just trying to keep things civil around here.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
      True, but let's not forget the legion of posters that take every good Hansbrough play and shove it in Naptime's face. He's only giving as bad as he's getting. I have no horse in this debate - I'm just trying to keep things civil around here.
      Wait a minute. A legion of posters take every good Tyler play and shove it in Seth's face? That's a misrepresentation, and here's why:

      Are there posters that over-react to Tyler's strengths? Yeah.

      Enough to refer to them as a legion? Hardly.

      Are the majority of their posts about Tyler specifically taking shots at Seth? Not even close.

      Let's call a spade a spade here. No one rivals him in beating Tyler's weaknesses into the ground. No one rivals him in complaining about who we should have taken instead. No one rivals him in negatively comparing/contrasting him to other players. And it's pretty obvious by his actions that he would rather do that than talk about what Tyler does right.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

        You can argue with my word choice, but you cannot argue that people call Seth out by name when making their posts. That's what I disagree with. I think the main problem here is the perceived lack of common ground between the warring factions - but it's there. A hearty debate is possible if the attitude is right.

        And I only defend Seth for two reasons: 1) He's clearly one (a vocal one, to be sure) against many in this respect, and 2) Could you imagine how long his post would be if he tried to defend himself?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          You can argue with my word choice, but you cannot argue that people call Seth out by name when making their posts.
          If you're going to act like the majority of those posts call him out, or you're going to act like when it does happen that it's an "IN YOUR FACE" attitude, I can absolutely argue with you because that's false.

          I think the problem here is the perceived lack of common ground between the warring factions - but it's there. A hearty debate is possible if the attitude is right.
          Good luck. The pro-Tyler's are sick of the constant complaining, and the anti-Tyler's can't stand that he's being celebrated in the face of all the things they see wrong with him or the belief that the praise is artificial because of the jersey he wears.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

            I should probably give up then.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

              I didn't want the Pacers to pick Tyler. I didn't think he could be a good rotation guy in this league. I wasn't upset about the actual pick, however, because I didn't see a better pick fall to us (not saying a couple guys picked later won't be better, but they just weren't obvious on draft day to me).

              I've been pretty happy with him so far. He runs the court well. He's agressive in a good way... he'll always draw more than his share of fouls. He's also not a gas can defensively, and I feared he would be.

              I'm not particularly worried about his shooting percentage at this point. He's throwing himself around, heaving some off balance shots, etc. He's better off doing that than playing tentative, he'll figure some things out.

              I feel better about his chances of being a good rotation guy maybe by next year. I'd be happy to be wrong.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                People think of his college success as though he had a Duncan or Griffin or even Barkley caliber NCAA career. He didn't. He was not "unstoppable", certainly no more than Brandon Rush was. Both those teams knew how to win and did win the big game, but it was due to being well coached, disciplined basketball machines.

                Sorry, but I gotta call ...




                All–time records

                NCAA

                * Most Free Throws Made, Career: 968 (2005-09)

                Atlantic Coast Conference

                * Most Career Points: 2,836 (2005-09)
                * Most Career Points as a Junior: 2,168 (2005-08)
                * Most Free Throws Made, Career: 968 (2005-09)
                * Most Free Throws Made, Single Season: 304 (2007-08)
                * Most Career 20-point games: 75 (2005-09)
                * Most Double-figure Scoring Games, Single Season: 39 (2007-08)

                * Ties Mark Alarie (Duke, 1985-86) and Johnny Dawkins (Duke, 1985-86)

                * Most ACC Rookie of the Week awards: 10 (2005-2006) - ties Kenny Anderson (Georgia Tech, 1989-90)[19]
                * Most Single-Season ACC Player of the Week awards: 8 (2007-08)
                * First Freshman to be a Unanimous All-ACC First Team Selection (2006)[19]
                * First player in ACC history to be unanimously selected four times to the ACC All-Conference Team
                * 1 of only 4 players (with Danny Green and Wake Forest's Tim Duncan and Rusty LaRue) to beat Mike Krzyzewski-coached teams four times at Cameron Indoor Stadium
                * Only player in ACC history to be named unanimous first-team All-ACC four times [20]
                * 1 of only 8 players in ACC history to compile 2,000 points and 1,000 rebounds

                joining Len Chappell and Tim Duncan (Wake Forest); Danny Ferry, Mike Gminski, and Christian Laettner, (Duke); Sam Perkins (UNC); and Ralph Sampson (Virginia)

                * #4 - Career ACC Player of the Week awards: 10 (one in 2005-06, eight in 2007-08 and one in 2008-09)

                * Record: 12 by Antawn Jamison (one in 1995-96, four in 1996-97 and seven in 1997-98) and J. J. Redick (Duke, 2002-06)

                * #4 - Points and Rebounds Combined, Single Season: 1,281 (2007-08)

                * Record: 1,402 by Len Chappell (Wake Forest, 1961-62)

                * #4 - Freshman Per Game Scoring Average: 18.94 (2005-06)[19]

                * Record: 20.6 by Kenny Anderson (Georgia Tech, 1989-90)

                * #5 - Freshman Field Goal Percentage: .570 (2005-06)[19]

                * Record: .626 by Sam Perkins (UNC, 1980-81)

                * #5 - Career Scoring as a Sophomore: 1,286 (2006-07)[19]

                * Record: 1,497 by Kenny Anderson (Georgia Tech, 1990-91)

                * #5 - Career Rebounding as a Junior: 943 (2005-08)

                * Record: 1,125 by Ralph Sampson (Virginia)

                * #6 - Scoring, Single Season: 882 points (2007-08)

                * Record: 970 points by Dennis Scott (Georgia Tech 1989-90)

                * #11 (Tied) - Consecutive Double-Figure Games: 55

                * Record: 86 by Jeff Mullins (Duke, 1964 )

                * #14 - Rebounds, Single Season: 399 (2007-08)

                * Record: 581 by Ronnie Shavlik (N.C. State, 1954-55)


                * Tyler Hansbrough has earned the following honors in 2008:

                National Player of the Year, ACC Player of the Year, ACC Tournament Most Valuable Player and NCAA Tournament Regional MVP.

                Just three other players in ACC history have won all of the above honors in the same season: UNC’s Lennie Rosenbluth (1957), Duke’s Christian Laettner (1992) and UNC’s Antawn Jamison (1998).




                University of North Carolina
                As of May 28, 2009


                * Most Career Points 2,836 (2005-09)
                * Most Career Rebounds 1,219 (2005-09)
                * Most Points and Rebounds Combined, Career: 4,055
                * Most Career Points as a Junior: 2,168 (2005-08)
                * Most Points by Two Players, Single Season: Tyler Hansbrough (882) and Wayne Ellington (647); 1,529 combined (2007-08)
                * Most Points and Rebounds Combined, Single Season: 1,281 (2007-08)
                * Most Free Throws Attempted, Career: 1,241
                * Most Free Throws Made, Career: 982
                * Most Field Goals Made, Career: 939
                * Most Rebounds, Single Season: 399 (2007-08)
                * Most Points by a Tar Heel in the Dean Smith Center in a single season: 385[20]
                * Most Free Throws Attempted, Single Season: 377 (2007-08)
                * Most Free Throws Made, Single Season: 304 (2007-08)
                * Most Career Double-Figure Scoring Games: 126 (2005-09)
                * Most Career 20-point games: 75 (2005-09)
                * Reached 1,000 points in his 54th game, the fastest Tar Heel who played as a true freshman [22]
                * Most Points for a Freshman in an individual game: 40 against Georgia Tech, February 15, 2006.[23]
                * Most Points by a Tar Heel in the Dean Smith Center in an individual game: 40 against Georgia Tech, February 15, 2006[15]

                * Second-Most Points by a Tar Heel in the Dean Smith Center in an individual game: 39 against Clemson, February 10, 2008

                * Most Double-Figure Scoring Games, Single Season: 39
                * Highest Scoring Average in the Dean Smith Center in a single season: 24.1 points (2007-08)[12]
                * Highest Scoring Average as a Freshman: 18.9 points (2005-06)[24]
                * Most Free Throws Made in an individual game in the Dean Smith Center: 17 against Clemson, February 10, 2008[15]
                * Most Steals in the Dean Smith Center in an individual game: 8 against UNC-Asheville, December 28, 2005

                * Ties Derrick Phelps vs. Central Florida, December 7, 1991

                * Most Single-Season ACC Player of the Week awards: 8 (2007-08)[25]
                * First and only Tar Heel to be named unanimous first-team All-ACC four times[20]
                * Second of only 2 Tar Heels (with Pete Brennan, All-America forward on 1957 national championship team) to score 1,000 points with more made free throws than field goals[26]
                * Fourth Tar Heel to be named ACC Player of the Year and Tournament MVP in the same season (with Lennie Rosenbluth 1957, Larry Miller 1967 and 1968, Antawn Jamison 1998)
                * Fifth Tar Heel (first since 1984) to be a three-time, first-team All-America (with Jack Cobb 1924-26, Phil Ford 1976-78, Mike O’Koren 1978-80 and Sam Perkins 1982-84)
                * Sixth 2,000-point scorer in UNC history
                * Seventh UNC player to record 1,000 career rebounds
                * #2 - UNC Scoring Trio, Single Season: Tyler Hansbrough (882 points), Wayne Ellington (647), and Danny Green (447); 1,976 points combined (2007-08)

                * Record: 2,051 points by Antawn Jamison (822), Shammond Williams (637), and Vince Carter (592) in 1997-98

                * #2 - Career Scoring as a Sophomore: 1,286 points

                * Record: 1,290 points by Antawn Jamison (2000-01)

                * #2 - Single Season Scoring: 882 points (2007-08)

                * Record: 895 points by Lennie Rosenbluth (1956-57)

                * #2 - Consecutive Double-Figure Games: 55

                * Record: 64 by Larry Miller

                * #2 - Most Steals in an individual game: 8

                * Record: 9 by Derrick Phelps at Georgia Tech, Feb. 2, 1992

                * #3 - Highest Scoring Average as a Freshman: 587 (2005-06)

                * Record: 600 points by Joseph Forte (1999-2000)

                * #5 - Freshman Field Goal Percentage: 57.0 (2005-06)[19]

                * Record: 62.6 by Sam Perkins (1980-81)

                * #5 - 20 or more points in consecutive games: 9 (twice) (from Feb. 3 to March 4, 2008 and from Nov. 26, 2008 to Jan. 7, 2009) - ties Michael Jordan (1983-84)
                * #6 - Single-Season Double-Doubles (Points and Rebounds): 19

                * Record: 22 by Billy Cunningham (1964)

                * #9 - Single-Season Scoring, Points Per Game: 22.6 (2008)

                * Record: 28.0 points by Lennie Rosenbluth (1957)

                * Reached 2,000 points in his 100th career game at North Carolina, becoming the third-fastest Tar Heel to reach that milestone.[27]

                * Record: 75 games by Lennie Rosenbluth





                Now for awards he has received....



                * 2009 Sporting News College Basketball Athlete of the Decade
                * 2009 Consensus First-team All-America (Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, USBWA, ESPN.com, Associated Press)
                * 2009 All-ACC First Team Selection (unanimous)
                * 2009 NCAA All-Tournament Team
                * 2009 First-team All-District (NABC, USBWA)
                * 2008 ACC Male Athlete of the Year (Kevlin Award)
                * 2008 National Player of the Year (Naismith Award, Associated Press, National Association of Basketball Coaches, Sporting News, Sports Illustrated, ESPN.com, Adolph Rupp Trophy, Oscar Robertson Trophy, John R. Wooden Award)[28][29]
                * 2008 Unanimous First-team All-America (Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, USBWA, ESPN.com, Basketball Times, FoxSports.com, Associated Press)
                * 2008 ACC Player of the Year (unanimous)[30]
                * 2008 All-ACC First Team Selection (unanimous)
                * 2008 Charlotte, North Carolina NCAA Regional MOP
                * 2008 ACC Tournament MVP
                * 2008 First-Team ACC All-Tournament Team
                * 2008 District Player of the Year (USBWA)
                * 2008 First-team All-District (NABC, USBWA)
                * 9-time ACC Player of the Week (Mar. 6, 2006 (co-winner); Nov. 26, Dec. 10, Dec. 24, Dec. 31 (co-winner), 2007; Feb. 4, Feb. 11, Feb. 25, Mar. 16, 2008)
                * 2007 Las Vegas Invitational MVP
                * 2008 Preseason ACC Player of the Year
                * 2008 Preseason First-Team All-ACC
                * 2007 NABC First Team All-American
                * 2007 Sporting News First Team All-American
                * 2007 AP Second Team All-American
                * 2007 All-ACC First Team Selection (unanimous)
                * 2006 First-team All-America (Sporting News, Rupp)
                * 2006 Third-team All-America (AP, NABC, Basketball Times)
                * 2006 National Freshman of the Year (ESPN.com, SI.com, Sporting News, USBWA, Basketball Times)
                * 2006 First-team All-ACC (unanimous) (Hansbrough is the first freshman ever to earn this honor by a unanimous vote)
                * 2006 ACC Rookie of the Year (unanimous)
                * 2006 ACC All-Freshman Team (unanimous)
                * 2006 All-ACC Tournament first-team
                * 2006 Wooden Award Finalist (one of 22)
                * 2006 Rupp Award Finalist
                * 2006 USBWA All-District Team
                * 2006 NABC All-District Team
                * 2006 10-time ACC Freshman of the Week (ties Kenny Anderson of Georgia Tech for most all time)

                * 2005 McDonald's All-American[31]
                * 2005 Parade All-American[32]

                * Poplar Bluff Showdown All-Tournament Team (2002-05)
                * SEMO All-Conference Team (2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05)
                * Missouri All-State Team (2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05)




                .
                .
                .
                .




                NO ONE in the N.B.A..... has come close to EARNING all the accolades in the N.C.A.A. (I listed above)... as Tyler has CLEARLY done ..

                Not Duncan, Not Barkley , and sure as heck not Griffin ..



                Therefore once again ....

                I call ...




                .
                .




                Good Day Sir

                Last edited by Kemo; 12-13-2009, 04:45 AM.
                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                  The defense rests.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                    I think that we should collect all of the negative posts with respect to Tyler, as well as some of the other pre-draft posts about how his play wouldn't translate into the NBA, how some said we shouldn't draft him because it is likely that he won't be very good (a shame that some were probably lost in the board crash) and send them all to Tyler for bulletin board motivational material, just as he has done in his past. I suspect he would eat that up!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                      Kemo, seriously, you're not making things better by taking the argument in that direction.

                      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                      The defense rests.
                      Please. Kemo may not be helping matters, but you can't act like there's a dozen Kemo's arguing the way he does.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Kemo, seriously, you're not making things better by taking the argument in that direction.



                        Please. Kemo may not be helping matters, but you can't act like there's a dozen Kemo's arguing the way he does.
                        I'm sorry.. that really wasn't my intention.. I hadn't really been paying attention to the debate you guys were having.. My post was merely directed at that particular quote from a post of naptownseth's


                        I would have posted the EXACT SAME thing no matter who had said it.. I have no beef/qualms with naptown (I actually like the guy and some of his input.....) I just disagreed and backed up with facts in regards to the quote that I was responding to..

                        Like I said, I wasn't trying to get involved in your guys' debate.. FAR from it..
                        Last edited by Kemo; 12-13-2009, 02:32 AM.
                        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                          No, you're right. I maybe should have said "some posters" instead of just "posters". I didn't mean everyone - obviously the vast majority are civil about it. All I'm really saying is, whether or not I agree with it, if someone calls you out by name in their post - and I'm sure Shade can shed some light on this too with the whole Bayless ordeal - you are going to respond, and when you do, you'll probably do it in a way that's unfair to the question being debated. Further migration to the extremes is the only thing we can expect from such exchanges.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                            Honestly, I think Seth made some good points. I think the message would have been better received coming from someone other than him though.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              True, but let's not forget the legion of posters that take every good Hansbrough play and shove it in Naptime's face. He's only giving as bad as he's getting. I have no horse in this debate - like you, I'm just trying to keep things civil around here.
                              Could you please point these out? I'm being serious btw.

                              I have gone back and found one post that called Seth out by name when they were not responding to something either he typed or a thread he started.

                              I would like to see these others so that we can evaluate them, so any help would be appreciated.

                              Thank you


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

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Did Anyone Think Hansbrough Would Be This Good So Soon?

                                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                                No, you're right. I maybe should have said "some posters" instead of just "posters". I didn't mean everyone - obviously the vast majority are civil about it. All I'm really saying is, whether or not I agree with it, if someone calls you out by name in their post - and I'm sure Shade can shed some light on this too with the whole Bayless ordeal - you are going to respond, and when you do, you'll probably do it in a way that's unfair to the question being debated. Further migration to the extremes is the only thing we can expect from such exchanges.
                                Agreed. But it doesn't begin and end there, either.

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Honestly, I think Seth made some good points. I think the message would have been better received coming from someone other than him though.
                                Certainly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X