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

Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

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

  • #61
    Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

    I agree with Jeff Sagarin's computer and it said JO wasn't that important as a player for the Pacers. This is BEFORE his max contract and part of the info the FO received before offering it to him.

    McKey Fan's JO quote is an excellent statement. In and of itself those are wonderful words. But JO never had trouble speaking in public. In fact if his words counted for anything he'd be finishing a HoF career and the Pacers would be counting banners in the Fieldhouse.

    Now maybe he's learned in all his collective years in the NBA that he wasn't the player he thought he was and if he'd been able to listen to his coaches and accept the roles they had for him more willingly, to have been a better teammate, then his actual legacy could've been so much more. But that would be a lesson learned too little and too late for Pacer fans.

    Portland felt they could give up on him and trade him for a reason. Every team makes mistakes but I doubt in retrospect Portland thinks their initial trade thoughts weren't the correct ones all along.

    I had always hoped there would be a lightbulb moment for JO where it would all click but there never was. If that lightbulb has finally illuminated now.... more power to him. But for the Pacers that ship has sailed. And unfortunately it has sailed for JO as well.
    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


    • #62
      Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

      I get awfully tired of the short shrift JO gets around here. All that guy gave this team was the best he could ever do and he gets **** on daily here for it. He had a big contract I get it. All that reflects is the market at the time that he received it, nothing more. If anyone here thinks it's ok to bash someone for not living up to YOUR expectations regardless of the reason, then I feel very sorry for you.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

        Originally posted by travmil View Post
        I get awfully tired of the short shrift JO gets around here. All that guy gave this team was the best he could ever do and he gets **** on daily here for it. He had a big contract I get it. All that reflects is the market at the time that he received it, nothing more. If anyone here thinks it's ok to bash someone for not living up to YOUR expectations regardless of the reason, then I feel very sorry for you.
        You don't get an A for effort in the NBA. Just because you try hard, doesn't mean people shouldn't look at your performance and gauge it honestly.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
          You don't get an A for effort in the NBA. Just because you try hard, doesn't mean people shouldn't look at your performance and gauge it honestly.
          This response has nothing to do with what I wrote. What I'm saying is that people should at the very least RESPECT O'Neal around here. That doesn't mean I think everyone should kiss his feet. He might not have brought the team a title, but it wasn't because he didn't want to or try as hard as he could to make it happen. You should at least respect a man who gives it his all every night for you. I sat at a forum party several years back and listened to a frequent poster here call JO a pussy. A Pussy? Are you serious? You can be disappointed if you wish, but the bashing he takes in these parts is bush league.
          Last edited by travmil; 09-08-2012, 05:17 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

            Originally posted by travmil View Post
            This response has nothing to do with what I wrote. What I'm saying is that people should at the very least RESPECT O'Neal around here. He might not have brought the team a title, but it wasn't because he didn't want to or try as hard as he could to make it happen. You should at least respect a man who gives it his all every night for you. I sat at a forum party several years back and listened to a frequent poster here call JO a pussy. A Pussy? Are you serious? You can be disappointed if you wish, but the bashing he takes in these parts is bush league.
            Thats not how I would describe it, but its hard to deny that after 04 he was extremely hesitant to play in the paint as much as the Pacers needed him to. Just because you like a player doesn't mean you ignore their faults. And lets be honest, JO had alot of faults in his time here. Frequent injuries, lack of leadership capabilities, lackluster offense. All this coupled with the fact that his best year happened to be a contract year.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

              Again, I'm not saying he didn't have faults or that you can't be honest about his game and his abilities. But he also doesn't deserve the blatant disrespect he gets here. That's my point.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                Being honest about him isn't being disrespectful. And the vast majority of people I have seen, are just voicing their honest opinions of him. Ron gets alot more disrespect and thats sorta unfair because hes crazy and can't help it.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                  I agree with the notion that JO said all the right things. He was a leader in regards to talking to the press. But many times what he did, contradicted what he said. When his touches went down (it was a Boston game that he screamed at Carisle), he was clearly not amused.

                  I understand that he is not the devil. But he is hardly McGinnis, Daniels, Brown, and Reggie Miller. I know that if the brawl never happened I would never cringe at BLF when a fan wears the number 7. But it did happen, on JO's team. Whether it was beyond his power or not, it reflects him. It reflects on Walsh. It reflects on Bird. It reflects on the Simons. And it reflects on the state of Indiana.

                  He was immature and self-entitled with his actions above all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                    Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                    Being honest about him isn't being disrespectful.
                    Being honest can also be disrespectful.

                    For example, if one honestly thinks the girlfriend of one of his friends is ugly, it would still be disrespectful to say that to his friend or the girlfriend.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                      You don't get an A for effort in the NBA. Just because you try hard, doesn't mean people shouldn't look at your performance and gauge it honestly.
                      Guess we should submit a letter to the NBA to have Reggie pulled from the NBA Hall of Fame. I mean, other than a couple of records that have been broken since he retired, all he ever did was try hard and love this city for his time here.

                      JO isn't Reggie, and I am not trying to equate them. But when it's all said and done, the brawl and a few injuries are what separate the two. Neither brought us a championship. Both brought us their best and a devotion to the team. Travmil is right, JO catches too much crap.
                      It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                        Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                        the brawl and a few injuries are what separate the two.
                        No, the biggest separation is the biggest problem I had with JO. He wasn't clutch. He couldn't win us big games. He was bad in this area. Reggie Miller was one of the greatest, if not the greatest player of all time down the stretch.

                        And although Ronnie was crazy, he was clutch and a true gamer.
                        Last edited by McKeyFan; 09-09-2012, 08:22 AM.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                          I realize it's more brawl, but frankly the footage reminded me of how disappointed I am in the Pacers fanbase in their view of this event after the fact. Hear me out.


                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          I am not surprised. This was assumed anyway. But for him to disclose solidifies my opinion on JO. I never want to see his uniform again. On a fan, but especially in a rafter at the Fieldhouse.
                          And the way Reggie discussed it also defends my somewhat positive view of Jack. Foolishly losing his temper on the court, but a guy that worked hard and wanted to win.

                          And I know people have dug their trenches on the Brawl, but seeing footage again actually reinforces my view that NONE (Ron too) of the Pacers were all that out of line. The dude Ron grabs was pounding his fist for blood as the players fought and was even yelling in that crazed fan mode right up until the second before Ron grabbed for him when you see his face turn from "YEAH!" to "OH S***". Brilliant.

                          And you see the close up footage of the guy throwing a beer point blank in Ron's restrained face followed by Jack giving him a taste of Clint Eastwood/John Wayne justice.

                          It's not that I'm big on violence, but I am big on KARMA and justice. The fans that were actually contacted by a Pacers player were literally asking for it for the most part. Handling it that way put innocent bystanders in danger, but here's the thing - the way Palace security, the refs, Ben Wallace, Rip Hamilton (sucker punch), and Larry Brown were handling it was what put innocent people in danger. That situation would have 100% ended with the Pacers having stuff thrown at them in the tunnel even if Ron never leaves the table.

                          Reggie even explicitly says "if I'd been out there
                          , the vet I am, I would have seen tempers getting high, heard the trash talking at the FT line, and I would have told the coach to pull the starters because it was getting out of hand". Well what's that say about the guys that were on the court - like Sheed, Billups, Rip. What's that say about Larry Brown and his inability to recognize that Ben was losing his cool. If Ron hard fouls Ben and Brown can see the game getting needlessly rough in what is already a loss, why doesn't his vet leadership and coaching brilliance identify that Piston starters needed to be pulled.

                          Reggie is saying he would have noticed the growing issue which implicates everyone out there, as well as the refs (duh) and even both coaches who are free to roam closer to the players (Reg is in the corner on the bench, not half court during play).




                          It sickens me how Pacers fans and the NBA turned on the players in this event. This was virtually the same as the Chicago nuts that jumped onto the field to punch an ump. It's fans taking emotional investment way past the limits. In Conseco if Green throws the cup a cop and usher beat Ron to him, and the fans around him don't jump in trying to fight as well or by throwing things (especially once the player is restrained), and Pistons fans can leave in peace. Maybe in MSA it was different, I was never there when it was. But I've been by the tunnel or close to the court when a LOT of other rivals had emotionally charged playoff games and not once did they have to fear for their life or fear that Pacers fans were about to lose it in the wrong way.

                          Never forget that. And never forget that Vernon Maxwell had pulled a Ron Artest 10 years prior because a fan TALKED personal s*** to him that was over the line...ON THE ROAD, and there was no brawl. Why? Different arena, different fans, different players. No one supported that fan's hateful approach.





                          I took Reggie's comments to be 85% based on "I was sick of dealing with the immaturity of players who cared more about offensive touches than winning". He explicitly says how frustrated he was with Ron and JO and how they were bickering over whose team it was. Some things we definitely know...

                          1) JO and Ron fought (literally is the rumor) about being "the man"

                          2) Harrington complained about his starter status and how Rick used him
                          2b) A game about a week before the GSW trade Al complained so much that Rick had him not come out for the 2nd half

                          3) Tinsley had such an issue with Rick that Carlisle put him on the DNP for half a season and used Kenny Anderson instead

                          4) Jack never lost time or got benched even though he and Rick would go at it during games, and later Rick attended the birth of Jack's child and the two had a long embrace after the game following the GSW trade.


                          From this I see a line of childish players who refused to support a CotY or show any maturity, paired with a vet who's hot-headedness proved to be a fuse for their dynamite. In other words, it wasn't going to work with JO or Ron or Tinsley or Al (or some of the lesser players), and if you put JO and Ron on the 2000 team in place of Rik and McKey you'd have big problems too. Jack could be on a team with good teammates and not have any issues (see Spurs) but I think the petty "MY STATUS" guys could ruin even a well-established team. Maybe not brawl disaster, but definitely they could have turned 1998 into 1997 just by being added. In my opinion of course.

                          This is why I've always been so annoyed with the "Jackson public enemy #1" view. He wasn't. He just had a news item that sounded worse that it was and carried the highest profile, and it paired with his on-court temper. But even if they had kept Al rather than trading for Jackson, that team was screwed. I couldn't resent Ron and JO more at this point.




                          BTW - remember Reggie on TNT talking about the GSW trade when he said something about "there are still problems in that locker room" or something along those lines? We all started wondering if it was Beetlejuice or Fred or whomever.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 09-09-2012, 09:44 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                            I agree with the notion that JO said all the right things. He was a leader in regards to talking to the press. But many times what he did, contradicted what he said. When his touches went down (it was a Boston game that he screamed at Carisle), he was clearly not amused.

                            I understand that he is not the devil. But he is hardly McGinnis, Daniels, Brown, and Reggie Miller. I know that if the brawl never happened I would never cringe at BLF when a fan wears the number 7. But it did happen, on JO's team. Whether it was beyond his power or not, it reflects him. It reflects on Walsh. It reflects on Bird. It reflects on the Simons. And it reflects on the state of Indiana.

                            He was immature and self-entitled with his actions above all.
                            To clarify, I believe JO's issue was the TYPE of touches, not the amount. He was being put in the high post and wanted plays for him run out of the low post. I posted plenty of arguments at the time defending JO slightly and my main case was that JO's FGAs don't change at all after that game. He was getting 15 FGAs (IIRC) and that's where it stayed. What changed was his FTAs I believe, as the low post got him to the FT line more.

                            The issue wasn't that he was strategically wrong, the issue was what is coming to light more and more - he handled things with a prima donna, me-before-team approach often paired with unneeded anger. Rather than make a strategy case to Rick he goes into the office yelling so loud it gets reported because it can be overheard outside the office. Unproductive.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I blame Jack more than Artest. If Jack had pulled him out of the stands the entire thing would have been a 30 game suspension for Artest and that would be it. Yet...I suspect that team was going to implode anyway...so what the hey...
                              As I've said, you can see that Jack is about to do just that. Ron is restrained and just as Jack gets there Mr. Douche just next to them decides to "restrain" Ron with a full beer in his face point blank.

                              And I've always asked what "full beer in your face point blank" is supposed to mean. I don't think it says "hey pal, just calm down for a second and think about this". It says "I'm a punk who really could use a good punch in the face", which he appropriately got. You had very angry drunks who were happy for the chance to mix it up.

                              Also remember that before Ron even left the table Ben's brother had already left the Pistons area and moved a section over in his attempt to get to Ron, and this is how he ends up behind Fred Jones punching him in the head.


                              Ron and the Pacers had righteousness on their side IMO. They weren't the problems and they weren't being protected. No one in that arena gave a crap that the situation was boiling over. On the other hand I 100% agree that being right isn't the same as being smart. They tried to take on a mob and that's just stupid. The smart play would be for Ron to get up and walk right off the court when the cup hit him, pointing to the area as he left. And then the rest of the team should have walked right off with him and put the blame right back where it belonged.


                              They probably would have imploded...but in a great "what if", that adversity might have been just the push that made rivals realize they were on the same team and might have brought them more together. Us vs Them does wonders.



                              I know some people (Peck, Hicks, many others) get tired of it and just want the subject to never come up. But the hard truth is that this is our Buckner, Bucky Dent, selling Ruth to the Yanks, The Fumble (Browns), the Drive (Browns), Bartman, and any other moment that becomes iconically associated with a team plagued with the frustration of coming up just short over decades. The curse of Ruth hung over the Sox EIGHTY years after the deal.

                              The Brawl isn't leaving us in our lifetime unless maybe the Pacers win 3-4 titles in a 7 year span. And even then it will linger for context. It's going to come up in Pacers discussions forever.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Reggie retired because of the immaturity of his teammates

                                I doubt Brown expected to see a melee breakout and for all I know he was leaving his starters in to embarrass them and make it a learning lesson for them so early in the season. Who knows? In hindsight he probably would've done things differently. But then in hindsight who wouldn't have?

                                More importantly, the Indy fanbase didn't turn on the team immediately after the brawl. In fact, they circled the wagons and held out hope for both the immediate future and long term future. Most people were expecting the team to come back the next year focused and ready with a chip on their shoulders. Instead we got the same old immature crap, except now Reggie wasn't there to counter any of it.

                                It's a myth to think there was the brawl and then Indy turned their backs on the Pacers. It's convenient, but wrong. There was the brawl, then there was an inspirational final season for Reggie that included advancing to the 2nd round. Fans were ready to show the NBA the Pacers were taking no prisoners come that next season. And then from the start of the next season, opening game, there were teammates bickering, Artest pouting and wanting a trade, JO complaining, Sjax being Sjax (pass the damn ball), Tinsley who apparently had interest in the nightlife more than being an NBA player, Williams 'hanging out with murders', the absolute EGG that the Pacers laid against the Suns on Reggie's jersey retirement game, etc... and lo and behold fan interest waned. Imagine that.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X