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:
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

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

NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

    NBC, CBS fighting over Tim Tebow vs. Tom Brady

    Minnesota's Brandon Burton tackles Broncos QB Tim Tebow​ in the first half. More photos from the Broncos vs. Vikings game Sunday. (Charlie Neibergall, The Associated Press)Only the power of Tebow can cause such a commotion.

    The NFL and NBC-TV are not expected to announce tonight that they will flex the Broncos-New England Patriots' game to primetime on Sunday night, Dec. 18.

    There's still a possibility there will be a "flex" announcement Wednesday morning. Ordinarily, NBC and the NFL announce their "flexed" game two Mondays before, or 13 days in advance so the involved teams can properly adjust their schedules.

    The Broncos-New England Patriots' game scheduled for a week from Sunday at Sports Authority Field at Mile High is a no-brainer choice to be "flexed" to NBC's Sunday Night Football and kick off at 6:20 p.m.

    Problem is, the game was initially scheduled to be shown on CBS

    with kickoff at 2:15 p.m. The 4 hour difference can be everything when Broncos' quarterback Tim Tebow is the prize.

    CBS, apparently, is not letting the game go easily. The network is considered the "AFC network," yet it was not been able to capitalize on telecasting a Tebow-led Bronco comeback last Sunday against the Minnesota Vikings when the Fox network was handed the game because of an NBC flex game that broadcast the New Orleans-Detroit game.

    Now NBC would like to flex their Dec. 18 primetime game to the Tom Brady​-Tebow matchup, which figures to be a ratings bonanza.

    From a competitive standpoint, both the Broncos and New England would have some concern about playing on Sunday night because both play the next week on Saturday, Christmas Eve. The Patriots, especially would have concerns because of what would be a long, redeye flight back to Boston following the game.

    Without the flex, NBC will broadcast a game between the 9-3 Baltimore Ravens and 5-7 San Diego Chargers. Not bad, but not Brady and Tebow.

  • #2
    Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

    no change:

    The story behind the NFL's decision to keep the Dec. 18 Patriots-Broncos game on CBS at 4:15 p.m. ET is fascinating from this perspective.

    I'm not sure how much interest there is from Patriots followers other than the bottom-line decision -- it was either 4:15 p.m. on CBS or 8:20 p.m. on NBC -- but for those who might share my line of thinking, here are some of the interesting points from here:

    1. Robert Kraft's role in the process. Would the chairman of the NFL's Broadcasting Committee really use his influence to keep the game on CBS because it is what the Patriots prefer? This is what some are suggesting, pointing out that Kraft and CBS have a business relationship (the CBS Scene restaurant is at Patriot Place). That could be the case, but I look at things differently. Maybe I'm naive, but I believe if the networks were switched and the same factors were in play, the same decision would be made because it was deemed as being most fair from a league perspective. A key consideration had to be that CBS released last week's Broncos-Vikings game to Fox when NBC's flex scheduling took Lions-Saints away from Fox. If that doesn't happen, and CBS wouldn't have had just one Tim Tebow/Broncos game over a five-week stretch (Week 11-15), I think Patriots-Broncos gets flexed to prime-time and there is no delay in the announcement.

    2. NBC's point of view. As pointed out by Chad Finn of the Boston Globe, "NBC pays $650 million per year to air 18 NFL games, an extraordinary expenditure compared to the $622.5 million CBS pays for 102 AFC games." Given that financial commitment, one would think NBC is fuming at this decision. It would be understandable, as part of the reason it paid $650 million is the value of the flex toward the end of the season to ensure compelling matchups (they don't want to be stuck with Jaguars-Chargers or Rams-Seahawks, like the ESPN back-to-back slate last week and this week). That "flex" has been stripped away in this case. At the same time, while Patriots-Broncos figures to produce big ratings, I still think Chargers-Ravens has potential to be a better game.

    3. When do games have to be protected? As part of flexible scheduling, CBS and Fox have the right to protect one game per week from being flexed to NBC. For Week 15, CBS chose Eagles-Jets over Patriots-Broncos. The decision to protect games must be made at some point before the Week 10 flexing period begins. If CBS had up until Week 10 to protect Patriots-Broncos and didn't, one could say the network has only itself to blame. If that decision had to be made well before the Week 10 flexing period began, perhaps it exposed a flaw in the system. It wouldn't seem fair that NBC could choose a game two weeks in advance, but CBS and Fox would have to protect a game much earlier than that. The feeling here is that should be changed.

    Seems like CBS successfully argued it was unfair to have to give up the highest rated Sunday afternoon game last weekend to Fox to compensate Fox for losing a game to NBC, then lose what figures to be the highest rated Sunday afternoon game week-after-next to NBC.

    I see their point, but it also seems up to NBC, by contract.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


    • #3
      Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

      This Tebow lovefest is ridiculous.


      • #4
        Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        no change:

        Seems like CBS successfully argued it was unfair to have to give up the highest rated Sunday afternoon game last weekend to Fox to compensate Fox for losing a game to NBC, then lose what figures to be the highest rated Sunday afternoon game week-after-next to NBC.

        I see their point, but it also seems up to NBC, by contract.

        Kraft wanted it at that time rather than Sunday Night or so I hear. Doesn't he have a stake in CBS?


        • #5
          Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

          CBS has a restaurant / entertainment complex at Gillette Stadium, so in a sense they are business partners. Kraft is also the chair of NFL's Broadcasting Committee.

          Certainly the rules and compensation for flexing needs to be better defined. It sounds like they are making it up as they go along, which is very odd.

          Originally posted by shade
          This Tebow lovefest is ridiculous.
          Yes, it is. I was sure to see the game anyway, since I live in Florida (otherwise known as the Republic of East Tebownia). Weeks ago they started carrying Broncos games here, and they get better ratings than Dolphins games, even though the Dolphins started playing well.

          I can't imagine how much worse it is in Colorado (otherwise known as the Republic of West Tebownia )
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 12-09-2011, 05:05 PM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


          • #6
            Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

            I would argue the Tebow mania is good for the league. Notice how the Raiders playing a guy that supposedly pointed a gun at someone's head barely got talked about? Imagine if an NBA guy had done that. He would be piled on big time.

            Except for the people that just don't want to see Tebow or the Broncos win, how is this bad for the game?


            • #7
              Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

              I actually respect Tebow a lot and believe he is 100% genuine /sincere in his actions, and also like to watch him play. The level of following is a little extreme though, at least the degree to which people attribute team success solely to him. The hate backlash is extreme too.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


              • #8
                Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

                Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                I would argue the Tebow mania is good for the league. Notice how the Raiders playing a guy that supposedly pointed a gun at someone's head barely got talked about? Imagine if an NBA guy had done that. He would be piled on big time.

                Except for the people that just don't want to see Tebow or the Broncos win, how is this bad for the game?

                If he was a high profiled player sure but this was a no name in the NFL not many people know who Ronaldo McClain is.

                NBA stars are easily seen they're the only ones that don't wear any helmet/hat when they play more open to criticism for a lot of things.


                • #9
                  Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  If he was a high profiled player sure but this was a no name in the NFL not many people know who Ronaldo McClain is.

                  NBA stars are easily seen they're the only ones that don't wear any helmet/hat when they play more open to criticism for a lot of things.
                  I agree to an extent, but even Suh will get off easier than an NBA guy that did the same things. /The general public that actually states an opinion about the NBA always paints it more negative than the NFL because odf the "thugs" when in reality the balance is at least even.


                  • #10
                    Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

                    I know Tebow is the hot thing right now, but I have to give a lot of credit to their defense for their winning ways recently.


                    • #11
                      Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

                      Sometimes I forget he's on the Broncos. They should be called the Tebows


                      • #12
                        Re: NBC, CBS fighting over Pats/Broncos game

                        Peter King summed up the decision thoroughly today:

                        Last week, the NFL raised a ruckus (certainly at the network where I work, NBC) by keeping the Baltimore-San Diego as the Week 15 Sunday night game on NBC, and keeping New England-Denver as a CBS Sunday afternoon game. Let me explain first why the league did that, then I'll tell you a few things about the gymnastics of which games go where.

                        When the flex schedule was established by the league for NBC's Sunday night package, it was done primarily to keep bad games (like some of the Monday-night clunkers we've seen) off of national TV on Sunday night. NBC paid for the right to flex out of a bad game. (More about why ESPN can't in a moment.) Flexing also gave teams rising from mediocrity (Detroit, for instance, eight days ago) the chance to play their way onto the Sunday night stage. And this is what NBC had hoped would happen when the league decided whether to keep the Ravens-Chargers as the Sunday night game or, as NBC wanted badly, to move the Patriots-Broncos, with the great Tebow story, to the night game, with Baltimore-San Diego moving to an afternoon start in San Diego.

                        NBC had a couple of good arguments. Denver had played its way into prime time, and Denver owner Pat Bowlen, a member of the NFL's Broadcast Committee, agreed. He wanted the game in prime time. New England is a big ratings attraction for NBC, and when the league flexed out of the New England-Indianapolis game a few weeks ago (understandably, obviously), NBC lost one of its two New England availabilities. Also, putting the game on CBS would mean it wouldn't be a national game. The New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Phoenix CBS affiliates will show their local teams' games and not Tebow-Brady. CBS, on the other hand, wanted to keep the game because of the Tebow factor and made its case to keep the game. And the case was a pretty good one: The Baltimore-San Diego game matched one team, following the Chargers' Monday night win at Jacksonville, that would enter the game one or two games out of the division lead, San Diego, against a team, Baltimore, likely to be tied for its division lead, in a dogfight with Pittsburgh. It didn't rise to the level of needing to take an A game to replace a B-plus game.

                        I can tell you this: The NFL would have moved Denver-New England to prime time if Jacksonville beat San Diego last Monday. There was still some internal debate to be had when San Diego won the game, but the NFL decided it couldn't justify taking the game from CBS.

                        Flex scheduling was designed with this primary objective -- to avoid a dog game. Baltimore-San Diego's not a dog at all. It's not Tebowmania, but those are the breaks.

                        Now, in the aftermath of the decision, it's been assumed that one of the league's powerful owners, Robert Kraft of the Patriots, had a major hand in keeping the game in the afternoon. An afternoon game in Mountain Time means the Patriots would get back to New England at about 2 a.m. If the game had been moved, their charter would return at about 6 a.m. Monday. With a Saturday afternoon game looming the following weekend, obviously the Patriots' preference would have been to play in the afternoon. I'm told two things reliably: Yes, Kraft did tell the league he wanted the game kept in the afternoon. No, Kraft did not strongarm the league in any way about it. "Categorically not,'' said a league source. "It's baloney. Whoever says that doesn't know what he's talking about.''

                        A few other network tidbits:

                        • ESPN flex. Many of you have emailed and Tweeted to ask why ESPN doesn't have the same kind of flex schedule. Answer: It's just impractical. It's one thing to move a game back four or seven hours to Sunday night. It's another to move a game, 12 days prior to it, 31 hours back. The hotels, the airplanes, the plans, the fans (inconvenienced enough by the movement from day to night and vice versa) ... It's just too much.

                        • Rulers. Who makes the final call on the Sunday night flex? NFL broadcast czar Howard Katz and commissioner Roger Goodell.

                        • Protected game. In early October, FOX and CBS must designate five games in the first six weeks of flex scheduling (and no more than one per network per week) that cannot be flexed to NBC. The Denver-New England game was not protected by CBS; the Jets-Eagles game that weekend was.

                        • Balancing act. There are 43 prime-time games per season -- 17 on ESPN, 18 on NBC and eight on NFL Network. The NFL cannot take more than 23 games per season away from either network. (CBS has AFC games and FOX the NFC games. In interconference games, most often, the road team dictates the network.)

                        • Long-term balancing act. This is year six of the eight-year contract with the networks. By the end of year eight, CBS and FOX must be nearly identical in the number of games they lose to prime time. I'm told it's pretty close to even right now so that shouldn't be a major factor in which games are shown in prime time in the next two seasons.

                        • Week 17. No network has the right to dictate time, and NBC is told which game will be on Sunday night. The NFL plots it to try to have a win-and-you're-in game as the last game of the year -- unless extenuating circumstances pop up. The Packers going for 16-0, for example; that might play a part in the league's decision
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).