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

Indiana University Athletics Thread 2017-2018

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

  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post

    I hear stuff like this all the time, and it always bugs me. Getting a 5 star recruit in your program is NEVER a bad thing. For years, all we heard was that top recruits in this state had no interest in IU anymore because the program isn't elite. Langford picked IU over Kansas, UCLA, UK, UNC and Louisville. It says something that IU can still win recruiting battles with those programs despite being far less successful recently.


    Noah Vonleh and Cody Zeller were horribly utilized, neither one of them improved any aspect of their game while they were here, and Vonleh didn't even get to play in a postseason game, but that didn't matter to Thomas Bryant. Kids don't care about previous teams or players, they care about their team and what they think they can do.
    Those are good points.

    Still just not a good look for a program when you get a player as hyped as Langford and miss the tournament.

    Leave a comment:


  • hoosierguy
    replied
    If anything IUís fanbase is excessively patient. UK fans would have burnt down Lexington if they had to endure what IU fans have gone through the last twenty five years.

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckSwagger
    replied
    Another thing I'm getting sick of hearing is that the fanbase is a detriment to this program. The fans aren't the reason Mike Davis was hired, or that Kelvin Sampson broke rules, or that we had Tom Crean well past his expiration date. The fans are fed up with having a basketball program that's been criminally mismanaged for two decades.


    And no, recruits aren't going to think twice about coming here because of what some knucklehead said on Twitter. UK has a coach who's brought them a banner, four Final Fours and never has any trouble landing elite recruits, yet there were fans calling for him to be fired after they lost to Seton Hall. As bad as you may think the IU fanbase is, I guarantee UK is 1,000 times worse when it comes to fan behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckSwagger
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

    You could almost say that getting Langford has been a bad thing because itís made IU look bad for future recruits. Do you really want to go to IU when they couldnít even figure a way out to win with Langford?
    I hear stuff like this all the time, and it always bugs me. Getting a 5 star recruit in your program is NEVER a bad thing. For years, all we heard was that top recruits in this state had no interest in IU anymore because the program isn't elite. Langford picked IU over Kansas, UCLA, UK, UNC and Louisville. It says something that IU can still win recruiting battles with those programs despite being far less successful recently.


    Noah Vonleh and Cody Zeller were horribly utilized, neither one of them improved any aspect of their game while they were here, and Vonleh didn't even get to play in a postseason game, but that didn't matter to Thomas Bryant. Kids don't care about previous teams or players, they care about their team and what they think they can do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    First off, let me just say that I was not a huge fan of the Archie hiring. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it, either. I felt like we really needed to swing for the fences following Crean. I will also add that I swore not to criticize Archie much until Year 3, when he had mostly his guys on the roster. That said...some of the performances of the last couple of the years are the worst I've seen in my 33 years as a fan. Getting blown out at home by Fort Wayne last season was a big red flag, but the most disappointing thing about this season is that they have put up ZERO fight during the conference schedule. Getting blown out is the norm now, even by bad teams. They just look like they don't care, don't have any confidence, don't have any pride. And that falls squarely on the coach.

    I knew we weren't as good as we showed against Marquette, but we shouldn't be this bad, either.
    Yeah, the lack of fire is the most damning thing. These guys get beaten down easy. As soon as Rutgers made a run to close out the first half, you could tell IU looked totally defeated. They just donít have any fight in them.

    The Big 10 is a dogfight that wears teams down. You have to get right back up after getting punched in the mouth or youíre dead in the water. Instead of battling to scratch out of this streak, it just seems to get worse and worse. Losing to Rutgers is a low point.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-31-2019, 04:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shade
    replied
    First off, let me just say that I was not a huge fan of the Archie hiring. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it, either. I felt like we really needed to swing for the fences following Crean. I will also add that I swore not to criticize Archie much until Year 3, when he had mostly his guys on the roster. That said...some of the performances of the last couple of the years are the worst I've seen in my 33 years as a fan. Getting blown out at home by Fort Wayne last season was a big red flag, but the most disappointing thing about this season is that they have put up ZERO fight during the conference schedule. Getting blown out is the norm now, even by bad teams. They just look like they don't care, don't have any confidence, don't have any pride. And that falls squarely on the coach.

    I knew we weren't as good as we showed against Marquette, but we shouldn't be this bad, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post

    Thank you for this insightful contribution. Much appreciated.
    I mean isn't he saying what we're all thinking lol

    Leave a comment:


  • hoosierguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Holy ****, I know it's only year 2 but...
    Thank you for this insightful contribution. Much appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • hoosierguy
    replied
    IU needs to hire a PROVEN high major coach, but that would require big bucks and a willingness by the BOT to cede some influence and power. Davis was an overmatched assistant, Crean was a yes man who never rocked the boat, and Archie only had mid-major head coaching experience. The one time IU hired a proven head coach, he turned the program around almost immediately. But he recruited the wrong types of players apparently and people in the athletics department worked hard to find a way to get rid of him. Funny how other schools had no problem snatching up Sampsonís players and recruits.
    Last edited by hoosierguy; 01-31-2019, 02:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

    I agree with most of your Crean criticisms and am certainly no big Crean fan. That being said, I donít see how you can say that Archie is better than Crean. Nothing we have seen so far backs that up. By all measures, Archie has been way worse. So far, Archie is making Crean look like Roy Williams. The season has just been a total disaster. While Crean didnít leave the program in great shape, the roster isnít so bad that you should lose 8 straight Big Tens (obviously Iím already penciling in MSU as a loss).

    Archie deserves credit for getting Langford, but getting the big Indiana kids means nothing if you canít even make the tournament with them. You could almost say that getting Langford has been a bad thing because itís made IU look bad for future recruits. Do you really want to go to IU when they couldnít even figure a way out to win with Langford?

    Every game is lost because we give up BRUTAL runs to the other team that we canít overcome. Most of the time itís to start the game. Last night was almost even worse because we had a nice lead in the first half. Instead of opening it up and putting a chokehold on the game, we allowed them a huge run at the end of the first half that gave them confidence and got their crowd into it. Even worse, we seemed to lose all of our confidence. The coach deserves blame when it happens every game.

    Weíve bad a horrible month and couldnít even save face against freaking Rutgers. Just beyond pitiful.

    I agree that we might as well give Archie a chance for a couple of more years. If the past has taught us anything, itís that the next guy ultimately isnít able to do much more than the previous guy. If we canned Archie, the next coach would likely be overmatched by the curse that is the IU program. Iím not superstitious, but if I was I would absolutely believe there was a hex on this program. Virtually everything it touches over the last 25 years turns to disappointment and pure agony. To put it bluntly, this program sucks and has overall sucked for a while.

    Meanwhile, Louisville gets totally humiliated with hookers, losing a championship banner, the Bowen scandal, and Pitino getting fired......yet their program IMMMEDIATELY finds a good coach and just keeps winning. IU OTOH has had 20 years of ďĒwell, just give this coach a couple years and it will be fine.ĒĒ Itís just a never ending cycle of pure hell.
    For the record, I think Kelvin Sampson was and is a very good coach. He would have been wildly successful here if he had just avoided breaking a rule that basically doesn't even matter anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    I'll put it like this. Look at our schedule, there is a VERY REAL chance, Archie's conference record in year 2 is the EXACT SAME as Crean's conference record in year 2 and that is insane. Crean did not leave the program in nearly the same shape he found it in. Archie is failign with two guys who were all preseason everything on the roster. Whether Romeo has lived up to the hype or not, I don't know, but the way we run our offense is certainly not ****ing helping him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    Crean HAD to go. He was a bad ingame coach who had been exposed and his recruiting was headed south. The ONLY way he could win was stack the team so Indiana could out talent the other team. But that at best was just a recipe to lose in the tournament once the talent advantage was neutralized because Crean had little chance in outcoaching anyone of note.

    Archie is better than Crean. Crean left the program in a pretty bad place. Of course if Crean was better he wouldn't have been fired and there would've been a better and more balanced team here last season. Injuries and still playing thru Crean's players are the problem this season.
    Season 3 and 4 will be more telling for Archie as a coach.

    Actually, a big part of the problem is Crean was kept too long once it was obvious he wasn't good enough to hang with upper echelon coaches. Once that happened, the recruiting took a hit. He couldn't coach bigs. He was in love with 3's. Indiana HS coaches were against him. He was inconsistent because he had to stack the team with talent to win. Couldn't do that consistently. And average talent stood no chance with poor coaching.

    Archie didn't take over a program that was in great shape with players. He didn't take over situation where he was expected to further the existing system as a baseline. He was hired to install a new system and do things consistently. He basically has started from scratch in that regard.
    Crean didn't leave the program in a bad place. He left the program a year removed from an outright big ten title. I wantedhim fired and and I get why we did it, but the writing should have been on the wall when we saw what we paid Archie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    For the last 25 years, quite a few programs, both in our conference and all over the country, have upped the ante with coaching, recruits, facilities, etc. There are a hell of a lot of competitive basketball programs out there right now.

    Meanwhile, IU has had far more go wrong than right in those years. So we are where we are.
    I wanted to like Archie, but the reality was the proof was in the pudding when we saw what we paid him. Glass would rather spend another $50 million on our pathetic for decades football program than go out and pay the type of coach a program like IU needed to take the next step. Archie was putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a day. It's absolutely wild he was deemed better than Crean when you really take a step back and consider the resumes without the gleam of the "Hey I'm really tired of Crean and really happy to have a new coach!" which we were all pretty much guilty of.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    Originally posted by LuckSwagger View Post

    Crean should have been fired in 2015. THAT was the mistake.
    Yeah and this is why I land back on Glass again. If you were going to fire Crean that was the moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trader Joe
    replied
    We have to accept that this program is dead. Crean was at least good enough to deliver a Big Ten championship every few years and a team that could maybe make the final four. That's pretty good all things considered. Firing him looks like a huge mistake or at least the hiring of Archie has made it that. Crean was a horrid in game coach, but so is Archie and Archie looks far worse when it comes to actually establishing any sort of system. The fact this team is so bad with this amount of talent is absolutely nausea inducing. Archie is lucky that next year's class is so full of committed talent, but man if I was those guys I would certainly have to wonder what the hell I'm getting myself into.

    I know Glass is a fundraising dynamo so he will probably never go anywhere, but I think his head should be on the chopping block.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X