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

2020-21 Indiana Athletics thread

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

  • We won because we played strong defense and simply out matched them physically. Good to get a win in a game we had to have, but my god this team’s shooting is just atrocious. Painful to watch. In typical IU fashion, we were abysmal from 3 and the foul line. They’ll be going home Thursday if they bring another shooting performance like that (which is likely unfortunately).

    Thankfully we took it inside more in the second half. Much better to give it to TJD a bunch instead of watching X have some garbage missed layup or watching one of our “shooters” brick it. This is why I could never criticize TJD at any point of the year. He’s surrounded by junk shooters. Imagine how great he could be if defenses actually had to respect our shooters.

    Geronimo was HUGE.

    What sucks is that they play hard and have really good defense. If our offense was average or even slightly below average, we would be a team to watch out for in the tournament. Unfortunately, our shooting is just such abysmal trash that I’m afraId this run will end pretty quick unless we catch some major fire.

    I think this game showed that we got what we deserved with the play in. It’s not like we blew Wyoming out. We are an inconsistent team that had a disappointing conference season and is total trash at shooting the ball. We didn’t deserve anything more than the play in.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-16-2022, 09:52 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I'm hearing IU's early departure for Portland was delayed 3 hours due to plane issues. Anyone heard the same?
      Yeah - saw an article earlier about that.

      Shouldn't be a big deal. These are kids. Flashback to when you were 18-19 years old. You could play all day, grab a few hours sleep - play all day again. Feeble excuse if they use it for some reason.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bball View Post
        Let's talk about TJD...
        What happened that he went from a first half offensive player to a full game offensive player? Regardless of the game he was having you could almost always count on him disappearing or at least faltering in the 2nd half. Especially in crunch time. But all of a sudden... no more.
        He's a player that gets all his points at the rim, and his percentages were deceptive because he might not miss in the first half, and falter in the second half. But now, no more. He's hitting as well early as late.
        He's also hitting his FT's at a decent clip. I wouldn't want to foul TJD at the end of a game.

        The one thing that seems like it might be exploitable is when he makes up his mind to back down his defender in the post, he's susceptible to a double coming down and digging the ball out. That strategy doesn't tend to get the ball out of his hand with a pass. He's been pretty good hanging onto the ball and finishing the play though. The exploitable part is whoever drops down to double can probably commit more fully to the double and digging the ball out. I don't think you have to worry much about the player you're coming off of on the 3 point line. One, TJD would have to pass it back there, which is not all that likely once he's committed to backing his defender down... and two, until IU proves they can hit 3's TJD is by far the larger threat.

        In fact, I started wondering if teams were more apt to let TJD get his in the first half to make sure IU didn't get it going from outside early. Figuring as poor as they are from outside, if they can make sure they start the game cold, their mental state (and offensive adjustments) will make sure they finish cold. But that would be a lot of games to go back and watch and see if teams were less likely to double TJD in the first half compared to the 2nd half during the BT season. And regardless, these last few games, they are definitely doubling him both halves and he's making them pay. The 'new' (recent history) outlier would be the MI game where he had a poor first half, and flipped the script and was strong in the 2nd half.

        This is probably one of the more impressive runs for an IU player in recent history, fully living up to his billing, and doing it on both ends.
        The run he's on right now has never been done in NCAA history from an output + efficiency standpoint


        Comment


        • It was ugly but people always tell me teams that win in March can play defense and have at least one guy they can play through in tight games. IU has that. St Mary's is scary but if I were them as a 5 seed I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about this draw especially because they play a very slow pace and are a bit of an offensively challenged team.

          Woodson's advanced stats about his offense are promising also as IU produces good shots in almost all metrics, a lot of the guys just can't hit them.


          Comment


          • Never forget Jimmy V - survive and advance.

            They don't care how - they just care who.

            Comment


            • My word... some IU fans on social media don't seem to understand that listening to a national broadcast isn't the same as listening to Don Fischer call the game. The days of Chuck Marlow and Laz or Kitchel calling the games on channel 4 are long gone. These are not IU announcers... nor IU broadcasts... they are 'game' announcers. They just might be critical of bad play on either team... or maybe aren't 100% dialed in to every last player on IU's team. And when you're in a down season, and not a top 10 team, it's not like they are likely seeing IU on TV or highlights all that much. Heck, for a top 10 team, if you follow college basketball at all, you can't avoid seeing a top 10 team at least a little bit.

              I thought the announcers were embarrassing themselves on the one out of bounds play where they completely missed the ball off the Wyoming player's foot. They did know to look for whether it hit X's heel or not, but totally missed it was kicked by the Wyoming player in the first place. So they were lost in wondering if he'd actually hit the ball, and then whether if he had, did it then go off of X's heel. They ultimately decided it did not, but stayed lost on whether anything showed the Wyoming player hitting it.

              Yet it was RIGHT there... he kicked it. One replay showed it perfectly and showed it didn't hit X's heel. But that is not even the replay they kept looking at. Although, in their defense, a producer should've been in their ear pointing out the kick.

              The refs got it right and even told the announcing team. So no harm done... And it certainly wasn't any anti-IU bias on the part of the announcers. Just a clear example of not exactly the A team on the game.
              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


              • Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                It was ugly but people always tell me teams that win in March can play defense and have at least one guy they can play through in tight games. IU has that. St Mary's is scary but if I were them as a 5 seed I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about this draw especially because they play a very slow pace and are a bit of an offensively challenged team.

                Woodson's advanced stats about his offense are promising also as IU produces good shots in almost all metrics, a lot of the guys just can't hit them.
                Yeah, I honestly know nothing of St. Mary's other than they beat Gonzaga, play deliberate and slow, and can be questioned about overall conference strength. Just the fact that they are slow paced/relatively low scoring by itself would seem to play into our hands. Hope so. Heck, maybe even one of Kopp or Stewart even make a couple threes. That's literally all it would take. Each of them hitting a couple, along with maybe another three plus energy put backs from Geronimo, TJD and Thompson inside, X breaking down the D, etc.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

                  Yeah, I honestly know nothing of St. Mary's other than they beat Gonzaga, play deliberate and slow, and can be questioned about overall conference strength. Just the fact that they are slow paced/relatively low scoring by itself would seem to play into our hands. Hope so. Heck, maybe even one of Kopp or Stewart even make a couple threes. That's literally all it would take. Each of them hitting a couple, along with maybe another three plus energy put backs from Geronimo, TJD and Thompson inside, X breaking down the D, etc.
                  IU is now 10-3 on the season I believe with the roster at full strength and I think all of our notable wins came at full strength as well. We're definitely not a tradiitonal 12 seed from a talent standpoint.


                  Comment


                  • I gotta see some shooting before I get my hopes up about our chances. We had to grind it out against a team that had 17 turnovers because we are so awful at shooting the ball - and that’s with TJD having a near perfect game.

                    If we play a team that starts getting hot from 3, it’s over.

                    Hopefully we go straight to TJD instead of seeing a bunch of junk from X.

                    I just can’t get excited about a team that has so many abysmal games from 3 and the foul line, but let’s see what happens. Hopefully I have to eat some crow tonight.

                    Comment


                    • There is sub-section of fans, that are such homers, that they don't realize a national broadcast is not the same as listening to their local HS team's radio team call a game.
                      Let alone, that the announcers, or broadcast hosts, will sometimes analyze the matchup and pick who they think has an advantage or will win. ...And that is NOT biased announcers.
                      Geez this crap bugs me.
                      And then they won't let it go.
                      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


                      • Anyone think IU has a comeback in them?
                        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


                        • Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Anyone think IU has a comeback in them?
                          Nah, IU is the type of team that teams have comebacks against...:not the other way around. You have to shoot to have a comeback and IU cannot do that.

                          Comment


                          • People were complaining about Michigan being seeded over IU. The committee got it right- Michigan is better than IU. A couple of Big 10 tourney games (which no one cares at all about unless you win the entire thing) doesn’t change it.

                            Comment


                            • We are light years away from being any sort of respectable NCAA contender.

                              The Wyoming game was telling. Wyoming mostly sucked - a sloppy turnover prone team.....yet we still had to grind it out to get an 8 point win against them, and needed a perfect game form TJD to do it.

                              This team is truly one of the worst offensive teams I’ve seen at any level of basketball. Downright awful.

                              Comment


                              • Woodson's use of the bench, all season long, has been terrible (IMO). No rhyme or reason to who would play and how long, nor any consistency developed with rotations and roles. No player could possibly know who he'd be coming in for, and when, nor could a player have any idea about when he'd be coming out. Nor the incoming player know what role they'd be stepping into.

                                With Galloway and Phinisee's injuries, there was some opportunity to go a little deeper and get some players some extra experience and maybe find some depth. But that didn't happen.

                                Bates disappeared down the bench. Leal was relegated to cheerleader status. And Lander right there with him. Then Durr got some spot minutes. But with a sporadic role. Bates all of a sudden got some minutes after being bench fodder for weeks. But again, sporadic mins.

                                Geronimo probably ended up with the most consistent role and mins, but even his role and time off the bench changed and changed again this season.

                                What I'm wondering about, was this 3 game BTT run, and finally making the NCAA enough to overcome the losing streak, and now this blowout first round loss? Because I can see some use of the transfer portal as being a serious consideration for players who either want consistent minutes... consistent roles... or a better chance to make, and advance, in the NCAA.
                                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