duncan228
04-20-2010, 11:07 AM
Why The Spurs Don't Get More Attention (http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=15998)
By: Bill Ingram
Covering the San Antonio Spurs is one of the most challenging jobs in the NBA. Talk to anyone who's tried to do any kind of in-depth story about the team and they'll tell you the same thing. The Spurs are elusive, evasive, and work hard to make it as difficult as possible to really get to know what's going on with the team. Their players are great using a lot of words to say nothing of interest, and head coach Gregg Popovich, witty as he is, is constantly trying to find some way to outsmart the media. It's not easy to get an interview with their front office guys and even when you do, it's rare to come away with anything of substance. People often ask me why the Spurs, one of the premier organizations of the last decade, don't get much national attention. The answer is simple: they avoid it in every way possible.
This isn't how it is with most teams. There are, generally speaking, two faces on an NBA team. You have the public face - the things their front office staff, coaches and players say to the public at large through the media - and then there is the private side. Very often the inner circle of media is privvy to much of the private side of the organization, but they choose not to talk about it because it might be damaging to the team . . .or it might just not be anyone's business. Besides, if you start airing the private stuff, pretty soon you'll find you're not privvy to it any more. It's background information, but it also helps you to have a deeper understanding of the team. It helps you to truly be an expert on the franchise you're covering.
K.C. Johnson in Chicago recently took some heat because he didn't immediately disclose the now well-publicized hostile encounter between Chicago Bulls president John Paxson and head coach Vinny Del Negro. Maybe that was out of loyalty to Del Negro or Paxson, or maybe he just thought the team's impressive late-season surge was a better story to tell. I happen to think the late-season run was the better story, and applaud Johnson for not airing the dirty laundry. How would Johnson's relationship with Paxson and Del Negro change if he immediately wrote about every little thing he sees between the two of them? Inevitably he would have to take sides, and whichever side he took would alienate him from the other side. In the long term, it might mean K.C. couldn't actually do his job any more.
So let's take that example. Let's say that information didn't become public. How does it benefit Johnson to have that information, but not disclose it publicly? Here's how: He has a perspective about things that is shaped by that knowledge. When he gets asked in his professional world, through blogging, radio, TV, or any of the plethora of ways we interact with the public in this profession, what he thinks about Del Negro's future with the team, he can give a more informed answer. Something like this (my words, not his):
"Vinny did a solid job after rumors of his imminent firing came up in December. He led the team to the playoffs when it seemed they had been written off, and helped them adjust on the fly to significant mid-season roster moves. He may not be the long-term answer for the Bulls, but he's learning as he goes."
See what I did in that answer? I gave Vinny his props - and K.C. would know that Vinny most likely would read or hear his comments - but he didn't commit to a long-term future for Vinny in Chicago. Because of episodes like the one between Del Negro and Paxson, he knows there is tension and he knows there's a pretty good chance that tension will translate into Vinny getting fired, particularly is the organization feels like they need to save face after an embarrassing loss to the Cavaliers in the first round. The knowlege of that poor relationship between coach and front office gives Johnson a more complete understanding of the team and makes him better at his job, even if he never breathes a word of that particular encounter.
I could give a million examples, but that one illustrates the point. There are things we, as journalists, know, but choose not to write about for one reason or another. As part of my daily routine I am told things in confidence by front office executives who only tell me something to help me understand context, and only under the condition that I don't disclose the specifics of a given situation. Those conversations help me to speak more authoritatively about a given team, and ultimately make me better at my job. If I started writing everything I was told, those conversations would stop taking place.
Those conversations just don't happen with the Spurs. I overheard a conversation with some guys who are associated with the team in a way I won't disclose here, and they were talking about how hard it is to even get a player on the record about anything of substance. It's like the Spurs pass out talking points to their players and they recite them on command. They also work to make Tony Parker and Tim Duncan as inaccessible as possible, and when you do get a few minutes with one of them they are anything but insightful.
Compare that to Dirk Nowitzki, for example, who is just as big a star as Duncan and yet always takes time to give well thought-out answers to questions. He's also happy to have a conversation after the microphones are turned off and you just need some private perspective on something. The same can be said of the majority of stars around the NBA. Kobe Bryant, Yao Ming, Chris Paul, Brandon Roy, Carlos Boozer, Steve Nash and many other top tier NBA players understand their relationship with the media to be one of partners, not adversaries - especially with the members of the media they know and trust.
No one really seems to be sure why the Spurs are the way they are, either. I honestly don't believe it to be ego-driven. There is no feeling of self-perceived superiority around the team. Duncan is not an ego maniac, so far as I can tell, nor is Parker, and certainly not Ginobili. Is this some mandate from Popovich, a hangover from his days in the military? Is it a policy set by the front office for some reason, wanting to control (and strangle) the public perception of their team? It's a question that frequently comes up around All-Star, the Finals, or whenever a bunch of media people are all in one place waiting for the next event to unfold. What's wrong with the Spurs?
We may not know the answer to that, but we do know the effect. The effect is the vast majority of the media chooses to talk to and about other teams. It's unfortunate, as the Spurs have been the very definition of elite since Tim Duncan joined David Robinson for the team's first championship in 1999. Assistant coaches like Mike Brown have gone on to be head coaches elsewhere, executives like Sam Presti have left to build their own organizations. The Spurs' organization has spawned some of the best and brightest minds in the NBA today, and yet you hardly hear anything about them outside of San Antonio.
That's the way they like it.
I am frequently asked by die-hard Spurs fans why the national media doesn't talk about them very much. It's viewed as some sort of slight, like the media doesn't respect the Spurs or something like that. The bottom line, however, is that as much as we'd like to talk about them, they really don't want the coverage. In fact, they work to make sure the coverage simply isn't possible - or that the information, the "perspective," as we've discussed, that would make the coverage interesting isn't available.
And so . . .we spend most of our time talking about other, more interesting teams.
By: Bill Ingram
Covering the San Antonio Spurs is one of the most challenging jobs in the NBA. Talk to anyone who's tried to do any kind of in-depth story about the team and they'll tell you the same thing. The Spurs are elusive, evasive, and work hard to make it as difficult as possible to really get to know what's going on with the team. Their players are great using a lot of words to say nothing of interest, and head coach Gregg Popovich, witty as he is, is constantly trying to find some way to outsmart the media. It's not easy to get an interview with their front office guys and even when you do, it's rare to come away with anything of substance. People often ask me why the Spurs, one of the premier organizations of the last decade, don't get much national attention. The answer is simple: they avoid it in every way possible.
This isn't how it is with most teams. There are, generally speaking, two faces on an NBA team. You have the public face - the things their front office staff, coaches and players say to the public at large through the media - and then there is the private side. Very often the inner circle of media is privvy to much of the private side of the organization, but they choose not to talk about it because it might be damaging to the team . . .or it might just not be anyone's business. Besides, if you start airing the private stuff, pretty soon you'll find you're not privvy to it any more. It's background information, but it also helps you to have a deeper understanding of the team. It helps you to truly be an expert on the franchise you're covering.
K.C. Johnson in Chicago recently took some heat because he didn't immediately disclose the now well-publicized hostile encounter between Chicago Bulls president John Paxson and head coach Vinny Del Negro. Maybe that was out of loyalty to Del Negro or Paxson, or maybe he just thought the team's impressive late-season surge was a better story to tell. I happen to think the late-season run was the better story, and applaud Johnson for not airing the dirty laundry. How would Johnson's relationship with Paxson and Del Negro change if he immediately wrote about every little thing he sees between the two of them? Inevitably he would have to take sides, and whichever side he took would alienate him from the other side. In the long term, it might mean K.C. couldn't actually do his job any more.
So let's take that example. Let's say that information didn't become public. How does it benefit Johnson to have that information, but not disclose it publicly? Here's how: He has a perspective about things that is shaped by that knowledge. When he gets asked in his professional world, through blogging, radio, TV, or any of the plethora of ways we interact with the public in this profession, what he thinks about Del Negro's future with the team, he can give a more informed answer. Something like this (my words, not his):
"Vinny did a solid job after rumors of his imminent firing came up in December. He led the team to the playoffs when it seemed they had been written off, and helped them adjust on the fly to significant mid-season roster moves. He may not be the long-term answer for the Bulls, but he's learning as he goes."
See what I did in that answer? I gave Vinny his props - and K.C. would know that Vinny most likely would read or hear his comments - but he didn't commit to a long-term future for Vinny in Chicago. Because of episodes like the one between Del Negro and Paxson, he knows there is tension and he knows there's a pretty good chance that tension will translate into Vinny getting fired, particularly is the organization feels like they need to save face after an embarrassing loss to the Cavaliers in the first round. The knowlege of that poor relationship between coach and front office gives Johnson a more complete understanding of the team and makes him better at his job, even if he never breathes a word of that particular encounter.
I could give a million examples, but that one illustrates the point. There are things we, as journalists, know, but choose not to write about for one reason or another. As part of my daily routine I am told things in confidence by front office executives who only tell me something to help me understand context, and only under the condition that I don't disclose the specifics of a given situation. Those conversations help me to speak more authoritatively about a given team, and ultimately make me better at my job. If I started writing everything I was told, those conversations would stop taking place.
Those conversations just don't happen with the Spurs. I overheard a conversation with some guys who are associated with the team in a way I won't disclose here, and they were talking about how hard it is to even get a player on the record about anything of substance. It's like the Spurs pass out talking points to their players and they recite them on command. They also work to make Tony Parker and Tim Duncan as inaccessible as possible, and when you do get a few minutes with one of them they are anything but insightful.
Compare that to Dirk Nowitzki, for example, who is just as big a star as Duncan and yet always takes time to give well thought-out answers to questions. He's also happy to have a conversation after the microphones are turned off and you just need some private perspective on something. The same can be said of the majority of stars around the NBA. Kobe Bryant, Yao Ming, Chris Paul, Brandon Roy, Carlos Boozer, Steve Nash and many other top tier NBA players understand their relationship with the media to be one of partners, not adversaries - especially with the members of the media they know and trust.
No one really seems to be sure why the Spurs are the way they are, either. I honestly don't believe it to be ego-driven. There is no feeling of self-perceived superiority around the team. Duncan is not an ego maniac, so far as I can tell, nor is Parker, and certainly not Ginobili. Is this some mandate from Popovich, a hangover from his days in the military? Is it a policy set by the front office for some reason, wanting to control (and strangle) the public perception of their team? It's a question that frequently comes up around All-Star, the Finals, or whenever a bunch of media people are all in one place waiting for the next event to unfold. What's wrong with the Spurs?
We may not know the answer to that, but we do know the effect. The effect is the vast majority of the media chooses to talk to and about other teams. It's unfortunate, as the Spurs have been the very definition of elite since Tim Duncan joined David Robinson for the team's first championship in 1999. Assistant coaches like Mike Brown have gone on to be head coaches elsewhere, executives like Sam Presti have left to build their own organizations. The Spurs' organization has spawned some of the best and brightest minds in the NBA today, and yet you hardly hear anything about them outside of San Antonio.
That's the way they like it.
I am frequently asked by die-hard Spurs fans why the national media doesn't talk about them very much. It's viewed as some sort of slight, like the media doesn't respect the Spurs or something like that. The bottom line, however, is that as much as we'd like to talk about them, they really don't want the coverage. In fact, they work to make sure the coverage simply isn't possible - or that the information, the "perspective," as we've discussed, that would make the coverage interesting isn't available.
And so . . .we spend most of our time talking about other, more interesting teams.