ESPN's Knicks lovefest...

[ElNono]

So I'm watching Sportscenter, and they have a Tirico slobbering while having a sit down interview with Melo and Amare... Spurs and Dallas games highlights are right after and this shit never ends. Then when they actually get to the highlights it's like 3 plays from each game and done. About 1/4 of the time of the fucking interview.

What has this Knicks team done? Especially those two mofos? If Chauncey don't bail them out they would have another loss today... smh

[TE]

lol I can't wait to hear all the "why do you care" and "butthurt, insecure" posts many posters here subscript to.

[Obstructed_View]

They had to keep the highlights short to make room for Jeremy Schaap's ten minute segment on jousting.

For those of you that didn't see it, yeah you read that right. Guys on horses with lances claiming to be athletes.

[TE]

Personally I think it's pretty fucking pathetic.


A team with a 49-10 record, 49-10 fucking record, being dismissed like they routinely are. Just when you you think you see everything, you realize you don't.


ESPN is pathetic. Just like every basketball analyst not named Bruce Bowen who is employed by ESPN.

[j.dizzle]

Do you know anything about business? The Knicks are probably the biggest market out there & actually have superstars on their team now. Sorry to break it to you but not many ppl tune into sportscenter to watch highlights of the Spurs. The Clippers probably get more airtime then SA & Dallas haha.

[Darrin]

So I'm watching Sportscenter, and they have a Tirico slobbering while having a sit down interview with Melo and Amare... Spurs and Dallas games highlights are right after and this shit never ends. Then when they actually get to the highlights it's like 3 plays from each game and done. About 1/4 of the time of the fucking interview.

What has this Knicks team done? Especially those two mofos? If Chauncey don't bail them out they would have another loss today... smh

They got Chauncey in the trade. He's a member of the team, an actual team, not some collection of talent. You keep waiting for Chris Paul? Days won't get better than they are with Mr. Big Shot. Watch them slobber up and down him right now. He's got a feature on this episode of Sportscenter. They are re-writing that game to call it a proof Carmelo and Amar'e can co-exist. They are covering the 90s rivalry. It's a new team and they just had a huge win.

Get over it.

[TE]

they got chauncey in the trade. He's a member of the team, an actual team, not some collection of talent. You keep waiting for chris paul? Days won't get better than they are with mr. Big shot. Watch them slobber up and down him right now. He's got a feature on this episode of sportscenter. They are re-writing that game to call it a proof carmelo and amar'e can co-exist. They are covering the 90s rivalry. It's a new team and they just had a huge win.

Get over it.

i

[TE]

I partially agree with Darrin in one aspect. Billups is now getting a lot of attention, and rightfully so.

Billups is a great player, one who plays with fundamentals and has a big set of balls to help him take over games late. Great great player.

[Obstructed_View]

Do you know anything about business? The Knicks are probably the biggest market out there & actually have superstars on their team now. Sorry to break it to you but not many ppl tune into sportscenter to watch highlights of the Spurs. The Clippers probably get more airtime then SA & Dallas haha.

ABC/ESPN carries the NBA. Talking down good teams and building up false expectations for teams with big tv markets of casual fans is a recipe for disaster.

[TE]

ABC/ESPN carries the NBA. Talking down good teams and building up false expectations for teams with big tv markets of casual fans is a recipe for disaster.

Agreed. When the Spurs beat these big market teams, Stern will be kicking his own ass.

[Darrin]

ABC/ESPN carries the NBA. Talking down good teams and building up false expectations for teams with big tv markets of casual fans is a recipe for disaster.

The story on the Spurs has been written. The Knicks story hasn't been told yet. They are doing that right now.

[Obstructed_View]

The story on the Spurs has been written. The Knicks story hasn't been told yet. They are doing that right now.

So the Spurs are on pace to get close to 70 wins and we have to listen to the 2007 version of their story with "they're old" added to the end? Give me a break.

[toki9]

What has this Knicks team done?

Residing in NY while being semi-competitive against arguably the most hyped team in history...blame the ADHD-afflicted "casual" fans that make up the masses (which make up the rating, which fuels the ad rate that the networks can charge, etc.) if you want to blame anyone...the networks (and its minions) are only following the hand that feeds them...

[Technique]

Are you honestly complaining over the Knicks getting some love?

It's been what, a decade?

[jimo2305]

NBA is in a sense like WWE nowadays..

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

will make it all the sweeter when the Spurs or Mavs take the title :toast

[redzero]

They should be talking about the Spurs more.

[Darrin]

So the Spurs are on pace to get close to 70 wins and we have to listen to the 2007 version of their story with "they're old" added to the end? Give me a break.

Yes. The book has been outlined--Tim Duncan drafted because of injuries to Sean Elliott and David Robinson. He tears up the league, wins a title in his first two years and adds to the defensive legacy of the San Antonio Spurs. Somewhere in 1999-2003 they got the reputation for not being fun to watch. They are respected, but not liked. Gregg Popovich is a genius. Tony Parker emerges as a 19-year-old and Manu Ginobili is exciting but he's "unique." They are professional, are a small market, and will ALWAYS be among the elite. Therefore, winning 70 games would mean very little until they do it and it will be rolled into montages of the greatest accomplishments of the Spurs. They won't chase down Tim Duncan to get his thoughts on it the way they chase down Kobe Bryant.

How did I find out about this? The 2007-08 Detroit Pistons made some startling changes. The absence of Ben Wallace had left the Pistons will no answer for even Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Everyone but Rasheed Wallace was physically out-matched, but we needed Wallace to help out everywhere else. PJ Brown and Anderson Varejao in consecutive series stepped into that left elbow and hit open jumpshots. I was still writing for fansite and predicted the Pistons were done and wouldn't contend again. Chris Webber had retired after the loss to the Cavaliers and Antonio McDyess--a player who came to Detroit and refused to start at any point in his tenure--was thrust into the starting lineup. Rasheed Wallace turns in his best season as a Detroit Piston. The chemistry that forms between Wallace and McDyess on the defensive end is reminicent of Wallace and Big Ben. It helped them improve their win total by 6 to tie the 3rd-best record in franchise history--59-23.

Everything I just wrote was not on ESPN. According to ESPN, the Pistons had the best starting five and they acted like Ben Wallace was still on the team. They were too busy writing a history of this franchise to see that in the middle of that winning, a titanic shift on the Pistons frontline took place.

They are macro--writing a history that will be easy to digest 20 years from now. They are not sports reporting for information you will need for today's matchup.

[Texas_Ranger]

I love how now everyone thinks NY Knicks are great just cause they defeated Miami.

[8FOR!3]

I love how now everyone thinks NY Knicks are great just cause they defeated Miami.

Tbh I think it is a big deal for them. Everybody was saying with Billups at PG and Amar'e they present big matchup problems for the Heat, which I think they do. I know Amar'e doesn't normally play D but when it comes down to it I think he can make some stops against Bosh, I don't see Bosh doing the same to him. I consider LeBron and Melo a wash. LeBron's obviously the better defender, but he's not gonna stop Melo from getting his points and vice versa. Obviously Wade is a matchup problem for New York, but I think they have the better defenders to throw at him (who guarded him most of the time last night? Fields or Billups?) And say what you want about the whole team being traded, but the Knicks have more quality depth outside of their big three (I include Billups as part of the big three, it's not like Bosh is any better.) Landry Fields, Toney Douglas, and Ronny Turiaf are all three quality role players. Miami has Mike Miller.

I guess the Heat have Haslem when healthy. But Chalms, Arroyo, Joel Anthony, Damp, House, Juwan, Ilgauskas, JJ, and Magloire all suck.

[JamStone]

You sell what people want to buy, otherwise business doesn't go well.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

ABC/ESPN carries the NBA. Talking down good teams and building up false expectations for teams with big tv markets of casual fans is a recipe for disaster.

Actually I think it creates a self perpetuating source of subjects for them. If thsoe overblown teams win then they can spend all the time they want inflating them and talking about where they rank amongst the greats (see Most Super Amazing Assist EVAH!!!!!!!!!!) or even better, they lose. Now you get to cover all the angles! Disecting ever syllable of what the superstars say. Does Lebron really mean that the whole team needs to play better, or is that just a secretive way of calling out Chris Bosh? What are guys "sources" saying is really happening in the lock room? WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!?

Anyways, I gave up on ESPN for much of anything intelligent NBA-wise a while ago. It's the same problem you run into with media corporations covering every topic these days. It's all about what sells.

[Cry Havoc]

You sell what people want to buy, otherwise business doesn't go well.

That's the entire problem. If you hype something well, people will usually buy it.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the NFL does an outstanding job of promoting EVERY team in the league, and has stellar ratings and record attendance year after year? Do you think if the Chiefs went to the Super Bowl that no one would watch because they're a small market team? Green Bay is THE smallest market in the league, and yet the NFL has fostered such a good relationship with them over the years that it's a far from a bust when they hoist a Lombardi, and in fact is a boon. Perhaps not a huge as if the Bears, Cowboys, or Patriots won a title, but a positive outcome none-the-less. And there have been plenty of "boring" NFL teams with little to no offense that still got great ratings (the 2000 Baltimore Ravens immediately spring to mind), because the NFL markets their league as a package product, instead of trying to separate the superstars out and push individual accolades on it's fans.

If the NBA had a clue how to market anything else but it's top 5 or 6 franchises, a majority of teams wouldn't be in the red right now. But Stern, bless him, is going to continue to push the individual, the superstar on people, rather than learning from the NFL and saying, "Hey, this is a team, and they're great. Watch them." You could certainly have made at least a palpable argument in the past for whether or not the Spurs were boring, but that really hasn't been true since Manu's emergence. This year's Spurs team has to be one of the most entertaining teams in the league, yet you still hear talk on SC/ESPN about how boring they are. It's baffling. The NBA allows it's own product to be denigrated, then they wonder why Finals rating suffer when said team goes all the way.

[bongraider]

the only relevant dude in that team is #4

[Kyle Orton]

Why won't ESPN love us :cry:cry:cry

[Rummpd]

The Knicks are watchable, the Spurs are boring. Get over it, fat asses.

Yeh Lakers do no running and move the ball horribly they have turned Showtime into snoretime - Lakers are absolutely a more boring team than the Spurs = just living off the big market reputation.

[ManuBalboa]

ESPN is a business. Not sports analysis. A Business. Accept it and quit giving them ratings if it affects you that much.

[JamStone]

That's the entire problem. If you hype something well, people will usually buy it.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the NFL does an outstanding job of promoting EVERY team in the league, and has stellar ratings and record attendance year after year? Do you think if the Chiefs went to the Super Bowl that no one would watch because they're a small market team? Green Bay is THE smallest market in the league, and yet the NFL has fostered such a good relationship with them over the years that it's a far from a bust when they hoist a Lombardi, and in fact is a boon. Perhaps not a huge as if the Bears, Cowboys, or Patriots won a title, but a positive outcome none-the-less. And there have been plenty of "boring" NFL teams with little to no offense that still got great ratings (the 2000 Baltimore Ravens immediately spring to mind), because the NFL markets their league as a package product, instead of trying to separate the superstars out and push individual accolades on it's fans.

If the NBA had a clue how to market anything else but it's top 5 or 6 franchises, a majority of teams wouldn't be in the red right now. But Stern, bless him, is going to continue to push the individual, the superstar on people, rather than learning from the NFL and saying, "Hey, this is a team, and they're great. Watch them." You could certainly have made at least a palpable argument in the past for whether or not the Spurs were boring, but that really hasn't been true since Manu's emergence. This year's Spurs team has to be one of the most entertaining teams in the league, yet you still hear talk on SC/ESPN about how boring they are. It's baffling. The NBA allows it's own product to be denigrated, then they wonder why Finals rating suffer when said team goes all the way.

First, you can't compare the NBA to the NFL. The NFL sells itself. It's not the NFL front office and PR machine. The nature of football, so few games, highly dangerous game that sells itself to the fans and make them "fanatic." It's not how the league promotes itself. Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo among other places don't sell out. For a long time, Arizona looked like it had about 50% attendance at their home games. When's the last time the league promoted Buffalo or Carolina? There are 8 home games in the NFL, not 41. The game itself and the format and the importance of each game is what sells the game to its fans. Not the league. It's the same reason why the MLB is boring to a lot of sports fans and regular season baseball games are ehhhhh unless you're talking about ditching school or work and drinking beer at an afternoon game. It's naive to think that the NFL has figured things out. Look at what Goodell has done with players can't even celebrating and getting fined for every little thing that now it's the No Fun League. AND YET it doesn't hurt their ratings or attendance or merchandise sales. It's the game itself, not how the league promotes it.

Secondly, the league was ready to die out in the late 70s and what saved it was two individual players, Magic and Larry. It wasn't the league promoting all what 26 teams? back then. It wasn't making sure every market getting the pub and the hype. Then what's considered the best era of exposure of the NBA is due to one single individual player, Jordan. Don't tell me the NBA would be better served if they focused on teams and giving exposure to the small market teams just as much as the big markets and the superstars. It's pretty much been proven otherwise. People watch the Lakers and the Celtics. People watch LeBron and Blake Griffin. They don't tune in for that ever exciting Memphi v. Milwaukee match-up.

I think you're naive if you think the NBA hasn't figured out how to market themselves. The only reason the NBA is where it is today is because of how they were able to market guys like Magic and Bird and Michael, subsequently Shaq and Kobe and LeBron. You can hate it all you want. You can call it the equivalent to the WWE. That very well may be true. But it's why the NBA remains as big as it is, especially now internationally.

[Kyle Orton]

Jamstone with the goods, but I will quickly say that Arizona had 50% attendance largely due to the shitty ass Sun Devil college field they had to play on. They've sold out nearly every game in their real stadium.

[ElNono]

This is not even about just the Spurs... I had no idea that the Mavs started in such a hole, and turned the game around. They showed 1 or 2 Toronto plays, and pointed out they started on a 22-3 run, then showed 1 play with the Mavs tying the game, then 2 more plays with the Mavs winning by 20 or so. And when I say plays, I mean the guy already shooting the ball. All packaged in about 20 seconds.

[Kyle Orton]

This is not even about just the Spurs...

I bet :rolleyes, Spurfan is probably livid they couldn't catch more highlights of the Mavs Raptors game!

[JamStone]

The situation is that their opponents were the Grizzlies and Raptors.

Are you serious right now, bro?

[Cry Havoc]

First, you can't compare the NBA to the NFL. The NFL sells itself. It's not the NFL front office and PR machine. The nature of football, so few games, highly dangerous game that sells itself to the fans and make them "fanatic." It's not how the league promotes itself. Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo among other places don't sell out. For a long time, Arizona looked like it had about 50% attendance at their home games. When's the last time the league promoted Buffalo or Carolina? There are 8 home games in the NFL, not 41. The game itself and the format and the importance of each game is what sells the game to its fans. Not the league. It's naive to think that the NFL has figured things out. Look at what Goodell has done with players can't even celebrating and getting fined for every little thing that now it's the No Fun League. AND YET it doesn't hurt their ratings or attendance or merchandise sales. It's the game itself, not how the league promotes it

This would make sense except for the fact that year after year the Super Bowl draws in record numbers, regardless of the teams that are playing in it, while the NBA Finals are completely dependent on who's playing. The biggest 4-7 games of the year for the NBA should be off the charts, year after year, and there's just too much fluctuation to say that it's all due to the format.


It's the same reason why the MLB is boring to a lot of sports fans and regular season baseball games are ehhhhh unless you're talking about ditching school or work and drinking beer at an afternoon game.

I'm not sure this comparison can be made, either. Baseball is an incredibly slow-paced game. There is far more downtime in baseball than actual action on the field, and oftentimes the result is not relevant to the final score. In football, you have a lot of downtime, but every play has EVERY player interacting on the field and teams going at full speed. A sweep off the right side might be shut down before it goes anywhere, but it's still a lot more active than watching ball 1, ball 2, strike 1, foul for strike 2, pop fly to center, etc.


Secondly, the league was ready to die out in the late 70s and what saved it was two individual players, Magic and Larry. It wasn't the league promoting all what 26 teams? back then. It wasn't making sure every market getting the pub and the hype. Then what's considered the best era of exposure of the NBA is due to one single individual player, Jordan. Don't tell me the NBA would be better served if they focused on teams and giving exposure to the small market teams just as much as the big markets and the superstars. It's pretty much been proven otherwise.

Chicken, egg. You can't say that for sure because the NBA has promoted the individual for so long. It's also been proven that if you market something well, people will scoop it up like candy and beg you for more. The NBA does a good job of marketing to the casual fan, and that's the problem. Casual fans do not delve into the game and truly appreciate it. They want Sportscenter highlight dunks. If they don't get that, they turn their TV off. Developing a fanbase that really loves the game for itself, not for the highlights, should be the goal of the NBA. It's why the NFL still sells out teams that are going to win 5 games a season next year, and because those teams have a shot a few years down the road of being in the NFC/AFC Championship game, if not the Super Bowl, if they make the right moves (St. Louis, New Orleans, Arizona).


People watch the Lakers and the Celtics. People watch LeBron and Blake Griffin. They don't tune in for that ever exciting Memphi v. Milwaukee match-up.

Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Memphis and Milwaukee are never even mentioned on Sportscenter except in passing? Do either of those teams have a prayer in hell of a title in the next 5 years?


I think you're naive if you think the NBA hasn't figured out how to market themselves. The only reason the NBA is where it is today is because of how they were able to market guys like Magic and Bird and Michael, subsequently Shaq and Kobe and LeBron. You can hate it all you want. You can call it the equivalent to the WWE. That very well may be true. But it's why the NBA remains as big as it is, especially now internationally.

It really doesn't bother me that the Spurs don't get the attention, as I've long since enjoyed the role of unspoken fly-by-night underdog. It's fun to watch my team get token attention all year and then all of a sudden the playoffs start and everyone says, "Wow, who knew the Spurs were so good!?" (I doubt it will catch many off guard this year :lol) I just think the NBA could do a much better job at creating a culture around their product, like the NFL has, and even more so, like futbol in Europe. It's a discussion point, not something I rage about.

[Kyle Orton]

Saying the only difference in popularity between NFL and NBA is totally because of the game itself is just as ignorant as cry havocs statement..the NFL has less teams and less games and as a result more talent per team and more highly anticipated games. The NBA could seriously benefit but cutting about 5-6 teams out of the league and allowing other teams to absorb their players

The NFL has 32 teams......the NBA has 30......

[JamStone]

Saying the only difference in popularity between NFL and NBA is totally because of the game itself is just as ignorant as cry havocs statement..the NFL has less teams and less games and as a result more talent per team and more highly anticipated games. The NBA could seriously benefit but cutting about 5-6 teams out of the league and allowing other teams to absorb their players

The NFL has more teams than the NBA. And each NFL team roster is what, 53 players? Something like that. NBA teams have a maximum 15 players on their rosters.

Good talk.

[Budkin]

The only thing the league would like more than the Lakers doing well is the Knicks doing well, that's why. It's not surprising.

[JamStone]

Damn you DoK.

[ElNono]

I bet :rolleyes, Spurfan is probably livid they couldn't catch more highlights of the Mavs Raptors game!

Livid? No. Annoyed, yes. They're a team that is on a tear right now. I was looking forward to seeing some Roddy since people are saying he's playing well. I guess I'll have to wait until Amare and Melo are not front page news anymore. :rolleyes

[ElNono]

The situation is that their opponents were the Grizzlies and Raptors.
Are you serious right now, bro?

20 secs on the #1 and #3 teams respectively now in the league?
Are they serious?

[Nick Manning]

The NFL shits all over the NBA and it's not even a contest

[Kyle Orton]

It's this fuckin simple, football is more of a team sport than basketball and basketball is a lot more of a star-driven sport. Basketball is the only major sport where having the best player on either team automatically gives you a very good shot at winning. In football you can have a stud QB who has the ability to impact the game more than any player on either team, but if you have a shitty offensive line it doesn't matter. It's easy to market football as a "team first, winning = class :cry" sport because it is a lot more of a team sport. Basketball is a star-driven sport where no amount of teamwork (:cry), chemistry (:cry), and class (:cry) can overcome a lack of talent in your top 3 players.

[Kyle Orton]

Holy shit the gap in competition is misleading..it must be a talent development issue then because a wild card in football has a much better chance of winning the super bowl than a 4-5 seed in basketball

I personally blame it on the 1 year rule in college. IMO, the NBA should force their players to develop in college like the NFL does. If players like Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Demarcus Cousins and Greg Oden were forced to play 3-4 years of college ball, we might actually have big men in the NBA.

[ElNono]

Shit, they had a feature on Kevin Love and his 20/11 first half that was longer than the Spurs and Dallas highlights...

[Nick Manning]

Shit, they had a feature on Kevin Love and his 20/11 first half that was longer than the Spurs and Dallas highlights...

The opponents they played sucked ass and the games weren't that interesting. 30 seconds each is all their games really warranted.

[Darrin]

First, you can't compare the NBA to the NFL. The NFL sells itself. It's not the NFL front office and PR machine. The nature of football, so few games, highly dangerous game that sells itself to the fans and make them "fanatic." It's not how the league promotes itself. Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo among other places don't sell out. For a long time, Arizona looked like it had about 50% attendance at their home games. When's the last time the league promoted Buffalo or Carolina? There are 8 home games in the NFL, not 41. The game itself and the format and the importance of each game is what sells the game to its fans. Not the league. It's the same reason why the MLB is boring to a lot of sports fans and regular season baseball games are ehhhhh unless you're talking about ditching school or work and drinking beer at an afternoon game. It's naive to think that the NFL has figured things out. Look at what Goodell has done with players can't even celebrating and getting fined for every little thing that now it's the No Fun League. AND YET it doesn't hurt their ratings or attendance or merchandise sales. It's the game itself, not how the league promotes it.

Secondly, the league was ready to die out in the late 70s and what saved it was two individual players, Magic and Larry. It wasn't the league promoting all what 26 teams? back then. It wasn't making sure every market getting the pub and the hype. Then what's considered the best era of exposure of the NBA is due to one single individual player, Jordan. Don't tell me the NBA would be better served if they focused on teams and giving exposure to the small market teams just as much as the big markets and the superstars. It's pretty much been proven otherwise. People watch the Lakers and the Celtics. People watch LeBron and Blake Griffin. They don't tune in for that ever exciting Memphi v. Milwaukee match-up.

I think you're naive if you think the NBA hasn't figured out how to market themselves. The only reason the NBA is where it is today is because of how they were able to market guys like Magic and Bird and Michael, subsequently Shaq and Kobe and LeBron. You can hate it all you want. You can call it the equivalent to the WWE. That very well may be true. But it's why the NBA remains as big as it is, especially now internationally.

I find it interesting, however, that there's a counter-culture to ESPN that thinks their respective team doesn't get enough publicity, but simultaneously screams that the other teams are just hyped. I want them to be a media organization that does more than pretend to be a news network.

ESPN, in a perfect world, would chase what is newsworthy. They wouldn't give equal time to all the sports, the same time for each game. They would skip some games and do more features on the players making an impact. They would probe deeper than the canned answers of professional athletes. And they would come to be viewed by the Sporting world as a boil on their ass, not a partner in promoting the league or themselves. They finally showed some Kevin Love highlights last night as well. It took them long enough. If Fox Sports was still competing with them, I think they would've been out-scooped on this story. Like much of the news media, they have chased what sells more than what stories have value.

They ask "fans" to participate in polls and watch competitive banter. In this age of user-informed news pieces, why aren't they demanding that we tell us when we think we have a news story?

And believe me, Milwaukee does not want their words parsed and analyzed through the same mechanisms of Lebron James for media attention. There would be mini-controversies all over the place. You would have more PR consultations and canned answers to questions and stricter rules from the NBA. I don't want that. I want something genuine.

ESPN is about entertaining the average sports fan. They respond to the information given to them to tailor their shows accordingly and suddenly you don't know what came first--ESPN covering games this way or the general public demanding they be covered this way. They are broadcasting games the way TCM shows a movie. They may have a movie expert on to tell you the significance of what you are about to watch, but they aren't in the movie industry.

It isn't reality or what's news-worthy. It is what entertains. Once I figured that out I stopped complaining and came to view ESPN how I view my hand during masturbation. I need it to get off, but I'm not aware of my hand while I'm doing it.

[Ashy Larry]

Knix have been irrelevant for years. Beat HeatSPN. Now east coast sports news station have something to talk about. To be expected.

[Venti Quattro]

The Knicks are somewhat back and relevant. What's not to love about that?

[Kyle Orton]

You see more pickup basketball games than football or flag football

Gee, that couldn't possibly be because you only need 10 guys + a basketball for a pickup game, while in football you need 22 guys + equipment. Great argument :tu

[Kyle Orton]

The Knicks are somewhat back and relevant. What's not to love about that?

The Spurs aren't getting enough attention :cry:cry:cry

[Cry Havoc]

I personally blame it on the 1 year rule in college. IMO, the NBA should force their players to develop in college like the NFL does. If players like Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Demarcus Cousins and Greg Oden were forced to play 3-4 years of college ball, we might actually have big men in the NBA.

In football, the difference in payroll between the #2 team and the #28 team is 26%.

In basketball, the difference between the #2 and the #26 team is 40%. And consider that's between far fewer players than the NFL has.

It's not the only problem, but it's a big one. Why should NBA fans go to see the Wizards right now, especially if they're just casual NBA watchers?

[Nick Manning]

When the Knicks are good the whole league wins. That's that.

[Kyle Orton]

Why should NBA fans go to see the Wizards right now, especially if they're just casual NBA watchers?

When has the NBA ever been a league that was able to market bottom feeders?

[Cry Havoc]

The Knicks are somewhat back and relevant. What's not to love about that?

Personally, I love that the Knicks are getting attention now. It's good for the game. I don't agree with the OP, but I thought this is as good a thread as ever to have real discussion on the game.

[Venti Quattro]

When the Knicks are good the whole league wins. That's that.

Stern's probably jizzing his pants thinking about the big-market playoff matchups in the East.

[Kyle Orton]

Cry Havoc, what reason do you have to watch the Buffalo Bills?

[Cry Havoc]

When has the NBA ever been a league that was able to market bottom feeders?

They can, and it's really, really simple. By giving fans the hope of a better chance at a playoff/title run in the next 3-4 years. People will watch a team if they see there's promise or hope that they might make a run at decent playoff contention.

[Kyle Orton]

They can, and it's really, really simple. By giving fans the hope of a better chance at a playoff/title run in the next 3-4 years. People will watch a team if they see there's promise or hope that they might make a run at decent playoff contention.

And you're saying EVERY team in the NFL has hope of a title run in the next 3-4 years?

[Cry Havoc]

Cry Havoc, what reason do you have to watch the Buffalo Bills?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

According to this, they sold 86.5% of home seats this year. Sounds like people are still watching them. And we're only what, 3 or 4 years removed from when I heard the Bills being talked about as a dark horse for the AFC title game.

[Cry Havoc]

And you're saying EVERY team in the NFL has hope of a title run in the next 3-4 years?

Did you see the Rams, Cardinals, or Saints making a run to the Superbowl in their respective years? How about the Vikings in the NFC Title game last year? Or the Jets last year? What odds would you have given those teams of making runs deep into the playoffs?

[JamStone]

In football, the difference in payroll between the #2 team and the #28 team is 26%.

In basketball, the difference between the #2 and the #26 team is 40%. And consider that's between far fewer players than the NFL has.

It's not the only problem, but it's a big one. Why should NBA fans go to see the Wizards right now, especially if they're just casual NBA watchers?

The lottery system is also a problem. In a league where one great player can make a huge difference, as DoK suggested, you can be the worst team in the league and still not get the best player in the draft. And there are plenty of examples where the draft might have only 1 or 2 surefire superstars. It's rare to even have more than 2-3. The 2003 draft is an exception, not the rule. So your team can suck year after year, and lose the lottery year after year and don't have a chance to get better. While a team might be pretty good, have a bunch of injuries one particular year that makes them just "average" where they just miss the playoffs, but they win the lottery as the 12th or 13th worst team. And what was a pretty good team already gets a superstar.

The lottery was put in place I think in part to discourage tanking. but I think there have been negative side effects to it. When you have the worst team in the league, you should get the best player in the draft, not the fourth best player in the draft.

[JamStone]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

According to this, they sold 86.5% of home seats this year. Sounds like people are still watching them. And we're only what, 3 or 4 years removed from when I heard the Bills being talked about as a dark horse for the AFC title game.

But that's the NFL. That 86.5% was the fourth worst in the league for home attendance. Only two NFL teams had home attendance under 80%. That's the NFL. 8 home games. Almost all NFL teams sell out or come close to selling out. 80% home attendance is actually really bad for the NFL.

[Cry Havoc]

The lottery system is also a problem. In a league where one great player can make a huge difference, as DoK suggested, you can be the worst team in the league and still not get the best player in the draft. And there are plenty of examples where the draft might have only 1 or 2 surefire superstars. It's rare to even have more than 2-3. The 2003 draft is an exception, not the rule. So your team can suck year after year, and lose the lottery year after year and don't have a chance to get better. While a team might be pretty good, have a bunch of injuries one particular year that makes them just "average" where they just miss the playoffs, but they win the lottery as the 12th or 13th worst team. And what was a pretty good team already gets a superstar.

The lottery was put in place I think in part to discourage tanking. but I think there have been negative side effects to it. When you have the worst team in the league, you should get the best player in the draft, not the fourth best player in the draft.

Agreed. It keeps teams on the bottom for far too long. And since player salaries are too high as it is thanks to the soft-cap, teams are having to trade away their best players for much less, exacerbating the talent disparity. Can you imagine if the Packers had to trade away Brett Favre in 1998 because they started 4-10 and couldn't afford to keep him while keeping the franchise afloat? How would that have sat with the Green Bay faithful?

It's very difficult to find parity in a league where one player makes over half of what an entire roster of players does, regardless of how good he is.

[ElNono]

Personally, I love that the Knicks are getting attention now. It's good for the game. I don't agree with the OP, but I thought this is as good a thread as ever to have real discussion on the game.

I don't have a problem with the Knicks getting attention. Heck, run a special five hour report, I don't care. It does annoy me when they have to shrink coverage for everything else to fit that shit.

Maybe it's cause I live in the tristate area and we've been bombarded with this shit from day 1. You can't turn on the TV and watch the news without seeing these mofos over here.

[Nick Manning]

I don't have a problem with the Knicks getting attention. Heck, run a special five hour report, I don't care. It does annoy me when they have to shrink coverage for everything else to fit that shit.



So they should give equal coverage to a Spurs-Grizz game as they do a Heat-Knicks game?

ESPN got it right...shrink the Spurs segment cause nobody outside of those cities gives a fuck. In the other game, the NBA is showcasing Melo, Stat, LBJ, Wade, and Bosh.

ESPN made a tough choice there...

[lefty]

So they should give equal coverage to a Spurs-Grizz game as they do a Heat-Knicks game?

ESPN got it right...shrink the Spurs segment cause nobody outside of those cities gives a fuck. In the other game, the NBA is showcasing Melo, Stat, LBJ, Wade, and Bosh.

ESPN made a tough choice there...

lol

Knicks fans were forced to watch the Spurs in 1999

You know, when their team got bukkaked in the Finals

[Nick Manning]

lol

Knicks fans were forced to watch the Spurs in 1999

You know, when their team got bukkaked in the Finals

Bringing up smack from 12 years ago is telling me.

What's funny is that the Spurs have won 4 titles in the past 12 years while the Knicks have been cellar dwellers, yet NY still gets more love.


That must make you pretty mad:depressed

[Nick Manning]

Seriously spurfan, what did you expect ESPN to do? You played the fucking Grizzlies. Outside of Manu's acrobatic lay-up at the end there was nothing worth showing. Be grateful that you even got 30 seconds of airtime with that garbage.

[lefty]

Bringing up smack from 12 years ago is telling me.

What's funny is that the Spurs have won 4 titles in the past 12 years while the Knicks have been cellar dwellers, yet NY still gets more love.


That must make you pretty mad:depressed
:lol

[ElNono]

Actually, dirk4mvp, I didn't even mention the Knicks-Heat game in the OP. Not sure where you got that from.

[Nick Manning]

Actually, dirk4mvp, I didn't even mention the Knicks-Heat game in the OP. Not sure where you got that from.

lol moving goalposts.

"I didn't talk about the Heat-Knicks game, I just insinuated it."

Tell me scro, what more did you feel ESPN needed to show on the Spurs game?

Besides that Manu lay-up there was nothing worth showing.

Same with the Dallas game...show the 22-3 start then the subsequent curbstomping. Each game gets 20-30 secs each. Fair enough imho.

What else should ESPN have shown?



Oh, and your troll detector sucks, per usual.

[buttsR4rebounding]

It's the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network. They are not a news network. They have no obligation to cover the Spurs. If it pisses you off so much just do like you do when you don't like a TV show...change the channel. I don't see you in here bitching that you don't like the last episode of Mike and Molly. It's the same thing.:bang

[alchemist]

What I do now is I just go to espn.com and avoid the insanity that the tv channel brings to you. I just watch the highlights and go on my way. It's the easiest way to avoid a headache if you're a fan of the NBA or any sport.

[ElNono]

"I didn't talk about the Heat-Knicks game, I just insinuated it."


So... I didn't talk about the game, nor insinuated anything about it... :tu

And my troll detector is working fine, scro... Mavfan troll pretending to be another team's fan are all the same to me...

[Nick Manning]

Actually, dirk4mvp, I didn't even mention the Knicks-Heat game in the OP. Not sure where you got that from.


So... I didn't talk about the game, nor insinuated anything about it... :tu

And my troll detector is working fine, scro... Mavfan troll pretending to be another team's fan are all the same to me...

How dense are you?:lol

"I didn't talk about the game or insinuate it, but my complaint about the Knicks coverage coincidentally came only a couple hours removed from a Heat-Knicks game that dominated the first 10 minutes of Sportscenter, as well as other segments."

Your backpedaling just looks pathetic now.

You are the living embodiment of the kind of poster Kori hates: an insecure, media-craving spursfan...and you do a piss-poor job of hiding it, tbh.

Oh, and once again you're wrong about the troll. Try again, sweetcheeks

[ElNono]

How dense are you?:lol

"I didn't talk about the game or insinuate it, but my complaint about the Knicks coverage coincidentally came only a couple hours removed from a Heat-Knicks game that dominated the first 10 minutes of Sportscenter, as well as other segments."

Your backpedaling just looks pathetic now.

You are the living embodiment of the kind of poster Kori hates: an insecure, media-craving spursfan...and you do a piss-poor job of hiding it, tbh.

Oh, and once again you're wrong about the troll. Try again, sweetcheeks

"Maybe if I put things between quotes it will look like I'm actually quoting you"

So not only you pretend to know what I intended with my original post that didn't mention one lick about the Heat-Knicks game, but specifically mention the Amare-Melo sit down interview with Tirico, but you also pretend to know what Kori thinks about certain posters.

That's pretty rich coming from the 268234623478 Mavfan posting behind some troll account pretending to be a fan of another team and bringing absolutely nothing to the table.

"I'm just going to call you insecure between quotes and see if it sticks :cry :cry :cry"

[Nick Manning]

"Maybe if I put things between quotes it will look like I'm actually quoting you"

So not only you pretend to know what I intended with my original post that didn't mention one lick about the Heat-Knicks game, but specifically mention the Amare-Melo sit down interview with Tirico, but you also pretend to know what Kori thinks about certain posters.

That's pretty rich coming from the 268234623478 Mavfan posting behind some troll account pretending to be a fan of another team and bringing absolutely nothing to the table.

"I'm just going to call you insecure between quotes and see if it sticks :cry :cry :cry"

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008011&postcount=23
I can probably find more examples of her questioning spurfans about this...

ElNono you are the most transparent poster when it comes to your intentions. You waddled into the forum last night, bleeding profusely from the asshole, and crying about Knicks coverage and how it's impeding on the Spurs (and Mavs games). You've done nothing in this thread but bitch about the knicks, Melo and Amare. If those two are such stat whores, then why would they not stay with their respective teams where they are the unquestioned first option, so they could rack up all the #'s they want, with impunity? They joined up to collect W's, not stats...same reason the C's, Lakers, and Heat made superteams. The Knicks game (and subsequent Sunday Convo) are of greater media interest than some chickenshit monotonous spurs game, capiche?

I suggest packing your asshole with gauze, but if that doesn't stop the bleeding you should probably hit up the ER for some anal sutures.

The Knicks are good again and they're here to stay. Living in New York, you're only going to get more and more coverage about them.

Neal with it.

[Nick Manning]

btw scro, which mavfan am I?

[redzero]

Livid? No. Annoyed, yes. They're a team that is on a tear right now. I was looking forward to seeing some Roddy since people are saying he's playing well. I guess I'll have to wait until Amare and Melo are not front page news anymore. :rolleyes

Or you could just go to NBA.com if you want to see highlights.

[ElNono]

"I didn't ask nor need for validation to the Spurs or Dallas. I think their record speaks for themselves. I do think the Knicks coverage is way overblown."

"The only notables in week 1 of Melo being there is losing to the Cavs at home and beating the Heat on the road. I understand the lovefest with the Lakers, Boston and up to an extent, Miami... they're freakishly good teams and their play reflect that"

"This Knicks team is nowhere near there, and IMO, they don't deserve the mega coverage they're getting. It's an opinion. I'm not losing sleep over it nor you need to agree with it".

[lefty]

Or you could just go to NBA.com if you want to see highlights.
This.

[ElNono]

I ended up catching some better highlights on NBA TV, actually. Hate to say this, but roddy is looking good.

[ElNono]

btw scro, which mavfan am I?

tbh, does it matter? skank, dirk4mvp, M<S... they're all the same.

[Nick Manning]

"I didn't ask nor need for validation to the Spurs or Dallas. I think their record speaks for themselves. I do think the Knicks coverage is way overblown."

"The only notables in week 1 of Melo being there is losing to the Cavs at home and beating the Heat on the road. I understand the lovefest with the Lakers, Boston and up to an extent, Miami... they're freakishly good teams and their play reflect that"

"This Knicks team is nowhere near there, and IMO, they don't deserve the mega coverage they're getting. It's an opinion. I'm not losing sleep over it nor you need to agree with it".


The Knicks just teamed together 2 top-10 players, and they've been together only 1 week and were facing their first marquee game (which more than lived up to the hype). That doesn't warrant "mega coverage?"

Even if you're trying to sell the angle that you were only hot and bothered about the Sunday Convo, it doesn't look good since just about every question they asked Melo and Amare was about the Heat:lol

The Knicks have two top-6 scorers (newly teamed together) and you think ESPN should back-page them?

The Knicks (and their army of media coverage) are here to stay. Accept it.

[Nick Manning]

tbh, does it matter? skank, dirk4mvp, M<S... they're all the same.

It does matter.

[ElNono]

The Knicks just teamed together 2 top-10 players, and they've been together only 1 week and were facing their first marquee game (which more than lived up to the hype). That doesn't warrant "mega coverage?"

Even if you're trying to sell the angle that you were only hot and bothered about the Sunday Convo, it doesn't look good since just about every question they asked Melo and Amare was about the Heat:lol

The Knicks have two top-6 scorers (newly teamed together) and you think ESPN should back-page them?

The Knicks (and their army of media coverage) are here to stay. Accept it.


It does matter.

"No" :lol

[Nick Manning]

"No" :lol

tbh I'm Jacob1983

[Kobe_5_Duncan_4]

Personally I think it's pretty fucking pathetic.


A team with a 49-10 record, 49-10 fucking record, being dismissed like they routinely are. Just when you you think you see everything, you realize you don't.


ESPN is pathetic. Just like every basketball analyst not named Bruce Bowen who is employed by ESPN.




Because everyone outside of Homertalk.com knows you are 2nd round playoff fodder that won't even come close to sniffing a :lobt: this season.


Why the fuck would anyone hype up an irrelevant team? :lmao

[ElNono]

tbh I'm Jacob1983

"Actually, I know for a fact you're not Jacob1983 because I'm Jacob1983"

[703 Spurz]

Personally I think it's pretty fucking pathetic.


A team with a 49-10 record, 49-10 fucking record, being dismissed like they routinely are. Just when you you think you see everything, you realize you don't.


ESPN is pathetic. Just like every basketball analyst not named Bruce Bowen who is employed by ESPN.

Who's fault is it that you know this yet you still expect it to change?

[Fpoonsie]

btw scro, which mavfan am I?

I don't FUCKING know! GodDAMMIT!

:bang

[Nick Manning]

Who's fault is it that you know this yet you still expect it to change?

Truth.

btw Arlington is a yuppie cesspool, used to hate it there

[Nick Manning]

I don't FUCKING know! GodDAMMIT!

:bang

Not a mavs fan, tbh

[Brazil]

When I don't know about a troll I assume he is bump, it is working pretty well tbh fwiw

[Kyle Orton]

Nick Manning is my troll

[Fpoonsie]

Not a mavs fan, tbh


Nick Manning is my troll


Idk if you're a real poster or someone's troll but you're funny as fuck. God bless

God, I hate you guys so much.

[Brazil]

^a troll of a troll

[Andrew Cunanan]

I'm Spartacus

[Obstructed_View]

The situation is that their opponents were the Grizzlies and Raptors.

Are you serious right now, bro?

The Spurs and Mavs highlights were after the Minnesota/Golden State highlights.

You were saying?

[Obstructed_View]

Why the fuck would anyone hype up an irrelevant team? :lmao

The exact point of this thread. You've finally circled your way to it. Welcome aboard.

[JamStone]

The Spurs and Mavs highlights were after the Minnesota/Golden State highlights.

You were saying?

Who on the Mavs or Spurs put up 37/23?

Why should games where really good teams beat up average or bad teams be near the top of the hour when a player in the league is doing something that hasn't been done in like 25 years?

K-Love is doing something pretty spectacular and pretty unprecedented this season. Are you not aware of this?

[HeatTheBestEver]

noone care about that white scrub in minnesota,,,,,,all ppl care bout r da good teams if u really think about it,,,,,,lyke da heat is what im sayin

[JamStone]

True dat. How did the Heat do yesterday?

[John Basedow]

True dat. How did the Heat do yesterday?

lol Jam just bitchslapped 2 posters like it aint no thang

[HeatTheBestEver]

True dat. How did the Heat do yesterday?

how did da Pissed Ons do yesterday???:lmao

[Axe Murderer]

:rolleyes a SpurFan whining about media coverage?

never seen that before, tbh, imho

[John Basedow]

how did da Pissed Ons do yesterday???:lmao


:rolleyes a SpurFan whining about media coverage?

never seen that before, tbh, imho

Bump w/ the b2b, per usual, par the course, heRapedPeriod, etc

[BUMP's Comm. Teacher]

BUMP with the back2back2back troll goods, imho

[Wilford Brimley]

BUMP with the back2back2back troll goods, imho

Bump with the superfecta, going quad city dj's, fwiw, tbh

[MP, the goods]

MP, with 5 in a row, unprecedented, herapedPeriod, last thing on this forum, you win HO, etc

[cobbler]

will make it all the sweeter when the Spurs or Mavs take the title :toast

The Laker butthurt is strong with this one... :toast

[JamStone]

how did da Pissed Ons do yesterday???:lmao

:( Pistons suck. You hurt my feelings.

[Andrew Cunanan]

MP, with 5 in a row, unprecedented, herapedPeriod, last thing on this forum, you win HO, etc

MP w/ the unprecedented 6-spot, tbh, imho, America eatin' my lunch, yeah I got tatz, etc

[Darrin]

how did da Pissed Ons do yesterday???:lmao

Beat the Jazz 120-116 in their last game.

[ClippersDynasty]

Personally I think it's pretty fucking pathetic.


A team with a 49-10 record, 49-10 fucking record, being dismissed like they routinely are. Just when you you think you see everything, you realize you don't.


ESPN is pathetic. Just like every basketball analyst not named Bruce Bowen who is employed by ESPN.

:lmao

So asshurt. Get over the fact nobody outside of San Antonio gives a flying shit about the Spurs.

[TheManTheMythTheBUMP]

MP w/ the unprecedented 6-spot, tbh, imho, America eatin' my lunch, yeah I got tatz, etc

crofl BUMP with the 7 in a row troll goods:lmao

[HeatTheBestEver]

Beat the Jazz 120-116 in their last game.

:lmao:rolleyes

ya cuz da Jazz r a real team....dem pissed ons gon need more then taht if they wanna step to da Heat!!!

[Indazone]

Just wait till they add CP3 to their roster next year.

Knicks with their own Big Three

r0NJNCzhLjY

[Greg Oden]

:lol elnono is upset he doesn't know who Nick Manning is.

[Obstructed_View]

Who on the Mavs or Spurs put up 37/23?

Why should games where really good teams beat up average or bad teams be near the top of the hour when a player in the league is doing something that hasn't been done in like 25 years?

K-Love is doing something pretty spectacular and pretty unprecedented this season. Are you not aware of this?

Hmmm...the Pistons were 48-11 at this point in the 2006 season and the 70 win watch was constantly discussed on ESPN. Are you not aware of this?

[Darrin]

Hmmm...the Pistons were 48-11 at this point in the 2006 season and the 70 win watch was constantly discussed on ESPN. Are you not aware of this?

It was the first time the Pistons had a successful regular season. They were 32-22 the year they won the Championship. It took a 12-game winning streak to make 54 wins in 2005. Phoenix's 2005 season was talked about as well. It was an amazing turnaround. How many times have the Spurs won 60+ in the Duncan era?

[ElNono]

:lol elnono is upset he doesn't know who Nick Manning is.

"It's important :cry :cry :cry"

[TheMACHINE]

Stern just trying to keep the SPurs down, and dispite his collusions, conspiracies and over-all biased against the SPurs...that team still found ways to win 4 rings. They're just that good!

[Ashy Larry]

:lmao

So asshurt. Get over the fact nobody outside of San Antonio gives a flying shit about the Spurs.


funny and true

[ElNono]

Stern just trying to keep the SPurs down, and dispite his collusions, conspiracies and over-all biased against the SPurs...that team still found ways to win 4 rings. They're just that good!

tbh, one champion per season is not enough to market both the Heat superfriends and the Knicks superfriends.

They should split the season into two 41 game seasons so both can win a ring and have their 2 hours specials on BSPN...

[Obstructed_View]

Who on the Mavs or Spurs put up 37/23?

Why should games where really good teams beat up average or bad teams be near the top of the hour when a player in the league is doing something that hasn't been done in like 25 years?

K-Love is doing something pretty spectacular and pretty unprecedented this season. Are you not aware of this?

BTW, the team the Spurs beat has a better record than the Knicks.

[Obstructed_View]

It was the first time the Pistons had a successful regular season. They were 32-22 the year they won the Championship. It took a 12-game winning streak to make 54 wins in 2005. Phoenix's 2005 season was talked about as well. It was an amazing turnaround. How many times have the Spurs won 60+ in the Duncan era?

So you're saying the 70 game watch for the Pistons had something to do with their 54 win season the year before, or on preseason expectations in general.

The Spurs won 50 games last year, and there were articles predicting they wouldn't make the playoffs in the west this year. Remember "They're old. They're done. Their window is shut" last summer?

Keep trying; watching you struggle borders on entertaining.

[JamStone]

Hmmm...the Pistons were 48-11 at this point in the 2006 season and the 70 win watch was constantly discussed on ESPN. Are you not aware of this?

Was not constantly discussed on ESPN. I'm not sure what you were watching. But the possibility was mentioned a few times before the ASB after the Pistons started 35-5. Especially for local Detroit sports history, the 35-5 was a significant record because that's what the 1984 Detroit Tigers started with that season on their way to a championship. That was the significance of that record and probably would sparked interest when the 2005-06 Pistons started at that pace.

But then again you ignore the fact that the 2005-06 NBA season lacked the other noteworthy stories. There was no "superfriend" teams like the Miami Heat or New York Knicks. There was no renewed rivalry between the Celtics and Lakers. It was already the second year of Shaq in Miami. I'll tell you now that if the Pistons had the same start this season, game 50-something against the Memphis Grizzlies would also take a back page to the newly formed Knicks over the top 5 Miami Heat and Kevin Love's 37/23 performance.



BTW, the team the Spurs beat has a better record than the Knicks.

Precisely why it's more newsworthy since the Knicks are a couple games over .500 and just beat a top 5 team in Miami... after just acquiring Carmelo.

Your posts stink of a "please look at us too in a meaningless win over an average team" whinefest.

[Kyle Orton]

:cry:cry:cry why won't ESPN pay attention to my team :cry:cry:cry

[j.dizzle]

Jam owning beee-aches left & right, no surprises here. I thought Spurfan loves when their team is under the radar?:lol CIA Pop > Espn Highlights

[symple19]

I'm not going to read this whole retarded thread, and I'm sure someone else has said this, but NY is the fucking media capital of the world. It is also a densely populated area along the Boston ---> DC/Balt corridor where pretty much every TV network gets a lions share of their ratings. It is what it is, get the fuck over it.

As a Spurs fan, I could care mf'ing less whether anyone pays any attention to them or not. It's all about W's in the end, and I actually think even more glare on SA would ultimately be detrimental.

This is a star crazy society, and as such, ESPN will always cover the most sensational story. It's where the ratings are.

[Nick Manning]

"It's important :cry :cry :cry"

sup brah