Reply With Quote
San Antonio, IMHO, is a medium market, not small.
Mike and Mike have been talking about the Carmelo trade all day long, and there's no end of hand-wringing about what's 'wrong' with the NBA because everyone wants to go to the big market teams and the only teams that are contenders or relevant nowadays are big market teams like Chicago, New York, LA, Boston and Dallas.
?
Then they talked about the value of teams that can get a lucky draft pick and then are smart enough to build a good team around that player. They cited the most recent example: The Bulls getting Michael Jordan and putting Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant and Tony Kucoc around him.
??
Then Chris Broussard came on and talked about the top heavy NBA, but gave credit to well-run teams that manage to stay relevant in smaller or less-attractive markets. He listed, in order, Oklahoma City, Detroit (they won a le), Portland and Seattle.
???
Yes, ESPN's primary NBA expert mentioned a city that no longer has an NBA team as an example of a well-run team in a small market but didn't say "Spurs". In fact, they haven't mentioned San Antonio in two hours.
What's wrong with the NBA is ESPN. If they treated the NFL the same way, they'd have whined about how boring the Packers are and wondered aloud when Aaron Rodgers was going to go to the Cowboys. Can you imagine what the NFL would do to them if they'd complained about small market teams being in the Super Bowl?
San Antonio, IMHO, is a medium market, not small.
You'd think some has to literally go out of their way to omit the Spurs organization. Surely they can't be that stupid. That being said, the Spurs always seem to fly under the radar.
San Antonio's market goes to New Braunfels, and Austin's market goes to San Marcos. The two combined are about 12th in the nation. Facts have little to do with what ESPN wants. Apparently they don't like staying in the hotels to cover the team. There are no complaints about the market size of microscopic Las Vegas when they're talking about an NBA team moving there.
The Spurs are boring no matter what kind of game they play, but the Lakers and Celtics can play the most inept and terrible game 7 in the history of the sport and nobody even notices. Maybe ESPN employees can't be bothered to watch the games.
The only time I want the Spurs to be talked up is in the playoffs. They can have their melo drama and talk about what Blake griffin had for breakfast for now.
Guys... who.... in.... cares?!
None of this has any effect on how the Spurs do. No matter what amount of attention we get we still have the best front office, coach and players in the league. We're the best organization in pro sports. Don't let this get your panties in a bind.
Spurs discussion board. The only panties in a bind are yours. It's fascinating that Chris Broussard would mention Seattle. Do you disagree?
They did .mention Tim Duncan. Something along the line of getting good draft picks. Not 100 % tho
Must have been before I started working. I didn't hear a mention. It's not that I listen intently praying that they mention the Spurs, but there were several places where they searched for an example of a) an elite team, b) a small market team that wins and c) a team that's managed to stay relevant without free agents they came up with SEATTLE. It's laughably funny, and worthy of observation.
I somewhat enjoy ESPN's college basketball, college football, and NFL coverage. I can't stand their NBA coverage. Actually, other than the Spurs I truly hate the NBA. I hate everything about it and it's flash over substance at ude.
Skip Bayless is currently going crazy on a Spurs rant,
The topic was whether you need a superstar in the NBA to win. Bayless pointed to the Spurs as a team with an "aging Tim Duncan," a #28 draft pick at point guard and an undrafted FA as the best bench player. It takes brains not money, Skip said, you can beat the system.
Then Bayless just started screaming and venting his Spurs passione.
ESPN has always passed over SAS along with my Hogs, no matter how good they do. But when either does real bad, it makes the headlines.
Brace yourself.... the spurs will win the le this year and all espn will talk about is the upcoming lockout and player salaries and Deron Williams going to New York... Kobe getting old.. ect.
This. ESPN is good for only one thing...college football. Everything else sucks on their networks.
I hadn't really thought much about it as a rabid Spurs fan, but yeah, I am pretty apathetic about the rest of the NBA. I really only like watching the Spurs play because of the LACK of hype and the team ball with low maintenance players.
The real question is:
How much are Pop and RC paying ESPN not to talk about them?
I'm not even a spurs fan and I'll be rooting for them this season more than anyone because I want ESPN to look like a bunch of s.
I like to cheer for the underdog, and usually the Spurs are it. They will be the underdog too this year. Even if they have homecourt all year and if they set some sort or record.
THIS. +1
Ha, right?
What I love is when you watch a recap of a Spurs game on ESPN.com and all the talk and highlights are of the other team, and as an aside they mention that the Spurs won the game, then they close with a final highlight of the other team dunking sometime during the game.
They mentioned spurs yesterday on sportsnation.
Same thread, different day. ESPN ignored the Spurs yesterday, they are ignoring them today, and they will ignore them tomorrow. These threads are more redundant than any trolling in the NBA forum, IMO.
Also, ESPN's formula works really well for them, wouldn't you say? They talk about the topic that get them the largest ratings. Thats never going to be the Spurs. Just learn to Neal with it.
Seattle? Really?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
