Reply With Quote
But isn't this a reaction to the fact the Spurs themselves are not media oriented or friendly?
I'm just saying Spurs don't do themselves any favors either.
I just think they don't care.
Just keep winning.
If we see it as Spurs fans, imagine how the Spurs players view it.
They may say the right things in front of the cameras about "flying under the radar" and "who cares", but I'd guess, the lack of recognition gets to them a little bit. It's a chip on their shoulders, which is a good thing. So to the media, I say just keep giving the Spurs bulletin board material, and we'll just keep winning.
But isn't this a reaction to the fact the Spurs themselves are not media oriented or friendly?
I'm just saying Spurs don't do themselves any favors either.
I just think they don't care.
My issue with them is not so much the lack of Spurs coverage, but they have definitely introduced and belabored the TV ratings aspect of certain teams' success into sports discussion. In doing so, they have detrimentally impacted ratings for certain "less desirable" match-ups. If I were David Stern, they would never get the broadcast rights to the NBA after what they've done the last 8 years.
Fortunately the NBA and other leagues have created their own networks and will gradually syphon away game broadcasts and viewers from ESPN. I never watch or listen to ESPN analysis or highlight shows anymore. If I want NBA highlights and discussion, NBA-TV is the place to go. Same for MLB and NFL.
Yeah I don't know if I made this point clear, but I really don't think the NFL would allow a network that carries them to bad-mouth ratings for one of their teams like they did for the entire 2007 NBA postseason.
Did you read the sentence after the part you bolded? Yes, he actually said "Seattle". That was basically the catalyst for this thread that their most popular NBA analyst was searching for an example of competetive teams from non-major markets and came up with Seattle before he said San Antonio.
ESPN crew just told Skip Bayless that since they couldn't mention the name Spurs, perhaps they could call them the "San Antonio Skips."
Laughter.
Jay Crawford tells Skip the "SA Skips" has a nice ring to to it.
"About five rings to it," replies a smiling Skip.
^^awesome.
I have mixed feelings about Bayless. I love him for his Spurs passion but hate him for his hatred of the University of Texas football program.
I love him for both of those reasons but hate him at times because he has a tendency to have re ed opinions other than those two things.
spurs > ut
I think the lack of media attention for the Spurs is less a function of market size, and more an inevitability given the demeanors of Pop and Duncan, which permeate the franchise. No arrests, no fights, no fines, no suspensions, not even any bulletin board material. Fans may not like having to sift through 50 videos and articles to find one that mentions the Spurs, but that's ESPN's M.O.
+1 to Spurminator. NBATV >>>>>>>>>>> ESPN for actual objective, in-depth coverage.
Since this is a Spurs forum, I'm going to keep my opinion on that one to myself. I will say THIS though. Spurs > UT Basketball, Baseball, Swimming, Gymnastics, Softball, and pretty much every other sport that isn't football.
I think the Spurs just make major media outlets angry because they just keep winning year after year.
Well, I would wonder what would happen if the Spurs somehow managed to get to 70 wins. Do you all think that could turn their heads? Oh, or just go undefeated in the playoffs?
I know these are farfetched, but just wondering what the ESPN's reaction would be to it.
ESPN and the NBA are working pretty hard to pimp the team in Oklahoma City, which is basically the Spurs ten years ago.
Yeah, that is pretty funny that they'd list BOTH Seattle AND OKC and not, at least at some point, find the error in their logic.
Selective Mutism OV. It's Selective Mutism because they choose to purposely not talk about the Spurs.
You mean Mike and Mike actually talked about something non-NFL? A shocker. But then they don't really go too in depth in any other sports. Talking about Carmelo Anthony isn't exactly inside information. Mike and Mike are a ing joke when it comes to news. They only ever speak about the typical you'd hear at the water cooler at work.
I don't give a about hockey but they never mention that. If they talk about baseball you know it'd be all about the Yankees, Sawx, or Phillies. NBA? Heat, Lakers, Celtics is about it.
Honestly...I do.
The 'flying under radar' is old.
How does a team even fly under the radar? The other 29 NBA teams are well aware of the Spurs 46 wins so far. They don't need ESPN or any other asshat radio host to tell them.
There is no such thing as flying under the god damn radar.
Shouldn't toilet paper be subject to the same rules as juice in the fridge? Don't pour juice and then put the carton back in the fridge with a quarter ounce left. Likewise, people shouldn't just leave one square of toilet paper on the roll.
I saw them talkin about us on First take or whatever.
The perception won't change until either someone or something makes that change.
The 4-letter continues to suck.
They put off NFL to talk about the Carmelo trade and what's wrong with the NBA because they have superstars migrating to a few big market teams. So it was basically at least two hours of straight NBA. They had several guys on as guests and talked NBA.
walt disney owns ESPN.go figure...this means they are walt disney.people need to get a grasp on who walt disney was.
ESPN will cater to a certain demographic.and the spurs aren't as sexy as the overblown superteams..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
