http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...ge=dime-090209
I know I should let it go, but it just irks me. Until I read closely, I thought there was no mention at all of our win in Boston. It is stuffed at the bottom of #3, below Steve Nash's picture...mixed in with a bunch of meaningless Elias stats. It is actually a tidbit about two players in the Spurs front court having at least 23pts each, so it really doesn't single out the fact that we just beat one of the best teams in the NBA on their home floor.
Whatever.
This whole weekend has been ridiculously lame. The NBA media coverage from EVERYBODY is so saturated with Laker sucking I don't see how fans don't become tired of it and root against the Lakers.
You would think eventually they'd have to talk about something else, but it is Lakers 24/7.
That lame circus in PHX gets more run.
Imagine if we had the big 3 sit for this game, hah.
Even the D-League Dunk contest has its own little "Dime"...
But that's fair... who care about a game between the last two champions...
Check out the highlights from ESPN, I actually thought the Celtics won the game with their share of highlights, which include exciting plays such as nailing jumpshots.
But it works, everybody around me hates the Spurs (and have been hating for the last 10 5 or 6 years).
People it was a sunday afternoon matchup between not only the teams with the two best records in the NBA, but Kobe v. LeBron. I don't particularly agree with it--especially since I thought the Celtic-Spur game was more compe ive--but that's what the people want. You guys should be happy...ur a 4-time NBA champion that is somehow flying under the media radar despite another solid year. Gives Pop another chance to use the no-respect card
Sad but not surprising that the match between the two most recent NBA champs got second billing to "the main event" (between the two most recent runners-up). And yes, the coverage afterwords has been absolutely pathetic. I guess it didn't turn out the way ESPN wanted it to. No wonder the Spurs are always flying under the radar.
You are right, I don't care about all the Kobe/Lebron circus... but the D-League dunk contest... come on!
LOL, this one tops them all.
Under point 7, there was an excerpt of an interview with DENVER NUGGETS coach George Karl. The three featured questions were:
On the Lakers' trade of Vladimir Radmanovic to Charlotte for Adam Morrison and Shannon Brown:
On the Lakers after Andrew Bynum's injury and the Radmanovic trade:
On competing with the Lakers, who eliminated Denver in a first-round sweep last April:
This is just hilarious.
Is it what the people want or is it what the people have been made to want by the media's infatuation with both players, even before either had done anything as a pro?
I'm not one to complain about media coverage of the Spurs, but I also think that there's been a pervasive "let's pimp a few guys and make them stars and then fawn all over them" component to media coverage of the NBA for a long time. Frankly, I think the NBA wants it that way. But I also think that it's that sort of coverage that leads people to ignore matchups that don't include those select few players. I'm not sure that the run-of-the-mill sports fan would be turned off to a Spurs/Magic Finals in the main, but since virtually none of the players on those teams are among the media's anointed children, people believe that there's no story and that the games won't be worth watching.
I don't buy that the people are driving coverage that way, either.
In the end, there's nothing I can do to change it. I've never thought the legitimacy of championships turns on TV ratings and I think that those who would try to diminish the greatness of a team by pointing to a low Q-rating are inane.
What the Lakers do affects everyone in the NBA
I thought it was funny that with about 2:48 left in the 4th, Tirico said "2 minutes 48 seconds until Kobe vs. LeBron!" completely ignoring the highly compe ive and entertaining game in front of him.
It's a joke, but who cares.
I'm not saying it's right, it is what is is. It's a Sunday afternoon game meaning there's a chance of millions of "casual" NBA fans possibly watching the game. The two best players on the 2 best teams (record-wise) were set to play. The casual fan is more likely to watch that then run of the mill fundamental basketball. The irony is that LA was fundamentally impressive in their win at Cleveland (only 6 TOs, great defense, fluid offense). It's a player-driven league and has been for as long as I can remember.
Exactly. And in that time, they kept cutting to Lebron/Kobe walking out of tunnels, lacing up shoes, etc.
ESPN, Hollinger, Butler, Nash
Sure. My point is that outlets like ESPN have chosen to anoint players like those two, almost to the exception of others. I wonder sometimes where the league would be if ESPN had chosen to give the same sort of devoted, loving, "your my boy" coverage to Tim Duncan 10 years ago -- I suspect, frankly, that people would be tuning in to watch the Spurs because Tim Duncan would be a mega-star.
Again, my point isn't to dispute what you've said in general. It's to dispute this notion that "it's what the people want" in the sense that I think it's what the people have been made to want.
If this is the NFL, the Spurs are a must-watch glory team and Duncan is a mega-star. In the NBA, guys who have substantially fewer actual accomplishments than a guy like Duncan are mega-stars, teams that haven't done as much as Duncan's Spurs are must-watch glory teams. That's no coincidence -- it's directed coverage.
But why do they focus only on Kobe and Lebron? I will never understand that.
In Duncan and Garnett they have a fight for the age between the best two PF of their generation. Two former MVP, 5 rings... they can't market that?
This is killing the NBA IMO... even the casual fan is not stupid and can understand there is a problem when the media darlings can't win a le.
When Jordan was the face of the NBA he had the rings to prove his value.
This would have happened if he would have been drafted by Boston...and you would have never heard "Tim Duncan" and "boring" in the same sentence.
The networks give the fans the superstars because that's what the fans are more interested in, and the fans are only exposed to the superstars because that's what the networks feed them, and so on and so on.
But I think there's a way to cover/hype your marquee players in a way that doesn't take away from matchups that don't feature them. ESPN and ABC have sort of dug their own grave with regard to low ratings for matchups that don't feature the Lakers or Celtics. It's one thing if the fans just weren't interested, it's another thing entirely when you devote weeks of your on-air "analysis" to talking about what a boring Finals the Nets vs. the Spurs would be.
ESPN has made ratings and fan apathy a part of its coverage, which compounds the issue.
Very well put.
If I ever need a lawyer...
I guess we'll have to rely on our ol' friend Skip Bayless to keep the Spurs on the mind of the national conscious.
It bites them in the ass in the long run. They never hype the spurs... and 4 times in the last 9 years their semi final or western conference final has gotten more viewership than the western conference final because....
THE SPURS KICK THE "Exciting" TEAMS ASS...
If they would pimp the spurs... they would have an exciting team to watch the whole time!
You can't tell me that ANYONE in the league thinks that Tony and Manu are boring to watch...
They only have themselves to blame for the predicament...
It's not the Spurs' fault... all they do is win... like they are supposed to.
I agree with all of this, really. I suppose I'm just spitballing thoughts that have been rumbling through my head while I spend an hour on the treadmill every morning listening to the re-hashed Sports Center with hosts who will literally ask each other aloud how a replay of an obscure college kid making an incredible block can be ranked higher than a replay of a routine Lebron break-away dunk.
I got to wondering how ESPN would have handed last week's 61 point game if the 61-point scorer -- putting up exactly the same line -- had been, say, Brandon Roy or Dirk Nowitzki or Kevin Martin. Would that performance get a 12-minute stand-alone highlight package with every field goal and many free-throws being replayed? I doubt it.
I think you're right that ESPN/ABC make apathy a self-fulling prophecy by selling "sexy" games in the midst of what's on-going, too. Had the schedule yesterday been reversed, I'm not sure we get the same breathless promos for the Boston/SA game coming up next that we got for the Kobe/Lebron matchup that happened to include the Lakers and Cavaliers.
What's really odd about all of this is that the league and it's media partners could have gone on a full-out WWE kind of campaign and made for captivating team stories. It would have been very easy to make teams like the Spurs and Pistons or recent vintage not the boring alternatives to high-flying, drama-creating players, but the credible heels of the league -- the ultimate villians in the game's drama. I realize that the owners of the SPurs and Pistons (and the fans, too) might have been reluctant to agree to such a thing, but marketing those teams that way makes them still fun to watch -- if only to root against them -- while giving people a reason to watch even if the big-market darlings aren't involved.
The Rockets also beat the Celtics in their building with nary a mention from anyone.
I think many are assuming the Celtics are in another skid after losing to the Lakers again.
I saw Sportscenter at about 5 or 6 p.m and they led off with...."Well if you dont know...now you know....the Lakers broke the Cavs streak today" and I thought WTF?!?!? Are you serious? But I should have known better, that Laker is so deep down ESPN's throat its not even funny. AND to top that off, they went from Lakers-Cavs to ING NASCAR. Then finally after that a quick 2 minute highlight of Spurs-Celtics. What bull .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
