The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **rdrsfn82** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:23 pm

habitual wrote:
So ESPN is the NBA's biggest problem?

Philly is pretty good this year, you'll see more coverage later in the year, there not at the Mav's or Heat's level yet.

Hab

While I don't know how great I'd consider the Mavs right now (they are still working in all the new players and developing their identity after the massive turnover), I otherwise agree with this.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:25 pm

Punchy wrote:Sounds like your problem is with the media than with the sport.

Like saying all comic books suck because you don't like Newsarama.

If the Rama was where most people got their comic news, then absolutely.

And the media problems are also indicative of problems within the sport. It's less about teams, and more about stars. It's why the NBA sucks. It's about superstar rules and superstar fouls and non-calls. Every sport has this of course, but it's not nearly as evident as the NBA.

by **oogy** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
If the Rama was where most people got their comic news, then absolutely.

And the media problems are also indicative of problems within the sport. It's less about teams, and more about stars. It's why the NBA sucks. It's about superstar rules and superstar fouls and non-calls. Every sport has this of course, but it's not nearly as evident as the NBA.

This is the problem I have with the NBA. I prefer college basketball because it's more a team sport than the pros IMO.

by **rdrsfn82** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:34 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
If the Rama was where most people got their comic news, then absolutely.

And the media problems are also indicative of problems within the sport. It's less about teams, and more about stars. It's why the NBA sucks. It's about superstar rules and superstar fouls and non-calls. Every sport has this of course, but it's not nearly as evident as the NBA.

Except, as I pointed out, there's nothing amazing about what the 76ers have done that really makes them anything special that needs special coverage. There's 6 or 7 teams with similar records that have better wins. They haven't beat any particularly good teams to prove they are legit contenders, and they haven't even played 25% of their games in an already short season.

As shitty as ESPN is, there's really no reason for them to be talking about the 76ers yet.

Your problem seems to be that you are a fan of a team and want more coverage of them, even though they haven't really done anything to deserve more coverage, and instead of looking at it from that perspective you are blaming it on the fact that ESPN covers the start studded teams more and blaming things that really have nothing to do with the NBA.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:34 pm

oogy wrote:This is the problem I have with the NBA. I prefer college basketball because it's more a team sport than the pros IMO.

This is what pissed me off about all the Tebow coverage. I actually like Tebow, but it was a fucking disservice to the team (and the defense) that was a big reason for the wins.

Espn would actually have headlines like "Pats to take on Tebow" and shit like that.

by **oogy** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:39 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
This is what pissed me off about all the Tebow coverage. I actually like Tebow, but it was a fucking disservice to the team (and the defense) that was a big reason for the wins.

Espn would actually have headlines like "Pats to take on Tebow" and shit like that.

I totally agree.

Also, it wasn't just ESPN doing that, everyone was. Nobody in the media wants to give the Denver D the credit it deserves.

by **rdrsfn82** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:41 pm

Except all the people in the media that were complaining about Tebow getting too much credit and/or being awful.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:42 pm

rdrsfn82 wrote:
Except, as I pointed out, there's nothing amazing about what the 76ers have done that really makes them anything special that needs special coverage. There's 6 or 7 teams with similar records that have better wins. They haven't beat any particularly good teams to prove they are legit contenders, and they haven't even played 25% of their games in an already short season.

As shitty as ESPN is, there's really no reason for them to be talking about the 76ers yet.

Your problem seems to be that you are a fan of a team and want more coverage of them, even though they haven't really done anything to deserve more coverage, and instead of looking at it from that perspective you are blaming it on the fact that ESPN covers the start studded teams more and blaming things that really have nothing to do with the NBA.

And I wasn't asking for special coverage, I was asking for coverage, period.

No one in the NBA has done anything special at this point, except maybe Kobe's 40 point streak. Look at all the coverage the Knicks get. Honestly, I think you see the point.

by **oogy** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:44 pm

rdrsfn82 wrote:Except all the people in the media that were complaining about Tebow getting too much credit and/or being awful.

Both of 'em.

by **BlueStreak** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:45 pm

One could argue that the sports media has contributed to the turning of the sport to being dominated by egos and personalities, which has made the sport a whole lot less fun to follow. If one doesn't watch games on a regular basis and instead relies on press coverage to keep up with the sport, it would be hard to seperate the sport from the media.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:47 pm

BlueStreak wrote:One could argue that the sports media has contributed to the turning of the sport to being dominated by egos and personalities, which has made the sport a whole lot less fun to follow. If one doesn't watch games on a regular basis and instead relies on press coverage to keep up with the sport, it would be hard to seperate the sport from the media.

This is part of my problem. I'm overseas, so I'm more reliant on media outlets like ESPN. And they fucking suck.

by **BlueStreak** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:50 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
This is part of my problem. I'm overseas, so I'm more reliant on media outlets like ESPN. And they fucking suck.

If you're using the Interwebs to stay up on things, switch over to Sports Illustrated's website. I've found their coverage on ALL sports to be much more tolerable.

by **rdrsfn82** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:54 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
And I wasn't asking for special coverage, I was asking for coverage, period.

No one in the NBA has done anything special at this point, except maybe Kobe's 40 point streak. Look at all the coverage the Knicks get. Honestly, I think you see the point.

The 76ers are getting as much coverage as they warrant, which is to say not much and most people are waiting for them to actually play some good teams before talking about them, as right now there's nothing to say about them. Playing half their games against last place teams, and almost all their games against terrible teams, means they should have a good record even if they are just mediocre and destined for another 5 or 6 seed.

I've heard people say they are the favorites to win their division, and read articles saying that as well.

Like this one that came out before their first game:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9969 ... n-atlantic

Or this one from a couple days ago:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025 ... am-to-beat

Or this article about a Sixers win that praises their team first play:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/sport ... start.html

Or this power ranking that ranks them 4th:

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/1/16/2 ... on-celtics

Or this ranking from ESPN that has them #1:

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

Or the feature ESPN did on surprise teams the other day on TV (the video is on the 76ers team page)

http://espn.go.com/nba/team/_/name/phi/ ... phia-76ers

Or a million other things you could find online.

Basically, you are blaming the NBA for something they have no control over, as they aren't the media covering the team. And the actual coverage by the overall media of the Sixers has been fine, it's just that you want ESPN to spend more time talking about them, despite the fact they have done nothing to really warrant more coverage.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:54 pm

BlueStreak wrote:
If you're using the Interwebs to stay up on things, switch over to Sports Illustrated's website. I've found their coverage on ALL sports to be much more tolerable.

I read that site too. The NBA is still a prima donna league though that caters to its stars in a way that actually changes the way the game is played.

At least football made a rule to protect all QB's. It was basically an acknowledgement that QB's are the superstars and they were going to protect them all. Yeah, it changed the game, but it changed it for all teams.

They may as well make a 'Superstar' foul in the NBA. Like if you sell enough jerseys, you get an extra couple fouls or non-calls per game...