Stephen A. and BSPN are at it again:

[Thomas]

SAS just exhausts me with his nitro fueled takes. Though he will occasionally admit his errors he is just way too all over the story. Kinda like it is about his voice more than the subject itself you know. Doesn't mean I won't check his stuff out here and there of course but he is his own biggest homer and I know it. Don't think he does.  

[AHF]

On 6/7/2020 at 10:19 AM, Buzzard said:

I think his controversial image and talk spikes their ratings. I am of the mindset that he says stupid things on purpose. He is the perfect example of what a good journalist does not want to be.

A good journalist reports the news and does not want to be the news. SAS hardly ever reports anything. Its usually 2nd hand knowledge and he blows it up with his rants for the ratings. He makes good money so he is not someones fool. He is more like a cartoon character whose scripts are suppose to make him look like a blow hard and a fool.

If you take him seriously, then you should take Bluto, Wile E. Coyote, or any other foolish looking clowns from Saturday morning cartoons seriously. He even plays on that with his stupid Dr. Evil impersonation.

This.  Can't like it enough.

The American public has for some reason fallen in love with controversy spiking blowhards regardless of how little substance there is behind them.  If ESPN's consumer base was driven by people like me, they would get rid of SAS, Bayless, and many others immediately and bring back something much more like what they had years before.  Hot takes would be a reason they lose ratings, not gain them but the public responds to this and so they keep leaning into it.  

For some reason, they'd rather hear Skip blast LeBron in a cynically transparent bid to garner attention than listen to a real basketball analyst break down his game.

[Vol4ever]

I take SAS as entertainment.  Dont agree with all he says but sometimes I have a laugh cause he goes against the grain.  

[thecampster]

On 6/7/2020 at 4:18 PM, Buzzard said:

About the only good thing about either Skip or SAS is they will admit when they are wrong. The issue is sometimes it takes years and then people forget. Perfect example is right here. In order for Skip to be wrong, the Hawks have to at least get to a Eastern Conference Final. By then this clip will be forgotten about or Skip will be retired.

So Youngest team in the NBA last year at the start of the season was the Phoenix Suns at 24.49 years. The Hawks were 25.76 years and that's with old man Carter throwing off the average by 1.12 years.  The Mavericks began the year at an average age of 27.4 years. Of course Dallas is going to be farther along than Atlanta, their core roster is 3+ years more experienced, more grown, more time in the weight room.

These guys drive me nuts with their "he's being marketed", he's too small, he's too.....its really simple. Age is potentially the number 1 most important factor in the NBA. The great Chicago Bulls teams are maybe the best example of this. 

Jordan year 1 - 38.-44

Jordan year 2 - 30-52

Jordan year 3 - 40-42

Jordan year 4 - 50-32

Michael Jordan didn't come into the league until he was the age Trae is right now (almost to the day) and it still took him 4 years to have a winning record. The GOAT, his Airness couldn't lead his team to a winning record until he was 26 years old.  

Age and maturity is everything. Comparing Trae, with his incredibly young and injured roster to Luka and veteran, prime roster is one of the most dishonest things I've ever heard....and I know they know. They are either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid and all evidence to the contrary, I believe its dishonesty. Because truth doesn't get ratings. Keep this core together 3 years and they'll beat the NBA into submission. tinker because you're impatient and its back to the treadmill.

[Buzzard]

27 minutes ago, thecampster said:

So Youngest team in the NBA last year at the start of the season was the Phoenix Suns at 24.49 years. The Hawks were 25.76 years and that's with old man Carter throwing off the average by 1.12 years.  The Mavericks began the year at an average age of 27.4 years. Of course Dallas is going to be farther along than Atlanta, their core roster is 3+ years more experienced, more grown, more time in the weight room.

These guys drive me nuts with their "he's being marketed", he's too small, he's too.....its really simple. Age is potentially the number 1 most important factor in the NBA. The great Chicago Bulls teams are maybe the best example of this. 

Jordan year 1 - 38.-44

Jordan year 2 - 30-52

Jordan year 3 - 40-42

Jordan year 4 - 50-32

Michael Jordan didn't come into the league until he was the age Trae is right now (almost to the day) and it still took him 4 years to have a winning record. The GOAT, his Airness couldn't lead his team to a winning record until he was 26 years old.  

Age and maturity is everything. Comparing Trae, with his incredibly young and injured roster to Luka and veteran, prime roster is one of the most dishonest things I've ever heard....and I know they know. They are either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid and all evidence to the contrary, I believe its dishonesty. Because truth doesn't get ratings. Keep this core together 3 years and they'll beat the NBA into submission. tinker because you're impatient and its back to the treadmill.

If you take SAS or Skip serious, you should start tuning in to Saturday morning cartoons for your dose of national news. I have been working from home for over two months and still do not watch ESPN. I'd rather watch a rerun. I can't remember the last time I watched either of them on the TV. It was probably sometime last year, and I could never stomach a full show.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

I take SAS as entertainment.  Dont agree with all he says but sometimes I have a laugh cause he goes against the grain.  

I do not find that type of sports content entertaining and am extremely frustrated that it squeezes out actual substantive reporting.  But reality TV is cheaper to make and draws ratings so why pay for reporters to actually research things and potentially bore some viewers when you can ride a cycle of faux controversy from your loud mouths like Skip et al?  Ugh.