Does NBA.com hate us?

by McMilfin on Dec 23, 2009 10:41 PM PST

I imagine this type of question has been presented numerous times, but never has it felt more relevant than now. Why isn't our story ever on NBA.com? How is it that LeBron James taking on the Kings is more important than the tale of a very handicapped Blazer team defeating some of the league's finest? I realize that our market isn't as large as Cleveland, or LA, or Washington DC, but I can't help but think our story would be captivating to most EVERYONE who is a basketball fan. Yet we consistently seem to be marginalized and merely swept under the rug, and it is most apparent at this moment. We lost Joel Pryzbilla last night and still managed to beat a very tough Dallas team, yet our credit was merely fine print that read something along the line's of the Blazers being bit again by the injury bug. And then tonight, on a back to back, our team (which has been entirely made over by this point) conquered the Spurs without Brandon Roy. This is a story of perseverance and teamwork; the finest Blazer games I have ever watched. Further, the past several days have illustrated what I think of as the Pritchard Effect. We all knew how deep our lineup was, but did any of you guys realize it was THIS deep? Is there any other team out there who's come even remotely close to maximizing their budget in the same way Pritchard and Co. have done? I think not.

At any rate, I digress. Perhaps I'm biased. Perhaps seeing our tough man Pryzbilla yell a battle cry last night seemed more important than fine print. I just can't help but feel scorned by our lack of coverage on the NBA website, which is furthered echoed by ESPN. Apparently Kobe and Shaq meeting on Christmas is far more interesting than what I find to be the best basketball ever played.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I thought about this too but the chance for wordplay with Lebron and the Kings was just too enticing.

Then of course you are dealing with the big game from you Nuggets gangster, I think he had 10 3 pointers and +40 points.
Also durantula had a big game in a tight win too, its just too much to compete with.

by tevisthe4th on Dec 23, 2009 11:02 PM PST reply actions

I'm not sure it has to do with the size of our market

But, rather, that there are 29 other NBA markets to cater to, as well.

We live in a bubble… A one-team town… We live and die by the Blazers… It’s a beautiful thing to be a part of, but a lot of is because it’s ours and not everyone else’s.

by david1978pdx on Dec 23, 2009 11:34 PM PST reply actions

I agree...

Portland gets NO love from the NBA… That was one of the grittyest wins ever.. and we don’t get ANY recognition… Even on Jerryds big night? (He was front page after the Phoenix Game..)

Shoutout to my Section,
We start chants,
We have the wave man,
We have the sky boxes,
We have the crazy row of people in the back spendin like 50$ on beer each game,
We have dan the usher,
We have EVERYTHING!
314, we are amazing,
..... oh, and Free Bayless!

by Lil0drummer0boy on Dec 23, 2009 11:40 PM PST reply actions

The NBA contains 29 other teams.

You cannot expect 24/7 coverage on the Blazers. Bayless had a big night but so did many NBA players in the 10 games that we played, most with bigger reputations than Bayless (Smith with 41 and 10s, LeBron triple double, Durant 38, Amare 35/14 etc). You say we don’t get ANY recognition, yet you mentioned Bayless was recognised after the Suns game. There was only 2 other games that night so a big night by Bayless was recognised. If there were only 2 other games tonight rather than 9 other games then I’m sure Bayless would have been recognised again.

by Evanescent on Dec 24, 2009 2:55 AM PST up reply actions

Yes, there are 29 other teams...

… and there is room for 6 main headlines and about 10 sub-headlines. So approximately 16 areas to cover the 5-12 games that happen per night… you do the math. The Blazers are nowhere to be found about last night’s game, or the night before. And as someone else pointed out, half of the Blazer coverage is negative. “Oden a bust”, etc. The whole thing just feels really, really cheesy. However, as a different person pointed out, it’s nice to be the underdog. Meh, whatever. I’m glad a few others feel the same way. I’ll take my tinfoil hat off and go back to being a fan now. :)

by McMilfin on Dec 24, 2009 8:58 AM PST up reply actions

The opposite of Love is not Hate

It is apathy.

We must be one apath-izing team to Stern and Co. Jerks.

by LaoTzu on Dec 23, 2009 11:52 PM PST reply actions

...

I’m not going to say anything tomorrow because last year I made a thread kind of like this and in the morning both nba and espn had the blazers on the front page.

But I do notice that if the blazers are relevant on nba.com and espn.com it’s usually about the negative sides. Like Oden going down, Pryz and when the blazers started losing after that Memphis game (that stupid title on espn that said “THE PRETENDERS”). It just kind of gets old seeing Kobe or Lebron everytime (I understand Kobe because he is the champ).

I do like though they are shining on Sacramento’s Evan’s because he is good. I do feel they are trying a bit too hard by repetitively posting how OKC has apparently arrived. The Shaq and Kobe crap gets old too, they need new traditions and rivals.

- www.ichabodmedia.com
- www.portugaltheman.com

by brandonmitchell on Dec 24, 2009 12:08 AM PST reply actions

I thought the same thing tonite.

We got a little run but not a whole lotta love. Seriously? This is the feelgood story of the year so far. How many teams have lost so many players for so much team and been as successful as we have? I guess from the casual fan perspective, unless it is Roy or (maybe) Aldridge, no one knows our guys. Oden can be just wrote off as injury prone and the rest of the guys are mostly role players who really haven’t done much in this league. They aren’t household names so the casual fan doesn’t care.

It sucks but it is reality. If we keep it up, we’ll get our due. Quite frankly, I like the underappreciated, underdog role. Teams don’t know what to do because they don’t focus on preparing for role players. And without Roy, we got a whole team of role players.

Let's do it for the big men!...and Rudy!....and Nic!...and, uh, Trout, Patty, Mo, Mr. Allen, and Nate!

Rehab With Us

by clinchmobb on Dec 24, 2009 12:35 AM PST reply actions

Also, the highlights from our win over the Spurs sucked.

Mostly Spurs shots. Come on!

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Dec 24, 2009 3:51 AM PST reply actions

mostly :S

all the highlights apart from the game recap were spurs highlights

since when does the losing team get all the non recap highlights seriously?

by Yawnie on Dec 24, 2009 4:34 AM PST up reply actions

I don't buy the BS about there being 29 other teams...

ESPN has 10 stories on their headlines and no mention of the Blazers. I understand people not wanting to sound like a homer but you are a fool if you don’t think the Blazers winning at San Antonio (albeit they are struggling) without their superstar. I mean if it was Atlanta winning at SA without JoJo it would be on there right?

by Escrote on Dec 24, 2009 8:20 AM PST reply actions