Marc Spears speaks up for Luke Walton and praises the Kings on ESPN's 'The Jump'

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It‘s not perceived. You‘re either suffering from denial or just want to take the opposite POV for the sake of it.

They have a near daily anti-KINGS segment for Pete’s sake. What further proof do you need? Seriously.

Were they doing “As the Lakers turn” the past 6 years as they continued to flounder and further a train wreck? Nope.

Somebody never watched the "La La Lance" segments...

And, see, you missed the point: sorry as the gd lakers may have been pre-LeBron, they actually weren't a "train wreck." They were just sorry. You don't get a segment on The Jump by just being sorry. You have to be an actual train wreck. They took shots at the lakers' drama, just like they take shots at the Kings' drama, just like they take shots at the Suns' drama, just like they take shots at the Timberwolves' drama, just like they take shots at the Wizards' drama, just like they take shots at the Knicks' drama. So maybe, instead of being mad at ESPN for poking fun at the Kings' drama, you should direct your anger where it belongs: at your dramatic ass team.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Yeah but, fan allegiance aside, surely you would admit that the Sacramento Kings front office personnel/ownership have given a lot for sports entertainment commentators to make fun of for going on... well, I've lost track at this point of how long. There's more than a whiff of truth to all of it regardless of how much of the expected hyperbole is applied. It should also be noted that they're nearly unanimous in their sympathy and support for us as fans.

Who said otherwise? But is it the media's job to troll or objectively report what's going on? There's a difference.

You don't hear commentators on Nat'l broadcasts consistently poke fun of a team do you? Or consistently come across as biased? When Al Michaels commentates on a game, he tells it like it is but doesn't ridicule and troll simply because one or both the franchises have given him reason to.

The same should apply to these Nat'l talk shows on supposedly reputable networks too. That's the point.

I'm not saying they can't readily say that the team is bad. Or has been bad. Or makes egregious mistakes. But there is a big difference between reporting sports news and analyzing it versus openly mocking and trolling.

The really good talk show hosts seem to be able to avoid doing the latter. They are openly critical, when warranted, but don't openly troll.

Unfortunately, much of sports reporting has been trending and devolving toward Howard Stern "shock jock" status for some time.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Somebody never watched the "La La Lance" segments...

And, see, you missed the point: sorry as the gd lakers may have been pre-LeBron, they actually weren't a "train wreck." They were just sorry. You don't get a segment on The Jump by just being sorry. You have to be an actual train wreck. They took shots at the lakers' drama, just like they take shots at the Kings' drama, just like they take shots at the Suns' drama, just like they take shots at the Timberwolves' drama, just like they take shots at the Wizards' drama, just like they take shots at the Knicks' drama. So maybe, instead of being mad at ESPN for poking fun at the Kings' drama, you should direct your anger where it belongs: at your dramatic ass team.

LOL. The Lakers most certainly have been a train wreck the past 6 years. You clearly haven't been paying attention. But that point doesn't really matter.

I'm saying a reputable network and reputable reporters/commentators shouldn't be trolling any team. Lakers, Knicks, Kings, Celtics ... doesn't matter.

Report the freaking news. Objectively provide an opinion on the how's and why's. Or who you believe to better or worse. But openly trolling is unprofessional. And unwarranted. That type of behavior should be left to the cesspool known as social media and the Internet.

You're a huge WNBA fan. You should be fully aware of all the trolling and over-the-top negativity that sport has received from Nat'l talk show hosts for many. many years. And it still does. But just because that league isn't in the same stratosphere as the NBA or other sports doesn't mean it should be mocked and belittled in a supposedly professional forum.

 

[hrdboild]

Who said otherwise? But is it the media's job to troll or objectively report what's going on? There's a difference.

You don't hear commentators on Nat'l broadcasts consistently poke fun of a team do you? Or consistently come across as biased? When Al Michaels commentates on a game, he tells it like it is but doesn't ridicule and troll simply because one or both the franchises have given him reason to.

The same should apply to these Nat'l talk shows on supposedly reputable networks too. That's the point.

I'm not saying they can't readily say that the team is bad. Or has been bad. Or makes egregious mistakes. But there is a big difference between reporting sports news and analyzing it versus openly mocking and trolling.

The really good talk show hosts seem to be able to avoid doing the latter. They are openly critical, when warranted, but don't openly troll.

Unfortunately, much of sports reporting has been trending and devolving toward Howard Stern "shock jock" status for some time.

That's why I used the term "sports entertainment" as I feel like it's an important distinction to make. I would also add that most of the sources which used to pride themselves on their "journalistic integrity" have been gently swept aside or have transitioned in the direction of "news entertainment" by now so it's by no means specific to one particular network. There's been a cultural shift away from hard facts and toward viewership-motivated programming on every topic. Sure it may be lazy and easy to poke fun at the Kings right now, to kick them while they're down so to speak, but I also don't think the whole "circle the wagons and keep out the naysayers" approach of local media has been beneficial to the franchise either. How close did we get to losing our team before local media stopped parroting everything the Maloofs had to say? Pretty damn close from what I remember.

So my attitude at this point is this: Let these folks get roasted a little if it helps to keep them honest. They get paid well for their services, they can afford to have a thick skin. And if they're not doing the job, get them out of here and bring in someone who will. That's already been the standard for some time now in big city markets like New York and Philadelphia where there's a vested interest in the success of their local franchises. I'm not sure LA fans care enough to even pay attention when their team is bad, but that's LA for you, it is it's own unique type of market. 360 days of sunshine a year and an economy built on the entertainment industry will do that for you.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

LOL. The Lakers most certainly have been a train wreck the past 6 years. You clearly haven't been paying attention. But that point doesn't really matter.

You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "train wreck."

I'm saying a reputable network and reputable reporters/commentators shouldn't be trolling any team. Lakers, Knicks, Kings, Celtics ... doesn't matter.

Report the freaking news. Objectively provide an opinion on the how's and why's. Or who you believe to better or worse. But openly trolling is unprofessional. And unwarranted. That type of behavior should be left to the cesspool known as social media and the Internet.

Did you mean to post about C-SPAN, and accidentally typed ESPN, by mistake? ESPN is not a news organization. They are not obliged to not "troll," they are not obliged to not editorialize, and they are definitely not obliged to simply "report the freaking news." I don't know who told you different, but the 'E' in ESPN stands for "entertainment," and the 'N' does not stand for "news." If you're not entertained by ESPN, that's your business, but what they're doing is perfectly acceptable.

If all you want is box scores and antiseptic highlights, the app is free.

 

[VF21]

FYI - I watched "The Jump" today for the first time ever.

It didn't suck.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "train wreck."


Did you mean to post about C-SPAN, and accidentally typed ESPN, by mistake? ESPN is not a news organization. They are not obliged to not "troll," they are not obliged to not editorialize, and they are definitely not obliged to simply "report the freaking news." I don't know who told you different, but the 'E' in ESPN stands for "entertainment," and the 'N' does not stand for "news." If you're not entertained by ESPN, that's your business, but what they're doing is perfectly acceptable.

If all you want is box scores and antiseptic highlights, the app is free.

Dude, blowing three #2 picks in a row is kind of the definition of train wreck. Just cause they have the Lakers get-out-jail-free card doesn't mean they were not, and are not, a train wreck. You love Nichols...great. We Sacramento natives aren't crazy for thinking that show is mean-spirited and tilted towards the big markets ESPN is pumping to justify their overspending on the NBA contract. The NBA, and ESPN, have decided to punt on the domestic market. Consequently, they need to pump big market recognizable brands even more than they normally do, because the international viewer is probably not terribly familiar with Sacramento and Indianapolis. It's no coincidence that we are trying to open the market in India, even aside from Vivek's ties. It's our chance to get a seat at the big-boy table at NBA HQ.

Here's what it boils down to, and why Sacramentans and other smaller market (cause the #20 market in the country is not actually small) natives get so upset...what's the NFL equivalent of The Jump? What's the MLB equivalent of The Jump? MLS? NHL? Does CBS constantly talk about how Aaron Rodgers needs to get out of Green Bay and play for the Giants? What's the NFL equivalent of that Klutch Sports mouth-piece and joke of a journalist Windhorst? Does NBC whine about how McDavid needs to leave Edmonton and play for the LA Kings? Of course not. The other leagues protect all their franchises. There may or may not be competitive imbalance due to various factors within each league, but a broadcast partner denigrating the city/franchise/market of one of their clubs would get broadsided by league headquarters. That doesn't happen with the NBA.

 

[VF21]

Dude, blowing three #2 picks in a row is kind of the definition of train wreck. Just cause they have the Lakers get-out-jail-free card doesn't mean they were not, and are not, a train wreck. You love Nichols...great. We Sacramento natives aren't crazy for thinking that show is mean-spirited and tilted towards the big markets ESPN is pumping to justify their overspending on the NBA contract. The NBA, and ESPN, have decided to punt on the domestic market. Consequently, they need to pump big market recognizable brands even more than they normally do, because the international viewer is probably not terribly familiar with Sacramento and Indianapolis. It's no coincidence that we are trying to open the market in India, even aside from Vivek's ties. It's our chance to get a seat at the big-boy table at NBA HQ.

Here's what it boils down to, and why Sacramentans and other smaller market (cause the #20 market in the country is not actually small) natives get so upset...what's the NFL equivalent of The Jump? What's the MLB equivalent of The Jump? MLS? NHL? Does CBS constantly talk about how Aaron Rodgers needs to get out of Green Bay and play for the Giants? What's the NFL equivalent of that Klutch Sports mouth-piece and joke of a journalist Windhorst? Does NBC whine about how McDavid needs to leave Edmonton and play for the LA Kings? Of course not. The other leagues protect all their franchises. There may or may not be competitive imbalance due to various factors within each league, but a broadcast partner denigrating the city/franchise/market of one of their clubs would get broadsided by league headquarters. That doesn't happen with the NBA.

Whistle on the play. I don't think "Sacramento natives" are consistent in that belief, any more than we're consistent about anything else.

 

[Livinthedream]

Here's what it boils down to, and why Sacramentans and other smaller market (cause the #20 market in the country is not actually small) natives get so upset...what's the NFL equivalent of The Jump? What's the MLB equivalent of The Jump? MLS? NHL? Does CBS constantly talk about how Aaron Rodgers needs to get out of Green Bay and play for the Giants? What's the NFL equivalent of that Klutch Sports mouth-piece and joke of a journalist Windhorst? Does NBC whine about how McDavid needs to leave Edmonton and play for the LA Kings? Of course not. The other leagues protect all their franchises. There may or may not be competitive imbalance due to various factors within each league, but a broadcast partner denigrating the city/franchise/market of one of their clubs would get broadsided by league headquarters. That doesn't happen with the NBA.

Good points.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "train wreck."


Did you mean to post about C-SPAN, and accidentally typed ESPN, by mistake? ESPN is not a news organization. They are not obliged to not "troll," they are not obliged to not editorialize, and they are definitely not obliged to simply "report the freaking news." I don't know who told you different, but the 'E' in ESPN stands for "entertainment," and the 'N' does not stand for "news." If you're not entertained by ESPN, that's your business, but what they're doing is perfectly acceptable.

If all you want is box scores and antiseptic highlights, the app is free.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. You can try to play semantics with their acronym, but they most certainly are in the business of reporting sporting news. Furthermore, they are in the business of providing detailed and, supposedly, expert analysis. I don’t know who told you differently.

Lastly, it goes well beyond finding it entertaining. It’s about being professional, accurate, and credible.

I circle back to the live game broadcasts. Those fall under the ’entertainment’ category too. And they aren’t obliged not to do any of the items you listed either. But they don’t. None of the networks providing the broadcasts do. So please spare me the entertainment excuse. It’s doesn’t fly.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Dude, blowing three #2 picks in a row is kind of the definition of train wreck. Just cause they have the Lakers get-out-jail-free card doesn't mean they were not, and are not, a train wreck. You love Nichols...great. We Sacramento natives aren't crazy for thinking that show is mean-spirited and tilted towards the big markets ESPN is pumping to justify their overspending on the NBA contract. The NBA, and ESPN, have decided to punt on the domestic market. Consequently, they need to pump big market recognizable brands even more than they normally do, because the international viewer is probably not terribly familiar with Sacramento and Indianapolis. It's no coincidence that we are trying to open the market in India, even aside from Vivek's ties. It's our chance to get a seat at the big-boy table at NBA HQ.

Here's what it boils down to, and why Sacramentans and other smaller market (cause the #20 market in the country is not actually small) natives get so upset...what's the NFL equivalent of The Jump? What's the MLB equivalent of The Jump? MLS? NHL? Does CBS constantly talk about how Aaron Rodgers needs to get out of Green Bay and play for the Giants? What's the NFL equivalent of that Klutch Sports mouth-piece and joke of a journalist Windhorst? Does NBC whine about how McDavid needs to leave Edmonton and play for the LA Kings? Of course not. The other leagues protect all their franchises. There may or may not be competitive imbalance due to various factors within each league, but a broadcast partner denigrating the city/franchise/market of one of their clubs would get broadsided by league headquarters. That doesn't happen with the NBA.

Agree on all accounts. Especially about the NBA compared to the other major sports. I made a point several months ago how MLB network does a pretty good job supporting and covering all their teams. Not just the large markets or the title contenders. Both MLB and NHL are far better than the NBA and NFL is that regard. But I truly believe the NBA is worst of the 4.

 

[VF21]

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. You can try to play semantics with their acronym, but they most certainly are in the business of reporting sporting news. Furthermore, they are in the business of providing detailed and, supposedly, expert analysis. I don’t know who told you differently.

Lastly, it goes well beyond finding it entertaining. It’s about being professional, accurate, and credible.

I circle back to the live game broadcasts. Those fall under the ’entertainment’ category too. And they aren’t obliged not to do any of the items you listed either. But they don’t. None of the networks providing the broadcasts do. So please spare me the entertainment excuse. It’s doesn’t fly.

Sporting news is akin to entertainment news. In that regard, ESPN is more aligned to ET and that ilk, than they are to real news. They are in the business of providing entertainment.

Professional, accurate, and credible? ESPN? Oh please.

The entertainment excuse does fly...

ESPN (originally an initialism for Entertainment and Sports Programming Network) is a U.S.-based pay television sports channel owned by ESPN Inc., owned jointly by The Walt Disney Company (80%) and Hearst Communications (20%).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Dude, blowing three #2 picks in a row is kind of the definition of train wreck. Just cause they have the Lakers get-out-jail-free card doesn't mean they were not, and are not, a train wreck.

Nah. You're conflating 'train wreck' with good ol' fashioned ineptitude. Being a train wreck requires more than just being bad; there has to be an element of drama, too. The Zombie Bobcats have blown every non-Kemba draft pick in their franchise history until, possibly, Devonte' Graham, but they're not a train wreck. Why? No drama. Memphis has been trash since their Grind City core all got old at the same time, but no drama. The gd lakers, ****ty as they'd been, were essentially drama free from the end of the failed Howard/Nash experiment, until they signed LeBron last year. And guess what, they did get clowned on The Jump all of last year, so there goes your little get-out-of-jail-free theory. Not only that... are we even sure, in hindsight, that the lakers did blow all three of those draft picks? I mean, you can say that the jury is still out on Lonzo Ball, if you want to, but Russell and Ingram appear to have the goods. So, were the picks really blown, or were they just mismanaged? Russell, kind of had to get gone, both for his own good and theirs, but I feel like Ball, Hart, Kuzma and Ingram would have been a better core five years from now than whatever's going to be left of the lakers when LeBron retires.

You love Nichols...great. We Sacramento natives aren't crazy for thinking that show is mean-spirited and tilted towards the big markets ESPN is pumping to justify their overspending on the NBA contract.

Yeah, you kinda are. I mean, tilted towards big markets... I guess, but that only bothers the people who root for small markets. Mean-spirited? That's just "small town" inferiority complex stuff.

Here's what it boils down to, and why Sacramentans and other smaller market (cause the #20 market in the country is not actually small) natives get so upset...what's the NFL equivalent of The Jump?

... You're kidding, right? NFL Live is on nine days a week, fifteen months out of the year. It's literally the program that comes on on ESPN, immediately before The Jump. I don't even like football, and I know way more about NFL Live than I'd ever care to know; it's inescapable.

 

[Livinthedream]

Yeah, you kinda are. I mean, tilted towards big markets... I guess, but that only bothers the people who root for small markets. Mean-spirited? That's just "small town" inferiority complex stuff.

I respect opinions, but I can't agree with this. I don't watch any shows on ESPN because they're uninterested in my "small market" NBA and NFL teams. It doesn't hold my attention when there are 30 or 32 teams in a league and the show is only interested in 4 or 5 because of ratings and advertising dollars. So I choose to consume local information.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. You can try to play semantics with their acronym, but they most certainly are in the business of reporting sporting news. Furthermore, they are in the business of providing detailed and, supposedly, expert analysis. I don’t know who told you differently.

No, they're not. That's a flat lie. You're lying right now. They've got, like, two shows, across all their time slots, across all their platforms, that exist to report news. From 8a-12p, and then from 4-6p, they've got nothing but debate shows on their main network. You don't devote 25 percent of your airtime on your main channel to debate shows if you're in the business of reporting sports news. ESPN is in the entertainment business. that's it, and that's all.

The problem is you allowed yourself to be convinced that scores + highlights = news.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I respect opinions, but I can't agree with this. I don't watch any shows on ESPN because they're uninterested in my "small market" NBA and NFL teams.

I used to think that way, but then I had an epiphany: that's what the app is for. See, you're sensitive to it, because of how you perceive their treatment of the Kings. But, for someone like me, national sports networks have always been a waste of time: if you don't like the NFL, national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. If you don't like college sports, or you do like college sports, but only care about the "non-revenue generating" ones, then national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. Or, even if you do follow the revenue-generating sports, but only care about teams outside of the P5... you guessed it, national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. But, here's where that falls apart for me: I don't get anything out of national sports networks to satisfy that, but I also don't root for any local teams, either (I never have, I never will), so that means that local sports networks are also useless.

From my point of view, the only value that national sports networks provide is entertainment, and that's the only metric that they should be judged by. That, and whether they actually broadcast the sports you like. In fact, I'll take it a step further: ESPN launched ESPNews on November 1, 1996. To me, that was a huge, honking, neon light that could be seen from outer space. They telegraphed where they were taking their network, over twenty years ago! They created a whole ass channel, that was originally designed to be just for the antiseptic scores and highlights y'all like so much; it was basically the Headline News of sports. And the only reason it makes sense to do that, when they already had Sportscenter, is if they had never intended for their main channel to be antiseptic sports coverage in the first place. And, by the way, they ultimately changed formats on ESPNews, because it turns out that, with the ubiquity of the internet, most people realized that sitting in front a TV and having to wait to get scores and highlights and antiseptic analysis is a waste of time. The only reason to watch national sports networks is if you vibe off the personalities of the people hosting their shows. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

Unless the Kings acquire a glamour crossover superstar, they're never going to be featured on national sports networks, unless it's for something bad, and expecting that to change is hustling backwards. You might as well be mad at the tide. I don't even understand why people are still want to sit down in front of their TVs at the same scheduled times daily to see scores and highlights in 2019, when they can get all that in two clicks, or two swipes, without having to sit through all the stuff they don't care about? It strikes me as counterintuitive and stupid.

 

[Livinthedream]

I used to think that way, but then I had an epiphany: that's what the app is for. See, you're sensitive to it, because of how you perceive their treatment of the Kings. But, for someone like me, national sports networks have always been a waste of time: if you don't like the NFL, national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. If you don't like college sports, or you do like college sports, but only care about the "non-revenue generating" ones, then national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. Or, even if you do follow the revenue-generating sports, but only care about teams outside of the P5... you guessed it, national sports networks have never been what's poppin'. But, here's where that falls apart for me: I don't get anything out of national sports networks to satisfy that, but I also don't root for any local teams, either (I never have, I never will), so that means that local sports networks are also useless.

From my point of view, the only value that national sports networks provide is entertainment, and that's the only metric that they should be judged by. That, and whether they actually broadcast the sports you like. In fact, I'll take it a step further: ESPN launched ESPNews on November 1, 1996. To me, that was a huge, honking, neon light that could be seen from outer space. They telegraphed where they were taking their network, over twenty years ago! They created a whole ass channel, that was originally designed to be just for the antiseptic scores and highlights y'all like so much; it was basically the Headline News of sports. And the only reason it makes sense to do that, when they already had Sportscenter, is if they had never intended for their main channel to be antiseptic sports coverage in the first place. And, by the way, they ultimately changed formats on ESPNews, because it turns out that, with the ubiquity of the internet, most people realized that sitting in front a TV and having to wait to get scores and highlights and antiseptic analysis is a waste of time. The only reason to watch national sports networks is if you vibe off the personalities of the people hosting their shows. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

Unless the Kings acquire a glamour crossover superstar, they're never going to be featured on national sports networks, unless it's for something bad, and expecting that to change is hustling backwards. You might as well be mad at the tide. I don't even understand why people are still want to sit down in front of their TVs at the same scheduled times daily to see scores and highlights in 2019, when they can get all that in two clicks, or two swipes, without having to sit through all the stuff they don't care about? It strikes me as counterintuitive and stupid.

I may have been sensitive to it when I stopped watching over 5 years ago, but not so much now. The type of entertainment the networks provide is something that I've become accustomed to not needing. But as you stated before, it does come down to how a person consumes his sports. In the past, I listened to Dan Patrick because it was more like guys hanging out, with sports being the peripheral topic. I didn't expect anything out of it. I would turn on ESPN for the highlights mostly. Now I get my content through Twitter. I know who's opinion I respect and who's format works with me. I'll listen to a podcast or 2 if want serious basketball talk on a national level. Local podcasts for the Kings and my other sports teams. So yes, I'm looking for specific things, and the internet today allows me to go out and take in information on my own terms.

As far as the Kings being promoted on the national level, i'm not worried right now. No one will take notice until they become a contender. That's just how it works.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I may have been sensitive to it when I stopped watching over 5 years ago, but not so much now. The type of entertainment the networks provide is something that I've become accustomed to not needing. But as you stated before, it does come down to how a person consumes his sports. In the past, I listened to Dan Patrick because it was more like guys hanging out, with sports being the peripheral topic. I didn't expect anything out of it. I would turn on ESPN for the highlights mostly. Now I get my content through Twitter. I know who's opinion I respect and who's format works with me. I'll listen to a podcast or 2 if want serious basketball talk on a national level. Local podcasts for the Kings and my other sports teams. So yes, I'm looking for specific things, and the internet today allows me to go out and take in information on my own terms.

Yeah, see, that accounts for a lot of the disconnect, for me: I don't want serious basketball talk, at all. Nobody should, in my opinion. Because basketball is sports, and sports are not real life. They shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Folsomkingsfan]

Nah I was just messing with you man. I only slightly thought you may be back-patting (like 30% chance) but with Blob or Brick not being around anymore and this newly discovered Barry Horowitz GIF burning a hole in my pocket......figured time to use it somewhere.

Agree with most of what you said. ESPN is a disaster these days in general but most of this perceived bias from the Kings fanbase in regards to ESPN and the national media in general is just that perceived. It's a combination of small market, not winning enough for a decade plus, and getting oh-so close in the early 2000s while falling spectacularly just short.

In the case of ESPN I never thought that they had anything against Sacramento it's just that they don't care and barely acknowledge the existence.

Case in point, when they had Deearon Fox on First Take the majority of the conversation was about Steph Curry. Same with Fox sports. Hardly any questions about what the Kings were trying to do, culture, etc. while they praised Fox as being well spoken and the Kings record, they clearly didn’t care whatsoever about the Kings enough to ask any meaningful question.