In my opnion, mainly ESPN's coverage is a reflection of today's expectations of good and entertaining twitter feed, gossip, idle talk and click generators. Also, with comedy being way over the top and all around us, somehow TNT's show is the example to follow. Since ESPN cannot copy that, they figure they will let some guys yell (literally) at the cloud (internet, audience) and see if it helps and apparently this generation of people is stupid enough to like it. I mean, we are talking about it constantly and I cannot help myself but watch it too. The few times guys want to get serious, the host will make sure it will go over the top. All those ladies are there to stir up conversation by using hearsay, quotes out of context, blatant favouritism or homer-ism etc. Only NBA TV is good for real discussions and the occasional Open Court and other off-season episodes. I truly miss the 90s TNT half-time reports with a serious Ernie. He would actually just give us the facts, the highlights and talk about it with a guest who was usually a legend on a intellectual level. It's a total disservice to how far the NBA has come in terms of knowledge about the body and the game that it is not being seriously discussed. They could educate people about certain workout regimens, plays, the changes of rules and how the game is played. Instead we get Kenny or Shaq to act smart, and actually themselves believing they are, yet making ludicrous statements which is somehow entertaining to people. Sure the occasional stab at Barkley is fun, Ernie sure is good on delivering lines every now and again, but they could use that show for so much more. For example, maybe actually generate more respect for how the Warriors are playing, not just hype about Curry and Klay as if they are the second coming because it's cool and they are fans themselves. I think a lot of the hate for them for example stems from ignorance and their blatant subjectivity. Ojectivity and facts are no longer important in sports talk. You have people who use the platform to spout ignorance about competitiveness in the 'good old days', how tough they were and didn't need to be cuddled instead of acknowledging they would've welcomed all these 'luxuries' and how their sports coverage has actually contributed heavily towards a Durant joining the Warriors. Players not winning is under more scrutiny than ever, but I digress. This is how I feel about it, anything to add that might have contributed from the serious (and yes maybe dry) coverage of the NBA in the 90s / 00s towards this?
Nowadays there are too many journalists who cover the sport. Serious analysis about any team, playbooks, cap situation you can find it easily in many different websites, podcasts etc. And because it's specific to every team with every small detail with people dedicated to cover it, it's hard for ESPN to compete with that. So I feel like because of this over-competition they want to be different and provocative to draw attention over all the noise.
I didn't think of that, definitely sounds like that’s part of it. It’s interesting that the big networks like ESPN and TNT are over the top and NBA TV is the smallest yet the best and most serious.
The decline of ESPN is sad because Disney made it chase every last ad dollar by dumbing down to the broadest demographic possible -- the stupid and emotionally-charged fan who likes to watch people scream at each other as debate.
Piggybacking on @malakas In the early 2000s I would watch ESPN religiously to get information about baseball trade deadline, to get scores I missed, to hear rumors, to hear the magic numbers, to hear analysis of others teams, etc. Now I can get all of that same information in 10 minutes instead of watching an hour long program. I don't even KNOW who covers baseball for ESPN anymore.
Well I think they are losing people like me who watched for information and so they are trying to find a way to capture a new audience.
