Who are these people? Two dudes and a chick I’ve never seen before. They’re not worse than the Marang crew though.
They have a backup crew that does one of the shows during the week now that the others do the postgame show.
http://www.sportstwo.com/search/50705809/?q=Outsiders&o=relevance&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=123 already threads on this topic That show is terrible. Absolutely terrible.
Is the point that things broadcast on TV are inherently more worth watching than things distributed via other means? 'Cause if it is, that's a pretty terrible point.
Blazers Outsiders is fine. It does exactly what the Blazers need. They are frilly and they make basic basketball points that the average fan can watch and follow. They also fill in with "Feel Good" stories and personal points that people want to know and hear about the team. They have a few people that are easy to watch and don't make your skin crawl. They come across as personable and nice. The whole idea is to not create drama and controversy and they do that well. People on this site have a little different perspective. Or at least some do. No casual Blazer fan watching a post game show after a big win is gonna want to be stuck on mundane efficiency stats and picking apart a player that had maybe 6 mins on the court and crated a couple turnovers. They are not gonna want to hear about a player that is in a slump over and over again. Pretty sure they would lose viewers if after winning the first round of a playoff series they went all in on telling people the coach didn't have a good enough offense to be considered a good coach in this league. No post or pregame show current or future is going to get a spot mainstream if they don't understand those issues. They will stay on YouTube or whatever other media outlet they happen to be using so people who want to watch that kind of thing can search them out. We have seen over and over again what happens to commentators that try to create controversy on the set. Blazer fans come out in droves and complain about them and eventually they are shown the door.
It's possible to be critical of the team's flaws without "trying to create controversy". Listen to any east coast sports radio. I think there's a niche to be filled.
With the last paragraph, why does it seem like youre trying to reference me without actually referencing me? If you want to call me out, then call me out. If you arent, then forgive me, but with your talk about Stotts criticism and YouTube, it seems like you are. Who the hell would be criticizing Stotts offense after a Game 5 win? Theres a time and place... don't project. Just because someone might pick apart nuances in conversation doesnt mean theyre going to sit there criticizing Stotts offense after that Dame shot. I dont even remember anyone doing that... Regardless, theres a difference between conversation between friends and broadcasting to an audience... apparently you didnt watch my reaction video to Round 1. I know you dislike any criticism about Stotts, but I dont understand why you project it into situations where it doesnt apply. Casual fans are far less likely to watch a post-game show than diehard fans. So catering a post-game show to those who are less likely to watch it doesnt make sense to me. I think they get by because they have ties to the community, not because they cater to the casual fan. In my opinion, if youre able to analyze in an entertaining way and easy to understand way, you can cater to both. Even then, casual fans have a similar spectrum of opinions about that show as hardcore fans, at least from my experience. I could go into my thoughts as too why but Im choosing to refrain from stating my personal opinions on other platforms from now on. Trying hard not to create controversy can be just as controversial. I'll leave you to think about that one. YouTube is becoming more and more mainstream. Acting like being on YouTube instead of cable means you're an automatic secondary option is a bit shortsighted.
