[2012-2013 NBA thread]

It's actually going to be a pretty interesting year in the WNBA this year. Phoenix's tankjob has basically gifted them with a studly team, but LA and Minnesota aren't slouches either. Tulsa will be better too, although probably a year or two away from really competing with the top 3 in the West. They could easily steal the 4th playoff spot away from San Antonio, though.

 

Add in Connecticut and Indiana out East and there are 5 or 6 teams that could win the title without it being much of a surprise. Phoenix is probably the favorite, but they have some serious defensive issues that Griner won't be able to fix by herself.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Are you really so insecure about yourself that three posts about the WNBA infuriated you to the point where you had to create a thread mocking the entire league?

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Cool, good to know you can talk about anything as long as it's basketball...it's named the NBA thread but you might want to change it to the basketball thread because NBA thread implies it's about, oh I don't know, the NBA? Hell, let's talk NCAA basketball here too, same sport right? Oh but that's right, there's a NCAA thread because there's an interest in it.

 

Siena beat Barcelona 77-69, was a great game!

 

Ask yourself why there isn't a WNBA thread (hint, no one gives a s***) but whatever, this thread sucks nowadays.

lol

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

So, because Felix posting by himself was depressing, looks like the Sky will likely get Skylar Diggins or Elena Delle Donne. They are both good enough and pretty enough to possibly be marketable in Chicago. Just an interesting thought.

 

It would be nice to be able to root for Diggins finally. She knocked out my high school girls team four straight years in sectionals or regionals after realignment.

There is about a 5% chance they draft Diggins. Delle Donne is heads and heels above her, and pretty much a near lock for the #2 pick. The only conceviable reason they'd draft Diggins is because of her celebrity status and the local factor, but even that's not enough of a reason to take her over someone like Delle Donne.

 

Either way, it'll be nice for the Sky to finally have some help for Sylvia Fowles. It's embarrassing how bad their management has handled putting talent around her.

[2012-13 Music Thread]

For the QotSA-inclined posters:

[2012-2013 NCAA Basketball thread]

I do hear more about the Gophers than the Wild, and I personally care about the Gophers more than the Wild (though I'd say I follow the Gophers slightly less than I do the Blackhawks). I rated the Wild that high just because I know it's a pretty tough/pricey ticket, at least compared to the other sports.

 

Target Field is gorgeous, I love it out there. I went to the Target Center for the first time in February, not a bad venue. Half the arena was empty, unsurprisingly.

Target Center is an archaic building that desperately needs revamping, but when the team is doing well, it's a rocking building. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case for quite some time.

[2012-2013 NCAA Basketball thread]

They had Kris Humphries for a year when Dan Monson was there, I think.

 

There just isn't really any buzz about the program up here. I mean yeah, people want the Gophers to win, but there's no real fervor.

 

I've only lived in Minneapolis for a little over a year and a half, but this what I think how Twin Cities folk rate their interest in the teams:

 

1. Vikings

2. Twins

2. Wild/Gopher Hockey

3. Gopher Football

4. Gopher Basketball

5. Timberwolves

 

Twins and the hockey teams are tied because their seasons are mostly exclusive; all three are pretty popular.

 

Maybe a big splash, like a Stevens or Smart, could generate that buzz. And of course, if whoever they bring in starts winning consistently in the Big Ten (say, 3 top 4 finishes in a 5 year span), that would generate buzz as well as anything.

DISCLOSURE: I'm not a Minnesota native, but I've been here for 7+ years now

 

Kind of off-topic, but in regards to your Minnesota sports interest:

 

Gopher hockey is infinitely more popular than the Wild. The only reason people care about them is now is because they signed Parise/Suter. Prior to those signings, there were some casual fans who followed them just because it's hockey, but it's nowhere near the same level as the Twins or Vikings. While Minnesota is the state of hockey, the Wild haven't been able to capture the same amount of interest that the North Stars once had (according to everyone I've talked to, at least). St. Paul has a little more interest in the Wild given they play in the city, but it's not even close to the others in Minneapolis.

 

Add in the fact that everyone knows someone who knows someone that played hockey at the U of M (high school hockey is huge here, and all the top Minnesota preps play at the U), and yeah, Gopher hockey gets SIGNIFICANTLY more interest. From everything I've heard/everyone I've talked to, the Timberwolves were the toughest ticket in town to get when KG was here and things were going good (read: 2004).

 

Honestly, if all things are even, the Wolves probably have an edge on the Wild, if only because of bitterness from the North Stars days. The Twins are on a whole different level now because of the outdoor stadium (warm weather, great location, beautiful park, etc.).

 

Agreed about the Gopher basketball team fighting for relevance, but really the key to that is winning. If the team wins, people will care because it's the college team that everyone has ties to. If the team loses (or doesn't win consistently, which has been the case during Tubby's tenure), then they aren't going to differentiate themselves from the rest of the teams in the market. The Tubby hire made a huge splash in the market, but he didn't live up to the (admittedly bloated) expectations. A Shaka Smart hire (or something similar) would definitely go a long way to taking the team to the next level, but it'd all come back to winning consistently.

[2012-13 Music Thread]

This: http://qotsa.com/

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

He said that you're a hater and the WNBA sucks.

This was more creative when it said "turd" instead of hater *yawn*

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

DRose said he feels great. As for his return date? "Nobody knows but God."

But what does Steve's friend's uncle say?

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

The reason he needs to be there tonight is because you never pass up an opportunity to watch Ty Lawson. But hey, way to jump to conclusions.

Also, a ticket sales/corporate services/premium seating representative telling the friend's uncle ANYTHING has literally no weight whatsoever. People in those departments have literally no inside information on what the basketball operations is doing, and it's kind of silly to assume that they would.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

I would think that is enough to go on.

You really should take a journalism class or something before you try writing things about which statements you can/can't go on.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Add that to the fact that Steve was told that Rose was going to be playing tonight.

I'm not going to say the direct connection, but a friend of mine has an uncle who is a big deal and has his own box who was told to make sure he was there on Monday. I ran with it.

Those sound like two very different statements.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

who cares?

Anyone who gives two s***s about journalism?

 

EDIT: I've said all I can say, and at this point Badger is just arguing stupid points solely for the purpose of arguing (lawyer, etc.). Have fun, gents.

 

 

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Confirmed by who?

 

Did steve ever say the bulls confirmed?

 

No

 

Literally if I look at my cat and say "Kitty stay silent if you think Rose will play tonight" and she says nothing, its technically confirmation.

 

I know how newspapers get away with this bulls***, its not really that difficult.

In this context, when you say "a source close to the situation confirmed that Derrick Rose will play Monday" (or whatever it was until it was edited), you are flat out lying. There is no other way to put it.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Except for the fact that you are wrong. Regardless of whether it happens or not, the simple fact is that it wasn't confirmed when you posted the article saying it's confirmed. You might have had "a source" that made it sound like it was likely that he would play tonight, but that is far from being confirmed.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Felix clearly has an ax to grind. That's fine. Again, I didn't expect it to get this big and I purposely didn't share the post on Soxtalk, but it's all good. I had reason to believe Rose was playing tonight based on a source and ran with it on my "s***ty little blog no one reads".

So you said it was confirmed that he is without a doubt playing tonight. Here's a nice link for you to read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Felix,

 

You are comparing a free web blog to a paid for newspaper. I would assume there is a higher level of ethical integrity when you are CHARGING someone for the information.

 

Had Steve charged people for a complete lie, Id agree that is pretty shameless and wrong.

 

But when you give something away, can you really complain about the quality?

Just because you're giving something away doesn't mean you shouldn't be held to an expectation of integrity. Just look at the SB Nation blogs. They're all free for people to use, and yet they are held to a higher standard. If they started throwing bulls*** stories about sources confirming things that haven't been confirmed, they wouldn't still have a blog.

 

And like SS2k5 said, the "Ok, I lied, but it's your fault for not thinking critically" is about as weak an argument as humanly possible.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Joe Cowley? Inside sources? Hahahahaha.

The word "sources" probably gave off the wrong impression. What I meant was he actually talks to the Bulls PR staff regularly (presumably), which are far better sources for information that a friend's uncle who was told that he should go to the game (EVERYONE is ALWAYS told to go to the games... it's almost like they want people in their building).

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

k

 

There's no difference between that and the headline for Joe Cowley's article.

I agree. It was a stupid headline (although the writers rarely/never write headlines for their articles, so I'm not sure the blame on that goes to Cowley). Unlike you, however, he actually has real sources that have inside knowledge on the situation.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

I don't believe anyone ever told you it was a flat out lie. There was a source involved, as detailed above, that's as far as I'm getting into it.

"A source close to the situation says @drose Derrick Rose will officially return Monday."

"Derrick Rose to Return Monday Against Nuggets: CONFIRMED"

 

Someone needs to teach you about journalism if you think that your "source" in your other post comes anywhere near to being a confirmed fact.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

I'm still not getting a good read from you here. Are you admitting to this being a total fabrication just to get hits? Or was this a "I have a guy that knows a guy and instead of actually knowing for sure I decided to post it and it was probably a mistake?"

He has no one with inside information and posted it just to get hits for his blog that no one reads.

 

Does that clear things up for you?

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

So wait, are you holding us to national enquirer standards, fan blog standards or legitimate newspaper standards?

 

Im waiting for someone to explain why Flapship is at all reputable?

 

Does it have any history of inside information?

 

Has it ever posted any new information?

 

Are the majority of the articles opinion?

 

Are the majority of the articles supported by inside sources?

 

Before you should consider something "reputable" it should do something deserving. I dont trust Deadspin/ESPN etc, and they should be considered far more reputable.

 

But then again, its my belief reputable journalism is about reporting facts and Flapship is about opinion.

 

I apologize to anyone under the age of lets say 14 (thats being generous), they may fall for the smoke and mirrors of a well designed website. The rest I would hope would look at the author and ask "Does this guy seem like someone who would have inside Rose information."

How does any of this make it acceptable to post flat out lies? Yes, people SHOULD be smarter than they are. Yes, people SHOULD critically think about what they read before accepting it without second thought. But no, that doesn't mean it's ok to lie about having inside information and encouraging people to actually believe the s*** that's being spewed.

 

The people who read it and thought it was true without a doubt get some percentage of the blame in this ordeal, but the lion's share of the blame goes to the outlet (not just the specific author, although it's clear he's the original culprit) for not only posting it in the first place, but not amending it in any way after the fact. I'm sorry, but making a comment about how you'll believe it when you see it does not wash your hands from this mess.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Oh come on, disgusting is a little far.

 

TMZ reported that Lil Wayne was dead. Journalists make s*** up every single day of the week, often for reputable publications.

Wait, are we calling TMZ reputable now? When did that happen? Is the National Inquirer considered reputable now too?

 

EDIT: Real reputable outlets make mistakes all the time... just look at the Manti Teo garbage. However, those outlets weren't flat out lying. They were simply lazily reporting the news, which is a pretty big offense by itself, but on a completely different level than going all Stephen Glass on it.

 

This is a fan blog that had sent out a tweet to 300 people.

 

From that 25,000 people have read the article. If you are over the age of 10 and cant recognize that is not a legitimate source and that you should take it completely with a grain of salt, that is on you.

To an extent, yes, a percentage of the blame is on the idiots that read it and can't figure out that Steve is/was/will always be full of s***. However, it certainly doesn't excuse the behavior in posting it in the first place. It shows basic lack of integrity.

 

Not to mention, 2 days ago I posted:

 

I hate to say it, but Ill believe it when I see it. It can take up to 18 months after an ACL surgery for the knee to feel “normal” again. Thus, something could happen this weekend to further delay the return. Whenever Rose is ready to play, he will play, and Im quite fine with that.

 

A day ago Zoom posted "The thoughts expressed in the commentary on this site are soley the beliefs of the author and do not represent the views of any other individuals or Flapship as a whole." That was a day ago.

These were posted in comments. If you actually think everyone who reads the article would read all of the comments, then I'm sorry for your lack of understanding about how the internet works. Despite lacking any factual basis, the article remains posted to this day and even has an update, suggesting again that the author has a source close to Rose (bulls***) and that he feels great today and will be playing tonight. The fact that the website has multiple editors and no one took the post down, amended it or did ANYTHING meaningful to suggest that the author has no inside information whatsoever is indeed disgusting.

[2012-2013 NBA thread]

Agreed.

 

Sorry Steve, I don't see what the point of all this was.

To get clicks on his s***ty blog, of course.