Is it the media or

[Graybeard 0]

I was merely debunking the suggestion that great coaches take MEDIOCRE teams and win CHAMPIONSHIPS with them.

That doesn't happen.

Great coaches take STRONG teams and win championships. You don't win without both; at least not consistently.

A good example of this is the Blues. Mike Keenan built a great roster, but he was unpopular and run out of town for trading Brendan Shanahan for Chris Pronger (how'd that work out again?) When he left, the Blues had possibly the best collection of talent in the league. Yet their team was never able to achieve postseason success. Why? Because the coaching was subpar. Quenneville got tons of credit for the Blues' 2000 President's trophy, but IMHO he was the LEAST significant factor in that season, as the Blues had two of the top five defensemen in the NHL at the time. Keenan turned Pronger from a drunk neverwillbe into an elite player. Keenan traded Phil Housley for Al MacInnis. Keenan acquired Pierre Turgeon. In fact, every key player on that 2000 Blues team was acquired by Keenan. Quenneville was simply the beneficiary of a good roster of skilled veteran players and an elite young defenseman in his best year.

Aha, we're arguing different things. My argument was never that a great coach could take a mediocre team to win championships. Obviously without the talent on a team to get it done no coach can win a championship. May argument was actually the reverse of this in that a mediocre, (and actually I even conceded that Jackson was more than mediocre he was good but not great) coach could take his team to a championship if the team was good enough. Which I believe to be the case with Jackson and the Bulls/Lakers. No amount of arguing will get me to believe that a team has to have a GREAT coach to win a championship. Sometimes good is good enough, depending on the talent of not only the team in question, but the quality of opposition.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

OK so I am lucky enough to be watching another one of the teams I root for in a championship, however much like when Detroit was in control of the series, all of the national media articles are on the other team.

In the SCF it was all about Pittsburgh and Therrien and Crosby, now all of the articles are about the Lakers, Jackson, and Kobe.

On the Yahoo NBA page towards the right hand edge is a section where they show related articles, they do it by team even under the Boston Celtics section, which is usually articles dedicated to the team, it is all Lakers articles. What can the Lakers do to win, whining about fouls, blah blah blah.

It was the same for the SCF, is it that the only thing Journalists can talk about is how the losing team can win, or is it that the teams I choose to root for are becoming like the Yankees.

The Wings I can understand they are winners every year, but in the NBA the Lakers would remind me more of the Yankees than the C's.

I guess if it works out like hockey, the team with all the press lost, then I am cool with it, but I was just curious if anyone else noticed this or thought it weird that the articles for both Championship series seem to focus primarily on one team, until the other team put a choke hold on the series?

I mean sure there was the Leon Powe story, but other than the feel good story the majority of articles and even sports talk radio have been about Kobe not scoring (Like Malkin and Sid early in that series) instead of the C's defense (like Detroit's).

Thoughts? or closed thread?

Unless you are a big fan of one or the other teams in a championship series, people in the general population/people who have little or no emotional or financial stake in the games like the underdog. Plain and simple as that.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Game...........................BLOUSES.

[Opie 308]

This was what I was waiting for(I called it 4-1 C's, but I would have liked a sweep), so the Lakers win at home, much like the Pens did, and again it is all about the Lakers, much like it was all about the Pens. They finally did this, they finally did that.

I just don't get media anymore, it seems like everyone now is sensationalized, no one seems to report the story. Everyone has to try to make a name for themselves.

Some Jack ass fat faced reporter overhears one of his buddies say the Pats video taped the Rams, instead of checking his facts and seeing if the tapes exist he writes a story about it.

Bill Plashcke is still writing about how Paul Pierce faked that injury, in everyone of his articles he mentions the wheel chair or their acting.

After the first two games of the SCF it was all about how Det was trapping and hooking or whatever else Therrien and Crosby spewed out of their mouths.

Then I go back to Baseball, the world series and even the entire playoffs there were balanced equal articles, for every the Rockies are living the dream there was a Ryan Howard or Rollins are working to get there team back in it. For every Beckett is dominant there was a will CC Sabathia come back to form.

I guess it is that there are too many forums now and too much competition for headlines, with the internet now every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the ability to post an article, and it forces Journalists (I hesitate to call them that) to have to sensationalize their articles to draw more headlines. It is turning the media world into Around the Horn and everyone is a Paige or Mariotti and that is the last thing I want to read with my morning cup of JOE!