Serious question: Is it a generational thing?

[DoctorBombay]

I seriously considered whether I should post this OP, but I figured the debate might prove to be helpful.
Its been pointed out several times that there's recently been a "negativity-laced" tone to almost every issue that comes up regarding the program and players.
Right now, theres an ongoing thread related to a comparison between MCW and Brandon Triche, thats steadily devolved into biting commentary and smarmy counter-points.
Some of the "causes" of the perceived negativity have been attributed to things like:
(1) Atypical Syracuse insecurity, (b) Fallout after a season of "scandal", (c) General douchebaggery (d) Normal off-season malaise/boredom on the board, etc.

However, I've detected a now-familiar tone to the debate, the kind you see on ESPN when a Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless get seated across from one another, spend the next half-hour yelling at the top of their lungs, and call it a "debate".
Or perhaps the Sportscenter anchors who toss out highlights laced with snarky, smart-alect remarks and consider it just par-for-the-course.
ESPN has presented this type of loud-mouthed, "look-at-me" coverage for decades now, and I wonder if the numbers of fans who've never viewed sports in any other way, are now being reflected on this board.
Obviously that wouldn't be the only reason, but could the demographics of younger, ESPN-nurtured sports fans be coming across in greater detail here?
Again, this is a serious attempt at trying to stir some meaningful debate, and not a bitter old man's "in my day, we did things better" post.
Is the negative tone of the board reflective of whats generally presented in the media, and are posters who respond to or initiate posts in that same manner, only doing what they know?
What is the dominant demographic on this board, at this time, in regards to age? Do you "younger" posters agree or disagree with this thought process...is it a "fair" question?
I'm not sure if I got the question across the right way, so feel free to interject and interpret where necessary.

Full disclosure; I'm a 50 yr-old male & SU alum. I haven't watched a full ESPN Sportscenter, NFL/NBA pregame show, or anything that features speculative yammering by so-called experts, in many years. I'll watch the game, maybe some highlights, but then I HAVE to change the channel.
Not a fan of the slick, sarcastic, 18-34 yr old male demographic-tinged coverage. And I don't mean to generalize.

 

[No Hoyas]

I vote for (c) "General Douchebaggery"
Its not just Sports Center, watch any cable "news" show.
Debate is now just who can yell the loudest and, more importantly, get the last word in before the commercial

 

[albanycuse]

people on this board dont take constructive criticism well at all when it comes to the team/coaches/players they think you have some kind of agenda, and when i have some kind of inside info which comes not to often they try to tell you that i made it up even after a well respcted poster backs you up with the same info. its like im going o get paid or something from that, makes me laugh at how ignorant some people really are.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Well let me tell you, QUITE FRANKLY, uh-Mister Doctor Bomb-Bay, that I am not uh-particular-ly impressed with your commentary, nor do I feel uh-particular-ly compelled to offer a rebuttal.

THAT SAID, if we eva', I mean EVA' had the opportune to square off in a uh-friendly game of 2 on 2 basketball, my choice of teammate would be none other than the great uh-Rasho NESTEROVIC.

 

[RF2044]

Well let me tell you, QUITE FRANKLY, uh-Mister Doctor Bomb-Bay, that I am not uh-particular-ly impressed with your commentary, nor do I feel uh-particular-ly compelled to offer a rebuttal.

THAT SAID, if we eva', I mean EVA' had the opportune to square off in a uh-friendly game of 2 on 2 basketball, my choice of teammate would be none other than the great uh-Rasho NESTEROVIC.

The funny thing is, it is all schtick with Stephen A. Smith. If you tune into his radio show [full disclosure: i'm not a regular listener, but I've caught it a few times while driving], not only is he far less bombasitc, he's actually thoughtful and far less demonstrative. Maybe some of that has to do with not alientating his audience--if he yells at them, for example, they'd stop calling in or whatever. But he acts like a completely different person than he does on TV.

And I'm not a Stephen A. fan / apologist--I never liked him much at all until I heard him on the radio and saw a different side to him.

 

[jekelish]

Well let me tell you, QUITE FRANKLY, uh-Mister Doctor Bomb-Bay, that I am not uh-particular-ly impressed with your commentary, nor do I feel uh-particular-ly compelled to offer a rebuttal.

THAT SAID, if we eva', I mean EVA' had the opportune to square off in a uh-friendly game of 2 on 2 basketball, my choice of teammate would be none other than the great uh-Rasho NESTEROVIC.

Well let me tell YOU something, and that's that I ab-so-LUTE-ly couldn't disagree MORE STRONGLY with your point about Doctor Bombay, who time and again has proven to be a WINNER and a VERY strong contributor to this board, unlike some OTHER posters I could mention - LeBjornCuse, I'm looking at you - and what you're saying just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE to me. I just DON'T SEE IT, and another thing, I also LOVE TO START SHOUTING AT THE END OF MY SENTENCES LIKE NIC CAGE.

Now how many pushups do YOU THINK I CAN DO?!?

 

[br801]

DoctorBombay, you raise a lot of interesting questions in your OP.

As someone who generally sees things in shades of gray, I'd say there are multiple factors at play here but I'd like to give all of this more thought.

And FWIW, I'm from the same demographic as you.

 

[jekelish]

Actually, this sums up so-called television debate these days:

 

[orange79]

DoctorBombay, you raise a lot of interesting questions in your OP.

As someone who generally sees things in shades of gray, I'd say there are multiple factors at play here but I'd like to give all of this more thought.

And FWIW, I'm from the same demographic as you.

Hmmmm...how many shades of gray do you see things in?

Not 50, I hope

 

[jimsonjunction]

I'm on the younger side (24 yrs. old), so maybe my opinion will offer something.

I don't think the difference in expression is a result of cynicism or negativity, nor do I think it is tarnishing this board. And I don't think it's a result of ESPN brainwashing the youth of America. Rather, ESPN is probably basing their approach on market research that suggests the youth of America responds more to wit, humor, and "snarkiness."

I find that conversations are often more interesting with a little embellishment. When two sides can play off each other using sarcasm or exaggeration to prove a point. When everything is taken literally, it ruins the back and forth. When talking with my father, I often embellish my opinions or use a sarcastic tone, to which he will roll his eyes and say "Why can't I just get a straight answer?"

I guess straight answers just aren't as interesting to me.

 

[br801]

Hmmmm...how many shades of gray do you see things in?

Not 50, I hope

Nice. Maybe we should just turn this place into Oprah's book club in the off season and be done with it.

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

Quite frankly, I've been saying ESPN has ruined the way the average sports fan views sports for a while now. Totally agree.

 

[Orange Rust Belt]

You got us all wrong... All were really saying in the end is we want them cool Oregon unis

 

[djcon57]

Listen to the kooks who call up all year on Syracuse radio and ask the "Why doesn't MOOKIE play?" question.

Here's a hint: It's NEVER a young man and the gentleman always has a thick Upstate NY accent.

 

[br801]

people on this board dont take constructive criticism well at all when it comes to the team/coaches/players they think you have some kind of agenda, and when i have some kind of inside info which comes not to often they try to tell you that i made it up even after a well respcted poster backs you up with the same info. its like im going o get paid or something from that, makes me laugh at how ignorant some people really are.

Every time you post something like that and I read your signature I get a good laugh.

 

[albanycuse]

Every time you post something like that and I read your signature I get a good laugh.

Your interpretation is off.

 

[SWC75]

However, I've detected a now-familiar tone to the debate, the kind you see on ESPN when a Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless get seated across from one another, spend the next half-hour yelling at the top of their lungs, and call it a "debate".
Or perhaps the Sportscenter anchors who toss out highlights laced with snarky, smart-alect remarks and consider it just par-for-the-course.

Full disclosure; I'm a 50 yr-old male & SU alum. I haven't watched a full ESPN Sportscenter, NFL/NBA pregame show, or anything that features speculative yammering by so-called experts, in many years. I'll watch the game, maybe some highlights, but then I HAVE to change the channel.

Just wondering. Of you haven't watched in years, how do you know what it's like when Smith and Bayliss go at it?

 

[PoppyHart]

Every time you post something like that and I read your signature I get a good laugh.

It's like the quote in Spinal Tap: "They were still booing him when we came on stage."

 

[DoctorBombay]

Touche', SWC.
It's not that I've NEVER watched the shout-fests, its that I can't for more than a couple of minutes, ie: a FULL program in its entirety.
I have stopped watching pre-game shows for good, but if I'm waiting on a highlight, I'll see Stephen A. or Bayliss going at it.
And that makes the greater point... their schtick, their M.O., is now always the same.
Whatever show you watched in November, is what you can see in May- just change the sport.
The only show I can tolerate is PTI, and thats if they're covering a topic I care about. And very rarely will I watch the entire program.
I guess I've noticed the tenor of the board turning towards an "ESPN-like" place, and am wondering why that might be.

 

[cto]

Without question, the board was more fun back in the days of Raoul Duke, Viva Peru, WSO, Lil Joe and many other posters who seem to have disappeared. Heck, even Tristan's feigned elitism was more fun than a lot of what appears on the board now. I had not thought of the ESPN analogy, but I think it has some merit. For those of us who grew up prior to talk radio and 1000 television channels, the airwaves represented a kinder, more thoughtful, more intellectual world. Think Dick Schaap or Marty Glickman or Red Barber or Walter Cronkite. Today, it sometimes seems that the broadcast media are nothing but people yelling at each other and tossing out snarky comments. And sometimes, this board seems that way, too. It may well be generational... on the part of some who grew up with the loud, snarky, combative broadcast media.

 

[triplethrea]

It's a cultural thing. I'm in my 20's and I just can't stand it either. Go on Gawker or any pop culture blog and you'll see it. It's like the younger generation thinks they're so intelligent because they discovered a layer of BS in the world and now they think by being snarky they'll subtly point out to the person they're talking to that they "get it". Yet they have not yet figured out that marketing people have figured out this "snarky, ironic, awkward, sarcastic, witty, etc" game and have put it in every commercial, show, etc.

I think it's really nasty and full of insecurity to constantly find ways to bash people. Watch TMZ sometimes, or any celebrity blog. It's always the little things. And the soundbites. Watch the entire Oprah episode where Tom Cruise jumped on the couch sometime. Not the highlight video but the whole show and you will see how blown out of proportion it was. People want something or someone to talk bad about. I think that directly relates to ESPN. "Lebron is amazing" "Lebron is a villian" "Lebron is selfish" "Lebron is great" "Lebron is not clutch" "Lebron is incredible", until he retires and we move on to the next guy. I can't stand ESPN, and I don't like the negative tone spreading throughout our younger culture. I try to disassociate myself from it.

 

[NineOneSeven]

The funny thing is, it is all schtick with Stephen A. Smith. If you tune into his radio show [full disclosure: i'm not a regular listener, but I've caught it a few times while driving], not only is he far less bombasitc, he's actually thoughtful and far less demonstrative. Maybe some of that has to do with not alientating his audience--if he yells at them, for example, they'd stop calling in or whatever. But he acts like a completely different person than he does on TV.

And I'm not a Stephen A. fan / apologist--I never liked him much at all until I heard him on the radio and saw a different side to him.

 

[SWC75]

Touche', SWC.
It's not that I've NEVER watched the shout-fests, its that I can't for more than a couple of minutes, ie: a FULL program in its entirety.
I have stopped watching pre-game shows for good, but if I'm waiting on a highlight, I'll see Stephen A. or Bayliss going at it.
And that makes the greater point... their schtick, their M.O., is now always the same.
Whatever show you watched in November, is what you can see in May- just change the sport.
The only show I can tolerate is PTI, and thats if they're covering a topic I care about. And very rarely will I watch the entire program.
I guess I've noticed the tenor of the board turning towards an "ESPN-like" place, and am wondering why that might be.

Basically agree. It'sd one reason why I like the local guys better. They seem to be less inclinded to make themselves the show than the national guys. It's like the national guys need to consotantly draw attention to themsleves not jsut by what they say but by how they say it.

I actually like Stepehn A Smith. He has a "street punk" attitude but if you listen to what he actually says, it makes alot of sense. There's some substance behind the style. Bayliss, on the toher hand, has no substance at all. He just likes to incite arguments to wave his own flag.

 

[bballbeadle]

I am transitioning from Late Middle Age to Early Old Age. (In fact, dang! I believe I have arrived.) Many of the people on this board are competitive, as is basketball. So I can see how some get caught up in the "my version of reality is better than your version of reality." When that degenerates into insults, I give those posts a pass. This may not be generational, but rather a personality style. It seems there are two components of being a fan: (1) attending/watching the games, (2) analyzing the games. For many, #2 is just as vital as #1. Maybe more! That's why this forum exists.

But I have to give a shout out to the very creative, witty people who inhabit these boards. Remember the limericks and haiku when we were all so manic before the tournament? And one time I asked "Who is John Syracuse?" and some of the answers made me laugh until a part of me leaked (usually my eyes)! I have only been on this board a year, so don't remember the good old days. These days seem pretty good to me. I do believe Syracuse is in another Golden Era of its program and I am happy to be part of it.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I seriously considered whether I should post this OP, but I figured the debate might prove to be helpful.
Its been pointed out several times that there's recently been a "negativity-laced" tone to almost every issue that comes up regarding the program and players.
Right now, theres an ongoing thread related to a comparison between MCW and Brandon Triche, thats steadily devolved into biting commentary and smarmy counter-points.
Some of the "causes" of the perceived negativity have been attributed to things like:
(1) Atypical Syracuse insecurity, (b) Fallout after a season of "scandal", (c) General douchebaggery (d) Normal off-season malaise/boredom on the board, etc.

However, I've detected a now-familiar tone to the debate, the kind you see on ESPN when a Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless get seated across from one another, spend the next half-hour yelling at the top of their lungs, and call it a "debate".
Or perhaps the Sportscenter anchors who toss out highlights laced with snarky, smart-alect remarks and consider it just par-for-the-course.
ESPN has presented this type of loud-mouthed, "look-at-me" coverage for decades now, and I wonder if the numbers of fans who've never viewed sports in any other way, are now being reflected on this board.
Obviously that wouldn't be the only reason, but could the demographics of younger, ESPN-nurtured sports fans be coming across in greater detail here?
Again, this is a serious attempt at trying to stir some meaningful debate, and not a bitter old man's "in my day, we did things better" post.
Is the negative tone of the board reflective of whats generally presented in the media, and are posters who respond to or initiate posts in that same manner, only doing what they know?
What is the dominant demographic on this board, at this time, in regards to age? Do you "younger" posters agree or disagree with this thought process...is it a "fair" question?
I'm not sure if I got the question across the right way, so feel free to interject and interpret where necessary.

Full disclosure; I'm a 50 yr-old male & SU alum. I haven't watched a full ESPN Sportscenter, NFL/NBA pregame show, or anything that features speculative yammering by so-called experts, in many years. I'll watch the game, maybe some highlights, but then I HAVE to change the channel.
Not a fan of the slick, sarcastic, 18-34 yr old male demographic-tinged coverage. And I don't mean to generalize.

I would add that the generational divide also includes reality TV shows. Their appeal totally escapes me (52 y.0. male), and I think that generally speaking, they have introduced all new levels of coarseness, vulgarity and rudeness to others as something not only acceptable, but to be celebrated. I would also add in how the Sunday morning "news" shows have similarly turned into shout-a-thons, where lying is acceptable for the course. The only repercussions for lying as a policy maker these days are getting caught, and then you aren't branded a liar and discredited, it's simply "partisan" politics.