Potential reasons why the media is Anti-Pats

[The Gr8est]

I think it's because the Pats win without appearing overly dominant. That confuses people who like to see things black and white, i.e. a team is great or terrible. The Pats would get more love if they had the best O or the best D. But the media doesn't recognize that the Pats are great at one thing- and that is winning. Because they win without dominance the media keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop and for the team to start losing.

Well keep waitin', suckas.

Patjew nailed it. The pats aren't exciting. They aren't glamorous, they just win and they do it without sizzle.

Look at ESPN and their open rooting for Peyton Manning, Danica Patrick, and Michelle Wie. Their combined championships is now up to "0", but they are "sexy" and their winning a championship would be a great story.

ESPN is trying their damnedest to create the news, but the boring, ugly, non-contoversial Patriots keep winning and spoiling their plans.

ESPN decides who gets the coverage d%#*!@t!...why don't the Pats realize this and stop being such party-poopers??!!

 

[fnordcircle]

The media isn't anti-Pats you guys are just unbelieveably thin-skinned when it comes to criticism of the team.

I spend most of my time posting on the sports forums on somethingawful.com and guess what they complain about? Non-stop media fellatio of the Patriots.

I'm pretty sure reality lies smack dab in the middle of the two extremes.

 

[TruthSeeker]

...
Writer think winning comes from adding the most high priced free agents to your team every year.

Plus they are hero worshipers and root for the loudest flashiest players and coaches.

In addition, all of these factors sell newspapers/draw viewers.

The real answer to winning is not a secret. But it's.......boring.

It's hard work, team work, consistency, budgeting.
...

I think that there are a lot of factors that go into this. But the main one in my opinion is what RayClay is saying here: most writers believe that teams win because of the star players. Star players can be important, but just as important is the system that allows players - even average players - to succeed and even to thrive.

The Patriots keep losing so many players that contributed significantly to their success that many media believe that the team has to be going significantly downhill. They don't spend the time to truly evaluate the talent that is there and the system that allows it to succeed.

This past off-season has been a perfect example of it. Practically every national publication that discussed the Patriots prospects this year focused on the shallow analysis of who the Patriots lost in free agency and who they picked up. Yes, this is a factor and shouldn't be overlooked. But it seemed that, to the media, this was 80% of the puzzle. It isn't! The improvement of the OL over the past couple of years has been totally ignored by the national media and yet will make a much bigger difference in the success of the Patriots IMO than AV signing with the Colts. Plus, the Patriots seem to keep having significant success in the draft which, for some reason, doesn't seem to resonate well with the national media.

Yes, the Patriots also don't give sound bites to attract attention; they hardly give sound bites at all. :singing: The don't give out any information. They praise their opponents consistently. They are not a star-driven team even though they have some stars. Their defensive star is a lineman! How many teams can say that?

Ultimately, the Patriots are more than the sum of their parts and most teams are less than the sum of their parts. That's why the Patriots are consistently under-rated before the wins and losses are counted up because reporters can do math; they just don't realize that addition and subtraction is not the best way to value teams in the NFL - particularly the Patriots.

 

[italian pat patriot]

personally i really love the 'non-respect' and to be 'underdogs' because when we prove the contrary i appreciate it double !

i saw i.e a power ranking where we are at # 12 - that's very good for me...

 

[Pats726]

http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/story/display_story.php?story_id=5931

More food for thought...

 

[Fogbuster]

the football played today is all about media friendliness...and pats arent one..they arent necessarliy against the media as a team but they dont have a TO, chad johnson, ray lewis ,bettis etc which can become a story week in and week out,But when the pats win, these media members are forced to find a story and cant. So they would rather have say baltimore winning because they talk all about say billick ,ray lewis etc etc.Same with miami. if miami played well its good for the media because culpepper getts noticed, more interviews more stories...
Plus the media is just tired of the pats talk to be honest and if someone is not a NE fan, he/shee would also feel that the pats just go away, thats just the nature of it...




Hoo-boy, ain't you hit the nail on the head! The media lives for the sensational. It's easy: no sensation, nobody puts their hands in their pockets to fork over a buck for a newspaper or $70 per month for cable/dish/whatever. So these hype meisters *have* to spin "sensationalism" or they don't eat. Wm Randolph Hearst was the master of yellow journalism, and he spawned Patty! They should look for an honest way to make a buck, imho.

Besides, as we've seen in the past several decades, the blow-dried media types get all nervous over images like "patriots".

They'd all love Brady, and write every day about him if he'd hold out for 200 mil contract, or got drunk and naked on a boat out on Quabin Resevoir, or was in the vicinity when somebody got shot or knifed to death. But Tom's too straight and clean for them -- not enough juicy gossip material -- and thus they don't want to cover him.

That's how I see it, anyway.



////

 

[rookBoston]

I like what PYPER has to say about "getting our own" behind the commentators' desk. When Bryan Cox had his brief stint on ESPNews, he glowed with positive news on the Patriots. I loved it. He didn't last long.

The NFL is all about hype and marketing. The key is that the Pats are hard to market.

The 2001 SB, the media struggled to pick an MVP, because... well, who provided the highlight reel? Who made the big plays? Vrabel, Law, Vinatieri? They were forced to just give it to the QB, but it was a total cop out. That's just a microcosm of the problem of marketing a true team-centric team.

The media prefers a team like the Colts, with their "big three", who have a handful of big name stars that are fixtures.

Players like Vick, TO, Manning and Manning... those guys are marketable. Even non-football fans pick up on those players. We have Brady, and that's it. Our other stars are Seymour (try marketing a DL who almost never gets a sack), Bruschi (undersized), Dillon (who was easier to market as a Cinci malcontent than another Pats role player). The fact that our most marketable star (Brady) is so selective and understated in his commercial endorsements doesn't help.

Whenever we develop a marketable star, we trade him away or let him leave via Free Agency. Branch was just becoming marketable, and now he's in Seattle. We've got Jackson, now. As soon as he pays dividends and becomes a real star, we'll probably send him to Washington for picks.

Belichick gives the media nothing. Even his injury reports are bland. His roster is good top to bottom, but not eyepopping. On defense, his game plans play away from sacks and blitzes, and emphasize ball containment. On offense, it's less about the long ball, and more about ball control and short passing. He's not a dynamic interview like Parcells, and in general he views the media as a necessary evil. BB is perfectly content to win games by 2 points and kneel on the ball-- in fact they scheme it that way.

Winning is not enough to win national attention. There has to be more drama and glamour. Reporters need to file a story, but what story is there to tell about a team of no-names who work hard and keep out of trouble? To a national audience, the Pats are boring.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

http://www.patsfans.com/12th/2003/story/display_story.php?story_id=5931

More food for thought...

A clear cut case of media bias, this guy is a total Jaksina, I mean totally.

Well done as always Stan!

 

[Pats726]

Thanks Box...this past few weeks has really been sickening..and getting more of a prerspevtive is needed. I do think marketing has much to do with the hype..but still, can't one hype a team that just wins?? Isn't that what football is about, winning?? Doing anything and everything it takes? OR does that not matter now?

 

[RodRustsGhost]

It could be that everyone loves to hate a winner, and build up a former great. If that's the case, they're going to hate the Pats until they're losers -- then love them madly.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thanks Box...this past few weeks has really been sickening..and getting more of a prerspevtive is needed. I do think marketing has much to do with the hype..but still, can't one hype a team that just wins?? Isn't that what football is about, winning?? Doing anything and everything it takes? OR does that not matter now?

It's like trying to date the ladies and being told your "too nice." Some folks just would rather have Cincinnati's thugs and drama queens for the daily adrenaline rush. Only a select few will know the total satisfaction of being partnered with a nice guy who wins Super Bowls...the rest will dismiss him as too vanilla as they put an ice pack on their black eye.

 

[RayClay]

Another reason pundits under rate the players is hard work.

They don't like to do it, to evaluate, to dig to avoid the easy answer. They like the easy answer.

You drafted Reggie Bush? You're a genius! Biggest name in free agency? You can't miss this year!!

How do the Patriots, Pitt, Philly, Denver build? There's no easy answer.

They draft players the pundits never heard of, (hard work), way too high, (of course.

They draft F.A. that are washed up, (instead of the high dollar kind).

Do they draft based on need, production, measurables, attitude?

Yes! It's different each player, each year.

The incrementel difference of 3 young players progressing, (Pats DL for example) is greater thanthe impact of any free agent, but it's boring.

BB's press conferences are boring because he tells the truth. The questions presume any easy answer. He tells them the truth and they can't handle it. If they asked an intelligent question, they'd get better answers.

Listen to TV announcers. Even when they get the same team 3 times in a row, they don't know the players, they're talking about a defense they don't play anymore etc.

 

[Slagathor]

Echoing alot of what's already been said, some of the media's negative attitude towards the team stems from one thing: Accessibility.

They aren't allowed to be in BB and the player's faces at their every whim like they are in other cities.

Plus information that would be juicy news-worthy info such detalied injury reports or Parcellian quips and anecdotes are not what BB and Pioli are about.

They don't need to cater to the media as the the teams success provides it all the publicity it needs.


More importantly, I believe that out of disdain, many media members are trying to generate as much negativity as possible to counter the teams self-generated good-vibes.

The Pats allow this and never counter this stuff because #1, they really don't care what a guy like Borges says, and #2, think how disreputable these guys look when the team succeeds beyond all expectations year after year.

 

[PYPER]

I agree that we need to get former players into media positions, but I just don't buy that Belichick has a whole lot to do with the complete lack of national interest in the Pats.

The media didn't feel like talking about us in 2001, they enjoyed our demise in 2002. They ignored us right thru the playoffs in 2003. 2004 was a good media year up until the Steelers loss, and then we were old news again.

There is just a complete lack of interest across the country. There are plenty of other coaches with less connections than Belichick, and Belichick actually knows a few of the media people pretty well. He seems a lot more open with the TV announcers like Phil Simms, ect. than he does with the local media.

He is also respected as a genius, and is given almost all the credit for what this team does. The media doesn't seem to want to talk about anything BUT Belichick, like in the Colts match-ups. Belichick versus Manning.

It's everybody not named Belichick or Brady that gets ignored. Until they leave the team, and then they are 'irreplaceable' and the key to all our success.

There are many contributing factors. I'll attempt to list a four of them.

1) At the heart of it is mankind's desire for simplicity. As a society we really don't like to think. We don't value depth or detail. We value quick summaries. And then to sell those quick summaries, we rely on principles of sensationalism. What is sensationalism? Sensationalism is shallowness. It's window dressing. It's all glitter, no substance.

The so called "stars" in this league are the guys that fit in best with the simplicity thing. They must come prepackaged with built in story lines (The Manning Family), or be outspoken and controvercial (T.O.). It's the "Don King Effect". Ray Lewis didn't become a star until he was charged with murder.

How does this relate to the Patriots? The Patriots, as an organization, shy away from focusing on individuals. They also try very hard to only bring in hgh character individuals. Like their coach, the collective team has a very business-like personality. No frills necessary. To the media that cravesand values glitter over substance, the Patriots are very boring.

2) Relationships. Relationships impact all areas of our society. Would Borges or Felger dog this team if Belichick was one of their closest friends? Of course not. Every angle that sportswriters take is influenced by what kind of relationship they have with the subject.

ProfootballTalk.com has written a substantial amount about Len "I never met a junk food I didn't enjoy" Pasquerelli constantly writing fluff pieces to help players who are represented by agents he's close to.

I think Phil Simms does a great job portraying this team accurately. One of the reasons is that he has a relationship with Belichick from his days as a player for the Giants. Simms is one of the few personalities that values substance over glitter. That's a good thing b/c when it comes to Belichick and the Patriots, substance is all you get.

3) Homerism. When the networks hire former players and coaches, there's always the risk that some of those players (yes I'm talking about you, Rod Woodson) will be total Homers to their former teams. Some players are able to be more balanced than others.

This has negatively impacted the Patriots b/c not only do we not have any former patriots as tv personalities but many of the teams that we would include on a short list of our most bitter rivals do (Steelers-Bettis-Woodson-Bradshaw, Raiders-Woodson-Long, Broncos-Sharpe, Dolphins=Marino-JJohnson, Jets-Esiason, Rams-Faulk).

It's kind of funny. It seems like every tv personality out there has a bias against the Patriots BECAUSE THEY DO!!!

4) History. The last item that influences the media is history. As we grow older, it's natural to look back at our childhood and reminisce about "the good old days". Well, for most of the current sportswriters, the good old days included the Patriots being the laughingstocks of the league. We are in a generation where everybody grew up with teams like the Steelers, Cowboys, Raiders, and 49ers dominating the NFL landscape.

It's all about perceptions and first impressions and to many of those people, even if its only on a subconscious level, the teams that dominated the good old days will always be a little more interesting than the other teams.

The good news is that when today's youth grows up, they'll remember the Patriots in the same way that today's generation of sportswriters remember the Steelers or 49ers.