The Grantland sports website has a story that pretty much cuts to the heart of the lockerroom “relationship” between athletes and media.

Deconstructing a rude comment Russell Westbrook of the Oklahoma City Thunder made to a hometown newspaper columnist.

The relationship between jocks and hacks was never good, not when I entered the profession in 1976 and not when I left the U.S. version of it, in 2009.

Now it seems to be getting worse, and perhaps some sort of era-defining fracture may be on the horizon. Which no one may regret aside, perhaps, from the handful of fans who come to grasp that their verbal connection to their sports heroes has just taken a hit.

The author of the story, Bryan Curtis, appears to be the “media” guy for Grantland, and he approaches these media/athlete things with a sort of “wide-eyed newbie” outlook — which can provide a fresh perspective, Curtis presumably not being someone who has experienced the lockerroom dynamic for a decade or three.

The episode in question:

In January, Westbrook was approached by several media people after a home victory over Golden State and, apparently channeling Marshawn Lynch, who was taking his non-answer Q&As into the NFL playoffs, decided to answer every question with a variety of “we did a good job of executing”.

Play the video, high in the link, and you will see. It’s awkward, as I knew from experience it would be.

What is interesting is how long the media guys act as if nothing is happening. They keep asking questions. Reasonable questions. Hoping Westbrook will break out of his rut. Or just not sure, collectively, how to deal with what is going on.

And then Berry Thamel, sports columnist of the state’s biggest newspaper, The Oklahoman, asked Westbrook: “Are you upset with something?”

Prompting Westbrook to look directly at Thamel and say: “I just don’t like you.”

That leads the Grantland writer to explain how these sessions work, and includes his observations about what appears to be a badly broken media arrangement perhaps created by the Thunder’s PR people, and certainly perpetuated by them — seeming to live by NBA rules governing player-media exposure but doing their best to skirt them. Thamel, for instance, said he had never once, despite years of asking, gotten a one-on-one interview, which at least allows the possibility of a genuine discussion.

So, yes, reading that brought back a lot of memories, few of them pleasant, about the post-game scrum in the clubhouse. Standing around among dirty uniforms and wet towels. Waiting. Looking at nothing.

How it can often start with a naked athlete sauntering to his locker, turning around, as reporters pretend not to look, and slowing dressing before finally turning and staring at reporters.

(It generally was always worse if that athlete’s team had lost, or he had played badly, which comes up often in baseball, in particular, especially with pitchers.)

Athletes would tell you they usually are asked stupid questions. Sometimes, they are. Usually, they are not, especially by the veterans journalists who know full well they have entered their daily mine field.

While standing there, waiting, reporters form and rehearse questions in their heads. Questions that they hope will prompt any sort of reaction without seeming hostile. It calls for tact and diplomacy. Some reporters use the “talk about” gambit — “Talk about your winning streak” — which annoys the Grantland writer so much he devoted a long piece to it, but I know exactly why it happens — just trying to get an athlete talking. About anything. The weather, even.

If we stipulate that things are bad and getting worse, what might some of the reasons include?

–The volume of media in many lockerrooms. What used to be limited to the beat reporters, who saw 80-plus games a year, and a handful of radio guys, has become a social-media wave. One would think clubhouses would have fewer newspaper reporters than ever, and they do, but their places have been taken by other media who often are even more faceless and numerous than the guys who got laid off.

–Social media, in general. The advantages of having some sort of “old media” profile have disappeared when, as Curtis notes, individual athletes have millions of Twitter followers. If they are going to say anything thoughtful, why waste it on a couple of dozen people in the lockerroom?

–The lack of experience, among “journalists” in the changing room (as the Brits call it). As mentioned earlier, that first question takes significant preparation to avoid some sort of outburst or overt rejection, and it takes years of experience to get it just right. I’m not sure that exists anymore.

–Athletes seem to be taking from their teams and their leagues the idea that it isn’t really important to form full sentences, in the lockerroom, or make any sense at all. Aside from the NFL digging in its heels with Marshawn Lynch, how many players are fined for failing to cooperate with the media? In a year, they probably can be counted on one hand.

The odd thing is, most of the world is astonished that American media get as much interaction with athletes as they do, even now.

In the soccer world, outside the U.S., players pretty much never speak. Not before a game, certainly not after. On rare occasions, such as when an athlete has signed a new endorsement deal, he might feel obligated to do 15 minutes of semi-coherent chatting. The rest of the time? Nearly never. “Media access” in the Old World is 10 minutes of being able to watch or film the first 10 minutes of a practice session.

(The notion of Media Day, at the Super Bowl, is almost beyond the grasp of European “football” writers, who might go an entire career without seeing three athletes in a room talking to whomever just sat down.)

To be sure, some athletes seem to do just fine in this traditional American environment.

Kobe Bryant, for a couple of decades now, doesn’t exactly hustle to his locker, after a game, but once he gets there, and he’s ready, he turns around and the questions fly and come back bearing answers. For a guy who has a reputation as a difficult teammate, he is dependably helpful to reporters. And there are others.

On the whole, though, I anticipate this is going to change.

Clearly, it is awkward for athletes, who feel annoyed that they are speaking without being compensated. They believe that dealing with media has fallen outside their job description, that is — even when it technically has not.

Second, reporters don’t like the situations any more than do most athletes. They may hate it more. It is crowded in there, it is demeaning being in there at all, and it usually has been a waste of time for these 10 years past.

Third, the rise of advanced metrics has created another source of friction in the jock/hack relationship by promoting situations in which the reporter asks the athlete about a “truth” that numbers have shown, which is even more difficult for an athlete to process.

Where is this going?

To closed lockerrooms. To the Rest of the World model.

I see this regular access to athletes ending, and soon. I don’t advocate that, mind you. I would like to see athletes just deal with it and manage five minutes of civility. But that is not going to happen. It seems less likely to happen every day, and reporters hate it a little more every day, too.

So, just shut it off. Media can ask clubs to set up specific interviews, which they may or may not do, but the open clubhouse? No more.

We don’t need this. None of us. Athletes and media, for sure. Fans? Maybe. That handful of post-game quotes may be something they like to read or see. But eventually they can be like fans around the rest of the world, and just imagine what their hero might have said.