If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   Sports Illustrated names ESPN's Bill Simmons the most powerful person in sports media. Can we get a recount on this? What does his idiot cousin think about this? It's giving me the Peyton Manning face   (m.si.com) divider line 33
    More: Dumbass, Bill Simmons, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Turner Sports, Sean McManus, Peyton Manning, Michelle Beadle, John Skipper  
•       •       •

1164 clicks; posted to Sports » on 10 Mar 2013 at 5:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-10 03:04:45 PM  
Sports journal talking about sports journalism (not about sports). It's naval-gazing at its finest.
 
2013-03-10 03:08:54 PM  
He's Jimmy Kimmel's idiot cousin, subby.

I'm an unabashed Simmons fan who has probably read every word he's written and listened to every podcast he's done since he started at ESPN. I enjoy enough of Grantland to go there about every day, and 30 for 30 was a great idea. So...yeah.
 
2013-03-10 03:27:45 PM  

FreakinB: He's Jimmy Kimmel's idiot cousin, subby.

I'm an unabashed Simmons fan who has probably read every word he's written and listened to every podcast he's done since he started at ESPN. I enjoy enough of Grantland to go there about every day, and 30 for 30 was a great idea. So...yeah.


My favorite Simmons article is still his live commentary from Game 162 in 2011.
 
2013-03-10 03:29:25 PM  
I think the writer confused 'most powerful' with 'guy whose writing represents the optimal intersection between 'amusing and limited effort to read'.
 
2013-03-10 03:40:01 PM  

whistleridge: I think the writer confused 'most powerful' with 'guy whose writing represents the optimal intersection between 'amusing and limited effort to read'.


Also "most schadenfreude when a Boston team loses a crucial game"
 
2013-03-10 03:43:52 PM  
Polite consturcive criticism to subby:

"Manningface" is one word.
 
2013-03-10 05:24:21 PM  
Sorry, ranks below Edwards in NE fellation.
 
2013-03-10 05:28:16 PM  
Who?
 
2013-03-10 05:33:36 PM  
SI is right. His numbers don't lie and 30 for 30 was a brilliant idea. Grantland is pretty damn good as well.
 
2013-03-10 05:34:52 PM  
"OK, so, the issue isn't, ok, why is Simmons so powerful, ok, the issue is, can we even make a subjective determination of the objective measure of why Simmons has power, ok?  I mean, a priori, we can subjectively evaluate a data set, independent of the inherent selection bias as to, you know, uh, new media in the blogosphere, versus, ok, print media, in the Twitterverse, ok, but the question isn't, can we properly evaluate that data set, the question is, can we even devise a subjective metric of objectivity about the data set while recognizing, ok, that by creating a data set, we are limiting by excluding data about the data set in itself?  I mean, if we accept that we recognize the inherent anti-subjective heuristic inherently present in the data set but, and I reiterate, but, how can we devise a metric that accounts for the bias, in a way that purports, ok, to not have a bias?  Ok?  That is to to say, ok, if, ok, if you accept that the Ring Lardners, the Grantland Rices, the Frank Defords, ok, weren't inherently reactive on a subconscious level as to 'sports journalism' qua 'sports journalism', then, ok, how can we say that what he does now they wouldn't have then?  I mean, they used print, telegraph, telephone, television, he uses the internet.  I mean, ok, if, you know, Eddie Van Halen played accordion, ok, and, you know, Segovia had a Marshall stack, ok, I mean, how can we say who is better?  And, ok, does that not, Bill, force the conclusion that if, ok, we have to evaluate each by his technological limitations, ok, then is that not itself indicative of a reductivist arrogance about the medium, ok, as evaluated by the evaluator, ok, who didn't live with those limitations, ok, moreso than the creator?  That is, I evaluate you by today's metric, but subjectively, I cannot evaluate, ok, Ring Lardner, ok, Curt Gowdy, ok, by his limitations and to the extent I even could, ok, could I be objectively subjective about my evaluation, ok?

"wow......Smart Guy Wednesday.  Ummm.....Klosto, that sounded really....uhhh.....briliant."

"Well, Bill, that's just because it is."
 
2013-03-10 05:36:24 PM  
In defense of SI, Simmons did say that ESPN lost when Richard Sherman called out Skip Worthless and effectively threw the concept for that show under the bus. And he did it via Twitter Thursday night and a Grantland article on Friday. Does anyone else at ESPN have the ability to do that WITHOUT risking their job? I'd think not.

I would say he's also earning some love from Phoenix Suns fans with how he called out owner Robert Sarver for being a cheap ass in that same article. I doubt anyone who works for ESPN or TNT could do that, outside of Barkley.
 
2013-03-10 05:36:35 PM  
This is like Karl Malone winning the MVP over Jordan in '97: They can't give it to Roger Goodell every year.
 
2013-03-10 05:40:18 PM  

carnifex2005: SI is right. His numbers don't lie and 30 for 30 was a brilliant idea. Grantland is pretty damn good as well.


30 for 30 was great but there were a few that just didn't really in my opinion warrant inclusion over soem stuff that wasn't included.  there was a hockey one that seemed odd and specifically, the reggie miller "10 points in 4 seconds" (which I watched live, and was amazing) seemed like and odd choice.

when 30 for 30 was popping, i remember a thread where a bunch of us started throwing other sports in, and while i can't remember them now, there were some great suggestions.  i know some Simmons himself said they wanted but just couldn't do (the Dream Team, which became its own thing, the Bartman also became its own show) but:

arthur ashe


gah.  i can't think of anything now but there were some great "hey, what about ___?"

how about Mary Decker-Tabb vs Zola Budd?  that was huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.  i mean, i get it, the women's 1500 28 years ago, who cares?  that was a big farking deal.  and assuming both are alive, that could have been compelling as shiat.

i guess like, Ice Cube on the raiders.  really?  i know they twisted it by adding the gangster rap / cocaine stuff, but.....i don't know.


but yeah.  he was a prime mover in that and all sports fans thank him for that.
 
2013-03-10 05:41:07 PM  
I've enjoyed his stint as one of the studio guys on NBA telecasts.  In contrast to the NFL guys fake-laughing at every stupid thing said, Simmons, Magic, and Jalen Rose appear to genuinely enjoy each other's company.
 
2013-03-10 05:43:52 PM  
He's great on the NBA show. Since he moved to Grabtland (started it, whatever) I haven't read much by him. Take that did what it's worth.

/nothing
 
2013-03-10 05:48:03 PM  

rickythepenguin: 30 for 30 was great but there were a few that just didn't really in my opinion warrant inclusion over soem stuff that wasn't included. there was a hockey one that seemed odd and specifically, the reggie miller "10 points in 4 seconds" (which I watched live, and was amazing) seemed like and odd choice.

when 30 for 30 was popping, i remember a thread where a bunch of us started throwing other sports in, and while i can't remember them now, there were some great suggestions. i know some Simmons himself said they wanted but just couldn't do (the Dream Team, which became its own thing, the Bartman also became its own show) but:


They're doing one about John Spano, the guy who briefly bought the Islanders in the mid-90's before he was found to be a fraud. I know part of the point was to do movies about things that might have flown under the radar either at the time or in retrospect, and that certainly qualifies.

/Plus it's relevant to my interests
//Directed by our biggest celebrity fan, Kevin Connolly. That's right, E from Entourage. We're big time!
 
2013-03-10 05:48:36 PM  

rickythepenguin: 30 for 30 was great but there were a few that just didn't really in my opinion warrant inclusion over soem stuff that wasn't included


Yeah, about a month or two ago Netflix added a sh*tload of them onto their instant streaming selection, and there were a lot of titles I'd sift through going "Jesus, really? They made one about THAT/HIM?"

Instead of crapping out a lot of 45 minute editions with at-best marginally interesting storylines, they should have limited them to feature length 90min (-ish) documentaries because, if something needs to be that long, then it's probably worth it. I still think  The Two Escobars and  Once Brothers ones in particular rival  Hoop Dreams and Senna in terms of sheer quality when it comes to sports documentaries.
 
2013-03-10 06:14:58 PM  
TSN's Bob Mckenzie in at #19. Boo-ya!
 
2013-03-10 06:17:31 PM  
Enjoyed The Book of Basketball for the most part. I enjoy 30 for 30. And I think he's pretty OK on Sunday NBA pre and post game stuff.

Cannot stand to read his columns though. Shiat just gets too wordy and too boring.
 
2013-03-10 06:25:18 PM  

FreakinB: They're doing one about John Spano, the guy who briefly bought the Islanders in the mid-90's before he was found to be a fraud. I know part of the point was to do movies about things that might have flown under the radar either at the time or in retrospect, and that certainly qualifies


huh. i don't recall that at all, but i'm not a hockey guy much at all.  which goes to my point, and not to say choosing an NHL story is wrong, but.....there were just other stories that probably bore inclusion.

the mary decker/ zola budd thing was enormous.  and i'm not saying, "30 for 30 sucks, they didn't do what i wanted!", i'm saying that there were massive stories that they chose over others.

you could even consider the Pittsburgh Pirates or Phoenix Suns' cocaine scandals, in a way.  or that washburn kid that got a lifetime ban.  steve howe.


Or, Kerrigan / whats her nuts, the ice dancing incident.  Sports media *NOW* cracks jokes about that.  that wasn';t huge?

Killer Cars: should have limited them to feature length 90min (-ish) documentaries because, if something needs to be that long, then it's probably worth it. I still think The Two Escobars and Once Brothers ones in particular rival Hoop Dreams and Senna in terms of sheer quality when it comes to sports documentaries.


totally agree.  44 minutes was not enough.  spesh since even some of the shows had basically, "DVD extras" on the commercial breaks.
 
2013-03-10 06:43:44 PM  

rickythepenguin: FreakinB: They're doing one about John Spano, the guy who briefly bought the Islanders in the mid-90's before he was found to be a fraud. I know part of the point was to do movies about things that might have flown under the radar either at the time or in retrospect, and that certainly qualifies

huh. i don't recall that at all, but i'm not a hockey guy much at all.  which goes to my point, and not to say choosing an NHL story is wrong, but.....there were just other stories that probably bore inclusion.

the mary decker/ zola budd thing was enormous.  and i'm not saying, "30 for 30 sucks, they didn't do what i wanted!", i'm saying that there were massive stories that they chose over others.

you could even consider the Pittsburgh Pirates or Phoenix Suns' cocaine scandals, in a way.  or that washburn kid that got a lifetime ban.  steve howe.


Or, Kerrigan / whats her nuts, the ice dancing incident.  Sports media *NOW* cracks jokes about that.  that wasn';t huge?


I mean, they've extended it beyond the original 30 so all of those could be in play eventually. Besides, I know in at least a few cases it was filmmakers pitching their own ideas for a movie rather than ESPN/Simmons assigning a topic. I'm not sure how much was the former and how much was the latter, but my point is that it could just be a matter of a filmmaker becoming interested enough in one of those stories.
 
2013-03-10 07:00:05 PM  

FreakinB: I'm not sure how much was the former and how much was the latter, but my point is that it could just be a matter of a filmmaker becoming interested enough in one of those stories.


yeah, good point.....when the series "ended", Simmo had a podcast witht an executive on the project, which you could probably find, where they said some stories just couldn't be done for whatever reason.  like the dream team, they said the IOC wouldn't release footage, and i somewhat recall that either (or both?) kareem and/or karl malone wouldn't agree to be filmed.....and i think they said that Bartman and the Magic HIV story were both basically, needing more time than what the proposition of "30 for 30" entailed;  "we can't tell this story within the allotted timeframe, so we're removing it from 'this' and making it its own."

i guess, like, pat tillman?  jay williams?  ayrton senna?  david beckham's WC failures?  tyson getting KO'd? the lawsuits on america's cup?  that little american gymnast chick vs atlanta bombing?

again, i'm not saying "RAWWR, THAT SHOW SUCKS" but i think precisely in the window of history, Pat Freaking Tillman, post 9/11 america and the atlanta bombing, whatever, versus reggie miller's amazing 9 second sequence to win a playoff game.....that's what i'm talking about.
 
2013-03-10 07:29:06 PM  
Good stuff penguin.
 
2013-03-10 08:06:50 PM  
Crap.  Been a big Simmons fan since before he joined ESPN.  Do I have to hate him now?
 
2013-03-10 09:04:59 PM  
The Craggs listing is even more trolltastic than Simmons' ranking.
 
2013-03-10 09:32:02 PM  
Bill Simmons gave us Grantland, which gave us Men In Blazers. For that, I am eternally grateful.
 
2013-03-10 10:00:19 PM  
Bill Simmons suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks when he guests on PTI.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

His NBA writing is aight.
 
2013-03-10 10:44:59 PM  

FreakinB: He's Jimmy Kimmel's idiot cousin, subby.

I'm an unabashed Simmons fan who has probably read every word he's written and listened to every podcast he's done since he started at ESPN. I enjoy enough of Grantland to go there about every day, and 30 for 30 was a great idea. So...yeah.


All of this.

GAT_00: My favorite Simmons article is still his live commentary from Game 162 in 2011.


That.  Also loved his running commentary of SB XLIII when Fitzgerald ran past everyone for a TD.
 
2013-03-10 10:45:40 PM  

dickfreckle: Polite consturcive criticism to subby:

"Manningface" is one word.


So is "Bradyface". XD
 
2013-03-10 10:47:50 PM  

JerseyTim: Bill Simmons gave us Grantland, which gave us Men In Blazers. For that, I am eternally grateful.


This.
 
2013-03-10 10:54:09 PM  
I remember back in the 90s when Rick Reilly was actually funny and somewhat relevant. Weird.
 
2013-03-10 10:54:52 PM  

CoolHandLucas: Bill Simmons suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks when he guests on PTI.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

His NBA writing is aight.


I'd argue that every guest host on PTI is pretty bad. Show only really works with the regular guys.
 
2013-03-11 09:35:00 AM  

rickythepenguin: Pat Freaking Tillman


While I'd like that one...that's gonna require some weird storytelling to get around what happened, since they only sort of know.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report