Bill Simmons: Good Luck With Your Life.
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
The merits of what he said about Goodell are almost not relevant here. Understanding the suspension should be broken into two component parts despite ESPN's statement:
- How much can you get away with criticizing even a public figure in such a fashion? and;
- How much can you tell your bosses to go f*ck themselves and get away with it?
OilCanShotTupac said:
If you're Robert Lipsyte, you have to start screaming about this as loud as possible, and probably quit.
Pretty hard to take Simmons' rant as anything but opinion. A commonly held opinion at that.
bowiac is a lawyer, I think. I'm sure he knows enough about defamation. I think his point was that there is at least an arguable claim... even if there is no chance that the NFL/Goodell brings one (because they would have to be out of their minds to do so).
Gash Prex said:
bowiac is a lawyer, I think. I'm sure he knows enough about defamation. I think his point was that there is at least an arguable claim... even if there is no chance that the NFL/Goodell brings one (because they would have to be out of their minds to do so).
A Bartlett Giamatti said:
Not that I disagree with you but ESPN has established a culture that if you say something they don't agree with, you will be suspended.
I've clicked the link a few times, and it's come up and down. It does seem like that was more likely a technical glitch than anything malicious however.MetSox1 said:
I do think there's a decent chance (~25%) Simmons leaves over this, depending on his contractual status. He brings in a lot of revenue, so it's not crazy that someone will bankroll him to build Grantland 2.
Espn without question has lawyers who know enough about defamation to assure them there is essentially zero risk here...so there's no way that's any part of their actual rationale.bowiac said:
I don't work in HR, but instinctively, it seems like doing something that carries with it zero risk, but still theoretically exposes you to liability, is something you don't want to look the other way on. I really don't know though - maybe I'm reading too much into that angle.PedroKsBambino said:
Put another way, it's not like out of the realm on possibility Goodell is ultimately exonerated. Now I agree he's still not going to sue in that hypo, but it looks a good deal worse to repeatedly call him a liar at that point.
Well, that's just it. He called the dude in charge of ESPN's meal ticket a liar. While I agree with him, ESPN likely had little choice.
He's also still an employee and he basically told his employer to fuck off. Publicly. Think about how that would fly in your next meeting. ESPN has to, in their eyes, save face.
I'd be surprised if he walked.bowiac said:
I think the only reason this suspension is the odd 3 weeks, rather than a month, is because his new basketball show starts on ESPN October 21st.
I can't see him giving up that show, Grantland, 30 for 30 and his quest for more Emmys, and everything else he's built for himself at ESPN over this.
I also don't think the suspension is a big surprise to him after he looked at it from ESPNs side(I hope he's done this already)
Wasn't like this was an isolated incident of him attacking Roger Goodell. He's been hammering him pretty hard on his podcast for a long time before these recent incidents.(Maybe he turned him down as a BS report guest or something). I would guess he's been warned about it before, probably why he brought up getting a call or email about it himself. He's gotta understand that he can't publicly attack ESPNs most important client. I'd hope so anyway.
jimbobim said:
I have a feeling that if Simmons doubled down while under suspension there would be some pretty hefty penalties to his career, all of them likely spelled out in his contract. ESPN has tons of cash and plenty of high-powered attorneys on it's payroll. He may speak out when he returns, but he's likely doing to be silent until then.
Just a guess but I'd bet you that the NFL heard Simmons, got pissed, called up ESPN and demanded some action. So they got some.
This move simply looks like a corporate big shot sneering "know your role bitch". The beauty of living in 2014, however, s that the Internet exists. One doesn't have to get smacked down like Simmons frequently does. One doesn't need to be constrained by the tentacles of these corporate vampires that talk out of both sides of their mouth (see the amazing, vanishing Ombudsman article).
Assuming Simmons hasn't signed some non-compete clause (admittedly a large assumption), he can launch his own website and podcasts and attract sponsors to fund him in a nano second. He's a big enough name to go on his own and succeed. The biggest problem Simmons currently has is that he will never truly be free to say what's on his mind. Creatively, that has to be incredibly frustrating for him.
The downside to flipping ESPN the Stone Cold Steve Austin salute is that he would also lose his cushy NBA gig, plus his Grantland website (which could be re-built in a different form). Basketball is the sport he loves the most though, so I imagine he's pretty conflicted about what he wants to do. Should be interesting to see if he tells ESPN to eff themselves.
Assuming Simmons hasn't signed some non-compete clause (admittedly a large assumption), he can launch his own website and podcasts and attract sponsors to fund him in a nano second. He's a big enough name to go on his own and succeed. The biggest problem Simmons currently has is that he will never truly be free to say what's on his mind. Creatively, that has to be incredibly frustrating for him.
The downside to flipping ESPN the Stone Cold Steve Austin salute is that he would also lose his cushy NBA gig, plus his Grantland website (which could be re-built in a different form). Basketball is the sport he loves the most though, so I imagine he's pretty conflicted about what he wants to do. Should be interesting to see if he tells ESPN to eff themselves.
I don't know much about advertising, but is this really how it works? ESPN is courting sponsors, not the other way around, right? If Subway sponsors SimmonsLand, is ESPN really going to turn down Subway's dollars later?DrewDawg said:
His suspension's longer than what Ray Rice initially received.
Good thing he wasn't smoking a blunt during his rant.
Good thing he wasn't smoking a blunt during his rant.
bowiac said:
Exactly. The advertisers care about eyeballs to peddle their products. ESPN (and presumably Simmons) care about money in exchange for their audience. Both can exist in harmony. There could be a few exceptions, but if Simmons can attract a large audience on his own (which I suspect he can), he will have advertisers begging to take their money.
I think ESPN really fucked this up badly. The NFL brand, and Goodell specifically, are PR poison at the moment, in large part because many people think they're full of shit and participating in a coverup. Issuing a big suspension (longer than Stephen A's) to one of their most high profile employees for basically saying what everyone thinks about the NFL, then taking down their own ombudsman piece, all basically aligns ESPN with the NFL's methods and agenda in an extremely public way. I mean, obviously ESPN was always going to be somewhat associated with the NFL by virtue of its very nature, but putting it front and center in this way at this moment strikes me as a major fuckup.
OTOH, I think this can only help Simmons in the long run. He comes out looking pretty good, and ESPN probably needs him more than he needs ESPN at this point.
OTOH, I think this can only help Simmons in the long run. He comes out looking pretty good, and ESPN probably needs him more than he needs ESPN at this point.
Somewhat amazing that Simmons gets a significantly longer suspension for this than S.A.S. with his whole "sometimes women are asking for it" bit.
Also, Probable Murderer Ray Lewis not disciplined for his "snitching is bad" rant about how the mother of one of Peterson's kids shouldn't have reported his injuries to police.
Also, Probable Murderer Ray Lewis not disciplined for his "snitching is bad" rant about how the mother of one of Peterson's kids shouldn't have reported his injuries to police.
I can picture the big wigs in Bristol drawing straws to decide who gets to tell Ray he's suspended and the short straw holder saying "fuck this, I have a family to think of!"Cellar-Door said:
My point is that it at least what I've heard of the Simmons tirade doesn't expose them to any realistic liability. They have enough experienced litigators who surely know that. And, it's not hr who makes that call anyway.bowiac said:
As a matter of enforcing standards they can do what they want, obviously.
Simmons did nothing wrong here and had ESPN simply chosen to ignore it, this wouldn't be a story. Now people like me who don't follow a lot of what Simmons writes/says - I consume Simmons basketball content & read other Grantland columnists - are seeking out his podcast and agreeing with what he said. If they did this to help the NFL, its an epic fail. The NFL's credibility problem is back in the headlines yet again...and at the cost of ESPN's credibility as well.
So you have a network which is supposed to have some integrity in sports journalism, suspending a popular and prolific personality for an obscure, mildly offensive rant, while guys like Stephen A. Smith and Ray Lewis get to blather away. The Worldwide Leader indeed...
So you have a network which is supposed to have some integrity in sports journalism, suspending a popular and prolific personality for an obscure, mildly offensive rant, while guys like Stephen A. Smith and Ray Lewis get to blather away. The Worldwide Leader indeed...
Love that he went after Goodell with both barrels, but "daring" ESPN to suspend him was stupid and smacks of pure ego. A couple of things:
1. No chance he doesn't have a non-compete;
2. He makes a shitload of coin, has a young family and is young himself. These are his prime earning years, and IMO he ain't blowing it by leaving ESPN in a huff.
Gonna be fun to watch though
1. No chance he doesn't have a non-compete;
2. He makes a shitload of coin, has a young family and is young himself. These are his prime earning years, and IMO he ain't blowing it by leaving ESPN in a huff.
Gonna be fun to watch though
I hope he leaves w some of the core grantland thing and does his own thing. Wishful thinking due to the above post.
What country is this? Suspended for calling out a sports figure for what was a sham of a press conference? Joke.
What country is this? Suspended for calling out a sports figure for what was a sham of a press conference? Joke.
Simmons goes off the reservation, gets a bunch of press, and maybe wins over some readers. ESPN patches things up with the NFL by suspending him. Simmons wins. ESPN wins. Somehow, I think the Simmons/ESPN relationship survives.
Don't ESPN personalities routinely call atheletes and coaches liars without any proof? Like hasn't BB been called a liar a million times?soxhop411 said:
And as per earlier discussion, if Simmons was offering his own opinion, does he have to have "proof?"
Are the talking heads on other ESPN shows required to show "proof" to back up their opinions, or face suspension?
Just like the NFL - when ESPN tries to explain/justify itself, it just digs the hole deeper.
Are the talking heads on other ESPN shows required to show "proof" to back up their opinions, or face suspension?
Just like the NFL - when ESPN tries to explain/justify itself, it just digs the hole deeper.
It really puts to lie the entire issue of sports journalism. There's a fundamental inescapable conflict of interest in trying to cover something you pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the right to broadcast.
What's the difference between what Simmons said and what Keith Olbermann does every day on his show?
jose melendez said:
Which is why this move was so unbelievably stupid. ESPN really does spend a lot of time and energy on that problem, and while they're not stellar at being consistent about it, their primary way to solve it is to make an internal distinction as to whether a show/person/segment is 'news' or 'opinion' content, with different sets of editorial rigor. Opinion talking heads say unsubstantiated shit like Simmons did all the time, and his podcast clearly isn't running with news journalism rigor, so this suspension was out of step with their usual boundaries, except for the profanity. That's why they were so unspecific in their statement. At the worst possible time, with the worst possible optics. Idiots.
This is great. Ray Rice knocks out his fiancee in an elevator and drags her out while she's unconscious on the floor. Two weeks. Simmons says he thinks Godell is a liar and gets three weeks.
Once again, what you say is far more important than what you "do". It's so silly.
Once again, what you say is far more important than what you "do". It's so silly.
Bleedred said:
This post is precisely right.
Sophisticated media organizations routinely place themselves at theoretical risk of defamation lawsuits in the normal course of doing business. And we know that ESPN was not upset by seeing Simmons attack Goodell because their own ombudsman used Simmons tirade as proof of ESPN flexing it's "journalistic muscle."
However, the one thing you cannot do in corporate america is to publicly declare that you are untouchable. Once you do that, you leave your employer no choice but to take action.
The only question now is whether Simmons accepts his rebuke or decides that he has been so humiliated that he has to leave ESPN. He won't be fired because that would likely negate his non-compete. But if he does leave, you won't hear from him for a long time, because (given the level of investment required to fund Grantland) his non-compete is ironclad and ESPN will be vigilant in their efforts to enforce it.
Spacemans Bong said:
Back in the day, KO used to taunt his employer(s) and dare them to fire/suspend him. And what do you know? They always took him up on it.
So long as KO stays on topic, he will not be touched. If Simmons had done the same, ESPN would have been happy to be on the receiving end of the attention that Simmons was generating.
As someone with some good friends that work at Grantland, fuck everyone who has the cavalier attitude that Simmons should just leave, and fuck Simmons if he does. He has people who depend on him. If he wants to torpedo his own career, whatever, but the other people who work with him don't deserve this shit.
I don't watch much ESPN, but is this really true? They say all sorts of nonsense, but calling someone a something like a "phony" or saying they're a coward is a bit different than saying they're a liar. Phony and coward (just as examples) don't really have real definitions of what they mean, so they're clearly just opinion. Saying someone is a liar on the other hand is provably true or false (although we'll never find out).JimBoSox9 said:
Maybe I'm just not watching enough First Take?
This...
Plus this...
Equals...it is all a work. A publicity stunt.
Simmons ranted, ESPN "suspends" him, he goes on vacation and comes back just in time to make a triumphant "return" on his new show. Ratings soar.
mcpickl said:
Plus this...
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
Equals...it is all a work. A publicity stunt.
Simmons ranted, ESPN "suspends" him, he goes on vacation and comes back just in time to make a triumphant "return" on his new show. Ratings soar.
I'm also friends with a couple people at Grantland, and that's not a good reason for Simmons to stay. I've spoken with one of them, and he's itching for Simmons to leave.Jnai said:
Jnai said:
Jeez, why are you taking this so personally? Simmons hasn't said he's leaving. Please wait until he does quit Grantland before you turn on the fire and brimstone act about how he's leaving people without a means to make a living.
johnmd20 said:
Wasn't meant to be personal, just hard to understand why someone who works at Grantland would want the guy who drives Grantland to leave.
But, I don't see why I can't express the opinion that it would suck for many of his employees for Bill Simmons to quit in a tantrum if others can express the opinion that Bill Simmons should quit in a tantrum.
Cellar-Door said:
GeorgeCostanza said:
ESPN utilizing Ray's talents to figure out which stuff to cover up and which stuff can't be covered up...
Grantland will be fine without Simmons.
Simmons has plenty of options if he should wish to leave. The success and acclaim of 30 for 30 over and above the grantland impact, and the fact it helped get Nate Silver to do something similar, mean he'll get a career doing something he wants to do wherever he wants. These are the three best non live sports parts of ESPN for me (not saying much but I like them).
Non competes are not going to be that long, and he'll be paid just fine by any new gig as a free agent.
I personally think he's very happy with how everything is going, and his new TV personality aspect and cool friends etc. So I doubt anything is happening, but the idea he couldn't walk away because of the financial impact is crazy.
Simmons has plenty of options if he should wish to leave. The success and acclaim of 30 for 30 over and above the grantland impact, and the fact it helped get Nate Silver to do something similar, mean he'll get a career doing something he wants to do wherever he wants. These are the three best non live sports parts of ESPN for me (not saying much but I like them).
Non competes are not going to be that long, and he'll be paid just fine by any new gig as a free agent.
I personally think he's very happy with how everything is going, and his new TV personality aspect and cool friends etc. So I doubt anything is happening, but the idea he couldn't walk away because of the financial impact is crazy.