It was more than that. It was being the “common fan” yes, but it was also being the smartest person in that category while being able to converse with the dumbest “common fan”.I guess I disagree that the notion that Bill's popularity is tied to him being in the same tax bracket as his listeners. What originally made Simmons interesting, imo, was that he was a "real fan" and wrote passionately and openly about his favorite teams. Bill doesn't need to have a connection with blue-collar working stiffs, he needs to have a connection with the typical sports fan that has opinions colored by the interests of their favorite teams, and often times are controversial or flat out wrong. Him selling The Ringer for $200 million doesn't necessarily change that, he has been rich and famous for a long time.
This has come up before, I think like 5-6 years ago Bill mentioned that he was in a massive line at Starbucks and said he would be willing to pay a ton of money each month to allow him to cut the line at Starbucks to get his coffee immediately, and SoSH had a big litigation about what Bill actually meant by that and how this was a sign that Bill was losing his connection with the common sports fan because he could afford to Fast Pass his way through a coffee line.
Parent Corner is awesome btw and my favorite part of Guess The Lines pod.
How has he not adapted? He may be the most successful podcaster there is. He was your hero 15 years ago? Honestly...go back 15 years... you wouldn't trade careers with him?Honestly, I don’t see the appeal to him right now at all, other than people who liked him before and don’t want to adapt. He’s not knowledgeable, not funny, not quick on his feet and relies on bullying people to agree with his points. The guy went from being my hero to someone i actively avoid in about 15 years.
Can we agree not to stereotype?Thanks - I will concede ignorance on the science here, although I'm curious as to whether only child syndrome is more real in divorced families. (And even that article you cited says "there are indications only children are less willing to come to terms with others.") Regardless, can we agree that Simmons pretty closely fits the stereotype of an only child, whether or not that stereotype is correct? I think this ties in with Jose's hypothesis as well - if his frame of reference often goes no further than himself, perhaps that's down his childhood to a greater or lesser extent? You might remember Simmons talk about the black alter ego he had as a child, which is particular curious in light of recent events.
If the stereotype is not correct, what is the point of assessing whether he fits it? I think in this moment in the world you’d like to think everyone would realize that trying to defend how well someone fits a stereotype “whether or not correct” is precisely what no one should be doing.Thanks - I will concede ignorance on the science here, although I'm curious as to whether only child syndrome is more real in divorced families. (And even that article you cited says "there are indications only children are less willing to come to terms with others.") Regardless, can we agree that Simmons pretty closely fits the stereotype of an only child, whether or not that stereotype is correct? I think this ties in with Jose's hypothesis as well - if his frame of reference often goes no further than himself, perhaps that's down his childhood to a greater or lesser extent? You might remember Simmons talk about the black alter ego he had as a child, which is particular curious in light of recent events.
I blame the lack of a father figure. Seriously. Some colin cowherd level piece of garbage criticism.LeBron is a good dude never calling bull on that billshit.
Joining the chorus of folks thanking you for posting this. It’s insightful. The fact that Abbott’s views are tinged by jealousy doesn’t negate those insights.I don't think this was posted here yet, Henry Abbott weighs in on Bill:
https://www.truehoop.com/p/do-i-get-to-speak-now-its-been-like
I found this insightful too.I've been thinking about this, and I've concluded that the big issue isn't that bill is a racist or a a mysogynist, or even that he has racial or gender biases on which he fails to reflect--I actually think he's done a fair amount of reflection on those biases over the years, and while he still comes up short, he's made progress.
What I think he fails to recognize is that he has a massive Bill Simmons bias. If you listen to him interview on virtually any subject, he tries, over tortuously, to jam it into the framework of his existing perspectives and experiences. This was often entertaining when he was an every man frat boy, but as he's become not only a middle-aged man, but an extremely rich middle-aged man, it's gotten less and less funny and less and less relevant. Remarkably, he seems incapable of seeing that he has a healthy portion of the problem he often attributes, correctly, to Eddie Murphy. Bill's not out with regular folks anymore, and he doesn't seem to realize that.
The other reflection on this is that Bill is the product at the Ringer, Grantland or wherever--it's not whoever he identifies and adds to the network--if they have someplace better to go, they move along (Rembert Browne). That's normal and natural, but, given Bill's appearances on almost everything and every podcast on the Ringer, he is the brand. It's not clear to me that if he left, the Ringer would exist in a year. Bill's problem in diversifying is that most Ringer consumers are there for Bill Simmons, and Bill Simmons type takes. Yeah, individual podcasts can have a following outside of him, but he is the product--and he's a very white, middle-aged, rich product.
Edit: And I say this as someone who enjoys his podcasts and used to enjoy his writing. But I'm a white, middle-aged, lamentably not rich, man, so of course I do.
Yeah I enjoyed the article even if I knew I had to discount some for the jealousy. I mean, the events he recounted happened. There's no spin on a situation where you blow off a work meeting because you were at a casino and then make someone fly cross-country to meet you the next day, and then make them wait an hour or two in your office on top of that.There is....a lot of axe grinding going on in there about the ESPN/Grantland divide, but from the direction of espn which I've never read before so that's interesting. it's also the perfect summation of Simmons's faults.
2020 has been a trip.This thread compared Simmons to Brett Kavanaugh?
That makes no sense. Kavanaugh’s a baseball guy. Simmons likes hoops.This thread compared Simmons to Brett Kavanaugh?
Plus, Kavanaugh's a beer drinker. HE LOVES BEER. Simmons is Blue Label kind of guy.That makes no sense. Kavanaugh’s a baseball guy. Simmons likes hoops.
How do you know Kavanaugh likes beer?Plus, Kavanaugh's a beer drinker. HE LOVES BEER. Simmons is Blue Label kind of guy.
I can't remember. I just feel like it's something I know to be true.How do you know Kavanaugh likes beer?
I really hope he’s on SonsofAndreDawson as Kavdog2020.I can't remember. I just feel like it's something I know to be true.
Gotta be someone like Tim Wallach. Dawson is too good.I really hope he’s on SonsofAndreDawson as Kavdog2020.
This is still a bad take. As an only child of divorced parents, I can tell you that divorce is the same for only children as it is for children with siblings: destabilizing, harrowing, shitty. The trope of the little prince who is doted upon by his competing divorced parents is something out of a cartoon or Roald Dahl book— it doesn't reflect reality.Thanks - I will concede ignorance on the science here, although I'm curious as to whether only child syndrome is more real in divorced families. (And even that article you cited says "there are indications only children are less willing to come to terms with others.")
I think this gets it right. The Ringer has claimed as its "corner" a certain geeky, self-aware, media-addict type, and the podcasts mostly rely on the interactions of similarly-voiced people. The problem is, this creates a coherent tone/brand but also a monogamous make-up of its staffers. Its harder to create a diverse company when your company is built on its employees having sustained, witty, engaging conversations with each other than it is to create a diverse company of lawyers or tech developers or whatever. This is not to acquit the Ringer one bit, though: the solution is to let go of the the platform's signature "tone" and allow more different sensibilities to prevail. What I think Simmons has probably been most guilty of is micro-managing the overall 'voice' of the Ringer— this is where the "open mic" attitude comes from, his idea that everyone needs to be on-point mini-Simmons clones.You don’t build a $200 million media brand from scratch by being all things to all people. Bill Simmons built The Ringer to provide entertainment to people like him. Not surprisingly, its content is mostly created by people who look, think, and act like him. And as I noted above, that audience increasingly looks like the establishment, as opposed to some marginal guys in their 20s (even though we were, of course, a privileged group even back then).
The Decision thing is really startling, and perhaps the only occasion where I can think of Simmons being disingenuous and cynical in a sustained, long-term way. He made real hay out of criticizing the Decision— there was a whole parade of podcasts, as I recall, one with Dave Dameshek in particular where they really tore James to shreds over this. The notion that he'd helped promote the Decision the entire time and kept it under wraps is a pretty jarring, IMO.
MolsonFan4EvaI really hope he’s on SonsofAndreDawson as Kavdog2020.
He wrote it for the world to see 17 years ago and nobody got upset until someone looking to get him in trouble went through everything he ever wrote hoping to find something. It’s not a great thing to say, but if this is the worst they could find, I don’t care.Oof, that is an awful take, and not just applying the 2020 lens to things, that's an awful take for 2003.
who would ever be bothered to undertake this choreHe wrote it for the world to see 17 years ago and nobody got upset until someone looking to get him in trouble went through everything he ever wrote hoping to find something.
I think this is the most accurate thing posted in this thread recently. Bill should probably step back from active content management and take on more of an "editor emeritus" role where he continues to participate in "his" podcasts and occasionally guest on others but largely steps away from making any decisions on hiring or on the overall direction of The Ringer's written or audio content. The problem is that I don't really see Bill having the self-awareness to do that, given that he quite clearly (and perhaps not entirely incorrectly) sees himself as the key to the continued success of The Ringer.What I think Simmons has probably been most guilty of is micro-managing the overall 'voice' of the Ringer— this is where the "open mic" attitude comes from, his idea that everyone needs to be on-point mini-Simmons clones.
That's true. The Ringer has certainly been a disaster with Simmons at the helm and has had no success. I guess that's why Spotify paid 200 million for the site and the podcasts. Because of poor managerial decisions and content decisions.I think this is the most accurate thing posted in this thread recently. Bill should probably step back from active content management and take on more of an "editor emeritus" role where he continues to participate in "his" podcasts and occasionally guest on others but largely steps away from making any decisions on hiring or on the overall direction of The Ringer's written or audio content.
Yeah but, someone is mad on twitter ...That's true. The Ringer has certainly been a disaster with Simmons at the helm and has had no success. I guess that's why Spotify paid 200 million for the site and the podcasts. Because of poor managerial decisions and content decisions.
Seriously, who cares if The Ringer is a little bit homogeneous? It's certainty not overly so, of course. And it's been wildly successful. People are acting like Simmons is Travis Kalanick or, worse, Adam Neumann. That's not what is happening here. He's not serially sexually harassing his employees, he doesn't have a door lock on his desk, and he's not driving the company into the ground. People have to take a breath, I think.
If he keeps doing the podcasts he's doing now, I don't particularly see why they'd care if he's not micro-managing personnel or content decisions.I don't think Spotfy just paid $250M for an editor emeritus.
This is a complete straw-man argument. Where did I argue The Ringer has been "a disaster" and "has had no success"? All I'm saying is Simmons doesn't really seem well-suited to address his employees' concerns about diversity and has utterly bungled the response to those concerns so far. It's not a crazy idea to suggest he take a more passive, "Chairman of the Board" type role as opposed to an active "CEO" type role - and if he's already mostly stepped away from day-to-day decisionmaking he should make that clear since even his own employees apparently don't think that's the case.That's true. The Ringer has certainly been a disaster with Simmons at the helm and has had no success. I guess that's why Spotify paid 200 million for the site and the podcasts. Because of poor managerial decisions and content decisions.
Simmons is The Ringer. Your argument is that the guy who built this company to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars is doing it wrong and his voice is not what The Ringer needs. That is a poor argument. The results speak for themselves. That doesn't mean Simmons can't try to improve. It seems like he's trying. But he's not the enemy of progress.This is a complete straw-man argument. Where did I argue The Ringer has been "a disaster" and "has had no success"? All I'm saying is Simmons doesn't really seem well-suited to address his employees' concerns about diversity and has utterly bungled the response to those concerns so far. It's not a crazy idea to suggest he take a more passive, "Chairman of the Board" type role as opposed to an active "CEO" type role - and if he's already mostly stepped away from day-to-day decisionmaking he should make that clear since even his own employees apparently don't think that's the case.
No, that's not the argument. The discussion is about, if you create a successful brand, and the brand is basically YOU, but now you're running a large company that's an extension of that brand, how can you run a truly diverse company and not just hire people who are mini-you's? Nobody is disputing that the Ringer is successful, nor was anybody discussing what's in the financial best interests of Bill Simmons.Simmons is The Ringer. Your argument is that the guy who built this company to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars is doing it wrong and his voice is not what The Ringer needs.
This is a case of railroading a conversation into completely black-and-white territory via strawman argument that has little to do with what was being discussed. And zero extra points for uninspired sarcasm.That's true. The Ringer has certainly been a disaster with Simmons at the helm and has had no success. I guess that's why Spotify paid 200 million for the site and the podcasts. Because of poor managerial decisions and content decisions.
Have to ask if this is a serious question? As in ‘I don’t think Simmons is capable enough to do this’ or ‘is it possible to do’. Those strike me as two very different arguments, one of which is quite valid; the other, not so much.if you create a successful brand, and the brand is basically YOU, but now you're running a large company that's an extension of that brand, how can you run a truly diverse company and not just hire people who are mini-you's?
First of all I think he exported the city of Philadelphia to his LA office. 1990s Bill would be punching modern Bill in the face if he knew like half the people in his employ were Sixers and Eagles fans.Who at the Ringer is a mini Simmons? It’s like a bunch of people that don’t listen to these podcasts are experts.
It was a rhetorical question. I was commenting on the strangeness of the Bill Simmons dilemma.Have to ask if this is a serious question? As in ‘I don’t think Simmons is capable enough to do this’ or ‘is it possible to do’. Those strike me as two very different arguments, one of which is quite valid; the other, not so much.
Well, most of his podcast guests are like him. The Ringer Union apparently finds the workplace too homogenous. Anecdotally, most Ringer pieces I read seem to use the smart-alecky media-geek voice that Simmons popularized. Calling them mini-Simmons clones is overly-reductive, for sure— there are exceptions (e.g. Down in the Hole) and one can debate the extent to which, say, Kevin Clark is "Simmons-ish" or not. But I think it's a fair assessment on the whole, to say that the Ringer is not a particularly diverse media platform and tends to hew close to the brand of its founder.Who at the Ringer is a mini Simmons? It’s like a bunch of people that don’t listen to these podcasts are experts.
The chart creator including guys like Sal and Russillo in the graph aren't really guests. Their role is basically to cohost during designated times of the year. It’s like a graph of Toucher and Rich’s guests including Fred, Rich, and Wallach way ahead at the top mixed with Gorman, Breer, etc. Of course Simmons could have selected minorities for their roles, but they're way ahead for a reason.Well, most of his podcast guests are like him. The Ringer Union apparently finds the workplace too homogenous. Anecdotally, most Ringer pieces I read seem to use the smart-alecky media-geek voice that Simmons popularized. Calling them mini-Simmons clones is overly-reductive, for sure— there are exceptions (e.g. Down in the Hole) and one can debate the extent to which, say, Kevin Clark is "Simmons-ish" or not. But I think it's a fair assessment on the whole, to say that the Ringer is not a particularly diverse media platform and tends to hew close to the brand of its founder.
Not to mention that it's one of the least rewatchable movies ever. I liked the concept of the pod and many episodes were terrific but it seems like they're running out of material.Throwing down a St. Elmo’s Fire Rewatchable is certainly bold considering it’s one of the whitest movies ever.
I actually like the movie, but it’s an odd choice. My favorite podcast by far. They have a ton of huge movies they haven’t touched yet. Goodfellas, Boogie Nights...they have to spread them out.Not to mention that it's one of the least rewatchable movies ever. I liked the concept of the pod and many episodes were terrific but it seems like they're running out of material.
It was announced on another pod. I’m in The Rewatchables FB group.Where are you guys seeing that there's a Rewatchables podcast about St. Elmo's Fire? That's not showing up in my feed anywhere.
When they finished up the The Perfect Storm rewatchable, they talked about how St. Elmos is going to be next.Where are you guys seeing that there's a Rewatchables podcast about St. Elmo's Fire? That's not showing up in my feed anywhere.
The guy who quit SoSH because people told him he was wrong about something has thick skin?Simmons has thick skin. He’ll navigate this deftly.
Yes.The guy who quit SoSH because people told him he was wrong about something has thick skin?