[ol]
[li]If you call your boss’ biggest client a liar, you’d better have something other than your opinion to back it up.[/li][li]If you double dog dare your boss to suspend you, then you really can’t complain when your challenge is accepted.[/li][/ol]
If Bill Simmons was one of ESPN’s “lesser lights” he would have been streeted, not just suspended. He can suck it up, take a few weeks off and then come back to his cushy job where he gets paid as much as a professional player to write about a game.
Roger Goodell isn’t the “client”. He works for the NFL (for the time being), and the idea that Simmons calling him a liar on a podcast would affect ESPN and the NFL’s symbiotic relationship is nonsense. More importantly, the NFL has basically zero loyalty to ESPN. ESPN pays far more to air games in real terms and per viewer. Sure, cable subscribers foot the bill now, but ESPN should know their ability to shift costs to these people is rapidly coming to a close as more people forego cable TV, download illegally, use other services, or watch online.
ESPN not only needs a better long term strategy, but they also need to realize that punishing their biggest stars to placate an employee of a business is dumb.
Right. Simmons basically made exactly the same assertions as the article, except he did it in a somewhat less temperate and more confrontational way.
And for that, his suspension was three times the length of the one handed out to Stephen A. Smith, who actually suggested that Janay Rice had provoked the assault.
At its core, ESPN is trying to protect its clients/partners like the NFL, with whom they have a huge, billion dollar deal with to broadcast games. Often times when something like this happens, and a small cog in a large machine is sent out as the scapegoat, I can agree with the underlying logic but not with the intended results.
I assume that the NFL is also getting benefited from its deal with the network. They were probably the best network to go with (otherwise, why not go with another one?). So Simmons goes off on Goodell. Is the brass at ESPN so dimwitted that they think the NFL is going to let one guys’ personal issues influence a billion dollar deal? I don’t care if Simmons took a crap on Goodell’s lawn, this is billions of dollars we’re talking about. I don’t understand why the mindset at ESPN isn’t “Go ahead, try to force us to do something about Simmons. You’ve got billions of dollars tied up with us, you’re really going to let a spat like this influence that? You’re going to let one guy determine whether you can afford another house? Nice try”
I can’t imagine the next meeting between Goodell and the owners about which network to go to would go like this:
Owners: “Let’s go with ESPN, we get billions of dollars, ad revenue, exposure, etc.”
Goodell: “Yeah but that one guy made fun of me! Let’s go with NBC even though they bidded a billion dollars less, I don’t like Simmons”
Owners: “You’re right, why should we get a billion more dollars when some guy once talked about an idiotic mistake you made and called you a liar? We’re willing to take less money to save some face for you!”
ESPN shouldn’t have done anything, the NFL isn’t going to punish ESPN for what Simmons said in any significant capacity. Suspending him hurts ESPN more than it helps their relationship with the NFL and Goodell, who might not even have the job for much longer
Simmons knew exactly what he was doing, and he got exactly the result he wanted. A week ago, he was one of a hundred guys saying roughly the same thing?
And now? Now, he’s a martyr to the First Amendment. What glorious heroism (I’m sure publicity and self-promotion NEVER entered his mind).
In it he basically says “ESPN is being harsher on its people, hence the longer suspension” So I don’t think it’s a thing of ESPN thinking this is worse than what SAS said, but more like it’s choosing now to be harsher on its own employees
I don’t think he’s even in the conversation of ESPN’s biggest stars. I’d probably start with the Sunday Morning Countdown crew, then Mike & Mike, then work my way through the daytime tv hosts (Kornheiser and Wilbon, etc…), add in the former athlete analysts (eg: Cris Carter), probably the MNF hosts, and maybe even some Sportscenter anchors before I thought about adding Simmons to the list.
I think you’re underestimating Simmons, although I probably overestimate his influence. I think I spend more time on grantland than on everything else ESPN does combined.
The suspension still seems strange to me. He’s been writing basically the same thing for two weeks, and the podcast is the least journalistic thing he does.
You’re definitely underestimating Simmons here. He has almost three million Twitter followers, and he’s not particularly prolific on Twitter (he mostly just uses it to pimp Grantland). There are collective programs that are ‘bigger stars’ for ESPN (MNF as a whole, possibly College GameDay as a whole, maybe the NFL pre game), but as far as individual personalities, he has bigger reach than just about anyone at ESPN. In no small part because a ton of people hate him, too, but notoriety is notoriety.
I mean, they’re giving the guy his own NBA show, prime time on the main network, basically figuring that his personal following will pull the ratings to make it worth it. I can’t think of anyone else at ESPN that’s in that category on an individual level right now.
Ellis, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. ESPN reportedly pays Simmons twice what they pay the PTI guys. Also, ESPN essentially fired Wilbon from NBA Countdown in favor of Simmons. Mike and Mike are not anywhere near as popular, and the various NFL shows they air may be more valuable properties, but their stars are not nearly as valuable or integral to it’s success. People won’t stop watching NFL Countdown if Keyshawn Johnson gets fired. More importantly, Simmons is probably one of the few broadcasters they have who could arguably make it on his own just doing movies, podcasts, and a website. I don’t think there are too many credible arguments that he is not their most valuable personnel asset they have.
I’m finding it incredibly difficult to find ratings numbers for Mike & Mike, but this article seems to be saying that 4.7 million different people tune in to Mike & Mike over the course of a week. To me, that’s more famous than 3 million twitter followers. But I could be reading that cite wrong.
I thought he was replacing Wilbon on an existing show? Is it a brand new show?
I’ve been watching ESPN for years and years and barely know who Simmons is. (Obviously.) I’d never heard of Grantland before this thread. Am I super unique, or are there millions of me? I think the latter.
Simmons has his hand in a lot of ESPN pie. He created the 30-for-30 documentary series, as well as creating and being EiC of Grantland and the NBA show gig.
He wasn’t on TV regularly until fairly recently and if you’re not into basketball it’d be easy to miss him. It’d be almost impossible to read the ESPN site or general NFL/NBA internet sports fandom and not see him referenced, if for no other reason than someone shouting how wrong he is about X.
Mike & Mike is actually a pretty good comparison. Grantland’s daily hits are somewhere in that same 4-5 million range from what I can see. Now, obviously, different audience: people who like long-form articles vs people who still listen to talk radio (… both unique breeds in some ways), but they’re both reaching a lot of people. You also see ESPN doing other stuff to feature them - Mike & Mike MNF a few years back, Simmons a ton of NBA stuff.
As for the NBA show, Simmons was on NBA Countdown (the pre/postgame show) with Wilbon, then there was some rumored nasty politicking by Simmons behind the scenes and Wilbon left the show, then there was some more of the same and the Grantland Basketball Show is (was?) going to debut on 10/21. As an aside, I’ve learned over the last few days that Bill Simmons Related Politics at ESPN is a fascinating rabbit hole, once you’re done reading about Deplorable Sexual Harassment at ESPN.