Bill Simmons out at ESPN?

Actually, Uncle Buck, I'm part of that "demographic" that enjoys "that type of prose"--at least when its done well. My criticism of Simmons' recent work has nothing to do with his unusual (and admittedly unprofessional) style, but just the sheer diminution in the quality of his work. In 01 & 02 you'd only have heard me praise the guy--I once thought he was one of the few guys with a truly original style that was often insightful, creative and hilarious. But since then I've watched his increasingly-recycled worn-out pieces gradually deteriorate to the point where its become painful. He's out of original thoughts, his Gen X reader base will soon outgrow his adolescent schtick, and it probably is about time for him to move on.

BTW, did anybody catch Simmons recent criticism of Billy Packer (who does deserve it), where he stated the need for a more "agenda-less" lead color guy? Sorry, but from his shameless cheerleading for all-teams Boston, to his incessant attempts to vilify the Yankees, Colts, Manning, or anything percieved as a Beantown rival, to any of his other transparent biases, has there EVER been a national columnist who wrote from a more obvious pre-existing agenda then Simmons? The pot/kettle hypocrisy lever snapped off the meter after that statement.

 

I'm bitter at Simmons because he made this big shopw of choosing an English Premier League team to root for, and then after chooseing Tottenham, he has said nothing. Instead, it's the same old tired stuff he has been doing for years.

Going to Kimmel's show killed Simmons. Then the Patriots won their second one, and the Red Sox won, and he became one of those conceited fans who walks around saying "I want MORE titles!" He lost his everyman appeal.

Plus, I can't recall the last original, new term he came up with for his little glossary, and he's a guy who has clearly lost his fastball. Maybe he would prefer to use the metaphor that he's like Clemens in his final red Sox years, just before a massive comeback.

But we'll see. I do always like his NBA stuff though.

 

This point that's being alluded to for Simmons is one, even in my young writer's life, I fear reaching - losing the fastball, having to strain for originality or just not having any at all. Maybe that's the point when you take off a year and travel, do something you'd never imaging doing just to gain perspective and open up your sub's hatch for fresh air. But it's still gripping, even with plenty of strength in the arm.

 

I don't think that is fair to Simmons. Billy fully admits that he is a fan and writes from a fan's perspective. He doesn't even try to hide the fact that he likes the Boston teams and hates their rivals. I think the point he was making about Packer is that Packer always makes himself part of the story (his ripjobs of Indiana State in 79 and St. Joe's a few years ago as prime examples) and has agendas, but presents himself as an honest, unbiased analyst. So I don't think Billy was being hypocritical.

 

Don't forget him bitching about George Mason last year. Packer's a douchenozzle; I have no problem with Simmons saying so.

 

PopeDirk, that is a valid point and the difference--Simmons has never pretended to be objective. However, it still struck me as amusing seeing Simmons complaining about another sports media guy having an agenda. If not outright hypocrisy, I'd at least say the pot/kettle cliche certainly applies.

 

Seems like apples and oranges to me. Yeah, Simmons has an agenda, but he doesn't ruin televised sporting events with it.

 

Back to Simmons...his columns this past month have focused on nothing else but basketball and Boston.

His last hurrah, perhaps? Writing about his favorite topics?

 

I've never said this, but I think I'm applying it correctly... Release the hounds!!!

 

This will not end well.

 

Well done, Boob.

 

I know you're getting sick of the Simmons thread, but I felt an impulse to point out his latest factual error in his newest piece for ESPN Magazine where he summarizes last year's Packer/NCAA controversy as Packer ridiculing the committee for so many MVC bids, and then "two end up reaching the Elite Eight." This, of course, is false--no MVC teams reached the elite eight, only the Sweet 16. More oddly, he completely missed that the sweetest part of that story was that Packer also criticized the committee for the inclusion of GMU who reached the FINAL FOUR.

This may seem like petty nitpicking, but it is amazing how many factual errors and absurd exagerrations make it into Simmons' pieces. Can corporate monster ESPN not afford editors, particularly for pieces that are slated for magazine publication?