NFL has ESPN by the short hairs

[Long Time Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -and-espn/

Goodell is like a mafia boss. He simply pushed a button and ESPN hit one of its writers. There is no leadership worse than insecure leadership.

[burrrton]

He'd have been fine just calling Goodell a liar- I'm sure the ESPN honchos might not have liked it, but I bet a lot of them agree and expressing opinions is what he does.

What got him suspended, and what probably would have gotten you and me fired, was calling out his employer's partner then hollering "AND I DARE YOU TO SUSPEND ME- I *DARE* YOU- AND IF YOU DO, I'LL GO PUBLIC WITH IT!" (as if any of this, including his suspension, weren't going to be public anyway)

I'm inclined to agree with his take on Goodell, but his suspension was a foregone conclusion, and he should be grateful that's all it was- he'd come out OK if he got fired, but don't kid yourself- he benefits more from ESPN than ESPN does from him.

[Hawkstar]

I definitely agree with Simmons take on Goodell. In a league that knew what Ray Rice ate for breakfast while at Rutgers before the draft, there is no way to convince me they arent lying about the tape et.

I doubt Goodell will be fired and he certainly isnt stepping down, but a severe dent has been put in the shield under his watch.

[mykc14]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/25/bill-simmons-suspension-highlights-uneasy-15-billion-relationship-between-the-nfl-and-espn/

Goodell is like a mafia boss. He simply pushed a button and ESPN hit one of its writers. There is no leadership worse than insecure leadership.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the OP or the article, but what the author doesn't mention is that Simmons said, "F*cking Bullsh*t" twice during his rant and dared ESPN to fine him or suspend him. IMO based on that alone ESPN had no choice but to suspend him.

[c_hawkbob]

I think Simmons set this up to play out exactly as it has.

Twice he said "It's Fu**ing BullSh!t" while calling Goodell a liar. For that alone ESPN had no choice but to suspend him. But doing it in the same sentence as calling out Goody now he can make the NFL as bully argument. This is exactly what he wanted and even asked for expressly.

In this video: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/08/keith-o ... ell-resign

Keith Olberman tears apart Goodell and Rice (and even Roethlesberger and the replacement refs) word by word, line by line. Continually stopping the tape to ask "when did you do that Mr Goodell" and showing with facts and contradictory video evidence exactly how he lied with every sentence and at the end calls for his resignation. He's not suspended. He didn't cuss on the air.

[Long Time Fan]

ESPN had no choice but to suspend him.

Agreed. ESPN called Simmons dare and the NFL looks to be holding the puppet strings much to the design of Simmons. I still remember the days when the press could ask the hard questions. A free press keeps everyone in line. Recent years have breed too many sacred cows with the press at their teat.

[c_hawkbob]

Agreed. ESPN called Simmons dare and the NFL looks to be holding the puppet strings much to the design of Simmons. I still remember the days when the press could ask the hard questions. A free press keeps everyone in line. Recent years have breed too many sacred cows with the press at their teat.

Watch the Olberman video linked in the post above you and tell me those aren't "the hard questions".

[kalibane]

1. I'm not so sure Simmons needs ESPN more than ESPN needs him. (maybe neither needs eachother). Simmons has built himself into the biggest sports writer in america today. There is no reason why he couldn't go do something along the lines of what Dan Patrick has done post ESPN, maybe not a radio show but breaking off and forming his own operation.

#FreeSimmons was trending for two days on Twitter (an insanely long time for a single trend). His fans (I include myself as one of them) will follow him. I already spend far more time on Grantland than I do on the actual ESPN site which has actually become one of my last sources for sports news. I can't figure out what they are doing over there. It's such a jumbled disorganized mess and they hide their best reporters (Sando comes to mind) behind insider access... but I digress.

ESPN provides Simmons with a financial safety net but he has wide ranging contacts. All he has to do is have Jimmy Kimmel make a call for him. It's not like any of the people that work for him at Grantland are ESPN people. They are all people he brought in and for the most part are loyal to him.

He's the one who pushed the 30 for 30 series and made it a success, found the film makers/directors to do it. He gets something like $5,000.00.00 a year from ESPN which is astronomical from what I understand about their salary structure.

2. F@%&ing Bulls@%t is not the issue or the reason. It's certainly not why they didn't have any choice. He wasn't doing a radio show. It was a podcast which is basically the wild west of broadcasting in long form. He and/or his guests have cursed many many many times most of them bleeped but a few episodes where there was so much cursing they just left it in (I think one was a fairly recent episode with Michael Rappaport). He even has the editorial leverage at ESPN to use explicit language in his articles on Grantland.

This may have been an internal political thing to "show Simmons who's Boss" but even if that's the reason and not because they are being corporate schills doing the NFL's dirty work it was stupid to do. The reasoning they gave was "journalistic integrity" which is ridiculous. ESPN Outside the Lines put out an article a few days ago saying that the Ravens and the NFL were lying (for which they were praised). All Simmons did was say the same thing in a less tactful way. Furthermore, they are citing journalistic integrity but put Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith on TV for two hours every day and running stories about Michael Sams in the shower. Worse the majority of the country agrees with him and his suspension was one of the longest in ESPN history.

As I've heard it put. Stephen A. Smith got one week suspension for offending millions of women. Bill Simmons got 3 weeks for offending one man.

All this does is make Bill Simmons a martyr, a hero willing to stand up to the establishment and it makes ESPN look like a pathetic boot licking toady of the NFL. Not worth it to their brand.

Making things worse. The AP is reporting now that the previously unidentified person who the 2nd Rice tape was sent to was the Head of NFL Security.

[burrrton]

1. I'm not so sure Simmons needs ESPN more than ESPN needs him. (maybe neither needs each other).

I'll grant you the bolded. Like I said, I'm sure he'd be fine and probably even flourish as you indicate, but if he's fired, he'll notice it. ESPN won't.

2. F@%&ing Bulls@%t is not the issue or the reason.

Yep. I've never listened to one, but from all indications he swears all the time in those podcasts.

[c_hawkbob]

I ain't buying it Kal. Simmons did not get suspended for offending Goodell. How could he have and Olberman not have been? KO's rant was longer, more pointed , more comprehensive and much more detailed than what Simmons said and it was on TV, not some podcast. If goody was offended by what Simmons said how was he not mortified by what Olberman said?

Whatever the rules are pertaining to podcasts (I'm sure you know more about that than I do), I just cannot believe Simmons getting suspended for content in light of that Olberman video. It doesn't wash.

[kalibane]

And yet Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman have left ESPN and been totally fine. Simmons is bigger, has more contacts and a larger following than either of them ever had (especially Olberman who burns bridges like he gets a bonus for doing it). I mean sure Dan Patrick "felt it" as you put it. Any start up will feel it. But he's in a much better situation financially and editorially now than he was when he was with ESPN.

You're right ESPN may not notice in terms of the overall bottom line it but that's because they are a monolith at this point, so Simmons leaving isn't going to "bring them down". But they can't replace him either. They don't pay him 5 million a year for nothing. They'll just have to shift away from what it is he does.

They dont' have anyone at ESPN who could even get close to putting together the type of staff he has at Grantland right now. And even if he didn't want to go off on his own Fox or CBS sports would pick Simmons up in a heart beat.

At one point it was very much true that people went to ESPN and would stumble across Simmons on Page 2. That's not the case anymore. Very few of the people who read Grantland on the regular went there because they were affiliated with ESPN. They go to Grantland because of Bill Simmons. All Simmons would need is investors if he was cast loose. He doesn't need those four letters to make the money he's making or have the influence he currently has.

[kalibane]

I ain't buying it Kal. Simmons did not get suspended for offending Goodell. How could he have and Olberman not have been? KO's rant was longer, more pointed , more comprehensive and much more detailed than what Simmons said and it was on TV, not some podcast. If goody was offended by what Simmons said how was he not mortified by what Olberman said?

Whatever the rules are pertaining to podcasts (I'm sure you know more about that than I do), I just cannot believe Simmons getting suspended for content in light of that Olberman video. It doesn't wash.

He got suspended for one of three things. Either it was because they felt he was showing the brass up by issuing a challenge, because they wanted to appease Goodell or a mixture of both.

As someone who has listened to his podcast for damn near 5 years now, I can guarantee you it had absolutely nothing to do with "F@#%ing Bulls@%t" no matter what they may try to say. If they suspended were going to suspend him for his choice in phrasing his sentece he'd be suspended multiple times each year, which is obviously not the case.

In any case... perception is reality in this day and age and the perception they created ain't good.

P.S. "because he offended one man" was just a turn of phrase people were using. That's not my contention although I do think that him going after Goodell so pointedly did play a part. If he had gone on this same rant about Ray Rice I don't think we're having this conversation right now because Ray Rice has no power to hurt ESPN.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't even know how to listen to a podcast, but I do catch Simmons on the radio on the way home from work sometimes and I like him fine. Like Olberman too, even if he is a bit of a pompous arse, but this has nothing to do with one or the other, my point is that there is no suppression of journalistic integrity going on. You really can still ask the hard questions and be just fine for having done so.

If it was the thumbing his nose at his bosses with the "I dare you to" business so be it, but what Bill said was no more an offense to Goodell than what Kieth said.

[kalibane]

I'm not arguing that Bob... I'm just saying that they didn't suspend him for lack of "Journalistic Integrity" as they claim. That doesn't wash either.

When do you catch him on the radio? Doing segments as a guest? He doesn't have a radio show.

[burrrton]

And yet Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman have left ESPN and been totally fine.

Well, yeah- that, and the rest of the rationale you listed is why I said "I'm sure he'd be fine."

My point, though, is that a $5M/year salary (if that's what he makes- I have no idea but trust you) is a bit more significant to a person than a single writer, no matter how popular, is to one of the biggest and most successful brands on the planet.

I'll give you that effectively "neither needs neither" is apt, because I'm sure Bill's children are in no danger of going on the "reduced lunch" program at school, but if either side gives a crap at all, it'll be Simmons.

[c_hawkbob]

P.S. "because he offended one man" was just a turn of phrase people were using. That's not my contention although I do think that him going after Goodell so pointedly did play a part. If he had gone on this same rant about Ray Rice I don't think we're having this conversation right now because Ray Rice has no power to hurt ESPN.

Didn't see your post script til now, and it's exactly what I am saying is not possible.

You haven't watched the Olberman video have you? There's no way in the world what Simmons said is more pointed or direct or condemning or anything you want to say it might have been than what Olberman said. Going after Bill and not Kieth would make no sense at all.

[Hawktawk]

You haven't watched the Olberman video have you? There's no way in the world what Simmons said is more pointed or direct or condemning or anything you want to say it might have been than what Olberman said. Going after Bill and not Kieth would make no sense at all.

Yeah good point Bob and there's something else. Olberman called for Goodells resignation in early August, right after the original ruling and long before all the bandwagon critics after the elevator video surfaced. Ill give him credit, and hes right. Ive been wanting Goody gone for quite a while as U all know. But he aint going anywhere. Things like this make me wonder exactly why the NFL has an antitrust exemption? Goodell is more like a sleazy politician than a CEO.

[kalibane]

I've seen Olberman. And they probably aren't happy with Olberman either. ESPN does not like their personalities taking on hot button issues from an editorial standpoint at all really. And Olberman is CONSTANTLY in hot water with the upper execs. They also know from experience that they can't control Olberman. (Read "They Have All the Fun" if you have a chance.) With Olberman it's either fire him or let him do what he does. There is no middle ground with him.

Simmons has gone on rants before, some more colorful than others. Donald Sterling is a perfect example. The difference is Sterling was universally considered a "bad" guy. You are treating this like there is no middle ground. If he had done what Olberman did I think he'd be okay. If he done exactly what he did (because he's done similar before) but with a less "important" target I think he'd be okay. Both combined... This is what you get.

ESPN thought enough was enough and wanted to send a message.

[Oly]

If it's not the language (and kalibane has shown it can't be), and it's not about Goodell (and bob has shown it can't be), then it's about the dare. ESPN just wanted to show him who is boss.

Now, given that they decided to suspend him on those grounds, do I believe that they may have beefed up the suspension to put a good face toward the NFL? Sure, that sounds plausible.

[burrrton]

If it's not the language (and kalibane has shown it can't be), and it's not about Goodell (and bob has shown it can't be), then it's about the dare. ESPN just wanted to show him who is boss.

Now, given that they decided to suspend him on those grounds, do I believe that they may have beefed up the suspension to put a good face toward the NFL? Sure, that sounds plausible.

I think that's all pretty well stated, Oly.

[Oly]

The ombudsman at ESPN confirms that insubordination was one of the two rationales behind the suspension. The other was calling Goodell a liar without presenting evidence, which is why Olbermann was okay.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ombudsman/post/ ... uspensions

[kalibane]

So basically what I thought. I've lost track how many times he's called Bud Selig and Gary Bettman liars or worse. He called David Stern a thief over the Sonics move and that he was lying about finding a way to get a new team in Seattle. He always stated that Stern had no intention to put a team back in Seattle because he could use the city as leverage to force other cities to build arenas. He clearly had no substantiation for that assertion.

Of course none of those made headlines so that probably makes a difference. The fact that he made headlines calling out Goodell and challenged his bosses at the same time = suspension.

Their "jounalistic integrity" angle is ridiculous.

[burrrton]

Their "jounalistic integrity" angle is ridiculous.

How does making accusations without evidence not fall under the umbrella of "integrity"?

I agree it comes off as a bit euphemistic trying to find a pretty way to say "he was pulling it out of his behind", but I'm not sure I see the glaring disconnect.

[Long Time Fan]

Their "jounalistic integrity" angle is ridiculous.

As well as being an oxymoron most of the time.

Just saw Olbermann piece. I am pleased to see that both Simmons and Olbermann can be both irreverent and true to journalistic integrity. ESPN is sending a mixed message with their treatment of these two. ESPN knows it must kowtow to the NFL while not paling to public opinion. Its a fine line they are walking.

[kalibane]

How does making accusations without evidence not fall under the umbrella of "integrity"?

I agree it comes off as a bit euphemistic trying to find a pretty way to say "he was pulling it out of his behind", but I'm not sure I see the glaring disconnect.

He isn't a reporter and wasn't reporting. He is an editorialist, paid to express his opinion on sports and pop-culture. How many times have you seen political editorialists claim that the President is lying? How many editorials ran accusing Bush of lying about WMDs? This isn't new territory.

[burrrton]

He isn't a reporter and wasn't reporting. He is an editorialist, paid to express his opinion on sports and pop-culture.

Ah- I see. Fair point.