Grantland is, for me, the following people:

Simmons
Lowe
McIndoe
Barnwell
Rembert

If you take those guys away there is almost nothing left for me on that site. Conversly, you move them all to some other site, I'm there instantly.

I enjoy the hollywood perspective guys too (Chris and Andy). Sub them in for Rembert and I'm in the same situation.

So this is a public bitch-slapping from Skipper. I wonder if the 2.2 B cog known as the NFL pressured them to do this after Simmons' take on The DPS yesterday.

With his contract expiring Sep. 30, we will be getting 5 months of radio silence. So Bill loses commentary on the NBA, for fucking shame.

Simmons wasn't given permission to appear on DPS either.

So at the end of his podcast on Monday he talked about how Bill Don't Lie was being pushed to Monday and then alluded that the reason would become clear around mid-week. Any chance he saw this coming and that is somehow related, or is there something else that explains that comment that I'm just not aware of (I haven't listened to Bill Don't Lie so maybe it was explained there)?

I wanna think he's inspired by Carolla to go do his own thing. I just wouldn't pay for podcast content and website articles though. And sometimes Simmons has a really low work rate. I'm sure he'll be fine.

Surprising. I thought that a lot of the Simmons and ESPN not liking each other was all a show. They are a huge name that opens whatever door (or gets him whatever tickets, etc.) he wants opened. He seems to really really like being important and hanging with celebrities, and ESPN helps him be that person.

ESPN got the clicks of the people who enjoyed reading Simmons go off against ESPN, the NFL, etc. Basically, by keeping one of their critics in-house, they could control (and profit from) anti-ESPN-corporate rhetoric.

I don't think that it was as contrived as meetings where they planned out what he would say. But I did think that there was an unspoken understanding where his "I'm a bad boy outsider" gimmick worked well for everyone.

He will pretty much be able to get a blank check from FS1 or another site wanting to gain instant credibility. And if he takes Barnwell, Lowe, etc with him (or an implicit understanding that they will come when their ESPN contracts are up)? That's a pretty good package deal.

I think the thing that is tricky is the criticism of the NFL specifically Roger Goodell. It will be interesting to see how a Fox or a NBC deals with one of their national stars saying the NFL commissioner "lacks testicular fortitude".

The status of other Grantland writers, where they go and whose jobs they might be taking at other sites are far more interesting to me than Simmons. For example, a Yahoo NBA reporting team of Adrian Wojnarowski and Zach Lowe would be interesting.

C'mon, McIndoe. You can make SportsDigs happen.

Not really bothered by Simmons leaving. I thought the Grantland version of Simmons wasn't nearly as good as previous version. Seemed to revel a little too much in his homerism/rebellious writer.

It probably does mark the end of Grantland, though Barnwell became my NFL must read. Love his insight. Titus is pretty good for my college basketball fix.

The Grantland NFL podcast is probably the best NFL program out there.

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/f...ation-20150508

Sums up my thoughts on him very well. Great at first. Caricature of himself later. But he opened the door for guys like Barnwell, etc. that can write in a guy at a bar style, but, unlike Simmons, not have to rely on humor instead of really good analysis.

Good piece. It does get at what might be Grantland's downfall. From everything I've read, including this article, Grantland, while a critical success, lags on site traffic and revenue. Hard to see ESPN continuing to support that long term.

I mean, I loved The National back in the day, but, oh well.

This Vanity Fair article reads like Simmons getting his side out through an intermediary. Some interesting info.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/...mmons-and-espn

I see some parallels between Simmons and Andrew Sullivan. Both guys were pioneer bloggers in their fields. And both guys got an audience committed to them individually. And both guys chaffed at restrictions and seem tough to work with.

Sullivan bounced from place to place until he went solo with a subscription model. Then he burned out and retired. I don't see Simmons burning out the same way. I do see him possibly going on a peripetic adventure as he bounces from opportunity to opportunity.

And I think that ESPN is nuts if it thinks that, say, the BS Report has a loyal audience outside of Simmons.

WOW! he made 5M a year...thats insane.

I suspect it depends on the content. Honestly, I rarely ever look at the bylines on Grantland until after reading the content. If the content is good, there's something there ... whether or not that's something that justifies the separate identity, eh, that's probably a different call.

Grantland was always supposed to be 'prestige programming' for ESPN, but it's definitely eye-opening/sad to see the share of their traffic that's from Simmons as opposed to everyone else. It will be even more of a money pit now, but it'll be interesting to see how far ESPN goes in order to passive-aggressively 'win the breakup.'

list of grantland pieces about deadspin, since 2011:

— Rembert Browne (@rembert) May 12, 2015

Jim Miller is a buddy of Bill's. He's been on his podcast numerous times and Bill helped pimp out his SNL stuff. Still, it was a pretty good read and helped shed some light on the breakup (even if it was mostly from a pro-Simmons perspective).

Then again, if you want the anti-Simmons perspective, just head over to deadspin. It's pretty clear that site has some massive Simmons/Grantland envy and is doing everything it can to try and tarnish their name. It makes since, given Grantland is probably one of the bigger competitors to Deadspin and they get a double benefit of tearing down Simmons while getting more eyes on their site pages.

I'm not sure this is true.

Deadspin appears to be playing to what its audience wants to read. It's great popcorn drama, and the audience eats it up. Take a look at what trends on their network.

They are actually fairly complimentary to Grantland most of their articles. (They admittedly don't like Simmons as a writer, but praise him as an editor and as a podcaster.)

More importantly, though, they link to their articles in their own content. If you were trying to tear down your opponent, why would you give them clicks by linking to their articles? The name of the game for blog sites is unique visits and click throughs.

There's a definite "shock jock" appeal they are going for, but there seems like a sense of anger when Simmons and/or certain parts of Grantland come up. Here are just a few from the past few days:
Report: Bill Simmons Is Leaving ESPN
How To Employ Bill Simmons
Bill Simmons Is A Shitty Writer
Why ESPN Fired Bill Simmons
Photoshop Contest: Where Is Bill Simmons?

Go back further and you see them attacking Whitlock's "black grantland" site, they list the 12 worst grantland stories from year X (you can search the year), etc. It's clear they have some kind of vendetta.

It's a lot of backhanded compliments (ie, Grantland sucks, but this one guy wrote a nice article) - or ones directed at specific writer who haven't been there long. I think they like some of the content there, but have a vested interest in tearing down Simmons.

Because it actually helps deadspin's SEO. Linking to numerous legit articles in your site is a way to improve your search rating. Not to mention, many blogs think that having actual links to real articles improves their own credibility.

Just look at the number of comments on the articles you linked. I think they like Grantland just where it is. Drama filled, an easy content target and and behind it in the traffic rankings.

Back in October, Grantland had 4 mil unique visitors and ranked 2200 nationally. Back then, Deadspin had 17.9 million visitors and ranked 820. In April, Grantland had 13 million unique visitors and ranked 1420 nationally - while Deadspin had 15 mil and ranked 950. Grantland was on a course to pass Deadspin in the next 24 months. Simmons leaving, though, could throw a wrench into it.

I do think Deadspin is a pure shock and grab hits site, though, so this could just be them jumping onto some easy traffic by talking smack about Simmons and Grantland.

I don't think anything is particularly backhanded. What the articles are saying boils down to:

1. Bill Simmons' target audience is people who had that one poster of naked ladies with Pink Floyd album covers painted on their backsides. That's just a criticism.

2. On the heels of that success with said demographic, ESPN gave him a lot of money and creative freedom. That's a pretty neutral statement.

3. Bill Simmons has done a good job of hiring competent people, paying them well, and letting them do their thing. That's maybe backhanded towards Simmons himself (saying that's not what one would have expected given points 1 and 2) but not the site.

Hey, we want to read analysis and speculation about this and things like this. You think we're going to get that at ESPN?

Perfect spot for him. I worried he was going to try to do some over-the-top subscription model. I look forward to him doing this thing without the content restrictions of ESPN, and hope this means a lot of great HBO sports documentaries.

Agree. Really looking forward to having his podcasts back. I doubt I'll end up watching his weekly show, but like his podcasts, the guests and his interactions with them could make it good.

Makes sense for both sides.

Will he still be able to have someone like Cousin Sal on?

Probably not as long as Sal works for ABC

Good point, molson. That's a shame. Their guess the lines podcast was one of my favorites.

I wouldn't be so sure. I'm assuming Bill Maher has guests on from other networks. If both companies can work things out for good cross-promotion, they will. Now if this show was airing at 11:30pm on a weekday against Kimmel (it never would), I can see ABC saying no.

I doubt there would be much of a roadblock put up to get a guy on a podcast with a comparatively smaller audience than the show he works for.

A lot of talk shows tend to have people on from other networks. And they may not even mention what network (Letterman for a while kept saying "from another network" whenever folks from NBC shows would come on).

I know ESPN didn't let its people on the Dan Patrick Show, at least for a while. I'd be pretty surprised to see Simmons and current ESPN on-air people together on HBO.

The one thing Sal has going for him is that Jimmy is a big shot with ABC and they probably won't fuck with him too much.

And ESPN wouldn't let people on WFAN radio after the two sides were bickering at each other through the shows. Patrick was a pretty messy divorce I believe. For all that seems to have happened between Simmons and top management, he still cares about a lot of people there so I don't think we're going to see the "scorched Earth" takedown of ESPN that others seem to think is coming. So absent that, I think it'll all work out. But of course if he does, I would expect a similar ban to be put in place.

Smart move by Simmons. He's probably making as much as he would at ESPN for a fraction of the work.

What's the big deal about video podcasts? Do we need video of two people sitting across from each other and talking? No. Audio podcasts are just fine. Spend money on booking good guests and improving sound quality instead of a set and video equipment.

Or go the Ricky Gervais Show route and animate the entire thing.

Only if they get those Taiwanese news animators.

I'm not sure if the videos are really thought of a "big deal" in reality; more of an ancillary benefit of recording the content in the first place. But these guys conceivably want to spend money on a nice set in order to attract those good guests. Podcasting has grown well beyond "guys with two mics in a basement/garage" (save for Maron). Plus there's also a lot of people who won't spend 45 minutes to an hour listening to a podcast, and pushing out edited Youtube clips of these conversations or embedding them into other content definitely has a lot of value.


Sports Guy tried that already.

eta: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...59FDDCA33D748F

I'm down for that.

Norm MacDonald does a video podcast, and it's an entirely different beast than if was just audio.

What you're describing is a talk show, not a podcast. Podcasts are supposed to be longer and more in-depth, not necessarily chopped up into context-less short video clips for the masses.

I listen to all the Simmons podcasts but I'd really miss the Sal ones. It also sux we already missed Chad Ford and the draft as well as we won't get Matthew Berry doing preseason FF.

At least House and Jacko will presumably be around.

TV/@hbo decision re @BillSimmons world came 1st but there will be another announcement in future as to where he will call home for digital.

— James Andrew Miller (@JimMiller) July 22, 2015

Sounds like there is more information about Simmons to come.

I actually prefer the grantland video podcasts over their audio versions. They are able to put things into context by using graphics, and by seeing the people themselves.

Bill and Jalen.
Jalen and Jacoby's Pop The Trunk
Hollywood Prospectus.

Podcasting has definitely grown to be more than being consumed as just audio.

They'll be the same podcasts, presumably. HBO put "video podcasts" in the press release because, well, they are a premium video service and Simmons has (had) I believe the most popular sports podcast. You were talking about not needing to spend money on a set when the point is that the added cost is negligible.

Colin wanted to get to FOX sports a bit early.

Colin Cowherd no longer on ESPN air after comments about Dominican Republic players