/Crickets

israeli women are super fucking fine

Your argument through this thread has been all over the place.

I said 3 basic things: he’s not good on the NBA show, the show should try to find another token White, and most people know him from the NBA show. From that point forward in this entire thread, it has been me responding to a number of different people who happen to disagree. Different people, you being chief amongst them, have presented facts that you felt were knock out punches that I summarily dismissed, and eventually you’ve become frustrated in your posts. Now, it may seem like I’m “all over the map”, but that would only be because I am responding to different people who present their different “knockouts”. I didn’t compare Berman to Simmons, Scalia did with his link. I just used his link to make my point. I didn’t make the point that Simmons was more recognizable than anyone on Sportcenter, Tarheel did. I just happened to use that to make an argument. I didn’t present assumption as fact in saying that ESPN.com gets 50 millions visitors a month, Simmons has a link on said site, so this means Bill Simmons is well known, you did. And you have the audacity to tell me that I haven’t presented anything as fact when that is what you’re presenting? All I’ve done is ridicule it. Now, you seem to be backtracking. If you want to read something that’s all over the map, re read your last post. Now it’s “but but but, Berman and Simmons don’t cover the same sport”. Fuck outta here, when I’ve been getting hit in the head the whole time on here about Simmons being the most popular sportswriter in the country. Plus Berman only gets to show his face on sportscenter, right? Remember that doesn’t even come close to comparing to having a link on a website that receives 50 million unique visitors a month plus I doubt Berman has 2 million twitter followers and podcasts to compete with Simmons’ notoriety.

So, we only comment on the value of people we don’t like, is that how it works? That’s a weak argument. Everyone has a value.

In this instance, you’re conflating “dislike” with “value” and making an argument no one has made. Disliking someone’s schtick and understanding they are valuable to ESPN’s media properties are mutually exclusive things. I can dislike Chris Berman but understand why he’s on ESPN’s NFL shows.

Of course, comparing Berman to Simmons in this case is pointless, since they don’t cover the same sport, and Berman is an institution – he’s been doing this for four times as long as Simmons. Over the course of Simmons’ ESPN career (past 10 years) what Sportscenter anchor is more recognized than him? Scott Van Pelt? That’s probably the only one.

Of course, this argument would be meaningful if you provided any attempt at evidence to the contrary to show that Simmons isn’t widely known, which isn’t surprising. And the comparison of Grantland unique visits is a farce – when Joe Buck did his on show on HBO and it tanked, was that a referendum on him not being recognizable?

The fact of the matter is that Bill Simmons is one of ESPN’s premiere faces. You can downplay any source of evidence but if he wasn’t, they wouldn’t give him so many avenues (TV, website, podcast, etc.) to showcase himself. Particularly when it comes to the NBA. If you’re really talking about “niches,” (the internet LOL) the niche here is that among NBA fans, he’s probably much more recognized than if you combined all the sports.

As an alternative, what other route would ESPN go? Another token former athlete?

/Crickets

But referring to your love of stats as a “revolution” is a sign of the young desperate need to make your cause relevant.

This is so out of touch and naive

Just like the stats revolution, you’re behind the times on this one Darrell. Sorry.

Stats revolution? I guess everyone needs something to make their generation feel relevant. But referring to your love of stats as a “revolution” is a sign of the young desperate need to make your cause relevant. Just as I figured in both the Simmons and stats arguments. Scalia still has breast milk on his breath.

You supported your claim by saying that A.) Simmons isn’t on sportscenter and B.) The internet is a niche. Great job old man.

Simmons has a niche audience, and Simmons isn’t more recognizable than the most recognizable faces on Sportscenter, that’s what I said and I’m saying, just in case you aren’t clear. In response to the Sportscenter quote, someone posted that ESPN has 50,000,000 unique hits a month. Really, when you think about it or don’t think about it much, those two seperate facts have very little to do with how recognizable Simmons was, other than the tremendous stretch of linking the 50 million to him. When people tune into Sportscenter, they’re going to see whoever is sitting beind the desk that night. When people log onto ESPN.com, they aren’t necessarily going to hit the Simmons link. Eh, maybe they will at a 725,000 out of a 50,000,000 clip. Calling Simmons a sports columnist is a stretch, he’s just the sports guy remember? But I’m aware of those articles. That’s where I found the 725,000 to 750,000 number.

/gets more popcorn

It’s like trying to get through to a child…..so clueless.

Scalia presented a source to support his argument that wasn’t a source that supported his argument. Clueless indeed. Once again, to refute my claim that Simmons that most people know Simmons from the NBA coverage, you refer to him having a picture on ESPN.com, podcasts, and twitter followers as your arguments. This post is nothing more than me having fun arguing with a conglomerate of idiots who are over eager to overstate the status of their new media hero. This is easy.

Fitting that SI.com just named Simmons the #1 most powerful person in media, “by a wide margin.” The lesson continues, Darrell don’t know shit.

We were talking about being able recognize Simmons, not his supposed power. This article does nothing to support your argument, especially since it’s not based on the opinion of SI as a whole, or not as part of their top 50 most powerful list as you attempted to present it, but instead as part of some side list presented by their media writer. You want to make the argument that as many people recognize Simmons as recognize number 2 on that list? Number 3? Number 5? Number 7? Number 8? Number 9? I’d even say Number 10. They’re all more recognizable by the public than Simmons. C’mon man, if Barkley was ever interested in doing a podcast, he’d blow Simmons shit out of the water. Simmons is busting his ass 12 months out of the year, doing podcasts, writing articles, producing documentaries, working the NBA show, etc. etc., while Berman works about 4-5 months out of the year, while the rest of the year doing a sportscenter when he feels like it, an occasional baseball game when he feels like it, yet they’re still on the same list. That tells you Berman has real power. He is ESPN’s NFL coverage. Berman can go on his show, or Gruden could go on MNF and tell Simmons to suck their dick, and all the suits at ESPN will say is “that’s unfortunate”, and do you know what most of America will say? Who are they talking about.

http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/podcasts/top10podcasts.html

http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/podcasts/top10podcastssportrecreation.html

You are the worst human being I’ve encountered in quite some time. I am so sorry I participated in this.

LOL…I am so sorry that I hurt your feelings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….but really, how famous are Chicago Radio Programs if they’re receiving higher podcast ratings than Bill Simmons? What in the hell are they playing on those programs? Probably a Simmons podcast, which brings this all full circle.