Didn't see this posted yet and thought it was a funny story. NBA made Mark Titus of Ohio State remove his name from the draft so as not to make a "mockery" of it. Anybody read his blog? Very funny kid.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Mark-Titus-enters-NBA-draft-is-kindly-asked-to-?urn=ncaab,160332
www.clubtrillion.com
Is the blog, great read indeed
Great blog. Writes a lot like Bill Simmons of ESPN Page 2 fame.
Quote from: MU_B2002 on May 01, 2009, 07:47:48 AM
Great blog. Writes a lot like Bill Simmons of ESPN Page 2 fame.
Titus' big break was when he was on Simmons' B.S. Report Podcast. Simmons is emerging as the prominent sports writer of his generation. He has the ESPN column, the podcast, and has another book about hoops coming out. The guy is great. Probably my current favorite sportswriter and one of my alltime favorite pop culture writers.
Fellow Jesuit alumn from Holy Cross. He hates Diener. Thinks Novak has a decent NBA future, for whatever that is worth.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on May 01, 2009, 10:10:38 AM
Titus' big break was when he was on Simmons' B.S. Report Podcast. Simmons is emerging as the prominent sports writer of his generation. He has the ESPN column, the podcast, and has another book about hoops coming out. The guy is great. Probably my current favorite sportswriter and one of my alltime favorite pop culture writers.
Fellow Jesuit alumn from Holy Cross. He hates Diener. Thinks Novak has a decent NBA future, for whatever that is worth.
I for one would rather read someone that doesn't make obscure Karate Kid, Melrose Place, and 90210 references...
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on May 01, 2009, 11:56:23 AM
I for one would rather read someone that doesn't make obscure Karate Kid, Melrose Place, and 90210 references...
Don't forget Real World/Road Rules Challenge Road House references.
Simmons is great, right in the wheel house for me. I think his podcasts are fairly underrated, true he has his friends on a lot, but I think Cousin Sal, Joe House, Jimmy Kimmel, and JackO are funny. But his interviews with David Stern, the Rockets GM Daryl Morey, and some of his bosses at ESPN were really insightful.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on May 01, 2009, 11:56:23 AM
I for one would rather read someone that doesn't make obscure Karate Kid, Melrose Place, and 90210 references...
Thats what makes his reading so enjoyable and fun. He relates sports to other aspects of the media. I for one am sick of hearing and reading the same things over and over, Simmons comes up with new terms, meanings, ideas for things. That and he petitioned to be the GM for the Bucks, and I would have allowed him to be the GM, would have been very successful
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on May 01, 2009, 12:31:40 PM
I for one am sick of hearing and reading the same things over and over, Simmons comes up with new terms, meanings, ideas for things.
Your sick of hearing the same things over and over, yet you like Simmons? He's been repeating the same things for essentially a decade. It was original and funny back then, but there's only so many Teen Wolf, 90210 and Hoosiers references you can make before it gets to be ridiculous.
Quote from: bma725 on May 01, 2009, 12:43:50 PM
Your sick of hearing the same things over and over, yet you like Simmons? He's been repeating the same things for essentially a decade. It was original and funny back then, but there's only so many Teen Wolf, 90210 and Hoosiers references you can make before it gets to be ridiculous.
And thats why he moves onto different movies, TV shows, people, etc.
His connection to Borat and the NCAA Tournament 2007 was aboslutely hilarious.
When he referred to UW as the Wisconsin Buzzcuts, I damn near choked to death as I was drinking a coke while reading that post.
Quote from: Badgerhater on May 01, 2009, 01:20:58 PM
When he referred to UW as the Wisconsin Buzzcuts, I damn near choked to death as I was drinking a coke while reading that post.
That was fantastic. I love that blog. It's funny to read it from the beginning and see how it's changed as it's gotten more pub. His war with Evan Turner is awesome.
Quote from: bma725 on May 01, 2009, 12:43:50 PM
Your sick of hearing the same things over and over, yet you like Simmons? He's been repeating the same things for essentially a decade. It was original and funny back then, but there's only so many Teen Wolf, 90210 and Hoosiers references you can make before it gets to be ridiculous.
He's been around for a decade? I thought he used to be a writer on Jimmy Kimmel.
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 01, 2009, 01:30:43 PM
He's been around for a decade? I thought he used to be a writer on Jimmy Kimmel.
He got the job on Kimmel because he was already a well thought of writer for ESPN, and previously had a cult following on his own website, going back to 1998 or so. If you only know him for his post Kimmel-era stuff, you missed out on his best work. He's never been the same since moving to LA.
Quote from: bma725 on May 01, 2009, 02:12:41 PM
He got the job on Kimmel because he was already a well thought of writer for ESPN, and previously had a cult following on his own website, going back to 1998 or so. If you only know him for his post Kimmel-era stuff, you missed out on his best work. He's never been the same since moving to LA.
Huh.
Never knew that.
I guess I figured he was a young comedy writer who got his start on Kimmel, never realized he was established before that.
I have to admit though, I like his stuff... but maybe that's because I never saw his old stuff.
His re-counting of some of his Vegas trips is some of the greatest stuff I have ever read.
I love the obscure pop (and past) culture references.
Quote from: butchbadger on May 01, 2009, 02:16:30 PM
His re-counting of some of his Vegas trips is some of the greatest stuff I have ever read.
I love the obscure pop (and past) culture references.
+1
His 2007 NBA All-Star Weekend in Vegas is one of the most entertaining pieces I've ever read.
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on May 01, 2009, 12:45:32 PM
And thats why he moves onto different movies, TV shows, people, etc.
His connection to Borat and the NCAA Tournament 2007 was aboslutely hilarious.
Except he rarely moves on. He's still making the same comments about things like the Real World/Road Rules, White Shadow, Jimmy Chitwood etc that he was making back in 2001. Occasionally he very briefly talks about something new, but then it's always back to the old standards. At some point, you have to know your audience, and he's got to know that most of his readers are college age kids who don't have a clue what he's talking about.
When he started doing this he was funny and original and insightful. But he hasn't been that in awhile. Further, when he started he was very knowledgeable about pretty much every sport. He used to hang out on fan forums and debate pretty much any topic from any sport because he followed everything, and he could always make a convincing argument for pretty much any idea. Since he moved to LA, started on Kimmel, got married, had kids etc he hasn't been the same. He doesn't follow the NFL or MLB like he used to, only the NBA. He doesn't do the research that he used to, doesn't present the stats that he used to etc because he hasn't done his homework.
Worst of all, he barely even writes anymore. In the old days he put out three columns a week, plus a mailbag every other week. Then he went to Kimmel and cut back. He was supposed to go back to doing that number of columns when he left Kimmel, but instead he got into a pissing match with the editors at ESPN(which he lost) and has decided to pout(probably until his contract runs out in 2010)...which means he's cut back on the writing.
Simmons is ok. Every once in a while he will have a column that is really good, but thats few and far between these days. I agree with bma comments, his earlier work was much better.
My biggest problem with Simmons is how Boston-centric his columns and podcasts are. It was ok in his earlier years on espn.com because a large segment of his reading audience was from Boston. However, he's now become the most popular and leading writer for what is probably the most read sports website. Columns on the Pats, Soxs and Celtics only appeal to small percentage of the total espn.com audience, yet makeup a large portion of his current writings. Personally, I'm not interested in those teams, so why should I read those columns?
Also, don't like how he thinks he some type of gambling guru. If you seen his NFL picks column, you would know that if you follow his advice you would have gone completely broke 10 times over by now.
The mailbag might be the greatest thing... the randomness every time is outstanding.
That is the most hilarious blog I think I've ever read. Awesome.
Quote from: MU_B2002 on May 01, 2009, 07:47:48 AM
Great blog. Writes a lot like Bill Simmons of ESPN Page 2 fame.
And by that do you mean 90 percent of his columns are about the Celtics, Red Sox or Patriots?
Simmons used to be great. But in some respects he's become a parody of himself, essentially writing the same columns about the same teams with the same references (obscure? perhaps only to people born before 1960 and after 1995) over and over again.
What ... you don't like Roger Clemens? Thanks Bill. I had forgotten the first 90 columns you wrote about that topic.
That said, I do give him props for his ongoing feud with Rick Reilly.
QuoteWorst of all, he barely even writes anymore. In the old days he put out three columns a week, plus a mailbag every other week. Then he went to Kimmel and cut back. He was supposed to go back to doing that number of columns when he left Kimmel, but instead he got into a pissing match with the editors at ESPN(which he lost) and has decided to pout(probably until his contract runs out in 2010)...which means he's cut back on the writing.
I know most of his work now is on his podcast, which is actual good when he has guests other than his friends. He also just finished a book on basketball that is coming out in fall, which is why he cut down over the past year...well that and ESPN killing his obama interview.
Quote from: bma725 on May 01, 2009, 02:33:17 PM
Except he rarely moves on. He's still making the same comments about things like the Real World/Road Rules, White Shadow, Jimmy Chitwood etc that he was making back in 2001. Occasionally he very briefly talks about something new, but then it's always back to the old standards. At some point, you have to know your audience, and he's got to know that most of his readers are college age kids who don't have a clue what he's talking about.
When he started doing this he was funny and original and insightful. But he hasn't been that in awhile. Further, when he started he was very knowledgeable about pretty much every sport. He used to hang out on fan forums and debate pretty much any topic from any sport because he followed everything, and he could always make a convincing argument for pretty much any idea. Since he moved to LA, started on Kimmel, got married, had kids etc he hasn't been the same. He doesn't follow the NFL or MLB like he used to, only the NBA. He doesn't do the research that he used to, doesn't present the stats that he used to etc because he hasn't done his homework.
Worst of all, he barely even writes anymore. In the old days he put out three columns a week, plus a mailbag every other week. Then he went to Kimmel and cut back. He was supposed to go back to doing that number of columns when he left Kimmel, but instead he got into a pissing match with the editors at ESPN(which he lost) and has decided to pout(probably until his contract runs out in 2010)...which means he's cut back on the writing.
He wrties plenty. More output than ever if you count the podcasts.
He doesn't come up with anything new?
collumn on how twitter and tech are effecting how athletes can control fan perception: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4137488
The best article on why the bulls/celts series was great before it even got great:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090423&sportCat=nba
I suppose you can name dozens of other writers who would publsih something like this one:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3965213
Great one on what stats need to be added to basketball in order to accuratly rank players on defence:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4011524
If you don't think that he follows nfl closely enough than you must not be interested in his gambling picks where he puts out about 1200 words each week on all of his picks against the spread. Again, no where else on espn.
He recently had a series of podcasts where he discussed the downfall of newspapers with a few writers and editors that were fantastic. Not going to see that anywhere elese on espn.
These are all grabbed from his front page. You sound like one of those people who like a band before it becomes popular and once it gets popular starts crapping on all the new stuff. Total snobbery.
He has a series of things he does every year. NBA draft diary, Super bowl diary, nba trade rankings ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090415 ), mail bags and a few others. Which you can claim get old but all of which would piss off his fans if he skipped.
I do skip pod casts about realworld and if he starts talking about that in one of his email responses i move to the next one. What i don't understand is why anyone would go to espn.com unless it was to read him. 99% grabage.
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 06, 2009, 03:22:44 PM
What i don't understand is why anyone would go to espn.com unless it was to read him and make picks on Streak for Cash. 997% grabage.
Fixed
Quote from: RJax55 on May 01, 2009, 02:47:21 PM
My biggest problem with Simmons is how Boston-centric his columns and podcasts are. It was ok in his earlier years on espn.com because a large segment of his reading audience was from Boston. However, he's now become the most popular and leading writer for what is probably the most read sports website. Columns on the Pats, Soxs and Celtics only appeal to small percentage of the total espn.com audience, yet makeup a large portion of his current writings. Personally, I'm not interested in those teams, so why should I read those columns?
This reminds me of Yogi Berra's old quote (I'm paraphrasing): "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
He's the most popular writer on the most widely read sports website...but what he writes about only appeals to a small percentage of the audience. Am I missing something? I hate all the Boston teams, but I like Simmons.
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 06, 2009, 03:22:44 PM
He wrties plenty. More output than ever if you count the podcasts.
He doesn't come up with anything new?
collumn on how twitter and tech are effecting how athletes can control fan perception: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4137488
Wait ... athletes use Twitter? It may effect how fans connect with them?
That's hardly an original thought. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens of stories on the subject written weeks and months before Simmons brought this "new" trend to light.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 06, 2009, 03:53:44 PM
This reminds me of Yogi Berra's old quote (I'm paraphrasing): "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
He's the most popular writer on the most widely read sports website...but what he writes about only appeals to a small percentage of the audience. Am I missing something? I hate all the Boston teams, but I like Simmons.
I understand the irony in that statement. It comes down to a personal preference, but for me having no interest in Boston sports, a 1200 word column on how Doc Rivers is screwing up the Celtics has zero appeal ... No matter how funny or random the references he makes.
I guess my hope for Simmons was that as audience and reach grew due to his popularity on espn.com, that the teams and topics he would write about would broaden. IMO, that hasn't been the case.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on May 01, 2009, 10:10:38 AM
Fellow Jesuit alumn from Holy Cross. He hates Diener. Thinks Novak has a decent NBA future, for whatever that is worth.
I suppose he has good reason to. Diener played a HUGE role in MU's first round victory against Holy Cross on the way to the 2003 Final Four.
Quote from: RJax55 on May 06, 2009, 04:20:32 PM
I understand the irony in that statement. It comes down to a personal preference, but for me having no interest in Boston sports, a 1200 word column on how Doc Rivers is screwing up the Celtics has zero appeal ... No matter how funny or random the references he makes.
I guess my hope for Simmons was that as audience and reach grew due to his popularity on espn.com, that the teams and topics he would write about would broaden. IMO, that hasn't been the case.
People write about what they know best / what they enjoy... for Simmons its Boston sports and how poor the LA Clippers are. He won't miss you if you stop reading.. he has a big enough following (that includes me).
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 06, 2009, 03:22:44 PM
He wrties plenty. More output than ever if you count the podcasts.
He doesn't come up with anything new?
He used to write 3 articles a week not counting the link to his Magazine article or the mailbags, that put him at 15 or so articles a month. When he had his own site, he wrote minimum four times a week, if not every day. In March, he wrote 6 columns. In February he had 3. In January, he had 5. The columns are a totally different animal than the podcasts, which were started because too many people were b**ching to ESPN about how he wasn't writing enough especially when his tagline specifically said "Bill Simmons writes three articles a week for ESPN.com", and he didn't want to take the time to write more.
Quotecollumn on how twitter and tech are effecting how athletes can control fan perception: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4137488
That's not exactly new, heck ESPN's golf writer Jason Sobel talked about the impact of Twitter and how it was changing the perception of some golfers before Simmons did.
QuoteGreat one on what stats need to be added to basketball in order to accuratly rank players on defence:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4011524
Which is essentially just restating what Dean Oliver, Ken Pomeroy and dozens of others have been calling for the last several years.
QuoteIf you don't think that he follows nfl closely enough than you must not be interested in his gambling picks where he puts out about 1200 words each week on all of his picks against the spread. Again, no where else on espn.
Writing about it and following it closely are two very different things. Look at the results from his picks and what he actually says instead of just the fact he did it. He actually used be knowledgeable about the game and talk to players, coaches etc.
Quote
He recently had a series of podcasts where he discussed the downfall of newspapers with a few writers and editors that were fantastic. Not going to see that anywhere elese on espn.
No sh*t, it's a sports website, of course you aren't going to see that on ESPN. It's also a topic that's been done to death for more than a year.
QuoteThese are all grabbed from his front page. You sound like one of those people who like a band before it becomes popular and once it gets popular starts crapping on all the new stuff. Total snobbery.
If it were snobbery, I'd be like the guys on SOSH who complain about how his writing went downhill once he gave up his own site years ago and joined ESPN. I'm not. But if you honestly think he's as good now as he was before he joined up with Kimmel you need to go back and re-read some of the classic stuff. He used to have an edge to his writing that no one else had before he moved out to LA. Maybe it was removed by working with Kimmel, maybe ESPN has forced him to tone it down more, but that's gone.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 06, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Wait ... athletes use Twitter? It may effect how fans connect with them?
That's hardly an original thought. Do a Google search and you'll find dozens of stories on the subject written weeks and months before Simmons brought this "new" trend to light.
wow you did such a good job of responding to everything i said, I'm so impressed. You completely convinced me that you are correct with your one line response to the 1st of 8 things i mentioned.
Can you please name this columnist that produces multiple 1200+ word columns on a weekly basis. Everyone of which is 100% new and innovative thinking. I'd also like it to contain a multitude of pop-culture references but never ever repeat. Yeah, let me know when you find this magical sports writer. As usual people are complaining without offering anysort of superior alternative.
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 07, 2009, 10:45:43 AM
wow you did such a good job of responding to everything i said, I'm so impressed. You completely convinced me that you are correct with your one line response to the 1st of 8 things i mentioned.
Can you please name this columnist that produces multiple 1200+ word columns on a weekly basis. Everyone of which is 100% new and innovative thinking. I'd also like it to contain a multitude of pop-culture references but never ever repeat. Yeah, let me know when you find this magical sports writer. As usual people are complaining without offering anysort of superior alternative.
Geez ... are you Bill's agent or mother? Perhaps you're getting just a tad emotional over a sportwriter who, I suspect, you've never met and never will.
You like the guy. We get it. Not everybody shares your opinion. It's no reason to get upset.
Sorry my job of responding to everything you said didn't meet your standards. Perhaps had I made reference to the explosive Kimberly-Michael-Amanda love triangle (explosive ... get it?) you'd have liked it better. Though, frankly, that wasn't my intent. Nor is it my intent, or wish, to find you a superior alternative. I suspect my superior alternative and yours may not be the same.
I just found it laughable that your chief example of how new and fresh Simmons is these days was a column covering a topic that's been covered dozens of times already in various publications.
I love the non-basketball portion of the year.