Even a broken clock…

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

46 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw says:

    Disclaimer: I say this as a complete and absolute not-sports fan. The last time I went to a sports game was for a law school event in 2010. I have never sat down on my own accord to watch sports on TV except maybe the opening ceremony for the Olympics because I like the parade of nations. In short, I am not losing anything by saying this.

    The NFL and other sports teams probably will not change until they face a serious threat of losing money. This probably will not happen until more people just start boycotting the NFL for bad behavior like Ray Rice and the guy that played for the Vikings. This will probably not happen because people are very very invested in their teams and as long as their teams are not the ones in trouble, everything is good. Their teams suddenly become white knights. “The Niners would never have a player like Ray Rice”. “The Niners would boot any player charged with child abuse”, etc. I remember a few years ago when people were talking about needing to boycott the NFL because of head-trauma issues, a guy I know wrote an essay about how the modern NFL is wimpy because of concerns over head-trauma and all the safety gear modern players wear. He wanted a return to the 1920s.

    There will always be enough people like the guy above to make football a really big industry or all sports.

    That being said, I thin Chinatown is a great movie and will watch it every now and then despite Roman Polanski’s crimes and I will watch others as well.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:


      Steve Young (an ex-NFL QB and current analyst at ESPN) has been known to argue pretty much as you are here. That is, the inexorability of the NFL and NFL owners getting their goldarn way about everything. But he’s changed his tune recently. IF advertisers abandon teams and the league due to market based pressures from consumers (or whatever, ya know?), then policy and admin might actually change. Which is something , it seems to me.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:

        The problem here is that many people are seemingly not going to abandon their times. Devotion to sports teams is pretty much close to devotion to religion in the United States (and maybe the world?) It is a very strong part of identity for many people.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

        Maybe I didn’t make the earlier point clear. It’s not that fans leave teams and the league, but that advertisers do.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:

        I saw that but I don’t think advertisers are going to do so because there are enough fans that will not. More than enough. For the most part, the advertisement I typically associate with sporting events does not always come from the most progressive or modern of industries/companies. The ads themselves are often pitched at a very traditional and “rugged” definition of masculinity.

        The issue with the Vikings and corporal punishment is harder because we revealed earlier than an overwhelming majority of Americans use some form of “corporal punishment”. I think that the minority that does not (which tended to range between 20-25 percent for various ethnic groups) probably all stay close to each other. Of course I think corporal punishment is probably described rather broadly in the surveys and most of it does not raise to the level that the Vikings guy did.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:


        I recant.Report

  2. Saul Degraw says:

    I think my point is the problem is us and will always be us. Ray Rice and Goddell are not different entities, they are us. Same with our politicians, police officers, and all other people who get in trouble for unprofessional and potentially unethical behavior.

    We all have our own desires, hobbies, passions, things that bring home the bacon, etc. We care deeply about these things. What’s the quote “It is hard to get someone to believe in something when his paycheck depends on him not believing it?”

    We all have an issue or passion where this is true. Probably multiple ones. We also all have issues where it is easy for us to be moral crusaders and truth tellers. It is easy for someone who doesn’t care about art house cinema to tell me that I should not watch Chinatown, Knife in the Water, the Ghostwriter, etc because Polanski committed a horrible crime (he was also the victim of some very horrible crimes). It is too easy for me to say people should boycott the NFL and professional sports because of Ray Rice, etc.

    I am not sure how to fix this problem or if it needs to be fixed.Report

  3. Stillwater says:

    Tid, regarding the spelling: I think you’re confusing Goodell (an NFL executive accused of not telling the truth) with Godel (a person who proved that single system – or institution, if you will – cannot contain its own truth predicate).Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

      Oh my gid! So sorry for the typo Tod.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

      Also, I agree with you about your main thesis here: that ESPN is driven by money (and not principles) just as much as the NFL. I thought what happened to Simmons was a crime against conscience since he didn’t say anything that ESPN as well as others had already said. The decision to suspend him must have come from somewhere else or the ESPN internals are entirely irrational.Report

  4. Michael Drew says:

    My main point of agreement is that if the point of ESPN hosting his podcast isn’t for him to say exactly that kind of thing if that’s what he thinks, then what exactly is the point?

    I also like your observation that it was ESPN’s own big report that earned them so many journalistic kudos that BS was responding to. BS was voicing the reaction that ESPN has to know their report engendered in so many readers. It’s bizarre that they wouldn’t want to host an outlet for that anger to let their viewers/listeners/readers know they, too are reacting like humans to the story not corporate automatons. But, guess not.Report

  5. Kazzy says:

    I don’t disagree with anything you say here. But I will say that Simmons gets no sympathy from me. He wants the audience that being affiliated with ESPN allows him but does not want to play by ESPN’s rules. This is not his first suspension and he has left the company at least once (and I think maybe twice) before over issues related to “creative differences”. He often tries to hold himself out as a victim of ESPN when his relationship with ESPN is generally mutually beneficial and one he has repeatedly opted in to because of the benefits it provides him. If he wants full creative control over what he does, he can go independent. He chooses not to. If you want to work for a company that is owned by Disney and which has billion-dollar relationships with billion-dollar entities, you’re going to have to play by the rules.

    He didn’t fire this opinion off on live TV without the ability to think his words through or use an edit button. He did this on his podcast which is pre-recorded and edited. He chose to make public not only his statements about Goodel, but also his “dare” to his supervisors that they punish him. He knew what he was doing and he got called on it.Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to Kazzy says:

      It’s rather clear that he couldn’t have played by ESPN’s rules and necessarily avoided this, because ESPN’s rules in this area are apparently largely ad hoc.

      Perhaps he should have been aware that daring his superiors to do something probably upped the chances of a suspension. But if that’s the reason he got suspended, it makes the suspension all the more lame. And that’s the point – that the action is pathetic. I’m not aware of anyone who’s said what concerns them here is sympathy for Simmons due to the actual effects of the suspension. Simmons is obviously fine. What people don’t like is finding out that ESPN doesn’t mind publicly censoring its opinion contributors from expressing a view this reasonable and suggested by available evidence.

      It’s also odd that you’d say that it’s worse that he said this on a podcast rather than on live TV. On live TV, ESPN can’t do anything about it, a la Steven A. This is a podcast. ESPN could, like, review the on-demand content they choose to host before releasing it. In that case, the conversation could go, “Look Bill, we understand how you feel, but we just can’t put up a podcast in which you baldly assert that the NFL commissioner is a liar. You’re going to have to edit that part out before we put it up.” No harm, no foul. Not doing that is a failure by the company to know what it’s publishing. Functionally it means that Simmons was suspended for expressing this opinion internally, as ESPN had every ability to prevent it from ever seeing the light of day. It’s the lameness.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:


        Neither you nor I nor anyone outside the company really know what the “rules” are at ESPN. Given that Simmons has run afoul of them before, I’d venture to guess he’s got a better sense than most… which is exactly why he issued the dare. He knew what he said was going to cause a problem. And he said it anyway.

        ESPN has a long track record of censorship to protect its partners. This is nothing new. Should they do it? Hell if I know. Journalism is a business now, for better or for worse.

        As for the podcast versus the live, it is hard to know how much day-to-day oversight ESPN has over Grantland. My understanding is that Grantland has its own internal editors with Simmons serving as Editor-in-Chief. This tells me they probably give him the discretion to apply the rules they set and, when he errs, they step in. He erred here, intentionally or not, and they stepped in. I listen to other ESPN/Grantland podcasts and they regularly will say something and then say, “That’s going to get cut out.” It is usually language which is hit with a bleep of one kind or another, but clearly there are “rules” and most people know them. This situation is different than foul language for obvious reasons. Grantland got itself in hot water before with the Dr. V story, which showed a similar lack of oversight and which Simmons handled rather poorly when you held up the few comments he made in a podcast versus what he put in print about it.

        I’m not trying to defend ESPN here. As I said, Tod points out some very real issues with the organization in general and their particular handling of this matter. I’m just frustrated with the #freesimmons crap. I get that he’s got a fanboy following but he regularly handles himself like a petulant child when he doesn’t get his way and the act is getting old. As I say to my son (18-months) when he trips over his own feet and then gets all huffy about it: “Who you mad at?” Who you mad at, Simmons? Ultimately, he has no one to blame but himself here.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:

        Ultimately, he has no one to blame but himself here.

        Can’t that be said about anyone who has a Bad Thing happen to them? Even that guy who was shot for doing exactly what the cop told him to do? “He should’ve just stood calmly with his hands up and when asked to provide his license he shoulda informed the cop that his license was in the car and asked if it was alright to reach in and get it….” Dude has no one to blame but himself, no?Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:


        Not at all. If I repeatedly tell you, “Don’t do X. If you do X, I’ll do Y,” and you agree to these terms and then willingly do X and say, “Go ahead, do Y!” and reasonable people can agree that Y is a reasonable (if not necessarily preferable) response to X… who are we supposed to blame?Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @kazzy What, exactly, do you think was the X in this situation?

        I listen to ESPN radio a lot, and I hear the phrase “and I don’t care if I get Y for saying it” a lot. It’s just that they are always following things like,

        “I think David Stern has it in for [some team or player], and…”

        “If they change the designated hitter rule, baseball will go down the toilet, and…”

        “I don’t care if we ARE broadcasting the World Cup. You can’t tell me that soccer is a real sport, and…”

        So I’m having a hard time believing that there’s some kind of rule about that — unless it was implemented just prior to Simmons’ podcast, or podcasts have a different set of rules than radio does.

        And none of this is an attempt to be a fanboy for Simmons. Seriously, even though I like about 60% of the stuff he puts in his columns, there’s always about 5% — almost always about women — that makes me wince. And because of that, I find ESPN’s decision to suspend him for this all that much more egregious.

        ESPN Assistant: Sir! Simmons just wrote another column on how women are all irrational and crazy, and what his male readers should do if they want to irritate them!

        ESPN Exec: Hmmm…. How many page hits?

        ESPN Assistant: A little over 100,000, but we’re expecting more because there are about 30 websites including Jexebel that are linking to it saying we employ sexist pigs.

        ESPN Exec: 100,000??? Cha-ching! Let it ride!

        [60 days later]

        ESPN Assistant: Sir, Simmons just called Goodell a liar, and said he didn’t care if he got punished for saying it!

        ESPN Exec: You know, this is why we have rules about employee conduct. We simply can’t have his sullying our corporate image with such bad behavior and lack of journalistic ethics. I want you to suspend him.

        (and I suppose this would be my response to @mo and @scarletnumbers as well)Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:


        This whole Simmons thing reminds me a bit of when Charlie “Tigerblood” Sheen was pissing people off left and right, was being boycotted and villified, and then he’d go on the offensive again, making a complete ass outa himself and CBS. But all his craziness never affected a) the bottom line or b) challenged the existing power structure he was operating under. It wasn’t until he directly criticized CBS management that he was fired from the show. Simmons sin, it seems to me, was to directly challenge not only Goodell but the fact that ESPN and the NFL are in bed together. WHich is something ESPN would rather no one really think about when forming judgments about all this stuff.Report

      • Mo in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @tod-kelly Simmons is no longer just a writer for ESPN. He is part of the management power structure. With that he gets extra responsibilities and leeway, but higher expectations. The expectations for the EIC of ESPN.com are completely different than for a writer for ESPN.com. While Grantland is not ESPN.com, Simmons is more akin to the EIC of ESPN.com than he is comparable to a writer for the same. The expectations for how I conduct myself is completely different than an entry level kid and it is also different than my second line manager’s expectations. According to Deadspin, this came down from Simmons’ biggest advocate and defender in ESPN, which seems to me this is much more about how he conducts himself

        I would also note that Simmons’ contract is up next year, so there is likely a lot of power struggle over letting each other know who is boss that is baked into this as well.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:


        I’m not defending ESPN’s logic. I’m simply unsympathetic to Simmons’s “plight”, which I consider to be largely self-inflicted and something he obviously anticipated and knew was a likely consequence of his choices. He bit the hand that feeds him, was arrogant about doing so, and now has to suffer the consequences.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @kazzy So, consider this not a challenge but a question posed out of real, actual curiosity…

        If a woman had been suspended by ESPN for saying the exact same thing — I mean, verbatim — would you still feel that she deserved what was coming to her?Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:


        What is the context of her saying it? Does she have Simmons’s history? I considered noting that part of my issue with Simmons’s rant is that he was not speaking “truth to power” and trying to effect real change (but felt this would have been too tangential but now seems appropriate). I think above all else, this spat between ESPN and Simmons is not about domestic violence or misogyny or anything of the like; I think it is a power struggle over creative freedom and control. I think Simmons does believe Goodel is lying but I don’t believe his intent in outing Goodel was rooted in actually addressing the underlying issue. It was about him speaking his mind. It was self-aggrandizing.

        If the hypothetical woman made the exact same comments in the exact same context with the exact same history as Simmons, I probably would have similarly thought, “What did she expect?” Of course, that is easy for me to say given that this is purely hypothetical.

        Let me ask you: Whose interests did Simmons’s rant ultimately serve (regardless of his intenion)?Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @kazzy “Whose interests did Simmons’s rant ultimately serve (regardless of his intention)?”

        Oh, I’d say “too early to tell.” Possibly ESPN or Simmons, possibly both, possibly neither. And possibly “real change” within ESPN, since they seem to be getting flack from all directions on this. Maybe. Like I said, I don’t know that it’s possible to say at this point.

        As for the rest of it, you’re right that Simmons is not part of the tribe that one would most likely associate a rant about misogyny in the NFL. (Or anywhere else, for that matter, because he really is quite terrible on that front.)Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:


        Do you think any of those people/groups will be changed positively with regard to domestic violence and/or other “women’s” issues? Or will they simply be better about handling internal firestorms?

        I should also probably be a bit more transparent about some of the frustration I have with Simmons. While I enjoy some of his writing, I find him to be a phony on a number of levels and to be highly disingenuous with his audience. He can be entertaining most of the time and excellent some of the time, but I still think he is a self-serving, insincere, pompous ass. As such, I’m not particularly inclined to by sympathetic to him. To whatever extent this has biased my opinion, well, there ya go.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @kazzy “Do you think any of those people/groups will be changed positively with regard to domestic violence and/or other “women’s” issues?”

        Maybe, maybe not, but if I’m being honest I don’t know that I think that’s a fair way to critique something someone publishes, be it spoken or written. I don’t have any illusions that the things I write are going to magically make the world a better place. I think I can probably say the same for 99% of what gets published here — or by Josh Marshall, or by TNC, or by Popehat.

        But I still think all those things have value, and I think dismissing them out of hand because they didn’t actually solve issue X is a problematic way to approach both journalism and entertainment.Report

      • I don’t believe his intent in outing Goodel was rooted in actually addressing the underlying issue. It was about him speaking his mind.

        While this is probably true, it seems worth mentioning that the entire reason for his popularity is that people like hearing him speak his mind – whatever else he’s done has been an offshoot of that original source of popularity. In other words, he’s paid to speak his mind. Now, if this is ultimately mostly about the challenge to his bosses, I don’t have much of a problem with him facing some significant consequences.

        But even with that in mind, it’s worth mentioning that even the challenge rang true with a lot of people – it seems to an awful lot of people on this issue that there’s been a pattern of behavior by both ESPN and various other prominent outlets in which it seems like there is an attempt to insulate Goodell in particular, and NFL HQ more generally (even if the gloves can come off on the individual teams and players), and Simmons’ challenge almost seemed to confirm that.

        I mean….have you seen this?


        And then there’s the whole issue of two of the highest profile NFL reporters, one of which is with ESPN (I think it was Mortensen), the other of which is Peter King, reporting in July that the NFL had in fact seen the tape, which their sources suggested partially exonerated Rice, but then suddenly backtracking like crazy on those reports when the tape came out and the AP released the story about the tape being sent in April.

        Then it seemed as if every ESPN on-air personality was actively required to give Goodell the benefit of the doubt, in essence parrotting something along the lines of “obviously Goodell is in huge trouble if he lied, but I can’t imagine he’s lying, he has no incentive to lie, and this just looks like he didn’t do his homework.”

        Even the OTL report, well-done as it was, and which largely proves at least one part of the NFL’s story to be lies even though it mostly focuses on the Ravens, stops short of actually making the claim that Goodell or anyone in the NFL’s central offices is lying, leaving it to the reader to connect the dots.

        So while the challenge from Simmons may have been what really forced ESPN’s hand, it was also something that seemed to confirm what a lot of people have been suspecting.

        Is Simmons an imperfect messenger for that? Quite possibly. But the fact that he’s accumulated enough power at ESPN to play by a different set of rules – and he clearly does, so I can understand why a lot of people may resent him – may also make him the only person within one of the major sports media entities with the freedom to speak up about not only the fact that it sure seems like Goodell is lying, but also that it sure seems like the major sports media are trying to protect Goodell.

        I mean, watch that Bill Polian clip again. It’s nothing short of astounding.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @mark-thompson I had not seen this.


      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:

        That’s just incredible Mark. I read about it, but watching it is mindblowing. And to think I used to really respect Bill Polian. Whelp. That ship has sailed. I wonder how many other folks are gonna have to fall on The Shield to save Goodell’s ass?Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:

        Ya know, powerful people don’t just walk away from 44 million dollars. Per year.

        Or even $35.1 million, for that matter.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Drew says:

        @tod-kelly @mark-thompson

        I think we may be talking about different things here. I have no reason to believe that Simmons said what he said or did what he did to address domestic violence or the NFL’s godawful handling of these latest rounds of domestic violence involving its employees. I could probably be convinced that Simmons said what he said or did what he did with the intention of exposing the perverse relationship between ESPN and the NFL… which I do believe exists and which I think ought to be criticized. However, my gut reaction tells me that Simmons said what he said or did what he did because he wanted everyone to know what he thought on the matter and he wanted to put on his big boy pants and give the middle finger to the company who pays him but with whom he has long had a difficult and muddied relationship with.

        Is it possible that Simmons called out Goodel as a liar (which I think he was right about, mind you) and dare ESPN to punish him with the hopes that it would create a situation whereby which we would all say, “Wait a minute… something is fishy between the NFL and ESPN”? Sure, I guess so. But I doubt it. And if he really wanted to draw attention to the unseemly relationship between these two billion dollar entities… a relationship that allows one of them to engage in immoral and borderline criminal behavior in pursuit of those billions… I would have liked to have seen him go full whistleblower. Give up Grantland, take his millions of followers elsewhere, and pen a piece exposing Goodel, the NFL, and ESPN for what they really are. I suppose that is easy for me to say from the comfort of my rocking chair.

        tl;dr: If I had to bet on Simmons being “virtuous sword-faller-onner” or “self-righteous blowhard”, I’d put my money on the latter.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:

        If I had to guess, I’d say that Simmons was responding to a gag order already imposed by ESPN, and for whatever reason (but one immediately comes to mind!) he chose to challenge them on it.Report

      • @Kazzy I don’t think I understand how speaking one’s mind on an issue is different from addressing that issue. Maybe he was being a blowhard, maybe not, but being a blowhard is not incompatible with trying to address something. Honestly, they are frequently one in the same.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:


        Isn’t it possible he said what he said about Goodell because he believes it, and issued the challenge because he’s engaged in something of an unresolved power struggle with over just what he can and can’t say on his podcast, and wanted to make clear that this was one (type of?) situation in which he was willing to go to the mat to be able to say what he wants?

        I begged off before because it was clear that our concerns just weren’t for the same questions in this – yours was that Simmons get his just workplace deserts, while mine was whether it actually helps us as infotainment consumers for him to get that. So I’m glad @mark-thompson has stepped in to make that point.

        Clearly, a suspension here is well within ESPN’s discretion as an employer. Some are probably arguing that Simmons has been grievously injured on Twitter or whatnot, but mostly people aren’t saying that ESPN is completely outside its discretin to do this. What we’re arguing is that it’s lame and it doesn’t help us as information consumers.

        It’s better for us as information consumers to be able to hear what people like Simmons think, then we can assess whether we think it’s justified or not. And that goes for Simmons himself in this instance. If he can win, or just make progress in, the battle of perceptions over this, it’s (marginally) good for everyone employed in journalism attached to a big company weighed down by commercial relationships who wants to be open about their views. If he’s successfully stifled, it’s bad for everyone.

        Except in this case, it might be bad for you if he wins, because it will mean that Bill Simmons himself will be able to be marginally more rather than marginally less Bill Simmons-like, and you’d rather have less Bill Simmons than more in your life any way you can get it. But it remains a suspension that’s bad at the formal level for information consumers in general, and also lame on its particulars.

        I’d leave you with this thought: what is BS going to be like when he gets off suspension? Insufferably smug, right? Well, he needn’t have ever been suspended! Just from the perspective of someone like you who wants a more sufferable rather than a less sufferable Bill Simmons occupying the position if Bill Simmons in his world, I think this suspension isn’t a good thing.

        Ultimately, your view is probably that if it’s ESPN’s view that suspending Simmons is good for ESPN, then you’re happy to see Bill Simmons suffer, since in many workplaces this might be actionable behavior. And if ESPN thinks it’s best for them, I don’t expect them not to do it either. But I question whether it is, and it’s certainly relevant to their calculation whether suspensions like this are good for them how they’re received by their audience. That’s why I’m glad @tod-kelly expressed what he thought of it, and why I was happy to voice my agreement with him.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

        First @ tag there was supposed to be @kazzy.

        [ED: Fixed this. -md]Report

    • Patrick in reply to Kazzy says:

      If you want to work for a company that is owned by Disney and which has billion-dollar relationships with billion-dollar entities, you’re going to have to play by the rules.


      Or rather, yes, absolutely.

      But if you want to put a program on and call it “news”, the first rule is that you report the news. That’s really the only rule that really matters.

      If you’re not reporting the news, you’re not a journalist. You’re in advertising.

      What offends me about all this is that ESPN wants to do the second while they’re claiming they’re doing the first.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Patrick says:


        Simmons delivered his rant on a podcast during which he guesses NFL lines. That’s entetainment, not news. At this point, the line between those two is increasingly blurry especially for organizations as big as ESPN. I agree that this is a problem.Report

  6. Mo says:

    I actually think that Simmons was suspended for challenging and calling out management more than he was suspended for calling Goodell a liar. Olberman said a bunch of negative stuff about Goodell, as has Hannah Storm. The OTL investigation is a thousand times more damaging to Goodell than anything Simmons said. However, going on you podcast and calling out your bosses and daring them to mess with you is a good way to get them to mess with you. It was the insubordination, not what he said.Report

    • ScarletNumbers in reply to Mo says:

      What Mo said.

      He put his bosses in a position where they HAD to suspend him.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to ScarletNumbers says:

        But if he had said literally nothing else objectionable except, “I dare you to suspend me” they almost surely would have said, “What could we suspend you for, Bill? What are you talking about?”

        They had two not-very-good reasons to suspend him, one of which was basically pride, the other of which they’ve pretty much been letting others do. They absolutely did not have to suspend him. It was a lame suspension.Report

      • Mo in reply to ScarletNumbers says:

        He’s management and an editor in chief. If he goes on a obscenity laden rant daring management to fish with him, they will do it for insubordination and unbecoming behavior. Perfectly cromulent reasons.Report

  7. Stillwater says:


    Thinking about this a bit more, I have a question maybe you can answer given that you’ve sorta catalogues a bunch of news reports on this stuff: I wonder if ESPN changed the way it was reporting on and talking about this whole as a result of some big-time sponsors pulling back their advertising for the Vikings. I guess I’m wondering if the timing of their positional change on Goodell in particular (the one Mark refers to) can be correlated with those events. Seems to me that the NFL knows it’ll sell seats to games, but the real revenue comes from advertising dollars, which in turn are collected by networks and bid on signed into contracts way out front. So ESPN and the Monday Night franchise could conceivably take it up the yinyang down the road.

    Have you noticed any timing issues along those lines?Report

  8. Damon says:

    “It’s a long shot, I know, but I very much hope the real non-sports journalists of the world widen their focus and decide to begin to cover not only Roger Goodell, but also the supposed journalists who are currently being paid to do so.”

    Right..because it’s been clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of “journalists” are carrying water for the people they cover…celebrities, politicans, sports teams/organizations/players.Report