Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

All-Encompassing Sports TV Thread of Hate


LooseCannon

Recommended Posts

Cross-posted from the wrestling thread. From Bill Simmons' mailbag 

Q: Did I just hear on your podcast that you were "never a fan of" Bret Hart? As a lifelong follower of the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be, I'd appreciate an explanation.—Dennis, PhiladelphiaSG: Let's see … no personality, no sense of humor, wet hair, horrible entrance music, hideous wrestling outfit (pink and black?), never tweaked his gimmick, didn't get along with Shawn Michaels, "carried" the WWE during its most boring stretch of the past 40 years, sold out for WCW money, remains memorable only because of (a) the Montreal Screwjob (and the fact that he punched Vince McMahon afterward), and ( B) his phenomenal Ewing Theory credentials (the WWE took off again right after he left). Just thought he was overrated.Quick tangent: In our aforementioned podcast last week, Wesley Morris mentioned his "market corrections" theory and how, sometimes, there can be only one "type" of successful lane for one actor (only with multiple actors vying for it). An example he liked: Mark Harmon never making it as a leading movie actor because Kevin Costner took all of those marquee roles that could have gone to Harmon from 1988 through 1995. Costner was Harmon's market-correction guy, the guy blocking Harmon from having a Costner-like career.Same for Tom Hanks and Michael Keaton — they battled for seven years for "funny/likable comic actor who dabbles in serious roles and will eventually become an A-lister" supremacy, with Keaton gaining an early A-list upper hand in 1989 thanks to the Batman movies. What happened to Hanks? Total tailspin! That was his Joe Versus the Volcano/Bonfire of the Vanities stretch — three years of forgettable movies. When Hanks rallied back in 1992 with A League of Their Own, then Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia (Oscar) and Forrest Gump (Oscar), what happened to Keaton? TAILSPIN! As Wesley says, there could be only one.Back to Bret Hart: His market-correction guy was "Mr. Perfect," Curt Hennig, another technically terrific wrestler who hit the WWE in the mid-1980s. I always loved the arrogant "Mr. Perfect" gimmick and thought Hennig was more interesting and entertaining than Hart, but Hart's extended wrestling family (brother Owen, brothers-in-law Jim Neidhart and British Bulldog) morphed into the Hart Foundation family, which stole good spots in every pay-per-view. With the Hitman leading the way, of course. So Hennig ended up being the Keaton to Hitman's Hanks — he never won the WWE title and eventually jumped to WCW. So not only did Bret Hart semi-bore the hell out of us in dozens of pay-per-views, he drove away his more entertaining market-correction guy. I don't hate him for it. Just can't call myself a Hitman fan. Wait, did we just spend four paragraphs on this?

 

 

 

Wow, Simmons really has no idea what he's talking about, does he?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simmons fans initially went to Grantland because "DUDE, SIMMONS!!!!". Then, they (myself included) realized that he wasn't one of the best writers on the site (hi, Jonah Keri!) and we stayed for them while ignoring Simmons. Seriously, I can't tell you the last time I read one of his columns, yet I go to Grantland daily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating "the Grantland model" might be the most important thing he's done in his career. Peter King aped the format for MMQB, Gammons did for his disaster of a site, and Silver/Whitlock will be doing the same with ESPN as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simmons fans initially went to Grantland because "DUDE, SIMMONS!!!!". Then, they (myself included) realized that he wasn't one of the best writers on the site (hi, Jonah Keri!) and we stayed for them while ignoring Simmons. Seriously, I can't tell you the last time I read one of his columns, yet I go to Grantland daily.

It's amazing how charley pierce went from feuding with simmons to writing for Grantland.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

 

 

Apparently on Fox Sports 1:  Crowd Goes Wild show every time they use the word "Tebow" they have to put money in a jar that will be given to charity.

 

If ESPN did a "Tebow Jar", they would be able to feed a third world country for at least 5 years.  :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simmons articles went from being funny & focusing on sports (especially his NBA columns) to focusing on the little things people liked in his previous ESPN work like the movie quotes and off-tangent pop-culture references.  Like that one article that was filled with movie quotes from Dennis Farina that was supposedly about the NBA or something, but all I remember are the movie quotes & the off-tangent stuff.

 

I don't think he's written anything at the level of his NBA All-Star Weekend articles on Grantland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tebow Jar segment yesterday had me dying. They essentially all took a massive shit on him and chucked a quarter into the jar every time they mentioned him directly or indirectly. It was brilliant TV. Actually, yesterday's episode was probably the best of the five they've done so far...the first segment with each panelist talking about their favorite announcer was great TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simmons fans initially went to Grantland because "DUDE, SIMMONS!!!!". Then, they (myself included) realized that he wasn't one of the best writers on the site (hi, Jonah Keri!) and we stayed for them while ignoring Simmons. Seriously, I can't tell you the last time I read one of his columns, yet I go to Grantland daily.

I went more for Klosterman, myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - that Bayless thinking made me giggle way too much when I saw it yesterday.

 

Also - the screen cap from Crowd Goes Wild reminds me of my biggest issue on the little I have watched of FS1 so far. There is WAY too much crap on the screen.

Sadly most places are doing this now but there are 7000 sidebars and scrolls. Eventually the actual live window will be the size of my phone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olbermann seemed rusty and the first episode sure did drag.  There were some nice moments and I found the Cuban interview interesting (though not covering a whole lot of new ground).  I'll watch a few more to give them a chance to get in the swing of things, but it felt an awful lot like a show without much to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olbermann seemed rusty and the first episode sure did drag.  There were some nice moments and I found the Cuban interview interesting (though not covering a whole lot of new ground).  I'll watch a few more to give them a chance to get in the swing of things, but it felt an awful lot like a show without much to say.

 

Same.  There ended up being parts of the show I liked, but, overall, it felt like a slog.  I'll give it at least this week, maybe a couple weeks. 

 

I really don't expect this to fly.  The ESPN/Olbermann dynamic strikes me as something that can't last for long, and I don't think Olbermann has a personality that plays well with sports fans.  Watching the show last night, I felt like I was watching the smartest guy in the room "slumming" by discussing sports.  That may be true.  After he became a political commentator, Olbermann said he would never go back to sports and generally acted (in interviews) like he was above being a sportscaster.  So I'm wondering if this experiment isn't a case of Olbermann burning his bridges and needing a friendly audience to make some money while he rehabs his image with prospective employers.

 

It was a bit surreal seeing Olbermann and Jason Whitlock together on ESPN.  I really thought both would be persona non grata for life with the network.  Who's next?  Can we get Dan Patrick in to host the show after Olbermann rips his bosses and gets fired? (Actually, I'd prefer to see Patrick hosting a late night show.)

 

How is Crowd Goes Wild?  I keep forgetting Fox Sports 1 is as thing now, so I haven't caught the show yet.  I've heard the Tebow thing was brilliant.  Skip and Steven  A Smith should bring in a couple large barrels and do the same thing (a jar will be way too small for Skip, in particular).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: Olbermann. A lot of my coworkers have enjoyed it, but here's the issue in my mind: who are they trying to market this show to? Olbermann's brand is so toxic that half of the country is already not going to watch. The coveted 18-34 male demo (like myself) probably has a view similar to mine, in that the show was one brilliant rant, two interviews that told me nothing interesting, insightful, or new, and two segments of highlights that were...well, highlights. So they're shooting for the 35-54 demo that remembers watching Olbermann on SportsCenter in college/their early adult years? Not sure if that's a recipe for success, especially with a good chunk of that population turning more and more conservative as they get older and being more likely to have that negative association with Olbermann's brand.

 

re: CGW. I can see why some people hate it. I can see why people love it. It's very hit or miss, but the show has definitely improved since its debut (a whopping one week ago, I know). They did their opening segment last Friday about their favorite broadcasters in light of Vin Scully's return to the Dodgers, and their thoughts were some of the most authentic opinions I've seen on a panel/debate show in quite awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...