Five highly regarded staffers leave Grantland; four to join Bill Simmons

interesting. I hope it's not pop culture based because a lot of that was very hard to take. They were really trying very hard to intellectualise something that wasn't.

I wonder why Lowe didn't leave. Financial stability after just having a baby? ESPN realizing how good he is?

By diehard Go To PostI wonder why Lowe didn't leave. Financial stability after just having a baby? ESPN realizing how good he is?

Potentially he's still just under contract.

Jalen & Jacoby might be harder to get to move, given how much they interact with other ESPN related activities directly.

I'm more concerned with the Grantland being a financial black hole statement.

If ESPN's endless coffers can't make a site that high brow work, how is Bill Simmons? Only super nerdy people visit that site regularly and most just have a few writers they frequent.

By Vahagn Go To PostI'm more concerned with the Grantland being a financial black hole statement.

If ESPN's endless coffers can't make a site that high brow work, how is Bill Simmons? Only super nerdy people visit that site regularly and most just have a few writers they frequent.

It's more interesting to see how they valued the content and how they were counting revenue. Simmons got the site originally not because he made them a ton of money directly, but because of his sheer popularity. That popularity drove page views and brand awareness / prestige.

For most major corporates, people know that the site it self won't make money. Look at all the newspapers who can't make anything, just by page advertising.

But ESPN do have the insider subscriptions. And how many of those are sold on the back of the indirect brand awareness from Simmons.

He also managed to do what a lot of other people haven't, kept casual people engaged in the site / brand:
1. during a sports off season.
2. in topics other than their favourite sports team / player
3. in other media formats than just the straight print.

That site might be a "black hole" because of how they do their accounting. But they knew how much revenue it directed to them in reality, and it wasn't insignificant.

The web, and its accountants, have a problem that making a website with a lot of page views isn't easily profitable from ad revenue any more. Mainly because of how many people run ad blockers. So content creators are having to get a lot more creative with how they generate revenue. And there hasn't been a golden formula found.

It's one thing for your most popular columnist to write columns every once in a while, submit it to editors at ESPN, and then to publish that in a little box on the main page at ESPN. Tons of traffic, little to no overhead cost. It's another thing entirely to make a completely different website that's an extra step removed from ESPN, hire tons of amazing talent in the front end and back end, pay them great money, and then try to exponentially increase page views to cover overhead.

No one visits Grantland as religiously as they do ESPN because people who go to Grantland have to be a) interested in the topics and b) snobs when it comes to quality of writing. Grantland doesn't break news, it writes amazing articles days or weeks later. It's like Last Week Tonight. If Last Week Tonight was on a YouTube channel and had 20 other brilliant people in addition to John Oliver commanding a salary. It was always going to be a passion project and never going to be a big money maker. But to find out that it's a financial black hole, that would be scary to me if I was Simmons trying to recreate it without the backing and ad space at ESPN.

Which is why Simmons will work really well for HBO because of their subscription based plan. Not to mention that he won't have to be held back by advertisers and partners like the NFL.

Grantland is "high brow"? It has "amazing writing"? How low have we sunk for people to believe that?

Litman literally writes about Chipotle, pumpkin spice lattes and Ben Affleck's personal life.

It's not an academic journal.

Also, Last Week Tonight has always had more staff than Grantland.

By reilo Go To PostWhich is why Simmons will work really well for HBO because of their subscription based plan. Not to mention that he won't have to be held back by advertisers and partners like the NFL.

So are we saying that only HBO subscribers will have access to this new website?

By Gabyskra Go To PostGrantland is "high brow"? It has "amazing writing"? How low have we sunk for people to believe that?

It's not all high brow, not by a long shot. It's a mix of five people sitting in a room discussing current events and some good in depth writing, e.g. Zach Lowe's weekly columns.

But I would agree that it isn't "high brow" by any means. Most of Grantland's content isn't retrospective several weeks afterwards either. It's very much instant reaction fodder.

A mix of this: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/week-5-takeaways-separation-anxiety/
And this: http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/bond-by-the-numbers-who-should-replace-daniel-craig-as-007/

By Vahagn Go To PostSo are we saying that only HBO subscribers will have access to this new website?

HBO subscribers will most likely only have access to his videos. HBO also regularly posts the big segments of John Oliver's stuff on YouTube for free, so it'll be a mix.

I also imagine that HBO is going to do its own version of 30 on 30, which was Simmons' project at ESPN.

I like Grantland. But it's a blog, it's the smartest kid out of a group of 6th graders. The American Historical Review is high brow. The New Yorker is middle-brow. Grantland is not even there.

By Gabyskra Go To PostGrantland is "high brow"? It has "amazing writing"? How low have we sunk for people to believe that?

For me, they have the names when it comes to NFL, NBA and NHL articles. And they had Wesley Morris, who was my go to film critic.

By Trey Go To PostFor me, they have the names when it comes to NFL, NBA and NHL articles. And they had Wesley Morris, who was my go to film critic.

But that's not at all what I'm debating. I like Grantland, but I'm not eating a burger pretending it's a 3 star michelin restaurant. High brow is not a comment on quality, it's about sophistication. And "amazing writing"? Please. Compared to who, EL James?

Compared to Broussard? I think compared to the rest of the sports opinion columnists.

It's just such an out of place comment in a thread which is about Litman who writes about fast food, and Fenessey who gave us such fantastic insight into how his little sister listens to One Direction and Iggy Azalea. Simmons is not an intellectual.

Like, when Grantland posed as the New Yorker of sports writing, I figured everyone but Simmons thought it was a joke (that's a list of actual writers there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_Yorker_contributors ). But branding is a powerful thing. A regressive force.

Grantland is absolutely high brow. Most people get their sports and entertainment information from places like ESPN and ET. They get movie reviews by looking at scores on rotten tomatoes and read mindless recaps that are just filler inter spliced with quotes on NBA or NFL's official websites.

How many uneducated blue collar workers do you think visit Grantland religiously to read about sports instead of checking their local paper or checking ESPN.

FFS, slaent is high brow. Easily one of the most sophisticated forums for basketball talk that exists out there - filled with career professionals, college graduates, etc.

Everyone acknowledges that Grantland has some of the best writers in the world, that was its appeal. There's an entire middle of this country that would check ESPN regularly but wouldn't go to Grantland unless they stumbled on something they were specifically interested in.

Like the difference between watching Jimmy Fallon and watching Last Week Tonight.

Okay, I suppose in the grand scheme of things, everything being relative, Grantland is high-brow compared to the rest of sports opinion blogs (like Deadspin or any of SBNation), but in the overall picture of journalism and writing, it most definitely isn't high brow. I don't think it ever strived to be at that level.

By Vahagn Go To PostHow many uneducated blue collar workers do you think visit Grantland religiously to read about sports instead of checking their local paper or checking ESPN.

I know quite a few factory workers who have read Hegel, Lenin, Dos Passos...

FFS, slaent is high brow.

LOL

Everyone acknowledges that Grantland has some of the best writers in the world, that was its appeal.

LOL!!

Oh, and for the record, SLAENT isn't high brow lol. If anything, we escaped another forum that tried to instill a specific way of argumentation and debate and strict idealized view of one man's version of what the internet should be. We strive to be that Sunday gathering of friends that just talk crap and have fun over an event (sports, movies, videogames, whatever brings them together) while sometimes diving into a more serious debate while being respectful to each other.

This forum is a dumb past-time, a guilty pleasure, with fun people. Now it's called high brow, and grantland blog posts about "Still tippin'" by Mike Jones and how one of the rappers is getting a blowjob in his car are sophisticated, written by the greatest minds of our era...

I'm sorry but it's not even a regional thing, there are universities everywhere, the bar can't be that low... I love popcorn flicks, I like being dumb here, but I can't believe anyone would think this is what it's not...

Juliet Litman, the topic here is about her: You're talking 15 minutes of trying different Lay's chips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PsQ0WE1a1A

HIGH BROW!

QUALITY!

By reilo Go To PostOh, and for the record, SLAENT isn't high brow lol. If anything, we escaped another forum that tried to instill a specific way of argumentation and debate and strict idealized view of one man's version of what the internet is. We strive to be that Sunday gathering of friends that just talk crap and have fun and sometimes dive into a more serious debate while being respectful.

I don't use high brow in a sense of the content being snobby, but in the sense of the consumers of that content being snobby. I'm not interested in the mindless back and forth that pervades most sports forums and blogs. I come here, because even when there's shit talking or gifs or just people having fun, it's a bunch of well educated, well spoken people who have a certain standard for how they behave.

Like. John Oliver makes dick jokes and stuff - but his viewers are usually very well informed and much more educated than those of many other late night programs. People go to him because they have a certain standard of what they want as far as information and journalistic integrity go.

People go to Grantland because they realize that the writing is going to have a certain quality level that's consistently higher than most competitors. I read Brian Phillips write about Tennis because he's damn good at writing things.

I read Rembert Browne talk about TV because he's amazing at that shit.

Okay, so you're saying the target audience is high brow, not the content itself? That's a different argument and one I would accept. Although, you must have never read the Footy threads :P

Jacobin magazine is middle-brow, the New Yorker, This American Life, etc. Last Week Tonight is not even there either. John Oliver is a comedian, he's not Noam Chomsky debating Michel Foucault...
Grantland has probably never referenced even one single study in social sciences in its whole existence.
And no, you just show you like to think of yourself as super educated because you don't watch fox news (showing disdain towards workers btw), but that's not how it is.
I'll leave it there.

By diehard Go To PostI wonder why Lowe didn't leave. Financial stability after just having a baby? ESPN realizing how good he is?

By giririsss Go To PostPotentially he's still just under contract.

Jalen & Jacoby might be harder to get to move, given how much they interact with other ESPN related activities directly.

Didn't Jalen and Jacoby get a nighttime radio slot with ESPN? Or did I read hot rumors?

In regards to Zach Lowe, I'm not totally sure a move to HBO would be in his best interests, given his strengths? I don't know, maybe he's got something I don't know, but he seems like he fits in really well with the TrueHoop/Analytics crowd at ESPN

I took vahagn's "high brow" statement in the context of grantland being a bit more in depth with their articles on sports. Their articles are for the sports nerds - a clear step above most sports journalism.

The only alternative is directly comparing it to sprawling, heavily researched and edited pieces on stuff like Syria or reparations. It's safe to say everyone agrees grantland isn't that.

I get Gaby's point though. Saying Grantland is high-brow because of its audience is like saying Drake is high-brow because a buncha college educated white kids listen to his music.

By reilo Go To PostI get Gaby's point though. Saying Grantland is high-brow because of its audience is like saying Drake is high-brow because a buncha college educated white kids listen to his music.

I get the point, but drake's a bad example. Common or Talib Kweli are better examples as far as what kind of hip hop college educated people are more likely to listen to , and they are "high brow" as far as hip hop goes, no?

In any case, Grantland just has too small of a target audience to support the massive overhead and staff that they have.

I think the greater point is that Grantland is more Drake than Talib, which I wholeheartedly agree to and why I chose that analogy.

By Vahagn Go To PostIt's one thing for your most popular columnist to write columns every once in a while, submit it to editors at ESPN, and then to publish that in a little box on the main page at ESPN. Tons of traffic, little to no overhead cost. It's another thing entirely to make a completely different website that's an extra step removed from ESPN, hire tons of amazing talent in the front end and back end, pay them great money, and then try to exponentially increase page views to cover overhead.

No one visits Grantland as religiously as they do ESPN because people who go to Grantland have to be a) interested in the topics and b) snobs when it comes to quality of writing. Grantland doesn't break news, it writes amazing articles days or weeks later. It's like Last Week Tonight. If Last Week Tonight was on a YouTube channel and had 20 other brilliant people in addition to John Oliver commanding a salary. It was always going to be a passion project and never going to be a big money maker. But to find out that it's a financial black hole, that would be scary to me if I was Simmons trying to recreate it without the backing and ad space at ESPN.

So. Knowing that, ESPN kept increasing grantlands budget. Kept allowing those contracts to be hired.

Thats how much revenue Grandland was worth in reality.

Also remember, it wasn't over spend and bad management that led to Simmons being fired.

It gets hard to say Grantland is high-brow because they try to overly intellectualise topics that just aren't. Lays potato chips. The bachelor. etc... most of them are pop culture shenanigans. Which is where it falls apart.

But they certainly don't have a problem doing a full in depth look at a real actual topic, or writing about TV shows that are brilliant, but no one is watching. Doing in depth analysis articles on play styles, missed calls etc.

Which is where they separate themselves from the low-brow.

Also, i'm not sure i'd want to read an "Academic" version of a sports blog. Sports just aren't meant to be about that.

"Academics" in sports is simple game theory, statistics, and sports management/science.

It's interesting stuff if you want to get into it. Reading the physics behind a particular play just further solidifies how impressive some of these feats are.

By giririsss Go To PostAlso, i'm not sure i'd want to read an "Academic" version of a sports blog. Sports just aren't meant to be about that.

Well, yeah. High-brow blogging is a pretty silly oxymoron.

By Trey Go To Post"Academics" in sports is simple game theory, statistics, and sports management/science.

It's interesting stuff if you want to get into it. Reading the physics behind a particular play just further solidifies how impressive some of these feats are.

It's not just about the topic but the tone, validation, citing, over head. It just wouldn't be "fun" to read. Most people, my self included, turn to sports as our hobby / relaxation / past time. While I'm certainly not burying my head in the sand, i also don't want to read doctoral thesis about my past time either.

Only High Brow sports journalism Ive seen that's primarily focused on sports is Real Sports on HBO.

By Gabyskra Go To PostGrantland is "high brow"? It has "amazing writing"? How low have we sunk for people to believe that?

Litman literally writes about Chipotle, pumpkin spice lattes and Ben Affleck's personal life.

It's not an academic journal.

Also, Last Week Tonight has always had more staff than Grantland.

Fuck outta here. A publication that employs Brian Phillips, Bryan Curtis, Charlie Pierce and Wesley Morris is absolutely quality. Through and through.

Discussions on background with Grantland staffers past and present (ESPN executives associated with Grantland declined to talk on the record or on background for this column) reveal that the site is beset by a climate of fear, a cycle of mistrust, and a belief amongst several that staff are “treated like children.” An overall lack of communication with management has been beyond frustrating for the staff. Many heard about Connelly’s appointment on their Twitter feeds—precisely where Simmons had learned of his dismissal.

Since its 2011 founding, Grantland has served as a channel for Simmons to expand the Grantland staff’s distinctive point of view to journalism and criticism, a no-fear zone within the ESPN empire. That privileged position can safely be considered history. There is fear now, not only for the survival of the staff—with still more departures rumored imminent—but also for the survival of Grantland itself, unthinkable as that may have seemed even a year ago. Staff-wide angst continues to grow despite a Herculean effort by ESPN to dispense metrics suggesting traffic on the site is stronger than ever, implicitly arguing that Simmons’s departure had little effect on the almighty numbers.

On several occasions, Skipper reassured Grantland personnel concerned about profitability, telling them not to worry about dollars and that what ESPN needed was “soul,” along with “other things that matter,” apart from scores and statistics. (Speaking onstage at Vanity Fair’s New Establishment Summit last week, Simmons conceded that Grantland was not profitable: “It was probably like right around even.”)

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/espn-grantland-problem

By HasphatsAnts Go To PostFuck outta here. A publication that employs Brian Phillips, Bryan Curtis, Charlie Pierce and Wesley Morris is absolutely quality. Through and through.

That's very telling that you can't see the point I'm making. I'm not saying I dislike Grantland at all. But calling it "high brow" is basically going around saying Bruce Willis is the greatest at his craft ever. And I feel sorry for people who think this is as sophisticated as you can get, when half the updates I get from their page on facebook are about some athlete on instagram, the tv show Empire, wrestling, or some blog-like random list of best soccer teams in the world...

See it for what it is. No need to think this is a super cultured read that reflects on your character, you end up looking like a nerd in a fedora.

It's Vice for jocks. Don't overrate it.

By Gabyskra Go To PostThat's very telling that you can't see the point I'm making. I'm not saying I dislike Grantland at all. But calling it "high brow" is basically going around saying Bruce Willis is the greatest at his craft ever. And I feel sorry for people who think this is as sophisticated as you can get, when half the updates I get from their page on facebook are about some athlete on instagram, the tv show Empire, wrestling, or some blog-like random list of best soccer teams in the world...

See it for what it is. No need to think this is a super cultured read that reflects on your character, you end up looking like a nerd in a fedora.

You seriously comparing a Pulitzer Prize winner to Bruce Willis? I'll just let that comparison speak for itself.

I see your points, and they're absolutely, one hundred percent off base. You conflate sophistication with quality. Grantland is not a journal. No one is going to Grantland to read about the use of water as a motif in The Awakening or the legacy of the Napoleonic Wars reflected in Frederic Chopin's music. Its writers are smart, perceptive, thoughtful, and above all else, great storytellers with perspectives that resonate. Grantland had been one of the leaders in elevating discourse in the how we consume media, sports, and pop culture. Apparently in the world of Gabyskra, poignancy and relevance have no bearing on the quality of a publication.

By your very own logic, the vast majority of what David Carr did at the New York Times for the last decade is not worthwhile either and that's preposterous.

But they still post stupid rapid reaction stuff to trailers and events that are supremely low-brow and harken back on Bill's columns back when he was just a blogger.

By reilo Go To PostBut they still post stupid rapid reaction stuff to trailers and events that are supremely low-brow and harken back on Bill's columns back when he was just a blogger.

Does any of that compromise the quality of pieces like these?
http://grantland.com/features/ray-rice-janay-palmer-elevator-tape/
http://grantland.com/features/the-cultural-crater-12-years-slave/

You can have fun and still be serious when the occasion calls for it. Even the Harvard Business Review runs dumb shit from time to time.

Especially if it's good fun like this takedown on Gambit: http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/channing-tatum-to-play-gambit-who-is-a-terrible-superhero/

I think it's safe to say Grantland is what you get from it. It has a wide variety of content, which is the site's design.

You conflate sophistication with quality.

No, that's exactly what you did. I answer the pretense that it is "high brow", and you're the one who said in response it is "absolute quality".
Is Morris really going for "high brow" by the way? I really don't think he does. And I'm not saying the Pulitzer is not cool, lots of respect for that.

Grantland had been one of the leaders in elevating discourse in the how we consume media, sports, and pop culture.

Spoken lire a PR campaign.
More like a leader in elevating discourse on how we consume Lay's chips.

Also, did you just call a journal on "management" sophisticated? Oh god. Culture is dead.

By Gabyskra Go To PostNo, that's exactly what you did. I answer the pretense that it is "high brow", and you're the one who said in response it is "absolute quality".
Is Morris really going for "high brow" by the way? I really don't think he does. And I'm not saying the Pulitzer is not cool, a friend of mine won one and she does great and useful work. Lots of respect for that.


Spoken lire a PR campaign.
More like a leader in elevating discourse on how we consume Lay's chips.

Also, did you just call a journal on "management" sophisticated? Oh god. Culture is dead.

No your insinuation is that because it isn't "highbrow", it is intrinsically less valuable and can be dismissed. Which is patently absurd. The quality speaks for itself.

And good job ignoring all the culturally, socially relevant pieces they do and tunnelvisioning on Lay's chips btw. I'm sure you would've been one of these critics bemoaning the unsophisticated prose when you first read Moby Dick had you been born in the 19th century, judging by the way you dismiss popular culture out of hand.

By HasphatsAnts Go To PostNo your insinuation is that because it isn't "highbrow", it is intrinsically less valuable and can be dismissed. Which is patently absurd. The quality speaks for itself.

No such thing. I like it okay. I created a couple threads about Simmons here. I read grantland casually. And like most people, I do it as I ride the subway or in between two things. It's not high brow material, and I don't act like it is.

And good job ignoring all the culturally, socially relevant pieces they do and tunnelvisioning on Lay's chips btw. I'm sure you would've been one of these critics bemoaning the unsophisticated prose when you first read Moby Dick had you been born in the 19th century, judging by the way you dismiss popular culture out of hand.

I don't dismiss pop culture at all. I love it. I just don't think Taylor Swift is Puccini, even if I'm more likely to listen to the first one. Hopefully you eventually understand what I'm saying. But I doubt it, you have very confused notions about what the "social conversation" is, and intellectuals.

Now excuse me, I'll go listen to Simmons predicting NFL betting lines and pretend I'm doing some super sophisticated shit

By Gabyskra Go To PostNo such thing. I like it okay. I created a couple threads about Simmons here. I read grantland casually. And like most people, I do it as I ride the subway or in between two things. It's not high brow material, and I don't act like it is.

I don't dismiss pop culture at all. I love it. I just don't think Taylor Swift is Puccini, even if I'm more likely to listen to the first one. Hopefully you eventually understand what I'm saying. But I doubt it, you have very confused notions about what the "social conversation" is, and intellectuals.

By Gabyskra Go To PostIt has "amazing writing"? How low have we sunk for people to believe that?

Your own words. Forget about the "highbrow" part for a second here, because ultimately there are as many quality "high brow" publications as putrid ones that are poorly edited and curated. But you have yet to provide any counter points on Grantland pieces (the review I linked earlier, Rembert's piece on Ferguson, PSH's obit) that you don't think are "amazing".

Lowe is the only thing of any value on that site, and he could do it anywhere

By HasphatsAnts Go To PostYour own words. Forget about the "highbrow" part for a second here, because ultimately there are as many quality "high brow" publications as putrid ones that are poorly edited and curated. But you have yet to provide any counter points on Grantland pieces (the review I linked earlier, Rembert's piece on Ferguson, PSH's obit) that you don't think are "amazing".

"Forget about the core of the argument".

Sure, I read Browne's piece on Ferguson, it's not "highbrow" or "amazing writing". It's (overplayed) self-centered participative journalism. Gonzo journalism never pretended to be high brow or amazing as far as I know. And this piece is not going to be remembered like we remember those that initiated the style almost 50 years ago. Good for you if you find it important, I don't. Yet again, for reference, I would say Coates is middle-brow (which I understand as being the pedagogical link between serious intellectual research and a large public looking for entertaining knowledge), so don't expect me to say too much about Browne.

The main thing is I don't consider middle-brow or low-brow to be insulting. I'm at peace with my need for low-brow entertainment.

By Gabyskra Go To PostThe main thing is I don't consider middle-brow or low-brow to be insulting.

By Gabyskra Go To Postit's the smartest kid out of a group of 6th graders.

Funny way of showing it, champ.

By HasphatsAnts Go To PostFunny way of showing it, champ.

I still play the same games I did when i was that age from time to time. I probably would have been reading grantland back then too. But I know I take some regressive pleasure from time to time, like everyone, it's a universal neurosis. Pretty sure denying doing so is also fairly common, but I'd rather not.

By Gabyskra Go To PostI still play the same games I did when i was that age from time to time. I probably would have been reading grantland back then too. But I know I take some regressive pleasure from time to time, like everyone, it's a universal neurosis. Pretty sure denying doing so is also fairly common, but I'd rather not.

Apparently comparing these writers' work to the smartest 6th graders is not meant to be insulting. I'd hate to see what you actually deem insulting.