why is it called grantland?

homage to Grantland Rice.

I found Pierce's National piece self-indulgent. Pierce is a good writer, and he's smart and funny when he wants to be, but he can't seem to get over himself.

Simmons drawing the Kimmel comparison is pretty iffy. I don't think of Kimmel as an established entity. I've always liked him, but his show isn't that good imo.

Fail on your part for not acknowledging Jimmy Kimmel.

I could be wrong, but I assume Kimmel's show has been #3 behind Leno and Letterman for basically its entire run.

Its a success in that it still airs and show no imminent signs of getting cancelled, but it isn't exactly blowing the doors off.

I liked Simmons' column today about the 2nd half of game 6 and LeBron.

I also liked this.

About Kimmel, it just seems a little weak for Simmons, when he's talking about starting this big new project, to be comparing it to being in on the ground floor of Kimmel's show and its middling success.

Yeah his latest was pretty good, honestly I think Simmons could write 10 columns on what happened this Finals, it's the most ripe for storylines Finals I can remember.

Not when you think about how many late night shows have failed. Kimmel achieving any sort of success, even middling, is a serious win. Look at all the far bigger acts that have tried and failed.

AH SIMMONS LEBATARD PODCAST

GONNA JIZ MYSELF

Season 2 of the Miami Heat has been renewed.

Not nearly as exciting as I'd hoped.

Pretty much both people talking over each other.

Dan-"If Lebron plays to his AVERAGE then the Heat win the series"
Bill-"Wade broke his confidence by yelling at him and a bunch of other intangibles that I cannot accurately describe"

Disappointing for sure, would have been better if it was a 40 min interview on Dan's radio show.

I'm just getting into this podcast thing (I know, lol at me), but it makes it hard to understand the guys when Bill's mic is way loud, and Dan on the phone isn't loud enough. You'd think there would be a way to fix that easily.

bill's sound quality was off for sure. it sounded like he was on a cell, and he's usually on an isdn line.

yea wtf was that? First time the audio has ever been that f'd up.

Thought the LeBatard/Simmons podcast was awesome. LeBatard has to be one of the smartest, most balanced sports commentators in the nation. It's so incredibly rare to find someone actually try to look at things in a calm and rational manner instead of just diving headfirst into hyperbole at every opportunity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZr2qOXQJ4w

simbo was def tarding it up with his hairbrained theories a little too much. him refusing to concede that the heat would've won had lebron not bitched out was pretty lol

didn't even realise lebatard had a podcast, any especially good ones that are worth going back to dl?

Yeah, but that's different. You're hometown team winning the sports lottery is supposed to be something to go crazy over. The fact that he can look independently at events after they've happened and make rational conclusions from him is an extremely impressive, rare feat for a sports columnist.

can we get a grantland containment thread so every time an article comes up that isn't simmons, it doesn't fall in here?

Yeah he was good on the podcast

It is his radio show from Miami that they put into podcast, so it's usually pretty topical + Miami based (but he does do a good job of talking about other stuff). It was fun following along as the Heat went on their run. Its my favorite radio show ever and I have no real connection to Miami or any of their teams. It has a good mix between LeBatard who is the rational, big perspective guy who likes advanced metrics and is articulate, his co-host Stugotz who is casualfan.jpg and is an easy (but necessary) target for Dan, and the producer/director Hoch who doesn't really know too much about sports but is funny/witty and can join the banter without trying to be some sports expert - kind of reminds me of 2+2 actually.

Lol at karak trolling for youtube likes

Did Klosterman not yet discover the internet by 1999?

I'm confused.

Also, the entire premise is flawed. There are countless counter-examples. Wait then he suggests his 'hypothesis' is flawed in the last paragraph - wait why did he write this? Oops. Should have put that in spoilers, I think that was the twist.