Category Archives: ESPN

Bill Simmons, ESPN, Media, Uncategorized

Bye, Bye Byline

You know that old saying about opinions and a certain body part that ends with the punch line “everybody has ‘em?” Well, if the mega media conglomerates continue to silence the voices in writing, pretty soon, only one of those will still be true.

Media has gotten so big, so interconnected, columnists are a dying breed. Perhaps this is just the natural progression of things. First, it was technology impacting media and the death of the traditional newspaper. Next, the 24-hour news cycle and social media have reduced it to a sound bite.

And now, here we are toeing in dangerous, muddied waters were media, journalism, columnists and brands are all hanging out together around the water cooler.

For those who follow sports, writing and media, perhaps you are well aware of the recent events surrounding ESPN’s suspension of popular sports columnist Bill Simmons. If you are not, well, you can catch up by reading this or simply doing a Google search.

The short of it is that Simmons, who founded Grantland.com, and has been one of ESPN’s most popular writers for the past dozen years, was suspended in late September following a podcast where he called NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell a liar in regard to details and facts that led to the Ray Rice suspension.

Simmons taunted ESPN to reprimand him and got three weeks of what he was looking for.

No matter what you think of Simmons, as a writer or as a media figure, what is clearly evident is that this is his “Custer” moment. He’s taking a stand against something he feels is extremely out of sync in the world of media. It got worse on Thursday, when ESPN Radio’s popular morning show, Mike & Mike, played a snippet of a sound bite where Simmons critiqued LeBron James – to which one of the hosts of the show blasted Simmons for, and took a personal shot at Simmons over perceived headline grabbing.

Naturally, Simmons responded by going nuclear on Mike & Mike via Twitter.

Simmons Tweets

This is not the first catfight between “talent” at ESPN – nor will it be the last. But the last six weeks have brought into clear focus what is not only a growing issue in all forms of media, but especially in sports.

ESPN has serious issues to confront behind the scenes right now, and they have very little to do with Bill Simmons. The crossfire happening across platforms and brands happens all the time – and is wildly disconcerting. If you continually mock and belittle your co-workers, you both lose. The audience doesn’t know who to trust and become uncomfortable with the situation and will turn elsewhere for less hysterics.

The Worldwide Leader in Sports cannot cover sports as they should, in large part due to the behemoth brand that is “ESPN” – and perhaps most concerning – due to its massive TV rights contracts with the NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball.

For a long time, these moments have been coming: How do you completely cover a news story or an event if the entity you are covering in said story is also your meal ticket – sorry, “corporate partner”? ESPN pays for the rights to cover these games and find it difficult to dive too deep into sensitive issues and topics for fear they will lose that right down the road.

This is not just an ESPN problem – but as the biggest sports industry media conglomerate, it is the most easily detectable. Whether or not Simmons has the right to say Roger Goodell is a liar should never be in question, but it is because the ESPN brand is in bed with the NFL and the NFL just cannot be questioned like that from its partners.

And this is the same reason why no one can take the NFL Network seriously – it is merely a mouthpiece for the league to package the product and show highlights and retain some money by keeping viewers on their league channel.

The second component of this issue is how poorly we label journalism, reporting and writing in the current age.

Writing is a creative art form, and most other writers I know treat it as such. Opinion based columns are just that – based on someone’s opinion. While there are obligations to writing factual evidence in support of your opinion – an argument, really – it is not to be taken as journalistic reporting of events. And most people know the difference.

The ESPN Ombudsman wrote about this earlier this week, and frankly, I’m not convinced this person understands it either.

(Note: The Ombudsman is an appointed official who investigates complaints against maladministration, in this case, media and journalism.)

Agreeing that Simmons had not met “journalistic obligations” in providing sufficient proof that Goodell was a liar, the ESPN Ombudsman counters those like me who put Simmons in a different category by claiming that “Simmons sometimes acts like a journalist, or at the least seems to want to be taken seriously.”

Is that itself not a potshot from an unbiased appointed official? And further, am I right in taking this to mean that you cannot be an opinion columnist, a jokester or a podcast host and be taken seriously? What about that kind of writing and media means you are a farce in the eyes of the journalism world? Reporting the facts and only the facts would leave many others at ESPN – in print, radio and television – suspended to the point they might not have enough talent to do a show some days.

How do you prove someone a liar, anyway? It is the ultimate he said/she said. People struggle with this in a court of law, let alone a court of public opinion. Many would argue we still do not know all the facts on the Ray Rice situation and subsequent suspension scandal – partly because the NFL has contradicted itself, as well as having other entities in the situation dispute their side of the story.

Would the Ombudsman – or anyone else – have had a problem with the NFL calling the security officials in charge of the tape who claimed they sent it to the NFL liars? They essentially did. But the now-closed Casino didn’t have a television contract with ESPN or the NFL, so who cares about their integrity and side of the story, right? Has anyone come out and vigorously defended Goodell or shown proof that he’s not lying? If so, I must have missed it.

House rules do apply, except that the mansion of ESPN is not the journalistic beacon of integrity to begin with, so their house rules are painted with a heavy coat of bias as well. Should I not take them seriously because they market themselves so heavily?

Better still: how many “Rules of Journalism” were broken during the NBA Free Agency period? Do these sacred rules include quoting unnamed sources which turn out to be completely wrong? No one knew anything, but everyone knew something when it came to where LeBron James was going to choose to play basketball. ESPN printed many of these “rumors” on their website, discussed them at length on the airwaves. No one was suspended or reprimanded or blasted cross-brand for that. No one issued an apology weeks later when it was clear that half of what we heard the first 10 days of July was a mixture of gossip, rumor and lies.

The expectation that Simmons should show journalistic integrity is a farce for that reason and an even more important one: Simmons is not a reporter or a journalist. Just read anything he has written since 2000 – a conglomeration of jokes, analogies, pop culture references and random opinions. It is not journalism, nor was it ever intended to be. He’s no different than Rush Limbaugh or anyone else in that sub-category of media. He’s also not Walter Cronkite.

As the Ombudsman himself writes, “Simmons is a columnist paid for opinions, not a reporter paid to dig up facts.” Well, Simmons opinion was that Roger Goodell is a liar and that LeBron James is not looking like himself early this NBA season. While I personally wouldn’t put up quite the fight Simmons is – there is a bit of grandstanding taking place on his part – how can anyone determine his opinion is right or wrong, since by definition, it’s an opinion?

Some – like the Ombudsman – refer to this as accusatory or slander. That’s stretching those definitions for effect just a bit. There’s at the very least minor pause that can be given to the notion that Goodell was lying about seeing the tape based on what we’ve heard and read up to this point.

It is tough to condone the manner and irreverence of Simmons in these situations, but that was never the point.

We’re confusing what reporting, journalism and writing are. There are subgenres and shades of gray within the media world – and we’re forced to deal with most of them. But you cannot stop people or forbid them from sharing what they are being paid to do.

If this makes your brain hurt, welcome to the club, but more importantly, welcome to the future.

We’ve entered a mysterious world where something is essentially owned by a group that owns four other things that are not all that connected, but treading lightly is required all the same. Sticking with ESPN here: Disney owns Marvel, ABC, ESPN and Grantland – and must identify it as being so.

We chuckle when we think of Big Brother, but this is happening, in chunks and pieces, in different areas of our society. This is just one component, and anyone – like the ESPN Ombudsman – who suggests we simply all need to evolve is one of those already lost to the media machine.

Evolving would be recognizing the various and diverse kinds of writing and journalism that make up the media now, not ordering all good soldiers to fall into line with what the company  – or its partners want.

If that is truly the way we are headed, I fear for our creative writing genre in media.

Soon, even the byline will fade to the mind-numbing “Wire Report,” as if some lifeless droid concocted the cold, hard facts and presented them as such, sans opinion.

And that will truly be a sad day.

If you disagree, call me a liar.

I, for one, will not demand your evidence to the contrary.

 

 

[Writer/Editor/Blogger/Site Manager Note: For clarification purposes, this was an opinion piece and in no way, despite fancy links and evidence, should be considered journalism.]

Standard
American culture, ESPN, money, President Barack Obama, Society

The Fog of Money


“Time is money.” – Benjamin Franklin
Ever heard of the fog of war? It’s a often-used military term for the uncertainty in situational awareness experienced by those participating in military operations. The phrase “fog of war” essentially tries to capture the cloud in judgment that can occur during a conflict, military campaign.
There is uncertainty in your rationale, your estimations of your enemy’s capabilities and intent – as well as your own. As one might gather, this is a bad thing, as your judgment, logic and rationale should be clear during such trying times and circumstances. Military’s all over the world have discussed, practiced and prepared for the fog of war for centuries – but it doesn’t stop it from occurring.
The same could be true of American society right now regarding the economy, government and our culture. We’re in a haze socially, too.
This is referred to as “The Fog of Money”.
Because whenever money is involved, we lose all sense of rationale thought, logic goes out the window and our judgment is certainly clouded. What’s worse is own enemies know this and use it to their advantage.
The difficult part, though, is determining who are enemies are. They are not just groups without country in foreign lands, rather, the majority exist within our own borders, inhabiting the same space and occupying the same soil as we do. They could be our own government – both as an institution and as individuals in the institution. They could be the very people who employ us. Our enemies could be family and friends.
If you find this far-fetched and think that this is just another spiel about money being the root of all evil, well, you’d be both right and wrong.
It’s widely known that money certainly drives nearly everything and brings its own aspirations and motivations into any and all situations. It clouds judgment just by entering the room.
This is why they are making more Star Wars movies. Its why your favorite 1970s band continues to tour. It is why you get up and go to your job each day. The fog of money can be found all around us – the desire to get it, to keep it, to use it, to give it away.
There never seems to be enough of it, even though it really exists within the context of our own minds. Technically, it’s just paper that we’ve universally agreed holds some sort of value. As my high school history teacher said, if we all agreed today to burn all money and start using rocks as currency, it wouldn’t create a new system – just a new currency.
The Fog of Money creates an illusion of power, which is something else that’s in and of itself, a fog. Power exists because it is universally acknowledged that someone has it over you.
This week, Politico ran a storyabout how interest groups and the people seeking an audience with President Obama are using advertising time (and money) on ESPN, because they know he watches sports (hope they are keenly aware of this relatively new technology called DVR, which allows you to skip through commercials).
Trade associations and companies are using the media to try and garner Obama’s attention. One strategist indicted that the ads cannot be obvious to the president – he can’t know he’s the intended audience.
Money to deceive the powerful of influence? Who really has the power in this situation? Is it the one running the ad, the president – or the medium itself? Who can tell in this fog?
And it is not just political – Microsoft and the American Petroleum Institute (the largest oil and gas industry trade group) have used the same tactic to try and gain favorable audiences with those who watch ESPN and other networks.
It could be said that all this money would be better spent trying to improve services, trying to better the world through advancing technology and communications. But a message like that cuts through the fog and drips with a sappy message of the advancement of civilization in general. Kind of the opposite point of capitalism, come to think of it.
Thus our contradiction: a country with cultural principles of equality, of kindness, of opportunity, compassion and freedom, but with fundamental economic principles of supply and demand. We’re constantly at war with our two selves: the part of us that wants to do good in and for the world, and the part of us that knows money makes that very world go round.
Case in point: a New York realtor is offering employees a 15 percent raise to those who get a tattoo of the company logo. It appeals to those who are struggling in tough economic times and it’s a walking billboard (and weird story) for all who see and ask about it. It relies on desperation of the powerless, the need to gain any extra piece of cheese or slice of the pie or whatever classic acronym you can apply here.
Is it so different that millionaire and billionaire professional sports owners contemplating adding logos of key advertisers to team uniforms? The money generated from TV deals, season ticket holders, corporate suites, general attendance and merchandising isn’t enough, eh?
To make matters worse, we the people are just as a part of the Fog of Money as those we seem to perceive as running the show – myself included. Every time we “like” some movie or business or show our support for or against some issue, we’re showing that these advertising efforts work.
I’d never suggest removing ourselves from the equation – we’re too entrenched into the modernity of American society now. But we could learn from the likes of those who’ve prepared, as best they can, for the Fog of War.
We can take the time to understand others true motivations and intent. We can learn to draw from our past experiences, do better reconnaissance work and recognize faulty communication. We can slow the tempo of our decision making to a tactical level where there is less risk and better intelligence.
Basically, we can take the time to be aware that the Fog of Money exists.
After all, time is money, and while money buys time, it cannot stop it.
In the end, we’ll be judged on how we spent our time, not the money.
Standard
ESPN, Life of Reilly, Rick Reilly, Sports Illustrated, sportswriting

An Open Letter to Rick Reilly

Dear Rick,


There are a million reasons (and I don’t mean your paycheck) that you should not read this. To name a few, you don’t know me, the tone is direct, yet sincere – though to be honest, I take a few potshots. Yet most importantly, it ends with a direct call for you to do more.


Still, I had to write you. You see, writing is what I do, too, though I think we both do it for different reasons.


Before I go much further, I should offer my congratulations on your contract extension with ESPN. It’s a heck of a deal for you, being able to cover the topics you want in a medium you want, when you want. You’ve ascended to that moment when they pay you to do you. And that, in itself, deserves a tip of the cap. 


As you tweeted on Monday, the Worldwide Leader loves storytelling. It’s a natural fit, as you love storytelling as well. Human interest pieces have always been a prominent feature of your famous “Life of Reilly” columns. 


Well, I have a human interest story for you, Rick. It’s about the thousands of hungry, passionate young writers who grow increasingly frustrated as we watch you and many of your colleagues sit by and collect massive paychecks (for sportswriters, anyway) as we plug away trying to just get noticed.


But it’s not from a place of jealously, I can assure you. It comes from passion, and from a place where this is an art form, not a job. 


I’ve been writing for almost eight years now, sometimes for pay, sometimes for an e-mail from someone telling me they liked or hated what I wrote – and why. Sometimes, I write to an audience of just a few (my wife, my best friend or my mother – and to mixed results), other times to thousands of Central Indiana locals. 


I didn’t major in journalism, Rick. Didn’t write for the school paper. Two months after our wedding, I walked in and told my wife I wanted to write. About sports. And then I cringed. 


Amazingly, because, well, she is amazing, she said, “OK, what do we need to do to make that happen?” 


Well, that was both simple and incredibly difficult. All you have to do is write, find a voice, make a point, be compelling, tell a story, hit your word count, find an audience, repeat all that a thousand times, find a mediocre following and voila, you’re the national runner-up in a blogging contest on FoxSports.com. 


Which, when paired with a gift card from Starbucks, gets you a free cup of coffee. And I don’t even drink coffee.


I’ll be honest: man, I was bad. Like really bad. But I worked at it and over time, I turned out to be – well, not quite so terrible. A bi-weekly online column for a local newspaper, an editor job for a start-up magazine. Dynamics changed, so did the jobs, and currently, I write for basically whoever will read it. 


Yes, it’s a blog. Certainly, the stereotype of blogging somewhat fits. There’s just so many. And they are just so…poor. But it’s about the best way I know of to showcase what you’re doing, thinking and writing. It’s the ultimate clip, a group of writing samples that show the depth and breadth of what you can do. 


Yet despite the past seven paragraphs, this isn’t about me. And it’s really not about the thousands out there like me, who have stories that resemble mine, who dream of a break, a shot with the big boys to have our voices heard through print. 


This is about you, Rick, because there are a whole lot of us who just don’t get you anymore. 


I grew up reading you and “The Life of Reilly” on the back page. You and I both know how difficult it is to bring tears to the eyes of a high schooler, but you managed to do it quite a few times in the mid-to-late 90s. Those poignant pieces were touching, real and relatable. 


So I always assumed you got it, got what it was really all about.


Sports journalism and opinion-based writing is so much more than it appears now in the national media. Before PTI, Tony Kornheiser did that amazing piece on Nolan Ryan for Inside Sports in 1980 and absolutely mastered the longform piece. John Feinstein did “A Season on the Brink” and Peter King had the “Monday Morning Quarterback” column. 


Before all the ratings-grab radio, before Around the Horn and the goofiness of Steven A. and Skip, there were just writers., who did amazing things like that. Writers with powerful opinions who shaped the way we thought, the way we felt and how we reacted to sports and the people in them. 


Part of the joy of sports is the reaction afterward – having people to put perspective or spin on what we just saw. It never seemed about money. But it sure seems like it now. 


To be blunt, you write fluff, Rick. Every other line is a pun or a cliche these days. At times, it seems like you’re just pulling out the old hits and singing the chorus a little differently. What happened to the compelling guy who won the NSSA Sportswriter of the Year Award – 11 times? 


You may not like guys like Simmons and Whitlock, but at least they’re constantly trying new things. At least they’re out giving other writers a chance. At least they’ll retweet a link to a good piece every now and then. Look at your Twitter feed, Rick. It’s all about you.


You’ve arrived at a place many dream of and strive for, yet you do so little with it. And it’s disappointing. 


While your rival Simmons launches Grantland and gives a host of young writers a showcase spot to shine a light on quality writing, you turn in a column once every two weeks. Kind of like when the checks are mailed.


I’m not trying to be hurtful, honestly, but you once took Barry Bonds to task for the way he treated his teammates. What about the way you’re treating sportswriting?


It’s disappointing because this art form, this art form of sports journalism and opinion-based writing is dying. Painfully. 


Take a look around, Rick. Remember what it was like when you were in Denver or Los Angeles back in the 1980s – before Sports Illustrated and the coveted back page? 


The world has changed, to be sure. Newspapers are folding left and right, column space is dwindling as what remaining ad spaces increase. It’s why the papers – and magazines – are losing more and more ground everyday. 


We can blame technology all we want, but really, anything of quality can survive. But the quality of sportswriting is more watered down than a Lance Armstrong urine sample.


Around the Horn and the like exist because writers agree to do it – it’s how they’ll become bigger than just the city they cover. It’s not that they necessarily want to. They kind of have to. It’s survival. Once the papers and magazines inevitably go down, these writers will find other jobs. People will know them from TV and radio spots and they’ll be working SportsCenter with you soon enough. 


So they spend less time working on the art of sports writing. Less time fleshing out a column or an opinion. Less time arguing their point in print. More time in makeup. More time working on a catchphrase. More time working that Twitter feed. More time just typing and less time writing. 


Everything has become 140 characters or less. How would Tony K.‘s Ryan piece be received today? Deemed too long? Dare we even explain that was the point?


Rick, as you embark on your next chapter at ESPN, I urge you to do more.  You are a smart guy. Start your own thing, like “Writers of Reilly” or something. A place to highlight pieces that catch your eye. Or something else that will give back to the medium. 


It would mean a lot. Not just to me, or the countless unknown bylines out there who are not just looking for a break, but who are hungry to make a difference, to have our voice heard. Hungry to make it an art form again. 


As you like to say, you write about people in sports. You speak of legacies from time to time. I simply ask, Mr. Reilly, to reflect on what yours will be. Help save sportswriting. Make a difference. Maybe one day, one of us will then write about the real life of Reilly. 


Now wouldn’t that be a good story worth telling?


Sincerely,


Bri Moore




Standard
Dan Patrick, ESPN, Keith Olbermann, SportsCenter

Of Biscuits & Baskets


Well, well, well.
Looked what the cat dragged in. Why, it’s Keith Olbermann, looking for a job.
According to a story in the New York Times, Olbermann’s throwing rocks at the window of ESPN. I can visualize Olbermann with a boom box held over his head ala John Cusak.
If this seems strange to you…well, you’d be right. This oozes of desperation, the kind where self-loathing is only trumped by one’s willingness to have their voice heard, even if nobody listens anymore.
Olbermann has become the bigot in Henry Fonda’s “12 Angry Men”, where everyone just ignores him now.

His first time around, Olbermann spent five years at ESPN (1992-1997), pairing with Dan Patrick to create one of the greatest broadcast teams in sports. During an era when ESPN and SportsCenter were both simultaneously growing and peaking in popularity, everyone watched the 11pm SportsCenter. And for that hour, Patrick and Olbermann were your witty, snide and insightful co-hosts of sports highlights.

They were a fantastic team and SportsCenter became must watch viewing for males 14-450. Everyone watched. They were creating catch phrases and making athletes themselves watch “The Big Show.”
But then Olbermann lost his mind. He was suspended for going on a former colleague’s show and calling ESPN a “Godforsaken place”. He might as well have burned down the Bristol campus the way he left town. He spent the next decade either verbally eviscerating ESPN or half-heartedly apologizing.
Meanwhile, Olbermann continued his erratic professional behavior at Fox, MSNBC and CurrentTV have all parted ways with him, mainly because he just kept saying things that would cross the line. It’s hard in the current political landscape to actually say enough against another party to lose one’s job, but Olbermann keeps finding ways to do it.
Perhaps it’s because it’s so venomous, spiteful and angry. Or, it could be, as Rupert Murdoch once said, “I fired him…he’s crazy.” He even found a way to make Al Gore hate him and Gore is of similar political leanings. He’s a master of professional and journalistic arson
Either way, Olbermann’s reached a point where no one credible will hire him. He’s one step away from using his catchphrases in a fast-food drive thru.
Which is why, short of toying with him, I can’t imagine why ESPN would even entertain this. I picture ESPN as something akin to Henry F. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life”, when George Bailey comes to him for help after “misplacing” the money:
“Look at you. You used to be so cocky. You were going to go out and conquer the world.”
But Keith Olbermann is no George Bailey.

He’s smarmy, arrogant, incendiary, rude, unyielding – a reckless force of nature now. He’s grown to think his importance and stature are above that of the topics he covers. It’s all background noise to the Keith Olbermann Show itself. His ego is bigger than the state of Connecticut.

And there’s just no way ESPN can put him back out there. First, ESPN isn’t big on big stars. Second, there’s the whole Keith Olbermann “I Hate ESPN” campaign that was only missing some bumper stickers and its own Super PAC.
Perhaps most importantly, nobody cares about what Keith Olbermann has to say anymore. When he has dipped his right holier-than-thou toes into the sports scene, it’s clear he considers it to be a somewhat silly attempt to lower himself to that level of commentary again.
In other words, Keith Olbermann thinks he’s too good for sports. And can you imagine how his 1990s catch-phrase style would come off now?
For the time being, ESPN is wisely staying away. Then again, they are doing just what I said they might, which is toy with him. Like an executive took Olbermann out to dinner and then made it known to other media outlets than Olbermann was looking for work, but that it’s ESPN and ESPN doesn’t need him.
On second thought, maybe they deserve each other. Because I can’t think of anyone outside of Olbermann who thinks higher of their own self-importance than ESPN does.
ESPN’s biggest problem is has all the angles covered: SportsCenter isn’t just highlights and brief analysis. Now it’s on all the time, with 10 minutes devoted to the Jets backup quarterback situation on a Tuesday in February.
There’s a blur between opinion, journalism and commentary. What’s factual isn’t always so clear, due to the instant analysis nature of the brand now. And maybe that’s where Olbermann fits, in this style of telling you, oh lowly viewer and impressionable mind, what to think about a topic. But instead of politics, it’s sports. We aren’t allowed to judge or develop our own narratives, it’s done for us now, by former coaches and ex-players and never-weres like Olbermann. ESPN News, when it’s actually on, is what SportsCenter used to be 10 years ago.
So this is what we’ve been reduced to: stories about two massive egos who value themselves as entities so highly that they deem this a news story. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t cover this whole thing themselves, further blurring the line.
Come to think of it, we’d be better off if we just ignored them all together. Since that’s not going to happen with ESPN, we can at least all agree to ignore Olbermann.
Keith, just go away. Your 15 minutes is up. After all, it’s not 1997 anymore. 
Standard
Allen Iverson, Boston Celtics, Danny Ainge, ESPN, Kevin McHale, Larry Bird, NBA, Philadelphia 76ers, Robert Parish, Stephen A. Smith

The Chief & The Answer: Old & Entitled


Some old and familiar faces made headlines this week, and what they want is respect.
Problem is, they already had it and lost it. Now, they expect the “Powers That Be” to give it to them again.  
No, it’s not Randy Moss proclaiming he’s the greatest receiver in NFL History. No, it’s not Alex Smith demanding he be named starting quarterback of the 49ers before Super Bowl XLVII.
It’s a couple of former NBA stars.
And if you are as tired of the same old story lines from Super Week and Media Day in New Orleans as I am, this might catch your attention.
Allen Iverson
Former All-Star Allen Iverson wants back in the NBA, at the advancing age of 37. And so does 59-year-old former Celtics great Robert Parish.
They just want to be back in totally different ways.
Iverson wants back on the court, a chance to – as he calls it – complete his NBA legacy. Weird part is, he just turned down a chance to play for the Legends in the NBA D-League.
“I think the D-League is a great opportunity, it is not the route for me,” Iverson tweeted Tuesday.
Oh, that’s right, it’s only the route for aspiring ballers who need some work, those not ready for prime time players who need more practice. And we all know how Allen Iverson feels about practice.
Far be it for NBA executives to want to get a quick look at an under-six-foot guard who hasn’t played in three years and who relied heavily on foot speed, you know still has foot speed and quickness at 40.
Iverson last played in the NBA in 2009-10, briefly, with the Memphis Grizzlies and Philadelphia 76ers, the team he had the most impact on after they drafted him out of Georgetown. What Iverson forgets is what so many remember: he wasn’t very good. But Iverson wants the NBA to look past all that, and grant him a spot on a roster so he can finish what he started.
And some, like ESPN personality (and sometimes reporter/journalist) Stephen A. Smith, who covered Iverson in Philadelphia, agree with The Answer’s assessment. When asked if Iverson should have taken the Legends offer and worked himself back up through the ranks, Smith had some interesting words.
“He should,” said Smith, “but he shouldn’t have to.”
Confused yet?
“To do what he’s done in this league and for this league…to then sit there because of practice or his attitude or whatever the case may be, and to look at it and say that you don’t need it anymore – I’m one of those guys who’s sensitive to…taking care of [those guys].”
So…if we’re understanding this correctly, the NBA owes guys like Iverson – and as Smith went on to allude to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Robert Parish – some sort of servitude clause? Is that how employment works?
Smith contends that Iverson is being avoided because of his attitude, his work ethic in practice and varying other factors. Well, frankly, that’s probably true. There’s a tipping point with athletes. We’ll put up with them as fans and defend them for a great number of things that seem out of bounds with our own standards and ethics because they do extraordinary things. When those things stop happening, the spotlight tends to shine brightly upon those character flaws.
Robert Parish is looking for a job, too.
The same is true of Parish. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Parish said he was “restless” and needed “money”, therefore, wanted to get into coaching. He said he’d been trying, but had been avoided. Former teammate Larry Bird wouldn’t return his calls, Parish says.
Except that Bird countered that Parish never called him.
Then you find out that even Parish is willing to admit that his sometimes surly and aloof demeanor is still there and that he doesn’t have many friends in and around the game. He’s jealous of former teammates like Danny Ainge, Kevin McHale and Bird, who have worked in the NBA since they retired as players.
“Across the board, most NBA teams do not call back,” Parish told the Globe. “You need a court order just to get a phone call back from these organizations. I’m not a part of their fraternity.”
Welcome to the real world, Robert. Times are tough out here, too. As McHale eluded too, he attempted to get Parish on with the Minnesota Timberwolves, but they were cutting back on positions, and then, you know, McHale was horrible in Minnesota and got fired. Not really a great reference for Robert in the Twin Cities.
This is just like if you’re telling a buddy to get you an interview at a place that isn’t really hiring and then he gets laid off and you’re angry he didn’t hook you up with some work. It’s not realistic. Parish hasn’t worked much since retiring after 21 seasons in the NBA in 1997. He coached briefly, has had done some personal appearances and had a few minor brushes with the law.
He says he gave too much money away. He says he wasn’t particularly close to his teammates, but scolded Ainge and described him as selfish.
How can I help get “The Chief” a job, again, this guy is aces!
Then again, it must be hard to be a former star. You grow accustomed to the pay, the lifestyle, the pace of it all. Parish is whining about an $80,000 salary in communications for the Celtics? Know how many people would like that job? I know my hand just went up. Parish turned down that job in 2004, because he needed something in the six figure range. He also  said he didn’t like the weather in Boston and didn’t want to live there full time.
Let me just ask, Robert: what are you interviewing for again? If you don’t like the weather or the city enough to live there, you know, where the job is located, then what do you want them to do? Send you a royalty check?
There are many fine former athletes out there who are turned away simply because people don’t want to work with them, with their attitudes and their baggage. This happens all the time in the professional world. Employers are allowed to turn you away simply because you don’t fit the culture. Tough luck.
Iverson and Parish were once both great, but are owed nothing now. It must be earned again. They must prove themselves again. And they must change the attitude of entitlement. Who wants to work with that?
Quite frankly, Stephen A. Smith, I’m shocked that you’d defend Iverson, Parish and Abdul-Jabbar in this instance. Surly demeanors and people who don’t work well with others don’t typically get taken care of just because of what they did once upon a time. Wait…Smith wouldn’t understand that.
If Iverson and Parish want back in the NBA, I’ve got The Answer right here:
Be just a little bit more grateful and a little less condescending. 
 Shut up and work for it.
 
Standard