bill simmons IS bill simmons IN the book of BASKETBALL

they let him on tv they gave him his own site its kinda funny

espn was a hugely successful company

hbo promos are kinda always awful but i'm still a bit skeptical of whether the show will work, if he was willing to do an hour long free flowing conversation i could see it being enjoyable but what he's mentioned it seems like that is not going to be the case. hbo probably doesn't care much either way, they just want content as they prep toward moving more and more to being a streaming service. would have to imagine there's some hbo stake in the ringer but there's apparently definitely heavy vc cash and that whole pod he did w/ louis ck where they were talking about how at this moment creating and owning content is basically minting cash makes me wonder what the structure is. if/when the ringer does happen he'll write something if only to drive traffic but it's been very apparent his heart hasn't really been in writing for a while, i can remember him mentioning tony kornheiser telling him there would come a point when the writing would go and little things he's said (there were a couple of comments during the david chang pod specifically) that pretty much confirmed his writing is purely to help the ringer or just get out an opinion he needs out there.

that whole pod he did w/ louis ck where they were talking about how at this moment creating and owning content is basically minting cash

lol wut

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3536776/Louis-C-K-claims-s-millions-debt-using-money-produce-web-series-Horace-Pete-s.html

lol daily mail. goon really? www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/louis-ck-clarifies-he-is-886305

fun fact: almost no tv show makes a profit first run. the only one currently airing that does iirc is the walking dead.

eh when he sells Horace and Pete to Netflix or Hulu or whatever he'll be in the black

yeah once his gloomy realist drama about a dying bar hits netflix the cash will start rolling in for sure

i used the daily mail cause their url is the best, most shows never make a profit which is a group his web series is destined to join, which is why ppl tend not to self finance

he's already made a profit selling it to weirdos in his site

no way has he earned a profit yet

louie self produced a stand up special that did really well then was all i have this notoriously difficult business figured out then went online and talked w bill simmons abt how content is king during the million consecutive tsunami hitting the industry simmons creates content for, moral of the story its good to be a star

in rainbows redux

tfw soup is the perfect food https://twitter.com/hbo/status/733032327966777344

the sport of conversation

that's dumb as fuck

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CixBBGUWYAAcPyJ.jpg

i have never seen this expression on a person in my life

simmos' brand is v blazer + untucked shirt tho, way to nail it

horrible 'shop job on his face man alive

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0d/4e/9e/0d4e9ec4ca11fe2fc997313a0eed4623.jpg

horrible 'shop job on his face man alive

― Spottie, Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:53 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark

seriously what is going on

ya thats an insane texas chainsaw face

i would never attribute such shoddy work to noted ilx poster man alive

simmos' brand is v blazer + untucked shirt tho, way to nail it

can't see the white and-1s tho

there is content on the ringer dot com

http://i.imgur.com/tJuZQ93.png

lmao

The real Joe Buck — the one who drops f-bombs with abandon, is married to a former Broncos cheerleader, hangs with Jon Hamm, and just might be America’s most underappreciated sports broadcaster.

o shit fbombs tiiite bro tite

man i've heard a lot of smart media ppl praise joe buck, enough so that when al michaels or whoever (maybe not al michaels, probably not al michaels) calls joe buck the best broadcaster right now i don't even blink. at the same time man fuck joe buck.

joe buck is unbearable

yeah there's a lot of reasons i stopped following baseball (slowly getting back into it, like if i saw jake arrieta in a restaurant i would recognize him now) but buck/mccarver combo (w/ the occasional dose of joe morgan) definitely played a role. also don't think finding out he's married to a former nfl cheerleader is gonna make me like him more, you might as well tell me how much he gets paid while you're at it.

I kinda like him. He's nowhere near as bad as he was 7-8 years ago.

xp mccarver is gone, thankfully, although his replacements aint exactly fun city (aside from tom verducci occasionally saying smart things and reminding the dips he's surrounded by that analytics exist)

of all the articles to launch with, jfc

Joe bucks attempts to sound excited during football games after years of criticism are legitimately hilarious

PASS IS....

...

...CAUGHT!

Otherwise he's just wallpaper and the best argument for cloning, so we could replace him on all networks with al michaels-es

lol theyve also got an article abt obamas legacy by... an obama speechwriter, ringer is the anti gawk

http://i.imgur.com/jtDVmmF.jpg

seems like really good kinja to me

bet he's super pissed that he already used the 'grantland' name and had to come up with something new

he didn't like grantland iirc

ann coulter is pretty

yeah favreau does the ringers politics pod whice praise jesus jacko didn't get that gig

deadspin's thirst to make a "DO YOU SEEEEEEEE" type article about how the ringer is funded is fuckin hilarious http://deadspin.com/other-than-hbo-has-anyone-invested-in-bill-simmons-and-1779909602

they couldn't find out who was funding it, apparently, other than HBO. but unless it was a troll post idk why they were literally asking vox fucking media and buzzfeed if they provided funding, other than the denton/petechesky types who assume all their competitors are out to destroy them at all times, but like...peter thiel is not funding yr newest sports-coverage-enemy, it would appear you have other more pressing problems gawkdudes

i agree whoever wrote this post shd be be working on the hulkster appeal

actually who's funding the ringer is an interesting question lol their salary overhead is gigantic for a new website in 2016

whos funding the ringer is unquestionably an interesting and important question and the list of ppl who they asked seem to be reasonable collection of ppl who tend to invests in media companies, publishing a post thats all abt how u failed to find anything out is not that interesting except possibly to demonstrate that for some reason no one wants to talk abt the fact that theyre funding the ringer, but on the other hand the post was prob mostly made for tree shaking purposes and if it works i look forward to finding out this info, seems like medium/ev williams gotta be in the mix

it's not a bad question to ask prima facie but the inherent assumption, given the source of the question, is that it's gonna be a person or individual who's like 2 degrees removed from satan, when the truth is prob way more banal. like its prob HBO + ad revenue + maybe some wangbag tech/VC bros who jack up ticket prices at oracle arena but otherwise prob don't engage in the destruction of truth & justice. (as goon sez it's prob some higher-ups at medium, whose closet-skeletons i don't know of but could exist? idk)

if it ends up being like, idk, dan bilzerian or some shit (or lord thielzebub), then aight that's prob bad

andreessen thiel and blodget and maybe cuban seem like the only enemies of gawk on the list the rest of them seem like p reasonable suspects tho obvs the list if u wanted to be comprehensive wld be much longer

he inherent assumption, given the source of the question, is that it's gonna be a person or individual who's like 2 degrees removed from satan, when the truth is prob way more banal. like its prob HBO + ad revenue + maybe some wangbag tech/VC bros who jack up ticket prices at oracle arena but otherwise prob don't engage in the destruction of truth & justice.

lol so all the people listed in the post are, as you describe, "wangbag tech/VC bros who jack up ticket prices at oracle arena" but somehow you believe the post is trying to imply that actually the ringer is funded by people who are worse than the people the writer states are the most reasonable sources of ringer funding?