0 comments Jay Mariotti Has a Hot Sports Take About Mark Cuban; Still Desperately Craves Attention

Jay Mariotti is still struggling for relevance. In the past few years he's been disowned by ESPN, pissed on his co-workers at the "Sun-Times" while weaseling out the door, and pled guilty to charges of roughing up his girlfriend. But he's totally happy now. In fact, he's very eager to say just how happy he is, which if you ask me, means the lady doth protest too much. If you have to keep saying how happy you are, perhaps you are just trying to convince yourself.

So Jay wants relevance and he's spitting out the hot sports takes on his page at Sports Talk Florida like they are going out of style. He wants attention and he's going to keep saying bold shit to get that attention. Mark Cuban recently tried to be nuanced and discuss race, bigotry and walking across the street, but Jay Mariotti will have none of that. Rather than understand the nuance, he compares Cuban to Donald Sterling and Jay tries to be as controversial and contrarian as possible to get attention from anyone important. His ego feeds on attention and his ego has been hungry for a while now.

If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?

No, no the NBA does not have to eject Mark Cuban. You see how Jay starts off with his hot sports take immediately to grab the reader and get attention.

"Mark Cuban is as bad as Donald Sterling. Mark Cuban should be banned from the NBA."

This reaction is so overdone and blown out of proportion it's obvious that Mariotti can't truly be serious about it. It's clearly a reaction created to get a reaction from readers and the public to Mariotti's reaction. He's doing the journalistic equivalent of yanking ponytails and running away.

In explosive comments that have me asking about his own emotional stability

I mean, this is just hilarious. "Explosive comments" and they have Mariotti "asking about his own (Cuban's) emotional stability." I feel like Robert Stack should be reading the audiobook of this column. It's all very dramatic sounding.

the irascible owner of the Dallas Mavericks opened his big mouth much too far this time and put his fellow league owners and commissioner Adam Silver in a shockingly difficult position.

Here is the issue with Jay's mocked-up, faux outrage. Donald Sterling has actually made and continued to make racist comments. His comments were of a racist nature. They were made recently and in the past. Mark Cuban did not make racist comments, but commented on his own racism or bigotry that he fights with on a daily basis. One person's comments are made to be hateful, another person's comments are made to provoke debate and an open discussion about built-in bigotry that people hold. One is non-productive, another is productive.

Speaking at a conference in Nashville, Cuban portrayed himself publicly as every bit the racist Sterling was on a private recording in March. He tried to claim he was offering a nuanced view on how far society has progressed

Which is how it came off to many who listened and read Cuban's comments. It's him explaining that he isn't perfect, but there is a difference in true racism in the vein of Donald Sterling's actions over the last 30 years and trying to avoid a certain person on the street who fits a stereotype a person may be fearful of. I don't think Cuban should get slapped on the back for admitting bigotry, but he also shouldn't be thrown out of the NBA because he dared to discuss race rather than stand on a high moral pedestal where he falsely states he would NEVER participate in any bigotry in any form.

but nuance is impossible to convey when Cuban admits to this racist tug: “I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of.’’

It's not a very kind admission, but it certainly is nuanced. I am not sure Jay Mariotti knows what "nuanced" means, because Cuban's admission is very nearly the definition of nuance. Mariotti is about to grab hold of the "black kid in a hoodie" comment because that's going to get him the most attention and prove the point he wants to prove best, but he shouldn't be blinded by the example Cuban gave and ignore the meaning behind the example. Of course, not making a huge deal out of this comment won't get Mariotti pageviews and eyes to read his columns.

Cuban says his comments are a teaching moment, that we must understand the context in which he was speaking. Sorry, I can’t get past the “black kid in a hoodie’’ statement.

We know you can't, Jay. We know. It's something you need to grab on and hold with a death grip in order to prove your "Mark Cuban is as racist as Donald Sterling" point of view.

Here is the fuller version of Cuban’s remarks:

“In this day and age, this country has really come a long way putting any type of bigotry behind us, regardless of who it’s toward. We’ve come a long way, and with that progress comes a price. We’re a lot more vigilant and we’re a lot less tolerant of different views, and it’s not necessarily easy for everybody to adapt or evolve.
“I mean, we’re all prejudiced in one way or another. If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street. And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street. And the list goes on of stereotypes that we all live up to and are fearful of. So in my businesses, I try not to be hypocritical. I know that I’m not perfect. I know that I live in a glass house, and it’s not appropriate for me to throw stones.”

I read quite a few articles bemoaning the lack of characters in sports these days. Managers, coaches and owners who shoot from the hip and do funny, odd things. This situation is a good example of why they don't shoot from the hip and aren't characters. Prepared, boring comments aren't taken out of context, but unprepared comments on a subject can involve an unfortunate reference the vultures in the media will cling on to in order to castigate that owner or manager. In this case, it's the Trayvon Martin reference that may or may not be a Trayvon Martin reference.

Cuban was simply saying he believes everyone is prejudiced in some way and then lumps himself in this category, while giving an example. He's simply saying he understands he's not perfect but there is a difference in avoiding a certain person on the streets and openly committing racist acts and making racist comments over a span of 30 years. Therein lies the nuance.

As someone who knows Cuban and lobbied aggressively for him in the media to become the Chicago Cubs owner years ago, I am stunned.

Jay Mariotti threw his public support behind Cuban to be the Cubs owner and this is how Cuban repays him? Cuban getting support from Mariotti probably served to hurt Cuban's chances of becoming the Cubs owner.

He says we’re misunderstanding him, but social experiement or otherwise, he blew it with the “hoodie’’ comment. It reeks of racism and blatant insensitivity.

Grab a hold of that phrase, Jay. Grab a hold, ignore the rest and don't let go.

At least Sterling rightfully can claim that the infamous V. Stiviano set him up when she taped him — without his consent, which is against the law in California — in a conversation in which she seemed to bait him with questions about African-Americans.

Here goes Jay ignoring important facts to fit his point. Who set Sterling up to be the most discriminatory landlord in United States history? Who set up Sterling when he was sued by Elgin Baylor for employment discrimination? It wasn't just one specific event with Sterling, it was a series of events.

“You don’t. There’s no law against stupid,’’ Cuban said. “I’m the one who says don’t force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are.’’

And dutifully Jay heeds Cuban's need to know who the morons are by writing this column.

All Cuban has done is add himself to the moron list. Nuance? This is a little boy trying to get away with something Sterling could not. You don’t talk about advances in fighting bigotry, then admit to your own racism.

What's the alternative? Talk about advances in fighting bigotry and then try to take moral high ground under the false pretense that you personally have zero traces of racism in your thoughts and actions? Lying to yourself and society while pretending to be honest is better than admitting your own faults as an example of how you are trying to fight through own bigotry?

Cuban is a hater, too, regardless of context, when he makes the “black kid in a hoodie’’ comment.

Yes, "regardless of context" Cuban is a hater. Ignore the context completely, how could it matter? Cuban used the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" in a sentence about racism, so context doesn't matter when hot sports takes and overreactions have already begun.

The night before Cuban’s comments, Silver was asked if Sterling is ruining what’s great about pro basketball.

“it’s not just the performances on the court that it’s a distraction from. And I think what made this moment bigger than basketball, certainly for everybody involved in the league, and that moment being that recording, was that it did come from within, that under David Stern and commissioners that came before him, barriers were broken with this league, and I think for those who say it’s a slippery slope, and my God, what happens to the next player or the next owner who does something wrong, I’d only say there’s something particular about race issues when it comes to sports, and maybe the NBA in particular.

...but at least within the boundaries of my authority, I feel an obligation to protect the people who are within this league, and so that’s my reaction.”

So how does he deal with Cuban?

Obviously, the death penalty is on the table at this point. Either legal injection, but only if that is the least humane course of action, or the electric chair. I'm sure it would have been much more preferable for Cuban to have kept his thoughts to himself, because it's fine to be slightly bigoted, but just keep it to yourself and don't attempt to further a discussion on a race-related topic. Staying in denial about a person's own bigoted views is obviously the most important thing to do. God knows the United States doesn't need an open conversation about race relations.

How can you give him a warning and continue to prosecute Sterling without being called a stinking hypocrite?

Because Mark Cuban wasn't making his comments out of hatred, but as an example of how far society goes in terms of discussing race and facing our own bigoted views.

What is worse sin, telling a 31-year-old gold-digger to avoid Magic Johnson and other African-Americans at games — or saying, “If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street.’’

If Jay wasn't being so willfully ignorant about the full story behind Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA then...well, he wouldn't be Jay Mariotti if he was acknowledging the whole story and not intentionally forgetting the whole part where Donald Sterling had a history of racism prior to his comments that ended with his lifetime ban from the NBA. Sterling has the largest housing discrimination settlement in United Stated history collected by the Justice Department on his resume, as well as a thorough history of making racist comments. It's not just one thing that led to his lifetime ban, despite Jay's ignorant attempts to pretend it is.

Again, when someone is that candid about his views and fears, how can we believe Cuban when he tries to come off as a fully tolerant, equal-opportunity employer who will help people overcome their bigotry?

Because the alternative is for Cuban to come off as fully tolerant and this not be exactly true. It's typical Jay Mariotti that he prefers a person lie about his/her bigoted views rather than admit the truth. This really brings some insight into Jay's character. He thinks more of people who lie and deceive themselves as opposed to those people who are honest about their intentions and thoughts. It makes me wonder if Jay has been honest about past indiscretions in his life.

Cuban said. “Because it does my company no good, it does my customers no good, it does society no good if my response to somebody and their racism and bigotry is to say, ‘It’s not right for you to be here. Go take your attitude somewhere else.’’’

I hear that. But I’m hearing “black kid in a hoodie’’ much louder, probably because it strikes too closely to the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012.

This is the fifth time Jay has brought up the "black kid in a hoodie" phrase. He's desperate for this to mean something in order to prove his larger point.

Silver values Cuban’s high-tech expertise, social-media involvement and standing as a fan-friendly owner. But there can be no double standards here. A racist owner is a racist owner, and just as Silver is punishing Sterling for the right reasons, he should punish Cuban for exacerbating the problem.

Trying to talk about race relations by admitting one's own bigoted tendencies = "exacerbating the problem."

Cuban should apologize at once, own up to his error and hope the NBA has mercy on him.

Yes, Cuban should apologize for openly admitting the way he stereotypes people and learn to keep his bigoted and stereotypes to himself. The world is a much better place if nobody admits their faults and pretends they don't exist.

My guess is, because Cuban is a valued member of the owners’ club and Sterling was not, he’ll slide.

Silver may also let it slide because Cuban's comments were not even close to being on par with the comments that Donald Sterling made nor on par with Sterling's actions over a 30 year period. So there's that too.

Shame on Silver, the owners and all of Cuban’s Mickey Mouse teammates at Disney/ESPN for not calling out the hypocrisy.

I'm not sure this column is going to get Mariotti the attention he so desires, but I can't fault him for trying really hard to be as trolling as possible to get the attention. Mariotti even throws in a couple of shots at Disney/ESPN, because he's still bitter he doesn't work for them and they refuse to hire him. Disney/ESPN are evil when they don't employ Jay Mariotti, but don't doubt for a second he wouldn't go back to work for them if given the chance.

Despite Jay's latching onto the phrase "black kid in a hoodie" there is a difference in what Donald Sterling said (and did over a 30 year period) and what Mark Cuban said. I don't find it surprising that Jay thinks it's better for society for a person to keep his bigoted thoughts to himself. I just wish Jay would keep all of his thoughts to himself.

If you’re going to ban Donald Sterling from the NBA, don’t you now have to eject Mark Cuban, too?
Read more at http://www.sportstalkflorida.com/nuanced-cubans-words-as-racist-as-sterlings/#ZItuHQmFEzt8EqL0.99

7 comments Mark Cuban Says Brittney Griner Could Play in the NBA and Jemele Hill Somehow Takes Offense to This

I'm pretty sure JemeHill (I combine her first and last name because it is fun to type it that way) could take any compliment given to a person and turn it into an insult. Mark Cuban had the audacity to say Brittney Griner could play in the NBA or that he would think about drafting her. To add insult to injury, it appears Cuban was entirely serious. I say "to add insult to injury" because this comment by Mark Cuban offers a false promise that is setting back women, women's sports, the WNBA, and most likely the world's chances to avoid a nuclear war with North Korea in the mind of JemeHill. JemeHill is very offended by Cuban's comment. She is offended out of proportion for how much she should be offended. She thinks Mark Cuban is saying Griner needs to play men's sports to legitimize herself, when he was simply saying she is a great basketball player and he would think about drafting her. It's easy to take offense to something when you seemingly look for things that piss you off and skew the intended meaning of other otherwise innocent statements.

I have no doubt that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was sincere when he said he would draft Brittney Griner, or at the very least, perhaps invite her to play for Dallas' summer league team in Las Vegas.

But it was an offensive thing to say! How dare Mark Cuban give out compliments!

I wonder if JemeHill would have liked it better if Cuban had stated women had no business playing in the NBA? My guess is if that happened we would get a column from her stating women could play in the NBA and that Mark Cuban was wrong to suggest Griner couldn't make it in the NBA. You can't win sometimes.

But unfortunately that's not how Griner responded. Instead, she tweeted to Cuban: "I would hold my own! Lets do it."

I can't believe Brittney Griner is willing to demean herself by taking Cuban up on an invitation to play in the NBA. Just when you think women's athletics can't be set back any further something like this happens. 

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

Right, but it is still nice for Mark Cuban to Tweet that he wouldn't mind Griner playing for the Mavericks. It's not going to happen, but it is a nice compliment. Only a demented person could find a way to take offense to this offer.

just as her quickness and array of post moves might be an issue for some of the men she would play.

We have talked about women playing basketball against men before. No, Brittney Griner would not be too quick for the men that would guard her in the post. If Griner has good moves, it would be offset by the fact she is going to struggle to get position in the post due to the gap in physical strength that JemeHill just mentioned.

I would imagine that Griner already has spent a good deal of her career playing against boys and men recreationally. But how she could fit in the NBA isn't really the point.

No, it really is the point. Mark Cuban said Griner could play in the NBA. Griner said, "Let's do it." JemeHill wrote a column about how this offer to play in the NBA offers a false promise to Griner. The entire discussion and this entire article is about how she would fit in the NBA. I don't see how anyone can believe this article is/should be about anything else.

What I don't like about Cuban's comments is that it perpetuates the dangerous idea that great female athletes need to validate themselves by competing against men.

Well it's not about how Griner fits in the NBA when JemeHill decides to take a comment and blow it up into something bigger than it really is. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't perpetuate the "dangerous" idea female athletes need to validate themselves competing against men. It says Griner has validated her skills against women and Cuban thinks she is good enough to play against men, despite the gap in physical strength and because of the post moves JemeHill just mentioned. Notice how JemeHill immediately evaluates Griner's ability to play in the NBA and then decides this evaluation (that she herself just made) is "dangerous." It's a compliment that Mark Cuban was paying Griner. Just take it as that.

This season, Griner was the best college player in women's or men's hoops.

In JemeHill's opinion it is "dangerous" to try and evaluate Griner against men, but this is the second time in this fairly short column JemeHill has compared Griner to men's basketball players. So apparently this is a dangerous comparison, unless JemeHill would like to make this comparison, in which case the comparison only goes to show how great Brittney Griner is at playing basketball.

Griner doesn't have anything to prove. But because of Cuban's interest in her, it's opened the door for people to talk more about what Griner can't do, rather than appreciate what she can.

But what I don't get is why JemeHill is criticizing this discussion people have about what Griner can't do even though SHE HERSELF JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT GRINER CAN'T DO! JemeHill said:

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

No one is forcing JemeHill to make this comparison, she is choosing to do so on her own free will. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't highlight what Griner can't do, but highlights how good of a women's basketball player Griner is.

Once Cuban's comments spread, it was open season on Griner. She's too slow to play with men. She isn't physical enough. She doesn't have the athleticism.

But these are comments JemeHill just made herself. She is essentially citing her own reaction to Cuban's comment as an example of how some will make it open season on Griner. JemeHill's own reaction and comments about Griner are the very comments JemeHill finds troubling. She basically finds herself "dangerous" for making these comments.

I've come to believe JemeHill doesn't have a ton of talent. She has to take offense, change the subject or talk around an issue in order to be able to write a column. Even once she takes offense, she still can't help but create a problem that doesn't exist or cite her own opinion as the only supporting evidence for her column.

Everything she accomplished is being measured against professional male players, and that simply isn't fair.

The reason she is being compared to NBA players is because she has been so dominant in college. Considering (in my opinion) no women's basketball player could thrive in the NBA, it is a compliment to even suggest Griner could. It doesn't take away from Griner's accomplishments. Plus, JemeHill herself is the one not being fair to Griner and comparing her to NBA players. She does it in this very article.

As the WNBA draft approaches, the conversation should be about how Griner's college stardom can translate to professional success, and perhaps boost the WNBA to another level in popularity. 

Good luck with that. I don't know if Griner has the ability to pull in people to the WNBA who haven't ordinarily watched women's basketball.

This Griner situation reminds me of how, every so often, people would wonder whether former Tennessee coach Pat Summitt should coach men.

This seems like an interesting topic of conversation. There have also been people who wondered if Coach K could coach NBA players. Simply by wondering if Coach K could coach NBA players over a full season doesn't mean he has to validate himself by coaching these players? No, of course not. How good of a women's basketball coach would Phil Jackson have been? I think he would have been a better women's basketball coach than a men's basketball coach, but that's just my opinion. Me wondering how good Phil Jackson would have been at UConn coaching women basketball players doesn't mean Jackson needs to validate himself by coaching women.

I don't doubt that Summit could do it, but I reject the idea that Summit needed to coach men to legitimize what anyone with common sense already knew -- that the woman can coach.

JemeHill can be such a pain in the ass sometimes. Simply asking if Coach Summit could coach men (and no one says she "should" coach men, it's always if she "could" coach men) isn't saying she has to coach men to legitimize herself. This is another example of JemeHill creating an fake argument that she can dispel in order to better prove her point. She does this quite frequently. JemeHill will make up a point of view that few or no people hold, then will rebut that argument in a column and believe she proved something. She will write something like, "The idea LeBron isn't the best forward on the Heat roster is ridiculous," and then start to disprove this argument few or no people are making.

I would not compare Griner playing in the NBA to Danica Patrick competing against men in NASCAR. For one, NASCAR is one of the few sports men and women can compete with one another without strength or stature being an issue.

Only someone who hasn't ever watched a NASCAR race would make this statement and believe it to be true. Being a NASCAR driver takes conditioning and strength. The difference in men and women's bodies can be seen in this sport. There's a reason Dale Earnhardt Jr. claims part of his resurgence is a better dedication to conditioning and getting in shape.

The only things that matter in NASCAR are reaction time, endurance and, of course, the car.

I don't like NASCAR, but this is a very simplistic way to look at it. It's like saying the only things that matter in basketball is being athletic and being able to shoot. 

But having not won a race in NASCAR and having barely won anything as an IndyCar driver, she has invited criticism about whether she's good enough. Madison Avenue loves her, but can she win? 

And why has she barely won anything? Is it because she isn't very good or the fact she is a tiny person gives her a small disadvantage when driving against men? I'm asking, because apparently JemeHill is a NASCAR expert and claims there is no disadvantage to a woman driving a race car as compared to a man driving a race car.

But as we saw with Patrick, there is a lot of pressure that comes with competing in a male-dominated sport. And while Griner dealt with high expectations at Baylor because the team looked practically unbeatable, vying for a spot on an NBA team would bring scrutiny unlike anything she experienced in college. 

And of course the insinuation Griner could handle this scrutiny is a huge insult to Griner, women, and women's sports.

From Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs to Patrick versus the pack, there has always been an infatuation with women who compete against men.

And an infatuation with men who compete against women. It can go both ways.

In 1979, Ann Meyers signed a contract with the Pacers and tried out for the team. Even though she didn't make an NBA roster, her efforts to play in the NBA never damaged her credibility.

So history says if Brittney Griner tried out for an NBA roster then her credibility would not be damaged, but somehow JemeHill thinks it is different 34 years later when society and the NBA is possibly more accepting of a women's ability to play basketball.

That's not how it would work today.

This is not a statement of fact simply because you hold yourself in high esteem and make this statement. This is purely an opinion.

If Griner flirted with the NBA and failed, it would do a lot more damage. There would be an obsession with her successes and failures. Every missed and made shot would be replayed repeatedly on TV and throughout social media.

I don't know if it would do any real damage. It would simply reinforce what some people already believe, that an elite women's basketball player can't compete with elite men's basketball players. Maybe that's JemeHill's biggest fear, the confirmation that elite women can't compete with elite men in basketball. I don't see it as the end of the world. Men's college basketball teams can't compete with NBA teams and I don't think that takes anything away from the men's college basketball game. We saw a woman fail at kicking at the NFL Combine recently and it hasn't destroyed women's sports, so perhaps we would see Griner struggle and simply move on with our lives.

One of the greatest players in women's college basketball history would risk being relegated to being the punch line of far too many jokes.

I already joke about her even before she has played one game against men. (Mean comments to follow) I'm not entirely convinced Brittney Griner isn't a guy. She has kind of a deep voice and I'm not passing up the idea she could just be a really girly-looking guy. I don't say this because I enjoy being mean to women athletes or because she is good at basketball, but because she has kind of a deep voice and I'm not entirely convinced she doesn't have a different set of chromosomes from other women basketball players. If a male basketball player had a high-pitched voice I would wonder if he wasn't really a girl. It's fun to be mean like this.

Or worse, considered a failure.

I don't think she would be considered a failure. Ann Meyers wasn't considered a failure 34 years ago and I really believe the more progressive attitude towards women sports means Brittney wouldn't be seen as a failure just like Ann Meyers wasn't seen as a failure.

There is no question that Griner could gain much more exposure if she, say, decided to play in a few summer league games. But the NBA doesn't need any more marketing help. The WNBA, however, desperately needs more players and personalities like Griner. 

This is a completely different argument. Whether the NBA or the WNBA needs more marketing help is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether Cuban's statement that Brittney Griner could try out for the Mavericks is a false promise or not. Let's stick to the subject at hand and not try to distract the audience from your weak argument.

Too many people already treat Griner like a freak because of her size.

It's not her size that gets me. It's her voice. That's a very different voice for a female. I don't think she is a freak, but I can't help but notice her voice isn't very lady-like. I always love it when a writer says something like "too many people" and then doesn't cite a single piece of evidence or a statement by these "people" to support this argument. It's like they are hoping by just making a blanket statement everyone will assume the statement is factual.

The last thing she should want is for the NBA to use her as a sideshow. 

I'm sorry, what was this article about again? Wasn't this article supposed to be about how Mark Cuban's comment made it seem like Brittney Griner had to legitimize herself by playing in the NBA? What ever happened to that argument (as weak as it was)? The column ended with JemeHill saying people think Brittney Griner is a freak and then saying the NBA shouldn't use her as a sideshow. So just remember girls (girl? who I am kidding, no girls read this blog), if someone tells you that you could play in the NBA then don't dare take this as a compliment because that is a huge insult to you and everyone thinks you are a freak. 

2 comments It's Okay, This Column was Written by a Freelance Contributor

ESPN is an easy target for a lot of people. I include myself in that category of "people," in case you were wondering. I tend to focus more on ESPN's writers rather than ESPN as a whole, but the point remains the same in many ways when I am focusing on a specific writer for writing a column I thought was bad or very much disagreed with. Mark Cuban and Bill Simmons got in a Twitter fight, well it wasn't quite a "fight" since at this point Simmons had not responded to what Mark Cuban had said about him on Twitter. A Mark Cuban/Bill Simmons Twitter fight isn't quite a huge ESPN issue, especially since Simmons is only tangentially related to ESPN through Grantland at this point. I what caused a lot of Mark Cuban's frustration with Bill Simmons' Twitter comment (which I will get to in a minute) is his frustration with ESPN's coverage of LeBron and the discussion he had with Skip Bayless after the Finals were over.

There seems to be an overwhelming attitude at ESPN of "We are ESPN, we are big, so we are going to do whatever the fuck we want to do." When one of their employees is caught in a somewhat-scandal over using Wikipedia, ESPN comes back with a sort of "boys will be boys" type response. If it isn't a "boys will be boys" response, it certainly doesn't seem like a response that shows any type of concern for what was discussed about Lynn Hoppes copying and re-wording Wikipedia entries.

The exact statement by ESPN in that situation consisted basically of saying "it was an example of journalistic laziness and we've addressed it." This wasn't simply AN example of journalistic laziness, it was a pattern of journalistic laziness. There were repeated examples of Wikipedia entries copied and re-worded. Just look at how often Lynn Hoppes re-worded or copies a Wikipedia entry over the last few years. That's a pattern, not a single example, of journalistic laziness. It's not even laziness, that's outright copying. Laziness is doing this once or twice over a year or two, while re-wording or copying Wikipedia entries repeatedly is a pattern that shows Hoppes relied on this information to help write his columns.

No one wants to see Hoppes publicly executed or his body hung by a cross in the hot sun for an entire week to show his contrition, but to downplay this as a sort of incident that could result in a slap on the wrist or that it doesn't concern ESPN that other writers may be doing this is concerning to me. That's a pretty big deal to re-word Wikipedia entries or copy them like Lynn Hoppes did. Yet, ESPN doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency or concern in the statement they released. It's a "we've dealt with this already, so please stop talking about it" type of statement. ESPN wants us to continue watching and reading, but they seem displeased when having to give us a reason to believe that what we are watching or reading is an original thought. I feel like they want the public to trust them because they are ESPN.

It's a pattern that can be seen in other ESPN employees as well. I received an email recently from someone who stumbled across this blog and he linked a passage about Fred Jackson that Gregg Easterbrook wrote in TMQ. It was a passage where Gregg was showing the type of criticism that Fred Jackson had gotten and why he had not started at running back in high school. Gregg said Jackson was "too small" and "too slow." I wanted Gregg to cite exactly where he got this specific criticism of Fred Jackson. Gregg seems to do this all the time, quote certain articles that aren't linked. He did it when he called Julio Jones a diva last year and he did it when discussing why Fred Jackson didn't start at running back in high school. I searched at the time I wrote the TMQ post, but couldn't find anything. I didn't look in the most obvious place perhaps.

I didn't come up with much of the following the research, so all the credit goes to the kind gentleman who emailed me about this. I didn't ask if I could use his name, so I won't. Either way, he seemed to show me Gregg Easterbrook makes use of Wikipedia as well in this instance and I would bet this isn't the first or only time Gregg has used completely uncited criticism from Wikipedia in TMQ. It's one thing to use Wikipedia for facts, but Gregg used Wikipedia to cite an opinion as if it were fact from an actual scouting report of Fred Jackson out of high school, which I completely disagree with doing.

The TMQ post I wrote is here.

Gregg wrote the following:

Runner-up: Fred Jackson, tailback, Buffalo. Jackson never started a game in high school, being "too small" and "too slow."

I wrote the following:

Usually when a writer puts words in quotation marks he is actually quoting something that exists in literature. I'd love to see Gregg provide proof that Jackson didn't start a game in high school because he was "too small" and "too slow." This may be true, and I'm not English teacher, but I'm pretty sure if you put words in quotes they need to be an actual quote that exists and not the figment of the writer imagining what was said. Mostly likely Gregg did here what he usually does, which is deceive his readers into believing these were words used on an actual evaluation of Jackson's skill set in high school. He attempts to deceive his readers by putting "too small" and "too slow" in quotes as if this came from a specific evaluation of Jackson in high school.

It turns out I was wrong, Gregg did have a citation, he just didn't tell us about it. He seemed to have directly copied this evaluation of Jackson directly from Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page, which states:

Jackson attended Lamar High School (Arlington, Texas) and although he was a member of the powerful Lamar Vikings teams of the late 1990s, he never started a game in his two years on the varsity. Back then he was considered too small (5-8, 160 pounds) and too slow. He began his senior year as a third-string running back, and only after a knee injury to starter Justin Faust (headed to Stanford), was he elevated to second-string behind Tommicus Walker (headed to TCU).

The emphasis in red is mine from the Wikipedia entry on Fred Jackson that was emailed to me. So it appears Gregg Easterbrook enjoys the use of Wikipedia as well. The issue I have with this is Gregg isn't discussing a fact. It isn't a fact that Fred Jackson was considered too small or too slow. This is an opinion. Yet, it seems Gregg uses the opinion of Fred Jackson's Wikipedia page writer as empirical proof for why Jackson didn't start in high school. That's a bit shady to me. It's fine to use Wikipedia to research facts, but I'm not sure we can trust a Wikipedia entry to provide opinion-based information like whether a player was "too small" or "too slow" to start in high school. If this were from an official Scout.com or Rivals.com scouting report I think it has much more credibility...but not an evaluation of Fred Jackson on Wikipedia. Yet, that's the information Gregg Easterbrook relied upon. Who knew such a lofty and well-known writer like Gregg Easterbrook did his research in Wikipedia? Now I know why he doesn't cite or provide a link to a lot of the criticism he uses in TMQ. Most likely he's just looking for some sort of comment on the Internet which agrees with his point of view and he doesn't want us to know where he got the information from. I don't know what other conclusion I can come to.

So we know about the journalists of ESPN and their propensity to use Wikipedia. There have also been instances of ESPN freelancers doing whatever the hell it was that Sarah Phillips was doing and even making up interviews that were done with an athlete, even though the athlete denies there was ever an interview. In both instances ESPN hid behind the idea these interviews were done by freelancers, as if in some way they weren't responsible for content that was put on ESPN.com or any ESPN.com affiliates. That's the good thing about freelancers. You can blame them when something goes wrong, but also take the credit (by having the freelancer's story on your site) when the story is done very well.

ESPN said, in response to Awful Announcing questioning what had happened in the case of fake interview,:

"The story was written by a freelance contributor. We removed the story as soon as we discovered sourcing questions and are looking into those."

ESPN, much like in the Sarah Phillips case, is very quick to point out this was done by a freelance contributor and doesn't reflect on the journalistic standard ESPN wants to be held to. I'm sure you can excuse the audience's confusion since this article appeared on an ESPN.com site. This incident with a freelance contributor, which ESPN is in no way affiliated with outside of publishing his material on their website, had "sourcing issues" which I commonly refer to as "making shit up." I don't know what type of "sourcing issue" an interview published detailing an interview that never actually took place might be, but it sounds a lot less like a sourcing problem and more like an honesty problem.

It was clear from the Sarah Phillips incident(s) that ESPN doesn't hold their freelance contributors to as high of a standard as their ESPN-employed writers. It seems in their excuse-filled apologies ESPN treats their freelance contributors like the weird uncle-by-marriage of the company's online presence.

"Uncle Dave always drinks too much at weddings. He isn't our uncle by blood though, purely through marriage."

I understand that things go wrong and with all of the articles that get published on ESPN.com and their affiliates sometimes things go really wrong. I don't want ESPN to lay their soul bare in apologizing, but the excuse a person was a freelance contributor and some vague promise to look into "sourcing issues" with the interview doesn't feel right to me. You want your audience to believe the content on your site is informational and original, then don't you owe to your audience to not separate yourself from your contributor and then provide no promise of doing better the next time?

I can talk around this all day, but ESPN can get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is because they have no competition. That day will end though. ESPN will get competition and they will have to compete for their share of the sports market. Let's all keep waiting for that day. It will come.

So back to the Mark Cuban-Bill Simmons one-sided Twitter war. It's not even a war because in typical Simmons fashion, he hasn't responded. This is the same reason Bill doesn't allow comments on his columns. He doesn't want feedback and he ignores any criticism he gets because it discourages his own held point of view that many of the things he says and does are absolutely correct simply because he says and does them. That recent article on "The Onion" hit the nail on the head.

I think much of Mark Cuban's frustration stemmed from his appearance on "First Take" when he eviscerated Skip Bayless and others like him. He's tired of being second-guessed by those who don't have experience running an NBA team. I'm not going to defend the Maverick's moves this offseason, that's not the point, nor will I say the whole "he doesn't have experience on a championship team" statement is persuasive either. We all know Bill Simmons wants to be an NBA GM. He did nothing short of beg-without-begging to be the Bucks and Timberwolves GM over the last 4-5 years. This non-exchange with Cuban is part of the reason in my opinion Bill's being a GM of an NBA team can't happen. It's the major divide between being a journalist with an opinion and believing you can run an NBA team. Bill is great at documenting what happens in the NBA and his original Tweet I thought was funny and accurate.

Put it this way: I wasn't crazy about Elton Brand and Chris Kaman playing together in 2006 when they were still good.

But Bill is the guy who documents and writes the book of basketball. He isn't the type of person who creates and is responsible for the events in the book of basketball. There's a difference in a how a GM/owner wants to run an NBA team and how a GM/owner is able to run an NBA team. Bill is a writer. His ideas are sometimes good, but reality doesn't give a shit about great ideas. That's why I make fun of his "Who says no?" comments. A good idea is great, but the implementation of that great idea is hard to do. There are more than just two people with an opinion involved. Bill does a (generally) good job of documenting (and dissecting) what happens in the NBA. Bill has no idea what he would have done other than not sign Elton Brand or Chris Kaman. If he had an idea, I'm sure we would have heard it by now.

There is a divide between those who know NBA basketball and those who run NBA basketball teams. I think the divide is clear here. Mark Cuban responded to Bill:

@sportsguy33. They next smart personnel comment you mae will be your first

Mark Cuban deleted that Tweet eventually for some reason. Bill is a know-it-all type guy. It rubs people the wrong way. Dan Gilbert, the owner (I originally had Gilbert as the GM of the Cavs. As a commenter noted, that wouldn't probably end well) of the Cavs, actually Retweeted this comment by Mark Cuban at Bill Simmons. I wouldn't rank Dan Gilbert as one of the top 5 owners in the NBA by any means, but I find it interesting we have two of the most Twitter-active NBA owners showing ESPN's top NBA guy (he is ESPN's top NBA guy when it comes to opinions and influence...at least in my opinion) he doesn't have their respect. Maybe it is two owners being bitter or angry, but do we really believe Bill could be an NBA GM and deal with personalities like Mark Cuban and Dan Gilbert on a regular basis? I'm not sure he could. Running an NBA team is a different world from pretending you can run an NBA team because you think you have great ideas.

Of course then the one-sided conversation went downhill and Mark Cuban ruined his point when responding to someone defending Simmons...a guy named Mufasa-7000 (maybe he is a big "Lion King" fan?).

@mcuban @sportsguy33 Well to be fair, Simmons also didn't let an entire championship team minus the superstar walk away for nothing.

Followed by Mark Cuban's silly response...

@CmackChase @sportsguy33 possibly because he has never had any involvement with a championship team.

That's just silly. It puts Mark Cuban in a position to never be criticized by anyone who hasn't won a title. My point, and I think I do have one, is that Bill Simmons can't be an NBA GM/VP of Common Sense. He's good at what he does, which is get people to read his columns and NBA opinions. Bill Simmons did have a point. Elton Brand and Chris Kaman isn't a great combination power forward-center for the Mavericks. I think his debate after the NBA Finals win by the Heat still has Mark Cuban in a fit and he is overly-sensitive to criticism from anyone at ESPN at this point.

If Bill Simmons was a freelance contributor he could create an entire interview he had with Mark Cuban where Cuban admits he was wrong and try to pass this off on Grantland as a real interview that occurred. Or Bill could base all of his Chris Kaman or Elton Brand-related criticism on something written in Wikipedia. It seems that's the safer way for him to go.