Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Jeff Pearlman discusses his book about the Showtime Lakers which comes out March 4

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jeff Pearlman discusses his book about the Showtime Lakers which comes out March 4

    I really enjoyed the book he wrote about the 90s Cowboys it took me 3 days to read the whole thing.

    http://thebiglead.com/2014/03/02/jef...h-si-swimsuit/

    Jeff Pearlman’s book on the Showtime Lakers comes out on Tuesday. An alum of Sports Illustrated who will be forever be linked to his John Rocker story, Pearlman has also written books on Walter Payton, the 90′s Cowboys, and the ’86 Mets. In this q&a, Pearlman talks about his thoughts on Magic, Kareem, Jerry Buss, the SI Swimsuit issue, and how to make it as a sportswriter:

    One of the striking things about reading any literature based on events that transpired before a couple years ago is how differently they would be magnified by social media. Can you think of anything that you’ve covered or researched in sports that would have had as seismic an effect as Magic Johnson’s announcement?

    First, anyone who calls a sports biography “literature” is cool with me. So … thanks!

    It’s a fascinating question—and the answer is a big no. I’ve covered some enormous things, as far as buzz goes. John Rocker’s racist/xenophobic insanity. Barry Bonds’ explosion/implosion. Stuff like that. But Magic was different. It wasn’t just sports news—it was worldwide news-news. It was the Challenger explosion. It was Ronald Reagan being shot. It was that big, and the only things—sports-wise—from my lifetime that might compare are Len Bias’ death and the O.J. Simpson murder and chase. But I didn’t cover those. I was merely a curious and stunned observer.

    I never really thought of this until now, but had Twitter been around when Magic announced, the whole event changes drastically. The Lakers PR team and Lon Rosen (Magic’s “guy”) did a masterful job holding off the reporting of the HIV revelation. Some news outlets knew of it, but the team convinced them to hold off. In 2014, that absolutely does not happen. It gets out—and explodes. The hardest thing about being in media relations these days is staying in front of the story. It’s nearly impossible.

    Magic Johnson Retirement

    I think a lot of media outlets had wind of Michael Sam’s sexuality before he came out and controlled the release of the news. Within just an hour or two, SI had a comprehensive response from (cowardly anonymous) NFL personnel executives. Lots of places could have broken the story, but didn’t, perhaps in conscious fear of what happened to Grantland on the Dr. V. story. You don’t think Magic’s announcement would have inspired similar, if uncharacteristic, tact from the national media at-large?

    I would hope media outlets that knew Michael Sam was gay didn’t report the story because to do so would have been, in my opinion, morally unconscionable. There’s no written rule here, but can you imagine a media outlet (besides TMZ, which is scum of the earth) digging and scratching and clawing to out a college senior? It would have been deplorable and disgusting. I heard someone criticize the University of Missouri’s student newspaper for not breaking the Sam-is-gay saga, and it sickened me. I applaud any student journalists who knew he was gay, and allowed him to handle the story as he saw fit.

    I’m not saying this is fair, but Magic would have been somewhat different in the eyes of many media members, in that he was a full-fledged adult. Again, I’m not saying that’s fair. It’s clearly not. But there is a difference in the way folks view a college senior and an NBA veteran in his 30s.

    It’s obviously impossible to talk about in a vacuum because Kareem’s life experiences that molded his temperament also would’ve been different in these comparatively more progressive times, but how do you think his surliness — i.e. telling a young autograph seeker to “go **** himself” — would be perceived by today’s hyperconnected media and fans?

    Hmm … another interesting one. Kareem would not fit in well in 2014. I actually saw him at the most recent Basketball Hall of Fame induction ceremonies, and it was pretty painful. He’s awkward and distant, and somewhat incapable of enjoyable small talk. He also hasn’t helped himself. I haven’t told this story before, but Kareem was very hard to get for this book, and ultimately I had an intermediary ask him the questions I needed answered. He has a publicist who works for him, and she serves as his Plexiglass shield. She kept rebuffing my efforts and rebuffing my efforts, and I finally gave up and had to rely on someone who knew Kareem to ask my questions. I’m not even sure she told Kareem about my inquiries.

    Anyhow, I’m at the Hall of Fame, and his publicist texts me something like, ARE YOU HERE? I said I was, and she wrote something akin to, WE NEED TO TALK. I HAVE GOOD NEWS. I was psyched … figured Kareem would supply some time. Well, the publicist and I meet, and she says she has this great opportunity for me and Sports Illustrated, something about this being the 50th anniversary of Kareem’s first SI cover, and the magazine could put all his trophies on a new cover. And I was stunned. A. Because I haven’t been on staff since 2003; B. Because … what in the world was she talking about?

    The point: He’s brutally bad at connecting with people, and the people around him also seem bad. Back in the day, he was protected. Now, he’d be exposed.

    Lakers v CelticsShare this image:

    Not to harp toooo much on the ‘Wow, everything was so different!’ trope, but your description of Jerry Buss’ purchasing the Lakers from Jack Kent Cooke included the trading of high profile real estate properties essentially as poker chips. Can you fathom something like that happening in contemporary ownership transactions?

    It sorta reminds me of Richard Gere’s character in “Pretty Woman,” when he laments no one building things any longer. The swap between Buss and Kent Cooke involved the Chrysler Building, as crazy as that sounds. Nowadays, it’d be an exchange of stocks, of holdings. It’d be boring stuff. So … no way.

    Jerry Buss’ sexual conquests are legendary, and you discuss some of his courting rituals in the book. How many women would you estimate that he slept with in his life? If not an exact number, then a possible range?

    I couldn’t venture to guess, but probably not as many as Magic. Jerry Buss was a fascinating man. Just fascinating. Because while women were certainly eye candy to him, they weren’t disposable pieces of plastic. He put many through college, paid for apartments, career starts, etc … etc. I’m sure he slept with many of them because, well, if I were Jerry Buss, I’d certainly sleep with a lot of them. But I do believe there was an element of showmanship, and also a longing for genuine companionship. And big breasts, too.

    This would probably take you thousands of words to explain thoroughly, but can you give us the cliff notes on the broader processes of taking this book from an idea pitched to a publisher through its completion?

    Sure. So my last book was Sweetness, the Walter Payton biography. And it was published by Gotham. As soon as the smoke cleared (and there was a shitload of smoke), I started pondering the next project. I tend to stroll through book stores, look online, see what’s out there, what’s not out there. I jot ideas, throw some by my friends, some by my agent, all by my wife. I have three considerations, and I’m pretty religious about them. 1. Is the subject something I’d enjoy obsessing over for the next 2-3 years? 2. Is there a reason for a book on the subject? 3. Does it at least have a chance of being a big seller? All the factors are equally important. For example, the Roger Clemens book was my least enjoyable experience, because he was a turd who lacked introspection, and those were some long, long years, and nobody wanted to spend $25 on a complete asswipe. Lesson learned.

    I’m a huge nostalgia guy, and as a kid (even growing up in New York) the Lakers and Celtics owned the NBA. I never really liked the Celtics, and besides, Jack McCallum wrote an excellent book on their run. But the Lakers—well, they intrigued me. Admittedly, there was an excellent book out there called Winnin’ Times. Scott Ostler and Steve Springer put it together, and it came out in 1986. It’s excellent. But it was written in 1986. And I felt, nearly 30 years later, there would be much to add. And there was.

    Anyhow, I wrote a proposal, gave it to Gotham—very quick agreement. I guess I had about 1 ½ years to work on the book. I spent the first year researching. Which means finding every imaginable clip about the team, the players, the coaches, the time period. Buying every book written by anyone associated with the era. Then tracking everyone down. By everyone, I mean everyone. I traveled to Canada to hang with Mike Smrek, to Miami to lunch with Billy Thompson, to LA to chill with Larry Spriggs. The Lakers had a backup point guard named Ronnie Lester, and I ran into him completely by accident. He must have thought I was insane, because I screamed, “Ronnie Lester!” Nobody had ever been happier to see him.

    For me, these books have never been about the stars. Magic, Kareem and Riley have combined to write nine or 10 books. They’ve said all they have to say, and even if I’m interviewing at my absolute best, there’s only so much juice left to squeeze. But I sat with Wes Matthews inside a Bridgeport diner and had a PhD-level course on Showtime. I watched Bill Bertka—a former assistant coach—break down the offense like nobody’s business. The team was originally coached by Jack McKinney, and we sat on his patio in Florida and chatted away about what could have been. Just great, great times. Great.

    So I report and report and report, and with six months left I say, “Time to write.” And I spend the remaining time roaming from coffee shop to coffee shop with these ludicrously large duffle bags stuffed with paper. If I saw me coming, I’d walk the other way.

    Is there any chance you’d be able to share a page of your handwritten notes that are possibly only decipherable to you?


    What percentage of your research would you estimate is curated from written materials versus interviews?

    It’s probably 50-50 for this book. You obviously want as much original material as possible, but there were games played that were covered by excellent scribes. I probably read 1,000 game stories alone researching this book. So it’s almost like there’s a foundation of information, and you—the reporter—add onto it. For example, I’ll read about a game against the Kansas City Kings, where Springer or Ostler or Randy Harvey or Roy Johnson or any number of guys who wrote about the Lakers (and the basketball writers back then were fantastic) refer to, say, an amazing Norm Nixon pass. Then I’ll call as many Kings and Laker players as possible and ask what they recall. You’d be surprised how many guys remember minutia. It still surprises me.

    Who was your favorite person to talk to in putting together this book, and why?

    As strange as this might sound, I’d have to say I have three—Linda Rambis, Jeanie Buss and Wanda Cooper. Explanation: Linda is Kurt’s wife, and she’s worked for the Lakers for years. She’s cool and laid-back and happy to chat about anything, everything—sans embarrassment, sans remorse, sans hesitation. I just felt a genuine kinship with her. Jeanie, obviously, is one of the team’s owners, and when we were scheduled to lunch I had no idea what to expect. Well, she walks in … and she’s just chill. And self-deprecating. And smart. Like Linda, she didn’t shy away from things, or try and gloss over stuff. There was no PR person present. No shield. If every team executive were like those two, life would be easy.

    Lastly Wanda—Michael Cooper’s ex-wife. Throughout the early stages of the book, people repeatedly asked, “Have you talked to Wanda? Have you talked to Wanda?” When I finally tracked her down, I understood. Wanda Cooper is one of the most unique and special people I’ve ever met. She’s from New Mexico, but she’s blunt like a New Yorker. No shield, no ********. I’ll give you a great example. There’s a quote in the book that makes me laugh every time. A reporter asks a wife whether she worries about her husband fooling around on the road. And her response is, “One less blowjob I have to give at home.” I knew Wanda had said it, but identifying her (in that case) wasn’t necessary, and I certainly didn’t want to humiliate her. Well, a few weeks ago I asked Wanda, via IM, whether she would have been offended or angry had I attached her to it. Her exact response: “I love that quote & would not have minded ownership.” Says it all.

    You received a bit of backlash over personal details that you uncovered in your biography of Walter Payton. What do you think is it about athletes in particular that people get so defensive about when a complete picture is painted of their lives off the field?

    A bit? Ha. I think people take ownership of athletes. Not merely in a fantasy sports sort of way, but in a “This is our guy!” mode of thinking. I mean, let’s use Walter Payton as an example. Before the book came out—literally, before he read a word—Michael Wilbon wrote a column slamming me for authoring “Sweetness.” Why? Because he was from Chicago, and Walter was Chicago’s guy. And you don’t mess with that sort of bond. You can write glowingly and lovingly. But once you get dark … well, no. Not allowed.

    The thing is, that’s ********. And dumb. Maybe it’s just optimistic thinking, but I believe a sports biographer is a sports historian, just as Robert Caro is a Lyndon Johnson historian and David Herbert Donald is an Abe Lincoln historian. You’re writing about something in the hopes that—when it’s done—it will exist as the authoritative record on the subject. And not merely about the sports side of things (Payton’s rushing yards and touchdowns), but the entirety of the person, or team, or era. I want to know what makes a person tick. I want to understand the triumphs and the hardships. I want to hear about struggles. As I said repeatedly in 2011, why is it so awful to learn that Walter Payton suffered through depression and suicidal thoughts? Isn’t he more of a man, battling through his difficulties? Doesn’t that make him more impressive? And, if nothing else, more real? These are people. All of them. They ****. They fart. The burp. They make mistakes, just like we do. Why is it wrong to know that?

    NFL Hall of Famer Walter Payton RetiresShare this image:

    Recently, you published a story about the 1984 Olympic hockey team on SB Nation, and also one about the troubles of former famed recruit Willie Williams on Bleacher Report. What was the reasoning behind pitching those stories to newer web sites, as opposed to legacy media institutions?

    Hmm … in these cases, it’s about relationships and opportunities. A couple of months ago I was approached by Bleacher Report about writing one lengthy piece per month for nice compensation. I was flattered and, truthfully, intrigued. The site has hired some great writers; clearly, it’s working to establish itself as a player. So … why not? I’ve had a nice career, but it’s not like I get 1,000 offers a day to write 7,000-word pieces for good money for a site with great visibility. And, to be honest, the Williams story idea was theirs, not mine. It was a fantastic idea, too.

    As for SB Nation, I’ve been an admirer of Glenn Stout for years, and when he started editing the long-form pieces I got really excited. He’s tremendous at what he does; one of the two or three best line editors I’ve ever seen. I wrote two lengthy pieces for him, and he told me he was looking for some Olympic-related ideas. I’d always wondered about that ’84 team … and I don’t even like hockey that much.

    As I read it, one of your implied opinions in Boys Will Be Boys was that Jerry Jones has generally been inadequate in his role as Cowboys GM. Do you see him ever having the humility to step back from the intimate details of football operations and let a specialist operate unencumbered?

    Yes. When the lobotomy kicks in.

    As an SI alumnus, can you explain your qualms with the Swimsuit Issue? Do you think SI could feasibly cover sports as comprehensively without that income stream? (Full disclosure: I used to write for the SI Swim web page.)

    I’ve never liked the Swimsuit Issue. Never, ever. Not when I was a kid. Not when I was a teenager, who was supposed to be fondling it beneath the sheets. Not as a staffer. Not now. Sports Illustrated is a sports magazine. A great sports magazine. It covers sports better than anyone, and features some of the country’s top writers. The Swimsuit Issue is demeaning—to the brand, I guess, but mainly to women. There are so many powerful, strong, impressive women in sports these days, from athletes to agents to executives. When we devote an issue to having women pose 90 percent naked, what does it say? To me, it says, “We view women as objects.” And I know the people at SI don’t feel that way. They’re my friends; my colleagues. They’re people with wives and daughters.

    The Swimsuit Issue is, factually, a cash cow. I don’t know the revenue numbers, but they’re huge—still. Which is weird, because one can find 8,000 skin pics all over the web for free (not that, ahem, I’ve ever tried).

    What’s the biggest piece of advice you’d give aspiring sportswriters?

    You know, I’ve been an adjunct professor at Manhattanville College and Purchase College the past bunch of years. I’ve loved both experiences, and I’ve had some wonderful students. But the one thing I haven’t had—like, really, really had—is a student who wanted it. Truly, desperately, painfully wanted it. When I was working for the student paper at the University of Delaware, many of us wanted it. We applied for hundreds of internships, we took first jobs all over the country. We hungered for the chance to write and report, and make a career out of it. I was not the most naturally gifted guy at Delaware—we had a kid named Greg Orlando who’s one of the most talented pure writers in the country. But I ****ing wanted this so, so, so, so badly. And when people say, “You’re lucky you get to write books for a living,” I actually get a smidge offended. I busted my ***.

    So that’s the absolute best advice I can give someone who truly wants to make it in this field: Bust your ***.

    Showtime comes out on Tuesday, March 4th.
Working...
X