In which I stand up for Bill Simmons

I don’t usually find myself defending Bill Simmons.

Simmons is the Editor-in-Chief of ESPN's sports and pop culture affiliate, Grantland.com. He grew up in Massachusetts, went to college in Massachusetts and worked a couple of Boston newspaper jobs before starting the site BostonSportsGuy.com, which would eventually land him his job at ESPN.

Despite his story, I’ve never identified much with Simmons as an analyst. He’s assumed the role of Boston sports fan-at-large, and many times I feel he misrepresents that identity. From his implication of the Celtics in every NBA trade rumor to his fanboy obsession with television pop culture, Simmons’ work is usually too bro-centric, even for me.

However, this past week I found myself standing up for Bill Simmons. Simmons was suspended by ESPN on Sept. 24 for comments made during his podcast, "The B.S. Report." When speaking about the Ray Rice scandal, Simmons used profanity, called Roger Goodell a liar and challenged his employer, ESPN, to discipline him. Not surprisingly, ESPN was quick to oblige and suspended him for three weeks without pay.

Let’s break down this suspension. First, chalk up the profanity as Simmons being Simmons. Simmons did not swear on a live broadcast. He used profanity in a podcast, a podcast that is actually named "TheB.S. Report." His 18-35 male demographic has heard plenty of swear words before, and besides, you don’t get three weeks for swearing. It may not have been sterling journalism, but this wasn’t why ESPN was mad.

Ultimately, it was the challenge against ESPN and not the insult towards Goodell that got Simmons in trouble. Many openly questioned Goodell’s claim that he had not seen the video footage of Ray Rice’s domestic violence prior to it being leaked to the public by TMZ. Everyone who questioned the legitimacy of Goodell’s claim simply said what Simmons did in a more tactful way. Directly calling him a liar reads more pejoratively, is more brazen and is a slightly hotter take. In other words, it’s exactly what ESPN pays Simmons to be. He was hired and given the creative license and the outlets to speak his mind. But the attention-grabbing headlines were supposed to stay strictly focused on sports and not bleed into criticism of ESPN itself.

The ESPN brand is really what this suspension is about. The podcast rant went beyond being controversial; it was a challenge to authority. ESPN has too much money on the line and too total of a dominance of the sports media world to allow a loose cannon. The takes can be hot, but they can’t be against the bosses. This is a smart corporate practice and is the best way for ESPN to protect itself. It also tips off what really matters to ESPN. They would rather their analysts victim-blame those who suffer domestic violence than appear out of line. ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith did the former and was suspended for one week. Simmons did the latter and was suspended for three weeks.

Maybe Simmons knew the suspension would come. He might’ve cooked up this rant to get attention to himself. Even if he did, it’s hard to disapprove of the move simply because it also brought to light ESPN’s questionable priorities. It highlighted the fact that an undivided house is more important to ESPN than what is actually coming out of the mouths of their analysts. You can say something bad and get a slap on the wrist, but if the "something bad" is against ESPN, expect more than a slap.

When Bill Simmons returns from suspension in two weeks, maybe I’ll take the time to read what he has to say.