I feel the same way about ESPN. I like reading interesting articles about sports but it is actually not that easy to find good content - there is no hacker news for sports (yet!).
I find it hard to get into other sports writers now, partly because Simmons does such a good job skewering them. When they try to make sports into something epic or sacred, Simmons is quick to point out all the frailties of both the competitors and the poor saps who devote too much time to something that doesn't really mean all that much to their lives.
And then he dives right back into reveling in the joy of being passionate about something that is ultimately meaningless, capturing the essence of being a sports fan.
(I have no idea why I just wrote three paragraphs about this. Must be infected by whatever gets into Simmons when he does one of those day long live chats.)
But I have read and will read anything written by Bill Simmons. The man is one of the great writers of our time. He's the Stephen King of sports writers, a guy who keeps pumping out solid, often great stuff that transcends his genre.
I don't follow football, but I read Simmons' picks during the season. I don't follow basketball, but I read his trade value column every year. Why? Because
-the guy explains it in an interesting way -puts it in the proper perspective like you said -links me out to great, great stuff I never would have found otherwise (like the greatest YouTube video ever: http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&...) -is now living a bit of a glamorous, interesting life that's fun to experience vicariously -can write like the devil
This is a guy who took a week to review the Karate Kid trilogy in detail instead of filing regular columns one summer. http://espn.go.com/page2/movies/s/simmons/020830.html
And yet he attended a funeral for a young athlete who died senselessly, and wrote a "serious" piece that was moving, humble and very honest: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/0803...
There are writers who excel at structure, writers who are idea guys, writers who can nail little details, and then there are writers who simply have more firepower than the average man. They can write more, faster, and with more panache than 99% of the folks out there. It won't all be good, but it'll all be interesting. Simmons has a lot of firepower.
Which, to get back on topic, is why it's INFURIATING, that he's cranking out 3-4 podcasts a month and only 1-2 columns at this point. I simply can't listen to the podcasts. They don't fit into my schedule at all, in any way. I don't have an hour to stare at my computer while it plays an audio stream. Bring back the columns.
"1. Randee Heller as Mrs. LaRusso, one of my favorite Hollywood Moms of the '80s (right up there with Mrs. Keaton and Mrs. Bueller). You know, in a five-year span, Randee played Gabe Kaplan's wife in "Fast Break," Ken Reeves' stripper girlfriend in "The White Shadow," and Daniel-San's Mom in "The Karate Kid," and then she was never seen again ... and I guess my point is this: You don't need to work anymore with a résumé like that."
Is there anyone else whose pop culture knowledge is more encylopedic than this guy? Who else has a list of favorite 80s Hollywood Moms and can rattle off their roles on queue? He probably double checked IMDB, but still...
The issue with sports is that there's a ton of re-blogged information, so the issue is finding the original source algorithmically.
What you should do, if you're serious, is rank articles by the length. It's a brute force measure, and it won't be accurate, but it's a good place to start.
Then, figure out a way for people do isolate it to their teams. The Southern Illinoisan newspaper is probably going to be the best source for news about the SIU Salukis, but I never remember to go there, so I get excited when I see a snippet on ESPN.com. You find a way to get me the best news about my Cubs, Salukis, White Sox, Bulls, Illini, Bears, Fire, Arsenal, Blackhawks, and so forth down my ladder and you'll mint money.