The premise of the story, as far as we can understand it: After Buzz Bissinger's tirade — if that's what it can be called — against us on "Costas Now" a couple of months ago, the sports blogs collectively decided that they needed to clean up their act, lest they upset the intelligentsia's delicate sensibilities. (Or, to put it another way, "piss the shit out of them." As an example.) We were not aware of this collective, or this decision. Perhaps we missed the memo, or fell asleep during the meeting.

Or perhaps we just aren't flapping to-and-fro in whatever imagined zeitgeist wind we might have guessed existed. Here's a quote from McIntryre:

"Two years ago, I would have run with [the Kobe affair story]," said Jason McIntyre, owner and operator of the Big Lead. "But as the blogs get bigger, you have to be careful about what you say . . . you can't go with the first rumor you hear."

Wait ... Jason .. you used to run with the first rumor you heard? But seriously: If you have a vision for a site, don't you have to just follow through with it? Why would you change your vision for a site just because more people are reading it? Archives don't go away, you know; the stuff you wrote two years ago is still hanging around. (Believe you us, we know.) If something is worthwhile to post if you're getting 10 readers a day, shouldn't you stand behind it if you have a million readers a day? Changing what you do because you've become more popular is exactly why Bill Plaschke and Rick Reilly have declined so dramatically. Isn't that what this is all supposed to be against?

," said the guy whose site requires you to click through to read the whole post now.

But here's the real piece de resistance.

"The initial reaction was 'Buzz is a lunatic,' " McIntyre said. "After that, people calmed down, listened to what he said and thought, 'You know, maybe we should clean up our act a little bit.' "

OK, really now. We agree wholeheartedly with Dan Steinberg, whose brilliant vivisection of Bissinger's "points" was summed up by, "Bissinger's delivery was marvelously entertaining, but that the crux of his argument made less sense than Emmitt Smith on mescaline." We agree: We've never had an issue with the way Bissinger handled himself on the show; the man has a right to his beliefs, and hey, his screaming just played into our hands anyway. That doesn't change the fact that his "argument" was incoherent and, for a writer we've always respected, shockingly wrong-headed. We have literally not met a single sports blogger who said, "Well, jeez, the screaming man on television made me re-evaluate what I do. Perhaps I should apply for that editorial assistant position I'd been hearing about." Jason must know an entirely different set of sports bloggers than we do. Maybe they're all on Yardbarker.

Listen: We understand. It's nice to imagine a need for a "bridge" between blogs and "MSM," the one who can tell Los Angeles Times reporters looking for a "new" angle exactly what they wanted to hear. That, don't worry folks, we're "the nice bloggers," we're the ones who "get it." We're hardly of the belief McIntyre is the worst offender in this; far from it. But is that what the point of all this has been? To "grow up?" The best sports blogs are based in truth and passion, and, yeah, sometimes that truth and passion come out in profane bursts, and sometimes they involve quarterbacks doing beer bongs. So freaking what? Did Buzz Bissinger really convince people there was something wrong with that? Or was everyone just faking in the first place?

(Oh, and Mike Florio and Daulerio, also quoted in the story, don't get a free pass here either; If Daulerio was quoted correctly — and he says he wasn't, so we should extend Florio and McIntyre, who addresses the piece here, the same courtesy — he seems to forget that the best sports blogs — including, we'd like to believe, this one — have always had a "journalistic element." Daulerio is as good a journalist as this site has ever had; we have to assume he was either misquoted or temporarily went into toxic shock right before the interview. And Florio says, "It's almost like the difference between Eddie Murphy and Bill Cosby. Can you still be funny without cursing?" Hey, Mike, to paraphrase: Why don't you have a jello pop and shut the fuck up? If we're really claiming that the future of sports blogs being like Bill Cosby is somehow a good thing, well, shit, we must be getting out at the right time.)

This is not a polemic against McIntyre, who's a fine guy and does good work over there, or anyone in specific. Everybody's got their own viewpoint, and should express it. (And McIntyre, Florio, everybody, they all express it well.) But, jeez: We have one week left with this shit, and we're seeing this fake storyline emerge — independent of that Times story — that sports blogs should strive for credibility, or mainstream recognition, or to make Bob Costas proud or something. Sports blogs are whatever the hell you want them to be. This is why they are so fun. If everyone's supposed to pat themselves on the back for becoming "respectable," well, shit, what's the point? We're proud of the work we've done here. Some of it has been stupid and juvenile; some of it has at least attempted to be intelligent; some of it has been masturbatory. If you liked it, awesome, we were glad to have you. If you didn't, there are tons of other options. But trying to strive for some sort of mythical "acceptance" is not only pointless — it's never gonna happen, no matter how much you might try to position yourself for it — it's not being honest to the only people who count: The people who take time out of their boring work day to come hang out on your site. It becomes about you, and how you're "positioned," rather than just a bunch of people coming together and talking about things they all care about.

This is to say, sports bloggers of the future: Who cares what Bob Costas or Buzz Bissinger or David Wharton think of you? Why should you care? Just take care of your own business, figure out what you do best, pray everyone just stays out of your way and then start ripping shit up. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Wild Times For Sports Blogs May Be Coming To An End [Los Angeles Times]

Some of the politer terms my correspondents used to describe [Schrutebag]'s behavior were immature, irresponsible, arrogant, malicious, destructive and dumb. I agree. The official response from ESPN's communication department was: "Our airwaves should not be used for this purpose. We apologize." It is the kind of bland public statement that does little to assuage the anger and distrust of ESPN's audience over an episode like this.

Schreiber then got ESPN Radio's senior VP to say, "Such attacks are off limits. Zero tolerance. I can't say it any stronger." So she's not messing around; we have a little bit of a crush. (For now.)

So that's the good news. The bad news? Because ESPN Radio had no official policy about this, Schrutebag will not be disciplined ... though if he does it again, there will be trouble! Meanwhile, The Big Lead is finally back online and looking for a new site host. No word on how they'll make up any revenue they lost during the attack; as much as she might be trying, Schreiber can't give this tale a happy ending.

Radio Hosts Attack Was Off Limits [ESPN]
Do It Again And The Kitten Dies [The Big Lead]
The Big Lead, Still Down. Thanks, Schrutebag. [Deadspin]

(UPDATE: The Big Lead discusses the matter further.)

If you have attempted to access The Big Lead over the last 24 hours, the attractive image above — good Lord, those rectangles are ENORMOUS ... and they're headed straight for us! — is all you've been able to see. It's pretty, but it ain't that pretty.

That's right, folks: Almost 24 hours after Colin Cowherd's little stunt yesterday, The Big Lead is still down. We contacted the editor to see how they were hanging in. Here's their report:

It's a weird, powerless feeling - we're on the playground with the rest of the first graders and, without provocation, some angry-at-the-world sixth grader comes over and drops you with a roundhouse you didn't see coming. What's that about, Colin? We still don't know if this was your sly way of saying you enjoy the site, or whether you did it so people would 'talk about you.' Either way, thanks. Major kudos are in order to sports bloggers everywhere. And readers, too. The support has been incredible.

The best part: With the blog down, we finally get to leave our parents' basement and see the light of day! What a productive Easter weekend it'll be!

Meanwhile, Cowherd's show starts soon. The guys at KSK have been trying to come up with a universally accepted name for which Cowherd shall heretofore be known, and they have settled on "Schrutebag." We find that one perfect. From now on, he's Schrutebag.

This Hurts Us More Than It Hurts You, Schrutebag [Deadspin]

However: Today, upset with something The Big Lead had written about him (or someone, or something, imagined or otherwise), Cowherd told his listeners to unleash a DNS attack on the site. One of the tech people here at Gawker Media tells us: "When someone floods a website with so many fake hits that the servers get overloaded, the site, essentially, goes down. A programmer could write a script to load the website once a second." That appears to be what happened; The Big Lead was down for about half an hour after the announcement, though it's up and running again now.

Now. We're still not sure why Cowherd decided to go after The Big Lead — we're the ones who said he sucks in a headline — but we're not mad at him. We really just kind of feel sad. It must be frustrating to have a fan base only because of your affiliation with a Vader-esque national network, to want to feel "freewheeling" and "controversial" when your name is Colin. We understand how alone it can feel to realize that the game has passed you by, that the same schtick you've made your "career" out of is in danger of collapsing in on itself like a dying star. When one is threatened and scared, one tends to lash out at the ones they love. So we are sorry, Colin; we can't imagine how hard it must be to go through what you're going through. You're in our thoughts.

Oh, and go ahead and try that shit with us. We dare you.

Why Your National Radio Host Sucks: Colin Cowherd [Deadspin]

(UPDATE: And yes: The Big Lead is still down. Grrrr.)

On Monday, when the Iverson to Denver trade finally went down, we praised ESPN for its scoop on a story everyone had been watching intently. (Even while questioning them, since ESPN has a tendency to get NBA deals wrong, unless Larry Brown is running the Cavs and we just don't know about it.) Well, as it turns out, the scoop might not have been theirs at all. Former ESPN NBA guy David Aldridge — if you don't remember him, he's pictured (the one on the left) — wrote The Big Lead to accuse the network of swiping his scoop.

The Philadelphia Inquirer broke the story about [Tuesday's] trade. I should know, because I wrote it. It was on our site about 10 minutes before ESPN "broke" it. I don't expect everyone to read every website every minute of the day, and the Four-Letter is ubiquitous, so people almost always see it first. But in this case, they weren't first. We were.

While we enjoy the odd notion that a guy at Stephen A. Smith's paper scooped Stephen A. and then had his scoop stolen by someone at ESPN who isn't Stephen A., we're still a little saddened; the network has a long history of confirming someone else's scoops and then claiming "ESPN has learned." We're still not sure that's exactly what happened here, but if it did, we'd like to cordially invite the network to "break" this story, leading to a "ESPN has learned that David Aldridge has learned that ESPN has learned that Allen Iverson has been traded to Denver, which ESPN can now confirm."

Did ESPN Really Scoop The Iverson Story [The Big Lead]