Scoop Jackson is creative

by The Cavalier on December 1, 2006 · 64 comments

(Pre-note: this post was written before the previous one, but we want this one on top for now.)

Sorry to keep you waiting.

Everyone knows what he did.

Hell, even he knows — perhaps dropping the phrase “Orange Roundie” right in the middle of it was his way of admitting it without admitting it. Who knows what goes on in the mind of someone like Scoop.

Frankly, if he’d left it out, nobody could really say anything — certainly two people on Earth could come up with the idea of the ball being sentient. By vaguely nodding to the source, he points out the whole deal, though.

He stole. He stole a concept, a schtick, a character.

He took it and presented it as his own.

It’s wrong, and people with integrity don’t do it. In any creative industry, it’s like the RULE. It’s the one thing you DON’T DO. He knows it, we know it, everyone else knows it.

(Side note here. We’ve never been huge fans of Scoop the writer — he knows his hoop, but his stuff is a little over-stylized and wordy for us, mainly due to our short attention span. Never did we think he was a bad guy, though. Never did we think he was a hack of this fashion.)

The worst part about this is that no matter how it shakes out, we end up looking bad. Just to be clear, we don’t want apologies, and we certainly don’t care about links or credit from ESPN.

What we want is a time machine, so that we can put the Roundie back in his box until it’s his time to come out. You’ll note the videos stopped — there’s a reason for that. We had a plan, and that plan is now compromised, lest the uninitiated think we draw our ideas from Scoop Jackson. All because he couldn’t come up with his own idea for a column.

Oh, and just to be clear with what this really is all about: we own the copyright on the name and character “Orange Roundie”. (We have no claim on the ball pattern, which is why we have our own being done.)

Do you hear and understand that, ESPN?

NOTE: Another point that’s really clawing at us is that Scoop completely misunderstood and bastardized the humor in “Orange Roundie” and the personality of same. You don’t throw that phrase out there without going back to the source and seeing it in context.

And you certainly don’t try to do a lame imitation of someone else’s character. This is like if someone wrote their own Spider-Man comic and gave him bird powers.

Since we’ve got stealing on the mind, allow us to steal from Seinfeld — this portion of the problem doesn’t offend us as the owner of “Orange Roundie”, it offends us as a comedy writer.

NOTE 2: It’s entirely possible Scoop innocently thought he was throwing the “cute lil’ blog person” a bone by doing this — he could pat us on the head like a small child, all like, “Here’s some candy! Do you like candy?” And we’d be all like, “Wow! Scoop Jackson reads the website! Ooooh!”

Hey Scoop — we’re a professional screenwriter, buddy. We get paid to write, too. You assume too much, especially if you think we’re “wowed” by celebrity of any kind.

NOTE 3: We welcome others to chime in as they please. Send us your links — we’re collecting them. Were not going to war with ESPN…yet. That said, we’ve had it with them — you like our style and material so much (and clearly you do), pay us to do it for you.

(For the newly arriving, click on that Orange Roundie category link up there to see the real history of the actual Orange Roundie.)

UPDATE: Scoop has responded via Deadspin:

“I actually thought I was giving them some love, even though ESPN edited out the part about them being the ball’s favorite site. Just trying to have some fun. Hope you enjoyed the piece; tell YAY I thought their overall ball coverage was brilliant. The ball, on the other hand, had a few issues.”

We appreciate the compliment, Scoop, and that’s exactly what we figured you’d say. “Aww, thanks lil’ blog guy. I’m gonna take your idea and run with it on my own in bog boy land.”

Look, we have the copyright on the “Orange Roundie”. This isn’t about “respect for blogs” or “wahh wahh recognize us”, it’s about a character that we own and commercial plans for, which you have taken and used without permission.

Again, you have every right to have the NBA ball speak in the first person (as questionable as that is to do), but you cannot call it the “Orange Roundie”.

We’re going to hold to our current opinion that this was done out of ignorance and not because you’re a bad person. We imagine we’d get along quite well with you, actually.


1 Passion&Pride December 1, 2006 at 8:04 pm

I’d jump on the gravy train, but I don’t ever read Scoop and I don’t want to give him the satisfaction of linking my readers to his site. I read you several times a week and there’s a link to your site on my page. That is all. Keep up the good work.

2 Stringa December 1, 2006 at 8:34 pm

Big Sh!t! Nobody heard of you before Scoop penned you. Why all the nastyness? If anything he put you on the landscape. Be grateful – you sound like an ingrate.

3 Scoop's Manager December 1, 2006 at 10:23 pm

Whoever this Cavalier guy is he sure sounds like a genuine douchebag. Now I know where all 50 of your readers vent. Bunch of fucking ‘tards…

4 The Cavalier December 1, 2006 at 10:45 pm

Go Pistons!

5 hmm... December 2, 2006 at 12:38 am

For the record, I hate Scoop’s writing. He belabors his point and tried very hard (w/o success) to be funny.

On the other hand, I try to read yay once every 10 days or so. I like the writing style you guys here have.

But honestly, I think you could have taken the high road on this. I’ve been following the roundie idea and I like it. I agree Scoop’s column was a very dumb/weak imitation. You should’ve called him out for that with a short post and left it at that.

Going postal on him and repeatedly saying you don’t care for ESPN or their linking to you only makes the opposite seem true. Why do you feel belittled by Scoop’s gesture of ‘love’? If you’re bigger than he thinks you are, you should be able to laugh his supposed attempt off.

I agree with a previous commenter that the blogworld is getting pretty snobbish, especially when many of the same bloggers were pumping their fists when they got linked to ESPN in the preseason coverage (the tattoo question and all that).

Bottom line: you guys were doing a great job UNTIL this happened.

6 Thuwein December 2, 2006 at 12:56 am

I read your blog everyday, I have to admit that I am also a big time Scoop fan. I usually don’t miss his pieces. I agree he did some wrong, but knowing Scoop I can assure u he didn’t mean no harm.

He took your idea and run with it, expanding it, give it some exposure so as next time when u use it a bigger audience knows exactly whats the deal. I think u got yourself a free promo, u can actually turn it into a positive.

Shout outs to Scoop.

7 The Cavalier December 2, 2006 at 1:15 am

I agree he did this with the best intentions, but permission should have been asked – even a small – “Hey, I like that thing you do – mind if I run with it a bit?”

Here’s the thing that nobody understands, and maybe it’s a quirk of mine I need to fix or something.

I feel so strongly about using other people’s ideas or even being influenced by others ideas, that I’ll probably never be able to allow myself to use Orange Roundie again.

If even one person thought I took the name and/or concept from Scoop or didn’t think of it myself, I’d be crushed.

That’s why when I see people take material from others it’s really a lot to handle. As a creative person, it’s a mindset I have.

You see it all the time in the industry out here, and each and every story I hear, I just can’t concieve of how someone could even consider considering something like that.

8 Pradamaster December 2, 2006 at 1:24 am


The links on ESPN with the tattoo question are completely different than this situation. When quoted on ESPN, each blogger was specifically attributed to with their name AND their site’s url. It could not have been more clear that the material of that section of the Daily Dime came straight from bloggers. This article had neither, and that’s stealing, a clear violation of both law and journalism ethics.

The snobbery argument bothers me incredibly. Let’s say that you had an invention and patented it. Wouldn’t you be angry if someone else took credit for your invention? Wouldn’t you want to tell everyone you could about the injustice you received? I severely doubt that you would just drop the issue. Not only that, but if you did drop the issue, what’s to stop this company from doing it again? How will things ever become right if the victim does nothing about it?

Quite simply, the sports blogosphere (and the blogosphere in general) should be standing in solidarity with Cavalier. If this was one of your friends, I’m sure you’d feel the need to lend him support. Like it or not, the sports blogosphere offers a community, and we stand up for each other. If that makes us snobby, so be it.

We’re not restricting anyone from this or even telling everyone what to believe. The very discussion that is occuring here is an example of the tolerance of this blog to differing points of view. So I don’t understand where the argument of snobbery holds water.

Like I said, if you believe that it is snobby of fellow blogs to support Cavalier and their own rights, then you don’t have any concept of how this injustice can be remedied. When there’s an injustice, we have a duty to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. If this is snobbery, so be it.

9 The Cavalier December 2, 2006 at 1:37 am

Matt B (formerly of the Perkolators) said it very well:

The problem is that ESPN thinks it’s doing yaysports a favor by using it’s material, like you should be flattered instead of piss’d off.

Beyond the moral side is the legal one – “Orange Roundie” is mine. I own it, and have (had?) future commericial interests in it.

Make the ball talk all you want, but you can’t call it the Orange Roundie. It’s a pretty black and white issue.

10 ESPNBS December 2, 2006 at 4:21 am

The bottom line on this is that Scoop copied an entire idea from someone and published it with no initial attribution to his source.

That’s grounds for expulsion from any many journalism school. He’s pulling in a hefty salary from to deliver original content, and he blatantly plagiarized. If you do that on a term paper, you get a 0. Why do we lower the standards when he’s getting paid so much more? Scoop or the editor or whoever should resign immediately. There is no real debate on this.

11 Dervin December 3, 2006 at 2:10 am

Let’s say had a gimmick where they spend dozens of pages on it’s website, printed up some T-shirts and other stuff for sale and was going to use it in one of their upcoming TV movies, then CBS uses the exact same concept with the exact same name.

WWESPND? They’d lawyer up in a heartbeat.

12 Fire Scoop December 3, 2006 at 9:14 pm

Scoop is an idiot, read about the reasons he should be fired.

13 Fire Scoop December 3, 2006 at 9:17 pm

email, for responses toward the subject. comments section coming soon. Hey YAY, you’re the shizzle, keep passing 411 to the masses.

14 Natalie December 4, 2006 at 1:01 am

This page is now gaining momentum when you search Scoop Jackson in Google.

I wish I hadn’t read Scoops response on Deadspin, it just makes matters worse. Fight the good fight friend, we have your back.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: