[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that they're not quite the same, but to me they all fall into the category of "People Not To Be Taken Seriously". I'm much happier that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. That designation is fine for those other guys, but Bayless is on a whole other level of aesthetic, intellectual, and moral suck. He's just plain rancid.

How bad do you have to be when you make Stephen A. Smith look like the sensible one in a debate? When you're unquestionably the worst thing on a show as uniformly horrible as Cold Pizza? Not to mention the most insufferably obnoxious personality to emerge from the Cowboys' early '90s dynasty (where there's a wealth of authentic competition)?

He has all the worst qualities of other ESPN guys, but without any of their redeeming features. He's more grating and histrionic than Berman and Vitale, but has none of their sincerity or enthusiasm. He trumps Kiper as far as being pompous and condescending, but doesn't have an ounce of Mel's knowledge. He's as abrasive and insensitive as Jim Gray, but with none of the insider pull. He's deliberately contrarian like LeBatard, but lacks the self-deprecating humor. He's whacked-out but not occasionally insightful or amusing (Walton), nerdy but not affable or informed (John Clayton), dogmatic but not usually correct (Salisbury)...

And it doesn't matter whether or not that's just a character he's playing. The guy is the f*cking anti-Christ.