I too am a big fan of Grantland and read it regularly (with, as other have noted, the exception of Pierce, whom I have found onboxious and self-glorifying for years). Even Sharp is mostly just annoying, given that he doesn't hide his pro-UNC, anti-Duke bias. I really like the work of Titus, Lowe and Barnwell.
And whatever anyone else says about Simmons, he deserves credit for undertaking the enterprise and taking writing seriously in an age where most every other outlet has dissolved into pure video or bite-lets of writing. Plus, 30 for 30 has been great.
I do share the puzzlement at the amount of time Grantland spends on "reality" tv, the appeal of which is a complete mystery to me.
It's fine to hate Pierce as well as Grantland and Esquire, but this line of reasoning is just odd, because Pierce is just one writer among a cast of many talented ones, and (at least at Grantland) a pretty anomalous one, given he's an elder curmudgeon in a largely young-ish group of writers. I assume the objection to Pierce is based on his political views, because as a stylist he's excellent and I personally enjoy his persona as a counterpoint to the otherwise overwhelming attempts of Grantland to be young and current.
(Side note on Pierce: his inclusion at Grantland is fascinating given the fallout he had with Simmons prior to Grantland launching, especially given Simmons' notorious tendency to hold on to grudges. But that's another discussion.)
But as I said, you can hate Pierce and everything he stands for and still take Grantland seriously; I don't define publications by their most noxious contributors if they're not representative of the sensibility of that publication. To each his own, though.