There are so many examples in sports where people tune into to watch the train wrecks, and whether we like it or not drama is what sells. So in my opinion, fine them if they get out of line but don't sweep them under the rug. We need a little colour. I sincerely hope they still make a DVD out of Nevel's match and when it get's rebroadcasted (they show the US Open on Rogers in Canada) I hope they show it because it will get more interest from viewers than Klatt's 7 rack run and Darren's epic comeback (which was the highlight for me).
While there is some truth in what you say, I think you overlook that pool does not have the kind of viewers that out-of-industry advertisers are targeting. Market research shows that pool attracts low-spending demographic groups. For this reason, I'm of the opinion that focusing on what the current viewer wants isn't good enough for our sport, because pool needs to attract two demographic groups that it continually fails to attract - the wealthy and the young.
Sadly, the affluent often steer clear of the pool scene because of its negative image. Just as sadly, far too may parents dissuade their children from playing pool because of its reputation, and this hurts our sport. That's why incidents like the Nevel incident matter --- because it reinforces the views of those who reject pool as an unrefined sport.
The poker boom, in my view, has little to do with the poker pros and everything to do with the poker amateurs, who seem to win the main event at the World Series of Poker more often than not sover the past decade. Many, quite correctly, point to Chris Moneymaker's win as that sport's defining moment, the one that drew the viewers they wanted. Amateur poker players saw some of their own winning millions and millions despite the presence of many pros in the field. Once it had the right viewership, I agree with the observation that nutcases like Phil Helmuth and Mike Matusow help sustain interest in the product. I remember there was guy named Danneman, who claimed in an interview that he was only the fourth best player in his weekly game at home, yet he came second at the main event of the World Series of Poker. Poker has drawn the attention of many young, affluent amateurs that have the money to travel around and compete in large tournaments. These players are a high spending demographic group. the kind advertisers love to target, and for this reason, poker has a resonable chance to maintain its momentum.
Some suggest that pool can never attract the corporate sponsors, and maybe they are right, but I think they are wrong. Where I agree with them, however, is that given the demographic groups that pool attracts at present, corporate sponsorship will be hard to come by. Nonetheless, if pool can make itself more presentable, and nobody can deny that Ralph Greenleaf accomplished this once upon a time, it can attract a wider base of fans having far more spending power than the pool fans of today. That's the foundation that would have to be built before the corporate sponsors will have any motivation to invest in pool.
..... and incidents like the Nevel one are obstacles to making pool presentable enough for a) the wealthy to play and support it, b) parents to recommend it to their children, and c) corporate sponsors to take any interest in it.
Pool will have to earn the attention of the demographic groups that can deliver it from the doldrums. Poker had plenty of "colour" before Moneymaker, but that generated almost no attention at all. Once you've got the attention of those that matter, then "colour" will help you, but not, in my view, before, and the pro poker players who toiled in obscurity for decades are the perfect example.
Let's not throw in the towel quite yet.
:thumbup: 