IMO, I think this conclusion is misguided in a number of ways, but one striking mis-assumpution is that somehow other "TV" is cannibalizing pool viewership. As a gating, issue, there isn't a pool viewing audience to speak of that X Games, Xbox, whatever, could even steal. And, if "variety" was an issue, then football, baseball, etc., would be suffering, which they aren't. Also, any argument that viewers are somehow tied to participation is a fallacy because pool actually has one of the highest participation rates in the country - way more than football, baseball, and basketball, all of which have large viewing audiences. And, of course, it can't be true that the existence of too many other sports causes lack of pool on TV because snooker is widely televised today in the UK, and the same variety exists.
And, pools doesn't have to be just for pool players. The general public, the key target audience to attract sponsors, watch sports to be a part of something bigger. They don't watch TV to learn how to play better or see who gets Mosconi points.
Put differently, pool isn't popular because there are no superstars. If anyone [naively] thinks differently, consider this: if you had a pool match between Jeff Gordon and Kyle Busch, it would be picked up by national TV and would have way more viewers than any pool event in history. Same thing if you got Michael Jordan to play Shaq. Or Taylor Swift against Bruno Mars. The point is, people don't want to watch joe shmoe play pool. They want to watch someone famous. Pool needs a standard bearer. That's what Mosconi and Fats did. They didn't monopolize 3 channels to improve pool's image. They used their image to improve pool's visibility.
-td [Again, just my $0.02, but probably worth less than that]
