A plea to CSI regarding SVB vs Ko
- Thread starter Celtic
- Start date
Wow, I didn't think CSI Ozzy's response was that bad. He gave his opinion. He in effect said he thought some of you were wrong. He feels he has a better formula. And he did it in a matter of fact way without beating around the bush (but was not at all rude in my opinion). Big deal. People are far too touchy and sensitive IMO. Does everything have to be sugar coated for everybody? Not to mention that many of you are saying the exact same things to him. What makes it ok for you to have an opinion and tell him he is wrong, but not for him to do the same?
The bottom line as I see it is that he and the company he works for are putting on this event, are the ones that are going to take the losses if it doesn't work out well, and will get the gains if it does. Since they are taking on all the risks, I wouldn't expect they/him to do anything other than what they thought was best, just as any one of you would do if you were putting on this match.
I think they do take into consideration what the fans want. They also have to take into consideration how well it has worked in the past too and how few of the fans it actually attracted. The fact is that somebody already tried to do the long race action match format and it never attracted many fans. It wasn't financially successful even though it was extremely well done and given ample time to take off. Maybe there would be an even larger fan base for a different format, who knows unless you try? So maybe the shorter races will work out better, or maybe they won't, but the fans have already voted on the long race format with their pocketbooks (or the lack of opening them to be more precise). I'm sure they feel it is time to try something new (which may or may not work out) and I can't say I blame them because what was done previously sure didn't work so you don't have much to lose by trying something new.
The bottom line as I see it is that he and the company he works for are putting on this event, are the ones that are going to take the losses if it doesn't work out well, and will get the gains if it does. Since they are taking on all the risks, I wouldn't expect they/him to do anything other than what they thought was best, just as any one of you would do if you were putting on this match.
I think they do take into consideration what the fans want. They also have to take into consideration how well it has worked in the past too and how few of the fans it actually attracted. The fact is that somebody already tried to do the long race action match format and it never attracted many fans. It wasn't financially successful even though it was extremely well done and given ample time to take off. Maybe there would be an even larger fan base for a different format, who knows unless you try? So maybe the shorter races will work out better, or maybe they won't, but the fans have already voted on the long race format with their pocketbooks (or the lack of opening them to be more precise). I'm sure they feel it is time to try something new (which may or may not work out) and I can't say I blame them because what was done previously sure didn't work so you don't have much to lose by trying something new.
Perhaps a poll would give Ozzy an idea what the masses think. That is if AZB is their target audience and there are no time constraint issues. Only my second post in about ten years of lurking so I've obviously never started a poll, but my vote would be for a longer race. Good luck.
So, give the fans something that the majority of them say they "don't" want instead of what the majority of them actually want to see and you will attract more fans?
Sounds like a great idea.
Attachments
The difference is the marathon race is meant to be long distance ,, pool games like 9 ball and 10 ball are meant to be wind sprints ,, a stumble at the start of a marathon is meaningless a stumble in a wind sprint in most cases fatal ,, the one who is best prepared right out of the gate is the one who wins ,,
I highly doubt anyone was calling Earl lucky when he was wining every thing in site and of course that was long before pattern racking rack your own was in play
1
Last edited:
Long race PPV was getting maybe 200 subscribers on average (and I may be being generous). Almost all of the people in this thread saying they want the long races were among those 200 (and those that weren't don't matter since they don't buy it anyway). But maybe they can get a 1000 viewers on average with the shorter races and the different elements of excitement that would bring. So which would make more sense, cater to the 200, or cater to the 1000?
Now nobody knows for sure if the shorter race formats will catch on any better. But what we do know for an absolute fact is that the longer races didn't attract many paying fans at all, and it was not a money making proposition, so you would be dumb to not try shorter races. Now if after some time it turns out you can only get 100 on average with the shorter races after giving it a fair chance then you either go back to the long races so you can have your 200 viewers (if you like working for free), or you try something else altogether brand new hoping it will work better, or maybe you just decide nothing will probably work and stop even trying. But what we know for a fact is that long race PPV doesn't attract enough fans.
By the way, I googled Ko to see what he looked like and all I got was this, did I spell his name wrong??
You did just fine, my friend, just fine.
"Don't go changin'."
Ken
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really???
The SVB vs. Nikos had over 1800 viewers and the wider the disparity, the more viewers it got... So I don't buy that.
Jaden
The SVB vs. Nikos had over 1800 viewers and the wider the disparity, the more viewers it got... So I don't buy that.
Jaden
Or to put it another way, essentially what you are saying is that 200 fans (the amount that would buy the long race PPV format) is the majority. Really? When you consider how many pool fans are out there, you think 200 is a majority? That is silly. No, the majority is the 100,000 pool fans that didn't want the long race format, and who proved it by not buying it.
The only question at this point is whether short races will work any better, and considering how extremely unpopular the long races were and what a dismal failure they were there isn't much to lose by finding out.
dumb
The answer to this is yes...people are hyper-sensitive. Especially here. He could have worded it like a politician but he didn't. He said that he thought long races were bad for pool. Guess what? He's right! For money to come into pool, there has to be spectators, real spectators, not 100 people, but 10,000 people. How many ordinary people would want to watch a 6-hr pool match? Most of you on this thread have never done anything for the game and we now have people that get it. Go ahead, now tell me how a race to 1,050 and win by 40 would be better. Geez.
The answer to this is yes...people are hyper-sensitive. Especially here. He could have worded it like a politician but he didn't. He said that he thought long races were bad for pool. Guess what? He's right! For money to come into pool, there has to be spectators, real spectators, not 100 people, but 10,000 people. How many ordinary people would want to watch a 6-hr pool match? Most of you on this thread have never done anything for the game and we now have people that get it. Go ahead, now tell me how a race to 1,050 and win by 40 would be better. Geez.
Um until you have a product in front of a large enough audience you can't say that non-purchase is proof of failure. Only after you manage to get your product in front of enough people with the ability to pay can you determine what they will or won't pay for.
Someone earlier talked about being willing to watch four days of golf. I thought that was a very good point. The flipside is that most people who would like to watch four days of golf probably can't due to other obligations. And furthermore if they had to buy that access in a ppv format the numbers of viewers would drop considerably.
I for one an grateful for any of these exhibition/gambling matches that any promoter arranges. At least we are getting to see heads-up matches among the world's best players. And we will always argue about the race length. At least we have something to argue about.
In the future at least the next generation of players will have plenty of footage of today's top players going head to head to study.
Were they unique viewers? Or the same people that came back to the match 10 different times like most people did.
Any how many of those were Greek fans who came in droves because none of their countrymen have even been involved in something like that before and it was new and novel to them?
Aside from that, I was talking more in terms of PPV matches. The same principle holds for the free matches too though. How do you know that the shorter race formats won't pull more free viewers? Considering what a dismal failure the long race matches have been whether free or PPV, it makes total sense to try something new and find out if something will attract more fans or not, because the long races sure haven't been attracting many.
And until you give short races a fair try you can't say whether they would be more popular than long races or not. Agreed?
And considering that long race matches have failed to attract many viewers (and I agree that we don't know for sure all the reasons why), I think it makes sense to find out if something else would work better or not.
Well if we go by history, the long race format used to be front page news for days and weeks captivating millions of readers around the country and around the world.
People watch football games for 4-6 hours when you consider the pre-game shows along with the actual game.
Baseball is played in series that go on for days.
The Olympics.
Mini-series.
People will watch whatever can hold their interest. If they are not interested and emotionally invested in an activity then the length does not really matter much in my opinion. The target audience for a heads-up matchup between a top Asian player and a top American player is not the mainstream viewing audience in my opinion. Most Americans and frankly most world citizens don't know and don't care that pool is professionally played and know even less and care even about who the best players are.
Conversely lots of people who have no intention of ever playing golf are keenly interested in the life of Tiger Woods and other golfers.
it was free
Free is why the number we so high. If that was pay per view, back to at best 200. Been proven over and over
Free is why the number we so high. If that was pay per view, back to at best 200. Been proven over and over