chefjeff said:In a pool match, a game is like a goal scored in other sports.
The match is like a game won.
The team that makes a goal gives up the ball in other sports.
Imagine Duke getting the ball back everytime they make a basket. Imagine the run they could put together! Wow...that would be so exciting to watch them run maybe 30 baskets in a row! Score after 15 minutes: 60-0.
And then the opposing team would have a "chance" (how generous) to catch up. oooooooo....imagine that excitement....NOT! The stands would be empty, the TV black, and the fans spending elsewhere.
How would the fan (that we want) want to view this game? Not YOU, but the average fan? That's my question.
Jeff Livingston
Basketball does not equate to alternate breaks rather it is more like loser breaks.
You can not compare these other sports to pool, snooker or carom billiards. In Basketball, Football or Tennis both teams or players are involved at any given point in the match. They can take control of the point or ball if they are good enough. Yes it would be a tremendous advantage in these sports to allow the scoring team or player to maintain control of the ball, however the point is moot because we are no longer discussing anything that has anything to do with pool.
No matter how good a pool player you are, it is impossible to take your opponents turn if they don't miss. Which means should you find yourself trailing 9-1 in a race to 11 alternating breaks, the chances of you winning are almost zero to nil. Change that winners breaks and you can potentially win provided you play some excellent pool.
What makes people assume that the average fan wants to watch alternating breaks? You generally see less racks run out and more safteties, which can be boring even for rabid fans.