Any ideas how to make pool more popular and pay more?

[Joseph Cues]

Pool is going nowhere unless the demographics of the pool audience changes. If pool is only being watched by pool players, it is doomed.
Let's take golf for example. You have executives, kids and women play golf now. The average yearly income of a typical golf viewer probably is the highest of any non-team sport. So, golf gets a great load of corporate sponsorship because their advertisement is reaching the right audience.
How can pool improve it's viewer demographics?
It's called WORK.

 

[jjinfla]

Sargo, Hopkin's last sentence in that interview says it all.

Jake

 

[sniper]

In Asia, San Miguel (a beer company, among other things) has stepped up to sponsor a tour. American pool needs a non-billiards industry sponsor to do the same.
-djb

Exactly what I said earlier, Sam Miguel has done it, so has Molson and the tournaments they sponsor are televised (i'm pretty sure the final leg of Sam Miguel tour was televised in Philippines) and have pretty good payouts. There are a large number of corporate sponsors in the US (alot more than in Canada or Philippines) who could be possible sponsors.

I like your ideas for increasing pools popularity but the question is who will step forward and take actions towards actually making these goals happen? I think it would take the collective efforts and agreements among everyone involved with the game to make the goals a reality, hopefully 10 years from now there will be one single governing body for all of pool.

 

[DoomCue]

I'm sure this next statement is going to stir the hornet's nest, but I believe the UPA is a good first step toward accomplishing some of these goals. There's the players' organization right there. However, I believe the UPA is trying to wear too many hats right now. They're a sanctioning body, they're a players' union, and they're trying to start a tour. I think the UPA should stick to just being a players' union, and leave separate organizations to starting a tour (Mike Janis, are you out there?), and let that org take care of sanctioning. Those two groups, one representing players' interests, and one representing business interests, would be enough to get the ball rolling. I think the two should be separate entities because there can be too much of a chance of the appearance of impropriety. Then, of course, there needs to be a governing body, one which has the power not only to make rules, but to enforce them, with input from both sides, like a commissioner's office of pool.

The question of who is going to step up and make this happen is a good one, and the answer right now is probably nobody. There are too many short-term thinkers in the pool world who only think about themselves and the here and now. If you read the Hopkins article, think about the money that could be in pool if 15-20 years of pro pool hadn't been lost due to short-sightedness and bad decisions. We wouldn't be having this discussion. The deals which fell through (table manufacturer and Simonis) would have been no-brainers for long-term thinkers, but short-termers nixed it. You can't lose what you haven't got, so why wouldn't people give those things a chance? I'm optimistic that pool will shine in the limelight someday, I just don't know who is going to make that happen. I'm hoping that once CW steps down from the UPA, he takes the bullseye with him. He's been the lightning rod, taking the criticisms and the fire from a lot of different sides, and IMO, undeservedly so. Maybe the UPA can put an end to some of the resistance they've been facing and continue to get the ball rolling to make those long-term goals come true.

-djb

 

[frankncali]

Joseph Cues-----
You state

So, golf gets a great load of corporate sponsorship because their advertisement is reaching the right audience.


Do you really think that this is the only reason that golf enjoys great sponsorship? I think its only a small portion.
I dont think the richer audience is more likely to buy products or use the services of the sponsors than anyone else. No one
is going to buy a Buick because they sponsored a few golf
events. It has to be more.
I think its internal. Inside the sponsoring companies themselves.
The corporate world is full of golfers and sponsoring a Pro
event gives them a chance to back something they enjoy.
The commercial buyers are aiming for a demographic but I think
even in golf now that audience is very diverse.
Attendence plays a huge factor because golf is not a sport where
we can go sit on the 11th fairway everyday and watch great players. Pool is accessable everyday. In some areas Pros and
great regional matches occur all of the time. Most people on here
probably have seen the Pros play in their home cities pool rooms.
If you want to see Tiger hit the golf ball---you got to buy a ticket.

I am not sure as to how to boost it but it would involve todays
players taking a shot in the chin for tomorrows players. I dont think that will ever happen. Why not give a network 3 free
tournaments to show. No TV money or limited. The sponsor of the event would be guaranteed the airtime for their name.
Have a Pro-Am with a few celebrities play for charities as part of it .
Sports celebrities mainly as most people would like to see their teams hero. It could even be a team event but have it to where
theres not 50 mathces going on at once. Play whatever game
or format the TV guys wanted. I would do whatever it took to get
the balls rolling and then a viewing audience would be established. If it was team play then they could each play for a sponsor. Make it reasonable and try to get sponsors attention
with the free airtime. I dont think the players would be willing to
play cheap and are looking for the big bucks right now. Even
golf had to be slowly developed as a tour. It did not always pay
as much as today but the Pros still traveled and played the events.
I play pool and play all games but will admit that watching it is sometimes pretty boring. Maybe a format change would be good.
I have always thought that team pool is the way to go.
City vs City or whatever. People like to get behind a player and
his team. The Mosconi Cup has proven that people will cheer for their country and has an added element of excitement to it.
Maybe oneday there will be a good sponsor or two wether its on TV or not but until then if I were a Pro I would have to do everything I could to try and make it happen. I think that means
taking one now for players later.

 

[frankncali]

Joseph Cues-----
You state

So, golf gets a great load of corporate sponsorship because their advertisement is reaching the right audience.


Do you really think that this is the only reason that golf enjoys great sponsorship? I think its only a small portion.
I dont think the richer audience is more likely to buy products or use the services of the sponsors than anyone else. No one
is going to buy a Buick because they sponsored a few golf
events. It has to be more.
I think its internal. Inside the sponsoring companies themselves.
The corporate world is full of golfers and sponsoring a Pro
event gives them a chance to back something they enjoy.
The commercial buyers are aiming for a demographic but I think
even in golf now that audience is very diverse.
Attendence plays a huge factor because golf is not a sport where
we can go sit on the 11th fairway everyday and watch great players. Pool is accessable everyday. In some areas Pros and
great regional matches occur all of the time. Most people on here
probably have seen the Pros play in their home cities pool rooms.
If you want to see Tiger hit the golf ball---you got to buy a ticket.

I am not sure as to how to boost it but it would involve todays
players taking a shot in the chin for tomorrows players. I dont think that will ever happen. Why not give a network 3 free
tournaments to show. No TV money or limited. The sponsor of the event would be guaranteed the airtime for their name.
Have a Pro-Am with a few celebrities play for charities as part of it .
Sports celebrities mainly as most people would like to see their teams hero. It could even be a team event but have it to where
theres not 50 mathces going on at once. Play whatever game
or format the TV guys wanted. I would do whatever it took to get
the balls rolling and then a viewing audience would be established. If it was team play then they could each play for a sponsor. Make it reasonable and try to get sponsors attention
with the free airtime. I dont think the players would be willing to
play cheap and are looking for the big bucks right now. Even
golf had to be slowly developed as a tour. It did not always pay
as much as today but the Pros still traveled and played the events.
I play pool and play all games but will admit that watching it is sometimes pretty boring. Maybe a format change would be good.
I have always thought that team pool is the way to go.
City vs City or whatever. People like to get behind a player and
his team. The Mosconi Cup has proven that people will cheer for their country and has an added element of excitement to it.
Maybe oneday there will be a good sponsor or two wether its on TV or not but until then if I were a Pro I would have to do everything I could to try and make it happen. I think that means
taking one now for players later.

 

[manlyshot]

Neils Feigen from Netherlands is sponsored by his country's Olympics Committee.

What is the latest on billiards becoming a competitive event in the Olympics?

If it makes it into the Olympics, is considered a "sport," this will provide a new platform and really help this cash-poor industry known as pool (IMO).

After seeing the WPC, this does not seem too far-fetched or out of reach. Pool is alive and well across many different parts of the world.

I can see Efren, Bustie, Jose, Santos, and Ronnie Alcano marching out into the Olympic arena for the opening presentations carrying the flag of the Republic of Philippines now.

ManlyShot

 

[jjinfla]

Now that I think about it, why change anything? What do I care how much, or how little, a Pro gets paid? The way it is now I can go to several places around Central Florida and watch the Pros play for free, or for cheap, so let's not change anything. Keep the status quo.

Besides, my desire to spend a day of my life, in a smoke filled room, watching them play, is waning.

Jake

 

[DoomCue]

Now that I think about it, why change anything? What do I care how much, or how little, a Pro gets paid? The way it is now I can go to several places around Central Florida and watch the Pros play for free, or for cheap, so let's not change anything. Keep the status quo.

Besides, my desire to spend a day of my life, in a smoke filled room, watching them play, is waning.

Jake

JJ, you've posted yet another well-thunk argument.

Why waste the bandwidth and time to post something in a thread which asks, "Any ideas how to make pool more popular and pay more?" if you don't care if pool is more popular or players make more money? You're not contributing anything to the thread (imagine that).

Basically, you're saying you don't want the pros to make more money so you can benefit from "free, or for cheap" attendance fees. That's a lovely sentiment. You seem to believe that someone with the drive, determination, and ability to be excellent at something should not be rewarded financially just so you can watch for free. That's pretty damn selfish. It's also very short-sighted.

You say you don't like to watch "in a smoke filled room." What do you think would happen if there were more exposure and money for the pros? Popularity of pool would increase. New rooms would open up (remember the late 80's, after The Color of Money came out?). Some of those rooms would be non-smoking. Local economies would benefit. Tournaments where you are might even be held, dare I say it, in places other than cramped pool rooms with a bunch of smokers and barely enough room for players, let alone spectators. Sure, attendance fees could rise, but what do you care, your desire to watch "is waning" anyway, which makes me wonder why you chimed in in the first place....

-djb

 

[jjinfla]

Well Doom,

I tossed the bait out, you bit, and I set the hook.

All that is left is to reel you in.

LOL

If you pros don't see that you all have to work together to have a better work place, better life, better benefits, then you are either just selfish or plain stupid.

Where was all the outcry when the UPA tossed Earl out? You guys should have all been jumping up and down to make sure that he was part of your club. You may hate him, he may be an idiot or a jerk, but he sure would have helped your organization.
He has the name recognition.

People will go to an event where Earl Strickland is just to see Earl. And when they do they may find out that there are a lot of other pretty good players - like doomcue - whoever he is. That's how you start an organization. People are attracted to the stars.
Not the also rans.

Where was the outcry when the UPA wanted the pros to boycott the US Open? Didn't they realize that a successful Open would have been good for all Pros and would have drawn the public to your other events? The Open is just once a year - the Pros play all year long.

I suspect that a lot of the members didn't object to losing Earl becuse it made their chances of coming in the money better.
Shortsighted and selfish. But then you do have a lot of older pros who are past their prime and can see time running out on them. So they want to take while the taking is good.

The bottom line is that the pros have to produce a product that the public will buy. So far they are not succeeding in doing that. They do not understand basic economics. Someone has to pay for the salary they want and they don't understand that all the money comes from the public. The Pros think it comes from the TD.

As for going off topic and not posting something relevent to the main subject, do you really think that anything I or you post here is going to affect what the pros do?

But I seriously doubt that anything will change. Except for faces and names.

Have a good day David J. and maybe one day you will be with the top dogs.



Jake

 

[manlyshot]

Where was all the outcry when the UPA tossed Earl out?

Right on the money, Jake.

How about the UPA's discriminatory practice of not allowing a pool player, especially Earl Strickland, to participate in Big Apple and Capital City Classic?

I do wonder if the inclusion of pocket billiards, or pool, in the Olympics would help this industry/sport in general. I mean, if they allow flag-waving as a sport, why not pool? (IMO)

ManlyShot

 

[DoomCue]

Originally posted by jjinfla
Well Doom,
I tossed the bait out, you bit, and I set the hook.
All that is left is to reel you in.
LOL

Right. I fell into your evil machinations. Let me hazard a guess about your thought process while you devised your little plan:
JAKE'S THOUGHT PROCESS
1)Today, I will think of something totally retarded to post.
2)Somebody will respond.
3)I'll respond back with a rehash of other posts because I don't want to prove to everyone I can think for myself.
4)Where'd my hamster go?

If you pros don't see that you all have to work together to have a better work place, better life, better benefits, then you are either just selfish or plain stupid.

Better ask for your money back from your reading comprehension class. Didn't I just say these things in an earlier post (minus the selfish/stupid part)?

Where was all the outcry when the UPA tossed Earl out? You guys should have all been jumping up and down to make sure that he was part of your club. You may hate him, he may be an idiot or a jerk, but he sure would have helped your organization.
He has the name recognition.

Wow. Did you help re-write the California schools' history books, too? Earl QUIT, he was not "tossed." How can you be such a fanboy for somebody you just called "an idiot or a jerk?"

People will go to an event where Earl Strickland is just to see Earl. And when they do they may find out that there are a lot of other pretty good players - like doomcue - whoever he is. That's how you start an organization. People are attracted to the stars.
Not the also rans.

I believe I also posted the sentiment that it's the players that need to be sold, not the game itself. Do you have an original idea?

Where was the outcry when the UPA wanted the pros to boycott the US Open? Didn't they realize that a successful Open would have been good for all Pros and would have drawn the public to your other events? The Open is just once a year - the Pros play all year long.

Do you even know what the conflict is between the UPA and the US Open? What is your definition of a successful Open? Do you consider the Open to be a success if the promoter has to go back to jail after the tournament? What about if the promoter loses tens of thousands of dollars? Or what if a bookie operation is run out of the players' lounge? How 'bout if players start betting on whether there will be an Open next year? If those fit your definition of a successful US Open, then this year was a blaze of glory. Shine on....

I suspect that a lot of the members didn't object to losing Earl becuse it made their chances of coming in the money better.

You honestly think that and you have the nerve to call ME stupid?

The bottom line is that the pros have to produce a product that the public will buy. So far they are not succeeding in doing that.

Once again, you're just re-stating something I've already said. Do you have an idea on how they could do that, or are you just relegating yourself to stating the obvious?

They do not understand basic economics. Someone has to pay for the salary they want and they don't understand that all the money comes from the public. The Pros think it comes from the TD.

As for going off topic and not posting something relevent to the main subject, do you really think that anything I or you post here is going to affect what the pros do?

I already know some of my posts have been noticed. I'd be willing to bet that you're on a lot of ignore lists.

But I seriously doubt that anything will change. Except for faces and names.

As long as there are people who only bitch and have nothing substantive to add, and who want things to remain "status quo" because they're happy with the way things are now, you're probably right. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Have a good day David J. and maybe one day you will be with the top dogs.

Thanks, I'm having a great day. You do the same, buddy.

-djb

 

[Rickw]

Maybe we're all thinking of ways to fix pool at too high of a level. What I'm trying to say is, we're looking at how to fix the current situation with the current players. One thing other sports have that pool doesn't (it does but not at the same level as other sports) is a junior organization that allows kids a way to move into the sport. Most of the current and past champions have had to make it by eking out a living hustling at pool halls. They've had to hustle money from potential fans of the sport. This doesn't help with creating a fan base, and it doesn't do much to build good character of the players. If there was another way for young players to become champions, maybe their maturation process would be a more wholesome one, and they wouldn't have to rob recreation players to get by. Just a thought.

 

[jjinfla]

Manly,

I wonder if Billiards Digest is going to revise their BD Power Index now that the tournaments in their Index are not open to all players.

It doesn't seem exactly fair to me if they are going to count tournaments where people like Earl Strickland are not even allowed to enter.

I would think they would select tournaments for their rating system where all the pros are allowed to enter.

Johnny Archer is listed 2nd in Sept with 597 points but he played in 10 tournaments for a 59.7 average.

Earl has 307 points but only played in 5 tournaments for a 61.40 average.

So does Archer really deserve a higher rating than Strickland just because Archer played in more tournaments?

Jake

 

[manlyshot]

Manly, I wonder if Billiards Digest is going to revise their BD Power Index now that the tournaments in their Index are not open to all players.

It doesn't seem exactly fair to me if they are going to count tournaments where people like Earl Strickland are not even allowed to enter.

I would think they would select tournaments for their rating system where all the pros are allowed to enter.

Jake, wait until you hear this. I am still baffled.

There is a UPA tour event next week to be held at Amsterdam Billiards in NYC. In order to be eligible to participate, you must be a UPA member or pay one-time $25 waiver. Nothing new, right?

A pool player (not Earl) was recently informed by the UPA that because they fall under the UPA definition of "touring pro," they may not participate in the tournament -- UNLESS they join the UPA, pay $100 membership fee, and sign a UPA contract. Only "non-touring pros" are given the option of the $25 waiver.

This pool player has been given the choice of being BARRED from participating or pay $100 and sign a UPA contract and become a member.

In other words, I would be granted two choices. I could go to NYC, pay $25, and participate in the UPA event because I am a "non-touring pro," or I could join. The other pool player is given only one choice.

ManlyShot

 

[jjinfla]

Doom,

Just to set the record straight. I do not think Earl is stupid or a jerk. I was referring to what other people call him. I have only seen him play one time in person (the day before he quit?) and he seemed okay to me. He was entertaining the fans and mingling with them.

I wasn't there the next day but I heard that some fans really got on him. He lost his match and was eliminated from the tournament. So I imagine he was pissed. Who wouldn't be? The fans were taunting him and now he was out of the tournament. Then I understand he went to the TD and asked for his winnings. He was told the money was not ready (Isn't this what the UPA got on Berhman about?) and Earl would have to wait a few hours to get it or they would mail him the check. Not really sure what they told him. Then Earl found out that some idiot keyed his car.
And he tossed the UPA patch into the garbage can.

If that happened to you tell me you wouldn't be pissed? I got under your skin with just a few words, put you in Earl's position and you would probably go berserk.

Cooler heads should have prevailed. Instead, the UPA got all huffy and told everyone that Earl quit. Egos got in the way of common sense and now it's the UPA against Earl. And to me I think Earl is winning.

As far as you making the blatant statement that Behrman is running a bookie operation out of his player's lounge

your quote: "What about if the promoter loses tens of thousands of dollars? Or what if a bookie operation is run out of the players' lounge? How 'bout if players start betting on whether there will be an Open next year? "

I don't think that is a statement a responsible person would, or should, make.

Jake

 

[jayz]

well, for people like me who want to elevate the sport of pool, i really dont play for money, i just play it for fun and as a showcase of my pocketing skills. whenever someone *hustlers and gamblers* watch me play with my friends, and eventually asking me to play...err...gamble on pool, i simply tell them, i play for fun, not for money. if im in the mood and i feel i can take on anyone, i would also add, if you wanna play me, go to a tournament and climb your way to the finals to play me there....hehehe...
this is the main thing why most people take pool as a lowly sport, its because of the gamblers and hustlers.

I don’t think the gamblers or hustlers have anything to do with it. There are gamblers and hustlers in all competitive games. Do you golf? You can watch golf every weekend on the major networks. I think it is watched because of the number of golfers today. They realize the difficulty of the game and the pressure involved when it goes down to the wire.

If you think “gamblers and hustlers” are limited to the poolroom, imagine the kinds of hustlers a well-heeled “fish” losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on the golf course or in a back room card game would attract. There are more sophisticated road hustlers at golf courses and card games cross-country than you ever had in the poolroom. There is more serious money won and lost gambling at country clubs on any given day than all of the prize money put together from every pool tournament worldwide for a whole year. There are golfers who play scratch golf opposite-handed and close to scratch playing with just one club. And most of the naïve “fish” are easily persuaded into a “deal or proposition they can’t refuse”, just like the poolroom.

In watching most match-ups in a poolroom, 75% or more of the money games are won (or lost) before they even break the balls. Is that hustling? With the really "skilled negotiator", his percentage climbs to 90% or more. That is an art in itself. Most people would not get to the table unless they felt they could win at a game.

Personally, I think anyone who wants to improve his or her game and wants to eventually be a winning tournament player should bet something when competing at their poolroom. Betting something (within your means) will take you out of your “fun game” comfort zone and help you better cope in tournaments when everything is on the line.

If anything, I think it adds to the excitement and allure of the game for many. Two good players playing for fun just doesn’t have as much excitement and draw as a good money game played by the same players. You can put yourself in the player’s position in a critical point in the match and watch how he handles the “heat” or if he just plain “dog’s it”. If no one was allowed to gamble at pool (or golf) it wouldn't be fun for many players who enjoy the adrenaline rush of competing for something. That's my opinion.

 

[Rickw]

Jake,

I didn't know the story about Earl quitting the UPA. Thanks for sharing. Btw, don't you think people have to take responsibility for what happens in their life? Is it possible that the persona Earl has developed over the years may have contributed to the way those people treated him?

 

[jjinfla]

Well Rick I really don't know what that persona is because I have only seen him play in person one time and I found nothing wrong. And of course on TV if a player gets upset they cut that out. Maybe all I have seen is his good side. But just like Charlie Williams, where a lot of people will say that he plays slow. I have watched him play several times and have never seen him play slow.

But generally speaking I think all the players play to the audiance and interact with them. When things are going well they are nice; when things are not going well they tend to get upset.

And yes I believe people are responsible for their own actions. But then I am from the old school. They don't teach responsibility now a days.

Just watching the finals from the 2002 Open now and I saw Alex slam his cue a couple times. It was no big deal, but if it was Earl who did it then the people would go off on him. I think they put a different standard for him.

But I doubt that Earl loses any sleep over it. He has been around the block a few times and knows how the game is played and is trying to make the best of it. All he wants to do is win tournaments, be on TV, and make a lot of money. Which is probably what all the pros want to do.

Jake

 

[Rickw]

Jake,

Unlike you, I have seen Earl play many times. I have seen him be very inappropriate. Most people earn their personas. Very few people get mislabled over time.

I don't put all the blame on Earl though. I really feel that the TD's have to clearly state what the rules are and strictly enforce them no matter whose breaking those rules. For instance, in Reno at the Sands a few years ago, Earl was playing a young nobody and this kid was beating Earl. Earl started talking trash to the kid during the match. There was a rule making this unacceptable. The other players, Buddy Hall was one of them, went to the TD and suggested Earl should be sanctioned but the TD did nothing. If the tournaments are run the way the should be, Earl wouldn't do that anymore. People only do the things they can get away with. Earl gets and has gotten away with too much.