Let's just face it, the 2-second attention span tv viewers are not going to watch pool.
Some suggestions on making pool more interesting for t.v.
- Thread starter mnorwood
- Start date
SJDinPHX said:
Pool really doesn't compete with poker. Pool is better compared to professional bowling. Now, I am not comparing the two games themselfs, but more like the overall event. Both are better to watch live than on TV. As with poker, boring to watch live (you dont get to see their hole cards), way better to watch on TV, because you can see their hole cards and watch their stratagy unfold for better or for worse.
Poker is more funded from the large entry fees WSOP example $1500 to $50,000 and not some outside sponsors unlike pool which needs sponsors. I believe the first event this year had 3900 (+/-) participents x $1500ea = $5,850,000 creates a prize pool worth playing for.
Pool tournaments, in my opinion pays too many places, doesn't generate the kind of prize money pokers does and pool players for the most part are broke so they won't pay $1500 to get into anything. Also, poker has big cash games as compared with pool. Yesterday I was watching a pot limit Omaha cash game with over $200,000 on the table with 8 players playing. And most importantly, Pool, on a level to compete with a professional pool player is just too tough accomplish in such a short amount of time as compared with poker, which could take a few months to win at, and win big...(luck factor being the biggest part).
Professional pool in the US is just not a high priority for those not interested. Look at all of the biggest pool events in history (along with all of their "promises"..) were they really that exciting to watch on TV or to be better watched live?
Thanks for reading. I know I touched alot of subjects at once..
Ummm...excuse me, but I believe snooker is already the #2 televised sport worldwide (except in the U.S.), outside of soccer (or 'football', as it's called everywhere but here). 
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
burns420 said:
Scott Lee said:Ummm...excuse me, but I believe snooker is already the #2 televised sport worldwide (except in the U.S.), outside of soccer (or 'football', as it's called everywhere but here).
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
I think snooker in the US could be successful. Its better TV than poker, golf, nascar or bowling. I wonder why they don't try to market snooker here. I think pool organizers need to study snookers success and try to emulate it even if it means altering our game a bit. I think the running score is a must. I also think harder equipment is a must.
Pool has one off tournaments. Without TV exposure they will not attract casual spectators.
Some here want single matches between purported rivals.
Neither is likely to develop interest of the casual viewer and neither is easily adaptable to TV scheduling
What the public will become interested in are rankings, points, money won, the possible competitors making it into an end of season playoff.
Snooker has the Premier League. Player compete in a schedule of matches, held at various locations, six frames per match. Prize money is 1,000 pounds per frame won and 1,000 pounds for a century. Prize money determines who competes in the final brawl.
Short weekly matches suitable for a television season, with a method of measuring relative performance of the players, culminating in a playoff, has a better chance of increasing pool visibility than what now appears on sports channels, much years old and of no immediate interest or significance.
IMO
Some here want single matches between purported rivals.
Neither is likely to develop interest of the casual viewer and neither is easily adaptable to TV scheduling
What the public will become interested in are rankings, points, money won, the possible competitors making it into an end of season playoff.
Snooker has the Premier League. Player compete in a schedule of matches, held at various locations, six frames per match. Prize money is 1,000 pounds per frame won and 1,000 pounds for a century. Prize money determines who competes in the final brawl.
Short weekly matches suitable for a television season, with a method of measuring relative performance of the players, culminating in a playoff, has a better chance of increasing pool visibility than what now appears on sports channels, much years old and of no immediate interest or significance.
IMO
Man, you must play REALLY good, if you think 4.5" pockets are easy! 
Snooker is popular on tv because the competitors make MILLIONS of dollars every year...like other pro sports figures here. That will never happen for pool...at least not in my lifetime.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Snooker is popular on tv because the competitors make MILLIONS of dollars every year...like other pro sports figures here. That will never happen for pool...at least not in my lifetime.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
mnorwood said:
It's the people who play the game
All of these other games have rocketed to the top, not because they change the game, but because the right characters came together at the right time. If you look at popular sports at different times, you will see the great characters behind them. Remember Mia Hamm? The women of world cup soccer? I thought America had lost it's mind with soccer "ugh.....soccer". Remember Kerri Strug and her stupid ankle in the 1996 summer Olympics? The 1996 gymnast team were a great ensemble of characters and if you look at the snooker boom in the mid 70's to the late 80's, it had the best collections of personalities. All of these sports had a great sense of timing that could not be predicted or changed. Oh yeah not to mention they also have to be the best at what they did. I think all of Wood's ideas are great. The idea of a pool reality show is awesome as well, that's what made UFC a hit again! Never be afraid of change, always go big and never make it easier.
Pool will have to wait until a another Jordan like figure comes along and hopefully he will bring Rodman with him.
All of these other games have rocketed to the top, not because they change the game, but because the right characters came together at the right time. If you look at popular sports at different times, you will see the great characters behind them. Remember Mia Hamm? The women of world cup soccer? I thought America had lost it's mind with soccer "ugh.....soccer". Remember Kerri Strug and her stupid ankle in the 1996 summer Olympics? The 1996 gymnast team were a great ensemble of characters and if you look at the snooker boom in the mid 70's to the late 80's, it had the best collections of personalities. All of these sports had a great sense of timing that could not be predicted or changed. Oh yeah not to mention they also have to be the best at what they did. I think all of Wood's ideas are great. The idea of a pool reality show is awesome as well, that's what made UFC a hit again! Never be afraid of change, always go big and never make it easier.
Pool will have to wait until a another Jordan like figure comes along and hopefully he will bring Rodman with him.
There needs to be some fight to it.
I like the point system for an 8-Ball or a 9-Ball match. One point for each ball scored.
It seems that sports that make it (excepting golf) have some sort of fight or stiff head to head competition where the players go after each other. Two points for the 8 is good in an 8-Ball match.
How about 2 for the five ball, 3 for the nine ball and 4 points each time there is an inescapable safety in 9-Ball. The winner is the person with the most points at the end of one hour.
In this scenario we have the pros "fighting" for supremacy. Not looking for anger or harsh words but for "beating the other guy with stick," to paraphrase Tom Simpson.
Three fouls earn an extra xx points and there could be some daredevil shots to catch up.
There could be some sort of extra point shot for the winner of each rack. Something difficult but with a 50 - 50 chance of scoring. Something like a two or three cushion bank selected at random from a play book.
A timed game with this type of fighting would bring out the aggression and showmanship. Sudden death overtime would also help.
It could be set up like football with designated time outs and TV would love it. There is a need for better camera work but that could be developed if it went big time.
Next there will be cheerleaders --- hmmm
How about Heads up 9-Ball. Sounds so good I think I will try it with some friends.
I like the point system for an 8-Ball or a 9-Ball match. One point for each ball scored.
It seems that sports that make it (excepting golf) have some sort of fight or stiff head to head competition where the players go after each other. Two points for the 8 is good in an 8-Ball match.
How about 2 for the five ball, 3 for the nine ball and 4 points each time there is an inescapable safety in 9-Ball. The winner is the person with the most points at the end of one hour.
In this scenario we have the pros "fighting" for supremacy. Not looking for anger or harsh words but for "beating the other guy with stick," to paraphrase Tom Simpson.
Three fouls earn an extra xx points and there could be some daredevil shots to catch up.
There could be some sort of extra point shot for the winner of each rack. Something difficult but with a 50 - 50 chance of scoring. Something like a two or three cushion bank selected at random from a play book.
A timed game with this type of fighting would bring out the aggression and showmanship. Sudden death overtime would also help.
It could be set up like football with designated time outs and TV would love it. There is a need for better camera work but that could be developed if it went big time.
Next there will be cheerleaders --- hmmm
How about Heads up 9-Ball. Sounds so good I think I will try it with some friends.
Last edited:
The sport needs more ring girls. Come to think of it, every sport needs more ring girls.
I think all men and lesbians would agree.
I think all men and lesbians would agree.
I?ve been thinking about a variation of a 10 ball ring game and I thought I would run it by you before posting. If this has been tried before I?m not aware of it, but I think that it would make a very interesting TV show.
Game: 10 ball ring game
Format: Players buy into the game for a set amount and are in until their money is gone. All normal rules in effect with the addition of side bets to be allowed, between the players, at ANY time. Once a player has run out of money he is out of the game.
Examples:
Player A, ready to break the rack says that he will break and run and offers a bet for x amount that he will. The other players then have the option of taking the bet or refusing. If Player A does get out he collects form those who took the bet or pays all that accepted, if he doesn?t.
In the middle of a rack Player B has a tough run out and Player C says bet y amount that you don?t get out. All the players would have the option of taking the bet, on either side.
Bets could be offered for any thing, to make a single shot, get a hit on safety, any thing.
I think it would lead to some very interesting dialog between the players, not to mention the sharking that would be involved by calling ?bet? while a player is studying in table trying to get out or whatever.
The best player would not have to be the winner of this game. A weaker player who manages his ?bets? the best could very well end up on top.
Has this been done before?
Steve
Game: 10 ball ring game
Format: Players buy into the game for a set amount and are in until their money is gone. All normal rules in effect with the addition of side bets to be allowed, between the players, at ANY time. Once a player has run out of money he is out of the game.
Examples:
Player A, ready to break the rack says that he will break and run and offers a bet for x amount that he will. The other players then have the option of taking the bet or refusing. If Player A does get out he collects form those who took the bet or pays all that accepted, if he doesn?t.
In the middle of a rack Player B has a tough run out and Player C says bet y amount that you don?t get out. All the players would have the option of taking the bet, on either side.
Bets could be offered for any thing, to make a single shot, get a hit on safety, any thing.
I think it would lead to some very interesting dialog between the players, not to mention the sharking that would be involved by calling ?bet? while a player is studying in table trying to get out or whatever.
The best player would not have to be the winner of this game. A weaker player who manages his ?bets? the best could very well end up on top.
Has this been done before?
Steve
I say full-contact pool is the future.
Some of the rules:
There no hitting allowed until after the break, unless the breaker does not pocket. If so, the opposing player is allowed to grab the bridge and whack the back of the knees.If the player is able to stand up, he re-racks and breaks again. (Only one beating per bad break.) Once the player pockets, the beating stops, until there is a foul. Then ball in hand, becomes ball against head, if the opponents aim is on.
Some of the rules:
There no hitting allowed until after the break, unless the breaker does not pocket. If so, the opposing player is allowed to grab the bridge and whack the back of the knees.If the player is able to stand up, he re-racks and breaks again. (Only one beating per bad break.) Once the player pockets, the beating stops, until there is a foul. Then ball in hand, becomes ball against head, if the opponents aim is on.
First and foremost pool needs one big unified tour with set tournaments throughout the year. That's one of the things that makes snooker so successful is you know there's going to be worlds coverage, UK championship coverage, masters coverge etc. There's also a big ranking list which is meaningful and final and important.
Anyway specifically about the game itself - Discipline should be ten ball race to 20, possibly on a ten foot table.
Screw all this marketing the game as best we can for the public crap, it's never got us anywhere. How about we set up our game for the best of the game itself. Change to ten ball, end silly short races, make winning a tournament more meaningful and try to push the sport to the next level.
In snooker, the game is in a position where luckily it's in a healthy enough state where it doesn't have to compromise on the standard of it's tournaments. It doesn't have to play short races because of tv / venue issues.
In our supposed world championship - which should be our biggest and most prestigious event - we play races to 10 and 11 and 17 for the final in 9-ball. What it should be is race to 20 minimum, 25 for the final, ten ball on a diamond. And maybe on a ten footer. And the winner of that tournament could genuinely say he's a bonafide world champion. At the moment the WPC doesn't mean much, let's be honest. If you're the world snooker champion you're arguably the best player on the planet. It's not the same in pool. It's all about pushing the sport on to the next level.
We've been trying to pander to tv and sponsors for god knows how long but they aren't watching. How about we go ahead and revolutionise our game without them, on our own so in a few years time they look at what we have and say "now there's a real sport that we should be covering". Although i realise maybe it's a vicious circle where we can't change our game without sponsors and tv, and tv and sponsors wont come till we've changed.
One big unified tour, a set out season of tournaments and a ranking list that means something. Ten ball and ten foot tables too. For the pro's. Make it so when people see a pool game on the tv they see players having to break the balls hard and square, having to make tough shots on tables where the pockets aren't buckets, make our players look like the highly skilled sportsmen they are battling a game out with time to do so and not having the game be over when one player reaches a measly 7 racks. The public would see this on the tv and they would respect it. And the public and media could quantifiably talk about players because they would have rankings.
it's quarter to four in the morning lol and i've got a bit carried away here with my dreaming and fantasizing.
To sum up, we need to push the sport to the next level imo. A new era. Ten ball, longer races, and ten foot tables. Make our game respected.
Anyway specifically about the game itself - Discipline should be ten ball race to 20, possibly on a ten foot table.
Screw all this marketing the game as best we can for the public crap, it's never got us anywhere. How about we set up our game for the best of the game itself. Change to ten ball, end silly short races, make winning a tournament more meaningful and try to push the sport to the next level.
In snooker, the game is in a position where luckily it's in a healthy enough state where it doesn't have to compromise on the standard of it's tournaments. It doesn't have to play short races because of tv / venue issues.
In our supposed world championship - which should be our biggest and most prestigious event - we play races to 10 and 11 and 17 for the final in 9-ball. What it should be is race to 20 minimum, 25 for the final, ten ball on a diamond. And maybe on a ten footer. And the winner of that tournament could genuinely say he's a bonafide world champion. At the moment the WPC doesn't mean much, let's be honest. If you're the world snooker champion you're arguably the best player on the planet. It's not the same in pool. It's all about pushing the sport on to the next level.
We've been trying to pander to tv and sponsors for god knows how long but they aren't watching. How about we go ahead and revolutionise our game without them, on our own so in a few years time they look at what we have and say "now there's a real sport that we should be covering". Although i realise maybe it's a vicious circle where we can't change our game without sponsors and tv, and tv and sponsors wont come till we've changed.
One big unified tour, a set out season of tournaments and a ranking list that means something. Ten ball and ten foot tables too. For the pro's. Make it so when people see a pool game on the tv they see players having to break the balls hard and square, having to make tough shots on tables where the pockets aren't buckets, make our players look like the highly skilled sportsmen they are battling a game out with time to do so and not having the game be over when one player reaches a measly 7 racks. The public would see this on the tv and they would respect it. And the public and media could quantifiably talk about players because they would have rankings.
it's quarter to four in the morning lol and i've got a bit carried away here with my dreaming and fantasizing.
To sum up, we need to push the sport to the next level imo. A new era. Ten ball, longer races, and ten foot tables. Make our game respected.
sde said:
This is the best post I have read in a month. Rep to you. I watch poker after dark because of all the side bets and the s***-talking and the funny dialog. While they were playing poker the other night a guy mentioned that he had seen another player's mom in the casino. They ended up betting $1000 on whether he really talked to his mom and another guy took side action. They ended up calling his mom. The guys forked over the cash right there. I guess you would have had to see it but I was at the edge of my seat.
I think this post needs to be a whole new thread.
26 balls
I like the idea of staying with nine footers and using 26 balls. The only issue is that we have too many similar colors in a rack trying to see them on TV already. One thought would be to make all of one person's balls the same color like English Eight Ball.(Black Ball) Two more options have potential too. One is to add only three balls of two different colors to a normal rack and each player would have three extra balls to shoot only after he had ran all of his numbered balls. The other idea is to add six of one color and either player would have to run all six after he had ran his other balls. Any unnumbered balls made early would be spotted. Unnumbered balls would be blockers until a player's last numbered ball was made. They would not be neutral and could not be hit first or used in combinations. These are my first thoughts but of course these are just thrown out as early thoughts and if anything came to pass the rules could be refined.
I remember a gaff game using 26 balls and the report was that it made the game vastly harder. That is what I think is needed for television, making the game more difficult without making the pro's look like bangers which is what super tight pockets or super slow cloth would tend to do. More traffic and longer run outs seem like the way to go. Of course knowing when to duck and pass the table to your opponent would be more important than ever too.
Hu
I like the idea of staying with nine footers and using 26 balls. The only issue is that we have too many similar colors in a rack trying to see them on TV already. One thought would be to make all of one person's balls the same color like English Eight Ball.(Black Ball) Two more options have potential too. One is to add only three balls of two different colors to a normal rack and each player would have three extra balls to shoot only after he had ran all of his numbered balls. The other idea is to add six of one color and either player would have to run all six after he had ran his other balls. Any unnumbered balls made early would be spotted. Unnumbered balls would be blockers until a player's last numbered ball was made. They would not be neutral and could not be hit first or used in combinations. These are my first thoughts but of course these are just thrown out as early thoughts and if anything came to pass the rules could be refined.
I remember a gaff game using 26 balls and the report was that it made the game vastly harder. That is what I think is needed for television, making the game more difficult without making the pro's look like bangers which is what super tight pockets or super slow cloth would tend to do. More traffic and longer run outs seem like the way to go. Of course knowing when to duck and pass the table to your opponent would be more important than ever too.
Hu
DRINKDUFF said:
I have to agree here. The reason the old Willie Mosconi/Minnesota Fats matchups rated so high on the Wide World of Sports was because of the characters in front of the camera. Together, these guys were interesting. The bantering between them made for good TV.
Watching today's players on TV is stale by comparision. JMHO.
Im with JCIN on this. Reality is the way to go. Go on the road and film some real action. I know people dont wanna advertise this side of pool but wethere we like it or not the "hustling" aspect is what people wanna see on film and in person. And since pool is SOO boring to watch for non pool players they could film the rail action and the prop bets and all the great things that happen along the way.
I know people dont wanna portray this side of pool cause of the gambling but pokers all about gambling and its doing great.
I know people dont wanna portray this side of pool cause of the gambling but pokers all about gambling and its doing great.
What was on my TV listing yesterday?
A 2005 Skins match with no time clock
And who was the the big winner?
The itching twitching squirming Danny Basovitch
If he was playing golf they would penalize him for slow play.
Does try the viewer's patience
Not the way to attract casual viewers and convert them to followers of the game.
IMO
A 2005 Skins match with no time clock
And who was the the big winner?
The itching twitching squirming Danny Basovitch
If he was playing golf they would penalize him for slow play.
Does try the viewer's patience
Not the way to attract casual viewers and convert them to followers of the game.
IMO