TV money

Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
A frequent topic is how to get money into pool, and the most likely path seems to be through TV. It could get sponsors involved for real cash -- or that's the hope. Presently in the US, promoters have to pay for their own production and hope that the video will be acceptable to ESPN.

At snooker in the UK, it's a little different, as seen in this article, which says that the BBC puts $6,000,000 per year into snooker.

If only we could get US TV involved in the same way.
 
I think the explosion of Poker on TV needs to be examined by everyone who wants to make their sports/game into main stream.
Poker, I don't think had any intention of getting this big. I'm sure they hoped for it, but never like this.
Big prize is the key to high rating. Willingness of player to pay the cash to get in and lose it all in one hand, or win it all.
Poker is different animal than pool, because of the physical skill that is needed in pool but you get the idea.

Now the question is, will 200 players put up 5,000 to enter a tournament in winner takes all format? That will draw serious audience.

People like drama, people like mental break down and people like triumph.
Most sports/competition have this. Can pool make a tournament that highlights these well?

p.s. Another thing that did poker in was Varkonyi winning the bracelet. American dream.
 
Bob,

Did you know that the BBC is a state-run, not-for-profit organization that is funded by TV license fees? Every household in the UK is required to pay just over $200 per year for the privilege of watching TV. This generated over $5bn in revenue for the organization in 2008/2009.

Perhaps that changes your perception of the situation?
 
Kinda interesting. I notice the format had some TV-friendly rules as to shot clock, timeout, etc. In the pool world we're usually resistant to changes like shorter races etc., I wonder if we'd have a little more TV success if we got over that?

Snooker has such a different flavor from the TV games like 9 ball. I wonder if the difference is that snooker isn't just the main TV game, it's the main game actual everyday casual players play. Whereas our main game (8 ball) is nowhere to be found on TV.
 
kyo1128 said:
Now the question is, will 200 players put up 5,000 to enter a tournament in winner takes all format? That will draw serious audience.

QUOTE]

Wasnt there a Million Dollar 9 Ball Challenge tournament where there was a pretty steep entry fee that started either last year or the year before? I think it was (but don't hold me to it) an Allen Hopkins event, and I want to say that the entry fee was in the thousands, like in your scenario.

Also, the WSOP is not a winner take all format, would pool have to be winner take all?

I think one of the things that helped with poker's popularity was the audience's ability to see the hole cards, do their own mental math and compare what they would do in their neighborhood tournaments vs. what the pros did. The same could be said about pool and the different patterns the pros play vs. what the spectators may have done if in the same situation. Although the pros' abilities to make every shot look easy kind of takes away from this a little. Yes, its hard to make it look easy, but for the once a week or less type player, I'm not sure they get it.

There were also massive swings in poker that generated a lot of excitement, where the guy with the largest stack could find himself out of the tournmanet on 2 consecutive hands. I'm not sure this can be replicated in a pool environment. Closest thing might be either a ring game format or a skins format, both of which have been tried.

I'm just trying to get some ideas out for a healthy discussion. We all want the same thing, for pool to be bigger, what are the enablers, vs. the deterrents?
Click to expand...
 
kyo1128 said:
.

Now the question is, will 200 players put up 5,000 to enter a tournament in winner takes all format? That will draw serious audience.
Click to expand...

That question was answered with the Million Dollar Shoot Out quite recently -11 entries or was it 12?
 
I think its mildly funny when everyone compares pool to poker. Pool players always want to talk about money added for their tournaments. Poker players pay the entry fees and payout with no added money. There will never be a time where you can get the 'volume' of pool players needed for those big paydays. No matter how much the poker population wants you to think that poker is a skill game (I think it is), the general public will always think they have a shot.

Put me in a 10 player pool tourney with top pros, I will never win. Put me in a 10 person SNG with top poker pros and I have a chance to win and some equity in that event, unlike the pool tourney.
 
Predator5K4 said:
kyo1128 said:
Now the question is, will 200 players put up 5,000 to enter a tournament in winner takes all format? That will draw serious audience.

QUOTE]

Wasnt there a Million Dollar 9 Ball Challenge tournament where there was a pretty steep entry fee that started either last year or the year before?
Click to expand...


I looked it up. It was the $1,000,000 9-Ball Challenge in August, 2008 in Valley Forge. The entry fee was $5,000. Twelve players entered. The total prize fund was $60,000, and the winner (Corey Deuel) got $20,000.
Click to expand...
 
Petition Drive

I have no idea how many suscribers this forum has, nor any other forum on pool for that matter. But what I do know is there is strength in numbers and unity. Yes I know......unity in the pool world is akin to a perpetual motion machine.....long desired, never attained. I think we have something here that everyone can agree on.....and support......more pool on TV. My mail is constantly inundated with political petitions that are pre-adressed and automaticaly e-mailed. Usually these petitions are aimed at a specific entity such as a congressman or something, but the point is the same.....if enough people make noise......and it falls upon the right ears....folks take notice! It would require enormous effort to correlate this drive with other forums and sites that cater to the cue sport world......but if the networks receive enough petitions and signatures and are made aware of the potential veiwing audience.......I think it could become reality. On the flip side.....if we didn't tune in enough to keep ratings in the acceptable range......it would be shortlived.......Dan
 
My usual rant :D

TV viewers want to see great plays, amazing shots they cannot do themselves.....they want excitement, they want a face pace.....and if viewers want it, then so goes the advertisers....

Fast pace - 30 second shot clock
Exciting shots - combos, banks, jumps, kicks, caroms
Mix the men and women - more dual sex events
Variety - 8 ball, rotation team events with the whole rack, banks, 1pkt
Personalities - Earl, Shane, Joe Rogan - celebs and players you can love and hate

We need to remove all this boring a$$ safety play where you make 3 easy shots and then hide when you don't have perfect position....people want to see shots, high runs, banks, combos.....they don't want dead air and they don't want to watch 9 ball every freaking time.....

When Tennis hit it's peak, you had big personalities, big serves, serve and volley, and hard hitting winners from the baseline.....Beach volleyball hit it's peak when it had jump serves, hard hitting spikes, and fast action.....golf is at a peak because Tiger and Phil go for it - they don't lay up, they hit shots that nobody has ever seen....pool needs to take a lesson....
 
Winner take all, because there never would be 25,000 entry like WSOP.
I agree that pocket cam was the huge deal in making it popular.
Like I said, Poker doesn't require the physical skill needed for pool, so easier to make joe somebody a winner.

I agree with safeties, it's an art, but audience don't get it.
Max three safeties or something would make it fast huh?

Didn't know about the million dollar event. I apologize.
If pool can somehow attract medical prescription company to sponsor an event.....
What would be the angle tho...
 
kyo1128 said:
Winner take all, because there never would be 25,000 entry like WSOP.
I agree that pocket cam was the huge deal in making it popular.
Like I said, Poker doesn't require the physical skill needed for pool, so easier to make joe somebody a winner.

I agree with safeties, it's an art, but audience don't get it.
Max three safeties or something would make it fast huh?

Didn't know about the million dollar event. I apologize.
If pool can somehow attract medical prescription company to sponsor an event.....What would be the angle tho...
Click to expand...

I can see it now......the Viagra/Midol scotch doubles invitational.

Rock hard shafts and endless Bit**ing make for interesting pool......LOL
 
I was just watching a tape of usa vs europe in the mosconi cup.i thought it was great but to the average viewer its boring.
The players are all like cardboard no joking with the people and safties.When Earl plays its usually fun because you never know what your gonna get.When Seigel played he joked with the audience.
If you could get celbs to pair up with pros in 8 ball no safeties a 20 sec clock.Some jawing and all around entertaining it just might work.
You cant compare it to poker and besides poker is already on the decline for TV viewing.my 2 cents.
 
Snooker in England has had the same regulating body for 40 years and has a good reputation. If you are watching or gambling on a match you can do so with a great deal of confidence that no deal was made between the players.

That would be a minimum starting point for pool in the USA if they want to be recognized as a mainstream sport.
 
NFL Money
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/22/mvp-nfl-bargain-biz-cx_tvr_1222nflmvp.html

The league's current television package with News Corp.'s (nyse: NWS - news - people ) Fox, Walt Disney Co.'s (nyse: DIS - news - people ) ABC/ESPN, and CBS (nyse: CBS - news - people ) brings in over $2 billion a year, or about $75 million per team, double the TV revenue during the contract that ran from 1994 through 1997. By comparison, each team took in $3 million in 1970, the year the AFL/NFL merger took the league into its modern era. The per-team growth is particularly impressive considering the league has ballooned to 32 teams from 26 since the merger, which means it's now splitting the television pie six more ways. And those additional teams mean 318 more jobs for players

MLB
http://www.sportsbusinessnews.com/_news/news_347260.php

Going Inside MLB’s latest $3 billion TV agreements

NBA
http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-tv-contracts.shtml

The 2002-03 TV contracts are worth $2.2 Billion over a 6 year deal

Exactly where would pocket billiards fit into this Billions of dollars of TV contacts being paid to the Major league sports conglomerates?

For TV to make any money from buying the team's tv rights, guess who pays for all the commercial time costs?
 
Big Perm said:
... We need to remove all this boring a$$ safety play where you make 3 easy shots and then hide when you don't have perfect position....people want to see shots, ...
Click to expand...

A good percentage of the best and most exciting shots are escapes from safeties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top