USA pool
- Thread starter B8kill3r
- Start date
Could it be that snooker has big advertisers that pay well?
you have to watch Steven Seagall movies. He always has a scene where 6 guys in a bar try to beat him up. That's where we play pool.
Pay for the bar tables haha no thanks
Uh, yes.
Also, the snooker world (at least in GB) is an organized body of long-standing rules and procedures.
There are systems in-place for those who wish to participate in snooker, whether that be as a player, promoter, and/or technician.
As for pool, if one wants to participate within the system, e.g. player, promoter, technician, you find out where the "game in town" is and go for it.
Now, if I were investing in my OWN equipment and my OWN time to run a stream, I sure as hell, wouldn't do it for free--I would charge because I would have to.
Who else is going to support my efforts?
Snooker is televised; sponsored, often subsidized and has a professional association.
Pool in the U.S. is streamed, painstakingly sponsored, independently funded and has no professional association.
The USA pool scene is in a state of 'organized chaos'. Carve your own niche, pave your own way; welcome to the wild, wild west.
Pool in the U.S. is streamed, painstakingly sponsored, independently funded and has no professional association.
The USA pool scene is in a state of 'organized chaos'. Carve your own niche, pave your own way; welcome to the wild, wild west.
I think free streams are a better model for pool (even in the U.S.). PPV has too many issues which I don't think serve to benefit the pool community as a whole. Not that I don't agree with the PPV model, but my opinion is, that if you're going to do a PPV stream, have some production value; put on a different kind of show. Make it a production that would be a treat to watch for the viewer. Don't just do a live stream that you could do in your sleep and charge people for it. And, for god sakes, stop doing tournaments as PPV events!
Another problem with PPV is, it's too expensive. It really cost the viewer $15 per day to watch. It should be more like $10 per month. Bandwidth costs in the United States are too expensive for the broadcaster, we have to pass that on to the consumer in order to stay in business. However in Europe, Kozoom charges around $10 per month for access to their live events and archives; and they can also provide multiple (IP) table streaming so that you aren't stuck watching one table; you can select another table when offered. The only way this is possible is to obtain bandwidth at a low cost.
Last edited:
Greed, baby, Greed!
I pretty much agree with this, and until pool does something similar like snooker, it will struggle. It's hard to compare snooker and pool as one is highly organized and financed well, while pool is just the opposite.
I could be wrong, but I think the recent world championships was the first authorized free stream of a ranking snooker event.
As has been pointed out, it is a huge sport with a major audience in the U.K. and Asia, so there are substantial advertising dollars (or pounds) available to fund a top-notch tv broadcast. Some broadcasts are on the public BBC, some on a premium sports channel.
A number of different Facebook sites were (illegally I assume) rebroadcasting the show - some with the original audio, some with foreign audio.
What World Snooker did for the WC was to make the English stream available in places like North America where you can't watch it live. I thought this was a brilliant idea to grow the sport without cannibalizing their own markets.
Pool, of course, has not tv stream to hack. Someone has to pay the streamers. Some offer it for free (presumably getting sponsored) and others charge a PPV fee. In an ideal world, there would be enough interest in free streams that advertisers would pay.
Darren seems to be trying something like that in partnership with Unilad at the last WPC event. I hope he succeeds. On further difference, however, is that online sports betting (the major sponsors of snooker) is legal in the U.K.
As has been pointed out, it is a huge sport with a major audience in the U.K. and Asia, so there are substantial advertising dollars (or pounds) available to fund a top-notch tv broadcast. Some broadcasts are on the public BBC, some on a premium sports channel.
A number of different Facebook sites were (illegally I assume) rebroadcasting the show - some with the original audio, some with foreign audio.
What World Snooker did for the WC was to make the English stream available in places like North America where you can't watch it live. I thought this was a brilliant idea to grow the sport without cannibalizing their own markets.
Pool, of course, has not tv stream to hack. Someone has to pay the streamers. Some offer it for free (presumably getting sponsored) and others charge a PPV fee. In an ideal world, there would be enough interest in free streams that advertisers would pay.
Darren seems to be trying something like that in partnership with Unilad at the last WPC event. I hope he succeeds. On further difference, however, is that online sports betting (the major sponsors of snooker) is legal in the U.K.
You should run right out, and buy all the video equipment you can, and start chasing every tournament, at a cost of minimum 200 a day, so you can stream them to us for free.
In exchange , half of us will tell you your free stream stinks, you are a horrible cameraman and announcer and you don't know Jack Diddly about pool.
Or, realise that snooker has sponsors with advertising money, and that's why the stream is free.
It's not difficult .. it's called sponsors. Many sponsors that have nothing to do with pool but want to be connected to thier game. Snooker has it... American pool does not.