Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="OzExorcist, post: 902669, member: 23910"]
*sigh*
 
First, this was talked to death months ago - do a search to find some of the previous threads.
 
Second, aliengenius makes a hella big bunch of good points.
 
Third, this entire argument has missed the point.  By a [I]loooooooong[/I] way.  Here's what this issue is [B]actually[/B] about:
 
[B]It's about ESPN.  ALL about ESPN.[/B]
 
Without ESPN, there would have been no Moneymaker effect.  No poker boom.  There'd be no massive influx of fish to the game and there'd be sod all sponsorship money because what's the point of putting a patch on someone's shirt if that shirt isn't going to get on TV?  Field sizes would be smaller, so would prize pools, and there'd be less action in the side games too.  This would be, unequivocally, Bad For Poker.
 
[I]"Sod ESPN, the WPT still would've caused the boom!"[/I], I hear you saying?  Maybe, but it still boils down to the same issues - the networks that televise poker have the power here.  Considering what poker gets in return, most would say that's fair enough.  Look what's happened to the WPT since it fell out with its broadcast partners.
 
So ESPN comes to the WSOP and says [I]"Y'know, we'd really like to delay the final table by four months - we think having everyone know who wins months before the final table is televised is really hurting our ratings"[/I].
 
You just can't argue with them.  It stands to reason that knowing the outcome is a huge ratings killer.  They have all the power, because without them you'd lose sponsors, players and a big chunk of your prize pools.
 
So to those who say this is a stupid move, I ask you one question:
 
[B]WHAT is your alternative for keeping ESPN happy?[/B]
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us