PDA

View Full Version : Whose pathetic idea was 7-ball?



03-02-2002, 11:18 PM
Whoever came up with 7-ball for TV needs their promotional credentials revoked for the sake of the game of pool. With our sport struggling to have television spots and when ESPN actually gives pool air time whoever the TD is needs to come up with something better than a carnival game. I guess nineball takes too long because of safeties and strategy. What's next? 3-ball? At least they'll have that Tightrack for the perfect 3-ball rack every time. /ccboard/images/icons/frown.gif.....disgusted.

03-02-2002, 11:28 PM
It was invented by Allen Hopkins and Charlie Ursitti. Maybe they found 9-ball too slow so they took away 2 more balls.

03-03-2002, 09:34 AM
TV

cuechick
03-03-2002, 11:38 AM
Am I crazy or were they playing a bar table? It looked so small??? Corey is an amazing player but I loved when he touched the cue ball, he is so funny. Like Bill and Ted's excellent pool adventure! I agree 7 ball is a joke. Amazing how 2 balls makes such a difference.

03-03-2002, 11:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: cuechick:</font><hr> Am I crazy or were they playing a bar table? It looked so small??? <hr></blockquote>

Yup, you're crazy /ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif That was an Olhausen 9-footer. I thought that was BS when the ref pulled the you didn't call that 1-foot straight in shot.

03-03-2002, 02:19 PM
Does anyone else remember the "Legends of Pocket Billiards" tourneys from some 20 or so yrs ago? Mosconi,Crane,Puckett,Lassiter,Balsis...They played a version of 7 ball where after the break, the non-breaking player declared one side of the table in which he would make the 7. The other player was restricted to the other side. Made the game something else all over. Even with it squatted mid table via the Sardo rack, could be interesting since someone could reposition it for defense.

03-03-2002, 04:14 PM
I have heard of the designating of the seven ball on a specific side of the table I have played that way it makes the game more interesting than just breaking and running most of the racks


Shawn

03-03-2002, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TheShot:</font><hr> What's next? 3-ball? ].....disgusted. <hr></blockquote>

well, now. you might just be on to something there.

3ball may just be the perfect game for television. big nasty break and an all-out 17-rail blast to make the last ball. this could sell.

dan...but leave sardo out of it, please.

Fred Agnir
03-04-2002, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> Does anyone else remember the "Legends of Pocket Billiards" tourneys from some 20 or so yrs ago? Mosconi,Crane,Puckett,Lassiter,Balsis...They played a version of 7 ball where after the break, the non-breaking player declared one side of the table in which he would make the 7. The other player was restricted to the other side. Made the game something else all over. Even with it squatted mid table via the Sardo rack, could be interesting since someone could reposition it for defense. <hr></blockquote>

What you've posted is the "real" game of 7-ball.

Fred

Tom_In_Cincy
03-06-2002, 09:32 AM
7 ball is/was a very popular bar table game for partners or multiple player teams.
$1 per person was the wager. And, with 7 ball, you could get at least 2 games of 7 ball out of a single payment of coins. Like that made much difference..

03-06-2002, 10:24 AM
It must be so that they don't have to chop out the safety play removing half the game. ESPN sucks! Just wait they'll come up with a rule that when you miss if you don't leave your opponent an open shot to the next ball they get ball in hand. After all don't want to bore the audience with something as inconsequential as strategy and tactics!

03-06-2002, 10:34 AM
From what I've seen the did the same with the 9ball coverage: two tables, if safeties played on one, switch to the other, ...but show all break shots and all nines pocketed.

The breakoff is (often) purely a luck shot, and the nine the most boring shot (no position to play). Way to go ESPN.

:-(

cuechick
03-06-2002, 11:11 AM
ESPN has less to do with this than you all think. I did quite a bit of research about it for a project I have been working on. ESPN sells the hour time to the promoters (aka WPBA or the promotors of the 7ball event) they in turn sell the commercial time of which ESPN gets a cut (I think it's 40%). I am sure that the promotors concieved this "TV friendly" concept...thinking it might appeal to a wider group. In actuallality, I think casual viewers may be as bored as the enthusiast, since the pros just make it look so easy.

03-06-2002, 11:24 AM
So, who actually shoots and cuts the show that we see on TV? Since, the women and men's programs appear to be alike in production values and concept, it's not too much of a stretch to conclude that pool on ESPN is an ESPN production. If you know the answer(s), please share!

Thanks

Steve

cuechick
03-06-2002, 11:31 AM
ESPN produces the segment as part of purchasing the time, they then own the rights to the footage. This also justifys their cut in the commercial take. I am pretty sure I have this right.

03-06-2002, 11:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: cuechick:</font><hr> ESPN produces the segment as part of purchasing the time, they then own the rights to the footage. This also justifys their cut in the commercial take. I am pretty sure I have this right. <hr></blockquote>

This sounds like a real sweetheart deal for ESPN. They double-dip by selling airtime to the promoters while also getting a cut of the commercial time sold. They retain rights to the footage, presumably because they shot and cut it but also because they are the only venue for pool on television. They could then repackage this material if they had a lucrative market for it. ESPN would find it difficult to loose money on the venture. If they did actually loose money, pool on ESPN would remain a space-filler for a 24/7 network.

Thanks for the info

Steve

Jay M
03-06-2002, 12:11 PM
You're also leaving out that ESPN charges for the production (at roughly 3 times the cost of the air time). The cuts are roughly

ESPN gets the money for producing the video footage, editing, production, etc.

ESPN gets a cut of all commercial time sold

ESPN gets paid for the air time

ESPN has exclusive ownership of the video thus produced, although they will sell the rights to reproduce for either a fixed amount or a percentage of sales depending on the circumstances.

Not too shabby a deal for ESPN, huh?

Jay M

03-06-2002, 12:29 PM
Yep, it's a great deal!

Even if the promoter has 'final' say over how the show looks when aired and the games actually played, I would bet the promoters do little to annoy the ESPN production team! Pool promoters need ESPN, ESPN does not really need pool. After all, ESPN can replace pool with the X-Out Games, events where big guys with axes and beer barrels try to wipe out little guys on skateboards and motorcycles!

regards

Steve

Grady
03-06-2002, 12:39 PM
It is by screwing small sports like us that ESPN can pay 100 million dollars for football or baseball.In 1989 when I was on ESPN a lot, the 7th time my matches were broadcast the ratings were higher than the first time.Trying to deal with them(ESPN) is almost impossible.You have to legally sign away all your rights and give them virtually all the money.
Again any of Accu-stats staff commentators would be better than the terrible team of Hopkins-Lawrence.On the rare
occasions that I watch I feel like I'm being talked to as if I were in Kindergarten.
Now, trick shot competitions and 7 ball-what a joke.well,it's just like Hopkins and Braun like it.

03-06-2002, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Grady:</font><hr> It is by screwing small sports like us that ESPN can pay 100 million dollars for football or baseball...Trying to deal with them(ESPN) is almost impossible.You have to legally sign away all your rights and give them virtually all the money. <hr></blockquote>

Well, that's it, isn't it. ESPN actually does need the low profile sports in some respects because ESPN can deal with them individually as they see fit. They certainly would need high margin sports, like pool, bowling, sumo wrestling and gimmick karate competitions, in order to bid on and then pay for the low margin, high profile sports. Where's Fox Sports when you need it!

Even without access to the numbers, I still tend to believe that 7 Ball and Trick Shot shows benefit the promoters in the short run but not the sport in the long run. All the promoters need to do is to keep the cash flowing to ESPN (so that the network keeps pool on the air) and, to a lesser degree, to their own coffers.

In this respect, the WPBA does a much better job than the men do. At least the WPBA airs championship matches and plays a championship game. They do little to nothing to exploit the women players as women in order to draw a male audience, something they could do. Rather, they present the women as serious players. Nevertheless, lacking support from companies beyond the pool industry, the WPBA is treading water. One need only look at the 2002 schedule to confirm this sad point. It remains the case that ESPN does little to promote pool but will exploit it when it can. If it wished to promote pool, it would sponsor the WPBA and air the Open and other major events.

And if pigs could fly...


Regards.

Steve