Originally Posted by Nutcracker69
I'm conflicted with this. I'm very disappointed with how the main event ended up playing out considering the amazing field that was left with about 100 to go. So I'm already inclined to not want to watch it. Also, not that it completely matters, but my TV is not with me where I'm living ATM, it is in storage. But the home has a TV in the cafeteria and it has cable and few of these old farts bother to watch TV in there, especially at night. So if I'm still stuck here then, I could probably still watch it. And if I'm fortunate enough to have moved on, I'd definitely have access to the broadcasts as they air.
So here's my bigger contention and it is a bit of a catch-22. According to ESPN, they have widdled down their coverage to just the final days of the Main Event mostly for cost concerns. But they had already scaled back to show JUST the Main event a while before that, stating that ratings were down and less people were watching poker on TV. F* that noise! It was a ton more entertaining watching people like Grinder, Dutch Boyd, Fishman, and then some more established pros win their bracelets. Hell, it was more entertaining watching Jennifer Tilly win hers, if only to spend enough camera time on her excellent breasts. I feel like there was one year where they tried to show every single event and definitely did feature every single final table. THAT WAS AWESOME. And that would be awesome again. If you watch ESPN's coverage of the Main you'll be like Jason Mercier who? When full coverage would show his dominance this series. I'm assuming without ESPN ****blocking coverage, that we can find video of the earlier events elsewhere so maybe I should just do that and shutup. After all, as I said, it is a catch-22. If enough people refuse to watch ESPN's coverage of the Main, ratings would be even lower and that coverage could go away forever. Since the goal would have been more coverage instead of less, the purpose would be defeated.
It's important to keep in mind that broadcasting the events you miss took place during the height of the poker boom. Available viewership is a fraction now of what it was then. What this means is that, WSOP
coverage/broadcast are evaluated in the same way as any other content: what are the numbers?
Let me give you an example from ESPN's history. Remember ESPN Outdoors? During the height of the Fly fishing boom (yes, that was a thing) there were fishing programs all over the weekend mornings. Once the boom subsided, and the number of viewers diminished, the shows vanished. It's not personal, it's just business - gee, that sound familiar.
Now, one has to give ESPN and the WSOP credit in that they have fine-tuned live-streaming of the final tables other than the main. Even there, the number of events have been paired down. There no longer are duel streams; one with commentary and one without.
The bottom line is: the bottom line. WSOP/ESPN are not charities. They do what they do to make money, which is complicated by the fact the ESPN is shrinking due to the large number of cable cutters. So it goes.