Would you vote them in?

[brett05]

The spectacle creates the media coverage. Nobody cares about baseball because ESPN tells them to do so.

I completely disagree with you. Quick example. The media made people aware of Tiger Woods. Golf skyrocketed in popularity because of the media coverage. Golf is better now than the 90s but the popularity is down. Why? because the media isn't covering it the same way it did when Tiger was "the man" on tour.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I completely disagree with you. Quick example. The media made people aware of Tiger Woods. Golf skyrocketed in popularity because of the media coverage. Golf is better now than the 90s but the popularity is down. Why? because the media isn't covering it the same way it did when Tiger was "the man" on tour.

No, Brett05. Tennis went up when the product was there and the entertainment business of sports reporting/coverage could make money on Connors/McEnroe/Bjorg/Evert/Navratilova. Golf increased with stars like Palmer and the Nicklaus. It surged when Tiger Woods was out driving everyone and winning majors. He's done and there is no replacement that people want to watch. Coverage is going down because golf media cannot manufacture a hero.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Seriously Brett, if we're going to argue the chicken and the egg I'm out. It's exhausting.

Oh and Woods was a spectacle because he had a unique set of skills that caused people to take notice.

 

[SilenceS]

Chicks dig the long ball!

I just turned 30. I love baseball. It is my favorite sport and has been my favorite sport since I can remember. I love watching the game, to me, the steroid era was awesome. The homerun chase. Guys hitting ball ungodly distances. The Home Run Derby's were epic. I think Sosa hit one like 530 plus in Atlanta. Maybe, it was just I grew up during it that makes me love it but I miss those days. I also have never had an issue with a PED player making it. I grew up with tons of kids on steroids. Thats my generation. Never made them world class athletes. Helped them, but never made them cream of the crop. The old guard needs to stand down and let a few in that would have been HOF anyway. Bonds is a HOF with or without Peds. Clemens is one of the most dominating pitcher ever. Do I think Peds helped his longevity? Yes, but I don't think they had much affect on his prime. Now, I am not calling for everyone to get in but lets not blacklist an era that probably saved baseball from becoming hockey.

 

[SilenceS]

Seriously Brett, if we're going to argue the chicken and the egg I'm out. It's exhausting.

Oh and Woods was a spectacle because he had a unique set of skills that caused people to take notice.

And he was African-American. No one had ever saw that in golf.

 

[brett05]

No, Brett05. Tennis went up when the product was there and the entertainment business of sports reporting/coverage could make money on Connors/McEnroe/Bjorg/Evert/Navratilova. Golf increased with stars like Palmer and the Nicklaus. It surged when Tiger Woods was out driving everyone and winning majors. He's done and there is no replacement that people want to watch. Coverage is going down because golf media cannot manufacture a hero.

Media only covers what they can make money on. That is true. But if media doesn't cover it, there is no one to support the product. Without money supporting the product there is no game to be played. If the media never covered the tennis players, the sport would be much like it is today. The media can generate the emotion for the fringe. The fringe is what makes sports. The fringe made golf popular. If they didn't come into the fold, then Tiger as great as he was would not have been covered. The deals wouldn't be there for endorsements.

Do I think this is a chicken in the egg argument? Probably. But I have no doubt that media plays a massive part in the popularity of a sport.

 

[brett05]

Seriously Brett, if we're going to argue the chicken and the egg I'm out. It's exhausting.

Oh and Woods was a spectacle because he had a unique set of skills that caused people to take notice.

you can;t just cause people to take notice of a special skill. The media either wants to cover it or does not want to cover it.

 

[SilenceS]

Anyone with a computer is media now.

 

[Parade_Rain]

...
The media can generate the emotion for the fringe. The fringe is what makes sports. The fringe made golf popular. If they didn't come into the fold, then Tiger as great as he was would not have been covered. The deals wouldn't be there for endorsements.

Great job creating a strawman. As for media and the fringe, the fringe and the media did not create Tiger Woods. Sports isn't a reality show or the Kardashians. Tiger Woods created Tiger Woods. The media coverage grew. The coverage was already there because a certain amount of people/fans wanted the service provided.

 

[brett05]

And he was African-American. No one had ever saw that in golf.

And without the media, no one would have.
http://www.pga.com/timeline-african-american-achievements-in-golf

 

[TC in Mississippi]

you can;t just cause people to take notice of a special skill. The media either wants to cover it or does not want to cover it.

Yes but the media doesn't cover it until they see see an audience that's already discovered it and then seek to enlarge that audience to their benefit. Your whiffle ball example is wrong because there is nothing interesting about whiffle ball. If a bunch of kids play it the yard every day neighbors won't watch and even the kids' parents will likely stay away because, again, it's not interesting. Now take that same neighborhood and put an 11 year kid in the park down the street who's hitting 350 feet home runs with regularity then darn tootin' people will be interested and oh look, here comes the media. In other words media can enlarge a sports story but they can't create a successful one from whole cloth.

 

[Parade_Rain]

you can;t just cause people to take notice of a special skill. The media either wants to cover it or does not want to cover it.

They increased coverage because Woods was wiping the whole Tour out as a 19 year old. People were tuning in and created the market for the media.

 

[brett05]

Great job creating a strawman. As for media and the fringe, the fringe and the media did not create Tiger Woods. Sports isn't a reality show or the Kardashians. Tiger Woods created Tiger Woods. The media coverage grew. The coverage was already there because a certain amount of people/fans wanted the service provided.

I am not sure what you are calling a strawman.

There were great golfers before. Many would argue golf was greater prior to Woods. yet the media wasn't covering it as fervently. Its why the purses were what they were. Tiger comes on the scene and yes the media made Tiger a hosuehold name. Because of the coverage the fans grew. Because of the coverage and the fan growth the purses grew. Golf actually takes a step back yet the out pour of fans increase. Golf comes back hard, but now the media does not cover it how they did even though the sport is better. The media unequivocally have a large portion in this.

 

[brett05]

Yes but the media doesn't cover it until they see see an audience that's already discovered it and then seek to enlarge that audience to their benefit. Your whiffle ball example is wrong because there is nothing interesting about whiffle ball. If a bunch of kids play it the yard every day neighbors won't watch and even the kids' parents will likely stay away because, again, it's not interesting. Now take that same neighborhood and put an 11 year kid in the park down the street who's hitting 350 feet home runs with regularity then darn tootin' people will be interested and oh look, here comes the media. In other words media can enlarge a sports story but they can't create a successful one from whole cloth.

Can the media start something from scratch? Now that's an interesting question.

 

[brett05]

They increased coverage because Woods was wiping the whole Tour out as a 19 year old. People were tuning in and created the market for the media.

If the media was not there there would be nothing for the people to tune into.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I am not sure what you are calling a strawman.

There were great golfers before. Many would argue golf was greater prior to Woods. yet the media wasn't covering it as fervently. Its why the purses were what they were. Tiger comes on the scene and yes the media made Tiger a hosuehold name. Because of the coverage the fans grew. Because of the coverage and the fan growth the purses grew. Golf actually takes a step back yet the out pour of fans increase. Golf comes back hard, but now the media does not cover it how they did even though the sport is better. The media unequivocally have a large portion in this.

The coverage grew because the story of Tiger Woods demanded it. Tiger Woods wasn't a media creation. Likewise, the Bulls haven't had the same following since Michael Jordan retired. People want a big story and winners. Media cover big stories and winners. They don't create the big story and winners.

 

[Parade_Rain]

If the media was not there there would be nothing for the people to tune into.

Good gawd. The media was there because the players and the fans created a market for them to cover.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I am not sure what you are calling a strawman.

There were great golfers before. Many would argue golf was greater prior to Woods. yet the media wasn't covering it as fervently. Its why the purses were what they were. Tiger comes on the scene and yes the media made Tiger a hosuehold name. Because of the coverage the fans grew. Because of the coverage and the fan growth the purses grew. Golf actually takes a step back yet the out pour of fans increase. Golf comes back hard, but now the media does not cover it how they did even though the sport is better. The media unequivocally have a large portion in this.

Honestly man that's one of most insulting things I've ever heard leveled at a an athlete. Woods was a generational talent and was to the PGA what Michael Jordan was to the NBA. The media covered them because they were great, the media did not make them great although they certainly fed on the fact that people were enthralled to watch them both for the uniqueness of their games and the uniqueness of their personalities. Media creates nothing in and of itself.

 

[brett05]

Good gawd. The media was there because the players and the fans created a market for them to cover.

That was always there. It was to draw the fringe in. Man you are tough today

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Good gawd. The media was there because the players and the fans created a market for them to cover.

I can't even. I said I was out and he dragged me back in.