Topic: Foosball on TV

[rradjabi]

I've read about this before, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but what is keeping foosball events from being televised? If billiards, darts, scrabble, and cards can all be on TV, why can't we get foosball on every now and then?

I was at a bar the other night, watching 9ball, and I didn't exactly see what the difference was between showing 9ball and foosball. I've heard that the speed of play makes it difficult to turn into a spectator sport, but cameras and TVs are adequate enough to handle filming foosball.

One thing I noticed that distinguishes billiards from foosball is peoples' (non-foosers, or people who haven't seen pro-style foos) unwillingness to take foosball seriously. It isn't even that they are unwilling, but most people see billiards on TV, and say "Oh yeah, that's a legitimate sport because professionals are on TV and they make lots of money playing." People simply don't know that foosball is played at such a level. I'm pretty sure everyone has noticed this when playing somebody who's never seen the pr-style, they don't know what happened, and get all surprised and impressed like they saw a miracle. I think if people were aware of the fact that professional foosball exists, they would be more accepting and interested in playing foosball in a bar or pool hall, just as people are interested in playing pool (instead of dismissing foosball as a toy).

Foosball lacks people taking it seriously. It isn't until people see pro-style that they will actually practice, and want to play more than a few moments, or the point where they get bored.

[TSR_Brad]

This comes up so often... here's how it works.

Unfortunately, ESPN or anyone else won't come running to televise foosball out of the goodness of their hearts. It comes down to money.

Anything aired is contingent on advertising dollars. The producers of whatever less-than-mainstream sport/activity/etc. that you may see on ESPN or ESPN2 or Fox Sports have gone out and sold commercial time to advertisers. Then it's a simple process of producing their program and buying airtime.

Once someone goes out and knocks on doors and convinces sponsors to advertise during their broadcast, you'll see foosball on TV. Or you talk a deranged rich person into ponying up. Either way, it comes down to a matter of dollars.

BA

[papafoos]

Foosball is a tough to watch on a small screen.  In nine ball, you can pretty well see what the player does.  In foosball, sometimes even a trained eye has difficulty seeing what happened.

How many times have you asked (or been asked) "Which man did you hit that with?"  What might be obvious to a serious player is not so for an untrained eye.

One thing for sure though, If we ever get our chance (again), we need to try to make a good impression.

[rradjabi]

I don't think these are strong enough reasons to keep foosball off TV.

1. If Scrabble championships and Dart championships can get the corporate sponsors, etc., why don't you think foosball can? Especially if it could create a foosball craze, just like Texas Hold-em became incredibly popular about 5 years ago.

2. In foosball, the fastest things you cannot see are goals. There are slow-motion cameras that can view the fastest goals and make them viewable and understandable to anybody--this wouldn't change much about the game, imagine a match where a 15 second break was required after each goal to show the replay of the goal and include commentating. You wouldn't need the most trained eye if someone did a decent job finding the best camera angle(s) and lighting and supplemented that with slow-motion replays.

Just like all the people who watch trick-shot pool and see those crazy shots and go "Whoah! Did you see that?", people could watch some quick pulls and snakes and front-pins on TV, and look over at their Sportscraft table in the corner of their room and give it a try.

If the trouble is getting the money for sponsors, that isn't easy for me to assess. I'm not sure how much money is required, but assuming we tried to get similar coverage as your typical billiard match/tournament gets on ESPN, it would require the same support from Tornado/Brunswick as those billiard matches get from Brunswick, and Cuetec. I don't think these are night-and-day examples.

[EDGEER]

Foosball is a tough to watch on a small screen.  In nine ball, you can pretty well see what the player does.  In foosball, sometimes even a trained eye has difficulty seeing what happened.

How many times have you asked (or been asked) "Which man did you hit that with?"  What might be obvious to a serious player is not so for an untrained eye.

One thing for sure though, If we ever get our chance (again), we need to try to make a good impression.

Hey Mr. Jones hows it going!

[jonzini]

Foosball on a small screen is tough to watch, but I have another opinion.  Change the ball color.  The reddish ball on the green surface is tough to see sometimes.  A lighter color ball would make watching a bit easier... I think.  Though it may be that my partial color blindness is the reason I want the ball color changed.


John

[EDGEER]

I would make it pitch black.  You would surely see it then.

[chance37]

I think they should shoot from above and get the little tracker they used to use on tv for hockey thatd be cool....anyone know what im talking about

[TSR_Brad]

I think they should shoot from above and get the little tracker they used to use on tv for hockey thatd be cool....anyone know what im talking about

Wouldn't work. Most of the time the view of the ball is blocked by a rod.

As far as how to present the game, I think we (Inside Foos, of course) do a pretty damn good job, especially given the equipment budget we have to work with.

The bottom line is that to get foosball on television, it's gonna cost money.

BA

[foosinaround69]

I've seen foosball back in the early eighties on ESPN...Wish I could remember who was playing!!! Maybe I can e-mail them to see if that footage is available...That would be cool to see!!

Insidefoos does a great job you're right Brad. At least we're able to see some action!!! I have a friend who works for ESPN and I would like to see what can be done. Matt Wyner(sp) is from my home town. Maybe I can pull some strings. He's a great guy so who knows ...cross your fingers!!!

[Rios]

In order to get foosball on TV it is gonna come down to one thing, and one thing only... and that is $$$.  If we can somehow get some sort of big time sponser in foosball, like Red Bull or Monster... then maybe we can have a chance. I actually think that the shot trail like in hockey is a  good idea. I dont think that having a rod in the way is a big deal... I mean, how many sticks are in the way in hockey???
It is all gonna come down to $$$, and who is going to take a chance on putting that $$$ into something that is really new to the US public. Someone took a chance on poker and hit it rich... but the main difference between foosball and poker is that if you win the main event in poker, you take home about 12 million... and if you win the World Championship in foosball you take home 12 thousand split by two... so only 6 thousand a piece.... which is peanuts compared to anything else on TV.  I mean seriously, I bet that almost 150th place in the World Series of Poker gets more than 6 grand........

If you want foosball to be "Big Time" then you need to start throwing in "Big Time" money.... sorry but that is the way it is...

[TSR_Brad]

I have a friend who works for ESPN and I would like to see what can be done.

Ask your friend how much they charge for an hour of airtime. That's all you need to know to get foosball on TV.

I dont think that having a rod in the way is a big deal... I mean, how many sticks are in the way in hockey???

Bad comparison. 1) The thickness of a hockey stick blade is considerably less than a puck... a rod blocks half of the ball. Or put the ball in a front pin. It blocks the view of most of the ball. 2) The puck in almost constant motion... but in foosball, the ball spends a good amount of time sitting still either next to a man (and under the rod) or in a pin (under the man). About the only way an overhead shot would be desirable would be for some sort of replay, but for the main view you'd find it tough to watch in a very short time.

Take my word for it... this topic has been discussed for years and there's very little that hasn't been suggested. The bottom line is that without the funds to produce a program and purchase the airtime, foosball will not be televised anytime in the foreseeable future.

Here endeth the lesson.

BA

[chance37]

too many broke ass foosers out there...someone needs to get in bed with some rich bastard and get some mula to back it....

[gitablok]

Insidefoos has afforded me a many an opportunity and has put me in a many enviable position. One of which, if memory serves me correctly, was the last worlds at Dallas. While at the control of taping a match, two or three guys from Fox sports and Mr. Savage, the guy who was responsible for bringing poker to TV, were in the booth to see how viable it would be to bring foosball to tv. Listening to their converstations, they were amazed at the skill level and the speed at which the game was played. However, it seems as if the speed of the game is what they were worried about. They were worried how the speed would translate to tv much like the viewing of a hockey puck. I could overhear them talking about the use of that super slo mo camera like the one that is used in baseball that can show the threads turn as a pitch approaches home plate. Insidefoos got to experience this camera at the World Cup although not at our use. This camera is flat out awesome. It's a shame I didn't hear what came of the discussions from these guys in trying to make their decisions about taking the sport to tv.

That's why I like what's happening overseas. Their players are becoming superstars. If tv follows, Kudos to them.


ICEMAN.

[papafoos]

Rios wrote:

I mean seriously, I bet that almost 150th place in the World Series of Poker gets more than 6 grand........

More like 150th was $58,570

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/news/article.asp?newsID=1620

Of course, they paid $10,000 entry fee and had over 6,300 entries

In foosball, you can almost pick who will finish top twelve with a few sleepers getting in.  In poker, you might get 2 or 3 of the top players in the top 12 spots.  A lot of non-poker playing fans can relate to it more easily than foosball.  Doesn't mean we can't try though.  I would love to play in a foos tournament with 6,000 players.  And with that many participants, I'll bet some sponsors might sit up and take notice.