You hit it right on the head, Tiger. Why would the novice fan
stay on the webcast for more than a few minutes? Maybe to check
on your wagers? Certainly not because the sport is showcased effectively.
While we have no professional venue here in CT, I tune in three
or four times a week to watch. My kids say I am obsessed, but
that's ok, I am. I don't wager like I used to, except for a Friday
night once in a while, I might stop in at Sports Haven for a few
drinks and bet some tri's and super's.
Fact is, I watch for the entertainment value, which, sadly, is
disappointing.
I give kudos to the Dania webcast, at least they try. Their graphics
are far more appealing than Miami's and the announcers call the
action now and then, as corny as they sound.
Miami is dreadful. The picture quality is old and tired. They
have the old scoreline graphics like the monitors that used to
be in the lounge and in the food court at the frontons, and when
they show the scores after a point, they don't change the scores!
The announcers are not good. They don't call the action and most
of the time you cannot understand what they are saying.
You are right dd, there may not be a direct answer.
Start with Dania's graphics, add more personable announcers with
knowledge of the sport. As for picture quality, I think the most
recent Fort Pierce webcast is a step in the right direction.
I think having live attendance helps too. Crowd noise is a definite
draw of attention, but we all know what the reality is to that
point.
