Is the lack of big names at the wsop main event final table good or bad for poker?

Question

it's apparent that this final table is going to be devoid of players who have been successful on the big stage over the course of years...even as the fields have gotten ridiculously huge since moneymaker's win in '03, there has always been at least one guy, i.e. dan harrington in '04, mike matusow in '05, allen cunningham in '06, lee watkinson in '07, that has gotten there...this year there is no one, as matusow was just knocked out a short time ago, leaving brandon cantu and phi nguyen as the only remaining pros with any major successes in the field...the best story would be tiffany michelle, the (smokin') pokernews reporter girl who is among the chip leaders

so my question is, is it good for poker if we have a table of complete nobodies, battling each other for all the money and glory? my vote would be no, but what's some of your opinions?

Answer 1

IM still going to watch

because ESPN will make it intersting because of the delay of the final table until November,  it wil be where everybody will be pulling for a certain player..

and with this being like it is they will be getting instuction on how to better there play , and also  the players thta made it that far are more than likely are good players not noodles

Answer 2

I think it would have been a boost for the ratings if Mike or Phil had made it, but most people that watch poker on TV were and still are going to watch either way.  It will be interesting to see how ESPN handles the off time to promote the final table in November.  If Tiffany Michelle makes it that would obviously help  promotions.

Answer 3

It is VERY bad for poker.  With the final table not being played until Nov.  you know they are going to promote the heck out of it.  Without a big name this makes it very hard to do.  Unless ESPN has something up their sleeves to make these people famous quick, this years final table will bomb big time.  That hot chick making the final table will help them big time though.

Answer 4

In reality, the success of the telecast is due to casual fans, and I'd guess that most weren't familiar with Cunningham or Watkinson and probably had no idea of anyone in 03.  What really keeps people interested outside of the poker play is how ESPN actually presents the telecast.  Contrary to most of their programming today, they do a great job with their interviews and asides to generate stories independent of the actual players.  While I'd very much like to see a final table with 2 or 3 fairly well known guys, I'm more than happy to watch relative unknowns.  Besides, a top pro does not guarantee interest.  Watkinson was one of the interesting players at the table last year anyway, in terms of casual fandom (although I like watching him play).

Answer 5

I too prefer to watch pros play the game as opposed to amateurs.  But then again I prefer to watch a cash game as opposed to a tournament.  I do think it suffers quite a bit from having no real name in the field.  I always enjoy watching how a pro reacts to a typical amateurs erratic play.  Guess I won't get to enjoy that this year.