- 10,276
- Sacramento CA
- cnd01
I'm too cheap to pay for FS2 (no reason to double my monthly bill getting a lot of channels I don't watch just for 1 channel), and I do not watch pay per view because I'm not paying for something I already pay for. That's my view.That's not true about the sponsors, groups like F1 know people will pay to watch that's why Bernie went to pay tv only basically and their viewership has yet to dramatically drop off due to it. F1fanatic has great articles on viewership that prove they've stayed basically in the same area as before. Pay tv in many places tends to not have commercials and yet F1 has the biggest sponsors in the world on their cars because of investors not the fans really. Same with most top tier sports. In the U.S. I guess you can make the claim for that, but premium cable isn't cheap in most areas that you'd have to get to have FS1 and FS2 or NBCSN so if they really cared about Sponsor air time they'd put it back on regular package television for everyone. They don't though because of investors.
As for the negative vs positives. I'm just being a realist, if they do good things I say it if they don't I don't. The topic was IMSA broadcasting, which I don't think is a positive just like NASCAR and Indy and most U.S. television. If you want a positive from me on IMSA, I'd say they're doing a better job with cautions then before in the season. Sorry but the real world deals with real world views that's why I do what I do.
I'm a realist when it comes to expectations, and I set my expectations low. Imsa has gone beyond what I expected so far. Plus, I know that no amount of whining and talking about how crappy I think the series is on an online forum changes a damn thing about it other than possibly turning other people off to the series which is the opposite of what needs to be done to grow the series and the sport in general