A case for Norman Chad and Lon McEachern

Like many of us, I watch TV for primarily one reason-to be entertained. That said, I find the duo of McEachern and Chad to be the most entertaining on air today. There are a few reasons why.
Have you ever suffered through the Fox sports broadcast featuring Charlie Rose, Michael Konic, Howard Lederer? Although Konic is pretty good, Rose contributes nothing to the broadcast, and Lederer is insanely dull!
Gabe Kaplan? Please... The TV execs knew he was horrible the FIRST time they let him go!
Hellmuth? How can you tolerate someone who talks more about himself than the action on the table?
Mike Sexton and V.V.Patten? While VVP is ok, Sexton makes the broadcast almost completely unwatchable. This man has absolutely NO entertainment value.
Which leaves us Chad and McEachern. McEachern has a great voice and really is genuinely excited when the river comes and he yells "it's an ace!" As with Dick Vitale, you know the emotion is real!!! Regarding his poker knowledge- as with baseball and football- disecting the game is usually done by the ex-player, color commentary guys.
And although he overdoes the ex-wife lines, Norman Chad's
self depricating humor is actually (sometimes) quite clever and refreshing. He is not full of himself like so many other so-called poker genius' are. Like him or hate him, he is entertaining!
Let's face it, ESPN's poker ratings are through the roof and these two guys are a big reason why!
So unless Amarillo Slim makes a triumphant return to the small screen, ALL HAIL CHAD AND McEACHERN!

[DaveduFresne]

Compared to the others that are out there, I agree with you, they are the best in business.

However, I would say over time Lon has improved (seems to understand poker sufficiently to properly commentate) while Chad has degenerated to killing the same jokes, and his poker knowledge is about the same.

I'm ok with the duo, but I think there's probably a better color man out there.

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's face it, ESPN's poker ratings are through the roof

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with this statement. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was true.

However, I've seen a number of comments on the ratings being "through the roof", and I wonder a) if it's true, 2) how you know and d) what exactly it means.

All I could find was the Cable Top 10 for last week, and poker was not on it.

Again, I understand the ratings don't have to be Top 10 to qualify as a big success for ESPN, I'm just curious what they are ... and how they compare to last year.

I also realize that the infinite broadcasts ESPN does of the same event erodes the viewership on any given episode, but increases it in total.

[GambleAB]

The only concrete number I heard was that the first airing of the limit tournament last week drew just over 600,000 viewers. I have no clue if this is poor/fair/good/great.

[Kevmath]

Here's an article from broadcastingcable.com, posted Aug. 29:

Poker on Cable: A Royal Rush
A few wonder if the trend is getting out of hand
By Joel Brown -- Broadcasting & Cable, 8/29/2005

TV poker is the most popular game in town right now, and a reliable draw—especially for male viewers. “There are lots of networks out there doing lots of poker programs, but still, I don’t know if we’ve hit the mountaintop yet,” says Frederick Christenson, ESPN’s senior director, programming and acquisitions.

A poker broadcaster since 1994, ESPN has boosted its Tuesday-night World Series of Poker programming to 32 hours from 22 last year. The sales side has been strong, Christenson says. This year, ESPN’s poker nights have averaged 1.4 million viewers for the past six weeks, roughly in line with past years. But there are a lot of poker events—and better ones in the World Series cycle—yet to come.

While the audience is roughly 70% male, Christenson says, that’s actually a smaller male demo than the audience for a typical ESPN game telecast—even though erectile-dysfunction drug Levitra is one of the sponsors; its logo is even on the poker table.

The Travel Channel, which has attracted an average of 1 million viewers to its poker telecasts the past three seasons, has just gone into production for World Poker Tour, to debut early in 2006. The poker series is the highest-rated on the network, attracting an audience that is up to 70% male, compared with an average of just over 50% for the channel as a whole, says spokesman James Ashurst.

While some of Travel’s celebrity-laden poker games have been ratings downers, Bravo takes the opposite approach with Celebrity Poker Showdown, which debuted for the season on Aug. 18 with a table of reality- show all-stars. “It’s one of the top-rated shows for us,” ranking be-hind only Queer Eye and Being Bobby Brown, says Shari Levine, executive producer of the show and VP of production for Bravo. But the celeb contingent may be one reason that Showdown draws only slightly more than 50% male viewers. Notes Levine, “It depends on who the celebs are.”

At GSN, “the network for games,” daytime game shows tend to run 60% female, says President/CEO Rich Cronin. Its Poker Royale and other “Casino Night” programming evens up the gender ratio.

Spike TV, with its guy-centric programming, is avoiding poker, says Kevin Kay, executive VP, programming and production. But the network is readying a show called King of Vegas, in which contestants compete in a variety of games to find the best gambler overall. And at GSN, Cronin has a bet that poker’s novelty is wearing off: His network is mulling Celebrity Blackjack.

[lonn19]

How could you say Lon and Norm are a big reason why the ratings are so high. I tune in despite them, not because of them. Are you crazy? People tune in to see these players battle for millions of dollars. I would be pretty confident in saying most people who watch ESPN's coverage don't tune in to see Lon and Norm. There could be no commentating and the ratings would be similar.
Lederer and Kaplan are not supposed to be entertaing. They are analysts and I think they are two of the best.

[Easy E]

You're obviously not stable enough to be out in public

[KramerTM]

Amen! I've always liked these two.

[Easy E]

The hospital released too many last time!

Sexton is probably the most annoying commentator I've ever come across.

There are only so many times you can listen to him saying "he EARNED that pot because he bet" and why must he end every single sentance with "Vince."?

They could easily fire Sexton but keep replaying his comments from previous games and you wouldn't notice a thing, he's just a tape recorder with a selection of 5 or 6 comments.