_lefraud_ said:
Again, some of yall don't understand.
Since it was brought up, if OU softball was only on CW, "nobody" would watch that either.
There was collusion by all the networks, that's why LIV landed on CW. Once LIV is on ESPN or the likes, people will watch (just like they do OU Softball).
When people have an actual interest, they are perfectly capable of watching all sorts of stuff on all sorts of platforms. The idea that this is what has held LIV back is ridiculous. If people like a sport (or TV program), they will find a way to watch it. People watch football on the SEC network and the godforsaken longhorn network and navigate the various ESPN channels when they're airing something they want to see. People stream stuff all the time. Netflix (countless shows), Hulu (The Bear, etc.), Paramount + (Yellowstone spin offs, etc.), Youtube (Cobra Kai, etc.) etc. have all managed to find audiences for their shows despite being on subscription streaming platforms. Tucker Carlson got over 30 million to watch his first show on Twitter. I'm guessing there's a little overlap in Tucker viewers and golf viewers. Somehow these guys can find Twitter but not youtube?
At some point, you need to come up with something other than excuses. Sure, network TV would no doubt increase the numbers some. But the idea that, even though they can only get 80,000 to watch on youtube, there's untold millions of people ready to tune in if it was only on TV just doesn't have any real support.
Edit-And "all" the networks colluded? Really? Fox and ABC (and countless others), who have no relationship whatsoever with the PGAT, decided to "collude" and open themselves up to litigation and a possible FCC investigation just cause? Why would they do that?