There have been a lot of sports-themed reality shows on TV lately—Superstars, Fourth and Long, The T.O. Show, etc.—and they all have two things in common. They are terrible and people hate them. So let's greenlight some more!
Sports Business Journal takes a look at some of the other new shows in the pipeline, like "Shaq Vs.", and wonders why they're being made in the first place. The T.O. Show got more buzz than just about any mid-summer replacement could get and it wound up tied with a re-run of "Fresh Prince" for the 798th-highest-rated cable show of the week. Man, I would hate to see what 799 was.
These shows get some of the worst ratings imaginable and critics won't even be bothered to tell you how terrible they are. (The only one that seems to get any traction at all is "Hard Knocks.") Yet, networks executives can't wait to make more, because they are incredibly cheap to produce and don't require turning no-talent hairdos like Spencer and Heidi into celebrities. At least Warren Sapp used to be able to tackle people.
In other words, you get what you pay for and ... say it with me ... "in this economy" what else can you expect? But why do sports reality shows do so poorly in the first place. They appear to have a ready-made audience of devoted, talkative, spend-happy observers? (i.e., you guys.) Maybe it's because sports fans already have a huge slate of reality shows on their TV watching schedule. It's called "sports."
Low cost, not ratings power, keeps sports reality pipeline full [Sports Business Journal]