The Show Must Go On

Every sport has limitations on technology or products that might give an unfair advantage – ranging from a ban on aluminum bats to penalties for using performance-enhancing drugs or even limitations on the number of golf clubs you can carry. Even fishing has some – you historically couldn’t use rods over a certain length in bass tournaments, and as that prohibition went away it was replaced by one on the Alabama Rig.

I’m not ready to go there with forward-facing sonar. There may come a time when the technology is so overwhelmingly dominant and easy to use that the case against it will be unassailable, but I’m not there yet. There are plenty of pros out there – among the top couple hundred anglers in the world – who have the best technology available right now and are not able to consistently compete. Just plugging it in doesn’t make you the second coming of the love child of KVD and Roland Martin.

So while I’m going to punt on that first question, I think it’s more important to consider a second question: Not whether the increased reliance on forward-facing sonar is unfair, but rather whether it’s tough to watch. With the recent completion of the BASS event at Champlain, the naysayers have reached a crescendo. Even some of the commentators, whose paychecks are paid in part by the sonar companies, got in on the action, discussing whether it changed their product. This offseason will be a make-or-break time for the future of the coverage of the sport.

Here are some considerations to think about:

First, all sports go through changes. Did football fans like it when the forward pass was added, or when roughing the quarterback started to be taken more seriously (cue up the pictures of a bloodied YA Tittle)? How did baseball fans react at the end of the dead ball era, when the league was integrated, or when the pitcher’s mound was lowered? Change is tough for any of us.

Second, fishing (and bass fishing in particular) is full of complainers. They could change any rule and 75 percent of the fans would bloviate about it mercilessly, then change it back and those same 75 would say they didn’t change it soon enough. In the social media era, those complaints are amplified.

Third, there is always going to be a group of traditionalists who don’t like anything that doesn’t stem from what they consider the “golden age,” especially if it doesn’t benefit them. Can’t afford FFS? You’re probably going to be against it. Getting your butt kicked by someone with it even though you have it? You’ll probably shade that way, too. If you like to flip or crank, that’s what you want to see coverage of. The vocal minority who have enjoyed Fujita’s five-transducer beatdowns have been those who own or covet FFS and want to learn to use it better. I’m sure there’s also a certain fan base that also wants to see their old favorites win – it may be harder for them to get behind a new breed of angler, many of whom they know little or nothing about.

Finally, let’s face it, just plain old fishing is hard to watch for an extended period on the internet. It doesn’t matter if your hero is catching them on 6-pound fluoro or 65-pound braid – your tournament winner may only get five bites a day, even if he’s flipping or frogging. It’s long periods of boredom punctuated by fleeting moments of excitement. Try watching that without falling asleep and drooling in your Cheerios. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been there. To some extent, we’re victims of the information age. In the Bob Cobb era when you had to distill an entire tournament into 30 minutes, every one of those minutes was bound to be impactful. Today you’re working to fill dozens of hours of coverage, and it can’t all be fireworks and touchdown runs. We’re fortunate to have a crack team at BASS that keeps the conversation moving remarkably well, even when we’re just watching a bunch of guys with hands on hips and necks aimed downward.

It does feel like we’re at a tipping point, and some next steps are likely to ensue over the offseason. While I’m not privy to the meaningful business conversations at BASS, or their viewership numbers, I’m sure that part of the calculus of their next actions is based on cold, hard numbers. The solution, I suspect, is not to ban or limit the technology that exists today, but rather to find ways to make the “game” move more quickly and to provide more information.

Some of that will come from tying in the anglers’ sonar images into the broadcast more seamlessly. Some of it must come by altering how we consume the product. In 1954, the NBA adopted a shot clock to end the low scoring affairs marked by major periods of stalling. When baseball got criticized for the languorous pace of their games, they sped things up, ceasing the endless mound visits, substitutions and opportunity to step out of the batter’s box. The NFL messed around with kickoff procedures, both to provide additional safety for returners and also to benefit the in-game experience. What changes can we make that won’t alter the fundamental product but will nevertheless remove some of the rougher edges?

The tours have a winter to face forward and think of new ways to keep things moving along and interesting for the widest possible swath of fans. You’ll never stop all (or even most) of the complainers, but there are sports that are far less interesting and far less nuanced than fishing that makes for good content – we have the stories and we have the talent to make this must-watch programming, with or without scopers.