Darren Rovell is the dean of sports business reporters, and I love reading his blog at CNBC.com. But I disagree with his latest post, in which he argues that the World Series of Poker is not very compelling this year because of the number professional players who have a chance to win. In his eyes, the WSOP is more exciting when no-names like Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer are coming out on top.

I will agree that the WSOP really took off as a television event when Moneymaker, a man who had never won a live poker tournament in his life, shocked everyone by winning the main event in 2004. On some level, it's very inspiring and even ultra-American.

But would you watch Wimbledon if Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal were gone by the second round? If Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson were to miss a cut at the British Open, would you be watching over the weekend? Cinderellas are nice, but I would much prefer to see top players like Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer battle it out than tune in for a couple of mid-level pros and some unknown guys.

The reality of the WSOP is that the tournament is filled with many players who did not pay the $10,000 entry fee. Instead, they arrive in Las Vegas after winning small online tournaments, satellite events or even contests. (Though this has changed a bit due to the crackdown on Internet gambling.) While these entrants are still very good poker players, they come into the event with little to lose and will get as much pride out of busting a top pro than actually advancing in the tournament.

ESPN, of course, would benefit by having top pros compete in the final table because it would demonstrate that poker is a game requiring more skill than luck. Seeing a guy land a miracle flush on the river is exciting, but I'd much rather see a top pro steal a pot with a great series of bluffs.

-- Tim Lemke