Shocker: PGA Tour Reiled Too Much on Tiger

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 10:35 AM EST Comment 13 comments

Gary Van Sickle has the earth-shattering news that the PGA Tour may have been riding the coattails of Tiger Woods for the past twelve years. Frankly, I was shocked to read the news considering that I thought that Commissioner Tim Finchem was just a fantastic negotiator!

You can blame it all on hard times if you want, but the problems began before the current economic crisis. The tour showed overconfidence — dare I say arrogance? — in the way that it rode the wave created by Tiger Woods. Some of the decisions made during this period took the tour in the wrong direction.

Consider the television contract negotiation dates:

1997, the birth of Tigermania
2001,Tiger's most dominant performance to date
2006, when Woods was hitting his stride after a second swing rebuild

Sheer coincidence that there are now over 100 millionaires on the PGA Tour for the prior season. There is no correlation whatsoever to Tiger Woods' timely brilliance.

Van Sickle's initial superficial reporting aside, he tries to explain his position. He goes on to say that the Tour was wrong to believe that it had a larger audience of golf fans thanks to Woods. Really, they were and still are Tiger fans. He says that those blinders caused the PGA Tour to make some serious mistakes.

Too much television exposure - Van Sickle doesn't find the Thursday/Friday coverage very good and considers it oversaturation. I think he's dead wrong here. The Tour has been broadcasting its events on cable for the better part of two decades. To claim now that it is a mistake is absurd. Just because most people don't like Golf Channel's crew or production value doesn't mean that it is a big mistake to broadcast events on cable. It just means that I would rather it be Brian Hammons and Frank Nobilo in the booth.

Gigantic purses - Gary throws a dart on this one. Unfortunately, we've been railing against the ills of throwing money at the players for years. This is not a new phenomenon. Yes, the number of PGA Tour millionaires and millionaires 20 times over have increased, but it's nothing new. The Tour has marginalized so many tournaments by allowing the A and B-list players to tee it up less than 20 times in a year. Players will always flee, though, to the notion that they are "independent contractors" and really only have to play the schedule that they want. And, until the Tour does something about it like the LPGA's slightly deceptive "once every four" rule, then fans will continue to see this pattern.

Extravaganzas - Again, Gary touches on an idea that has been discussed in my writing and elsewhere for years. With so many limited-field and enormous purse events, other Tour stops are relegated to backseat hump status. (It's a bit by Brian Regan.) Even events hosted by Jack and Arnie don't quite mean the same to the best players. And, as we have seen from throwing money at the players, that is part of the reason why the FedEx Cup is not working right now.

Then, Van Sickle tries to get in his shots on the Fall Series. He's about two months behind the discussion at Waggle Room, though. But, here's his take on what the Fall Series should be:

The European Tour doesn't limit its season to a calendar year. Its 2009 season has already started. The PGA Tour should follow suit. The Fall Series should be the start of the next season. The money should count, FedEx Cup points should be awarded and winners should get the same perks as winners of other tournaments.

As Dr. Cox on Scrubs once famously sang: "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!....Wrong! Wrong! You're wrong!" I'll just leave a link that will explain my positions (and yours as you've written them) further.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I tend to agree with Van Sickle

My only real point of dispute is his contention that the TV market is over-saturated. Only golf geeks will watch to see if Chez Reavie makes the cut or not. If the Golf Channel thinks covering days one and two is a sound financial decision, more power to them.

Otherwise, I think most of what he writes is on the mark. The PGA Tour has used Tiger’s appeal among non-golfers to over-value those tournaments in which he plays. In doing so, they’ve raised the cost of hosting a tournament beyond what anyone but an oil company can afford.

There’s no incentive for top-tier players to show up beyond what’s needed to achieve individual performance goals. There are no benefits that accrue to players for participating in more than a limited number of events and no penalties for those who only play 15-20 times a year.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he's that wrong

But he’s talking about things that we’ve known for years with no real good solutions. Making the Fall Series into the start of 2009 will do exactly nothing for golf. These are just tired ideas with no solutions. It kind of inspired me to write about how to handle this situation (there’s a post about it somewhere on here today). :)

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 12:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I was looking for that sentiment in what you wrote. I must have missed it.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably that Dr. Cox part at the end

Ruined it. :) I think he’s dead wrong about the Fall Series.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, that too.

Without the Fall Series, Shane Bertsch, and a host of others, wouldn’t have the opportunity to keep his card next year.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo

Poor Shane.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So what you’re saying is the poor schmucks who can’t compete week in, week out during the regular season should have an opportunity to maintain their status when the prime players are on vacation?

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Dec 29, 2008 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think my overall stance

Is that the Fall Series is a terrible idea. It demeans the players that play in them. They’re awful events. No one really cares about them. And they have a reputation for saving guys’ careers to the point that it’s a joke.

That’s gotta go away. But, you can’t make it go away without a better alternative. My alternative is what I wrote about in that post on GNN. If you have more opportunities for guys to play in full field events during the regular season, then the Fall Series doesn’t need to exist.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 29, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You reap what you sew...

…gee, has Gary been in a coma for the last 10 years ? The PGA has been riding Tiger’s coattails since his first win at The Masters. He was already the biggest name in golf before then – but since major wins are what people…err…the media live to focus on, it took that first one to get the ball really rolling.

And don’t just point fingers at The Tour, the media deserves just as much, if not more of the blame and shame for the present condition of things. These people live with their heads up Tiger’s rectum and are afraid to say anything that might get his fur ruffled.

Tournaments are overpriced for sponsors – especially for the ones with no shot of drawing major names. The Fall series is shameful, charging regular season prices for third tier turnouts.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 29, 2008 2:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Could someone explain...

How much a sponsor needs to invest in a regular PGA tour event? And what’s included? Besides the players, who makes money on the event? The sponsor (or this the sponsor just basically paying for exposure)? The PGA tour?

by red tees on Dec 30, 2008 10:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

not a complete answer, but...

…the TITLE sponsor puts up between $4 and $7 million for a tournament – and they are basically paying to get their name seen and have a lot of advertising. Underneath that, there are other levels of sponsorship – most of those are seen at the tournament site with signs and tents.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Dec 30, 2008 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That about covers it

They pay for some ad buys as part of sponsorship at certain levels. They get hospitality tents galore and tickets, with perks. The money from each event goes to charity, and I’m sure a little kickback to the Tour’s reserves.

by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 30, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks...

So in the discussion about the fall series – when someone mentioned that the title sponsor money was the same, the downside of that is the exposure potential is smaller because the fields are weaker and they’re probably not getting the same bang for the buck that a more popular event gets.

And since the PGA tour negotiates the contracts for TV exposure, does the $4-$7 million just go to the PGA Tour and they set up all the ads, hospitality, etc?

It would seem to make sense that the cost of the tournment could have sliding fee based on the strength of field/exposure potential if it looks like the Tour might have less leverage to negotiate in the next few years.

by red tees on Dec 30, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs