In trying to be as wholistic as possible in the analysis of the Ryder Cup, let's get into a discussion on the NBC coverage here in the States.  Let me know what you think.

Here's what I saw and heard, though.  I like Dan Hicks as a host.  He does a good job of managing the voices and framing the situations for the viewer.  As a moderator, he does his job and does so well.  He wasn't a homer for the US but you could tell he was clearly excited when the US won.  That's ok for an event like this one.

Johnny Miller was just bad.  In an attempt to avoid too much negativity, he was almost too positive at times.  I cannot recall the number of times that he said a chip shot was makeable.  He went out of his way to be nice to Justin Leonard.  He went out of his way to not talk about showboating by the Americans. 

Miller is a devisive figure.  Either you love him or you hate him.  Lately, though, it seems like more people (including myself) are turning on him.  He needs to find his voice and stick with it no matter what anyone says.  If he doesn't, then NBC may want to investigate bringing Azinger into the booth to do color commentary.  He is a new American hero and has an established reputation as a broadcaster.

Jimmy Roberts is just tough to watch.  The fact that he was allowed to call some action was a big oversight by NBC.  His essays are usually cliche and long winded.  They were this time, too.  But, in an event like the Ryder Cup, there is absolutely no time for that kind of content.  The action speaks for itself.  In this Ryder Cup especially, the play needed no contextual help from an essayist.  The golf was so compelling that Roberts should have been relegated to interview duty.

In that regard, Roberts appeared to struggle.  He wanted to ask tough questions of the victorious team.  Winners don't want to revel in tough questions and retrospective doubting.  They want to focus on how great it was to win.  Roberts' colleagues in Roger Maltbie, Dottie Pepper, and especially Mark Rolfing had that concept down right.

Going back to the action, though, was something that NBC seemed to miss.  They focused on too few singles' matches on Sunday.  The Ryder Cup singles matches should be like old Frank Chrikinian directed Masters telecasts - constant movement to shot after shot after shot.  The flurry of action is best communicated to a TV viewer that way.  Certainly once the fate of the Cup was secured, NBC should have and did focus on the clinching matches.  Getting to that point, though, was a struggle.

An overall grade for me would be a B, maybe B- if I wasn't such a kind grader.

But, more fans watched this Ryder Cup than the 2006 Cup.

According to Sports Business Daily, the network garnered a 3.3 rating and 7 audience share for the Sunday singles, up 22.2% from the Nielsen for the final round in 2006.

Then again, the Euros had this thing locked up by Sunday in 2006.  They just had to show up to win.  Still, it is the only golfing event this year that Woods was in the last time it was played to show improved ratings.  Consequently, as many journos have pointed out, that may actually have a lot to do with Tiger's absence.  Americans watch winners and the Americans may have won without the greatest individual athlete in the world.

Your thoughts?