Covered a bit on Morning Drive.

Looks to be pretty lucrative, 9 year deal. Doesn't seem any different than what was expected back in December, but final.

Some stability for the Tour, increases in purses I assume are possible.

Beginning of the end of the PR campaign for the "new" tour?

Will Phil now finally comment, lol? CBS, NBC renew PGA Tour golf for nine more years

I wonder why the term of 9 years - seems suspicious to me. In 10 years the players will be cyborgs - Bill Glasson and his wife are having the surgery now.

9 is a multiple of 3 so they must be banking on some luck

So tv coverage will go from 3 shots and 6 minutes of commercials to 2 shots and 7 minutes of commercials. Other than the Masters, golf will be unwatchable going forward.

And, if Kostis is right, the Tour will manage the product and they will only show the handful of players THEY want you to see.

^^^ It's still better than what was available to watch golf a couple decades ago.^^^

And there is the $6 million man!

I seriously doubt that. Golf in the early 90s was much better on TV than it is now.

More coverage, better commentary, less commercials. No question.

This one has some additional details, some of which are interesting (okay to me). PGA Tour media deal aimed at more video for bigger audience

I don't think every player, every shot is new as was reported - didn't The Masters do this last year?

No. They show scoring highlights online for players, but there has never been an on-demand, every shot for every player live.

The networks are going to rue the day they signed this agreement as Tiger continues to fade away into the sunset. Good for the Tour to get this signed now, but the correction in 10 years is going to be insane. Unless some charismatic superstar emerges to keep golf in the mainstream sports arena like Tiger has.

Tour is not as stupid as some would believe. Maybe the TV coverage will continue to irritate most with too many commercials and side stories, but the streaming is only going to get better. There will likely be a day you can follow anyone you want, for a dollar.

Put a fork in World Tour, the money grab by millionaires who don’t even golf has been nipped.

I may remember wrong, but I remember watching video from all sorts of players last year at The Masters.

As Ive said in the past, so many people are completely ignorant to the costs of the production and execution of a live sporting event, and outside of ad-free, on-demand network coverage of every player, people will still bitch about the coverage.

Also, the Tour doesn't "decide" who you get to see. The Tour has no control over who contends or wins tournaments. Sure, they set up featured groups for targeted coverage in early rounds, but on the weekend, the players that are shown are those at the top of the board. If that's the kind of thinking Kostis is peddling, he's a moron too.

The Masters will post highlights for players online (like, for example, Player X has a birdie....they may show the highlight on his scorecard). Likewise, they have their usual coverage of featured groups, Amen Corner, etc. But nobody has ever had every shot, every player live like they going to try at The Players.

There is scant coverage of guys just a few shots back. Sometimes none. That's what he was talking about and he's right.

So it looks like maybe the difference was every shot wasn't live? Within a few minutes seemed pretty good!

Masters 2019: The innovative way golf fans will be able to finally watch every shot (Yep, EVERY shot) - Golf Digest

This is just patently false, and another example of what I talk about when I say people just find things to complain about with regards to coverage.

In what tournaments are true contenders not being covered? What shots important to the outcome are being missed or not shown? None.

Also, just as an FYI, being "a few shots back" is a lot. I'm not sure what you think is in contention or not with regards to the final weekend of a tournament.

JA Nelson 38- as I stated, IF Peter Kostis was correct then the Tour might control broadcasts.

Also, I understand the economics of the tv rights. The networks have to make up that revenue somehow, but re ghb ular tour broadcasts are so hard to watch with all the commercials. I get that is the nature of the business now, but I don't have to like it. And I generally don't watch too much non major golf for that reason.

You are (purposefully?) confusing the word "scant" with the word "no." I'm not "finding things to complain about" I'm participating in this thread. Who are you to dismiss my opinion? More importantly how is it you think you know more about TV coverage of golf than Kostis.

A few shots back is not a lot in some tournaments, it is a lot in others.

This is just an example of what I talk about when I say people just like to blow hot air and expert on things they know little about on bulletin boards with regard to any opinion that is just slightly off from their own.

Your tone sucks. It is evident we won't agree. Let's leave it at that.

I didn't "dismiss your opinion". I asked you, since you made the statement about "scant coverage", which true contenders aren't covered or which shots important to the outcome are missed or not shown? Your response to me is to tell me my tone sucks.

Golf coverage on all platforms of media - TV, internet, radio - is the best its ever been. Ever. The golf fan has so much stuff at their fingertips is absurd.

Strangely enough, none of Greg Norman's "wins" are divisible by 3?

Was he involved with this deal?

The coverage of the final round of the Genesis was lackluster at best. There were several guys within a shot that weren't shown until there were basically no other options as far as big names. A great example of exactly that was the first time seeing Joel Dahmen (who was within 1 at the time) was when Scott hit into his group. This was the same for several other guys who were within 1 with a few holes to play on Sunday. This is the most recent example of you getting to only see what the networks and possibly the Tour want you to see.

"Aren't covered" isn't the issue here. No one said that. Amount of time devoted to the ones behind would be nice even if they don't win. There's lots of time to fill (or should be, if they cut the commercial breaks down to a sane level - if not for DVR I wouldn't watch golf at all except the Masters and the Open). A more balanced coverage is all that Kostis was saying. Right now, they seem to prefer to show Hatton picking grass out of his Codechaos versus an actual golf shot by the likes of DeChambeau or Mitchell or Dahmen who were close enough to have had a chance. They wait until most of the field is done and are caught off guard that the leaders moved backwards though it had been the trend for the past 48 hrs.

As for your tone, when you accuse others of "finding things to complain about" you can't then claim to be ignorant of your tone.

“Art” has three letters.

So onto something?

Yep, I think so.

For pete's sake, Hawk - he's been married 3 times??????

I watch on Sky Sports Golf in the UK ... commercials absolutely kill the coverage, but not as bad as you guys in the US have it. We tend to get some interviews and analysis for manty of the breaks instead of commercials.

Number of types of playoffs he's lost majors in is also three!

And, "Greg Norman" has three syllables.

What does this mean for the future of Golf watching? I already struggle to find golf as a cord cutter. If I wanted the Golf Channel, I would have to sign up for Youtube TV for $49.99. But Youtube TV is full of other things I do not need. So I just sign up for Amazon Prime PGA Tour Live. And still struggled today to watch golf on TV. Have the CBS app for 6.99 a month but they did not show the Charles Schwab today on it. Had to break out an HD antenna and search, search for the Digital free channels to even watch.

Now I'm reading about NBC, ESPN and CBS re doing these awful TV rights to make them even more expensive. Good luck with that. I hope PGA tour live does not get any more expensive.

It is ridiculously easy to watch golf on TV. Pay up or don't watch.