Is the PGA Tour/Media focus on Tiger hurting the Tour?

[Body_Visions]

Any time you make someone bigger that their sport, long-term damage is inevitable. What if his wife had ended his career? Nobody had been groomed to take over. Sure you have to perform to some degree, but make no mistake, the media can make you.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. I don't watch football, but he believes the NFL does a great job of promoting the teams, and not individuals, and that it helps keep football as the undisputed champion.

[bscinstnct]

^ what about Rory?

Should they still be promoting him like he is going to win every week?

[isaacbm]

[quote name='Playaway' timestamp='1377637732' post='7755313']
Tiger is probably the best player in the world right now, top 5 for sure. He (and only he) has a chance to be the best ever with a handful of major victories. Thereby, he drives the world of pro golf.

If he is leading, he is news. If he is middle of the pack, he is news. If he is sucking, he is news.

I am not a fan of the person, but of the talent. And if they showed every shot he hit for the next 5 years, no matter where he is in the event I think that would be appropriate.
[/quote]Lol! I agree with everything you say except the "probably" part. Was that a slip of the keyboard? Who would the other top 4 be? Just kidding, just kidding....

[Sunningdale]

OP: I don't know but it's very tiresome.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1377963558' post='7776981']
[b]Any time you make someone bigger that their sport, long-term damage is inevitable[/b]. What if his wife had ended his career? Nobody had been groomed to take over. Sure you have to perform to some degree, but make no mistake, the media can make you.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. I don't watch football, but he believes the NFL does a great job of promoting the teams, and not individuals, and that it helps keep football as the undisputed champion.
[/quote]

Yes, when you [b]MAKE[/b] someone bigger than their sport, there is potential for long-term damage, not only to the sport but also to the psyche of the individual. An example would be like when Lebron James was already given the $100 million contract even before he played his first NBA game, calling him "King" even before he won his first ring. Sure when we look at him now, we can say he deserves it. But I think it's different with Tiger. We didn't make him bigger than the sport. He made the sport bigger for all of us. The PGA Tour didn't promote him in the beginning. The golfing world still had lots of discrimination. Tiger received lots of hate mail and death threats in order to stop him from playing golf. He's earned it and I don't care who you are, if you have 79 career wins, you deserve the air time. You don't need the media to promote you. Winning in itself is self-promotion. If the day does come when Tiger has 81 wins, imagine the media and coverage for the next event he plays in. Will it hurt the game? I say who cares, he deserves it, and everyone will watch it, even the people who know nothing about golf. If I'm not wrong, I think it was Bob Costas who said the sign of a great athlete is if an alien came to earth, knew nothing about the sport, and said thats the guy I want to watch, referring to Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods.

[nochct1]

[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1377963558' post='7776981']
Any time you make someone bigger that their sport, long-term damage is inevitable. What if his wife had ended his career? Nobody had been groomed to take over. Sure you have to perform to some degree, but make no mistake, the media can make you.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. I don't watch football, but he believes the NFL does a great job of promoting the teams, and not individuals, and that it helps keep football as the undisputed champion.
[/quote]

Football is different because the city/state does half the work for them. The NFL most certainly promotes individuals, but the reality is that people are fans of the team in their city/state/region (of course there are exceptions to this), but the NFL doesn't need to promote the Eagles in Philly to get people to root for the them.

I've asked this before. What's your solution? How do you maximize profits while not showing Tiger as much? If you were in charge, who would you promote? How would you explain to sponsors that Tiger won't be getting as much exposure, but you will spend more time promoting some lesser known players..

If I'm a sponsor I want all Tiger all the time because he has proven to increase ratings.

[Dave230]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1377974191' post='7777653']
[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1377963558' post='7776981']
[b]Any time you make someone bigger that their sport, long-term damage is inevitable[/b]. What if his wife had ended his career? Nobody had been groomed to take over. Sure you have to perform to some degree, but make no mistake, the media can make you.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. I don't watch football, but he believes the NFL does a great job of promoting the teams, and not individuals, and that it helps keep football as the undisputed champion.
[/quote]

Yes, when you [b]MAKE[/b] someone bigger than their sport, there is potential for long-term damage, not only to the sport but also to the psyche of the individual. An example would be like when Lebron James was already given the $100 million contract even before he played his first NBA game, calling him "King" even before he won his first ring. Sure when we look at him now, we can say he deserves it. But I think it's different with Tiger. We didn't make him bigger than the sport. He made the sport bigger for all of us. [b]The PGA Tour didn't promote him in the beginning.[/b]
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure they did, with the Nike contract and three consecutive US Amateurs, he was one of the most hyped up players who ever came on tour.

[bscinstnct]

Nike had to pay a fortune in technical expertise and actors salaries to pull this off and get the hype started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U1bDcYbG0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

But it was worth it.

[b_joseph]

.Golf has a core audience. The numbers drop without him, sure but there is enough of a worldwide audience to survive.

Personally, I would advise just appreciating a genius perform something that he loves. Same with Federer...not at his best anymore but you just have to see him as much as you can because you never know when it will end.
But that's me.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Dave230' timestamp='1377976774' post='7777777']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1377974191' post='7777653']
[quote name='Body_Visions' timestamp='1377963558' post='7776981']
[b]Any time you make someone bigger that their sport, long-term damage is inevitable[/b]. What if his wife had ended his career? Nobody had been groomed to take over. Sure you have to perform to some degree, but make no mistake, the media can make you.

A friend and I were talking about this the other day. I don't watch football, but he believes the NFL does a great job of promoting the teams, and not individuals, and that it helps keep football as the undisputed champion.
[/quote]

Yes, when you [b]MAKE[/b] someone bigger than their sport, there is potential for long-term damage, not only to the sport but also to the psyche of the individual. An example would be like when Lebron James was already given the $100 million contract even before he played his first NBA game, calling him "King" even before he won his first ring. Sure when we look at him now, we can say he deserves it. But I think it's different with Tiger. We didn't make him bigger than the sport. He made the sport bigger for all of us. [b]The PGA Tour didn't promote him in the beginning.[/b]
[/quote]

[b]I'm pretty sure they did, with the Nike contract[/b] and three consecutive US Amateurs, he was one of the most hyped up players who ever came on tour.
[/quote]

When you say "they", who are you referring to, Nike or the Tour? With the Nike contract and 3 consecutive amateurs doesn't sound like the tour to me. It sounds like Nike and Tiger himself. I wrote in the post, we didn't make him bigger than golf. He made golf bigger for all of us. If anything, I would give the credit to Nike for promoting him with his first commercial "I am Tiger Woods". I think it is detrimental if you make someone, and that person doesn't live up to the hype. If i'm not wrong, Tiger's first Nike contract was $20 million. No golfer was given that kind of money from any company to wear their clothing. Then in 2000 he signs an extension for $100 million which many people thought was lucrative. We all know what happens after that. EVERYONE at the end of the day benefits, directly or indirectly. All the other golf companies like TaylorMade have business at this scale because Tiger expanded golf globally.

You remember that guy with baggy shorts and cool sneakers with 6 championships and 6 finals MVPs, or that other guy with 17 grand slam finals, or that guy who ran the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds, and Tiger with 79 wins and 14 majors...how do you make that? You don't, you earn it.

[Tim Meitner]

Don't kid yourself....the Tour promoted the $**t out of Tiger right from the get-go.

[awil]

[quote name='bunter101' timestamp='1377646770' post='7755965']
I didn't catch Sundays golf, but the days i did catch were probably the worst feeds i have seen. The coverage was absolutely abysmal. 1 maybe 2 groups getting shown, then a five minute synopsis of tiger and what sort of wince we got there. If there is so much need for Tiger, Why doesn't Nike do a deal with the networks and create a pay per view Tiger channel that just follows him during his round?
You say that showing Tiger all the time brings in the $$$. Do advertisers pay by air time he gets rather than a flat fee per advert while he is on course?
[/quote]
Not quite tv but its right here
https://mobile.twitter.com/GCTigerTracker

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Tim Meitner' timestamp='1378007191' post='7779759']
Don't kid yourself....the Tour promoted the $**t out of Tiger right from the get-go.
[/quote]

The tour promoted the s**t out of Tiger from the get-go? The media did, the broadcasters did, the sponsors did. But the tour itself? I'm not talking about today. But this is Tiger Woods before he became The Tiger Woods. They jumped on the bandwagon. The tour didn't do it from the get-go. The game of golf has a long history of unfair treatment to minorities (gender, racial) such as keeping african-american members out of Augusta till the 1990's. But really, from the get-go? Do you really believe in the early 90s that the tour was thinking "hey there's this really amazing black kid out there, lets promote him"? What did they start doing after Tiger blew the field away at the Masters? "Tiger proofing" remember? When they started moving tee boxes back 40 yards, narrowing the fairways, changing what used to be par 5 into a par 4 resulting in par 71 and 70 courses that used to play par 72, etc. Doesn't sound like promoting the $**t from the get-go to me. The tour jumped on the bandwagon once they realized S**t this guy is amazing, and we better ride his shoulders to increase ratings. What did the PGA tour and the commissioner say about Sergio Garcia's fried chicken comment. "We don't comment on player disciplinary matters". Basically "no comment". You look at other leagues, like the NFL and NBA and their commissioner. Doesn't matter if you're a star or not, David Stern makes it very clear if you say anything insensitive, racist, sexist, discriminatory, you will be handed by either fines or suspensions. If you're the PGA commissioner, and your best player, the reason for the ratings, the biggest money maker, happens to be black, you should protect him.

[Treykook]

This. My grandmother would do the same. A player that puts those kinds of eyeballs on golf, of all things, is a basket in which you put a significant number of eggs.

The real pressure, though, is not whether Woods is a has-been. It's whether or not he's a could-have-been or, most importantly, the should-have-been (as in the best ever) that brings the pressure. I'd say there's as much, if not more, pressure coming from within than without, if y'all can dig that. That's what makes it the story. Now this guy who's still your most marketable will end up being the all-time leader in Tour wins but may never win another major after running them off at an unprecedented clip before that infamous Thanksgiving night. How big is that drama? Package it and sell it as reality TV four times a year, which is pretty much what the networks do at the majors.

Media aren't about anything other than ratings and ad rates because one dictates the other. Tiger drives both.

[quote name='lumberman2462' timestamp='1377567537' post='7750335']
Whether you like Tiger or can't stand him.....he's still the story. Just like he's been for over 15 years.

No. They're not making a mistake.

GolfWrx is not the most reprentative sample of golf fans. GolfWrx is filled with ridiculous golf fans who are obsessive over all things golf. (myself included)

There's a disconnect between what Tiger actually is versus what Tiger used to be.

A lot a golf fans don't remember what it was like 15-16 years ago to see the things Tiger was doing and the non-golf fans that were paying attention.

My Grandmother died almost 6 years ago at the age of 84. She didn't give a tinkers damn about golf between 1950 and 1990. During that time both my Dad and I won golf golf tournaments - she would clip things out of the paper - and golf was a by part of our family life.

Tiger came along and wins the Masters and all of the sudden my sweet Grandma is skipping lunch on Sunday after church to get home and watch Tiger.

To repeat myself: The Tour isn't making a mistake anymore than an NBA coach is making a mistake by putting his 5 best on the floor.

Even the haters tune in to watch Tiger.
[/quote]