Norman Says PGA in Trouble

Norman warns that U.S. tour's future in trouble


When I first looked at this article, I thought "he's full of it", but after taking it in, I think Greg has a point. I have noticed a drop in my own interest in the PGA Tour over the last year, except for tournaments where Tiger and a few of the top five are in contention. The fact that a lot of good players just show up and collect a big fat paycheck without bringing much drama to the competition is hurting my interest in watching the game over-all.

I have to admit when Tiger missed the cut at the US Open, my level of interest dropped substantially. I tuned in for the back nine on Sunday, but that was it.

from my stand point, i see golf being more popular than it ever has been. I see the pga has been moved to the golf channel for the 1st 2 rounds instead of usa, which makes me a little weary. I always liked usa's set up and im kind of turned off by the golf channels presentation of nation wide and lpga events. I hope that doesnt scare away viewers. I'll still watch every event from start to finish if the field is decent.

I agree with georgep that increasing tech and distance add to the fascination and thus should increase interest. (Norman's comment about "you should not win if you don't use the driver" is very strange; Tiger used a fairly traditional, forged Iron-2 from what I've understood, what kind of high-tech is involved there? Does he mean the advancements in ball technology is the only thing that made that possible? Probably it is as much up to Tiger's brilliance...)

However, I think Norman has a point when it comes to money and Tiger's dominance. It is ok for me that the top finishers get lots of money but then it should decrease more sharply. My feeling is that many players today are pretty content just to be on the PGA tour, just showing up and picking a few top-50 finishes, get quite a lot of money and live a nice life. Too few see themselves as beating the top guys, especially Tiger. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to see more ambition and boldness, especially among the young ones. Even if they don't succeed (since he is that good) they should believe in themselves.

I also watch tournaments start to finish whether or not the real big names are playing, one reason is that we all know what they can do, when the rest of the tour plays well its nice to see. don't get me wrong when tiger is on he is fun to watch but I am also starting to expect it from him, with good reason. When another tour player has a career round, even if he doesn't win, that what i look for.

I also think that the lack of uniqueness to a lot of the newer courses hurts viewership. Everyone likes to see the island hole at sawgrass. The sandtrap green at riviera. So many of the courses look alike these days. I know the pros don't like them but more doglegs, par fives guarded by water, and the graduated rough was a great idea. Things that toughen par fives and make skills other than length more important would help keep things interesting. Truly great players like Tiger would prosper either way. The Hank Kuhne's would have to develop a real game or find a real job.

If you look at the statistics, just about everything is down when it comes to ratings on TV. There are more channels and choices. Golf is always going up against football, baseball, basketball and now NASCAR. There is a lot of competition out there for the TV dollar. The NBA finals have been down ever since Michael Jordan retired. Only the NFL seems to be able to maintain their hold. However, even Monday Night Football was down so much that they moved it to cable.

I think the comment about not winning without a driver is crazy. It showed that Tiger's game is so complete that he can win in any conditions and course layouts.

The biggest problem is that the casual fan wants to see Tiger, not Vaughn Taylor.

Norman is correct in saying what he said. One dominant player on the TOUR is not what made the game popular on T.V. Viewer interest increased through the 60's, 70's and 80's because of rivalry and drama. Also fans felt a closer connection to the game because the explosion of technology had not infected the game, SKILL not power were the hallmarks of a great player. I'm not denying Tiger has skill, quite the opposite. He is the best the game has seen, but he dominates the game so much that it's boring to tune in and watch. It's like watching an NFL game between the Colts and the Cardinals.....you know who is going to win and by roughly what margin so why bother watching.
The way the networks cover the golf is appalling aswell. It takes about 15 minutes from intro to see a single shot. First they'll do a bit on the course, then the weather, then the history of the event,then a commercial, then what NASCAR race in coming up in 2 weeks, then the talking heads will do a 5 minute blurb, then an interview with anybody,then a commercial, then "did you know Monk returns this week?", then someone holing a 2 foot putt for par, then a commercial.....and so on until at quarter past the hour they show Tiger Woods hitting a tee shot.......then go to a break. You get the idea! If they showed someone playing an entire hole, or guys playing the course or the ball flight in relation to the ground or target. They have multiple cameras, why not use them all for all the players?? If the coverage was better, golfers(and there are alot of us out there) would tune in by the millions.Don't you agree???

bitter old man if you ask me...Greg has a rep...a nasty rep

When Tiger is in the lead on Sunday, I rarely watch it as it is boring when he is leading, but that is not Tiger's fault. Maybe $ purses should be lowered, players might be more hungry, but the same could be said in other sports.

Because they simply dont have enough air time to catch every golfer, anyway come saturday or sunday i dont want to see the players who arent within 5 or 6 shots of the lead even if they are my favorite golfer.. unless they're making a run. I agree that they should show golfers from start to finish on holes, ie. Mike Weir will hit it in a greenside bunker, he's close to the lead then 3 holes later they show him at 2 over what his score was when he hit it in to the bunker? I like to watch players drive the ball, i like to hear how long they've hit, what club and distance they've pulled every hole not every other hole. I find thats a major problem.. to attract more viewers they should incorporate a monitor of ball and clubhead speed of every recorded shot.. thats something i've been dying to see. Personally i prefer USA's presentation over the golf channel, everything shown on the golf channel looks like low budget b movie golf. I like the presentation USA and NBC put out, i like the different stories on a particular player they feature from week to week, i dont mind interviews, but like you say sometimes i wish they would get to the golf already.

...while this may have been true in the 70's and 80', the 90's and 2000's are dominated by one player that has captured the worlds attention. I would ask the other top 150 Tour Players if having a Tiger is good for the game. I think their answer would come in the form of a huge smile and a portfolio manager carrying their bag at the next Pro-Am. Like Jordon was to the NBA, Tiger has taken golf to unimanginable heights. I would say that prior to his arrival golf was on a downside. I see the majors becoming a step below Super Bowl status. Regular season events probably will fall off if the fields continue to winnow of top ten players, but is this Tigers fault? He doesn't even play in the smaller events. The D.C market has the former Kemper Open, and while it stuggles to find a sponsor, it is still a major draw for the region. No, I don't see Mr. Normans point, I see a frustrated arrogant golfer that wanted to be king. P.S - don't forget were talking about American Golf and ratings. As long as an American Icon is dominant, ratings and the American Golf world will benifit. P.S.S- aren't Greg and Tiger good friends? I thought Greg was the one that got Tiger into yachts

Sir,
You've highlighted what Norman is alluding to when you say the Kemper has trouble finding a sponsor. It has become too expensive to sponsor a tournament now. So if they start to lose 'smaller' tournaments because sponsors cannot front the prizemoney anymore, the TOUR shrinks. I don't think Norman is talking about the indivual wealth of the top 150 players. The TOUR is now devouring the hand that feeds it.

while I can see the point of dwindling sponsors becoming a problem for the smaller stops. I don't see this as a symptom of one dominant player, but rather corporate economic conditions. I understand that the former Kemper has a problem that is a double edged sword. If you can't atrract the name players then you can't attract a sponsor. However, look at the Booze Allen/ former Kemper. Why can't they attract name players when they know Tiger isn't playing? If Booze Allen had Fuyurk, Mickelson and five of the top twenty I think they stay on as a sponsor. However, with a marginal track and conflicting schedules around majors, few show up for the Kemper. So no, I see it as marginal problem that really revolves around the Majors. The top players are so geared up for the Majors that the smaller tourneys suffer. Maybe the PGA sends the bigs guns out to a few of the smaller tourneys when sponsors are waivering. Lord knows Tiger, Pil, and the rest of the Billionaires Boys Club owes it to them.

Hasn't there been talk of a system that would require players to play events that they usually don't? I don't remember if it was earlier this year or last year that I heard of a plan that called for players to play at least one or two events that they did not play the previous year. This would get some of the big guns out to the little stops. The tough thing will be getting the Players Association to agree to making their stars play where and when they don't want to.

My suggestion would be to have a system where the events are put into a tiering format. Take out the Majors and the other top events like the WGC's and the Players. Then look at the rest of the schedule. If a guy wants to play in a Tier 1 like Bay Hill or the Memorial, then he has to play in a tier 4 like the Kemper or the Bell South. Even if it was a 2 to 1 ratio it might help. Hell, they made me take college classes from groups I had no interest in. Why not make guys go out and play golf at good courses, in front of fans that want to see them and pay them lots of money to do it?

They may also have to look at co-sponsors instead of one title sponsor. There is no doubt that Tiger is a blessing to golf. He has taken the game to popularity levels that nobody else could. Unfortunately he plans his schedule around winning Majors and rightfully so. This will always cause a lull for the tournaments he skips.

I see it much like the NBA. No one cares that much during the regular season. You might go to a game where Shaq or LeBron is playing, but basically you could care less untill the playoffs start. Much seems to be the same with the PGA. Unless it's a major or a Tiger event, it' a so so call as to wether or not I'll watch. Personally I prefer the womens events more now that some American talent has emerged. Again, I see this as a problem for the PGA to have some concern with, but not a symptom of one dominate player. They will do well to look at the NBA and Baseball as a similar sports league with many of the same problems. Look at the smaller tournaments as the smaller market teams and you have a very similar situation. So maybe some sort of revenue sharing system where sponsors pay the PGA and the PGA in turn has an equity system of event sponsorship.

I recall something like what you are talking about. Seems they kicked around having the players alternate their schedules so they made the full rotation every 3 years. They could continue to play all the events they played normally, but would be required to play in the others at least once every 3 years.

Since the players are independent contractors, I think that would be hard. There has already been talk that with Tiger's popularity, he could not play the PGA Tour and still make a boatload of money. Probably more than he currently makes. Imagine if the Tour lost their top 10 to a "super-tour" that played 10 or 12 tournaments a year all over the world for huge purses. Those events would be made for TV since the small fields would make airtime for your favorites a given. Norman proposed this years ago and almost got it done until Finchem stepped in and broke it up with some inside manuevering. At that time it would have been devastating to the regular tour. I think Nicklaus and Palmer were siding with Norman in this. There was a pretty good mutiny in the works. I remember reading about it but the details escape me.