Does the PGA Tour need Tiger to win a major?

[alf174]

Of course you can't just manufacture something like that, but if there was one, I'm sure more people would watch.

Come to think of it, that may be the best reason the PGA marketing people would try to manufacture a rivalry.

[CStaley]

Wasn't the PGA Tour successful pre-Tiger? He's good for ratings, but he's not bigger than the Tour itself.

[newtogolf]

Wasn't the PGA Tour successful pre-Tiger? He's good for ratings, but he's not bigger than the Tour itself.

Yes it was, but not to the level it is today because of Tiger. Tiger attracts a different level of fan and support because he's a household name. People either watch to root for him or against him, but the key is they watch. I mentioned what the NBA went through with Jordan, and NASCAR has been suffering as well due to the economy and passing of Dale Earnhardt Sr. They are hoping Jr is the cure, but he hasn't established the level of dominance his dad had yet.

Marketing dollars for commercials are based on ratings numbers, ratings go down, so do the prices the networks can charge for a 30 second commercial. If the networks see a dip in ratings and marketing dollars they will bid less on the next television contract or air less tournaments. How many times do you think we'll see Cleveland in a nationally televised NBA game without King James, I predict once at best, when they play they Heat.

[nevets88]

Getting the PGA to be more popular via stars might be the backwards way of doing it. One of the reasons soccer is huge is because it's so accessible. Anyone can play and it's easy to learn and play, so it's easy to relate to the professional game, despite it being on a much higher level.

Make more casual/regular golfers by making it easier to learn and get rid of slow play. I don't know how, but make instructors twice as effective. If you have more golfers, you have more fans.

[B-Con]

The NBA took a hit after Jordan left, but it kept going along nicely. The PGA TOUR would benefit, ratings-wise, if Tiger won a major, but when is a superstar winning a big prize not a ratings draw? If Tiger never wins another major, the PGA TOUR will push other top players strongly, but don't expect them to count him out and make moves assuming that he's a has-been until he is clearly no longer a superstar contender. And that is far from established, give him another year at least.

Make more casual/regular golfers by making it easier to learn and get rid of slow play. I don't know how, but make instructors twice as effective. If you have more golfers, you have more fans.

I think if that could've been done, it would've. How do you double the effectiveness of the instructors?

[sean_miller]

The NBA took a hit after Jordan left, but it kept going along nicely. The PGA TOUR would benefit, ratings-wise, if Tiger won a major, but when is a superstar winning a big prize not a ratings draw? If Tiger never wins another major, the PGA TOUR will push other top players strongly, but don't expect them to count him out and make moves assuming that he's a has-been until he is clearly no longer a superstar contender. And that is far from established, give him another year at least.

Maybe golf needs to be smaller. Why is it on two channels every Saturday and Sunday all year long? When is the off season? What other sport goes 12 months a year? There's no spring training, no opening day, you never know for sure who's teeing it up, and the playoffs are weird too. Make all the players play in all the events and have a shorter season, then "casual fans" might give a hoot.

[sonnydamico pdx]

You might wanna read up on some of the LPGA threads on this board and realize that it matters A LOT. Even the LPGA was getting "tired" with the asian dominance on their tour since they couldnt sell this to their target audience, loosing sponsors and TV money left & right. They didnt had problems selling it in the asian market, but again, thats not where they make their main money from. In the end its all about marketing and selling it off, and selling a YE Yang (just hypothetical if he would become a dominant force) to a western audience is a lot more challenging (impossible?) than a Mickelson or Woods.

(#1): I very much agree with Tigerspuds' #16 reply above. (#2): Nowadays a lot of people think that pro sports is exclusively about marketing/sales/sponsors/demographics, etc., with a litlle pure athletic competition on the side. Amazingly enough (and very fortunately), others would say "viesa versa".

[bigoak]

Some posts make professional golf sound like a soap opera or made for TV movie. It's golf. It took Woods a lot of years to rise to the top of the game. Give him a break and some time to rise again. The PGA is not over because Tiger Woods hasn't won a major. The PGA will not cancel out if Tiger Woods never wins a tournament again. Real fans of PGA golf watch the golf. Newbies have to have their heroes to watch. The regular viewers will be there. If you change for the newbies you might lose the regulars. In the past some turn off the channel when Tiger is rollin because the outcome is not in doubt. Too many want to know the end of the movie before it ends.

[Acropo]

The answer is no, they do not need Tiger. What they need to do is a MUCH better job of promoting and celebrating other players. They put themselves in a bad spot by being too Tiger-centric. He's just about the best golfer I've ever seen but I enjoy golf much more when he's not in the field because of the way the PGA and others ignore everyone else (except perhaps Phil who I'm always rooting for because he's such a good guy). Look at the screen time he received yesterday at the expense of other players (some of whom were moving up the leader board quite nicely). There are a lot of really great guys, great golfers (not as good as Tiger) and great stories in golf and they should be highlighted.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head, there.

Tiger finished T23 and was never in the hunt, even after a fantastic round on Friday (yes, that73 in those conditions was amazing) and yet he was still getting disproportionate airtime. That said, there wasn't much going on elsewhere - but what about McIlroy, Westwood and the others who made their moves? They must have played some pretty good stuff but no-one got to see it much. There is definitely the need for the powers-that-be to look further than just Tiger and Phil - the latter is 40 and there isn't likely to be much left. On the other hand, we have some very interesting youngsters coming through. To the guy who was dismissive about McIlroy - can we bear in mind that he has only just turned 21? He's approaching the age Tiger was when he won his first Major - and with two professional wins under his belt already. Personally, I think the battle over the next few years will be between him and Ryo Ishikawa (only 18!!????), with Rickie Fowler maybe nipping in form time to time. Hey - doesn't that sound like a potentially juicy package? The two young titans and the plucky yank stealing their thunder? That could run! I've said before that the attention given to Tiger has been a two-edged sword. Yes, he has helped to raised the game to undreamed-of popularity among casual golf fans and viewers - but take him away and what happens? They melt away. Tiger gets them in through the gate; the trick now is to keep them there. Spread the net wider, guys, bring the Bashful Prince, the Young Pretender and Sunshine Superboy up to higher visibility and you may have something people will buy.

[Easy]

You gotta realise that Tiger Woods is an athlete that comes once a generation or even two (in any sport). The man is up there with Jordan and Ali in there way of transcending sports. It's not about merely promoting other players, they also have to have freakish talent to back it up. Tiger was so dominant he took golf to another level, just be glad we were able to be "all witnesses."

[steelernation]

If Tiger does not win another tournament, the pga will not suffer. There are plenty of people that would love to see him struggle to win again or struggle to win and only lose in a playoff. He is a great golfer, but he is also the most polarizing golfer in the game.

His extra coverage on the tour is also for those who want to see him drop f bombs, throw clubs, or blow up at his caddy after a poor shot. I know I do, I think its funny as hell watching a pro lose it.

[topspin4hand]

If Tiger does not win another tournament, the pga will not suffer.

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but Sunday's Open coverage got historically low TV ratings. Low ratings when Tiger's not in contention has been well chronicled. If Tiger's not winning or contending anymore, at some point the long string of lower ratings will hurt the PGA next TV contract. So I believe the PGA would suffer in that regard (revenue) if Tiger's not winning majors ... or even contending.

[Radford Wooly]

Give Tiger time, he'll be back on top soon. Every athlete goes through a lul. He'll be back to his elite level by the end of the season.

[Kieran123]

The fact that ratings drop considerably when Tiger isn't playing/in contention prove that they need him to start winning.

[sean_miller]

The fact that ratings drop considerably when Tiger isn't playing/in contention prove that they need him to start winning.

Or it could prove they need to market other things/players than just Tiger. Yankees v. Red Sox isn't on TV every week but MLB still makes a lot of money every week. Some weeks the ratings are higher, but it's still profitable either way. The PGA Tour needs to ensure there's a reason to watch when Tiger's not in the field, because even when he's winning, he plays a very limited schedule.

[Kieran123]

Or it could prove they need to market other things/players than just Tiger. Yankees v. Red Sox isn't on TV every week but MLB still makes a lot of money every week. Some weeks the ratings are higher, but it's still profitable either way. The PGA Tour needs to ensure there's a reason to watch when Tiger's not in the field, because even when he's winning, he plays a very limited schedule.

But there is no one else in the Tour that is like Tiger...marketing for that would be hard when you have to down grade to someone like Phil.... don't get me wrong he is a great player, but doesn't have the excitement factor like Tiger or the dominance like Tiger. There are some young guys who are good too, but again, not nearly the same as having Tiger.

I still watch regardless, but I honestly dont find it as interesting when he isn;t playing...John Deere Classic was an example.

[steelernation]

I think Tiger was still in contention. at one time he may have been 6 or 7 strokes off the lead.

[sonnydamico pdx]

Or it could prove they need to market other things/players than just Tiger. Yankees v. Red Sox isn't on TV every week but MLB still makes a lot of money every week. Some weeks the ratings are higher, but it's still profitable either way. The PGA Tour needs to ensure there's a reason to watch when Tiger's not in the field, because even when he's winning, he plays a very limited schedule.

An important point needs to be emphasized: essentially, it wasn't ever so much a case of "the PGA Tour 'marketing' Tiger Woods"; it was always, at its core, a case of the phenomenom of Tiger "marketing" the PGA Tour. Yes, in the future, they can try to pump somebody up and create a bunch of hype. The beauty of Tiger, especially circa '96---2000: he was so damn spectacular he just flat blew everybody away, hype or no hype. Yes there was a hell of a lot of marketing, but it followed tremendous, spectacular, unprecedented talent, not the other way around. Now and then recall: Pebble Beach US Open 2000. THAT was a phenomenom no amount of hype or "marketing" bs will ever create.