Phil Mushnick pulled no punches in today’s column. He makes points which are obvious to honest people, to people with an IQ above room temperature, but which the golf media denies daily. It’s must reading.
No excepts; you need to read the whole thing. Here’s the link.
P.S. I haven’t been writing much lately because… I have a new girlfriend, and she plays golf!
Here’s how Forbes describes Patrick Rishe, who recently wrote an article for them (“Tiger Woods Escaping Disqualification means CBS, IBM Escape Ratings Downfall“):
Patrick is an Economics Professor at the George Herbert Walker School of Business and Technology at Webster University in St Louis, MO.
After reading the article, I am further convinced the college loan debt our nation’s young people have accumulated is a tragic mistake. If our professors’ thinking is as muddy as this article, should we expect our students’ to be clear?
Rishe, the good lemming (hey, professor,maybe you should pick up a copy of Freakonomics), gives us his version of the Tiger-Woods-Is-Golf lecture. Golf was nothing before Tiger Woods, the Masters television ratings live and die by Tiger Woods, blah-diddity blah blah… You’ve heard it a million times before from the groveling golf media.
Does Tiger Woods help television ratings? Of course. The most-hyped players in any sport increase television ratings. Rishe, however, as so many before him, exaggerates the effect Woods has, and the method Rishe uses is outright embarrassing for an economics professor. Hell, it would be embarrassing for a rodeo clown.
Let’s look at what Rishe wrote that caused me to shake my head and grin.
[Note to budding sportswriters: The first sentence is grammatically flawed. Spotting the error is an exercise for all Lanny H wannabes.]:
Using Nielsen TV ratings data for The Masters between 1977 through 2008, it reveals that only 7 times over that 32 years span did the Nielsen reach at least an 11.0 rating. 4 of those years (1997, 2001, 2002, 2005) coincided with a Tiger Woods victory. As for the other years (1998, 2007, 2008), he (1) finished 2 shots behind Zach Johnson in a tie for second in 2007, (2) finished 3 shots behind Trevor Immelman for second alone in 2008, and (3) finished 6 shots behind Mark O’Meara in a tie for eight in 1998.
More serious than the grammatical flaw in the first sentence is the logical flaw of the entire paragraph. Have you already spotted it?
Maybe you need a hint: Nielsen provides two key figures, ratings points and share. The first, which Rishe uses, is the total number of viewers; the second, share, which Rishe ignores, is the percentage of viewers among total possible viewers.
That’s right, Rishe gushes about the 11.0 mark — eleven million viewers — as if it is a magical touchstone that proves his point, completely ignoring the fact that U.S. population has grown from 220 million in 1977 to 315 million today.
Yeah, a college economics professor did that. To all you parents with kids at Webster University, mull that over while you’re writing out those five-figure checks.
Using the link provided by Rishe (which only goes through 2008), I was able to divide each ratings points figure by U.S. population for that year and come up with results showing quite a different story from the one Rishe is telling.
Woods’ wins in 1997 and 2001 lead the pack. (More on those in a minute.) After those two, however, facts very much get in the way of Rishe’s erroneous narrative. Take a look at this chart (viewers and population in millions):
. Year Viewers U.S. pop % of pop Winner
Notice that, after the top two, only one other “Woods Era” tournament makes the top ten. Of the second ten (11-20), fully half predate the “Woods Era.” This is not at all the narrative Rishe foists upon readers in his article, in which population growth is ignored. Again, ignoring population growth is bizarre for a professor of economics.
[Not-so-quick note about the top two ranked Masters: Were those two telecasts so highly rated merely "because Tiger Woods was in contention"? Well, obviously, the answer is no. In 1997, Woods was an important cultural story, the "African American kid" who won the Masters. The ratings weren't because "Tiger Woods was in contention," but because a "young black kid was making history." In 2001, Woods was attempting to become the holder of all four of golf's majors; that story would draw ratings regardless of the player; put Kevin Na or Kyle Stanley in that position, and you still draw monster ratings. I'm not downplaying the magnitude of those accomplishments by Woods. Not at all. I just want to point out that people didn't tune in merely because Woods was playing, but for other causes. At this point, Woods is no longer a novelty, and he hasn't won a single major in five years, much less four in a row. Ask yourself this: If Lydia Ko won the Masters would there be monster ratings? Of course. Yet, Ko does not draw monster ratings on the women's tours. Being the first woman to win at Augusta would be due not to Ko herself, but to her status as first women to win there.]
There is a fetish among sportswriters and casual golf observers to link every development in golf to Tiger Woods. One of the myths we here at Lanny H Golf busted was the Tiger-Woods-Brought-Athleticism-and-Fitness-to Golf myth (“Stop The Lies!“). We’ve also written about this in the past, using the Nielsen share numbers to make much the same point as we did today (“Golf Needs Tiger Woods (and Other Lies) – Part 1“).
There are many factors affecting television viewers. For example, national weather patterns may (or may not) compel more sports-minded people to skip television for their own outdoor activities. There are numerous other factors worthy of consideration. Among those, population growth is surely the most obvious. For an economics professor to gloss over population growth of 90 million is pretty darn disheartening. At least for those of us who think clearly and logically and honestly.
Still trying defend their indefensible decision to not DQ Tiger Woods at the Masters, the USGA has released a statement including this:
In deciding to waive the disqualification penalty, the Committee recognized that had it talked to Woods – before he returned his score card – about his drop on the 15th hole and about the Committee’s ruling, the Committee likely would have corrected that ruling and concluded that Woods had dropped in and played from a wrong place. In that case, he would have returned a correct score of 8 for the 15th hole and the issue of disqualification would not have arisen.
In other news, the Committee recognized that had a frog wings, it likely would not bump its ass when it jumped.
Think of this scenario: Tiger Woods marks his ball one putter length to the left of his ball marker at the request of a player whose line goes right over it. Woods does so. A rules official is milling about the green. Woods forgets to move his ball marker a putter length to the right and finishes out the hole. After the round, Woods having signed his card, he exclaims in a press conference, “I forgot to put my ball back properly on one of the greens!”
Television video shows Woods is correct in his recollection; there is no option but to disqualify him. However, the rules official who was milling about the green says, “I didn’t realize Woods did not properly replace his ball. If I had I would have mentioned it to him, and he would have put down the 2-stroke penalty and not signed an erroneous scorecard.
It could be said of every player infraction that, had an official seen the infraction, recognized it as an infraction, then told the player of the infraction, that the player would not have signed an incorrect scorecard. In effect, following this faulty logic, the signing of an incorrect scorecard is no longer grounds for disqualification. Because, had a rules official caught the infraction, he would have warned the player.
It’s clear that Woods was allowed to break the rules and continue play. The USGA should just be honest and say they came up with a cock-and-bull story in order to have Woods playing on the weekend.
The only question that needs to be addressed at this time is why the violation was covered up until Woods inadvertent admission during the interview.
Sometimes you read an article that is so asinine, you can’t help but comment. Sports Illustrated’s Michael Rosenberg gave us this, concerning Tiger Woods at the Masters and his non-disqualification :
Actually, I think most people are reasonable about this. I followed Woods for most of the third round. I heard one fan criticize him the whole day. One. And it wasn’t even about the drop.
Gee, Mike, that’s some great analysis there. Maybe next you can tell us if the attendees sitting next to you at a Justin Bieber concert criticized the singer.
Note, too, the nice implication that if you think the rules should apply to all golfers equally, you are not “reasonable.” That kind of writing literally makes me laugh. I picture a political blogger banging away at his keyboard in his mom’s basement: “Any reasonable person knows that all of our nation’s schoolchildren should finish in the top half of their class!”
Then we have this:
Louis Oosthuizen puts it as bluntly as it can be put:
“[Tiger Woods] got the rule wrong in the way he dropped,” Oosthuizen said. “I don’t think he did it intentionally. But after signing the scorecard, it was definitely a DQ.”
Many thanks to the reader who brought this John Ziegler analysis to my attention. You simply must read it if you want to know the truth about the decision at the Masters not to disqualify Tiger Woods for signing an incorrect scorecard.
Ziegler pulls no punches, showing how the rules officials and CBS both had to know what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.
I wrote in “The Tiger House Rules” that the rule was being misapplied, but I was going on memory. Here’s what I wrote:
Now, this “new rule” was designed to handle cases where, say, a player’s ball moves after he addresses it and HE DOESN’T SEE IT!
As I said, I was going on memory at the time, but I was on the right track. Ziegler provides a link to the misapplied rule and example cases. If you read the examples, you will see they very clearly indicate that Woods should have been disqualified.
Read this: “if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty.”
Well, of course, Woods could have known he broke the rules, i.e., “the facts.” He himself dropped the ball! That seals the deal right there: according to the rules, Woods should have been disqualified.
The rule doesn’t need to be made any clearer, but it is! The example cases very specifically show that the waiver of the DQ is applicable only in cases where the player is unaware of the action that caused the penalty. A player might, say, imperceptibly brush the side of a sandtrap on his backswing and dislodge a few grains of sand. The television camera catches this, but the player is unaware. The DQ would be waived.
You don’t need anything more, but there is more. Check out this example of when the DQ would NOT be waived:
As a competitor’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the competitor fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the competitor was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Woods was obviously aware the he moved several loose impediments, so to speak. He physically dropped the ball two yards back of the prior shot, and he was aware that he physically dropped the ball two yards back of the prior shot. He stated that in an interview! (I know, at this point, some lamer will say, “Oh, but it wasn’t two yards, it was only 1-1/2 yards.” That is completely irrelevant. He publicly stated he dropped the ball behind the rules-specified drop point, and he even stated he dropped there to get a competitive advantage.) Being unaware of the rule is neither here nor there. Knowledge of the rules is demanded of players. A breach can only be waived when a players is physically unable to know he broke a rule. The player in the example knew he moved the loose impediments, and Woods knew he dropped the ball two yards from where he struck his prior shot.
At this point, there is no debate: Woods should have been DQ’d, and he wasn’t. There is no controversy, no debate. Woods should have been DQ’d.
I strongly urge you to read Ziegler’s entire piece, as well as the complete rule and accompanying examples. Don’t rush through it. Take your time. You’ll finish knowing the rule was intentionally misapplied (and lied about) in order to keep Woods in the tournament. Ziegler writes quite a bit about CBS’s role in the matter, and Nick Faldo’s mysterious change of heart. As the reader who alerted me to Ziegler’s article put it, the piece is “great at many different levels.”
Again, this is not a matter of opinion. It is simple, and undeniable, fact. Ziegler offered $10,000 to David Feherty’s favorite charity if Feherty could defend the decision in light of what Ziegler has pointed out. Feherty refused the challenge. That says it all.
Congratulations to Adam Scott for winning the 2013 Masters despite the golf world bending over backward to enhance Tiger Woods’ chances. Job well done, Adam. The Masters could not have a classier champion. And my daughters tell me you are rather easy on the eyes.
Because the Crayon Media thinks Tiger Woods is all that matters in golf, just as they think The Housewives Of and Honey Boo Boo are all that matter in documentary filmmaking, we were treated to apology after apology, telling us over and over that cheating to keep Woods in the field was actually not cheating.
There were two rules officials standing near the 15th green Friday, as there are at every hole. They were watching closely, but neither saw anything inappropriate about Woods’s drop. And Woods did not realize his gaffe.
So there are the first two guys who “missed” Woods rules violation.
On Saturday, we were told by Fred Ridley that Augusta had reviewed the incident on Friday during Woods’ round and “we had initially made the determination…that he in fact had not violated the rule.”
So there are several more guys who “missed” the Woods rules violation.
Then Woods spilled the beans in a post-round interview. The rules officials STILL sat on their hands, continuing to look the other way. Only when CBS made an issue of it that Friday night did the officials decide (haha, decide? they were forced) to address the Woods rules violation.
Further hilarity ensued as a “new rule” was invoked to justify Woods continuing to play. Now, this “new rule” was designed to handle cases where, say, a player’s ball moves after he addresses it and HE DOESN’T SEE IT! It was not meant to cover cases where a player ignorantly and intentionally [Edit: I don't mean to imply Woods intentionally broke the rule, but rather that he intentionally dropped the ball where he did, forgetting for the moment that it went against the rules] breaks a rule. So all this talk about this “new rule” is hokum.
Woods should have been DQ’d. (Withdrawing would have been a class move, sure, but, on the other hand, that would be like not taking tax deductions which are legally available to you.)
The about-face from Nick Faldo was very odd. The consensus is that he was told to stop stating the obvious because it highlighted what a scam this year’s tournament had potentially become and would detract from viewer interest in the telecast.
With Woods playing, we were treated to such great sports “journalism” as being told Woods tee shot on #17 was “critical.” Four shots back, behind three guys, only two holes to play, CBS is telling us Woods is nevertheless still pertinent to the outcome of the tournament.
Question: If rules officials are willing to overlook something so obvious (until Woods forced their hands by inadvertently admitting the rules violation in an interview), do you have any doubt whatsoever that they might also “miss” things in Woods drug tests? Or perhaps “miss” administering the tests?
Anyone who thought the Masters and Augusta National represented the “tradition of golf” needs to get over it. After this ruling, Lanny H Golf will revisit our analysis of the Masters event itself. Why we continue to call this small-field, weak-field event, played on a course with no rough, a “major” is beyond me. I suggest we replace the Masters with the L.A. Open, and recalculate our old records for majors. The other majors routinely have the top 100 players in the world and full fields of 140 players. The Masters only has 90 players total, and many of them are former winners and amateurs with no chance to compete. Charles Howell III, ranked No. 56 in the world and an Augusta native who finished T-19 last year, is not in the field?
All the hogwash about not wanting to start players off the back nine because of “tradition” is now a joke. What the hell kind of tradition is it when the rules officials cheat in order to keep a player competing just because they want him on TV over the weekend.
The Masters exudes class, right? Isn’t that the schtick we’re fed nonstop? Fans can’t run. Fans must be called “patrons.” McCord says “bikini wax” and is banned for life. Announcers have to speak like they are administering last rites. You’d think the president was pinning a medal on a wounded war hero in the Butler cabin.
What a load of shit! What hypocrisy! You f—ing promote cheating in a sport that at lower levels is completely at the mercy of those who want to cheat, and you want to lecture me on class and dignity and fair play?
As Vijay Singh once put it, “Kiss my ass.”
*****
Anyone else think Steve Williams found it amusing that Joe Lacava let Woods hit from the wrong spot?
