Daily Archives: February 15, 2007

The Tiger Chasm

Posted on by
Reply

tiger_woods121507.jpgThe rumblings from the last week’s decision to discontinue the popular International PGA Tour event at Castle Pines are still reverberating through the golf world, and Golf Digest’s John Hawkins isn’t pulling any punches:

The death of the International last week, however, was a big deal for a bunch of reasons. If no longer a marquee non-major, this was a solid mid-level tour stop in a major metropolitan market–not some CVS Charity Classic or B.C. Open. It is by far the most notable tournament loss in Tim Finchem’s 13 years as commissioner. Ten months ago Denver was on the short list of potential hosts for a FedEx Cup playoff tilt. Now the Mile High City is six feet under. “Players aren’t going to react well to this,” says eight-year veteran Joe Ogilvie, a member of the tour’s policy board. “You can’t do a better job of running an event than Jack Vickers and the people at Castle Pines.”[ . . .]
The International’s demise is a dangerous sign as to the widening chasm between Tiger events and the non-Tigers. Never have the haves and have-nots been so easily defined or so mindlessly categorized by the presence of a single player–it’s the frightening downside of Woods’ competitive dictatorship. When he doubles the size of a viewing audience in a strong golf economy, the rich get richer. When he does it in lean times, the poor get really poor.

Along the same lines, ESPN.com’s Bob Harig discusses the increasing risk of putting on a non-Tiger tour event:

Sponsoring a regular PGA Tour event costs in the neighborhood of $7 million per year. That money covers a portion of the purse, a television advertising commitment, a fee to the PGA Tour and to the tournament. Spread that out over the six-year length of the network contracts, and you’re talking about $42 million or more.
It is a hefty price, especially given the modest television ratings. Those small numbers — usually in the 2 million-to-3 million range for a weekend network telecast — were always justified because they were reaching the “right” kind of people Ö i.e. those with disposable income. With golf, less meant more.
But as the price has kept going up, those company executives began looking at the numbers more closely. And some of them have started to say that enough is enough — especially if Woods doesn’t play.

And guess what side of that chasm the Shell Houston Open is on?

Evaluating jock broadcasting

Posted on by
Reply

Microphone.jpgCharlie Pallilo passes along this clever Chuck Klosterman/Esquire article that compares the playing careers of various former professional athletes with their current careers as broadcasters. Klosterman is on target with most of his comparisons, including this one on Bill Walton:

Bill Walton: A megalomaniac whose insights often seem wholly unrelated to the game he’s actively watching, Walton has an on-air persona that can be akin to Jerry Garcia vomiting through a version of “Sugar Magnolia.” That said, the Red Rocker is fearless and unpredictable, and the fact that Walton overcame a childhood stutter makes his loquaciousness something of a marvel. Still, this guy (when healthy) was probably the most complete post player who ever lived; he’ll never argue with Snapper Jones as efficiently as he threw outlet passes to Larry Steele. Better as a player.

Klosterman also nails it in pointing out that Bill Rafferty puts fellow basketball analysts Billy Packer and Dick Vitale to shame. Here is the entire piece.

Baby talk on energy?

Posted on by
Reply

WSJ%20logo2.gifSo, I think it’s safe to say that, after this blog post, Cato’s Jerry Taylor is not going to be asked to contribute a piece to the Wall Street Journal’s ($) next special section on alternative energy:

One could spend a lifetime slamming dross in the news pages of the Wall Street Journal – particularly when it comes to energy. Only the driving need to be more productive with my time keeps me from doing so on a daily basis. But when something as bad as this insert comes along, something must be said.

Taylor is not impressed with Houston-based Peak Oil advocate, Matt Simmons, either:

Moving right along, page two features recommended readings from Matthew Simmons, the most prominent proponent of the idea that the worldís oil fields are about to run dry. This, to put it charitably, is a minority perspective among oil analysts. That the Journal turns to someone like Simmons – and only Simmons – to lay in print the groundwork for readers interested in knowing more about the oil industry speaks volumes. Much more intelligent conversations about oil with Daniel Yergin and Robert Mabro are briefly referenced as on-line supplements.

Then, Taylor takes off on the John Biers article about Houston’s leadership in promoting alternative energy initiatives:

Reporter John Biers mails in a vacuous piece titled ìTexasí New Teaî about how Houston is poised to become the center of the renewable energy biz, transforming the former oil town into the international headquarters of Big Green, Inc.. While his article might as well have been written by the cityís Chamber of Commerce, it would be nice to provide some perspective. For example, how much capital is flowing in to Houston to underwrite renewable energy investments versus how much capital is glowing in to Houston to underwrite fossil energy investments? I can guarantee you that the dollars associated with the latter are light years beyond those associated with the former and that rising oil prices are doing far more for the cityís economic health than anything else. He might have also asked how much of that venture capital is being driven by government regulation and subsidies. The answer would be ìall of itî – which speaks volumes about how precarious those investments might be.

Here is Taylor’s entire piece. Enjoy.