Courtesy of the kind folks over at Nielsen, here are three numbers to think about.
BUICK INV PGA GOLF-SUN(S)-01/27/2008 CBS 6,182,000
BUICK INV PGA GOLF-SUN(S)-01/28/2007 CBS 7,847,000
BUICK INV PGA GOLF-SUN(S)-01/29/2006 CBS 8,524,000
These numbers are total audience, as opposed to the ever-mysterious ratings points.
What do they tell us? Well, they're only three numbers. But if you'll permit me to play Johnny Raincloud for a moment, they seem to indicate that Tiger isn't the TV draw he used to be.
And this year, there are no excuses. The only competition on TV this past Sunday was basketball, and that wasn't so much basketball as an indoor downpour: ABC's broadcast of the Lakers-Cavaliers contest was lengthily interrupted by what seemed to be a leak in the Staples Center roof. The hoops was a reason to click over to the golf, not away from it.
The easy analysis to make here—again, just at a quick glance at a very poor statistical sample—is that the Tiger novelty, with the mass sports audience, has at least partly worn off.
But I think there’s something else going on here too, namely that it’s just no fun to watch Tiger humiliate the other hundred-something guys in the field.
Make no mistake: Woods’ dominance is astounding. But in terms of viewership interest (and trickle-down effects that only begin with TV advertising) it’s not necessarily good for the sport.
Indeed, it’s possible that the very same people who say the enjoy watching Tiger dominate-- emphasis on “watching”-- may not be watching at all.
For example? Okay. Here’s something I’ve been carrying around in the back of my notebook for some time now.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2007—in the wake of two straight majors and six straight Tour victories by Woods, and a day before the start of the new season-- esteemed sports journalist Frank Deford flicked on the mic for one of his segments on National Public Radio.
Deford, of course, is not a golf guy. He’s the kind of generalist who, in his way, represents the masses: he’s one of the millions who, one would guess, only tunes into golf when Tiger is in command.
The intro to Deford’s piece was a long gripe about the lack of dominance in the past year’s team sports. He then said, however, that we should be thankful for “the pleasure of watching”—again, I emphasize “watching”—two athletes who were dominating their individual sports, Roger Federer and Tiger Woods.
Deford pointed out that there was a bigger points difference, in the tennis rankings, between Federer and his nearest rival, Rafael Nadal, than there was between Nadal and the sport’s 65th-best player, Daniele Bracciale. Woods, he continued, was point-wise further ahead of Furyk than Furyk was of any other player in golf's ranking system.
What was weird about the panegyric was that when Deford said Furyk’s name, he mispronounced it, saying “fur-ik” rather than “fyur-ik.” But that was understandable. Deford probably hadn’t watched much golf since Tiger’s previous peak, back in 2000-01. How else to explain his unfamiliarity with a top-five player's name? The trouble, of course, was that Tiger's new spell of dominance wasn't making him turn on the TV either.
I promise you: people who say they love watching Woods dominate don’t have much interest in actually watching it. They’re too easily bored.