| |
Main
Date: 19 Mar 2007 04:26:21
From: elmer
Subject: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
Grouped by finishing scores ...
-2: Luke Donald (shot third-best round of the day) ... zero coverage
-1: Stephen Ames, Trevor Immelman and Jerry Kelly ... zero coverage
E: Kyle Reifers ... zero coverage
+1: Geoff Ogilvy (reigning U.S. Open champion), Boo Weekley and Sean
O'Hair ... zero coverage
+2: Scott Verplank, Bart Bryant and Retief Goosen (two-time U.S. Open
champion) ... zero coverage
+3: Henrik Stenson (reigning Accenture Match Play champion), Brandt
Snedeker, Chad Campbell (2004 Bay Hill champion), Bo Van Pelt and Chris
Couch ... zero coverage
Oh yeah, someone else finished at +3 ... Tiger Woods. Coverage? Holes
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 ... plus numerous shots in promos,
etc. Hole 8 was when NBC came on the air.
So to recap ... out of the 21 golfers who finished ahead of Woods, MORE
THAN HALF WERE NOT SHOWN HITTING A SINGLE SHOT ON SUNDAY ... and NONE
of the golfers who finished tied with Woods were shown, either. Goosen,
incidentally, played with Woods. You would have thought he finished
several shots behind his playing partner and/or was some journeyman
hack by the way he was regarded by the Peacock crew.
By my recollection, Donald, Reifers, Ogilvy, Weekley, Verplank, Bryant,
Goosen, Snedeker, Campbell, Van Pelt and Couch were not shown at all on
Saturday, either. I might indeed be wrong, but if I am, it's by a shot
or two here or there ...
Yes, I know, NBC's audience includes a number of non-golf fans who only
want to widen their eyes, slacken their jaws and hoarsen their throats
at Tiger's 320-yard drives and medium-range birdie putts (because, as
we know, no other pro can hit a drive more than 280-285 yards, or make
a birdie putt from outside of two feet), but in the final analysis,
they are SHOWING GOLF, not a three-and-a-half hour TW
infomercial/feature.
I guess their equation is Golf = Tiger Woods (+, grudgingly, random
other shots from select nobodies ... more if you happen to be in the
Top 5)
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 21:12:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 21, 6:16 pm, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
>
> > > No. "Rocco friggin Mediate" Sounds like some kind of gay porn to
> > > me?
>
> > Anything else you wanna tell us, Puffy?
>
> Yeah, the pictures we took together have been developed.
"Developed?" LOL!
Everyone knows I am Totally Digital !!!
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 15:16:03
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 21, 5:11 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 21, 7:27 am, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > There was a fight?
>
> > No. "Rocco friggin Mediate" Sounds like some kind of gay porn to
> > me?
>
> Anything else you wanna tell us, Puffy?
Yeah, the pictures we took together have been developed.
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 14:11:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 21, 7:27 am, "BigPurdueFan" <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
> > There was a fight?
>
> No. "Rocco friggin Mediate" Sounds like some kind of gay porn to
> me?
Anything else you wanna tell us, Puffy?
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 04:27:49
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 20, 10:34 pm, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote:
> On 19--2007, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I didn't tune in to watch Rocco friggin Mediate.
>
> There was a fight?
No. "Rocco friggin Mediate" Sounds like some kind of gay porn to
me?
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 09:45:31
From: multi
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On Mon, 19 2007 04:26:21 GMT, elmer <eldanyoff@gmail.com > wrote:
>Oh yeah, someone else finished at +3 ... Tiger Woods. Coverage? Holes
>8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 ... plus numerous shots in promos,
>etc. Hole 8 was when NBC came on the air.
They try to show the players in contention, and you seem to have left
out the fact that Tiger was within a shot of the lead after 8, and on
track to shoot the low round of the day. Name a network that wouldn't
have shown him play the back nine under those circumstances.
They stopped showing him when it became clear he couldn't win (which
is always a very late call with Tiger), and started showing him again
for his meltdown, which IMO was extremely interesting. You just don't
see him do that very often, and especially not when he seemed to be in
such complete command on Thursday.
>So to recap ... out of the 21 golfers who finished ahead of Woods, MORE
>THAN HALF WERE NOT SHOWN HITTING A SINGLE SHOT ON SUNDAY ... and NONE
>of the golfers who finished tied with Woods were shown, either.
You're absolutely right to complain about that, but that's not Tiger's
fault, and it's not caused by them showing Tiger's shots. It's caused
by two things:
1) too many commercials, interviews, side stories (I still don't know
who the f**k Eddie Pierce is, or why they spent five minutes on him
instead of golf yesterday), maunderings by "essayists" like Jimmy
Roberts, etc, instead of just showing the damn golf
2) when they do show the damn golf, instead of cutting to a player ten
seconds before he hits his shot, sumizing his situation, and
watching the result, they cut to him walking up the fairway, cleaning
stray bits of fluff from a five yard radius around his ball,
conferring with his caddie, testing the wind, taking several practice
swings, conferring some more with his caddie, changing clubs, ...
It should take no more than 30 seconds to show a shot, and half that
in most cases. If they did that, and cut out all the filler, they
could show every shot the leaders hit, and every shot the big names
hit.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 07:30:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
I tuned in a bit late when Tiger had completed the 13th hole. I never
saw him mentioned for about an hour until he screwed up on #16. So my
gripe with NBC is that they didn't show enough Tiger coverage. I
didn't tune in to watch Rocco friggin Mediate.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 02:34:51
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 19--2007, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> I didn't tune in to watch Rocco friggin Mediate.
There was a fight?
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 08:23:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On Mon, 19 2007 04:26:21 GMT, elmer <eldanyoff@gmail.com > wrote:
>By my recollection, Donald, Reifers, Ogilvy, Weekley, Verplank, Bryant,
>Goosen, Snedeker, Campbell, Van Pelt and Couch were not shown at all on
>Saturday, either. I might indeed be wrong, but if I am, it's by a shot
>or two here or there ...
TV isn't about golf, it's about entertainment. And stars bring the
ratings. Maybe some casual fans have heard of Goosen, but those guys
aren't stars.
And the Tour makes money by being entertainment. Some of us find
golf to be entertaining by itself. Except we don't go watch our
local college or high school teams much (if at all).
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 08:49:02
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
"elmer" <eldanyoff@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:2007031900262416807-eldanyoff@gmailcom...
>
> I guess their equation is Golf = Tiger Woods (+, grudgingly, random other
> shots from select nobodies ... more if you happen to be in the Top 5)
>
The nice folks at the tv networks do not cover golf tournaments just for the
fun of it. They are in it to make money.
Adjust your formula above to Tiger Woods = advertising revenue.
You don't have to watch if this is unacceptable to you. Hell, you can watch
any golfer you want, go to the tourney yourself.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 08:58:55
From: Bill
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
"Frank Ketchum" <no-one@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:6FvLh.5$aX1.2@newsfe05.lga...
>
> "elmer" <eldanyoff@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2007031900262416807-eldanyoff@gmailcom...
>>
>> I guess their equation is Golf = Tiger Woods (+, grudgingly, random other
>> shots from select nobodies ... more if you happen to be in the Top 5)
>>
>
> The nice folks at the tv networks do not cover golf tournaments just for
> the fun of it. They are in it to make money.
>
> Adjust your formula above to Tiger Woods = advertising revenue.
>
> You don't have to watch if this is unacceptable to you. Hell, you can
> watch any golfer you want, go to the tourney yourself.
Exactly! Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?..Tiger pays the
bills...for now, and probably for a long time to come
After his double bogey on 11 (I think) I switched the channel. No way am I
going to listen to the nonsensical idiotic Miller after that.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 05:00:36
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 19, 12:26 am, elmer <eldany...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Grouped by finishing scores ...
>
> -2: Luke Donald (shot third-best round of the day) ... zero coverage
>
> -1: Stephen Ames, Trevor Immelman and Jerry Kelly ... zero coverage
>
> E: Kyle Reifers ... zero coverage
>
> +1: Geoff Ogilvy (reigning U.S. Open champion), Boo Weekley and Sean
> O'Hair ... zero coverage
>
> +2: Scott Verplank, Bart Bryant and Retief Goosen (two-time U.S. Open
> champion) ... zero coverage
>
> +3: Henrik Stenson (reigning Accenture Match Play champion), Brandt
> Snedeker, Chad Campbell (2004 Bay Hill champion), Bo Van Pelt and Chris
> Couch ... zero coverage
>
> Oh yeah, someone else finished at +3 ... Tiger Woods. Coverage? Holes
> 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 ... plus numerous shots in promos,
> etc. Hole 8 was when NBC came on the air.
>
> So to recap ... out of the 21 golfers who finished ahead of Woods, MORE
> THAN HALF WERE NOT SHOWN HITTING A SINGLE SHOT ON SUNDAY ... and NONE
> of the golfers who finished tied with Woods were shown, either. Goosen,
> incidentally, played with Woods. You would have thought he finished
> several shots behind his playing partner and/or was some journeyman
> hack by the way he was regarded by the Peacock crew.
>
> By my recollection, Donald, Reifers, Ogilvy, Weekley, Verplank, Bryant,
> Goosen, Snedeker, Campbell, Van Pelt and Couch were not shown at all on
> Saturday, either. I might indeed be wrong, but if I am, it's by a shot
> or two here or there ...
>
> Yes, I know, NBC's audience includes a number of non-golf fans who only
> want to widen their eyes, slacken their jaws and hoarsen their throats
> at Tiger's 320-yard drives and medium-range birdie putts (because, as
> we know, no other pro can hit a drive more than 280-285 yards, or make
> a birdie putt from outside of two feet), but in the final analysis,
> they are SHOWING GOLF, not a three-and-a-half hour TW
> infomercial/feature.
>
> I guess their equation is Golf = Tiger Woods (+, grudgingly, random
> other shots from select nobodies ... more if you happen to be in the
> Top 5)
Feel free to switch it to NASCAR.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 04:50:24
From: cja
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
On 19, 12:26 am, elmer <eldany...@gmail.com > wrote:
> E: Kyle Reifers ... zero coverage
>
I'm sure rabid Reifers fans are legion, and the hue and cry over this
outrage will be deafening. Seriously, Reifers was a Demon Deacon, so
you think NBC might have been able to make some kind of story of
that.
> +1: Geoff Ogilvy (reigning U.S. Open champion), Boo Weekley and Sean
> O'Hair ... zero coverage
>
We did get to see 1 O'Hair shot: his chip from the green.
> Oh yeah, someone else finished at +3 ... Tiger Woods. Coverage? Holes
> 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 ... plus numerous shots in promos,
> etc. Hole 8 was when NBC came on the air.
>
NBC tried very hard to keep Tiger alive and on their leaderboard, but
I have to give them credit for showing a lot less of him when he lost
it.
I can't argue with you, though. If Tiger's in a tournament, you'll see
plenty of him on TV. Very often he'll be in or near the lead, so you
can't complain about that. It does bother me that the goal of the
producers of these golf broadcast seems to be to show the minimum
amount of golfers, and golf, as possible.
- cja
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 10:12:34
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
In article <1174305024.078241.250410@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
"cja" <cja@excite.com > wrote:
> On 19, 12:26 am, elmer <eldany...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > E: Kyle Reifers ... zero coverage
> >
> I'm sure rabid Reifers fans are legion, and the hue and cry over this
> outrage will be deafening. Seriously, Reifers was a Demon Deacon, so
> you think NBC might have been able to make some kind of story of
> that.
>
> > +1: Geoff Ogilvy (reigning U.S. Open champion), Boo Weekley and Sean
> > O'Hair ... zero coverage
> >
> We did get to see 1 O'Hair shot: his chip from the green.
>
> > Oh yeah, someone else finished at +3 ... Tiger Woods. Coverage? Holes
> > 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 ... plus numerous shots in promos,
> > etc. Hole 8 was when NBC came on the air.
> >
> NBC tried very hard to keep Tiger alive and on their leaderboard, but
> I have to give them credit for showing a lot less of him when he lost
> it.
>
> I can't argue with you, though. If Tiger's in a tournament, you'll see
> plenty of him on TV. Very often he'll be in or near the lead, so you
> can't complain about that. It does bother me that the goal of the
> producers of these golf broadcast seems to be to show the minimum
> amount of golfers, and golf, as possible.
>
> - cja
That's why I seldom watch matches live anymore. I just get so tired of
all the extraneous BS that they broadcast during the show. My DVR gets
a workout on those days when PGA, Seniors and LPGA have matches!
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 05:28:02
From: Manco
Subject: Re: NBC on Sunday at Bay Hill
|
elmer wrote:
> I guess their equation is Golf = Tiger Woods (+, grudgingly, random
> other shots from select nobodies ... more if you happen to be in the
> Top 5)
And they're right. Golf = Tiger. No amount of other golfers winning tourneys
ar this point matters. With 55 wins, 12 majors Tiger has transcended the
game itself.
|
|
