"I just checked this data yesterday"

Tim Finchem spoke to the boycotting scribes assembled to watch Tiger's statement. We have a new member of the Finchem lexicon:

Q.  I do want to ask you a financial question because he left open the possibility of sitting out the full year since he didn't say exactly when he would be back.  Have you started to think about the financial implications of that for the TOUR?  You've talked in general about that, but specifically ad rates and things like that if he would sit out all four major tournaments this year.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Candidly there aren't any direct implications in the short‑term, and when I say short‑term, I mean in the next year or two.  I think that the real impactor on the PGA TOUR is a longer question as it relates to overall television ratings. 

Impactor!

As we've seen when he was out after his father's passing, when he was out with his injury in 2008, most of that season, the PGA TOUR ‑‑ as a matter of fact 2008 we had a record year financially both with respect to prize money and dollars to charity.  The PGA TOUR has not been negatively impacted in any significant way.

However, he does generate a significant increase in the overall interest in the sport, no question, and he does increase significantly the number of people that watch on television.  And that plays into our long‑term relationships with our television partners and the value of television rights.

Boy, that must have been painful to say.

Q.  Today he was obviously very insulated, but everyone said sooner or later that's not going to be the case when he does come back.  How difficult might it be for you to make sure that his escapades in the past are not the focus of the coverage and also to insulate him and I guess the TOUR?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Well, let me answer that in two parts.  One part is in terms of the insulation.  There's been a lot of discussion about the format today and his not taking questions from the press, and I think I should remind everyone that ‑‑ and I just checked this data yesterday, it's kind of interesting,

Oh yes, the Commish was on ASAPSports all day counting Tiger press conference transcripts, not letting the VP of TigerWatch handling this vital task...

he's played in 249 professional golf tournaments; he's had over 1,100 press conferences, visits to the pressroom, scrums out on the golf course during that period of time; he has done the Oprah Winfrey Show; he's done 60 Minutes.  So he has had a major interface with the media.  And when he returns to the game, that interface will continue.  So I think the concerns in that area should just be put on hold until he comes back.

Why do I think interface will be defined as "a scrum attended by credentialed media as selected by the Tiger Writers Association of America, a group dedicated covering the life of Tiger Woods free of GWAA boycotts"?

As for the timing, Finchem is sticking to the rehab-supersedes-sponsor-needs story. Excuse me, "in patient therapy."

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Well, we have to do a lot of media discussion.  But not significantly.  Again, he's been out before.  I think the focus on the issues surrounding his leaving is a distraction to the game, there's no question about it.  Dealing with the fallout is a distraction.  There was no good time to do what's happened today without it distracting from what we're doing on the golf course in Mexico and certainly in the World Golf Championship event, the Accenture Match Play, this week.  So there are those things.

As for not taking questions today...

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  I think there's three pieces to that.  First of all, the format of not taking questions, everybody has an opinion on that, and we all want to see, particularly in this country, an individual in any circumstance be subjected to difficult scrutiny and questioning.

    And somebody asked me yesterday what we would have done.  We always try to make everybody happy.  That's what we do.  We want to cater to the media and make sure everybody is happy.

    But I think given the history of his involvement with the media, which is enormous, and the subject matter here, and where he is in dealing with his issues, and this being part obviously of the therapy that he's receiving, I didn't think it was inappropriate.  And candidly, I'll just be honest, personally, what else do we need to know at this point?

Well Tim, we've been told the tabloids and even the New York Times have been issuing false reports (that magically keeps turning out to be true), so shouldn't we address those false accusations?

The second part of your question is why here.  We were asked to provide our clubhouse as the site for this for several reasons:  One, he wanted to communicate with a number of individuals and organizations, including the PGA TOUR directly, so that was appropriate; secondly, he's a member of the PGA TOUR.  I can't imagine any player who's a member of our TOUR who asked for a press conference at any of our clubhouses around the country that we would say no to; and thirdly, I would just say that we had the logistical capability to assist to make this happen, and we were pleased to do it because we are dedicated all day long and want to be supportive to Tiger through this process.

Again, John Daly and Jim Thorpe, are you listening?

Coming Soon To A Theater Near You: The Enablers II

Some of us thought one positive outcome from Tiger's accident would be less of the sycophantic enabling that led him down his odd behavioral path?

I'm not suggesting he needs to be castrated and fed to Oprah before he can face the public again. But now that Tiger is a damaged asset you'd at least like to think that some of the folks who convinced him he was bigger than life would stop behaving like they did before.

Yet Wednesday's announcement revealed that in the golf world, Tiger's every need and desire will be tolerated no matter how silly the request.

We learned Wednesday via Garry Smits that the PGA Tour “was happy to provide the use [of the clubhouse]” at TPC Sawgrass, and the Commissioner revealed it was a no-questions-asked proposition despite taking away attention from Accenture's sponsorship of the match play.

At least there were suggestions that Commissioner Finchem appeared peeved. Larry Dorman in the New York Times...

...Finchem did not seem pleased about having to answer questions about the timing of Woods’s announcement or the fact that it will be held at the clubhouse of the T.P.C. Sawgrass at PGA Tour headquarters.

And Gary Van Sickle, writing for golf.com:

Finchem was at his diplomatic best, but he did seem a little annoyed (or maybe I just imagined it) that news from Tiger World was just about guaranteed to push his flagship World Golf Championship event to the back page of the sports section for the rest of the weekend.

Still, annoyed is not enough at this point. Allowing him to take over the TPC Sawgrass Friday, no-questions-asked, was another victory for Tiger and worse, a reminder that when it comes to the PGA Tour, he can do what he pleases.

Throw in the Golf Writers Association of America's compliance to the request to provide three seat fillers who won't ask questions, and Tiger has to be feeling pretty smug. However, James Moore at the Huffington Post couldn't believe the GWAA would agree to such an arrangement.

The first question to be asked, however, is about journalism. What kind of wire service goes to a "news conference" where no questions are allowed? This appearance has the potential for Tiger's friends and colleagues gathered in the room to turn into a bit of a Greek chorus as he reads his statement. Politicians often try this public relations scam when they are beleaguered.  It never works and only further angers reporters and they redouble their efforts to do critical reporting on the politician.

Not the GWAA!

Now I don't agree on the point about the "wires." They have a duty to tell us who was in the room, if Tiger had a big scar on his lip or whatever other details that good reporters spot.

More disappointing is the GWAA's compliance. Post-accident, the golf press was accused of looking the other way all of these years and many of us explained that this was an unfair insinuation because access was limited and besides, no could ever possibly have known about what was going on (nor was it germane to covering golf).

Yet when given the first post-accident opportunity to stand up to Tiger's controlling ways, reestablish some street cred and prevent a dreadful precedent, the GWAA jumped on board just as the PGA Tour did, running around in sycophantic circles at the behest of "the kid."

Good riddance.

"The reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule."

Tim Finchem (click to enlarge)Fighting off of a profusely bleeding paper cut, Tim Finchem joined us in the Northern Trust Open press center at 10:30 with a Mickelson presser set for 11, so naturally he kept that in mind with his opening remarks.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Thank you, Laura.  Good morning, everyone.  Laura tells me we're on a hard stop here at 11:00, so I'm going to make some brief remarks and see if I can answer your questions.

18 minutes and the entire history of groove squabbles in golf later...

 During these first four weeks, we have had five players  we've had 218 different players play those four tournaments.  Of those 218 players, five different players have actually used a Ping Eye 2 manufactured before 1990; not a huge amount of usage, but a number that was sufficient to create a fair amount of interest, particularly when one of the best players in the world in the short game area chose to use it, which he was fully entitled to do.

And that focus on the rule has led to a couple of things.  One is that there was some unfortunate commentary by other players in the media in the last week or so, and let me just pause there and restate, as I issued my statement last week, these are the rules of golf.  Any player is entitled under these rules to play a Ping Eye 2 wedge designed before 1990 if he so chooses.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing that violates the rule.  There is no hidden direction to players or side direction not to play that club, so there is absolutely no basis to criticize a player for doing so.  None.  And to do so in our view is inappropriate.

No grey area there. Makes me wonder if McCarron faced a possible suspension?

With respect to a particular player that used a particularly unfortunate choice of words, I would say that there is perhaps a mitigating factor to the amount of reaction.  There is no justification for certain language being used, but the reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule.

Now, what do I mean by that?

We screwed up?

Well, two years ago when we instituted our drug policy, we made sure that we were in front of every single player in dialogue on the ramifications of drug testing, on the reality that you could be suspended if you violated the drug testing rules, and the dos and don'ts of staying in compliance.  Players paid attention.  They came out and performed, and we haven't had drug issues on this TOUR.  That's not to say we haven't had a violation; that's been reported.  But we haven't had issues.

We didn't act with that level of intensity.  In my view, had we, the reaction to the use of these clubs might have been lesser.  But that is what it is, and I think we're about to close the chapter on that part of the history of this.

Well there you have it, an admission of error, Finchem style.

In this particular case, the most striking thing about the difference between the groove discussion in 1989 and '90, which was based on some tests and led to a lack of confidence on the part of the PGA TOUR or the USGA that you could win a lawsuit, in this case there have been years and years of very careful measurement of data, of the lack of correlation of hitting the ball in the fairway and performing well on the PGA TOUR, so it's a very strong case, and I think that's one of the reasons you didn't see a lawsuit amongst manufacturers here, because there is a strong case.

But the byproduct  I know I've read some people say this is a backdoor attempt to create softer balls.  I'm not aware of anybody that believes that. 

Uh Tim, that's Dick Rugge, USGA for starters.

But I do think that with this rule we really could relax a little bit about the need to fool around with the ball and the driver for an extended period of time.  That's my only view. 

Well good to know that after five weeks you were able to draw a conclusion from the data.

"God forbid the PGA Tour to step on the USGA's shoes"

There was also this from Tour policy board member Joe Ogilvie. Start with the bottom Tweet:

I think it's safe to say a Commissioner Ogilvie would have invoked a local rule.

The question is, why didn't Commissioner Finchem do the same?