The Pellucid Perspective - March 2011 - (Page 15)

The lAST word The State of the Game – really? O ne of the drawbacks for a golf writer working from a home office is the proximity to the TV and its round-the-clock dose of golf related feed from the Golf Channel. Not that its non-Tour programming is all that engrossing – am I really willing to suspend my disbelief sufficiently to accept that a 50-something homeless guy living in a roadside pipe, peddling a bike around Palm Springs in his shorts and black socks with a haircut he got from a dog groomer, is going to qualify for the Champions Tour? Or watch Hank Haney trying to snap an 0-2 failure streak (3 if you’re cruel enough to count Tiger) by actually accomplishing the goals of his latest celebrity pupil? But I digress … the offering that drew my ire most recently was the grandly (and arrogantly) titled “State of the Game”Golf Channel telecast in prime time from the Match Play tournament in Arizona. The roundtable was moderated by Golf Channel announcer Dan Hicks, with a panel consisting of Nick Faldo, Johnny Miller, Brandel Chamblee and Roger Maltbie. (With the NBC and GC merger, I suppose that was their way of trying to make us believe that Faldo and Miller don’t really poke pins in voodoo dolls of each other).Given the participants, I suppose I shouldn’t have held out much hope that they would actually offer up any wisdom on “the game” itself, although since Miller is a golf course owner, Faldo owns (or at least brands) golf academies and both design golf courses, there was some possibility they might at least acknowledge that the vast majority of golf is played for fun or $2 Nassaus, not on TV for huge money. Alas, not so. Once they had all taken a turn at dissecting Tiger’s golf swing, psyche, chances to break Nicklaus’s majors record and his fall from grace, they moved on to topics like who will be the next Tiger among the non-U.S. contingent, Tour rules and rulings and other detours – all related to the PGA Tour. There was one brief stab at an opinion on something related to the actual game and its industry squeezed in at the end – Miller said we should build shorter courses. That’s about all I can recall before I fell back asleep. The overarching impression I came away with was the unmitigated gall of calling that made-for-TV coffee klatch The State of the Game. The State of the Tour, Can the Game (read, Tour) Survive Without Tiger, How Much Money Can We Get Out of the Networks and Advertisers … any of those would have been more truthful. It’s obvious when comparing the numbers that Tim Finchem quotes regarding global PGA Tour TV viewers The offering that drew my ire most recently was the grandly (and arrogantly) titled “State of the Game” Golf Channel telecast in prime time from the Match Play tournament in Arizona. and the numbers of actual golfers cited by the NGF and other industry sources that there are plenty of folks whose only connection with “the state of the game” IS the Tour on TV. On the other hand, without golf courses for the majority of those viewers to actually play on, however poorly, I think we can assume that Mr. Finchem’s audience – and advertisers – would be significantly reduced. Ergo, if you’re going to promote a discussion of “the game’s” state, it might have been more appropriate to actually talk about “the game” and the problems facing the industry that makes it possible, not “the televising of the game.” How about a little something for the effort? During Golf 20/20 and other in- dustry get-togethers over the years, we have heard numerous requests made for a wide variety of industry stakeholders to financially support various industry grow-the-game initiatives – most recently, Get Golf Ready and the We Are Golf public relations and lobbying stratagem. It has struck us at Pellucid that while many of the industry’s better known companies in the equipment, industry supplier, multi-course owner and management company ranks have stepped up, there doesn’t seem to have been what I would term an equivalent response from the PGA Tour. I admit that I am not privy to the exact amount contributed by the Tour, or how it compares to other contributors, but I’m willing to bet that the Tour’s P&L compares favorably to most, if not all, other contributors. Granted, the Tour contributes substantially to charities in the areas which host its tournaments. That is praiseworthy. It is also good business on the part of the Tour and its sponsors – those contributions are a much-needed tax deduction, after all. The question which has occurred to some much more financially challenged industry stakeholders is whether the Tour couldn’t kick down some more of that black ink to the industry that has developed, nurtured and watched its stars over the years. This publication and other industry observers have espoused the sentiment that grow-the-game efforts, including Get Golf Ready, need to be embraced at the local level to truly work. With many golf courses struggling (see the Course Transactions section in this magazine), some may feel that the $1,000 stipend for participation in the Get Golf Ready program is not worth the commitment of time, facilities and staff time needed to promote and conduct the program. Perhaps if some organization with money to spare, perhaps, say, the Tour, could up the ante, it might make the program more attractive to strapped golf facility owners. Just a thought. —Jim Dunlap The Pellucid PersPecTive www.PellucidcorP.com 15 http://WWW.PELLUCIDCORP.COM

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Pellucid Perspective - March 2011

The Pellucid Perspective - March 2011
Contents
A Look Back at 2010, a Fitting End to a Fitful Decade
Courses Can Take Environmental Credits to the Bank
Feb 2011 Ytd Weather Impact, Jan 2011 YTD Utilization
Can Alternative Golf Change Golf ’s Fortunes?
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?
Comings & Goings
Boston, Ma Core Business Statistical Area (Cbsa)
The State of the Game – Really?

The Pellucid Perspective - March 2011