So the grand adventure of Golf Channel doing the first three tournaments on its own comes to an end today at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic. The big question in looking at the three weeks of shows is did they succeed or not? Taking everything into consideration, this is a classic case of the glass being half full and half empty.
|
However, the shows that Golf Channel has done didn't come close to being on par with those that CBS, NBC and ABC have put on for years. They were full of flaws and it may take a couple of weeks before we find out what the general public thought of them.
Of course if you ask the Golf Channel, they are painting a very rosy picture, and in a way it reminds me of something that happened in my days at ABC Sports. Back in 1987 new management came in and made many changes in drastically cutting the budget. That was the case with the U.S. Open that year which back then was the first golf telecast of the year for ABC. Things had drastically changed, long-time producer Chuck Howard was gone and replaced by Bob Goodrich, who was given the no-win task of trying to make the shows look and feel the same with a lot less money. Goodrich did the best he could, but the shows were marred with problems from poor graphics to not rolling the right tape to not having enough cameras to cover golfers who were ahead of the coverage. The shows weren't the same quality of past years.
|
But a strange thing happened after the show on Sunday. The head of ABC Sports, Dennis Swanson seemed very happy, telling everyone what a great job we all did with the reduced budget. As a young production assistant, I looked at other people and I remember one of the announcers telling me after Swanson left, "Did he see the same shows that we just did?"
Swanson flew back from San Francisco on the red-eye and as the story goes once he saw some of the reviews from critics like Rudy Martzke from USA Today all hell broke out. Goodrich made it through the British Open and the PGA Championship but was replaced after that, not because he did a poor show but for the fact that he wasn't able to do the shows with reduced budgets. The lesson on this was on a network level heads rolled if things didn't come off like they should, even if it wasn't your fault.
The reason why I bring this up is the fact that hopefully the person that runs Golf Channel, CEO David Manougian, is going to put himself in a room and judge for himself these shows and realize that they weren't network quality. So maybe, just maybe things will be different the next time Golf Channel does the Mercedes, Sony and Bob Hope.
I don't want to paint a totally negative picture on this, there were a lot of things that the Golf Channel did right. Here is a list of the highlights:
- The biggest plus is the fact that whatever happens in the tournament, the Golf Channel will be around to tell the story. No more going off the air at a certain time because Law and Order or Sportscenter is on. That was shown on the Friday of the Sony when Golf Channel got the stunning finish of Tadd Fujikawa way past their allotted time. The Golf Channel is behind telling the story and that is something that not only the PGA Tour appreciates but also the golf fan.
-
Being able to replay shows such as the Bob Hope in prime time is a great bonus, this gives people a choice of either watching it live or watching it once you get home from work. Hopefully in the future things can be worked out so that the same will happen with the Saturday and Sunday network shows, repeats in prime time.
- Rich Lerner was a pleasant host who didn't seem to make any mistakes and some of his essays were better than I thought they would be; I was wrong in my first assessment of Lerner. Maybe, just maybe he would have been a better fit to sit next to Nick Faldo. I still don't think he is the second coming of Jim McKay or Jack Whitaker, but these men helped build the way television is today, who knows maybe Lerner will be able to help Golf Channel achieve the goal of being network quality.
- Jerry Foltz is good in a limited capacity. What I mean is he is good in assessing shots and giving you the information that you need, conditions, club, and wind, but as an interviewer he is lacking. Some of his celebrity interviews were bad because he didn't get anything out of them and asked some boring questions. Despite that, Foltz gets good grades for his weeks' work in general.
- Rocco Mediate was worth the try and got a passing grade because of being a rookie, but he needs to polish up on his delivery because people will be expecting a lot more from him in the future.
-
Mark Rolfing was again solid and does the job.
-
Dottie Pepper was outstanding again and shows that she is easily the next Judy Rankin. Matter of fact, she is as good as Rankin or any other on course reporter.
|
So on the whole the Golf Channel gets good grades for their talkers, they are pretty close to network quality and with the right work with the right production people who have network experience, would only get better. Now what about the heart and soul of the telecast, Kelly and Nick? Boy, this is a toss-up because again I think that Kelly was too stiff and didn't give us that warm and cozy feeling that Jim Nantz gives us like he is talking to us over a cup of coffee. Tilghman possesses the knowledge and feel of the game, but again I think she needs some help from professionals with network experience. It's funny, I remember watching Tilghman when she first worked at the Golf Channel and thinking, boy she is way too raw and won't make it. I was wrong then, and I want to save final judgment on her until after she does more telecasts. But for her first three weeks, as a Gracie Allen for Nick Faldo (if you remember who Allen was from the George Burns days), Kelly is not. Some of the humor was forced, and she made a lot of factual errors. Of course some of that was information given to her from the producers but again in judging her like a Jim Nantz, Dan Hicks, or a Mike Tirico she isn't even close. If you judge her under Golf Channel standards, she was good. You may think this is harsh but Golf Channel wants us to believe they are in the same boat as NBC or CBS, so they have to play up to their standards. As for Faldo, he again did a nice job in giving us good information. Unfortunely, he talked way too much, as a matter of fact all of the announcers talked too much as even Dottie Pepper said in her Sports Illustrated column. But in behalf of Faldo, the error for him talking too much was because of a lack of announcers.
Photo: © /Wire ImageDottie Pepper proved how good of an annoucer she has become this month.
Even with Rolfing at the first two shows, there wasn't enough support and the shows would have been a lot better with the addition of Peter Oosterhuis or Frank Nobilo or possibly even both. Just like what NBC does with Gary Koch and Bob Murphy, it takes the strain away from Johnny Miller doing all the talking. This is a flaw that ESPN always made not having enough announcers, which makes for some talkative people. During the Hope, Faldo seemed to get tired and more agitated during the shows, I think this could have been avoided with some help. 
Photo: © Feldman/Wire ImageKelly and Nick before interviewing Justin Rose.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of weeks when Faldo moves into his role with CBS. Lance Barrow may not want want Faldo on every moment of the Thursday and Friday shows. Faldo not only needs his rest for the weekend, but CBS wouldn't want him to use his best stuff for a Golf Channel show. I also feel that more of Faldo's humor will come across with David Feherty and Gary McCord instead of being with Kelly Tilghman. This is my own opinion, but I wouldn't be very surprised to see Faldo taking a very limited role in the future with Golf Channel once he gets a taste of the good life with CBS. The bottom line is that Faldo was overworked these last three weeks and it showed.
As for technology, the only fresh innovation that Golf Channel came up with was Aim-Point. They got good in using it by putting it on tape, then replaying it. By the time Sunday comes around its use is less important because you don't want to use it live on an important putt. That in a way would detract from the putt's importance. It will be interesting to see how they use it in important cases, do they just show the putt without and then go back and show it with Aim-Point? I feel that would be the correct use.
|
The other good piece of technology was Virtual Eye, we can't get enough if it and showing shots from previous rounds in these models is great. As for the Slo-mo, that is useful but the Golf Channel shouldn't take credit for that, it was a CBS find, the same for Virtual Eye which was an ESPN find.
Last but not least are the ratings. Yes, they weren't up to last year's ESPN numbers but at this point of time that's not significant. On both the Mercedes and the Sony about half a million homes watched, both about 40 percent less than the numbers that ESPN had last year. Still, the good news is it's the highest ratings Golf Channel ever has gotten. Of course they will be able to spin the numbers in their behalf, mostly by counting both the live show and the repeat together, but for now I don't think anyone is worried. But mark my words, if numbers don't show big increases in the next three years you will know that sponsors like Mercedes, Sony, and Chrysler will not be happy in spending all this money on tournaments that get low numbers.
What needs to be done:
It sounds harsh, but there are a number of things that have to be addressed. The shows were OK if you want to compare them to other Golf Channel shows and they were on the same level as ESPN shows, but they didn't come close to comparing with the networks. First was the cameras, some of the placements were weird and there weren't many closeup shots. Not once did we see the famous worm cam shot of putts rolling toward the hole. No closeups of players' grips before putts, no closeup shots of the players to show the emotions. Everything was mostly done with high, wide cameras.
|
The placement of shots within the telecast was weird because they didn't seem to utilize their LSM machines. This machine is like a TiVo, in that it can continue to record while playing back. This allows producers to go to a golf shot even while the ball is in the air, unlike in the old days when the ball had to stop for several seconds before a tape operator would stop recording and recue the tape. Over the years, CBS and ABC have perfected using this, while NBC still prefers to show more shots live. CBS shows about 60 % on tape, so they can choreograph the action. Don't forget, not only are there lots of balls in the air at once, the game doesn't stop for commercials, so a certain amount of tape is unavoidable. The big key for all the networks is the placement of shots so that it has a flow to it. Golf Channel tries to do things live and that is why the flow gets boring, they get trapped waiting for golfers to pull the trigger. Just watch a Lance Barrow show (CBS), he goes to a player and ten seconds later he hits, then it's off to the next shot for a shot ten seconds later. That doesn't happen with Golf Channel, sometimes you have five seconds before the shot, sometimes 20 seconds. They put shots out of order and say it's on tape, why not just fool us by putting them in the flow of other shots and not saying anything, that is what the other networks do. It looks better.
A funny story from ten years ago, I was at a party where I was part of a conversation with about six others with then producer of golf at CBS Frank Chirkinian. He was legendary and probably the best producer/director television golf has ever seen. Someone asked Chirkinian why he cut so fast in golf, why didn't he linger longer on golf shots. He didn't miss a beat telling us all, "You never want to give announcers the time to screw up the shot by letting them talk too much, that is the reason why I cut fast, less time for them to talk." To this day, I believe he is right. American announcers aren't trained to have dead air and talk way too much over shots, as they did the last three weeks on the Golf Channel shows.
We also have to wonder why Golf Channel used the same Pat Green opening every day. What I think the producers had in mind was the Hank Williams, Jr. song opening for Monday Night Football. That was catchy and proved a big draw on Monday Night Football and a big success for ABC. The Pat Green song was also catchy and the thought was it would do the same for Golf Channel.
|
In another questionable production decision, they didn't need a long tease after this opening, it seemed to take an average of five to seven minutes before you saw your first live shot. In the last week I have talked with a dozen people who felt they didn't need to tune in at the top of the hour because of all this stuff.
Lastly I would like to meet the person who OK'd the money for Win Zone because I have some prime swampland that he can buy. Win Zone is not going to be a winner, nobody can understand it or cares about it. Anybody with a brain can tell what the odds of a player leading is, why tell us that this computer will do it for us? Through Saturday at the Hope, you could see there wasn't much interest in it, they only used it once a day which is tolerable
So what is the answer?:Why didn't Golf Channel hire some of the folks that did ABC's golf? A year ago when they were awarded the package, they could have talked with ABC's producer at the time Mark Looms. Two years ago they talked with one of ABC's producers, Jack Graham, but nothing came of it. Both of these could have been great producers for them, but more importantly great teachers for their raw talent. ABC had two great directors in John Delvecchio and Jim Jennett, why Golf Channel never talked to them is crazy, either one would have been 100 percent better in directing the shows. When the power-that-be at the Golf Channel review these shows in the coming weeks, they should also watch the Golf Channel show done the same weekend at the MasterCard Champions. The Friday and Saturday show were clean, smooth and went well. They were produced by Brandt Packer, who produced the last half of ABC's shows in 2006. Packer did shows like the British Open, the American Express Championship and the Tour Championship, so why he wasn't producing the Mercedes, Sony or Hope is a big mystery.
What the heads of Golf Channel should have done was take a lead from what the president of NBC did last year when they got Sunday Night Football. Dick Ebersol, who runs NBC Sports could have had some folks from his talented staff produce those shows. Instead, Ebersol took the less popular choice among his staff of hiring all the ABC production people that did Monday Night Football in 2005. It proved to be a great decision because he got the top quality shows that he needed to have. I wonder how much better these last three weeks would have been if Golf Channel had just bitten the bullet and hired Packer and Delvecchio to do them. Hopefully, in hindsight they will ask themselves the big question, why weren't these shows at the same level as CBS or NBC, but more importantly how do they get to that level. They have a year to figure this out, but more importantly can learn from all their mistakes to make this the package that it deserves to be.
How do you think the Golf Channel did?
Did Kelly Tilghman past the first test and did she mess with Nick Faldo?
Did you think the production was up to "Network Standards"?
Did you enjoy the show and feel that they showed us the best of the Mercedes Championship and the PGA Tour?
Are you looking forward to watching any other Golf Channel produced shows?
Tell us what you think on the GolfObservers forum, give us your thoughts and answers, we will pass good ones along in future blogs.
E-mail us at: Golfersal@aol.com
