golfrewind.com

Who said anything about removing leaders from coverage? I didn't.

CBS gave absolutely NO information, no coverage- not a single camera shot of any other golfer on the course besides the 5-7 golfers still on the top. This was an aweful lot of advertising, an aweful lot of time (5 1/2 hrs), and lots of preparation at a prestigious event to show so few golfers. I thought this stuck out like a sore thumb.

I'm not indicating that they should have cameras follow them everywhere, but the lack of information was extremely evident when it came to very good players that were on the course, that have many fans, were in red figures, and I for one would have liked to see. Just look at the final board and you can see many players that contended before Mickelson pulled away in the final holes. You'll say to yourself, "I never saw this guy." And you'd be right. Poorly done.

I agree with you, league. The guys in contention deserve the live coverage more than the guys 12 shots back with 3 holes to play. If the guys that have no shot at making it into the top 5, much less winning, happen to make a great shot, the network will show it on tape. If you just have to know what your favorite player is doing, shot-for-shot, and he's out of contention, then go to the internet or buy a ticket to the tourney.

Once it got down to the last hour or two, as the groups were finishing up, practically every group got their face-time on one of the last 2 or 3 holes, especially 18. It may not have been live, but it was usually only 2 or 3 minutes old. They also showed a lot of groups as they played Amen Corner. I found the coverage overall excellent, but could have done without some of the comments. They act like silence from the booth is a bad thing, but I'd wager that less commentary would yield increased ratings!

It didn't really help that there wasn't much drama on the back nine...Phil took a comfortable lead early on there and cruised in once Freddie 3 putted 14 and Tiger was cooked once he 3 putted 11.

The guys who had a legitimate shot at the title received their fair share of coverage.

There is a reason a player is languishing in 16th place, with zero chance of winning the tournament. I am not interested in seeing why.

Because network television by its very nature is about MARKETING ITS PROGRAMMING TO THE WIDEST AUDIENCE. The "select few" are either deemed the most marketable or the most well known by the network powers that be. There is no way that a network television show is going to cater to the serious golfer or golf fan at the expense of it's casual audience that tunes in because the Masters just happens to be one of the biggest sporting events in american sports.

Which is also why cable televison and the internet will continue to gain in popularity. They are ideally suited for niche audiences and people who want specialized information.

All things being equal most people who watch golf tend to want to watch golf played well. I'd match rather see a guy shooting a -4 round making great shots then somebody struggling and shooting a +6 round.

Also for as big a tournament as the Masters is the televisions powers that be want to make it as exciting for the viewing public as possible. Notice I said the viewing public NOT the serious golf fan. There is a difference and as much as us golf nuts don't like it there are more people who watch golf casually than those that actually play it or are serious fans of the game.

I agree. I was chatting with one of the other mods while watching the final round Sunday and said following Rocco's disaster at 12, "that's the last shot we'll see from him today"... at least they covered his post-round interview, though.