Tuesday Tidbits

I made you wait a day, but you'll be rewarded with our patented flood the zone coverage....

Da' Match - By the time I hit publish, I suspect that I'll feel dirty for having aided and abetted the hype...  But where to begin?  Perhaps with this retrospective on their relationship?

From bitter rivals to business partners: How Tiger and Phil's once-frosty relationship thawed

Though at the present moment this seems a curious place to begin:

Four years ago, with Woods at home recovering from a second micro-discectomy surgery to remove a disc fragment that was pinching a nerve (and soon to undergo another procedure to relieve discomfort in his back), the U.S. Ryder Cup team got drubbed at

Gleneagles for its sixth loss in the last seven biennial matches. At the press conference that Sunday night in Scotland, Mickelson blasted his own captain Tom Watson (and in essence the PGA of America) for the mismanagement of the team. It was a seminal moment that led to sweeping changes and the formation of the Ryder Cup task force, of which Woods, ever the competitor who had also grown tired of all the losing, readily signed on. Golf’s two biggest stars were aligned, and more importantly the lines of communication, be it the Ryder Cup or other topics, were open. 

“I think that had a lot to do with [them becoming closer] because they were forced into the same room,” said Love, who captained the U.S. in a 2012 loss at Medinah before returning in 2016 and a victory at Hazeltine. “It’s hard when you’re both trying to be No. 1. They were on the path to [becoming more friendly] in 2004. That’s why Hal Sutton threw them together. But [how that went] that threw a wrench in things.”

I guess I should have done a CTL:F Sutton before leading with this piece, but does '14 smell any better than '04 right now?   

I actually watched some of the 24/7 promo last night, which featured this bit:

Even so, there have been endearing moments between the two stars through the years. 

When Mickelson’s wife Amy was diagnosed with breast cancer in May of 2009, Woods reached out to Mickelson. Six years later, while Woods was struggling with his back and suffering a nasty case of the chip yips, Mickelson sent encouraging texts. 

“He offered numerous times to help me out with technique and just about it,” Woods said earlier this year. “I said, ‘Yeah, you and I have the same philosophy in how we approach chipping and how we do it. I just can’t physically do it.’ But now it’s different. I feel better. And my short game has turned around.” 

So has their relationship.

So they keep telling us....

ESPN's Bob Harig tells us to ignore the naysayers, though he gives a really compelling account of their points:

What appeared then to be an interesting idea has taken considerable hits in the lead-up to 

this 18-hole encounter at Shadow Creek. 

Charging via pay-per-view probably leads the list, forcing those who might be intrigued to make a decision about parting with $20 to watch an otherwise meaningless exhibition on television. 

The fact that this type of encounter would have played better in their primes is also prominently mentioned, with even Rory McIlroy chiming in last week, saying that it "missed the mark a little bit." 

Certainly the play of Woods and Mickelson at the Ryder Cup -- they combined to go 0-6 in a deflating performance as part of a United States loss to Europe -- didn't help.

And nor does the huge sum being played for, an amount even Woods suggested was "astronomical." 

All perfectly good reasons to have your doubts.

Well argued, Counsellor, but I'm anticipating that this will crumble on cross-examination.  So, whatcha got?

Counterargument: so what? 

With a nod to all the negative takes, why not just sit back and enjoy it for what it is, two of the game's legends going head-to-head in a big-money match with some trash talking and side bets thrown in? 

Nobody is suggesting this is major championship theater, or even Doral-level drama. (Their 2005 showdown during the final round in Miami was epic and remains -- unless it happens at a major in the twilight of their careers -- their best head-to-head matchup). 

Yes, having to pay for it is annoying, but, as even Mickelson noted, that $20 can be split among friends who take in The Match together. While not suggesting how to spend other peoples' money, we are talking about a discretionary income choice that many would squander on other dubious endeavors. And it is Black Friday after all, a day associated with money-spending opulence.

You're going with so what?  And not so much as a note about my mother's swimming after troop ships?

But this is the bit that seems a tad strained:

And then there are a couple of issues concerning the big money being offered. 

Many have opined they'd only care about this if the two players put up their own cash.

Such a proposition is naive. What athletes in any other sport have done something similar? It's never happened and never will, and to think that these guys would be the first to do it lacks an understanding of their place in the entertainment, marketing and endorsement world. 

Depending on the outlet tracking such things -- Forbes, Golf Digest, etc. -- Woods and Mickelson earn in excess of $40 million per year apiece in off-the-course income. Mickelson makes well into six-figure paydays for one-day outings that are not televised. Woods can command $2 million plus for overseas tournament appearance fees. 

The what-should-be-obvious point here is that these guys garner a healthy sum for walking across the street to tee up a golf ball. They are not going to -- nor do they need to -- put their own money on the table. (And to be clear, neither player will walk away from this with nothing; both of their management teams are heavily invested, and nobody is working for free.) 

The $9 million amount seems gaudy to some (it was actually $10 million before the PGA Tour got involved and asked the parties to play for less, wanting to protect the prestige of its $10 million FedEx Cup payout -- which is actually going to $15 million in 2019). Again, for guys who each have a couple of eight-figure endorsement deals, nobody should be shocked at that number.

And yet Phil puts up his own money every Tuesday of tournament week....  The point that Harig drives home is that it would have been more interesting if these guys risked $50,000 of their own money, than playing for $9 million of TNT's....

Christine Brennan of US Today remains defiantly unconvinced:

Thanksgiving will be upon us before we know it, bringing with it turkey, family, friends, pro football, college football, Black Friday, cold weather, clogged highways and packed airports. 

And one more thing: Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson playing golf.

Nothing says the holidays quite like a meaningless $19.99 pay-per-view golf match between two men whose ages add up to 90.

Aren't you the killjoy?  

Not surprisingly, there will be gambling. As luck would have it, the match is being played on a golf course in Las Vegas. The race and sports books at MGM Resorts will be delivering odds, moneyline and other information about the golfers’ performances, also right there on the screen. Tiger and Phil will make all kinds of side bets on shots and putts, with that money being donated to charity.

Your TV screen will be so full of numbers, facts and information that you might think you’re watching CNBC and forget you’re actually watching golf. Perhaps that’s the point. 

And there will be drone coverage! Live, state-of-the-art drone coverage “delivering camera angles that have never been seen before for a live golf event.” 

I’m imagining the possibilities: let’s go live to the Tree Cam. How about a Squirrel Cam? Perhaps a Phil’s Wallet Cam, for all the action there? 

Tiger, Phil and their caddies will be wearing microphones throughout the match “to capture the strategy and competitive banter that takes place,” according to the event’s press release.

Wallet-Cam?  Heh, that's a good one....  A layup for sure, but still....Though she exhibits some confusion here:

But in a holiday weekend overflowing with real, meaningful sports events, faux golf is out of place. Look at the trade-off you’ll be making if you watch: while either Tiger or Phil will make $9 million in the winner-take-all match, you’ll give up four hours of your life that you’ll never get back.

Not so much, Christine.  Friday is a wasteland, so it's either binge watching Netflix or this.  Or, you know, curling up with a good book...

Sunday's Tour Confidential panel devoted some pixels to this (with more to come tomorrow. when they pick a winner):

1. After months of speculation, several hype videos (some better than others) and (forced?) trash talk, Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson will finally square off in “The Match” at 3 p.m. ET on Friday at Shadow Creek in Las Vegas. We’ll make our picks on Wednesday, so for now a different topic: Will the event be a success?

Hmmm...I guess the lads are free to interpret that in either the commercial or artistic senses....

Luke Kerr-Dineen: Golf has a pretty solid track-record of hating everything that’s different until they realize they actually quite like it. Olympic golf is a good example. It’s tough to figure out what exactly “success” looks like for this event because it’s so unique. But generally speaking, yes, this is going to be a success. I think golf fans will be surprised by how many bored, casual sports fans are going to pay a nominal fee to spend their Thanksgiving breaks watching (more) sports. We’ll probably get a viral moment or two, and Barkley and Co. will do something hilarious at some point. This time next year, we’ll be talking about “The Match” 2.0. Book it. 

Michael Bamberger: Well said, K-D (and the Sunshine Band). I was all cranky about Olympic Golf until it was played and then I was merrily on the bandwagon. What constitutes success? Everyone will get paid, and then some, I suspect. That’s likely the working definition of success here.

Olympic golf seems a bizarre template for this endeavor, no?  Isn't this the polar opposite of the Olympic ideals, with its emphasisi on gambling and trash talk?

Alan Shipnuck: Yes, in part because our collective expectations have been lowered a bit by months of tedious hype. After all the nonsense, the golf will be a bracing change. And I think the production values and other do-dads will be cool, too. 

Dylan Dethier: Shippy raises a valid point…everyone is sleeping on this thing now! Golf fans have down-talked this thing up until now, and there’s been some valid criticism (from me, too) about the hype. But the 24/7 last week was fun, and now that this is closer to being a reality, golf fans won’t want to miss it. I’m predicting modest numbers but a big success.

OK, Shippy, though you might have noticed that there elephant in the corner.  What really reduced our expectations was their play in Paris, the only outstanding question being whether they cost themselves as much money as Mannny Machado did in the postseason?

2. Who has the most to lose and/or gain in this event? Tiger? Phil? The promoters? The viewers who fork over $19.99?

Kerr-Dineen: Who has the most to gain? Rory McIlroy, Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas,

Dustin Johnson and all of golf’s other big-name players. If this thing works to any substantial degree, this format could turn into an entirely new revenue stream for those guys. That’s why I was so surprised to see some of those players throw shade at this event. It’s a proof of concept. They should want this to work, because if it does, they’ll be next in line for a big potential payday. 

Zak: I think Phil Mickelson has the most to lose. This guy had a big lead on Tiger in terms of being America’s favorite golf dad over these last few years. If we’ve learned anything in 2018, it’s that Tiger is inching toward grabbing that title. Does Phil still have it? At 48? If he can beat Tiger, he’ll at least have that to cling to entering 2019. If not, well, we may be talking a lot more about his decline than his (normally) impressive late-40s form. 

Shipnuck: Tiger does, because if Phil beats him in this intensely personal format it will further erode Woods’s aura.

The most important thing is that they're perceived to play reasonably well, which can't be taken for granted after Paris.  I suspect the golf course will be wide open, favoring Phil, though we've heard surprisingly little on the subject.  

Some more on this subject:

Bamberger: I would disagree, Alan. Tiger’s horrid play in Paris did virtually nothing to erode Tiger’s aura. Phil’s poor play had people saying the Mexico win was a one-off. If it’s close, nobody gains or loses anything. If Phil loses big, it will hurt, kind of, briefly. If Tiger loses in a blowout, which is hard to imagine, it will be written off to some unforeseen thing. 

Dethier: Tiger, for sure. He’s supposed to win. That’s how this is scripted to play out. Phil’s got nothing to lose, which is probably what makes him particularly dangerous.

Shippy had a second bite of the apple in his weekly mailbag:

#AskAlan: What does it say about both players if Phil wins the Match? Is it an indication that Phil still has some w’s left (maybe another major?), or just that Tiger isn’t as close to his old self as it seemed last year? -@JoePangaro 

No doubt Tiger has more at stake here. He has always been the alpha in this relationship, and he’s the heavy betting favorite for a reason. But this gaudy stage is better suited for Phil. Woods is a grinder, Mickelson a showman. On Tour, Tiger’s practice rounds are all business, while Phil’s are a moveable feast involving lots of bets and trash-talk. Also, Mickelson has always been able to get under Woods’s skin, sometimes even intentionally. If Phil gets a lead early and starts running his mouth, I can see Tiger’s clubhead speed approaching 150 mph, which is probably not a good thing. If Woods loses this match it will definitely sting, but I’m not sure these 18 holes have any value beyond pure entertainment. 

How is it a “high stakes” match when neither competitor has any skin in the game? #AskAlan -Joshua (@fishahhh) 

Nine milli is a lot of money to win but it won’t change either of their lives. Neither would losing that amount, if they put in their own money, as so many pundits suggested. It’s all about saving face. Both guys have immense egos, and it’s going to be highly embarrassing to whomever loses this thing. I’d say that’s actually a lot of skin in the game.

We're quite a bit down the road from the days when winning was requisite to support oneself, but the ramifications for losing are fairly tame.  Before we move on the wagering, Alan...errr, excuse me, Shippy, had this on that proof-of-concept thing:

Since we’ll probably have to listen to this dopey Match thing for a few years to come (a la the Skins Game) who would make a good pairing next year? Rory M. v. Patrick R. perhaps? -Gordon (@fofop05) 

Well, Tiger and Phil are not going to relinquish the stage any time soon. This is their franchise and they have a stake in its financial success. So all future matchups, and there will be many, are going to involve them. If I was Steiny, I would already be working on Tiger-Phil vs. Shubhankar Sharma-Haoong Li. Can you imagine the marketing possibilities on that one, sucking in China *and* India?! Tiger-Phil vs. Rory-Poults could be fun, especially as a walk-up to the next Ryder Cup. Phil-Jordan vs. Tiger-JT? Phil-Tiger vs. Brooks-DJ? Tiger-Lexi vs. Phil-Inbee? There are lots of fun possibilities … but none of them will involve Reed after his post-Ryder Cup temper tantrum.

Yes, though Patrick is surprisingly in the Hero World Challenge field.  I'm unsure when those invites go out, but I had assumed that Patrick would be at a Table for One elsewhere...

And finally someone addressees the important issues:

I got one for ya, Alan..will there be cussing? And follow up..if so, what is over/under on F-bombs?? -Jon (@Crockett418) 

If you can believe the “24/7” hype, yes, there will be profanity. I can imagine one or two s-words early on, or maybe a stray a**hole, just to add a little edginess, but both of these guys are walking multinational corporations with a brand to protect, not to mention kids and parents watching at home. So I would expect zero f-bombs or any really exotic locutions.

Yes, I caught that...  Tiger apparently has quite the potty mouth, and that doesn't even account for the flatulence humor....

As for the betting, back to the TC Panel:

3. To keep the match interesting, Tiger and Phil will have the ability to make mid-round prop bets with their own money. What’s one bet you’d like to see the players wage?

Kerr-Dineen: I want Phil to throw down a big bet on Tiger to miss a makeable putt, Tiger to miss it and then get angry. I want full-on, angry, fist-pumping Tiger. I need the intensity. It would be so much fun.

Luke, you might want to take something for that.....

Zak: You want intensity? How about Tiger saying “Phil, hit the fairway with your driver for $50k.”

 Well, yeah, but I'd expect Phil to be begging for odds...

Dethier: Auto 2-down presses. Getting one of these guys on an off-day, then getting that guy going on full tilt? I’d be glued to the TV AND it would ensure we get to the 18th hole. 

If they allowed air presses, that might sway me to watch it. 

Bamberger: Double D! Sounds like you actually have played some money games. Automatics is smart for reason just cited. I’d like to see a closest-to-the-hole on a par-3 where Tiger plays with one of Phil’s clubs and Phil one of Tiger’s, and let the rules slide.

Mike ignores the fact that Phil is actually right-handed, making this a dubious proposition for Tiger.

The Golf Digest crew dives deep into the Chinese menu of prop bets, starting with the important stuff:

Will Tiger Woods wear a red shirt? (Yes +350, No -600) 

Listen, there's a level of unavoidable shamelessness to these events. That—the cringe-worthy Twitter trash talk, embellished hype videos—comes with the territory of pulling in an eight-figure check. Still, there are things so sacred they can't be soiled by money, and we like to think Tiger's Sunday red falls in that territory. -- Joel Beall 

Are we really getting 3-to-1 odds on a sure thing? Sign me up. Part of the reason I’m so confident is, if you noticed in the HBO 24/7 episode, Woods was in his signature black and red. Pretty sure that was for a reason. Oh, and Phil was in his signature all black, albeit that ridiculous long sleeve shirt. Might as well bet Lefty to wear black at +250 as well. Unfortunately, we haven’t found a long sleeve vs. short sleeve prop...yet. -- Christopher Powers

I do so hope that Phil shows up in red, like Rocco at Torrey Pines.  But, of course, in a Mizzen+Main button down....

Will Phil Mickelson record an FIR on Hole No. 1? (Yes -130, No -110) 

Finding the short stuff ain't Phil's forte, ranking 192nd in driving accuracy last season. Conversely, Shadow Creek's fairways are so broad and spacious that you can land a 747 on 'em with ease. "Yes" is the call. -- JB 

Yes, and ditto Tiger (-190). Doesn’t look like driver is necessary for either Tiger or Phil, which should mean they both find the short stuff with an iron and we take things from there. -- CP

FIR?  This mostly reinforced to me that Phil has the advantage in the set-up....  And back to this issue:

Total curse words said by Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson (Over/under 21.5) 

Too bad Charles Barkley doesn't count towards this wager. Could have bet the house on the over. As it is, expect a few mild swear words, yet don't envision a parade of F-bombs. -- JB 

As much as I’d like to believe we’re going to get these two truly unfiltered, I’m not buying it. We’ll get a few token “sh--s” at best, and I highly doubt an F-bomb will be dropped. Think of the children. -- CP

The Under would seem to be a mortal lock here, unless, you know....

Will Donald Trump be in attendance? (Yes +600, No -1000) 

(Afraid to say anything). -- JB

Can anything happen in this world without an obligatory Trump reference?

Chuck Three-Sticks, Explained -  We'll exit on this item from Shippy's mailbag, explaining the under-achieving winner from Sea Island:

Is CH3 the biggest disappointment (besides Tiger and Anthony Kim maybe) in the last 10ish years? First few years, and quality of his swing, made many think he was going to be an easy 20 win guy. Great career, but seemed like should have been special. #AskAlan -Kris (@Oiler3535) 

This is certainly the counterpoint to all of the raves about his consistency. Howell’s incredible college career and the purity of his swing obscured a simple fact: he had a mechanical, imagination-free wedge game and his putting was streaky at best. He just has never had a flair for scoring, seemingly turning a lot of 66s into 70s. Maybe the greatest line ever typed about a golfer was Chris Jones a decade ago saying Howell plays golf “like a teenager f*cks.” Given Howell’s many, many chances, three wins is indeed a pretty paltry total. He’s living proof that golf is not played on the driving range.

I can't top that, so I'll tip my cap and see y'all tomorrow.