Midweek Musings

I had taken the day off yesterday since no Wednesday game was contemplated.  That's changed, the weather is simply too good not to sample, but we've some rare Tuesday afternoon blogging will fill that void.

Gambling On The Future - This whole gambling thing is getting interesting, as per this L.A. Times deep dive on the subject.  It's focus is football mostly, but shall we see whether there's any cautionary tales for our little game?  First, let's set the table with the current status:

Times have changed dramatically. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 cleared the way for states to legalize sports betting, the practice has moved out from the shadows and into the limelight faster

than just about anyone would have predicted.

Legal sports betting is now available in more than two dozen states and the District of Columbia, though some allow only in-person wagers rather than online play. (California has not yet legalized sports betting.) Over half the adult population in the United States is in a state where some form of sports betting is legal. By 2023, that could grow to more than 80% of adults in the U.S., according to executives.

Global digital betting revenue is estimated to exceed $43 billion in 2025, up from $25.5 billion this year, according to research firm H2 Gambling Capital.

OK, that obviously sounds like what we used to call an BFN, but that leads nicely to our first surprise:

Lee Berke, president of the consulting firm LHB Sports, Media & Entertainment, said sportsbook companies are putting 80% of their revenue into marketing. Sports betting has exploded as an advertising category for NFL TV rights-holders Fox, NBC, CBS and ESPN.

“Let’s just say that our fans are really interested in sports betting,” Bob Chapek, chief executive of ESPN parent Walt Disney Co., said last month. “Let’s say that our partners with the leagues are interested in sports betting. So we’re interested in sports betting.”

Attitudes have changed.

Are they?  It just seems that spending 80% of one's revenue is quite the high price to generate business, and makes me wonder about sustainability.

This seems telling as well, perhaps not exactly in the manner they think:

The rise of regulated gambling gives viewers a literal investment in the outcome of a game, even if their home team isn’t the one playing, said Abraham J. Wyner, faculty lead of the Wharton Sports Analytics and Business Initiative of the University of Pennsylvania.

“I’ve been a lifelong fan of my favorite teams, particularly the Yankees, and that keeps me interested, but I’m not about to go watch Red Sox-Rays if I don’t have a betting interest or some other kind of interest in the outcome,” Wyner said. “As people are becoming more removed from the actual playing of the game in their lives, betting is a great way to cultivate more interest and deeper interest in the broadcast.”

I assume the mention of the Red Sox-Rays was  meant to inflict emotional distress in your humble blogger, whose own interests align with the speaker's.

But while wagering may spur interest, are we quite certain that said interest is in the broadcast?  I get that it is a way of bringing more eyeballs to a telecast, but those don't seem likely to hang around.  Also ignored is that much of the betting is not on the outcome of an event, but on individual performance or other metrics.

As I've long noted, I don't think golf actually lends itself to gambling by others (as opposed to wagering on ourselves), but this might be the key bit:

Only the seven betting companies with NFL deals are allowed to advertise during pro football broadcasts. The league allows six ads per telecast: one per quarter and one during pregame and halftime.

While odds analysis can bring another level of sophistication to coverage, NFL executives are reluctant to have explicit gambling references during the regular live national broadcasts. Research indicated that audiences don’t want national broadcasts to explicitly include gambling chatter, according to Christopher Halpin, the NFL’s chief strategy and growth officer.

“The bettors say, ‘I don’t need to hear Jim Nantz and Tony Romo talk about sports betting,’” Halpin said. “‘It’s inauthentic. It’s not their area.’”

Hello!  need I remind the reader that that's the BETTORS speaking, not the core audience with no interest in gasmbling...

The NFL is smart enough to not risk alienating their core audience, but Jay Monahan has no such reticence.  Why do we think that is?  There's a couple of possible explanations, beginning with the differing sizes of audience.  It just so happens that Shack linked to the ratings from last weekend, and it wasn't a pretty picture:

Lots to laugh at therein.  Not only did the senior event (thanks, Phil) outdraw the Shriners, but Saturday at the latter outdrew Sunday (I know, those gambling-free NFL broadcasts).  We're talking audience sizes barely large enough to garner a rating, and good luck finding anyone in that coveted 18-49 demo.

But the other aspect of this is that our game's leadership doesn't seem to have much confidence in their product, despite a game that's survived and prospered for centuries.  We saw a similar thing with the dumbing down of the language in that 2019 rules rewrite, where they clearly believed that a term like "All Square" was off-putting to the masses.  The sense one gets is that Jay isn't happy with what he has, and is willing to burn his current audience in the hopes of growing it.  

Geoff had some thoughts on how this has played out, with which I am not remotely in agreement:

Golf’s foray has largely leaned on selling ads to the various authorized gaming partners of the Tours, with a scattershot and comically lame approach on the television side (to date). In reading about the above NFL findings, it’s hard not to think about the painful sound earlier this year of longtime CBS analysts Nick/Ian/Frank having to make their FanDuel picks for next week, or Golf Channel’s Jimmy The Greek, Paige Mackenzie, chiming in on a top parlay opportunity at PointsBet, currently available in four states. At least the CBS crew turned the sponsored bits into a chance to laugh a little.

Good news for the anti-gambling set: if the lazy, awkward and short-sighted integration continues, the whole thing will fizzle based on first impressions.

Inauthentic would be a kind description of that forced FanDuel promo.  Then again, the next humorous bit to come from the mouth of Mumbles Faldo will also be the first.... As for the potential fizzle, we should only be so lucky.

Follow The Money - I had promised a follow-up to Geoff's analysis of the USGAs public filings, and I'm a man who delivers.  Except, yanno, when I don't... First, on the revenue side:

The USGA members program brought in $14.9 million, down from $16.5 million in 2019. This is noteworthy since the organization quietly brought back Golf Journal and is making a hard push to restore revenues lost by winding down the members program earlier this century, a mistake I wrote about in The Future of Golf. This is important because…

Five corporate sponsorships brought in $19.5 million in 2020 revenue, down from $22.4 million in 2019. Meaning, if the members program was double its current number (thought to be in the low six-figures) or back to it’s turn-of-the-century, high six-figure total, the program could account for most of the corporate support. To put it more bluntly, the various “activations” could be shelved and shed the U.S. Open of excess commercialization. However, not listed in this report are dollar amounts required by these corporate sponsors to spend on advertising time.

That last bit makes it hard to have any feel for this, but the organization does seem more corporate-driven than historically.  But it's how they spend their money that could be most interesting:

Bryson DeChambeau won the 2020 U.S. Open and $2.25 million. But he did not make the list of five highest paid independent contractors.

Zambezi LLC is the Culver City-based ad agency hired by USGA’s former Chief Brand Officer Annis. They crafted the “From Many, One” campaign. Zambezi’s webpage page devoted to its USGA campaign can be viewed here, if you must. For those keeping score, that’s $2.25 million to “The One” who captured the 2020 U.S. Open, while $2.1 million marketed the qualifying to get there. The organization could not find the funds to have a writer, photographer and video crew to document the “From Many” stories, but they could dump $2.1 in ad agency coffers. Kids: stop hitting balls and start coming up with lame slogans.

USGA spending on “Golfer Engagement” was down $3 million in 2020 but still topped $10.1 million. Presumably, this includes marketing, mailers, ad campaigns, influencers and other efforts to sell the organization’s work, including the various “brand campaigns”.

I think the better story would be what they lump into this category, but I doubt we'll ever be able to conduct that forensic audit.  But don't cry for these folks, the R&A didn't cash the only Business Interruption check:

Insurance has paid $29.5 million, so far. The report says a USGA “event cancellation insurance” claim was filed for the 2020 U.S. Open. Based on the claim’s “validity”, the carrier paid $29.5 million but suggested future reimbursements are possible.

So, they held the event yet still got compensated... Boy, these guys are good.

Obviously, they weathered the pandemic with only minor hiccups, so now they have adequate resources to fight the distance battle... Yeah, just kidding.

But according to Geoff, they (presumably with the R&A) are prepared to make a major move in this area:

Any day now—maybe even tomorrow since Tuesday’s end in a y—the USGA and R&A are overdue on a decision about the proposed “Model Local Rule” capping non-putter club length at 46 inches. According to the proposal, lowering the limit from 48 inches would be geared toward “competitions limited to highly skilled players.”

The likelihood of a rule change is strong since it will have very little impact on today’s game. The comment period, part of a study underway since 2016, ended in April after an extension was granted. Given how few “elite” players have been competitive with extended drivers or how few manufacturers stock shelves with anything longer than 46 inches, this Local Rule is more about hedging against innovation while setting an intriguing regulatory precedent.

Remember this odd outburst from Phil?

Geoff explains:

Ignoring Phil’s understandable self-interest in the matter—or maybe Brooke Henderson since she’s used a 48-inch driver for years—the USGA and R&A would only be inconveniencing .0000001% of current golfers. Manufacturers rarely have sold something longer than 46 inches, and unless you’re exploring a Long Drive circuit move or you’re Bryson DeChambeau feeling frisky heading into a fall Masters, few current players will be affected.

Henderson is an interesting citation, since she chokes down the grip several inches seemingly with every club in the bag.  But of course the most interesting aspect of this, which negate Phil's faux concern for the amateurs, is that it brings the B-word into play:

By invoking a Model Local Rule to (theoretically) regulate distance, this backdoor bifurcation would provide a noteworthy precedent when bigger-ticket topics are set to be considered this winter. (Remember manufacturers: papers are due November 2nd!)

Is Backdoor Bifurcation anything like a Backdoor Top Ten?  Asking for a friend named Rory....

The interesting thing here might be the reaction of the other governing bodies.  Shack picks the PGA of America as the most likely to break with the USGA, as they've done previously.  Much ado about nothing on this limited subject, but the bigger issues remain outstanding.

It Takes Money To... - I don't have much in the way of commentary, but did you ever wonder how much it costs to keep a PGA Tour professional on the road?  Even if you didn't, we have an answer for you:

Tips: $5,000

Locker-room attendants, baggage handlers, bellhops, housekeepers: Keeping the golf gods happy by keeping the service sector happy means digging deep into one’s wallet for generous tips in the range of $200 a week on tour.

Private chef: $25,000

Who says the game’s cash-machine stars aren’t still hungry? Few elite players have full-time private chefs — but they often hire them, and those services go for $3,000 to $5,000 a week. Mmmm-mmmm, expensive.

Trainer: $100,000

No pain, no gain. Now drop and give me 100K!

Physio/massage therapy: $150,000

At the game’s highest level, staying limber is priceless. Also, pricey.

Coach: $150,000-$200,000

There are all kinds of coaches: swing, short game, mental, even data. Contract structures likewise vary, from flat rates to commissions, but this is the (tony) neighborhood for the annual cost of coaching.

Accommodations: $200,000

Ballpark, because the price of rental homes and hotel suites vary wildly from one Tour stop to another. Still, in lodging, as with airfare, these guys don’t often stint, which makes for a hefty year-end line item.

Travel: $150,000-$400,000

Platinum-level players don’t fly coach, and first-class tickets and private jets don’t come cheap, especially when you’re winging around the globe to a couple dozen tournaments annually.

Caddie: $500,000-$1,000,000

Most loopers for top players earn a base fee of $2,500 a week, plus 10 percent of prize money on a win, 8 percent on a top-10 finish and 6 percent on everything else. Do the math — don’t forget to factor in the wind! — and you get a substantial sum.

Total: $1.88–$2.08 million

I wouldn't include the caddie here, because that's a profit-sharing expense that reduces net proceeds to the player.  But don't some of those numbers seem low?  Can you rent that house in Augusta during Masters week for less than fifty grand?   

Perhaps the more interesting analysis would be that of the costs for an aspiring Tour pro, one that hasn't yet made bank.  

To Bee, Or Not To Bee - On Monday I shared my modified, limited support of J.R. Smith's college golf career, which took quite the bizarre turn:

J. R. Smith’s NBA career had several wacky twists and turns, and just three rounds into his

college golf career, his second act is following a similar script.

After opening with rounds of 83 and 78 in the Elon Phoenix Invitational on Monday, Smith returned to Alamance Country Club Tuesday for the third round of his college golf debut with the North Carolina A&T Aggies. However, it would soon take a bizarre turn.

According to Twitter user Jared Bunder, Smith hit his ball into the woods on the par-5 12th and ventured into the foliage in search of it. He stepped on a beehive during the search, triggering the bees into a full-blown attack on the two-time NBA champion.

Talk about your buried ledes... they apparently played at the on golf course in America that hasn't removed all their trees.

 I haven't watched the videos on offer, but the man finished:

Smith went on to double bogey the hole, but he did break 80 for the second consecutive round, posting 79 in Round 3 to finish his first collegiate tournament in 81st place.

We can only wish that our golf leadership had the same love for our game as a washed-up former athlete....I know, a pipe dream.

An Inconvenient Narrative? - As we noted a while ago, the European Tour has severed ties to the nice folks at Golf Saudi, and the PGA Tour will no longer allow its players to participate in the Kingdom's flagship event, presumably partially related to the country's treatment of its female citizens.  So this seems, well, curious:

Nelly Korda, Lexi Thompson among LPGA stars set to compete in Golf Saudi's Aramco Team Series in New York

 You have to dig into the item a bit, but the contrast is there to be seen:

Last year, several of the LPGA’s biggest stars traveled to Saudi Arabia for the country’s first women’s golf events. Pedersen won back-to-back events in Saudi Arabia to claim the Race to Costa del Sol title.

Top male players drew criticism for teeing it up in the men’s Saudi event in 2019 and 2020, particularly in the wake of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Dustin Johnson, who ultimately won the inaugural event, said, “It’s my job to play golf.” Justin Rose, who competed in 2019 but not in 2020, added, “I’m not a politician, I’m a pro golfer.”

Hey, I was critical of the noxious Saudis long before it became cool, but this is quite obviously hypocrisy on steroids.  Apparently DJ and JR are morally bankrupt for taking those thirty pieces of silver from the misogynist Saudis, but the women players are free to do so. 

But great progress has been made:

While some of Saudi Arabia’s discriminatory laws against women have relaxed in recent years – women can now drive cars and travel abroad without permission from their male guardian – it remains one of the most gender-segregated countries in the world.

So, as I understand today's crazy kids, it's all about a woman's choice as relates to her body... which the Saudis now respect, as long as the woman chooses to have her body leave the country.   Or something...

But it's more important to understand why the Euro Tour suddenly broke with the Saudis.  Their treatment of women is a longstanding disgrace, and the Kashoggi murder, shocking as it was, breaks no new ground (except in the propaganda sense, in which calling Kashoggi a "journalist" makes a mockery of that term, as well as of his "employer").  No, the Euro Tour break was something far more primal.... It was Jay Monahan (vis his loyal manservant, Martin Slumbers), protecting his feedlot.  

A Game of Honor - Mike Bamberger takes a deep dive in Phil's rules kerfuffle over the weekend, which seems to me an odd state of affairs, though not necessarily of Phil's creation.  But before we get to Mikey, let's take a look with Josh Sens as to the evolution of this rule:

What’s the relevance of 2004? That was the year the governing bodies eliminated Rule 18-2c, which levied a one-shot penalty if a player’s ball moved after that player touched any loose

impediment lying within a club-length of the ball.

Pebble. Pinecone. Pine straw. Name the object. It didn’t matter. Neither did your intent. If you moved something, anything, within a club-length of your ball and your ball moved afterwards, one shot was added to your score.

That rule was intended to keep things simple. But, as Craig Winter, Senior Director, Rules of Golf & Amateur Status for the United States Golf Association puts it, “really simple rules can sometimes seem unfair.”

 But now comes that 2019 rules revision:

In the years since, of course, many other rules of the game have changed.

One that has been mentioned on social media and in other press accounts of Sunday’s Mickelson incident is a 2019 modification to Rule 9.2, which applies to “all questions of fact about why a ball at rest moved.”

Prior to 2019, the standard used in this rule was “weight of evidence.”

As the USGA’s Winter describes it, prior to 2019, “you were basically looking at a 50/50 balance on the scale.”

The problem with that approach was that given all the potentially complicating factors (such as what the player did near the ball and how much time elapsed before the ball moved, to say nothing of wind, lie and other course conditions), you wound up with a lot of controversial “close calls.” It could be a headache.

In 2019, to minimize those headaches, the standard was changed to “known or virtually certain.” The upshot of this was to make decisions more clear-cut. If you were going to rule that a player had caused his or her ball to move, you had to be all but certain of it, as in 95-percent sure. If you weren’t all but certain that player or a caddie or some other outside influence had caused the ball to move, then you had to assume that natural forces were the cause.

I get that the status quo ante was unsatisfying, but if you wanted to draft a rule for the convenience of Patrick Reed, could you come up with anything better than this?  A player can't be absolutely certain about anything, so therefore the player can do anything he or she wants to around their golf ball.

That penultimate 'graph above is really quite clever, because the myriad of factors are all that which the player might have done to cause his ball to move.  What else might have caused it to move?  Pine straw is notoriously unstable and there might have been a gust of wind, but isn't the far likelier scenario that the player caused it?  

Now we get to Mike's take:

On 16, Mickelson, a famously left-handed golfer, shoved a drive into the left trees. He and his ball were in a veritable forest of pines. His ball was sitting up on a bed of pine straw like a down pillow at a better hotel.

Mickelson examined the lie and did some grounds-keeping, removing nature’s debris some inches from his ball and a pine cone further away than that. There’s Spanish moss on the forest floor at Timuquana, little leaves, pieces of bark. The usual, and what Mickelson was doing was SOP. Then, while standing away from his ball, Mickelson saw that it had moved from its original position.

A starting point of golf is to play the ball as it lies, and now the lie was different. He told Jimenez that he would be calling in a rules official.

Mike spends a lot of time rationalizing, or so it seems to me:

“Yeah, I know I didn’t [cause the ball to move] because the stuff I moved wasn’t around the ball. I just didn’t know what the new rule is. The old rule was–“

That’s when Satterfield described the only thing that mattered, the current rule.

“Yeah, it was a minute at least,” Mickelson said, describing the time between moving the pine cone and when the ball moved.

So, if the stuff wasn't around your ball, why did you move it?  But Mike, whose opinions on matters of honor I value highly, is happy with the result, a view I can't quite share:

Golf Channel’s raw footage showed that the ball moved 30 or 31 seconds after Mickelson moved the pine cone. That happens. Mickelson wasn’t looking at a stopwatch. The different between a “minute at least” and 30 seconds is life unfolding in real time, and not the ultimate issue here.

Golfers know that when you move anything on pine needles, you can sometimes start a game of tiddlywinks, where one pine needle moves another and a chain reaction begins and in the end a ball moves. That’s a real thing, but not, in the end, the most telling thing. The final question was this: could Phil Mickelson say he was “virtually certain” that he caused his ball to move?

No, was his answer. He could not say that he was virtually certain that he caused his ball to move.

In other words, this was an example of the weirdness that can happen when a 1.62-ounce golf ball is sitting on a bed of pine needles.

Nobody questioned Mickelson about his decision. Golf, after all, is a game of honor.

Isn't that second graph a rather significant admission against interest?

My problem, and I should disclose here that I haven't watched the videos, is what do we think was the most likely cause of the ball moving?  The answer is obvious...despite the removed objects not being near the ball and the passage of 30-31 seconds, golfers know that when you move anything on pine needles..... yeah, Mike filled in the rest.

I'm deep into the "Get off my lawn" stage of life, but that also means I'm old enough to remember when golfers played the ball as it lies.... How quaint.

 That'll be a wrap for today.  Enjoy the Indian Summer weather, and I'll most likely see you Friday morning.