Reader questions NBC’s move of Golf Channel’s Orlando operations to Connecticut as a shortsighted business decision
John Hawkins showed a lot of restraint in his recent column (“Changes at Golf Channel could get a fuzzy reception,” Oct. 20).
He stepped right up to the edge without really giving us his opinion. But I'm guessing that if expressed, his opinion probably would be close to mine and would include words such as stupid, idiotic and What were they thinking?
This is what happens when accountants make business decisions. All they look at are the tangibles such as costs; what they don't consider are the intangibles. The primary one is the impact on the product that is being delivered.
Furthermore, their analysis probably has some faulty assumptions. For example, the accountant just assumes that all on-air personalities that they want to keep will be moving to Stamford, Conn. But is that valid? Florida reasonably can be called the golf capital of the U.S. (and maybe of the world), and Orlando often is considered the golf capital of Florida. So, for someone whose life is golf, why would that person move to Stamford?
I'm giving it two years. By then, there probably won't be a Golf Channel, just NBC Sports/golf.
Land O' Lakes, Fla.
The world ranking needs an overhaul
What’s up with the Official World Golf Ranking? The ranking system is flawed, and fatally so.
Let’s take a look at the record of a prominent player.
2018-2020 in majors: Four top 10s and three missed cuts. No wins. No top 10s in either of the two 2020 major championships to date.
How about 2019-2020 on the PGA Tour? Three wins over the past two years. So, 1.5 wins a year.
That’s an OK resume. The “eye” test should place this player, where? Maybe 20th in the world? Maybe. Could be a bit lower; could be a bit higher.
Oh, wait. This player, Jon Rahm, is ranked No. 2 in the world, and a couple of months ago, he was ranked No. 1.
How can that be? What rational explanation is there for Rahm to be ranked No. 1 or 2 in the world?
Whatever algorithms are being used in these rankings need to be overhauled.
Look at Bryson DeChambeau. The OWGR has him ranked sixth in the world. He has won two PGA Tour events this year, six since mid-2018. He finished fourth in the PGA this year, and he won the season’s other major, the U.S. Open.
Is there not something off when he is ranked sixth and Rahm is either No. 1 or No. 2?
Maybe that’s just me. Or maybe we should start with the philosophy that if you have not won a major championship, you cannot be ranked No. 1 in the world. That means former No. 1s Lee Westwood and Luke Donald, and it should mean Jon Rahm, as well.
Rahm is an exciting player and personality. He oozes talent and has a big future ahead of him. But there is no rational foundation for his ranking at No. 1 or No. 2, and because the algorithms indicate otherwise, it’s time to fix this problem.
Rankings should not be based on expected future performance (were that the case, then Rahm might be deserving). But because it’s wholly actual performance-based, well, then, the system is broken. Obviously.
Peter S. Kaufman
Morning Read invites reader comment. Write to editor Steve Harmon at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please provide your name and city of residence. If your comment is selected for publication, Morning Read will contact you to verify the authenticity of the email and confirm your identity. We will not publish your email address. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity.
Sign up to receive the Morning Read newsletter, along with Where To Golf Next and The Equipment Insider.