Tiger's Indefinite Leave Clippings, Christmas Edition

Why do I fear there will be a New Year's Eve edition? Oh right, because Tiger's handlers have decided to ride this one out.  Looks like a stellar strategy...

Like all of today's stories on Golf Digest giving Tiger time off from its pages, noteworthy in David Wharton's L.A. Times story is the lack of a quote from Mark Steinberg or Tiger supporting the decision. Less noteworthy was the citation of a $3 million-a-year pay package, the growing-by-the-week number pushed by the New York Post.

This, however, sounded about right:

The news was unexpected, if only because athletes facing controversy usually fare better within the confines of their sport.

"On the surface, it is kind of surprising," David Carter, executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute, said. "However, they also have to sell advertising and be mindful of what their business partners expect.

"I think it is a function of how widespread Woods' marketing problems have become," he said.

Sally Jenkins with a must read Washington Post column on the saga as it hits the one-month anniversary (thanks reader John).

The first thing Tiger Woods needs to do if he wants to remake himself is dump all the enablers. By that, I don't just mean the jerk caddie. I mean the so-called mentors who taught him how to play rent-a-hostess in Vegas. I mean the fawners who laughed at his crude jokes, and looked the other way when he was rude, or penurious. I mean all of the apologists, even the well-meaning ones, who conspired to create such a towering phony.

And...

But he and his overprotective pals are trying to sell us secrecy as privacy. He has a right to privacy, but what he did was lead a secret life, and that's what the tabloids are preying on so relentlessly. A violation of privacy is merely embarrassing. It's the violation of his secrecy that's destroyed his public persona. Big difference. The reason the story has been so engulfing is because of the sheer size of the gap between Woods's public image and his secret conduct.

Before answering downright brutal emails about Tiger, Rick Reilly reviews where we stand at this point:

It's one of the damndest things I've ever seen. When has an athlete ever free-fallen from so high to so low so fast? Does "never" ring a bell? It's the equivalent of catching Bing Crosby in a drag bar.

Everybody knows Tiger has a reputation for being cheap as single-ply toilet paper. He had an affair with Los Angeles cocktail waitress Jaimee Grubbs for more than 31 months, according to Grubbs. It was on her phone that a voice sounding a lot like Woods left the infamous "Take your name off your voicemail" message. That message became public when Grubbs gave it to US Weekly magazine, for a reported $150,000. Billionaire Philandering 101 tells you to set your mistress up in an apartment, set her up with a salary, keep her happy and quiet. By all accounts, Woods didn't do that. Another woman, Jamie Jungers, told the News of the World that Woods didn't tip and that once, when she asked for money when things got tight, he refused. Next thing you know, she's on the "Today Show" and "Dateline" spilling secrets. A few hundred thou saved here, a few hundred mil lost there.

A sampling of the emails:

If Tiger gets angry now when he pushes a drive to the right or lips out a putt, it [will draw] cheers. The next time Steve Williams snarls at a fan, he's going to get shouted down by the crowd and it's going to get ugly. When Tiger breezes by the crowd with that dead stare, it will be a challenge for TV not to show the people flipping him off. Any guy who hasn't cheated and kisses his kids goodnight will find himself pulling for anyone but Tiger. He wanted Privacy, it's going to get lonely.

Joe Queenan suggests in a tongue-in-cheek WSJ blog item that Tiger start writing a column for Slate:

Tiger Woods's exit strategy from his current predicament has been the subject of intense debate. Should he don sackcloth and ashes, or merely ashes? Should he apologize to his fans, his sponsors? Should he claim to be a sex addict, the victim of a disease he can neither understand nor control? Should he make a self-deprecating TV commercial? (Impossible. Tiger has no sense of humor.) Should he do something flamboyantly altruistic like giving pro bono sand trap lessons to the children of Sudan? Or should he simply go away?

Oddly, no one has mentioned the most obvious path to personal rehabilitation: writing a column for Slate.

Jim Frank thinks it's pretty easy to see where the media coverage should have drawn the line:

I’m not saying the media shouldn’t have uncovered and reported all that we’ve now learned about Tiger, but we certainly could have toned down the non-stop scrutiny on his marriage and kids. Yes, of course, the public has a right and, some will say, need to know, but I contend only up to a point. We all deserve some privacy in truly important matters. Even a superstar such as Tiger.

Do these things really figure into our appreciation of a player’s ability to play the game?

Bob Harig suggests any hope of the San Diego tour stop finding a sponsor for this year was dashed by Tiger's leave and notes this:

So without the title sponsor, where does the money come from?

Wilson said the tournament is looking at smaller sponsorships and paying for it "piecemeal." Votaw said the tour would not discuss such specifics. Wornham referred the question to the tour but said, "The 2010 tournament is guaranteed and will take place, and we fully anticipate we will have a sponsor."

Although nobody will say so, it is likely for the tournament to take place that the PGA Tour will structure an arrangement by which it helps defray the costs until a future title sponsor can help pay the bills.

Here's where you can read Helen Alfredsson's frank comments on Tiger.

‘‘I heard it last summer during the British Open,’’ Alfredsson said, describing Woods as ‘‘cold’’ and saying there was ‘‘something odd about him’’ that belied the clean image he enjoyed until the sex scandal erupted four weeks ago.

‘‘In the quietest water swims the ugliest fish,’’ Alfredsson said

Cheryl Hall shares more bad survey news for Tiger's marketability:

For each of the DBI surveys, 1,000 American consumers from a geographic and demographic pool of 4.5 million are asked about a celebrity's eight key marketing attributes. Those results make up an overall DBI rating.

At the outset of 2009, Tiger Woods was a perennial on the DBI Top 10, along with Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Michael Jordan, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington.

Woods is now 78th and ranks that high only because he's the most recognized person on the planet, with an awareness score of 99.79 out of 100.

And finally, A.J. Daulerio of Deadspin calls %$##@%&! on the email flying around (confession, I passed it along to a few folks too...guilty as charged).