"Even in today's must-know everything culture, if pro golf's TV fortunes rise or fall on whether someone is miked up, that is a sign of greater problems."

That's what Bill Fields says in today's Golf World Monday. He also writes:

TV could better utilize the mics already on course, and the tour mandate its players to do interviews during a round. The latter would give viewers more without taking away something from the stars of the show.

I think a bigger point has been missed in the player-mike debate: hearing on-course dialogue, especially down the stretch, creates drama.

Sunday at the Sony Open, Golf Channel did a stellar job picking up Mark Wilson's 16th fairway discussion with his caddie. The confab consisted of your basic back-and-forth about club selection and wind direction chatter. But when the announcers stopped to let the conversation be heard, the player-caddy banter created a moment of drama that I suspect caused most viewers to stop anything else they might have been doing to listen in.

Now, would a mid-round interview with Wilson--no candidate to host SNL anytime this century--create the same interest?

Whether the sound is picked up through microphones or more aggressive sound technicians, it's drama we're after. And yes, to answer Fields' statement in the headline, the debate does speak to a problem: golf is on way too many hours and isn't that interesting 98% of the time. But when we are treated to these moments of tension and we're taken inside the huddle, it's as compelling as any sport.