Last U.S. Open Thought: Streaming Model Better Than Network?

/

Every year after the Masters, most of us talk about how satisfying the Amen Corner Live coverage was because the digital/DirecTV feed comes on well before network coverage, offers a more immersive experience and features announcers well informed about the holes they are covering all day. Yes it helps to have the most compelling three-hole stretch, as does the novelty of getting to see Augusta National for the first time after a long winter. Nothing has come close to matching the intrigue of Amen Corner Live until this year's U.S. Open, in part due to production values, and in part because the USGA allowed Fox to make adjustments on the fly.

This year's U.S. Open featured three streams. As the network broadcast struggled to keep up with live golf or embed innovative touches, the streaming options of Featured Group, Featured Hole and 360 largely delivered on Fox's pledge to deliver fresh twists on golf coverage, with only the 360 lacking a little clarity in what it was trying to accomplish.

The difficulty of the network to match the streaming's use of fun stuff was predictable to longtime TV folks who warned that certain graphics and effects would be too difficult to incorporate into a network broadcast that is trying to show many players and pay bills too. But when the focus is on two holes, one group or one topic, the digital feeds deliver a more satisfying and up-to-the-minute experience.

Could this mean that the entire concept of trying to cover a golf tournament must be re-thought? We hear all of the time how golfers just want to see shots like the CBS Chirkinian days and show as many players as possible, etc.  Yet for serious golf fans, the European Tour feeds and Australian coverage often resonate because they focus on a few groups and incorporate more course graphics that allow us to follow the anatomy of a round.

Fox's digital offerings proved to be more compelling watching an elite group work their way around Chambers Bay or to seeing how the field tackled one hole while the network tried to tell so many different stories.

The first day of the digital coverage was rocky and even entertaining in a Best In Show way. The Featured Group's Tim Brando and Mark Brooks sounded like two Fred Willard's talking over each other, but by round three they and Natalie Gulbis had meshed to deliver enjoyable, insightful and opinionated analysis. Buddy Marucci sounded like he was lost the entire time. On the Featured Hole coverage, Shane Bacon brought a confident but relaxed presence lacking in May's Four-Ball telecast, while folks like Debbie Doniger, Morgan Pressel and Joe Ogilvie all stood out with the kind of candor and energy that was lacking on big Fox. Robert Lusetich should have been used more to break up Fox's overuse of players and under-reliance on reporters.

Announcers aside, the storytelling really worked best because of the bells and whistles that the different feeds had time to employ. Below are a few screen grabs from the week starting with Fox's best contribution to golf coverage, the use of small graphics to show you some of the key numbers golfers and their caddies faced.


A similar graphic showing of drives, yardages and hole graphics can be found on Australian and European Tour coverage, Fox seemed to make excellent use of VirtualEye's information best. The hole flyovers were the most accurate and artistically attractive I've seen, and the player drives were incorporated into a flyover for better context.
From the landing zone, those flyovers seemlessly brought us to the green, where contours were revealed. Again, nothing entirely new here, but it all seemed to work better in the telling of a group's story compared to the network where these graphics were seldom seen.
Finally, scatter charts of where players were making pars and birdies came in handy at the wild and weird "featured" 12th hole.
There were also some experimental uses of drone flyovers with scatter shots that I didn't screen capture, though I must say the 3D graphics were especially useful this year as Chambers Bay baked out and the graphics captured the course with the right blend of colors.

In contrast to the Masters "featured groups," which tend to be set in stone and sometimes avoiding the groups the network wants to hog, the U.S. Open coverage shifted to tell the more relevant or developing stories. For instance, Sunday's final round included Rory McIlroy's run as the network coverage had to focus on the leaders. Watching someone charge on closing holes (set up by the USGA for dramatics) made for more compelling and informed viewing. But it required either DirecTV or having a streaming feed on in addition to the network coverage.

As with the Masters, it was also surprising how often the network coverage was well behind what we'd already seen on the streaming coverage and how much this could taint views of the Fox network product. Perhaps unfairly so since each feed has such different goals.

Which brings this back to the original point. I'm curious if you all agree that perhaps we've overrated the model of trying to show as many shots and players as possible at the expense of better telling the story of the course, developing rounds and leaders?