Tiger's absence: good or bad for the sport?

Nice piece by Rick Morrissey in the Chicago Tribune, outlining all the reasons why Tiger missing the rest of the season is bad news for the PGA.

Namely, less people in the galleries, fewer people tuning into each tournament -- even the majors -- and as a result, less money for everyone connected with the sport. That is, except for the rest of the golfers on the PGA, who stand to benefit greatly. Think of all the extra prize money available with Tiger home on the La-Z-Boy!

But, as Morrissey points out, each of the tournament winners will have a figurative asterisk by their name, and the sports world will wonder how things had been different if Woods had played. Tiger, we can all agree, has become the standard.

Morrissey's arguments are all good and true, but I wonder if Tiger's absence might not be a good thing indirectly. We have all waited (thus far, in vain) for a worthy nemesis to emerge in the world of golf. Tiger, though, has kept the petal to the metal and no other golfer has been able to string together much of a challenge.

Now that's he's gone, though, perhaps a young, underachieving golfer can find his game, his personality, and his confidence. Sergio Garcia, for example, is long past due for such a renaissance. Phil Mickelson might find the fire in his belly after all. What about Zach Johnson?

It could be that in Woods' absence golf will become once again a sport of parity, and when he returns it will seem as if nothing has changed. We can only hope that's not the case, but if so, the brief interruption to Tiger's reign of dominance will seem like a blip on the radar.

Bavasi, Randolph take the fall...did they deserve it?

Two underachieving teams finally decided it was time to do something. One placed the blame with the general manager, the other with the manager.

Mariners GM Bill Bavasi and Mets manager Willie Randolph, scapegoats for their respective franchises, have been fired.

Bavasi was fired Monday after four-plus unsuccessful seasons. Seattle had one winning record and never made it to the playoffs under his leadership. His head-scratching moves included trading promising reliever Rafael Soriano for bust of the decade starter Horacio Ramirez. Bavasi also cut a struggling Brad Wilkerson just months after signing the right fielder to a $3 million contract.

But Bavasi will forever be linked to the deals that brought in Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson, two contracts that have saddled the Mariners' payroll but never brought the returns Bavasi expected.

At 24-46, Seattle is the worst of the worst despite its $117 million payroll.

The Mets, meanwhile, have underachieved just as mightily. Their $138 payroll and the addition of Johan Santana had many believing this was a team that was World Series-bound. But 69 games into the season, New York finds itself under .500 and trailing two teams in the NL East.

After mulling the decision apparently all night, the Mets gave Randolph the pink slip in the middle of the night. Pitching coach Rick Peterson and first base coach Tom Nieto were also let go.

This all leads me to something I've been pondering the last couple of weeks. When a team underperforms, who really is to blame? Is firing the manager -- who simply fills in the lineup card and tries to set the tone in the clubhouse -- an appropriate response? Does the general manager, who makes personnel decisions, deserve the blame when things don't pan out?

What about the players? Except for Sidney Ponson, you don't see too many guys told to take a hike. But in reality, the players are the ones not coming up with the clutch hit or failing to produce a quality start.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts in the comments or in the poll to the right.