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.