So after the Masters, I have to acknowledge that my loathing of Tiger Woods is not entirely his fault. It's 99% his fault, because I just don't like him, but there is a component of media involvement.
I didn't watch the tournament, but I did watch some of the recaps. Most of the coverage was what Speith did, not what the tater-eater who won the thing did. I get the fact that the spud who won wasn't really compelling (except for the fact that he supposedly got kicked out of UGA for cheating and stealing from teammates). I get the fact that the winner looks like Benny Hill's long-lost grandson, if that grandson was a Baptist Youth Minister with a skeevy aura. But he did win. He did withstand the pressure and made shots late when he had to. Other golfers, even great ones like Speith and Greg Norman, have wilted in a similar spot. Most of the coverage being devoted to Speith seemed wrong.
What also seemed REALLY wrong was Nike refusing to let the guy who ended up winning wear a red shirt on Sunday because that is some has-been hack's schtick. Nike tells me that? I'm playing shirtless with an Under Armour (or Adidas, Ping, Puma whatever) logo painted on my white back.