Tiger’s power to draw television audiences was evident Sunday, as the Buick Invitational recorded a 5.9 rating and 12 share—up 146% over last year’s ABC coverage.

The coverage peaked between 7 p.m. and 7:15 p.m., as the playoff neared conclusion, with a 9.4/15. 

A recent article in Golf Digest says that Tiger will drop at least one of his current sponsors in 2006. As I’m sitting here watching the Buick Invitational, I’m wondering if Buick will be the one.

Buick itself seems to be backing off of golf. It has not renewed the Buick Scramble, and is dropping title sponsorship of the Buick Open (formerly the Greater Hartford Open). Of course, that may have been precipitated by the PGA Tour moving it to a lesser position in the schedule. I find it hard to believe that the Tour would have moved that event without consulting Tiger.

Tiger has always commited himself to playing in Buick events, so dropping Buick would give him more flexibility in his schedule. I’m guessing that he’ll still play Torrey Pines, since he always has a good showing there. But I can’t see him returning to Flint, Michigan to play at Warwick Hills.

I actually never pictured Tiger as actually driving a Buick. A Cadillac, yes. But not a Buick.

BBC Commentator Peter Alliss thinks that its unlikely that Woods will pass Nicklaus’s record in the Majors because of the distractions he will face along the way. While Nicklaus also faced the distractions of marriage and children, Woods faces a far greater media scrutiny.

Its an interesting thought. But I’m not sure that the media has that much of an effect on Woods. He has been raised in the limelight, and seems able to tune it out. Certainly his press conferences are the most banal, uninstructive events I have ever seen.

No, if Tiger fails to reach Nicklaus’ record, it will be because of his own decision to quit playing (I frankly don’t see him winning a major at age 46), or because his competition will catch up. There is an awful lot of talent out there right now, and some of them surely will catch up.

Another record for Woods to challenge is Snead’s 82 PGA Tour Victories and 70 other worldwide wins.  As a professional, Woods currently has 48 Tour victories and (as far as I can tell) 20 other non PGA victories.

Because of his reduced tour schedule, and the likelihood of his retiring long before Snead ever did, I don’t see him breaking this one.

So what do you do when you have $40 million burning a hole in your pocket? If you’re Tiger Woods, you buy a house on Jupiter Island, right next to Greg Norman.

Ok. So the house comes with 10 acres.

And he’s tearing down the house.

It’s a baited question, of course. And I’m not asking if she could beat Tiger in a match. Clearly, she can’t.

But with Annika winning her tenth tournament of the season, she dominates the competition at her own level as no one ever has. This season, she won ten tournaments in twenty starts.

That’s very impressive. And it’s enough to get sports radio and various internet forums talking about who’s the better player: Tiger or Annika.

Putting aside the obvious absolute differences between the PGA and LPGA, the talent on the PGA is much more tightly bunched than on the LPGA. That is—at their own level—there is more relative talent and skill in the Top 50 on the PGA than there is in the LPGA.

Lets say that you were able to assign a numerical value for each player’s skill, as measured against the top player on their tour. Tiger and Annika are both 10s.

Tiger would be facing a lot of players with scores in the nines. Annika would be facing a couple of nines, and a whole lot of eights.

So when Tiger takes the field, he’s up against a lot of guys who have only slightly less physical skills than he does. In fact, over the last couple of years, you could argue that there are a lot of guys who actually strike the ball better than he does. I believe that—like Nicklaus—he continues to win (even with his “B” game) because of his superior mental game.

On the other hand, when Annika tees off, there are far fewer players who can match her physically. If you watch the LPGA, you can see that her ball striking is miles ahead of most of the field. (Although, with the young guns coming into the LPGA, that may change soon).

So for me, it comes down to this. Is Tiger the better player for his fewer clutch victories over equivalent fields, or Annika for her total domination of slightly lesser fields?

Surprisingly, I think I’m going to vote for Annika. If you discount her ten victories against “lesser” fields, then you also probably should discount Byron Nelson’s 1945 record 18 victories, since he also was playing against “lesser” talent.

And I’m not ready to take anything away from Lord Byron. To win a tournament at any level, you game has to be in top form. And to have your game in top form as often as Nelson and Sorenstam is amazing.