Connect with us

Sports

ESPN's Burke Magnus on replacing JJ Redick, managing Pat McAfee and more

Published

on

ESPN's Burke Magnus on replacing JJ Redick, managing Pat McAfee and more

As has been written before in this space, if there was a ranking of people who shape sports consumption in the United States, Burke Magnus would be very high on the list. His title is president of ESPN’s content, and he has oversight of ESPN’s most significant properties, with thousands of talented people working under him.

This week, he returned to my Sports Media Podcast for an hour-plus to discuss a variety of sports media storylines including media rights deals and on-air talent at his place. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. You can listen to the full interview here.


JJ Redick recently left ESPN to coach the Los Angeles Lakers. This is the second NBA analyst on your top team who’s left for an NBA job this year. Do you have a plan right now heading forward as to who will be the top NBA team next year?

Not specifically, and that’s probably no surprise as it was only a couple of weeks ago where the world thought it was going to be Danny Hurley (coaching the Lakers) and JJ would in fact still be with us.

As difficult as the decision was (to part ways) with Jeff (Van Gundy) and Mark (Jackson), we felt like we were very, very solid going into the season in both the game team and the studio. We had it solved in a really interesting and innovative way that we thought was going to last for several years with Doris Burke making history, stepping up to the “A” team, a proven, high-caliber broadcaster and Doc (Rivers). We even had our succession plan worked out with the “B” team, with Ryan Ruocco, JJ, and Richard Jefferson. … Obviously, we got the curveball of all curveballs with Doc’s departure. But I thought JJ stepped right in and helped us continue to perform at a high level. He had indicated interest in coaching, so that was not a surprise.

Advertisement

We have some work to do in advance of next season. The one thing I will say about Doc, because there was some reporting out there down the angle of, “How could they not see this coming; how could they not be prepared for this kind of thing?” In fact, we were. We took Doc at his word that he was done coaching. He gave us a three-year commitment. It was written into the contract specifically that he was not going to go back to coaching. That’s not what happened. Unfortunately, it left us in the lurch in the middle of the season, which was extremely uncomfortable.

But I thought JJ really stepped up and filled in at a very high level. By the way, if he ever wants to come back and be a broadcaster after coaching, I think the world knows now that he’s a great basketball mind, and he has a bright future in our world if he ever finds himself in it again.


JJ Redick’s departure for the Lakers’ head-coaching job once again leaves ESPN scrambling to fill a void in its No. 1 NBA broadcasting crew. (Jamie Schwaberow / Getty Images)

What can you say publicly about where ESPN/Disney is right now regarding a future media rights agreement with the NBA?

Obviously, I can’t confirm anything. … But I can say that our team has been working really diligently over a long period of time. Based on the existing relationship that we have with the NBA over many years and also the current state of it, which is strong, positive, productive, a great two-way street and great collaboration with Adam (Silver) and his team, we feel relatively confident about our future with the league as they work to finalize everything with all of their partners. We feel good about where we stand at the moment.

Let’s move to college football. What’s the ESPN reasoning for licensing those early College Football Playoff games to TNT?

Advertisement

(Warner Bros. Discovery) reached out to us. They made a really compelling case to get involved. The arrangement has several facets that we felt were kind of table stakes for us, which in my world is that we are going to produce the games and it’s going to be our talent on the games. As we sit here today, (WBD doesn’t) televise regular-season college football, so they don’t have an infrastructure that’s built around the sport. They looked immediately to us and our expertise in terms of how they get produced and presented. Branding can be figured out easily. So we thought this is an opportunity to get somebody else involved who’s got a big platform that has reach, that has a different audience composition than we do.

Is it two games per year for the sublicense?

It’s that for the first two years, which are technically the last two years of the original deal and then it expands beyond that to two more in the quarterfinal rounds. So it could be four. There is also at our option the ability to (sublicense) a semifinal game potentially over the six years of the new term. So two becomes four, and then there’s sort of this option on a semifinal game, which we’ll evaluate when we get deeper into the relationship.

An option for them to sublicense a CFP semifinal game?

Our option. If they’re interested in it, we can decide whether or not we want to do that.

Advertisement

Stephen A. Smith’s contract is up in 2025. Puck recently reported extensively on that salary negotiation. From an executive point of view, give me a sense of how you see Smith in the larger ESPN ecosystem.

The guy’s a bona fide superstar, right? In today’s media environment, he just is, because everything he does, people have a high interest in. Nobody works harder than him. He is everywhere all the time, and everything we ask him to do from a different show or a particular appearance or even internal ESPN things such as, “Can you join this meeting with sales because it’s an important client meeting and they’d really love to have you stop by and meet the client?” — he’ll do that. He never says no. He is great in that regard.

“First Take,” which is his primary assignment, is a juggernaut. I think we’re going to get 24 straight months of month-over-month, year-over-year audience growth. That just doesn’t happen in today’s world. It happens because he’s built this show … We’re in the 24/7, 365-day sports business. … I feel as good about our 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. lineup as I’ve ever felt, and I think the results bear that out. He’s a key component to that. But the games are still the games, and that’s why you have to sort of calibrate accordingly in terms of how you invest in non-game programming.

Stephen A. Smith

“I feel as good about our 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. lineup as I’ve ever felt,” ESPN’s Burke Magnus says. “(Stephen A. Smith is) a key component to that.” (Tim Heitman / Getty Images)

I realize you are not going to negotiate publicly here. But there is an existing salary structure when it comes to game talent such as (CBS’) Tony Romo and (ESPN’s) Troy Aikman. (Fox’s) Tom Brady is obviously in a different stratosphere. How do you judge someone like Smith who does not do live sports but, as you said, is a very important part of your studio programming?

The people you mentioned have one thing in common on the game side: They’re NFL analysts. They broke the mold. Tony Romo’s deal broke the mold. In my opinion, the money that we are paying (“Monday Night Football” broadcasters) Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, they’re worth every cent of that. I mean it sincerely. … When Damar Hamlin happened, to have Joe Buck and Troy Aikman and Lisa Salters and the team around we had is hard to put a value on that given the investment that we have in the NFL overall. Relative to what networks pay for NFL game content, that’s what drove the high end of the analyst and play-by-play market to where it is today. I think that makes sense. … Studio (shows) Monday through Friday, daytime studio, it’s different. There’s a different calculus there, for sure. But again … (Smith is) the best there is right now.

Advertisement

How would you analyze your confidence level in terms of Smith returning to ESPN?

I tend to be an optimistic person by nature. I know he’s great for us. I know we’re great for him. From a relevance, reach and Q score if you will, there is a rocket fuel that ESPN naturally kind of provides to big personalities by being on our platform. There’s a value to that for people. I’m optimistic because I think it’s a mutually beneficial situation, and I think both sides realize that, and this is just the dance we have to dance.

If Smith does not return to ESPN, do you have a replacement plan for the shows he’s on?

Not specifically, but “First Take” would continue, obviously. We’d figure that out. The great part about the environment that we live in … there is a wealth of talented people out there who, if given the chance, I think could also become superstars very easily on our platform. The format of “First Take” I think lends to that. It’s already an ensemble situation in many ways. So, I don’t worry about that at all.

Will Pat McAfee be on “College GameDay” this season?

Advertisement

Yeah, I presume he will. What Andrew (Marchand) reported is technically true relative to ink on a piece of paper. But as you know in our world, it’s a fairly common situation to have reached an agreement without an executed contract or piece of paper. …

I think from time to time Pat likes to just muse on what he may or may not want to do. … We’re not in the business of handcuffing anybody to a table. This is not unique to Pat. If somebody comes to us and says, “Hey, I’d rather do this or that instead of that,” we’ll listen and have those conversations. But Pat I expect to be there on “College GameDay.”

McAfee books his guests and has creative control of his show. ESPN licenses the show. Has Pat crossed any lines for you, and perhaps more importantly, is there a line for ESPN when it comes to that show?

Yeah, I don’t love the conversation around a line because a line by definition is sort of clear and definable. Let me start with this. I often read or hear things on podcasts where the sentiment is, “(Is) ESPN committed to Pat McAfee?” We absolutely are. This guy is so talented. Everything he’s created, he created on his own with his team.

I can say this with great authority, having kids that are 25 and 22 and are enormous sports fans. He is the voice of the younger generation from a sports fan perspective. He books guests like nobody else in the business right now. … So there’s a validation in today’s world for being a guest on his show, and that’s because he sets the conversation in many ways and particularly for younger audiences. …

Advertisement

He talks for three hours, five days a week, right? What makes him great is that he goes right up there. Then occasionally he has said some things or done some things that either he would have wanted to take back or rubbed some folks the wrong way. Believe me, he does not have a free pass for all of eternity. We have a standing conversation with him. (ESPN chairman) Jimmy (Pitaro) and I talk to him pretty much on a weekly basis whether we have something to talk about or not. He’s extremely receptive to feedback and wants to know how he can continue to be better. …

There’s no truth to the notion that we’re not committed to him long-term. We’re not even a year into this relationship. Between his show and his work on “College GameDay” and other things he’s done for us on the business and sales side, it’s been a great experience for us, notwithstanding the fact that of course we’ve had to manage some of the situations that you mentioned, which were either uncomfortable or difficult for us.

Pat McAfee

“There’s no truth to the notion that we’re not committed to him long-term,” Magnus says of Pat McAfee. “It’s been a great experience for us.” (Ron Hoskins / NBAE via Getty Images)

Is ESPN responsible for when someone on his show, not him, says something on his airwaves? Say if Aaron Rodgers goes down a road that’s either political or some might say conspiratorial or something else, what is ESPN’s responsibility here understanding that you license this show?

He’s technically not an ESPN employee, which limits sort of the conventional paths we have in circumstances like that. We do license his show, which he fully produces and controls entirely. But … it is our platform at the end of the day. That’s the delicate balance when in circumstances like you mentioned.

So, yes, I do think we play a role and bear some responsibility. I would be a lot more concerned about circumstances like that going forward if we didn’t have the kind of dialog and open channels we have with Pat. I want to make it clear: He is not saying, “Hey, don’t talk to me, it’s my show.” It’s quite the opposite. … It is set up for us to be able to deal with those situations as they come.

Advertisement

Netflix getting NFL games (on Christmas) feels very significant. From your perspective, someone who might have to compete with them on sports rights, how did you view that?

I think it was a circumstance that was … right up their alley. I don’t know what their strategy is … but it seems to me what they’re doing is trying to find one big or interesting event. … They are full-time in the direct-to-consumer business, so that dynamic is the same for all of us, which is you have to acquire subscribers and then you have to retain subscribers.

To the NFL’s credit, here’s two games on a holiday that become available in isolation and separate from any kind of bigger package that they would have to bite off. The NFL gets yet another partner into the mix. I wasn’t surprised at all. I don’t know that it bodes any further “what’s next” speculation for Netflix in the NFL because I think that’s all that exists right now, some individual opportunities. We’re perfectly happy with our NFL package, we’re looking forward to another season of “Monday Night Football,” and we got a Super Bowl coming in a couple of years.

Netflix is going to need someone to produce these games. Would ESPN be interested in doing that?

As you probably know, that’s probably the busiest … two weeks of our entire year. We have five NBA games to produce that day. We have 40 bowl games over the two weeks. We’ve got the CFP right around the corner. We’re good. We can’t take on anybody else’s stuff.

Advertisement

How aggressive will ESPN be when it comes to the WNBA heading forward?

We’re extremely bullish on it. We’ve been there since Day 1 of the WNBA, and we’re really proud of that. We feel similarly about the women’s NCAA basketball tournament and the hard work that’s been done over decades with that property in order to grow the game. Caitlin Clark is a phenomenon, and of course, it’s brought sort of meteoric levels really quickly, which is a little bit of an issue they’ve been dealing with relative to the coverage and the scrutiny around the game. When that sort of normalizes and finds its level, the audiences and the interest in the WNBA is going to be significantly higher than it has been historically.

Where would you characterize ESPN having the WNBA Finals in any long-term deal?

Really important. The answer I gave you when you asked me this last year for the NBA Finals was “must-have,” and here I think a little bit differently. Maybe somewhat unselfishly, we look at the growth of the WNBA on the number of various entities involved in it. We see an upside in other broadcasters also being involved. Of course we want the WNBA Finals. I’m sure that at some level that’s going to be a component of the deal. But if we don’t have them every single year because it means it is on other networks in a similar fashion, I think that’s actually a good thing for the ultimate continued growth and development and interest in the league.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Deitsch: Charles Barkley loves this too much to retire

Advertisement

(Top photo of Burke Magnus in 2022: Gongora / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sports

Hollinger: Of course the Lakers were going to draft Bronny and other NBA Draft takeaways

Published

on

Hollinger: Of course the Lakers were going to draft Bronny and other NBA Draft takeaways

It was a historic moment, setting up the first father-son combination in NBA history. But I wouldn’t quite go so far as to call it heartwarming.
More like: It is what it is.

Of course the Los Angeles Lakers were going to draft Bronny James if he was there with the 55th pick. Just call it Thanasis TakeTwoakounmpo: Selecting the younger James was an incredibly inexpensive insurance policy to keep potential free agent LeBron James in L.A.

Of course the Lakers weren’t going to mind the cost, not when the typical return on pick No. 55 is bupkes. If he turns into an actual player, so much the better, but that wasn’t the core part of the calculation here, even if no sane Laker staffer would say this in their out-loud voice.

Finally, the other part too many people missed: Of course James was going to be there for the Lakers to select with that pick. Usually agents have limited leverage to dictate a player’s landing spot on draft night, especially when it comes to second-rounders. But nothing about this case was usual.

In particular, I’ve had people ask me since midseason about what would happen if another team drafted the younger James and then tried to keep him as a hostage, theoretically forcing the Lakers to overpay to wrest him away. It would have been hilarious if the rival Boston Celtics, picking one choice ahead of the Lakers at 54th, selected him.

Advertisement

But in reality, Bronny wasn’t a valuable hostage because he had options. If an unwanted team had called his bluff, Bronny James could have played overseas or signed the one-year tender and waited out the team that drafted him or just plain sat out, knowing that A) he didn’t need the money and B) the Lakers would always be there waiting. Few other 55th picks can say the same thing.

GO DEEPER

Bronny James is now a Laker. Here’s what lies ahead in his NBA career

And with that … I’m already exhausted. Soon we’ll have breathless updates from his NBA Summer League games (remember, the Lakers are also playing in the California Classic ahead of summer league, so James would start playing July 6 in San Francisco against Sacramento), because Bronny James moves the needle.

But all I can think about is what an unfortunate circus it creates for a developmental teenage player who, while not without talent, is clearly a long way away. Most 55th picks don’t make it, and even the ones who do scrape out a tenuous existence as the E’Twaun Moores and Aaron Wigginses of the league. I’m not convinced this situation improves the younger James’ chances of being an exception.

Advertisement

On to my other big thoughts from the two-day NBA Draft extravaganza:

Luxury tax avoidance, Part 1

While the tax aprons of the new collective bargaining agreement have been the biggest story in the early days of the offseason, let’s not forget that scourge of yore: the plain ol’ luxury tax. Certainly a few NBA teams haven’t.

Sacramento traded itself below the tax line in a salary dump with Toronto that saw the Kings send the 45th pick (used on guard Jamal Shead) and a juicy Portland 2025 second-rounder to the Raptors. The Kings cut over $8 million in salary by sending Sasha Vezenkov and Davion Mitchell to Toronto for Jalen McDaniels, lightening a glut of superfluous backcourt players and adding a true four in the process.

I would argue the Kings might have given up on Vezenkov a year too soon — European imports often need a year to get their sea legs — but he was fairly duplicative of Trey Lyles. Sacramento now has $8 million in wiggle room under the tax line and at least two open roster spots; I’d expect a backup center to be one of them. If they wanted, the Kings could even go back over the tax line by using their entire non-taxpayer midlevel exception, though I wouldn’t bet on it.

For Toronto, Shead becomes an additional asset from the Pascal Siakam trade with Indiana this winter — the Raptors could make this trade because they had a $10 million trade exception left over from that deal.

Advertisement
go-deeper

GO DEEPER

What it was like for Raptors to have first the pick of the NBA Draft’s second round

Luxury tax avoidance, Part 2

In Portland, we had a combination salary dump and acquisition that got the Trail Blazers out of the tax and brought in a likely starter in Deni Avdija. The Blazers sent out the more expensive Malcolm Brogdon and created a $6.9 million trade exception, leaving Portland with a full boat of 15 contracts and $4.6 million in wiggle room below the tax line.


Malcolm Brogdon is headed to D.C. (Sarah Stier / Getty Images)

But this was expensive; the Blazers gave up the 14th pick in Wednesday’s first round (used by Washington on guard Bub Carrington) and an unprotected first in 2029 that is the second best of Portland’s, Milwaukee’s or Boston’s, plus two future second-rounders. Avdija is a good player on a sweet contract, just beginning a four-year, $55 million extension this fall, but the Blazers are likely to take their lumps again this coming season as basically the only team in the Western Conference without playoff aspirations.

The question now: Can Portland recoup those picks in deals for veterans Jerami Grant, Deandre Ayton or Anfernee Simons?

Luxury tax avoidance, Part 3

The Hawks dealt with their “problem” of winning the lottery and the higher salary that came with the No. 1 pick by trading AJ Griffin to Houston, putting the Hawks within easy hailing distance of the luxury-tax line and all but assuring the first apron won’t be an issue in the short term.

Advertisement

That’s likely all Atlanta needs for now, as any Trae Young or Dejounte Murray deal is likely to cut salary and get the Hawks the rest of the $3 million to $4 million in breathing room they need to get below the tax for the season.

Apron avoidance

Denver isn’t likely to end up all the way out of the luxury tax, but the Nuggets will end up surprisingly close. With Denver seeming likely to lose Kentavious Caldwell-Pope in free agency, and having surrendered three second-round picks to Charlotte just to drop a $5.2 million salary in Reggie Jackson, the Nuggets are right at the tax line.

Getting there has been a journey. The Nuggets have traded every draft pick they can legally trade, although they still can move some first-round pick swaps. Every future second is spoken for, and because of the Stepien rule, the Nuggets can’t trade a first until after the 2025 draft.

In fact, they technically traded a couple of their picks going to Charlotte twice. There is a low-but-not-zero probability that the 2029 and 2030 second-round picks the Nuggets gave to the Hornets would instead be needed to satisfy the terms of two previous trades with Oklahoma City, although it would only happen if the Nuggets picked in the top five three straight years from 2027 to 2029. That’s probably not worth the Hornets sweating, although it’s a fun topic for cap nerds.

Boldest move

Minnesota has no assets and somehow still traded into the lottery to grab Rob Dillingham with the eighth pick by sending San Antonio a pick swap in 2030 and its own first-round pick, top-one protected, in 2031.

Advertisement

The Wolves are deep enough into the tax that adding talent on the first year of a rookie contract had to be tempting, and this particular move solved three problems: a lack of shot creation in the second unit, a lack of a succession plan at point guard behind the 36-year-old Mike Conley and a lack of young talent on Anthony Edwards’ timeline. If Dillingham hits, they have all three.

Minnesota partly offset the salary cap cost by offloading little-used guard Wendell Moore, but the Wolves still are $27 million over the projected tax line — way past the second apron — with only 11 players under contract. It seems likely they’ll end up with a frozen 2032 draft pick and a huge tax bill this year, which is a scary place for a mid-size market team with an ongoing ownership dispute. But they have a contending team right now, and for the moment, at least, they’re spending to keep it there.

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

Analysis, fits for all 58 NBA Draft picks from John Hollinger and Sam Vecenie

This draft had questions

You know it maybe wasn’t a great draft when commentators discussing the top pick spew adjectives like “competent” and “complementary.” Was it the fate of the Hawks to finally win the draft lottery when the big prize was … adding some wing depth?

No, this wasn’t the Victor Wembanyama draft. The Minnesota-San Antonio transaction above was one of several that were indicative of a relatively low value being placed on picks in this draft, considered the weakest in years by many analysts. I mean, the Spurs really tapped out of the eighth pick to get a Wolves choice seven years from now and a possibly valueless swap six years out?

Advertisement

Yes, they did, and they weren’t the only ones who were quick to ask for the check and get in the valet line. Orlando bailed on the middle of the second round — pick No. 47 — without even getting a full draft pick; the Magic received second-round pick swaps from the Pelicans in the distant beyond of 2030 and 2031. Portland, as noted above, was willing to send the 14th pick to the Wizards in the Avdija trade despite being a rebuilding team itself. The Phoenix Suns only needed a top-45 protected 2028 second from Boston to move themselves from 56th to 40th.

An anticipated trade flurry in the early part of the draft never really materialized, in part, because nobody wanted what these teams were selling. Moving down is only a rewarding draft strategy if there are desperate suitors trying to move up. The 2024 draft wasn’t that kind of party.

Weirdest pick

I’m still scratching my head over the Milwaukee Bucks’ selection of A.J. Johnson with the 23rd pick. For starters, Milwaukee also had a pick at No. 33 that it used, and Johnson was highly likely to still be there at the top of Round 2.


AJ Johnson drives to the basket during a National Basketball League playoff game. (Mark Metcalfe / Getty Images)

Whether it was three, 23 or 53, Johnson failed to check some other key boxes for the Bucks. Milwaukee is a pretty extreme win-now team, and Johnson is a pretty extreme win-later pick given that he barely got minutes in the vastly worst Australian League this past season. He’s only 19 and 160 pounds; whatever he’s going to be, it will take a while to get here.

Johnson’s lack of shooting makes him a very difficult player to introduce into the Bucks’ Giannis-centric ecosystem. He would have to make considerable strides just to be playable in the Bucks’ best contention time frame, and he was picked high enough that it has real opportunity cost: Milwaukee easily could have selected a more ready player (such as Creighton shooter Baylor Scheierman, who went to Boston instead) or parlayed the pick into more veteran talent.

Advertisement

The Bucks at least made out better at pick No. 33, when they tabbed G League Ignite stretch big Tyler Smith. He’s another teenager who needs to refine his craft, but his skill level on offense could allow him to play a bit more regularly while he learns.

Most divisive pick

I’m not sure how Zach Edey is going to work out in Memphis, but I am very sure he will be among the league leaders in opinions between now and opening day. Adding to the mystery: Edey might not be available for summer league, as he’s joining the Canadian national team in training for the Olympics.

There are multiple elements to this discussion. First, the question of Edey’s ability to survive on defense in the NBA. While he was very effective playing drop coverage in the Big Ten, the speed and perimeter focus of the NBA will challenge him in ways college basketball couldn’t.

And second of all, there’s the fit issue of putting a Clydesdale out there with the greyhounds. Memphis wants to run, and Ja Morant and Co. may end up leaving Edey in the dust. The Grizzlies also seemed to be tilting toward a smaller, faster alignment with former Defensive Player of the Year Jaren Jackson Jr. playing center; adding Edey to the mix would push Jackson back to the four and leave Memphis bigger and slower.

How will it work out? We likely won’t get much information until October.

Advertisement
go-deeper

GO DEEPER

The IkoSystem: What exactly are the Grizzlies up to taking Zach Edey at the NBA Draft?

Best value

Utah grabbed the players I had ranked ninth and 12th on my board … with pick Nos. 29 and 32. Kyle Filipowski and Isaiah Collier both had weaknesses that turned off some scouts, but they were young, highly productive college players who were asked to fill big roles. I think each might be able to come in and play rotation minutes right away, although both players need to become more consistent from beyond the arc to become long-term pieces.

Worst value

Orlando gets it for the second year in a row. One year after drafting Jett Howard, my 38th-ranked player, at No. 11, the Magic took Colorado forward Tristan da Silva, my 51st-ranked player, at No. 18.

Da Silva, like Howard, offered some promise with a size-shooting combination, but the rest of his resume is deeply underwhelming. And unlike Howard, da Silva is also 23. As our Mike Vorkunov noted, the history of top-20 picks this old has been extremely disappointing.

(Top photo of Zach Edey: Grace Hollars / IndyStar / USA Today; top photo of Bronny James: Jeff Haynes / NBAE via Getty Images)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

Biden's golf handicap explained after presidential debate stirs skills controversy

Published

on

Biden's golf handicap explained after presidential debate stirs skills controversy

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

Thursday night’s presidential debate hosted by CNN featured a topic that no one could’ve predicted—golf handicaps. 

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump raised the issue when discussing their physical fitness and, in turn, their ability to serve as the head of state at the ages of 81 and 78, respectively. In the midst of that debate, Bide alleged that he had gotten his golf handicap down to a six as vice president, and later corrected it to an eight. 

Advertisement

President Joe Biden plays golf at the Buccaneer Golf Course in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands, on December 30, 2022.  (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

For any avid golfer, that number was particularly surprising. Trump himself didn’t believe it. 

And so, an argument typically reserved for the course made its way to the debate stage. 

But to best understand the argument, you have to first understand the basics. 

Advertisement

What is a golf handicap?

A golf handicap, or a handicap index, is a numerical figure used to describe a player’s ability or potential. It represents how many strokes a player is expected to play above a particular course’s par. 

Professional golfers do not keep a handicap. 

Anywhere under 10 is considered low, under 18 is considered mid-range, and over 19 is high. A zero would be considered a scratch golfer. 

Biden’s estimated six or eight would mean he averages in the high 70s or low 80s a round. 

joe biden on the debate stage

President Joe Biden stands at his podium during the first presidential debate of the 2024 elections between himself and former president Donald Trump at CNN’s studios in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday, June 27, 2024. (Kevin D. Liles for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

US OPEN CHAMP BRYSON DECHAMBEAU OFFERS TO SETTLE TRUMP, BIDEN GOLF HANDICAP DEBATE

Advertisement

What is the average?

According to January 2024 data collected by the United States Golf Association (USGA), the average handicap index for men was around 14, and 28 for women. Only 20% of male golfers had a handicap index range of 0.5 to 9.9. 

How does Biden stack up against the pros?

It would be unfair to compare any average golfer to a PGA Tour pro – the difficulty of the courses they play on alone wouldn’t stack up. 

And while pros don’t keep track, there have been those who have calculated what their indexes would be if they did. 

Tiger Woods at round 2 of masters

Tiger Woods of the United States reacts on the 18th green during the second round of the 2024 Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club on April 12, 2024, in Augusta, Georgia.  (Warren Little/Getty Images)

In 2020, golf statistical guru Lou Stagner did just that. According to his numbers from data collected from 2016 to 2020, Rickie Fowler was first with a best index of +8.4—the number of strokes better than scratch (0). 

Kevin Na and Tiger Woods had a best index of +8.3. The average index for a PGA Tour pro was around +5.4. 

Advertisement

The debate on golf handicaps might never be settled, but Bryson DeChambeau, who had an average index of +5.8, offered to help settle it. 

“Let’s settle this whole handicap debate, I’ll host the golf match on my YouTube.” 

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

Letters to Sports: Lakers drafting Bronny James is terrible move for player and team

Published

on

Letters to Sports: Lakers drafting Bronny James is terrible move for player and team

I feel sorry for Bronny James. His dad did him no favors. What if other players think he gets more playing time than he deserves because he’s LeBron’s son or takes one of their jobs? What if LeBron wants him to get more time than he deserves? Think Doc and Austin Rivers. Terrible move for Bronny and the Lakers.

Alvin S. Michaelson
Marina Del Rey

Shame on Jeanie Buss, shame on Rob Pelinka and shame on the Lakers organization for selling their soul to team James. Nothing against Bronny, but the younger James wasn’t even good enough to have any meaningful impact at USC. So not only have the Lakers wasted a second-round pick on Bronny, but more important, these actions will potentially cost a deserving youngster a valuable spot in a very limited NBA players pool.

Greg Nersesyan
North Hollywood

Lakers use a valuable draft pick on Bronny James? In high school, Bronny didn’t even make his all-league first team. On a very bad USC team last year, he didn’t start and averaged less than five points a game. He will add absolutely no value to the Lakers roster. They could have signed him as a free agent as no other team would certainly have drafted him unless his father was on the team. I’m 75 years old. Draft me….it’ll make the same difference in the Lakers’ championship chances. And I’ll play for the league minimum.

Advertisement

Jack Nelson
Los Angeles

So now it’s official, the Los Angeles LeBrons have officially been held hostage by LeBron James and Rich Paul. The successful negotiation involved a $50-million contract for a 40-year-old, a draft choice for a player who couldn’t even start for his college team and a head coach who has never coached a single day in his life but shares a podcast with James.

Two years from now, LeBron will be retired, the Lakers will have yet another new coach and the 55th pick will be the 11th man off the bench. And the Lakers will not see the playoffs again until the next decade.

Bob Goldstone
Corona Del Mar

Bronny James likely has had better, individualized coaching than any other player ever drafted into the NBA. So before he or the Lakers are criticized, let’s wait to see Bronny’s game.

Advertisement

Richard Raffalow
Valley Glen

Dear Lakers,

You have officially become embarrassing.

George Sagadencky
Encino

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending