Why are many bored with Rory's dominance now but not by Tiger in 2000? Casual fans were already trained to watch Tiger. Big difference.
While Rovell's theory makes sense, it doesn't explain why Tiger's 1997 Masters win, which is arguably the event in Tiger's career most comparable to McIlroy's first major win, drew in 15.8 million viewers.
It's also worth noting that Tiger is American and McIlroy is not, and it's not going to help McIlroy's drawing power to blow off the requests of the obsessed U.S. media in favor of commitments in England, as Rovell reports.