The Tiger Woods story has become a beast that cannot be fed, no matter how many bloody human entrails you stuff in its perpetually open maw.

Tiger's never-ending reach for forgiveness and redemption has been more thoroughly covered than my late grandmother's living room couch. It's turned the news into a supermarket tabloid. It's turned 'SportsCenter' into a Lifetime made-for-TV movie.

And now, with Nike's new Tiger ad, it's turned commercials, my one measly break from this love-to-hate lovefest, into another creepy, lurid, sex-soaked look at a superstar's human indiscretions.

Looking at the ad simply as a piece of media and fifteen seconds of running frames, yes, it's downright creepy. It's filmed in this grainy black and white film that looks like it's been treated in a pizza oven for a few hours. The whole ad has this weird French romance film quality to it, like Tiger is going to be slapped any minute by some disembodied hand.

In fact, the first time I saw the spot, I kept waiting for that slap. I'm sure a lot of people were already doing it for them by smacking their TVs with the business side of their hands.

Then it had the gall to use the late Earl Woods, Tiger's father, to provide some sort of introspection or deep meaning for what's clearly a redemption video, not just for Tiger but for the media empire. Earl was Tiger's mentor and hero as Joel pointed out, and if anyone could provide the athlete with some kind of hard lesson to learn, it's him.

But using Earl's voice in the context of a commercial just makes it feel seedy and dirty. It reminds me of those old beer commercials that digitally inserted images of John Wayne into the frame to help them hawk the watered-down goodness of Coors Light.

That's my chief concern. It's a commercial. Tiger might be seeking some kind of inner peace and introspection, but in a commercial, he's also doing it so he doesn't lose the large chunk of change Nike is paying him. Hijacking a dead man's voice to save face may not be illegal, but it just feels strangely wrong and morally questionable, especially in the present circumstances.

If Earl were still alive and had to witness the ensuing chaos of his son's misdeeds, would they have run the same ad? I don't doubt that Earl would remain by his son's side and even have asked those same questions of him, but it sure as hell wouldn't be in the context of a commercial.

More than anything else, it's been designed and produced solely to get people talking about it. Mission accomplished, Nike.