The Hope, The Desert, and Tim Finchem

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 26, 2009 11:40 AM EST

There has been a lot of ink written about why or why not the Hope will survive despite the rocky waters it has been treading for many years now. With the exception of the George Lopez years, the Hope has been in a downward spiral most perfectly evidenced by anything related to the Classic Club. Arnold Palmer served as host this year in, what I imagine, is a one time deal to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the event. Palmer likely did it in deference to Bob Hope and what he meant to the game.

But, what happens next year if Palmer does not return? There has been talk that Justin Timberlake would like to take his Vegas event to the FedEx Cup schedule if an opening arises. There has been talk that the Hope could become a Champions Tour event - a ghastly fall for a classic event. The event will likely not even have a sponsor for some time until Chrysler decides if it is going to fail or not.

Meanwhile, the European Tour's desert swing has been humming for years and the arrival of 18 of the top 50 to Doha, Qatar, this past weekend had to be unsettling to Ponte Vedra. Much of the field for the Qatar Masters was filled by guys who will never play the Hope. But some former Hope participants, including Boo Weekley, made the long trek to the Middle East - in Weekley's case, simply to miss the cut.

It's clear, then, that the Tour has to decide upon the future of the Hope. Does the PGA Tour take it under its wing, make it a special case, and do everything it can to restore the luster? Would the Hope be willing to drop the 90 holes and 72 holes of pro-am play to get better players? How about moving the tournament to another place in the schedule?

The first question that the Tour must answer, though, is if it should do anything at all for the Hope. If the event fails, it will make the growing comparisons between the Euro Tour and the PGA Tour more frequent. If the Tour steps in and the event still fails to draw, then that hurts the reputation of the PGA Tour.

To me, the Hope seems like an event worth saving. Despite that, it may be time to kill off the pro-am and the 90 holes. These days, players can compete for seven figure paychecks in other 72 hole events with just a pro-am round. In the case of the European Tour, many events will pay off players before they event tee it up. With so many global playing options now, players can simply choose to ignore events that are inconvenient.

The PGA Tour has maintained its convenient stance on "independent contractors" which absolves themselves of events with lousy fields. It has not placed real limitations on the players' schedules beyond a 15 event minimum and allowing 3 "exemptions" to play on other tours. Perhaps instead of taking direct action to support tournaments, the Tour needs to examine how it supports its players.

The Hope presents a perfect case study in why the Tour needs to do two things: (1) institute the one in four rule that the LPGA Tour has and (2) allow players to take appearance fees. One cancels out the other to ensure consistently good fields and places power back in Tim Finchem's hands. Instead of pleaing with players to increase their schedules over video, Finchem could compel players to play across the country with some financial incentive.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It frustrates me....

to read about giving MORE to the PGA tour players. After I read this quote:

Perhaps instead of taking direct action to support tournaments, the Tour needs to examine how it supports its players.

I thought it shoud say, “…the Tour needs to examine how the PLAYERS support their Tour.” I understand the independent contractor argument and I realize it’s hard to force players to do anything, but as “members” of the Tour I think they should have some obligations – it’s not just a one-way street.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just my worry over the economy that makes me wonder why in the world the tour should consider appearance fees. Doesn’t the tour offer enough already? Throwing money at a problem never solves it – just look at the government. Sigh.

by red tees on Jan 26, 2009 12:35 PM EST reply actions

I think that's a valid concern

In general, I would agree with you that throwing money at the problem wouldn’t be a good answer. But I didn’t mean that the PGA Tour would pay players with appearance fees. Rather, the events themselves could opt to pay appearance fees to players if they chose. They would get a decent field each year because of the one in four rule, but could pay out to specific players if they really needed to do that.

Without being forced to, a player is not going to inherently be faithful to any Tour. And you’re right that the players should have a greater sense of loyalty and appreciation. But, it’s hard to turn down a six figure appearance fee on the European Tour.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 26, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

definitely...

…it would be nice to see the player’s board make some changes – but you can’t just make one change and have everything fall into place. If you require players to play more events, or play every event over a 4 year period, the first thing you have to deal with is Tiger Woods. They have made him the cornerstone of the tour for 12 years now. How he sets his schedule is pretty much written in stone and he isn’t going to change what works. Then, if you get the players to agree to up the appearance number to, say, 20 – then you have to cut down on the number of guys with Tour exemptions. There are medical, winners, major winners, etc who are given priority, plus the Q-school and Nationwide Tour guys. If you’re going to require everybody to play more, then you can’t have 242 guys looking for spots to play. You also have to cover the off event tournaments for the WGC and the British Open. How do you handle exemptions for the guys who are in these events year after year ?

This is going to require some major shake-age of the Tour rule book. And how do you get guys to cut their own paychecks ?

On appearance fees – those have nothing to do with the Tour. That is money from sponsors directly to the players. It is just discouraged on the PGA Tour – though some companies find ways around it – like having special outtings where a player (perhaps with the initials Phil Mickelson) show up for an outing the week of a tournament you wouldn’t have expected him to play.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 26, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

You're right...

about appearance fees – I guess what I meant was that I think we need to be thinking about how to maintain what is out there vs. having to invest more money into events (whether it’s the Tour or the sponsor) – I guess maybe some guys would probably prefer less events with the same money (if sponsors can no longer afford the price, along with potential appearance fees), but I would think it wouldn’t be all bad to have the same events with a little less money…I fear the tour may start to lose sponsors in the next few years if they don’t try to keep the costs worth spending – but maybe things will be just fine, too. I believe in the one in four rule…

by red tees on Jan 28, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions