Get Rid of the PGA Tour Q-School

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Oct 30, 2009 10:37 AM EDT Comment 10 comments

The PGA Tour already has a Qualifying School. It is called the Nationwide Tour.

I am waiting for the current season to end so I will have the exact stats and the final numbers to scribble a post about why the current Q-school is not only cruel and inhumane treatment of human beings, it is blatantly unfair to a huge percentage of touring golf professionals and is unnecessary.

Also, it is outrageous that 156 players tee it up on any golf course on any day of the year and expect to play eighteen holes of golf, unless you have two or more golf courses. You now have front and back tee times from dawn to dusk. Even a one hour delay throws first or second round play into another day. 120 golfers is the maximum number each tournament should field.

It is also outrageous to continue to allow the top 125 golfers on tour to receive a free pass for the following year. That policy needs to be modified. Maybe the top 100, but definitely not more than that.

Are you ready for this one? It is outrageous how much money is given to charity each tournament. Last year, the FBR Open raised $8.6m for charity. That means sponsors and fans were overcharged that amount of money. Every event raises money for charity well in excess of seven figures. Freezing the purses and reducing sponsorship fees still allows a very nice charitable contribution.

I know everybody agrees with the above. When I finish my number crunching after next weeks tournament, I will post the solutions to all of the tour's problems. I am pretty sure Tim Finchem will implement most of them.

FanPosts are written by Waggle Room members. Viewpoints expressed do not necessarily reflect those of WaggleRoom.com and its editor, Ryan Ballengee. The Waggle Room member whose byline appears with the FanPost is solely responsible for its content.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Actually, I don’t agree with about half of what you said. I do agree that the Tour would do better with less of an all exept membership, though it is easier on them to make their plans if they know who will be in the fields from week to week.

Why pick on the FBR ? I don’t know that the $8.3 million number you posted just for this year is correct – but if it is – good for them ! The FBR is unique on Tour. The Thunderbirds make the entire week a huge golf and charity party and they do it right. There are parties and concerts and all kinds of things that are advertised as charity events – and the city turns out.

Here’s the thing – you don’t HAVE to participate in the charity events – and if you don’t want to buy the food and drinks, pack a few PB&J’s in the fanny pack and eat that instead.

Why would you pick on charitable giving of all things ? The Tour makes a lot of money – but they give a lot back to the communities.

Ok – Q-school. It’s been around a lot longer than the Nationwide Tour. Your points about the numbers of golfers on the courses and the possibilities of a delay throwing everything off for a day make no sense. The whole POINT of Q-school is to find out who is able to stand up to the pressure and who might have what it takes to make it on the biggest and best professional golf tour in the world. Would you prefer they go play a putt putt course with a staff of volunteer grandmothers on each hole to hand out cookies, milk, and hugs of encouragement ?

The last few years, The Tour has cut down the number of spots available from Q-school and increased the number to the Nationwide Tour – acknowledging that a season of preparation can be better than a three stage tournament.

What Q-school does, however, is to give the guys who didn’t make it into the top 125 on the money list – guys who had earned a spot on Tour in at least one year past if not many – a chance to get their priviledges on the big Tour back. If they aren’t good enough for the PGA Tour, and can’t make the cut at Q-school, they will most likely have a spot on the Nationwide Tour where they can start the process all over again.

And yes – it is three weeks of pure golf hell – but everybody who pays the money to get in knows what they are in for and what they hope to gain.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Oct 30, 2009 11:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As usual, you're both wrong!

by MattSpence on Oct 30, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Oct 30, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I told you everybody

would agree with me.

...from the land of pleasant living, Baltimore.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Oct 30, 2009 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

now WAIT a minute – we don’t know if the stunned silence is for you or me !!

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Oct 30, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way everybody (anybody) agrees

1. The players would never agree to have less players per tournament as the lesser players would lose the opportunity to make money to continue their lavish lifestyles.
2. The contributions to charity are a big selling point for the sponsors and the large number of volunteers that it takes to run a tournament. Less charity yields less sponsorship and less volunteers. Big businesses like to tout their charitable efforts.
3. The majority of players comming out of colleges would have no chance to join the PGA tour with no Q-school. Do you force them to play for much less money on the Nationwide Tour. How do you determine who plays on the Nationwide Tour.

by tatkins on Oct 30, 2009 7:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There are already a number of tournaments where the players have no say in the size of the field – the WGC’s and anything with the title “invitational” – most of those have 120 players. But you’re right – it would take a major change in thinking for the Tour to cut down on the number of members. The “lavish lifestyles” thought is a bit much, though. We see raw numbers on how much they win in tournaments – but we don’t see what they actually get to keep after Uncle Sam, the state and locals, caddy, trainers, managment, and any other paid members of their entourage get their bites. Many are raising families with all of those expenses – plus planning for life after what might be a very short career on the Tour if they don’t make enough cuts with good finishes.

One other thing is that the 125 on the money list only make up a part of the number of guys holding cards. Each year, there are upwards of 200 card carrying members of the PGA Tour thanks to winners exemptions, majors, career standing, etc. It would be a major reorganization just to drop that number down to 100 and fill in the other 20 to 50 spots each week with qualifiers and invites.

The majority of collegiate golfers never turn pro as players. Some get into the business as teaching pros – some get into the business side of the game – and a lot just follow the path of the degree they got. The Nationwide Tour has gotten so strong that they fill their roster by Q-school and season performances. Most tournaments have pre-qualifiers just to narrow the numbers of guys wanting to play in the qualifier for a 4-spot. It’s really amazing.

“Force them to play for much less money than on the Nationwide Tour” ? Nobody is forced to play on the Nationwide Tour. It is the minor leagues for the PGA Tour, yet they can make a pretty good living. Forty-one guys made more than $150k this year. The PGA Tour isn’t a birthright – some of these guys labor for years before graduating from the Nationwide to the PGA Tour…and a lot of them end up back on the Nationwide after one year of trunk slamming and making NO money with the big boys.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Oct 31, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can see I have everybody's

attention.

In my world, the players have no say. I did not say this was a real fix. It was MY fix. Also, I was being a tad facetious that people would agree with me. I doubt anybody agrees with much of it at all.

When you are facing a board of directors eye-balling every dime you spend, any reduction in expense is appreciated. If $8m went to charity, the sponsors and the customers (fans) were over charged. FBR, with the Thunderbirds, proves that. They browbeat the same people each year throughout Arizona. It’s a joke out there to start running when a Thunderbird walks in the front door of your business. Charity contributions should NOT be extracted from sponsors, but freely given.

I’ll just give you a hint: Q-School for the Nationwide Tour…

Now, everybody agrees with me, right?

...from the land of pleasant living, Baltimore.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Oct 30, 2009 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Can I get a copy of the dictionary you’re using to define “charity” ? Nobody is forced by the Thunderbirds to give a dime. This is a very cool group of people who give of their own time to organize in and around the tournament. You need to get video of the tournament – it is one of the most attended every year – with one hole that packs in more people than most baseball and a lot of football stadia.

No – not EVERY reduction in expense is appreciated. If that expense is recouped down the line, it is accepted.

Where did you get this idea that charity contributions are being “extracted” ?

I’ll see your hint and trump you with a reminder – Q school feeds BOTH the PGA and Nationwide Tours – not to mention the Hooters and every other mini-tour that the early round guys who don’t make the cut get to play on.

Waggle Room: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Waggle Room -

Because Golf Has No Offseason