PGA Tour Looking at More Stringent Player Scheduling
by Ryan Ballengee on May 4, 2009 3:04 PM EDT
Email
PrintA couple of weeks ago, I noticed a huge spike in the number of Google hits to here and Golf News Net concerning the search term "1 in four rule PGA Tour," or some variation thereof. I semi-jokingly quipped that perhaps Google knows something that I don't know yet. Maybe Google does.
As Jon Show is reporting, the PGA Tour is taking a look at a system that would compel big name stars to enter a wider variety (but not necessarily more) events.
One scenario informally discussed by players would be based on a point system that awards numbers on a sliding scale according to the stature of an event. The bigger the event, the smaller the points, and players would have to reach a certain benchmark to keep their playing privileges.
That is an interesting approach, depending on how the scale would work. Like I said, it may not expressly compel players to enter more tournaments, but may get them to enter different ones.
Now, there are two downsides to the informal idea. One - like with the OWGR bias - having a points scale that determines tournament strength can be gamed and set into a cycle of constant bias. It would be likely that the Tour would have to figure out a way to set up the scale on its own so that players could not manipulate the rankings for their convenience.
Second, how would you feel if you're the Valero Texas Open? You just got a promotion back to the FedEx Cup part of the schedule. It may turn out that you are the weak link in the new Texas Swing. It would not look good in promoting the event if the PGA Tour produces a tournament strength list that declared your event weak.
It is kind of the opposite effect of the FedEx Cup. Some people argue that the FEC is just too hard for the average person to understand and, therefore, care about at all. A straight scale of strong and weak tournaments may lead fans to draw the wrong conclusion about certain tournaments. So long as that public relations aspect could be handled, I like the idea.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am bias because I have friends that run a
non-Major yet popular tournament that has gotten the biggest names every few years but not every year…..never had Tiger either
When the big names show up, the ratings rise, tickets go through the roof, and everything else just gets better across the board
Whether these stars like it or not, they can flourish a tournament and in fact kill it.
I do NOT like the idea of forcing players to go to a tournament but I also don’t like certain players playing in an absurdly small amount of non-majors.
Yeah, I think that this kind of solution would be best. Still keeps flexibility for players, but encourages a broader schedule.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I can see the extra points being a draw – but I don’t see a few extra points being a huge draw for the top players. They are already going to be in the playoffs with a high seed. When the points reset for the Tour Championship (presented by Coca Cola) – they well still be in good shape without the extra points.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I think this “tournament points system” would be totally separate from the FedEx Cup. Like 501 in darts, you’d have to find a way to add up to 501 to win with the right mix of tournaments and their “ratings.”
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
ah – I see. so you’re going to get points just for teeing it up on Thursday. now you’re adding layers to the money list where you’ll get to keep your card IF you’re in the top 125 AND have enough points.
This system is definitely aimed at the guys who only play 15-18 tournaments a year – Finchem is still going to have to get approval that includes the top players. Not an easy job.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Yeah, I don’t know how many points lists the Tour should have, but two seems like a lot, haha.
I think that you’re right about the target audience. Maybe it also includes any player who makes enough or who has made enough in their career that they can pretty much dictate their own schedule into a rhythm.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
that’s the priviledge of success. the top guys don’t HAVE to play more events because they already position themselves in the rankings and money list with the tournaments they play.
personally, I think that the lower ranked players are glad that the top guys don’t play 25 tournaments a year. If you assume that Tiger would continue to win 25% of his starts, adding an extra 8 tournaments to his schedule would take 2 winners checks out of the hands of a lower ranked player, and most likely 6 top 10 spots.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I agree with you. The system today works pretty well for those B and C list guys that struggle to keep their card by playing in 30+ events. The Tour would also have to reduce the number of invitational events (or expand their fields) to account for these guys playing more.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
So much of the schedule is by invitation today that the best players generally lean to those, the WGCs, and the majors for the bulk of their schedule. The other open field events are where the rank and file make enough money to keep their cards. But, if the best players get into playing more open field events, then rank and file will find it tougher to keep their cards. That probably wouldn’t go over so well.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
There are 3 WGC’s – and The Masters is the only “invitational” major – Bay Hill is short field…
What else ? Is the Memorial short field ?
After that – it’s the second, third, and fourth rounds of the playoffs and those are merit based.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
There are somewhere in the area of a dozen invitational/short field events on schedule… I calculated it once, but it’s in the low teens.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
name them...
…Mercedes – invitation by winning…
WGC’s, Masters, Bay Hill, Memorial — that’s 6 – 4 are merit based – you have to earn your spot.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Well, first, by definition, any short field event is by merit-based invitation (for the most part, except like the Skins Game). Perhaps the more appropriate term is “limited-field event.” Anyway, they are:
Mercedes Benz Championship, Buick Invitational, WGC Match Play, WGC Doral, Bay Hill, Masters, Memorial, Colonial, AT&T National, WGC Bridgestone, PGA Championship, the four FEC Playoff events
So, that’s 15 on the schedule that are limited field.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
The PGA isn’t short field -
neither is the first of the FEC playoffs, after that, they are full field by the definition of those tournaments.
The Buick is full field – just because the title says “invitational” doesn’t mean that it is
Colonial is 124 – only 20 short – I’d call it full field, but it’s not 144 so I guess it has to stay on your list technically, but it isn’t the 64 or 72 of most short fields and invitationals
Bay Hill and Memorial are 120 – again – I would call it full field, but technically it’s not.
So you’re down to 9 and I would call it 6.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
By definition – not opinion – the PGA Tour refers to Colonial, Bay Hill, and Memorial as invitationals. Colonial is a hold out on the PGA Tour request that invitationals be 120 player fields. PGA is an invitational event. You are invited to play and cannot open qualify – definition of an invitational.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
The fields are filled by rank on the money list with a few sponsor’s and special invites. This is exactly the same as any other event except for the Monday qualifiers.
The term is semantic since, with the exception of Monday qualies, the field is filled exactly the same way.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Yes, the invitational events are based on X number of the prior season’s money list, plus other invites of various characteristics, but that’s not true across the board. In general, the PGA Tour fields are filled in order by priority list group, a la the LPGA Tour. Group 1 gets priority in entry over any other, etc down the line.
There is a re-shuffle within exemption category 24 at multiple points during the season, though, based upon their current position relative to one another on the money list.
The WGC events have a much deeper set of qualifications, depending on which WGC it is. The HSBC Champions one is kind of nuts.
And, in looking into this, I found out that the Heritage is technically an invitational.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on May 5, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
