Is the PGA Tour to Blame for Its Own Schedule Woes?

the world is a smaller place that it was 40 years ago. To some, world travel seems too much…but not to sportsmen who are millionaires. One or two main tours can’t support a world cast …but a world tour can…and should. Over to you, court.

Eggs in one Basket is never a good thing for any type of business, the PGA included. The tour, IMG, Golf Channel and ESPN et al should start promoting the sport as a whole and not just a handfull of players and or events. I’m all in for a World Tour.

so as far as golf goes, Earth is the final frontier :)

Ok – first off – let me welcome Stat- Man back to life. Using “rubric” in a sentence is definitely proof that he’s still out there lurking. (lol)

Not sure who you think is doing the shooting, RB. The Tour or SI and Van Sickle.

I can’t agree with this idea that the PGA Tour has shot itself in the foot with “weak” scheduling. This “weak link” theory just doesn’t hold water. Every tournament can’t be expected to be a major…which is why those four are called majors to begin with. Guys like Van Sickle define a strong tournament as something with Tiger or Phil in them. (let the line form here for the next 20 guys in the rankings to smack Van Sickle around for the insult)

The way the schedule is set up, there is a major, or WGC, or super event each month. The top guys are going to build their schedules around those, then figure out how they can best prepare for those 10 tournaments. Add in Torrey Pines, Riviera, Pebble, Scottsdale, Quail Hollow, and the AT&T, and you have 17 strong tournaments every year, plus the Fed Ex playoffs. That’s half the season.

You can’t have an entire 36 week schedule filled with super events. Nobody plays that many weeks in a row – and they haven’t for 50 years. Everything works in ebbs and flows. Just like you can’t have 36 weeks of even par winners and you can’t have 36 weeks of 25 under.

I’m going to insert a mid-level set of tournaments – just to please guys like Van Sickle. Tournaments like The Honda, Transitions, Houston, The Heritage, Colonial, St Jude, and The Wyndham draw very good fields, but you won’t usually see Tiger or Phil, even though Phil includes Colonial now and then, depending on his performance early in the year. I would put the Hawaii swing in here, too since The SBS is a winners only event, and a lot stay for The Sony the following week.

In the “weak” catagory, are tournaments that don’t draw because the biggest names either don’t play before a major or the week after. Four of these “weak” events get put in there by the Van Sickles of the world because they are opposite a WGC or The British Open. (Myakoba, Puerto Rico, Reno-Tahoe, and Turning Stone) – which leaves, by my count, 8 tournaments in the year for the “weak” catagory. The Hope, Zurich, Valero, Byron Nelson (which was a very strong tournament until Mr Nelson died), Travelers, CVS, John Deere and The Canadian Open (for obvious reasons), and The Greenbriar. The Wyndham might go in here if you want to push the point.

There isn’t anything really new under the sun – except the huge amounts of money we’ve seen the last 15 years. The last handful of years have been under the new scheduling – which brought with it neat little labels so guys like Van Sickle could write articles like this. The top players have scheduled themselves the same way for decades. You have to go back to the 60’s to find a time when the top guys had to play a lot of tournaments because they truly had to to make a living. Once Nicklaus and Palmer kicked in, and televised golf, prize money started to rise and the ranks of the guys who could shorten their schedules started to increase. These days, we have at least 25 or 30 guys who can make a schedule of dates and pretty much play those weeks year in and year out.

It’s the way things are – but to assume that a tournament is “weak” just because one of the top two most popular guys aren’t there is nonsense. The PGA Tour is extremely deep with talent, and we are seeing the emergence of the next generation of “superstars” (not a word I like to use) who will step up and take over where Tiger and Phil leave off.

Remember, Palmer is basically 10 years older than Nicklaus. Nicklaus is 10 years older than Watson. And so on through the Norman’s and Faldo’s and then Woods. There have always been a handful of second and third bananas who, on any given week, give the top guy a run for his money. It has taken more than 10 years for the next generation to start to make their way to the top – but they will be there. And guess what – when they get to the top, they will work their schedules around the majors, WGC’s, Players, Memorial, and Palmer just like these guys we have now.

There will always be weeks when none of the top 5 or 10 show up – and those weeks will have a lot of “lesser” players stepping up to show what they can do.