A few weeks ago, when the LPGA's 2008 schedule was released, two things jumped out at me: the number of limited-field tournaments, and the number of tournaments outside the continental United States.

But I didn't put two-and-two together. Some others did, however, and in this week's Golf World Ron Sirak writes that all those limited-field tournaments and overseas events are the looks of things to come. It's a report that I find troubling for what it says about where the LPGA Tour is headed.

What follows are some excerpts from Sirak's brief report (which as of this writing is not yet online), along with my immediate reactions. My thoughts on this are not yet fully formed; perhaps I'll think differently after more consideration, or particularly after clarification from the LPGA is offered (if, in fact, it ever is).

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these ideas, too, so please comment.

Sirak's report is headlined:

Futures Tour may be in line for an upgrade

So far, so good. When the LPGA purchased the Futures Tour earlier this year, the hope of everyone who cares about women's golf was that the LPGA could elevate the Futures Tour by greatly improving the purses and enhancing its visibility.

But I soon heard alarm bells. Sirak writes:

Wait - the LPGA plans to boost the Futures Tour by contracting LPGA fields? And forcing players who are now LPGA Tour members to play on the secondary circuit? Which, in turn, makes fewer spots available on the Futures Tour?

An LPGA official goes on the record:

Good news that the LPGA sees the Futures Tour growing in stature and quality. But again: By sacrificing current LPGA Tour players?

So here's what Sirak is describing: An LPGA Tour where all tournaments are contracted in size; where many are limited to about 70 players or less; where more than half the tournaments are played outside the U.S.

And a Futures Tour that is filled out by golfers who used to be on the LPGA Tour - and even some tournaments that used to be LPGA events.

There are positives: golfers who maintain their LPGA status would make more money (presumably purses would not go down, so the same amount of money would be divvied up by fewer golfers); and Futures Tour purses would increase.

But seems to me the negatives far outweigh the positives.

The limited-field, overseas tournaments will be great for those golfers who get into them; and for the international profile of women's golf. But those tournaments would cease to exist to most U.S. consumers of golf, because they wouldn't be televised here and would draw scant news coverage. Reducing U.S.-based tournaments in favor of overseas events greatly lowers the tour's profile in America. Does that matter to the Tour?

If the LPGA looks at its fields and the fields on the Futures Tour and realizes that the lower-ranked players on each tour almost never have an impact in the events on those tours, is the proper response to contract those fields? Shouldn't the LPGA work to expand opportunities for women professional golfers? The LPGA does great work in promoting women's golf in general, particularly in the junior ranks. Why turn around and say, "there just aren't enough good women professionals"? Keep building your brand and promoting the game, and the depth of women's golf will keep improving - as it has been doing since the LPGA's founding.

And who, exactly, is clamoring to kick golfers off the LPGA Tour? Who looks at the tournament results and thinks, "Boy, I wish they'd get rid of Erica Blasberg, Aree Song, Grace Park, Marisa Baena, Minea Blomqvist, Liselotte Neumann, Dorothy Delasin, Candy Kung, et.al. (all players who finished outside the Top 70 on the money list). They've got no chance to win. Who wants to see them?"

Players like these would disappear on that second-tier tour, which, presumably, would receive no television coverage and vanishly slim news coverage. Perhaps a tad bit more attention would be paid to it than to the current Futures Tour, but probably not much more.

Is the LPGA prepared to throw up its hands and say, "Well, we tried competing in the U.S. sports market and just couldn't do it. So we're trimming our fields and heading to other parts of the world, where we can get a good TV deal"?

The ideas contained in the Sirak article present a women's professional golf environment in the U.S. with fewer top-level tournaments, less golf on TV, less golf in the news. More money for those golfers on the two main tours, but fewer opportunities for golfers to get onto those tours.

And how are tournament sponsors going to react? The LPGA Tour official's quote makes it seem as though the tour is far along in moving in this direction. Have they done due diligence with current and potential sponsors? Do sponsors want smaller fields? Do they want less golf played at their events? Fewer sales of pro-am spots?

Caveats all around: We have very few details of what the LPGA is thinking of; we don't know how far along they are in that thinking; and as I said above, my own thoughts are far from complete.

What are your initial reactions?