[RJ_Daley]

With all of the discussion of the end game tragedies for Mickelson, Monty, Harrington, Furyk, Stricker, etc., it seems to me that it is the big purse dynamic that affords these players an element of ''forgiveness" and perhaps allows them to keep their sanity as they all will leave with a minor bucket full of cash.  Perhaps in most of the top professional's case, like Monty and Mickelson, they have enought cash already to not let the consolation money purse effect their decisons.  I don't know, as I don't have that kind of dough to understand if the consolation purse is a factor at that level.

Yet, I can't help but wonder whether the whole dynamic of the tournament would change, for better or worse, if the U.S. Open was a prize with your name on the national championship trophy, and an equal pay out to all for the week's expenses only to those who qualify, and their caddie's equal compensation .

While the Am finishes in matchplay, and I don't know if that would be better or worse, it seems to me that the final of last year's Am at Merion between Dougherty and Molinari was more compelling to watch than the Winged Foot Masacre part due.  

I know you are all saying that if they didn't award the purse, it would be the Am and we already have one.  But, the Ryder Cup is professional, they get the big fancy plane ride, the cool captain's wife designed golf uniforms, the posh lodgings and fine dinners... and that seems to capture everyone's attention, including the desire of all the best players on each continent to make the team and compete.  

If an amatuer enters and wins the U.S. Open, they would be making movies about such a feat.  That winner could sell his movie rights.  But, that am winner wouldn't get a taste of the purse, just his name on the trophy.  He could declare to be a pro the next day, but no cash for the feat.  Yet, that would be a golf legend for all times.

What if the U.S. Open were roughly the same in non-compensation with a cool trophy and expenses only?  Would that change the dynamics such as the way Mickelson and Monty and the bit players chose to finnish their rounds yesterday?  

Could the cash that is generated from the promotion of the tournament be better spent for the good of the game if recycled into the infrasturcture of everyday golf through grants to clubs and public courses?

[Dan Kelly]

Dick --

I hope you get your seat on the USGA board soon.

Dan

[Mike_Sweeney]

Could the cash that is generated from the promotion of the tournament be better spent for the good of the game if recycled into the infrasturcture of everyday golf through grants to clubs and public courses?

Dick,

Whose to say that the Tiger Woods and other pros do not do a better job of allocating their winnings than the USGA? Is the Tiger Woods Learning Center not more valuable than the First Tee program to society?



The Tiger Woods Learning Center opened its doors to Southern California students in early January, providing interactive enrichment programs to promote career exploration and preparation in areas such as forensic science, engineering, aerospace, video production and home design. The TWLC is a 35,000-square-foot, 14-acre education facility built to take young people beyond their normal classroom experience through a unique after-school curriculum rooted in science, math and language arts.  The mission is to provide young people with a broader perspective of the world; a clearer understanding of his or her own skills; and the tools to achieve long-term personal success.  

To accomplish this, the TWLC employs the most advanced technology and educational tools along with caring teachers and dedicated mentors.  The TWLC features seven classrooms, a computer lab, multi-media center, student lounge, 200-seat auditorium and café.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, that is certainly true, but only for Tiger.  And, all of his financial ability in being generous in that way didn't come from his purses.  That barely pays for his plane and fuel in the air and now on the sea.  Only a handful have achieve that level of financial power from golf (Norman, Nicklaus, Palmer)

You won't likely see the Steve Stricker or Padraigh Harrington Learning Center to those extents...  

My point is more about the concept of the organization and it's mantra "for the good of the game" and how the organization's mission statements play out in various decisions they make, from course set up and competition issues, to B&I, and on to allocating resources.  And, I don't dare to suggest I have an answer to any of it - just questions about changing the dynamics.

Dan, I don't think that would be all that great of an idea unless I'd become a walking encyclopedia of the rules like a John VanderBorght, for example...

[Glenn Spencer]

If they stop charging amateurs $150 to play the qualifier, I am all for it. Stricker is a good example, while he may not need that money compared to most people, he can certainly use it the way he has been playing, same with Kenneth Ferrie and Jason Dufner and Scott Hend from the Nationwide Tour. I would bet all the money I have that Montgomerie, Mickelson and Ogilvy couldn't tell you what first prize was worth on the first tee Sunday, so you are kind of getting what you want anyway.

[RJ_Daley]

Glenn, do you think Monty would rather be the last match victor of another Ryder Cup, or make 500K for second in a Major?

[tlavin]

Yet, I can't help but wonder whether the whole dynamic of the tournament would change, for better or worse, if the U.S. Open was a prize with your name on the national championship trophy, and an equal pay out to all for the week's expenses only to those who qualify, and their caddie's equal compensation .

While the Am finishes in matchplay, and I don't know if that would be better or worse, it seems to me that the final of last year's Am at Merion between Dougherty and Molinari was more compelling to watch than the Winged Foot Masacre part due.  

Oh, boy, where to start?

How many people care about the US Amateur?  How many people watch the US Amateur, whether in person or on television?  I care about the Amateur and maybe most people on this site care about it, but more people watched the early Stanley Cup games on the Outdoor Living Channel than watched the past five Amateurs put together.  And hockey is dead in America, for all practical purposes.

The great thing about golf is its diversity, from regular tour events, to the Open, to the PGA and Masters, down to the sundry amateur events.  It just happens that the USGA hosts most of the significant amateur events.  So why do we piss all over the USGA when they make the sites for Opens so difficult?  Why do we bash the USGA when they make so much money in the Open?  The money that they make in the Open allows them to host all of the other events that they host.  The murderous setup makes the Open different than all of the other majors, not to mention any other tournament hosted by the PGA.

If you don't like the USGA and the way it sets up the Open, you can carp about it all you want, or you can go to school, become a rules official and climb the ladder within the USGA and hope to influence policy some day.

I will agree that watching the Open is like watching men crawl on broken glass.  I almost couldn't watch when Mickelson forgot that he was essentially playing one hole of match play for the most coveted prize in our country.

I say "almost", because, like many of you, I watched almost all of it.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Glenn, do you think Monty would rather be the last match victor of another Ryder Cup, or make 500K for second in a Major?

Dick,

Apples and oranges. Every player in the Ryder Cup is at a level in the game where they have corporate sponsors and significant winnings. If you are playing in the last match at the Ryder Cup, you are basically set financially.

The second place finisher in the US Open is not necessarily in the same position. I am sure the money is important to Steve Stricker's wife with a baby on the way.

You kind of lost me. What is the value in taking the money away from players. Where is the USGA sending it?

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn, do you think Monty would rather be the last match victor of another Ryder Cup, or make 500K for second in a Major?

Ryder Cup, of course. I wish he would take that spirit to the majors, maybe he would win more. Second in a major is an accomplishment that kind of blurs the question, but 500k or Ryder Cup, he is taking the Ryder Cup.

[Glenn Spencer]

Yet, I can't help but wonder whether the whole dynamic of the tournament would change, for better or worse, if the U.S. Open was a prize with your name on the national championship trophy, and an equal pay out to all for the week's expenses only to those who qualify, and their caddie's equal compensation .

While the Am finishes in matchplay, and I don't know if that would be better or worse, it seems to me that the final of last year's Am at Merion between Dougherty and Molinari was more compelling to watch than the Winged Foot Masacre part due.  

Oh, boy, where to start?

How many people care about the US Amateur?  How many people watch the US Amateur, whether in person or on television?  I care about the Amateur and maybe most people on this site care about it, but more people watched the early Stanley Cup games on the Outdoor Living Channel than watched the past five Amateurs put together.  And hockey is dead in America, for all practical purposes.

The great thing about golf is its diversity, from regular tour events, to the Open, to the PGA and Masters, down to the sundry amateur events.  It just happens that the USGA hosts most of the significant amateur events.  So why do we piss all over the USGA when they make the sites for Opens so difficult?  Why do we bash the USGA when they make so much money in the Open?  The money that they make in the Open allows them to host all of the other events that they host.  The murderous setup makes the Open different than all of the other majors, not to mention any other tournament hosted by the PGA.

If you don't like the USGA and the way it sets up the Open, you can carp about it all you want, or you can go to school, become a rules official and climb the ladder within the USGA and hope to influence policy some day.

I will agree that watching the Open is like watching men crawl on broken glass.  I almost couldn't watch when Mickelson forgot that he was essentially playing one hole of match play for the most coveted prize in our country.

I say "almost", because, like many of you, I watched almost all of it.

Agree, Agree, Agree. I think the USGA does an unbelievable job with most things. I like watching the Open more than any other tournament. What other tournament can have 4 or 5 guys playing 10 handicap golf over the last 3 holes, for some reason it is the only time that these guys act nervous enough about something. No matter what anyone tells you, every guy wants to be the guy that handled the pressure of the toughest course and that is why the US Open is so sought after.

[RJ_Daley]

Glenn, then why not take the huge purse equation out of it and apply the revenue the event generates over the breadth of the game itself?  Expenses and glory of the national championship as the prize.  What gets bigger viewership, Ryder Cup or US Open? (I don't know...)

Then Mike, the extra cash generated could do all that much 'more' good for the game on the everyday and everyman playing level.  

Would the competition be just as spirited no matter what the size of the purse?  But, the greater good might be to the benefit of a golfing public at large that wants their USGA to look out for them...  the old, "people want to play more not pay more" (Tim Weiman)  That all goes to various issues like equipment getting out of hand, cost of longer courses to build-remodel, quest for more higher tech equipment, pristine conditioning, etc.

Is there an inverse relationship in golf (maybe all sports) that the bigger the prize $, or salaries - the more debilitating the effect of the $ is on the sport and for those at large that love to play it, more than watch it?

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn, then why not take the huge purse equation out of it and apply the revenue the event generates over the breadth of the game itself?  Expenses and glory of the national championship as the prize.  What gets bigger viewership, Ryder Cup or US Open? (I don't know...)

Then Mike, the extra cash generated could do all that much 'more' good for the game on the everyday and everyman playing level.  

Would the competition be just as spirited no matter what the size of the purse?  But, the greater good might be to the benefit of a golfing public at large that wants their USGA to look out for them...  the old, "people want to play more not pay more" (Tim Weiman)  That all goes to various issues like equipment getting out of hand, cost of longer courses to build-remodel, quest for more higher tech equipment, pristine conditioning, etc.

Is there an inverse relationship in golf (maybe all sports) that the bigger the prize $, or salaries - the more debilitating the effect of the $ is on the sport and for those at large that love to play it, more than watch it?

Well, first of all, we are not talking about a lot of money here. $8 million or so is the purse, correct? I would rather see them jack the ticket prices up and spread that money around. The players are still independent contractors and one one Scott Hoch will turn into another and before you know it, the US Open field would be a bit watered down. Is there an inverse relationship in golf? I think most definitely. I would imagine worldwide that the Ryder Cup and the US Open get similar numbers, but the Ryder Cup is a team event that has the tradition of people playing, nobody is going to mess with that, players would however skip the Open sans cash.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Dick,

Last year, North Carolina officials estimated the the U.S. Open generated $124 million in direct and indirect benefits to the state's economy. That included $70 million in direct spending.

This years purse at the US Open was $6.2 million.

Here is the Masters balance sheet WHEN THEY LOST $7.0 MILLION IN TV REVENUES. The purse is a small piece of a tournament balance sheet. I am trying to understand why you are picking on the players?

The USGA, not the players run the tournament. The USGA makes money and I have heard reports that they have $50 mm in the bank. Why do you want to take money away from the Stricker college fund?

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, honestly I'm not looking to start an argument, just wondering about changing the dynamics of the event and the the decisions surrounding it.  The USGA is the golf association for promotion of the sport, as I understand it.  It is not the same as the PGA Tour.  The USGA exists presumably for "the good of the game".  The PGA exists for the promotion and advancement of the players.  

While the Stricker college fund is already safe (I'm assuming) from multiple wins in previous years and good money management, he would be quite as well off even if only his expenses were paid last week, had he - or anyone else that could have won the event, won it.  The winner would reap plenty of rewards in endorsements.

All that ancillary money in the community from patrons-fans attending and spending would still be in the community, wouldn't it?

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

All that ancillary money in the community from patrons-fans attending and spending would still be in the community, wouldn't it?

Of course. So again, why are the players the only ones that you are dictating to contribute their purse back to the USGA?

Shouldn't David Fay contribute a week's salary, shouldn't Johnny Miller contribute? How about Dave Pelz, should he charge Phil for the week?

Since there is no prize money, how do the caddies get paid for that week? Do the players have to pay them out of their own pocket, or are they contributing their salaries too. Should the caddies get their expenses for the week too? How would you reimburse Michael Campbell for the disparity in his expenses flying from New Zealand versus Andrew Svoboda who lives in Stamford, CT?

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, if there is no purse, what is there to contribute back by the players?  I had mentioned that the week's expenses for players and salaries of caddies should be covered.  Can you tell me if there is a purse at the qualifier events, like Stricker had to win to get in?  But, you sure got me on addressing the disparity of costs of a guy from Stamford and one from Auckland!

But, no David Fay nor Johnny Miller need contribute their salary.  They get paid as usual by their employers, the USGA and NBC.  And, you mean to say Pelz doesn't charge Phil!  

[Glenn Spencer]

Mike, if there is no purse, what is there to contribute back by the players?  I had mentioned that the week's expenses for players and salaries of caddies should be covered.  Can you tell me if there is a purse at the qualifier events, like Stricker had to win to get in?  But, you sure got me on addressing the disparity of costs of a guy from Stamford and one from Auckland!

But, no David Fay nor Johnny Miller need contribute their salary.  They get paid as usual by their employers, the USGA and NBC.  And, you mean to say Pelz doesn't charge Phil!  

He doesn't have you on the Stamford and Auckland situation at all. The USGA has long paid for the participants in the Publinx and they just figure the flight costs and hotel costs. The estimates are not on the high side, but I wouldn't say they are low either. There is no purse at the qualifiers.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Dick,

My day of Muccifying your post is done.   You have worn me out.

In closing, I will tell you it used to drive me crazy when I worked in the corporate world and they basically demanded that you give to The United Way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with United Way, I just had different priorities. Needless to say, I eventually got the boot from the corporate world!

[Dan Kelly]

My day of Muccifying your post is done.

Mike --

I've searched in all of my dictionaries, and not even the thickest one has a listing for "Muccify."

What, exactly does it mean?  

Dan

[Lou_Duran]

Some people believe that money is the root of all evil.

Some believe that it provides for internal and external validation of one's worth, and a good way for keeping score.

I include myself in a third group which sees money as a means to an end.

Without the US Open and its purse, such men of modest means as Lee Trevino and Orville Moody may not have made it in the sport.  How many guys who qualified for the US Open and made the cut are going to be significantly helped in their quest to stay on the tour through their standing on the money list?

[A.G._Crockett]

Some people believe that money is the root of all evil.

Some believe that it provides for internal and external validation of one's worth, and a good way for keeping score.

I include myself in a third group which sees money as a means to an end.

Without the US Open and its purse, such men of modest means as Lee Trevino and Orville Moody may not have made it in the sport.  How many guys who qualified for the US Open and made the cut are going to be significantly helped in their quest to stay on the tour through their standing on the money list?

Lou,
I believe it's the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.  The money itself is o.k.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Let me try and help out my tall BC grad friend there.

Muccify:  verb.  To ask pointed questions for which one has one and only one answer in mind, for the purpose of argumentatively making a point, whether one believes in such point being wholly irrelevant.  

TH

[Lou_Duran]

A.G.,

I know that the original statement made a differentiation.
Unfortunately, for many, that's been lost and people who have amassed consequential amounts are often looked at with suspicion and antipathy.

One of my pet peeves is populist jargon and the use of "the working man" to identify those who work for wages, primarily blue-collar types, and confer some special virtue to this status.  The implication is that those who don't fit this category do not work and somehow obtain their compensation surreptitiously ("on the back of the working man").

Having done both- toiled in factories for hourly wages and in the executive floors for salary and bonus- I found the latter much more challenging and physically as well as mentally exerting.

I regret that society places so much importance on money.  It needlessly separates people and leads to some very "stinkin' thinking" even among very bright individuals.

As to the US Open and money, I rather doubt that a kid dreams about draining a 15' putt for birdie on the 72nd hole of the tournament to collect his $1.2 million first place share of the purse.  Just as I don't believe that a patriotic young man or woman thinks about becoming president in order to collect the $10-$20 million speaking fees "earned" annually by the likes of President Clinton after leaving office.    

[RJ_Daley]

Lou, you came out of retirement just to turn this into a polemic on class warfare?

I was speaking of the idea of turning the dynamics around in a national championship golf tournament, not redistributing the wealth of a nation or demise of capitalism...  

Had you noticed when you visit the websites of the USGA and PGA, that one says .org and one says .com?  I'm talking about just a fleeting idea that in this particular tournament, there may be very much influence on the thinking of those that run the tournament and those that play in it about the $ interests, for their own good, rather than the good of the game, as the mission statement says.  

I'm not villianizing the USGA.  I'm commenting or wondering about the $ dynamics that have grown with the tournament over the years.  Are decisons in the USGA made for the benefit of the players and sponsors and insiders of the golf industry, or the people that play everywhere?  I'm pretty clear on the idea that the PGA exists for those interests, rightfully so.  Does $ considerations go so far as to influence even competition decisions by the players in the Open?  I don't know.  I just brought it up to ask others what they think.  At least I thought that Glenn and Mike had particularly interesting thoughts too.

Lou, I nor anyone else on this thread mentioned "working man".  Hell, I didn't even bring up universal or accessible affordable health care for all our citizens, or speaking to Asian business men by ex POTUS for large cash.  Lou, turn of the talk radio and go play some golf...

One other thing Lou... I'm guessing Lee "Buck$"  would have made it if there wasn't even any US Open, by beating all the wealthy gents on the C.C. circuits in the betting games.

[Jim Nugent]

Frank Hannigan says the USGA is already loaded, and has an investment portfolio worth $250 million.  They can choose to fund education centers or local muni's if they choose.  

I would much rather see the money go to the players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()