OT: Golf, But Louder

[Jim_Coleman]

   Watching LIV is like crossing a picket line. It feels dirty.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The TOUR has done a nice job elevating events like last week at Riviera. But events like Honda are incredibly boring now.

It didn't have name players, but the ending to the Honda on Sunday was certainly not incredibly boring.  It was pretty compelling actually.

[Pat Burke]

As I mentioned previously, I don’t  have a lot of love lost for the bureaucracy of the pga tour. Based on my own biases…


The announcement of the significant schedule changes by the tour has shown a lot.


Limiting the fields and opportunities in “elevated” events for pga tour members will create a big division on have and have nots.  These fields will carry the points and money that will make cracking that top level incredibly difficult.
Of course, back when I was playing a number of top players, wanted a smaller schedule where the top players played more often.  So the tour has now moved that direction which is ironically what Phil, Norman, and many “top guys wanted.


There was concern back then that this type of thing would harm the events not included regularly on the “must play” schedule. 


The pga tour has, in reaction to LIV, started to create a three level model. Korn ferry/pga tour/elevated events.
It has also created a mandatory schedule for players and more control on them which is positive for sponsors I’d assume.


It has likely harmed the European tour by creating a feeder system of the top ten gaining status on the US Tour


In trying to fight LIV, it has moved into a similar package of fewer playing for more with more control on those players .


Not saying for good or bad, just an amazing change in opportunities for a lot of players

[Mike Bodo]

The TOUR has done a nice job elevating events like last week at Riviera. But events like Honda are incredibly boring now.

It didn't have name players, but the ending to the Honda on Sunday was certainly not incredibly boring.  It was pretty compelling actually.

I agree and this coming from a LIV fan. I gave up on the LIV broadcast after Peter Uihlein snap-hooked three consecutive balls into the woods on the 11th or 12th at Mayakoba. Amazingly, he found his first, but it took forever and a day for him to determine if he was going to play the ball as it lied, take relief and a stroke penalty for an unplayable or go back and retee. He ended up going with option two, but it took 15 minutes just to play his next shot. Meanwhile, up at the green they're showing his playing partner, Charles Howell III, putting out to finish the hole prior to Uihlein playing his third. It was an unbearable mess and I decided I'd seen enough follwing the debacle and proceeded to change the channel and watch the finishing holes and playoff of the Honda tournament. I'm glad I did, as it was a compelling finish.


LIV has got some serious structural problems and they're too varied and divissive to fix. There are rumblings that a few big names have buyers remorse and want out. I'll be surprised if the league lasts beyond this year. Heck, I'll be surprised if they finish out the year.


If nothing else, LIV was the best thing to happen to the PGA Tour, as none of the changes we've witnessed would have occurred as quickly as they did without its disruption to the status quo. As a fan of the sport, I'm grateful.

[Wayne_Kozun]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?  That seemed to work fine at the LA And Phoenix events this year.


Why do they need to move to a smaller field?  It isn't like they are saving money since about 70 guys get paid out under either scenario. Is it so the top guys are guaranteed a paycheck, regardless of how they play in these designated events?

[Kalen Braley]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?  That seemed to work fine at the LA And Phoenix events this year.


Why do they need to move to a smaller field?  It isn't like they are saving money since about 70 guys get paid out under either scenario. Is it so the top guys are guaranteed a paycheck, regardless of how they play in these designated events?

Wayne,

Completely agreed here.

I also think having a cut and giving players not in the top 70 a crack at winning a big tourney is important, what better way to prove yourself? And lets face it, those top 70 guys (As a group) are already making a shit ton more in endorsement money than the rest of them and can absorb a missed cut financially far easier.

P.S.  I'm not opposed to having another tier in golf overall.  Pro Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, etc all do same...

[Pat Burke]

Golf already has multiple tiers


PGA tour elevated events
Pga tour
Korn ferry
In the USA
          Canada and Latin America feed as well


Euro tour
Challenge tour


Japan


Asia


South Africa
Australia


And tons of mini tours

[Kalen Braley]

Golf already has multiple tiers

PGA tour elevated events
Pga tour
Korn ferry
In the USA
          Canada and Latin America feed as well

Euro tour
Challenge tour

Japan

Asia

South Africa
Australia

And tons of mini tours

Exactly Pat,

So one more tier is small potatoes right?

P.S.  I presume LIV is in the bottom category of "tons of mini tours"

[Ken Moum]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?  That seemed to work fine at the LA And Phoenix events this year.


Why do they need to move to a smaller field?  It isn't like they are saving money since about 70 guys get paid out under either scenario. Is it so the top guys are guaranteed a paycheck, regardless of how they play in these designated events?

The only thing that makes sense is being able to guarantee that the top players will be there for the weekend


But they're giving them three opt out weeks.


The only, ONLY, thing that in intrigues me is that the three "regular" events between the elevated ones will be qualifiers for 5-10 players to get into the next elevated events.

[Philip Caccamise]

As I mentioned previously, I don’t  have a lot of love lost for the bureaucracy of the pga tour. Based on my own biases…


The announcement of the significant schedule changes by the tour has shown a lot.


Limiting the fields and opportunities in “elevated” events for pga tour members will create a big division on have and have nots.  These fields will carry the points and money that will make cracking that top level incredibly difficult.
Of course, back when I was playing a number of top players, wanted a smaller schedule where the top players played more often.  So the tour has now moved that direction which is ironically what Phil, Norman, and many “top guys wanted.


There was concern back then that this type of thing would harm the events not included regularly on the “must play” schedule. 


The pga tour has, in reaction to LIV, started to create a three level model. Korn ferry/pga tour/elevated events.
It has also created a mandatory schedule for players and more control on them which is positive for sponsors I’d assume.


It has likely harmed the European tour by creating a feeder system of the top ten gaining status on the US Tour


In trying to fight LIV, it has moved into a similar package of fewer playing for more with more control on those players .


Not saying for good or bad, just an amazing change in opportunities for a lot of players

Well said, Pat. But I add the talent pool is SO deep now perhaps it is time for a tertiary split. Just look at the KFT qualifier from yesterday- the players are coming from everywhere (the winner of one of them is a recent graduate from my university, a mid-major in the northeast!)

[Michael Morandi]

No one in the history of golf has proven more resilient after failure than Norman. This is going to happen. Patience.

I guess it depends how you measure "resilience". 

After his utter meltdown at Augusta, despite having already won 80+ tournies world wide, he would only win:

- 2 more PGA Tour of Australasia events
- 2 more PGA Tour events
- 0 European Tour events
- 17 top 5 finishes in Majors up thru the 96 Masters...and then only 2 more after that.

Kalen-I don’t think JK was referring to Norman’s resilience as a player. He has been pretty successful in business both inside and outside the game of golf while building an international brand. I’ve always thought his golf legacy mattered less to him than his wealth and business success. Finally the number being batted around as to his take from LIV is between $700 and $800 million.

I think you are right about his priorities. I’ve only met the Shark once, when he was hanging out with a business tycoon who had a sketchy reputation. He’d just signed his big contract with Cobra, which must have felt like peanuts compared to the tycoon who he was with.

[Pat Burke]

Golf already has multiple tiers

PGA tour elevated events
Pga tour
Korn ferry
In the USA
          Canada and Latin America feed as well

Euro tour
Challenge tour

Japan

Asia

South Africa
Australia

And tons of mini tours

Exactly Pat,

So one more tier is small potatoes right?

P.S.  I presume LIV is in the bottom category of "tons of mini tours"

I didn’t put LIV because I’m honestly not sure what it is other than a disrupter.
If it is around in 5 years, it will be something very big

[JohnVDB]

Monday’s Mets Cardinals Spring Training game on ESPN played on a weekday afternoon had twice as many viewers as LIV did over the weekend.

[Jeff Segol]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?  That seemed to work fine at the LA And Phoenix events this year.


Why do they need to move to a smaller field?  It isn't like they are saving money since about 70 guys get paid out under either scenario. Is it so the top guys are guaranteed a paycheck, regardless of how they play in these designated events?

I think they're relying on the idea that people want to see McIlroy play, even if he's in 60th place, or on the theoretical idea that he could be 60th on Friday, shoot lights out on Saturday, and be back in the mix for Sunday. Instructive here is a quote from Feinstein's A Good Walk Spoiled, which I think was from Frank Chirkinian, the CBS golf producer. He was wondering why in most sports, fans root for the underdog, but not in golf. The conclusion was that golf fans, perhaps other than the most rabid, like people on this site, want to root for someone they recognize. If the PGA Tour is about entertainment, as Max Homa has been saying, there's some logic in getting the stars on TV as often as possible. But for those of us who follow golf closely, the drama of the unknown winning is better.

[Mike Bodo]

The conclusion was that golf fans, perhaps other than the most rabid, like people on this site, want to root for someone they recognize. If the PGA Tour is about entertainment, as Max Homa has been saying, there's some logic in getting the stars on TV as often as possible. But for those of us who follow golf closely, the drama of the unknown winning is better.

I beg to differ and it's very situational with me. I sure as heck wasn't rooting for virtual unknown, Mito Pereira, to win the PGA Championship last year and was hoping he blew up on the final hole so either Thomas or Zalatoris won. I wasn't pulling for Ben Curtis when he won the 2003 Open Championship and wanted Tiger to come from behind on the final round to win it. I wasn't cheering Jean Van de Velde on to win the 1999 Open Championship and wanted Justin Leonard to make a final round charge to win, but by golly were we treated to arguably the greatest meltdown in men's professional golf. I definitely didn't want T.C. Chen winning the 1985 U.S. Open where I caddied, although I really didn't care for eventual winner, Andy North, taking the trophy either.


Conversely, I loved John Daly winning the PGA Championship in 1991 as a last minute alternate. And seeing everyone's favorite beer drinking buddy, Rich Beem, doing the same in 2002. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Zach Johnson hold off Tiger to win the 2002 Masters and Louis Oosthuizen winning the 2010 Open Championship as a relative unknown at the time.


Thus, it really depends on the situation and who the protagonists are as far where my rooting interest lays. Back when I was a youngster I loved watching Johnny Miller play. He was "my guy." I didn't care if he was near the bottom of the leaderboard, I just wanted to see him swing the club on TV and check out his attire that particular day, as I loved his sense of fashion. He at least looked like a rock star on the course even if he didn't always play like one. 

[James Reader]

I actually found Peter Malnati’s justification for the reduced fields (on the NLU podcast) persuasive:



As a result of the smaller fields at the designated events, the fields for the other events are that much stronger - 40-50 more top 120 guys playing in those, all desperate to do well enough to take one of the 15 or so spots available for the next designated events (10 from the current FedEx rankings; 5 from the 3 most recent events). 


I think that has the potential to make those “second tier” events much more meaningful.


I don’t really buy the rationale for no cuts but on the other hand I can’t really see why the absence of one should detract from the interest in what’s happening at the top end of the leaderboard.


Overall, I think it promises to be a hell of lot better than what we’ve had for the past few years.

[David Cronan]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?  That seemed to work fine at the LA And Phoenix events this year.


Why do they need to move to a smaller field?  It isn't like they are saving money since about 70 guys get paid out under either scenario. Is it so the top guys are guaranteed a paycheck, regardless of how they play in these designated events?

Instructive here is a quote from Feinstein's A Good Walk Spoiled, which I think was from Frank Chirkinian, the CBS golf producer. He was wondering why in most sports, fans root for the underdog, but not in golf. The conclusion was that golf fans, perhaps other than the most rabid, like people on this site, want to root for someone they recognize.

Woods, one of if not the most dominant golfer to ever play professionally, has played in 1025 events and has won 82 of them, for a winning percentage of 8%.


Basically, every player is an underdog in every event.

[John_Cullum]

What is the rationale for the PGA Tour designated events having smaller fields and no cuts?  Why can't we still have elevated events but with ~140 players and a cut?

The rationale is to keep from losing more players to LIV.

[Daryl David]

Said commissioner Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

I am friends with a pro that played the tour in the 70s. He says if the LIV had come about when he was around, he would have fallen to his knees and said thank you. The LIV has been so good for the players on the tour, you would think they invented it out of self interest. The LIV is the Curt Flood of golf.

[Sean_A]

I actually found Peter Malnati’s justification for the reduced fields (on the NLU podcast) persuasive:

As a result of the smaller fields at the designated events, the fields for the other events are that much stronger - 40-50 more top 120 guys playing in those, all desperate to do well enough to take one of the 15 or so spots available for the next designated events (10 from the current FedEx rankings; 5 from the 3 most recent events). 

I think that has the potential to make those “second tier” events much more meaningful.

I don’t really buy the rationale for no cuts but on the other hand I can’t really see why the absence of one should detract from the interest in what’s happening at the top end of the leaderboard.

Overall, I think it promises to be a hell of lot better than what we’ve had for the past few years.

All the arguments make sense to me. Better for advertisers, fans, top players and if they survive, the regular tour events. One question, does the automatic qualifying field for designated events change each time? Can guys get demoted/promoted between events?

Ciao

[James Reader]

I actually found Peter Malnati’s justification for the reduced fields (on the NLU podcast) persuasive:

As a result of the smaller fields at the designated events, the fields for the other events are that much stronger - 40-50 more top 120 guys playing in those, all desperate to do well enough to take one of the 15 or so spots available for the next designated events (10 from the current FedEx rankings; 5 from the 3 most recent events). 

I think that has the potential to make those “second tier” events much more meaningful.

I don’t really buy the rationale for no cuts but on the other hand I can’t really see why the absence of one should detract from the interest in what’s happening at the top end of the leaderboard.

Overall, I think it promises to be a hell of lot better than what we’ve had for the past few years.

All the arguments make sense to me. Better for advertisers, fans, top players and if they survive, the regular tour events. One question, does the automatic qualifying field for designated events change each time? Can guys get demoted/promoted between events?

Ciao

The top 50 from the previous year’s FedEx rankings are in them all.  So no chance of demotion from that group until the following year.
The top 10 from the current ranking (not otherwise qualified) will change over the season based on performance in all events.
The top 5 (not otherwise qualified) from each set of preceding 3 “standard” events will qualify for the next 2 designated events. That’s where the biggest rotation will be.  Have a good few weeks and then do really well in a designated event and you’ll stand a good chance of qualifying for a few more though.
Plus win any event and you’re into all the designated events for the remainder of the year.

[Sean_A]

I actually found Peter Malnati’s justification for the reduced fields (on the NLU podcast) persuasive:

As a result of the smaller fields at the designated events, the fields for the other events are that much stronger - 40-50 more top 120 guys playing in those, all desperate to do well enough to take one of the 15 or so spots available for the next designated events (10 from the current FedEx rankings; 5 from the 3 most recent events). 

I think that has the potential to make those “second tier” events much more meaningful.

I don’t really buy the rationale for no cuts but on the other hand I can’t really see why the absence of one should detract from the interest in what’s happening at the top end of the leaderboard.

Overall, I think it promises to be a hell of lot better than what we’ve had for the past few years.

All the arguments make sense to me. Better for advertisers, fans, top players and if they survive, the regular tour events. One question, does the automatic qualifying field for designated events change each time? Can guys get demoted/promoted between events?

Ciao

The top 50 from the previous year’s FedEx rankings are in them all.  So no chance of demotion from that group until the following year.
The top 10 from the current ranking (not otherwise qualified) will change over the season based on performance in all events.
The top 5 (not otherwise qualified) from each set of preceding 3 “standard” events will qualify for the next 2 designated events. That’s where the biggest rotation will be.  Have a good few weeks and then do really well in a designated event and you’ll stand a good chance of qualifying for a few more though.
Plus win any event and you’re into all the designated events for the remainder of the year.

Thanks. Its a start, although I wish there was no demotion protection. Just go off top 50 exempt after the previous designated event. Some guys will have to scramble their schedules, but that's tough.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Said commissioner Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

I am friends with a pro that played the tour in the 70s. He says if the LIV had come about when he was around, he would have fallen to his knees and said thank you. The LIV has been so good for the players on the tour, you would think they invented it out of self interest. The LIV is the Curt Flood of golf.

Curt Flood lost in the Supreme Court, then played one miserable season for the Washington Senators, and retired fairly poor.  His crusade against the reserve clause and MLB owners eventually bore fruit, but not for him.  Is that how you meant your comment?

[Bruce Katona]

Pat Burke:

Thank you for joining in.  You offer a very different perspective than most to this debate.

[Daryl David]

Said commissioner Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

I am friends with a pro that played the tour in the 70s. He says if the LIV had come about when he was around, he would have fallen to his knees and said thank you. The LIV has been so good for the players on the tour, you would think they invented it out of self interest. The LIV is the Curt Flood of golf.

Curt Flood lost in the Supreme Court, then played one miserable season for the Washington Senators, and retired fairly poor.  His crusade against the reserve clause and MLB owners eventually bore fruit, but not for him.  Is that how you meant your comment?

Bad analogy, but sort of. The LIV has sparked big changes in the Tour like Flood’s crusade eventually did. The top Tour players a few years down the road will owe a thanks to the LIV as ball players after Flood did. That said, I’m not sure the LIV will fail and fade away like Curt.