"While this scenario could cause consternation for many players, it will be the choices of a chosen few which are dissected and analyzed, celebrated and criticized."

Jason Sobel makes a strong case against the PGA Tour's proposed "designated tournament" option to improve fields at events not drawing stars. Sobel's point? This is all really about Tiger and Phil and therefore, is a waste of time.

While this scenario could cause consternation for many players, it will be the choices of a chosen few which are dissected and analyzed, celebrated and criticized.

It is because of this that should such a law be enacted, it could hardly cause a ripple on the PGA Tour, save for one or two more events being played by one or two more superstar competitors.

"Everybody seems to refer to this as a Tiger and Phil issue; it's really not," said PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem, who intimated that details of the plan wouldn't be ironed out for a few months. "It's really about having a representative number of top players week in and week out."

That's some solid commish-speak, but the simple fact is, not many other guys can move the needle. Let's face it: Nobody is buying tickets to watch Scott Verplank. No one is clamoring for more Tim Clark. No offense to either player -- each of whom is ranked in the top 50 on both the OWGR and the FedEx points list -- but if this rule is being built to showcase the big names at more venues, it might as well be referred to as the Tiger-Phil Formula.

Comments

[Average Golfer]

Not true. Mrs. Verplank has been known to clamor for tickets on a consistent basis. Ask anyone.

[Jim S]

Whenever Tim Finchem speaks, I wish the knight from Monty Python would come over and hit him over the head with a fish. It won't knock the elitist prick out of him, but it will be cathartic to me.

[Jim S]

That comment was supposed to go in the other Tim Finchem post below, but whatever, I still want him to be hit by silly things.

[Tom]

Furyk's comment was interesting: "... You can only play in so many events. If I go and play in one of those other events that maybe is on the list, I'm not adding events to my schedule. So if I do that, I'm taking away from another event."

Just for the sake of argument, I checked the OWGR archives and counted up the number of top-200 players listed in Week 26 of year 2000, versus the same week in year 2010, as playing 60 or more events over the previous 104 weeks. In 2000 there were 38 of the top 200. In 2010 there are zero. (Furyk was down for 55 in 2000, versus 46 in 2010. Jim, it didn't kill you then, why is it going to kill you now?)

Perhaps OWGRFan can clue me in if I have made a methodological error.

And, of course, the situation is even worse on the ET. Six months ago there was talk of a possible requirement that ET players have to play at least twice in Europe! I wonder what happened to that.

[jason]

Can someone get these guys a UNION already?????? Independent contractors my ass.

Oh, and someone alert Timmy that Tigger's now this much closer to only playing the 4 majors. Oh wait, he's changed, my bad...

[Bob]

The tour shouldn't be telling players where to play and when. The Tour works for the players not the other way around. The players are their own boss. It should be survival of the fittest. If your date, course, event can't attract the top players then tough- go sponsor a bowling tournament. Everybody can't be a winner. The tour has so many tounrnaments and that's great, but it also means there are going to be some duds. This is like in kids soccer where they give everyone a trophy.

[OWGR Fan]

Tom I would love to help you but my "name" here in Shackland, in spite of what it implies, actually has nothing to do with the world golf rankings.

[The O]

I kind of agree with the Commish, but not entirely. At the DC events we used to have, it was amazing to watch the course swell and then empty when Tiger was playing. If you went on Thursday or Friday and watched the other half of the draw you could have the course to yourself. So, Tiger and to a lesser extent Phil draw even the non-golf fan. But the event we used to have the Booz Allen, whatever tournament, would be lucky to attract one guy in the top 50. Tim Clark? I would watch him. Glen Day? Not so much.

[BenSeattle]

Want to know who is killing every single "non-major, non-premier" event on Tour? Tim Finchem, that's who.

With the creation of the World Championship Golf events, Finchem and the Tour simply added four or five "must play" tournaments that are as required for the biggest stars as the actual majors. How else could they get the biggest names to compete in Tucson's Match Play event, the tourney at Doral and Akron's Bridgestone, not to mention the Tour Championship? And why wouldn't a player want to add those to his scheule.... limited field, no cut? Now you add in the four tournaments comprising -- try not to laugh -- "The Playoffs" and there are four more that are "required," True, some won't make it the last event, but that doesn't mean they'll add Milwaukee or Washington D.C. or Honda or New Orleans or Byron Nelson or any number of other tournaments that go wanting for star power.

The WGC series is simply a money grab (and Tiger, if there's not cut involved, should playing in the event actually count as Making Another Cut? Please.)

Finchem should lose the WGC -- at least it would free up players to make their own minds without the strong-arming of the Tour. This way, perhaps there's the CHANCE that one day Mickelson or Woods would make an appearance at the Canadian Open, Turning Stone, Wyndham, etc.

[Bob]

"The WGC series is simply a money grab (and Tiger, if there's not cut involved, should playing in the event actually count as Making Another Cut? Please.)"


BenSeattle- why do you criticize Tiger for this? This is how the tour defines cuts made. (i.e if you don't "miss" a cut, then it counts as a cut made, even if there is no cut) Tiger doesn't create the criteria for stats. That is how it is applied for all players. Jeez. Do people just criticize Tiger for everything?

[Hawkeye]

A "designated tournament" rule is nothing but stupid and short-sighted. Right now, thera are about a dozen tournaments in the US that draw top-notch, world-class fields. The rest of the PGA Tour range from good to mediocre. If a "designated tournament" rule were introduced, the number of top-notch tournaments would actually decrease, since a few of them would undoubtedly be ones that Tiger and Phil would have to skip, and the status of the PGA Tour would be diminished in a world perspective. I don't think that's what they're looking for in Ponte Vedra.

[Tom]

Hawkeye, I agree about the designated tournament concept, but not about "Tiger and Phil would have to skip..." The designated tournament is not going to conflict with a major or WGC or FedExCup, and they already skip most of the rest. If they "have to skip" anything, it might be Tiger's occasional visits to Dubai or Kingston Heath, Phil's to Loch Lomond or HSBC. Those are the events whose status would be diminished, and those are not Tim Finchem's responsibility.

That said, I don't blame the players for not liking the designated tournament idea. The second-tier events still offer decent prize money (which IS Tim Finchem's responsibility) and with the top guns on vacation, the rest of the players have a better chance to win.

[GeorgeM]

QUESTION:
Since both Mickelson and Woods will be Life Members, will any participation requirement be enforceable?

[Hawkeye]

Tom, no way are they skipping any of their lucrative overseas journeys, many of which are tied into their sponsorship contracts. No, the likely victims are probably Quail Hollow, Bay Hill, Memorial and others of the current top-tier regular tour events.

[Hawkeye]

Tom (again): "Having to skip" doesn't have anything to do with conflicting events. Tiger plays max 20 tournaments a year worldwide, period (including team events). If he is forced to add to his current schedule, he'll drop something from it at the same time, and it will definitely be the US tournaments to which he isn't contractually bound that will go first (after the Ryder and Presidents Cup, of course).

[Tom]

Hawkeye, I see what you mean and I expect you are right. But I'd rather phrase it as "choose to skip" rather than "have to skip."

[Hawkeye]

Exactly!