Finchem: Sponsors Wanted To See "A closer relationship" Between PGA Tour And Nationwide Tour
At least the Commish was honest about the reason for the convoluted, as-yet-determined PGA Tour playoff system that will replace Q-School in 2013. It was a business decision. I would have been worried if he thought this was a better way to graduate players or to sift through the 126-and-beyond players to form the strongest possible tour each year.
The transcript of Wednesday's Web.com announcement is here, if you have a few hours to read through the introductory remarks of Brown and Finchem.
The central question was asked about the new PGA Tour qualifying process, and out of it we learn that it sounds like Web.com came along only recently. And more impressively, the honest answer that this new fall finish/playoff for livelihoods was driven by the sponsors and is not necessarily what is best for feeding players to the PGA Tour. At least the Commish admitted the sponsors drove him to this.
TIM FINCHEM: I agree. I don't have much to add to that. We were way down the road before these discussions began. I think because of the things that David said, though, that going forward the way the structure will be starting next year is more of an integration with the PGA TOUR, which is kind of what prior sponsors of this TOUR have always talked about. They'd like to see a closer relationship. David saw that given the restructure, and it's something that'll be part of where this TOUR is now.
But these negotiations had little to do with the direction of the restructure. This has been going on for 16 months.
Worse, check out the options for the new PGA Tour-Web.com season ending playoff at this point, as outlined by Doug Ferguson in his story today.
In one model, the top 15 players from the Web.com Tour would start the three-tournament series with whatever money they earned that year. It would be enough money to guarantee their cards. Everyone else would start from scratch, meaning 35 cards would be up for grabs.
Make $800k on the PGA Tour playing against Tiger and Rory, and start from scratch against guys who were playing against weaker fields. Yes, that makes sense.
In the second model, the top 25 players from the Web.com Tour would be guaranteed their cards. They would join the others in the three-tournament series, with everyone starting from scratch, so only 25 cards would be at stake. The only thing the top 25 players from the Web.com Tour could lose, even if they missed every cut, would be their priority ranking for getting into tournaments.
Oh fans can really wrap their arms around that one!
Let's face it, we'll never figure this one out. And that's just the way the algorithm writers like it. Unfortunately, sports fans don't like their competitions decided by beancounters.
Steve DiMeglio includes some eye-opening comments from Web.com CEO David Brown about his business.
"But we believe that mass adoption of the internet by small businesses is happening now, so now we think it's time to strike. We looked through all the different opportunities, and we felt that the PGA Tour was the best opportunity not only to create a voice in the marketplace but to create a positive voice. That professionalism, that integrity, that dedication that is associated with PGA Tour, that's what we are, as well. And we want that to rub off on us as we build our brand in the marketplace."
I'm sorry, is it 2005 again?
And the video:
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Reader Comments (27)
Stories will soon be told, that there used to be a time when if you had the game, guts and gonads, there was a way you could get to the show in just 14 rounds.
There are already clear definitions of what status you have earned regardless of who you played against. One solution would be to guarantee a number of cards to the NWT money list and then re-set everyone. Give the players who finished 126-150 and 26-40 a money, or dare I say points, bonus that is the equivalent of an exemption to final stage of q-school. See simple.....
Either throw em all into the playoff at zero, or dont have a playoff.
Help
John
There is no real equitable solution to this problem with the numbers they are proposing. The solution (IMNSHO) lies in lowering the number of PGA Tour players who remain exempt; I'd like to see the players ranked 110 and higher go fight it out for their cards....because really, lets be honest, WTF is the difference between the 110th player's season compared to #125's and higher? It's basically one or two made cuts and an extra top-20 or 30 finish.
I thought Nationwide was the sponsor through 2012? Any help? Geoff, I am unable to read the manifesto- was this addressed?
aside/ unsure if you elected not to post my catty post ( on the original Web. com thread you started)relating to Tim/ former sponsor problems, or if I failed to hit ''submit''- did you delete it? just curious.
Lastly- Speaking of commercials- the ''compass/towing an iceberg'' commercial has an unreadable font size for the company, And the mumble mouth announcer may be totally understandable in his local pub, but other than one, maybe 2 sentences, he is un-understandable.
BTW I want to know what happens to players (and there are a few most yrs) who finish in the top 125 in fed ex pts, but aren't in top 125 in $$ at start of play-offs, and vice versa.
He wanted to drop the 125 number to 100. He wanted to increase the Nationwide Tour to 50 cards a year. He wanted to retain Q-School with 25 cards available.
That's 175 players with access.
Status of players: Top 100 fully exempt from Pga Tour. Top 25 out of 50 off Nationwide Tour fully exempt. 26-50 off Nationwide Tour conditional. 25 off PGA Tour 101-125 conditional. 25 from Q-School conditional.
There are a number of reshuffles during the course of the year on the PVA Tour which reranks the conditional players based on money earned. Let's say there are 8 reshuffles during the course of the year. 26-50 off previous years Nationwide tour exempt from first 4-reshuffles because of their finish on Nationwide Tour previous year having the most weight.
The playoff that everyone keeps wanting to produce should be between 101-125 off last years PGA Tour and the 25 getting through Q-School. These 50 players playing for 25 conditional cards on the PGA Tour and the second 25 playing the Nationwide Tour after the playoff concludes.
The playoffs would be between 101-125 and top 25 finishers from Q-School. The 101-125 category as well as a top 25th spot from Q-School would only qualify both players for the playoff that would determine the last 25 spots with conditional status for the PGA Tour the following year. 101-125 would have a chance to retain some PGA TOUR status...and a top 25 from Q-School would have a chance at PGA Status the next year as well. If either player fails in the playoffs then they would be playing the Nationwide Tour the next year regardless.
This scamario doesn't relegate a player from "having" to play the Nationwide Tour "only".
For the first time in my life I find myself agreeing with Johnny Miller, never thought I'd ever say that. LoL's
If the sponsors of the Nationwide Tour want to see a closer relationship between the two Tours Johnny Miller seems to have found the solution. As someone said earlier the difference between 110 and 125 is maybe one extra top 20 finish and there can't be much more difference between 100 and 125. Reducing this number opens up the tail end of the PGA Tour and creates more emphasis on the top 100 PGA Tour players, while giving the title sponsors of the Nationwide Tour what they want. Miller's idea also creates a place for 101-125 off the PGA Tour Money list a place to play the next year, guaranteed.
I could see PGA TOUR players throwing a fit about giving up 25 spots to this but there is another way of looking at it. If the Nationwide Tour increased purses to say $1-million per event, provided Golf Channel coverage to a good number of Nationwide Tour events, came up with an extra major besides the Tour Championship, the players playing the Nationwide Tour could see an increase in endorsement possibilities. All kinds of great things could happen for the Nationwide Tour over time.
Think of it this way elf. The real emphasis to Johnny's suggestions is that 125 is too many to exempt. The emphasis would be to finish Top 100 each year, not lingering between 100-125 for 5,7,10 years as has been the case with a number of good players, not great players. Lingering at the back of the money list for years doesn't do "Either" Tour any good. Possibly the player lingering back there only needs one thing, a couple wins on the Nationwide Tour to boost his belief in himself so that he's better prepared to win, and believes he can win on the PGA Tour when he gets his chance.
You don't think 49th off the Nationwide Tour deserves a chance? I would view it differently by saying 101 off the PGA Tour had his chance, he created it all by himself, but he didn't finish Top 100. No harm no foul, through Johnny's suggestions he can retain some status the next year through the playoff, albeit, it would be conditional status where he might not get into an event until June, and where he would have to play excellent right away to reshuffle. In the mean time he would be playing the Nationwide Tour.
49th off the Nationwide Tour would have created his opportunities to have a crack at the Top 100, probably his very first crack at it, but he's earned that foe himself too.
By making the PGA Tour more competitive, doesn't it make the Nationwide Tour more competitive as well? Isn't that what spectators want to see?
I don't have a problem with saying there are to many exempt players and limiting it to 100, I do have a problem with essentially saying the 49th player on the NTW tour ha a better year and deserves more of a chance on the pga tour then the guy who finished 101 on the big tour.
You seem overly concerned about 101 vs. 49th. At the very least nobody under this scenario (101) would be Exiled to the Nationwide Tour. And Q-School participants wouldn't be relegated for a year on Nationwide Tour Duty.
126-150 has conditional status now as it is. Under this proposal 101 would have to play further in retaining this status. And who would he be playing against to retain his status? Monday qualifiers from the previos year that got through Q-School, 51-100 off Nationwide Tour that had to go back to Q-School and finish 25th or better, college graduates like Cantly that would have to go to Q-School and finish 25th to make the playoffs? 101 off the PGA Tour extended money list would be exempt to the playoffs...everyone else making up the next 25 would have to go to Q-School. 101 would be playing the next year regardless, which might be the Nationwide Tour. BUT, 101 will have had two chances to stay on the PGA Tour, finish Top 100 or retain status by getting one of the 25 spots available in the Play Offs. So he's had two chances to keep playing the PGA Tour to everyone else have one shot at it.
I think Rocket Ballz makes a good point of raising purses on the Nationwide Tour. A player playing for $4.5 - $5.5 is stigmatised with the realisation of playing in a $500,000 event....that is certainly too far to fall, especially if he has a family to provide for. The Nationwide Tour is a great place for a 20 something single out of college type player money wise, but for an established player like John Daly and Rich Beemer, we mave be able to retain their services on the Nationwide Tour vs. losing them to a European Tour event by simply raising purses on the Nationwide Tour. The Nationwide Tour sponsors would love to have John Daly and Rich Beemer in their Sponsor Pro-Am on Wednesday, are you kidding! If it takes bumping those purses to $1 million to accomplish that then it needs to be done.
The last point I would make to you els is this: these two Tours are all about eyeballs, as in eyeballs glued to their TV sets. The PGA Tour reducing it's exempt number to 100 will still retain the same amount of eyeballs week in and week out. Increasing the number of eyeballs glued to TV sets ensures that the Title Sponsors of the Nationwide Tour are getting the exposure/VALUE that they feel is necessary to justify their commitment/$PON$OR$HIP.
I want to see the Commissioner take two steps back this time and really listen to what the players want. Q-School with the only avenue being the Nationwide Tour first is not what the players on either Tour wants, and the majorities of players on both Tours have said as much.
I think I've got this. Your saying
PGA Tour Top 100 fully exempt.
Last years 1-25 off Nationwide Tour fully exempt.
Last years 26-50 Conditional, but exempt through first 4-Reshuffles.
Last years Top 25 Play Off advancers conditional with reshuffle.
That's 175 with access as it stands right now.
Play Offs:
101-125 PGA Tour exempt to Play Offs
51-100 Nationwide Tour exempt to final stage Q-School
Q-School still takes place with 25 spots.
Back To Playoffs:
101-125 PGA Tour exempt
Top 25 from Q-School
3-tournaments for 25 conditional spots on PGA Tour
The next 25 become fully exempt on Nationwide Tour following year.
Brillant!!
"Under that scenario it is better to finish 49th on nationwide tour than 101 on pga tour"
I'm not so sure, what did 101st earn last year on the PGA Tour compared to what 49th earned while playing the Nationwide Tour?
On the brighter side: say 101 doesn't get one of the 25 conditional spots during the playoffs. Are we suppose to fear he can't finish top 50 the next year on the Nationwide Tour? And by making the Top 25 finishers off the Nationwide Tour fully exempt on the PGA Tour the following year, doesn't that provide a huge incentive for 101-125 to show up and play, after all it's for a fully exempt card?!?!
The sure way to see this happen is to bump Nationwide Tour purses to $1-Million
This format would put more emphasis on the Top 100 of the PGA Tour while providing Nationwide Title Sponsors a more compelling season to follow, especially with there being 25 fully exempt PGA Tour spots to play for.
At the end of the day the numbers work out to 175 players having access to the PGA Tour while making the PGA Tour and Nationwide Tour more competitive. The other up side to this format, no player would be relegated to playing the Nationwide Tour for a mandatory year.
Hey, a man can dream...
Personally, I'd be happy if fully exempt were capped at 100, then 25 spots to top 25 on NTW tour. After that some form of play-off q-school or whatever for everyone else. 26-50 can fight it out with 101-150 on previous yrs tour, and hopefully some international, and just turned pro players, see who is better.
@P "I think the issue you and I have is a philosophical diff on who should be on PGA Tour"
I would have to agree with you, we are both looking at this from two different points of view. Some people, and I don't know if your one of them, seem to think the Nationwide Tour is a place to experiment. Like for example giving a Big Break contestant 5 starts without being a member. Or for example co-sanctioning a few events with the Australia-Asian Tour, where their members suddenly appear on the Nationwide Tour money list without being members, and suddenly reshuffling in front of the members who gained their memberships through q-School, which technically could be argued is a restriction of trade.
I have a question for you. In your words (AAA golf, Developmental Tour) would you consider Lee Janzen playing the Nationwide Tour this week in Indiana to be in the early stages of development? Philosophically speaking, I personally would not consider Lee Janzen (Two time US Open Champion) a AAA player nor a developmental player.
If you made the Top 25 players off the Nationwide Tour next year fully exempt on the PGA Tour the next year it is my belief that you would see more players like (Daly-Beem-Jantzen) playing for those 25 spots. What would this do for the Nationwide Tour platform (And a Tour Commissioner looking to sign a 10 year Title Sponsor agreement) if you create an incentive for Highly Accomplished players like Lee to show up consistently playing Nationwide Tour events. If you were the Presenting Sponsor like Price Cutter Charity Championship, who would you want in your Wednesday sponsor pro-am, the winner of last years Big Break,or the 1993-1998 US Open Champion?
elf, you've peeked my curiosity. Which players in your best estimation should be playing the Champions Tour?
How do you go to Nationwide Tour presenting sponsors and say we need you to raise the purse $100,000 next year, and the Sponsor says how do I do it, how do I justify it?? The Nationwide Tour platform is suppose to raise the presenting sponsor and tour title sponsors platforms. The presenting sponsors have pro-ams to fill. How does he raise his platform and fill his pro-am with people like you espousing the Nationwide Tour is AAA golf, or it's a developmental tour? That kind of rhetoric must do wonders for the Tour title sponsor and presenting sponsors platforms just a whole world of good?
You can want, want, want in one hand, and guess what your going to end up with in the other hand?
The is definitely not elf speaking, but nor would I. More like a former all-star who gets sent to Columbus or Pawtucket to see if he can still play. Since he apparently cannot stay in the Top-125 in the Major Leagues, he is lucky to have a place to play, period. Given that Lee is tied for first after the second round, maybe this means he hasn't lost his fast ball...I see that his average measured drive this week has traveled 305 yards. But maybe not. That puts him in a tie for 88th place. Sheesh. Ball go too far.
That's exactly what it is, Viz. They play in smaller markets for a fraction of the Bigs' money/amenitities. That's no knock on the talent, that's just the way it is.
I haven't followed this thread all that closely but I'll weigh-in anyway...
I don't care who plays the Champions Tour - I would watch a high school candlepin bowling match before I would watch a round of Champions Tour golf.
As for comparing Lee Janzen to a Big Break winner - well, I see Tommy Gainey with 8 more top-10s and 11 more top-25s in 2011/2012 than Lee Janzen has. So, thanks for everything Lee and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Also, you've mentioned John Daly a couple times -- he's that guy that sells t-shirts at The Masters each year, right?