"Nobody in the world’s going to want to take 70 million less."

With a contract expiring after next year's event, the PGA Tour has to be encouraged by today's comments from Deutsche Bank CEO's Seth Waugh:

“You can think of the golf tournament as a silly little thing in terms of what’s going on in the world,” Waugh said Wednesday, citing studies that put the economic impact of the Deutsche Bank Championship at $40 million to $70 million annually, “but these are the bricks that can build the economy back up. Nobody in the world’s going to want to take 70 million less.”

Bettors: The Annual Call For Unionizing PGA Tour!

I took over July 1 and based on Rex Hoggard's posting, I have a claim ticket to cash in!

What remains to be seen is how the new rule impacts play on Tour – most players didn’t think there will be a drastic adjustment but few have actually tested wedges with the new grooves – and how players will react to having their opinions brushed aside by the Tour.

“If Tim wanted a union, he’s got one now,” said one player who noted that a healthy cross section of the Tour was in favor of delaying the rule one year.

Of all the reasons to form a union and open up the books, this is the topic that got some guys worked up? Really?

"Over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch"

After giving a remarkably cogent explanation of the groove rule history--really, not jargon!--Commissioner Tim Finchem was asked this interesting question:

Q. Tim, the only manufacturing company that has objected publicly to the reinstitution of the V-grooves has been a golf ball company so far. Do you have any research indicating that the adoption of the V-grooves will somehow impact the performance of golf balls and therefore affect golf ball companies?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: With respect to companies, I've spent a lot of time talking to manufacturers as you might suspect over the last six weeks. They have different opinions among them on different aspects of the rule and equipment and where it should go and all those things.

You know, all I know is that with this change you're not going to be able to spin the ball as much out of the rough. There's some assumptions that players will as a result, maybe, in some instances, look for a ball that spins more generally. That's not necessarily the case in my view, but it's possible.

With respect to the manufacturer that objected, they were a party that recommended the delay. We looked at the request based on whether or not -- because one of the arguments made was there's not enough time to make the transition, and we primarily were looking at it from that perspective.

We also looked at it from the perspective of the timeline and the fairness issue of delaying after individuals and entities and companies had spent time, energy and resources reacting to the timeline. That was a major concern.

But in terms of how it develops, you know, that's something the players will sort out as they pick up the equipment. They go practice with it and then they make the adjustments that they feel like they need to.

Q. So just real quick, nobody presented you with any research indicating that there would be an impact on a specific golf ball product?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: No, no.

Hmmm...

This was particularly encouraging, but also in an peculiar roundabout way, an admission that course setup took on Draconian measures in response to technology changes:

Q. One more on grooves. Yesterday you said one of the challenges is the qualifiers and that you may look at possibly different rules for that. USGA and R & A are also looking at that. Are you likely to act in lockstep with them or will you act independently regarding rules on qualifiers? And on a different note, do you see with the new groove being implemented next year that course setups may evolve, possibly pin placements get a little more accessible?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Let me answer the second question first because it's more fun. Yes, we do. We have changed our rough heights this year at a number of golf courses and did some fairly meticulous analysis of what happened when we brought those rough heights down a little bit compared to earlier years, and the reason we did that was to set the stage for now measuring what happens on those same golf courses when we shift grooves.

So this will be a -- you're not going to see us revolutionize our setup the first month next year, but over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch from a variety of perspectives, and that would be helpful to us. So we're going to be -- we have more people, more energy, we have this wonderful ShotLink program that tells us everything, so we're going to really, I think, enjoy the process of doing some things differently and playing around with it.

PGA Tour Drug Testing Exposes Severe Performance Anxiety Issues

The buried lede in Leonard Shapiro's analysis of Tim Finchem's drug testing remarks was not this statement--"We may have had some test results that trouble us in other areas that we treat in a different bucket"--no, it's what Jim Furyk revealed.

He said he'd been tested at least three times during the last year, and the only problem with the program was that some players were initially unable to provide urine samples after they completed their rounds and were told they were being tested.

"I guess it's kind of humorous that some guys have had a hard time producing a sample," he said. "Guys have said 'I couldn't go, it took me two hours,' or guys have said, 'There were five people in front of me, so it took a long time.' But I haven't heard anyone really complaining other than the amount of time it takes."

They're human! Guys who can hit a little white ball 300 yards with ease as millions look on sometimes can't produce in front of five lab-coated scientists. I feel so much better about that time when I was 13 at Pauley Pavillion, and they only have two urinals in the entire freakin building and well, we won't go there.

By the way...five people? Really? No wonder this program costs so bloody much.

Here's what Finchem said when pressed about his distinction between no positive test results for one class of drugs.

Q. I just want to confirm, so you're saying there have been no positive tests, either recreational or performance enhancing --

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I didn't say that. I said we have had no positive tests with respect to performance enhancing. We may have had some test results that trouble us in other areas that we treat in a different bucket. But we don't publicize those. We treat those as conduct unbecoming.

We may in those instances -- I'm not saying this has happened or not, I'm just saying what the process is. If we get a test like that, we will consider it conduct unbecoming, and what are our choices? We can suspend a player, we can fine a player, we can do both of those and put a player into treatment. We could also add to that regular testing.

As I said last year, we have three kinds of testing. We have random testing, we have selective testing. That means we decide to test you because you haven't been tested for whatever reason. It's not random anymore. We're selecting you. And then we have regular testing. We have reason to believe that a player may be using an illegal substance or may have a substance problem and he's in a program and we want to test him. Or a player is playing under a TUE where he's allowed to have certain levels of a substance and we just test him on a regular basis because we want to make sure we get him the TUE, but you've got to play by the rules. So it takes on different forms.

With respect to conduct unbecoming, we don't announce that. With respect to performance enhancing, we would be announcing that.

Q. You can't confirm for us then that there has been any positive testing?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I wouldn't say yes or no to that, no. I'll say this: We don't have a problem in that area.

Got that?

How Finchem Got The Grooves Back

The grooves coverage features several intriguing tidbits.

Mike Stachura writing for GolfDigest.com, writing about industry reaction:

Others in the industry see no cause for alarm, however.

"We're very happy they took the decision to move forward," said Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer at TaylorMade. "The USGA had a pretty set schedule, and we have been working to develop solutions within the new rule, so there was no rational reason for us to want to postpone implementation for a year."

E. Michael Johnson talks to players and gets their take on how this will play out, including this from Ping man Ted Purdy, who is about to take delivery on conforming wedges that Ping didn't want to make:

"The game is hard as it is, to make it harder doesn't make a lot of sense to me," he said. "I think people want to see excitement. We'll evolve and we'll be fine and there will be great scores and great shots being hit. But I don't think this was the will of the majority of the players."

Golf.com's Rob Sauerhaft reminds us all that this will have little impact on the everyday game for some time.

How will the rule affect amateur and "casual" golfers? First, equipment companies can continue to sell current models with U-grooves through the end of 2010. Beyond that, the new regulation on conforming grooves will take effect for high-level amateurs in 2014 and for "casual" players in 2024.

That didn't stop Jeff Rude from complaining that this rule change is cruel to the average golfer. They're taking away their Oxycontin! (In 2024.)

If the PGA Tour wants to have its players use smaller-groove irons and wedges, fine. But leave the recreational golfer alone.

Isn’t the game hard and long enough? We’re going to make it harder for the masses in a few years (elite amateurs in 2014, the rest in 2024)? Doesn’t golf already have a difficult time keeping recreational players in the game? Isn’t the game hurting in most corners?

The theory is that reduction of the size of the current U-grooves and the sharpness of their edges would make playing from rough more difficult and, in turn, put a greater premium on driving accuracy and shotmaking.

That’s fine for the Tour, but not for you and me. We play for enjoyment (and today’s equipment makes the game more enjoyable than ever for the garden-variety amateur).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...