"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.

"Other players have reportedly received TUEs. Why?"

Doug Barron continues to make a convincing case for a Therapeutic Use Exemption while raising questions about the tour's desire to single him out.

I played four Nationwide events early in 2009 and was never tested (I think because officials knew about my condition). In June, I received a sponsor's exemption to the Tour's St. Jude Classic. As the tournament approached, I was so depleted I could hardly get out of bed, so I took a shot of testosterone. I knew I was tempting fate.

I shot 72 in the first round, and was then asked to supply a urine sample. Last November, I was notified that I'd tested positive. I was suspended and blocked from Q school. I planned to appeal, but commissioner Tim Finchem, the sole arbiter in such cases, told me I'd never win.

Other players have reportedly received TUEs. Why? What are their levels and what are they taking? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but one Tour round, one drug test, for a guy with a widely known issue, didn't feel right. Was I being made an example?

Of course. But why is the question that will inevitably be answered in court. And we know how well that worked out last time.

"Tour should rethink its aversion to controversy"

I have a column in this week's Golf World that I just know Tim Finchem will be making copies of and distributing to his VP's with a big Post-It note attached, with the words "Maybe if you read this backwards it makes sense, Coterminously Yours, Tim."