Finchem On Augusta: Too Important To Be Consistent With Our Anti-Discrimination Policies

/

Oh the comedy of listening to Tim Finchem answer questions about the PGA Tour's double standard on for-profit country club discrimination. Namely, Augusta National's refusal to admit women is okay because they are too important, but those other measely tour events at courses that discriminated against African Americans? Eh...

Doug Ferguson's first few graphs sum up the absurdity of Wednesday's Finchem "state of the tour" presser:

PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Wednesday the Masters is "too important" for the tour to take it off its official schedule, even though Augusta National has never had a female member in its 80-year history.

"We have concluded a number of times now — and we have certainly not moved off of this — that we are not going to give up the Masters as a tournament on our tour," Finchem said. "It's too important. And so at the end of the day, the membership of that club have to determine their membership. They are not doing anything illegal."

Finchem spoke at a news conference that featured The First Tee announcing a new corporate partner. The First Tee tries to attract kids of diverse backgrounds to golf.

Steve Elling summed up the irony/hypocrisy/absurdity of Finchem's stance Wednesday.

“We concluded -- we have concluded a number of times now and we have certainly not moved off of this -- that we are not going to give up the Masters as a tournament on our tour,” Finchem said Wednesday. “It's too important.”

Speaking at his annual press confab at the Players Championship, Finchem moments later welcomed two men of African-American descent to the dais to discuss the national First Tee program, which was founded in 1997 to bolster -- get this -- the number of minorities in the game.

Oh, the levels of irony, huh?

I'm pretty sure any dreams the Commish had of a cabinet appointment in the next administration (Obama or Romney!) went out the window with today's comments. Well, there's always PV for you, Commish!

Here is the full question and answer from the transcript:

Q.  With Augusta National's all‑male membership again an issue at this year's Masters, how does the PGA TOUR view its discriminatory policy?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Well, I think the position of the PGA TOUR hasn't changed.  We have a policy that says that when we go out and do a co‑sanctioned event, we are going to play it at a club that is as open to women members, open to minority members, etc., and we follow that policy carefully.

In the case of the Masters, we concluded‑‑ we have concluded a number of times now, and we have certainly not moved off of this; that we are not going to give up the Masters as a tournament on our tour.  It's too important.  And so at the end of the day, the membership of that club have to determine their membership.  They are not doing anything illegal.

But we just elect to continue to recognize them as an official money event on the PGA TOUR because we think it's that important to golf, so we don't get to determining whether their policies are right or wrong, because we don't have to, because we made the conclusion that regardless of those policies, we are going to continue to play and recognize them as part of the PGA TOUR.

I know some people don't like that position, and I appreciate that and I understand their reasoning, but that's the decision we've made.

Finchem: Penalities, Schmenalties...Slow Play's Only A Problem For Everyday Game

/

I did an informal poll of players at The Players and asked what question they'd most like to have me ask Commissioner Tim Finchem during his 2012 Players "state of the tour" presser. Slow play on the tour won in a landslide and the Commissioner Denial didn't disappoint!

Let's go to the tape...

Q.  Top players like Luke Donald have said that they believe slow play is killing their sport, our sport.  Do you feel an urgency at all to address slow play, and do you feel the TOUR has an obligation to set an example for the game when it comes to pace of play?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  You know, as long as I've been in the game, this has been a constant discussion.  There really isn't any difference.

No, just about an hour more tacked on to the round. That's all. Go on...

A lot of people look at the deliberate nature of the way we play the game at the TOUR level and relate that to when somebody says it's impacting the game negatively, they are referring to the amateur or average player making a determination whether they want to play golf if it takes me X long to play. 

Now if you look at my question, I tried to help the Commish by mentioning Luke Donald's name, but he didn't take the hint and I'm guessing he's not a big Twitter guy. So for the Commish: here are Luke's comments, most definitely not directed away from the tour, or, TOUR level.

After bellowing on about his preferences for fast play at the "club" level (he's sooo in touch with the everyday game he only mentioned club golf multiple times), Commissioner Fast Play got to the legitimate argument about field size...

When we put 156 people on the golf course, they are not going to play in four hours, typically.

Now, when we cut, on the weekend, and we go to, let's say we have got 70 and ties and we are at 74, then we are playing, what, if we play in twos, we are probably playing in 3:45.

These are the same guys that played on Thursday and Friday.  These are the same guys that are showing the same deliberation.  But when you put that many people on a golf course, that's just not going to happen.

On a Pro‑Am day when you play four amateurs and a professional and now you're five, you're playing a good Pro‑Am at 5 1/2.  We elect to continue to do that because we want that many people playing in the Pro‑Am, and it's kind of a different experience, anyway.

We are all ears to suggestions to help make the game of golf either faster, or funner; that's the way I refer to it.  Can we make it faster; can we make it funner?

Yes, make it faster! Keep the fields large.

And Jack Nicklaus addressed this at Augusta.  He said we architects‑‑ all of us in golf are to blame.  Architects are at the top of the list; we made the golf courses too difficult.  If it ain't much fun and it's slow to play, that's not what we're looking for.

Anything we can do from‑‑ we reach all of the fans.  Anything we can do from a communications standpoint to encourage people playing faster, we will do.  But clubs have got to take the initiative to drive play, and the average player has got to take the initiative and say, guys, let's go out here and play in three hours and 45 minutes, and that doesn't happen too many places.

So if I'm watching‑‑ I'm giving you a long answer, but I've been talking about this for a long time.  If I'm watching a PGA TOUR player, and I'm going to go through the same pre‑shot routine that that player takes, and he's hitting it 69 times and I'm hitting it 93, I'm going to be playing a lot longer than that guy.  So it's a different game from that perspective.

Again, this is not a PGA Tour problem. Well, kind of since it's their routines setting a bad example. So...which is it Tim?

And if you notice our players, they move; they don't want to be on the clock. 

Except Webb. And Ben. And Zach. And...

They hit a shot and they move.  But there are different variables out here at this level and we measure it pretty carefully.

One thing we are sensitive to is a player who is slow and as such impacts his fellow competitor, which is a different thing from how long it takes to play.  That results in some counseling, and we have had good success with counseling.

Counseling!

But I don't think PGA TOUR golf is the culprit here.  I think the culprit is taking steps to drive the pace of play for the average player, and if we can be helpful in that regard, we're open to it.

Q.  The USGA has a pace of play system they have implemented in all their championships except the U.S. Open, and they feel they need the TOUR to implement a similar system with penalty shotsfor them to be able to introduce it to the U.S. Open.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  I actually think we might want to experiment with penalty shots.  But I don't think penalty shots make a difference to be honest with you.

Experiment with them? Pssssst Tim. You have slow play rules you don't enforce. Are you saying you don't believe in the rules in place? Not a big rules guy these days?

Conceptually it makes sense.  If you're going to put a couple of shots on a guy, it's going to make him play faster.  But that's not the culprit.  The slow player, even though we have some slow players, is the system that's creating what you're seeing on television.

In today's world, we go to a golf course like we just left in California, Poppy Hills, and you've got like three drivable 5s and a drivable 4, and with a full field in our tournament, you're going to back up. 

I'm sorry, Poppy Hills? Last played in 2010? That Poppy Hills? Go on...

People are going to wait.  That's just the way it is.  The only way, we have to have smaller fields.

Now, you have players on our TOUR who would say, yes, we do; let's have them.  Let's put 130 players out there, 122 players.  At Augusta, they get nervous if you are going over a hundred players.  And let's have a good pace of play.

We elect not to do that, because as much as we like to see a stronger pace of play, the playing opportunities for the number of players we have had are more important, and we'll generate the playing opportunities first and take our lumps second.  It's as simple as that.

At least he was honest in that last part. It's as simple as that.

Four Greens at TPC San Antonio To Be Rebuilt

/

Golf World Monday's Ron Sirak notes the Valero Texas Open's inability to draw a field and the TPC San Antonio's AT&T Oaks Course, which was 50th of 53 in the Golf World player survey, appears to be the problem. He reports that four greens will be rebuilt and the unplayable lies just out of play will need to be addressed.

When Greg Norman and Pete Dye were selected to design the 36 holes at San Antonio, a policy board member famously suggested budgeting for the inevitable post-opening redo. Wonder if the Commissioner listened? Wait, what was I thinking. I'm sorry for wasting that last 15 seconds of your time.

Story To Watch: Finchem, KB Home And Executive Compensation

/

Reader Stuart pointed out that the Law Firm of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP has launched an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board of Directors of KB Home in connection with executive compensation. The national firm has done this before, including in several court-appointed instances.

PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem sits on the KB Home board and has already avoided one potentially awkward scrape with angry shareholders over compensation committee work that approved a $9 million package to CEO Jeffrey Mezger during a year the company lost $1.41 billion.

Finchem was appointed to the KB Home board in 2005. Major League Baseball's Bud Selig is the only other commissioner to serve on a corporate board while also overseeing a professional sport.

Finchem's 2009 compensation of $4.7 million earned grumbling and snickers at a 2010 player meeting. Only about a quarter of that pay is salary, the rest a product of performance bonuses tied to "growing" the tour.

Compared to his PGA Tour compensation, Finchem's income from KB Home is minor, according to Forbes.

In late 2009 it was revealed that as executives received annual raises, Finchem instituted a series of layoffs in several departments and froze the employees 401k program.

"We make all these changes so that the season ends before football starts, now we're back competing against football again?"

/

The Ponte Vedra Pravda talks only to players who just love the new Q-School/Nationwide Tour plan announced Tuesday and comedically fails to acknowledge any of the dissenters. This is the only article Commissioner Reality Distortion Field will want to read. He should not look at the comments on PGATour.com, which are running 2-to-1 against the changes with some really interesting questions posed by readers.

Randall Mell was the toughest on the overhaul and may want to keep an extra close eye on the carver at the Commissioner's Pig Roast this May.

It’s like taking a wrecking ball to Fenway Park.

Or Wrigley Field.

A fixture rich with lore and tradition was quietly leveled Tuesday with the PGA Tour making official its plans to overhaul how its season will begin and end and how it will award PGA Tour cards.

Steve Elling wasn't as melodramatic but raised just as many uncomfortable questions.

Finchem, fresh from the board meeting at the nearby Ritz-Carlton, brought in several pages of notes, which is not often a good sign, since he can extemporaneously wing it with the best of them. He's a filibuster in wing tips. But this time, he was armed to the teeth with talking points for the spin offensive. He needed the armaments, because some major change is coming, some of it obliterating a half-century of tour culture.

There was also this from J.B. Holmes:

"So, we're going to end the season in September, then basically start it again a week later?" said veteran J.B. Holmes. "We make all these changes so that the season ends before football starts, now we're back competing against football again?

"Dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can quote me on that."

Bob Harig quotes Davis Love, who may regret these remarks should his McGladrey Classic get only 50% FedExCup points:

"Change is hard. Like when we did the FedEx Cup, there was a lot of talk, why are we changing something that's working. But to get to where we need to be, I think it's all good.''

Garry Smits says how this all works, is "not real complicated." If that was the case, why wasn't the system revealed after all of the work that's gone into it?

It's not real complicated. The top-75 on the Nationwide Tour money list join Nos. 126-200 on the PGA Tour FedEx Cup points list and play three tournaments. The seeding and whether the events will use money or points is yet to be determined but the top-50 get their Tour cards for the next season.

Yes, that won't be complicated!

And now to the transcript of the Commissioner's sitdown, which featured some respectful but tough questioning that the Commissioner handled well initially. But his logic disintegrated a bit as the proceedings dragged on.

His logic on how this impacts college golf, early in the presser:

What's changed is that the degree to which you can manage that is expanded, because in today's world, to manage that, you've got to get sponsor exemptions and get into the 125. In this new arrangement, you have to get sponsorships, but you only have to get into the top 200. And then you have a shot in the finals. So that's the first part of my answer.

Of course this ignores that those exemptions must first happen, and happen in a window of about seven weeks with the U.S. Open wedged in there. This, assuming that a player stays in school and competes in the NCAA Championships, a pretty strong likelihood if we're talking about true tour caliber golfers. That is, unless he quits school early, or never goes to college at all, both realities in the face of the new proposal.

Secondly, I would just point out that the number of players on average the last ten years who have come out of college, gone to Qualifying School and got their card is about 1.4 per year. So we'll see how that expanded access through the finals works, but it may be zero change. But certainly there is an Avenue there. It's just a different kind of avenue.

Yes, it's called, European Tour Here I Come!

Q. And lastly, I hope this is more philosophical than detail oriented, if you are making the Nationwide the pathway to the PGA TOUR and a guy completes the Nationwide season in the Top 20 or 25, what would preclude him from just getting his card without having to go through? Hasn't he done all the work at that point?

That would be the season long body-of-work argument used against Q-School...which doesn't hold up when the dreaded "R" word is used:

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Well, you're talking about if we end up with a seeding process that guarantees a player a card early without competing, is that what you're talking about? Well, if we end up there, you're still incentivized to play, because you're in the reshuffle. So you want the highest possible finish.

The reshuffle. Not a very free-market driven concept, is it? Ah, but what do these guys care about the free market!

Q. Are you close on a title for the Nationwide?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: We are in discussions with several different companies, and close might not be the right word.

That's encouraging. What sponsor wouldn't want to take the chance of becoming a verb? "What happened Bobby Joe, you finished tenth on the money list then missed your last three cuts and are headed back to the Nationwide Tour? "Well, I got Hyundai'd."

Here's where the Commish really dug himself into a corner. He was asked about the possible impact official fall FedExCup points might have on the West Coast Swing and launched into his on the backs of energetic new talent.

I think the fans clearly are demonstrating that what they want to see and be covered are good, young players, because like what they are watching, and that's what's driving the interest we are seeing in the tremendous ratings bump we have had this year. And it's not about this young player or that young player; the research we have done is, it's about the young players coming up. That's really a change from a focus on a small number of players.

So the young players coming up are fueling excitement, yet just about everything about this proposal speaks to delaying their arrival?

This next argument sounds a little silly considering the current clubhouse leader for rookie of the year never played the Nationwide Tour.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Well, it's an awkward system, but we are not changing the Qualifying School. The Qualifying School is staying there. It just means something else. It means Nationwide Tour. I think the real question is, why would we be comfortable with that, and the reason we are comfortable with that is that we, the PGA TOUR, benefits a lot from a player going to the Nationwide Tour. He's a better player. He's better able to compete. If he's a player with personality and other ways to contribute, he's going to have a better chance to stay out here for a longer period of time.

I can't fathom how he feels this is a good idea. No other sport does this…for a reason:

Again, I think bringing the season to a conclusion and then setting, reloading quickly, and going out with players just having earned their card is a great way to do it. Because we just turned the corner, we got the fans's interest, we finished the season, Player of the Year is named, we are off and running two weeks later. We have a bunch of rookies in the hunt and down the road we go.

The notion that such a turnaround will create the best possible "product" defies any and all common sense, not to mention will wear everyone involved with the tour out. Especially since, as J.B. noted, the current system was set up to end the season sooner, give players opportunities overseas or to rest, and to give fans some downtime to get refreshed.

On that note, the most palatable video clip of the Commissioner that the PGA Tour Productions staff could muster up:

Commish Reality Distortion Field: "A lot of support for" Schedule, Q-School Changes.

/
Someone actually asked Tim Finchem during a Waste Management Open stop-in if the 18th at Torrey Pines was unfair Sunday because a guy using poor judgement and juicy grooves spun a ball back into the lake. The Commish handled the question well before moving on to lots of euphemisms (schedule flow!) to discuss the controversial plan to change Q-School and turn the tour schedule into a year-round.
Read More