Playing Havoc With Their Games

/

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing players complain about Denver's altitude messing with their games. From Anthony Cotton's story on the International's demise:

Also, PGA players have long spoken of the difficultly (SP) in adjusting to a golf ball traveling farther in Colorado's thin air, which then plays havoc with their games when they return to sea-level events.

"Whenever you have golfers making decisions they don't want to make, golf is a better game to watch."

/

From Geoff Ogilvy's WGC Match Play defending champion press conference:

Q. Is there such thing as a good match play course? And if so, what elements go into making a good match play course?

GEOFF OGILVY: I guess there probably are good courses for match play courses. Four par 5s that people can get to. If there's holes that people have to make decisions, it's going to a good match play course because there might be a guy who might want to lay it up on a par 5, and if his opponent has pulled a 3-wood and hits it on the green then he has to go for the green. I mean that sort of stuff; it's interesting, whereas if it's just an obvious everyone lays it up and everyone hits the same shots all day, then it's not going to create the excitement and the decisions.

The funnest part about golf is watching us struggle with the decision whether to go over the water or not go over the water, should I go for it or not go for it, then go for it. That's the funnest part about watching golf, isn't it? If you've got four par 5s that you can reach and two par 4s that you can drive it on, then you've got decisions. It's nice to have a few holes like that, but this one you're going to have more holes like that I'd suggest. Whenever you have golfers making decisions they don't want to make, golf is a better game to watch.

 

A Battlefield Defection

/

Thanks to Four-putt for that header. You shoulda been a writer. Oh wait, you are.

So, does everyone see what I'm reading here, no International in 2007, either? Wow.

MEDIA ADVISORY – THE INTERNATIONAL

PLEASE JOIN PGA TOUR COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM AND JACK A. VICKERS FOR A PRESS CONFERENCE REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL.

MR. FINCHEM AND MR. VICKERS WILL ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL, STAGED AT CASTLE PINES GOLF CLUB SINCE 1986, WILL NO LONGER REMAIN AS PART OF THE PGA TOUR SCHEDULE, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

"It would be cool if Mickelson touched a club every once in a during the offseason"

/

From the Not's side of Alan Shipnuck's Hot/Not column, which also includes nice jabs at Walter Driver and NBC.

2. Phil Mickelson  Hey, I love Italy, too, and it sounds like fun to renew your wedding vows in Bora Bora, and who wouldn't want to hang out in Cabo overseeing the construction of a golf course? But in between all the goofing off and myriad corporate diversions, it would be cool if Mickelson touched a club every once in a during the offseason, thus sparing us having to watch him treat the West Coast swing like spring training for the apathetic.

 

Payne: Bringing Back "Win-and-you're in" (Maybe)

/

Doug Ferguson sits down with new Augusta National Chairman Billy Payne and manages to wrestle one bit of news out of him:

Payne wants to restore starting in 2008 the eligibility criteria that PGA Tour winners receive an automatic invitation to the Masters. Johnson did away with the category after the '99 Masters when the Tour began scheduling events – usually with weak fields – the same week as the World Golf Championships and the Ryder Cup or Presidents Cup.

But bringing back the "win-and-you're in'' category is not that simple.
Should the Masters recognize winners from opposite-field events in Mexico, Milwaukee and Reno, not to mention the seven events after the FedEx Cup?

Hey, what about PGA Tour events played against European Tour events with much better fields? Oh, sorry. Continue... 

And does it continue to take the top 40 on the PGA Tour money list or the top 30 in the FedEx Cup? Or both?

"There's a lot of arithmetic in this,'' Payne said. "What you don't want is all of a sudden to have 100 playing participants, and we have arguably eroded the quality of the tournament. Notwithstanding folks' opinion of how the best way to get there is, we're going to do the best we can.''
His goal is to keep the field around 90 players, and "anything that puts that number at significant threat has got an uphill battle.''

"When a smart person...sees what we've done"

/

I'm a bit behind on my reading, but yesterday's beach weather afforded the chance to finally power flip through the Golf Digest Hot List as a seal frollicked before me. I managed to weed through the Hot List spread in 7 seconds, but before I got to Belt and Gulag's must flip-through project, I did enjoy the laughs from Jaime Diaz's Golf Digest piece on the FedEx Cup.

First, here's a solid entry for the corporatespeak file...

The shortened schedule, says Sean McManus, president of CBS Sports and CBS News, "takes a fair amount of inventory out of the network marketplace, which is healthy for CBS and NBC.

Healthy for ABC too, apparently.

And this was nice from the Commissioner:

"When a smart person--whether it's a player, a sponsor, a television executive or a fan--sees what we've done," Finchem says, "they nod their head and say, ‘This makes sense.'"

Translation: only dumb people fail to get the FedEx Cup.

And less funny but quite astute was this from Larry Thiel, the International's director who was talking about the FedEx Cup overshadowing individual tournament sponsors.

Through just a few weeks, he's looking prophetic:

"The other thing is that when we sell a sponsor, that sponsor is to receive all the branding and all the positive reinforcement of being a part of the event," Thiel says. "I think that when it's all said and done, all we're ever going to hear about is the FedEx Cup. So I would be fearful if I were one of those three tournaments that my title sponsor would get lost in the shuffle."

Golf Digest 50 Toughest...

/

...Courses For Couples To Play Without Bickering?

No, they haven't gone that far yet in Wilton. This time, it's a retro list of the toughest 50 courses, so says Jerry Tarde.

According to the story:

This is not a scientific or even definitive ranking. It's our list of layouts that have battered and bruised us, ruined our scorecards and made us want to weep.

Translation: we editors decided not to use the "Resistance To Scoring" category because our panel is clueless.  

Here's the list, starting with Kiawah in the #1 spot.  

USGA, The Corporation

/

Well now that the USGA has officially gone all corporate on us, (treat yourself here and here for great lessons in business 101), this raises a few of those pesky questions that shareholders like to ask.

Because looking at the latest annual report a few things jump out about the uh, "business model" in 2006. And since I can't find a message from Treasurer Missy Crisp explaining the red ink, I guess we'll have to draw some conclusions here.

As Frank Hannigan first reported on this web site (and as the golf publications have not even apparently noticed), the USGA lost an unprecedented $6.1 million in 2006 after netting $2.3 million in '05, so we're looking at an $8.4 million turnaround in the wrong direction. A few of the culprits:

  • There was a $32 million 2006 increase in the cost of running its championships.
  • The $16 million museum project is up to $19.4 million (and counting).
  • There was a $2.3 million increase in the cost of growing the membership program. That's right, $4.6 million was spent last year trying to add members. I seem to remember that David Fay cited Golf Journal's pricey $3.5 million a year price tag as one of the reasons for dropping it, along with the usual nonsense about a 24/7 world, the Internet, yada, yada, yada.

So I'm curious what those of you in the corporate world would make of this? It would seem such massive expenditures and losses would require a change at the top? Or at least, more explicit explanation beyond the usual stuff about platform restructuring or leveraged cross polination and revaluation of liquid assets.

Well, there is this message from the shareholders in the annual report.

In 2002 they reported 720,000 members with $18.2 million in contributions. In 2006 they reported "about" 900,000 members, with revenue of $19.1 million. With a USGA membership costing $25, that should show an increase of around $5 million between in '02 and '06.

So either they are giving away a whole bunch of memberships, or the contributions aren't coming in like they used to.

Clock Builders and Time Tellers

/

From Marty Parkes's USGA annual meeting blog, talking about Walter Driver's vision for the governing body of North American golf:

I found the most noteworthy part to be near the end.  He said it was crucial for non-profits like the USGA not to become “clock builders” and become too cozy and comfortable and “tell time” without accomplishing much.
Are you writing these metaphors down?
Instead, the trick is for an established organization like the USGA to “preserve the core but change the process.”  To put this concept simply, we need to remain absolutely dedicated to serving the needs of our game (the core) but be willing and able to change the way we operate (the process). 

 Wow, to have been there when Driver delivered this brilliance. I wonder if they gave the original copy of this historic address to Rand Jerris for storage in the museum archives?

That means adapting to things like new equipment technology for clubs and balls and using the Internet well...

Oh yeah right!