Limited Fields and Pace of Play

During Friday's Bay Hill telecast (before I switched back to the NCAAs), Arnold Palmer endorsed limited field events because they're easier to operate and pace of play is faster. (In the same interview he also endorsed the idea of ending Q-School...)

On the subject of Tiger's new D.C. event as a limited field tournament, Ron Sirak pointed out the brewing battle over the emergence of the Tiger Tour.

The situation brewing here--a player revolt against the tour's most valuable player--is both unprecedented and potentially ugly. Beem says the players can override the PGA Tour Board with a two-thirds majority. If that happens it will formalize what we already know. There is the Tiger Tour--and then there is everything else. And the players will be biting the hand that has fed them well.

Now, I know this is probably an oversimplification of the issue, but it seems that pace of play should be the real issue here.  Tiger this week:

TIGER WOODS: Oh, I always liked reduced fields, because obviously play moves along a lot faster. You get around in a much more rhythmical pace. You know, I think that's important.

You can't blame the rank-and-file for today's pace of play, just as you can't blame the elite players. It's in everyone's best interest to adjust to the tepid pace of the rest of the field. This corresponding response has allowed the situation to fester as it has.

I guess it's hard to fathom how a problem that is so clearly impacting spectator interest (on the "Tiger Tour" or run of the mill PGA Tour stops) and lies at the heart of this limited field debate, is not being addressed more forcefully by the Commissioner and the Policy Board?