PGA Tour in Freefall?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:32:59
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: PGA Tour in Freefall?

I couldn't help but notice the increase in interest in golf, and the PGA
Tour through the late 1980's and through the 1990's, culminating with
the arrival of Tiger Woods.

The best on the PGA Tour makes maybe 10 million from the tour. That is
where on the food chain in the NBA? NFL? MLB? Doesn't say much for what
you get from The PGA Tour. If there are 35 PGA Tour events and they have
an average of 5 million in purses (just guessing) that's 175 million in
total yearly purses for the tour? They talk about the growth of the
tour, but the fact is it has shrunk dramatically while other sports have
grown.

To my eyes, guys like Faldo, Seve, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples
were a nice continuation of a tradtion inherited from Jack Nicklaus, Tom
Watson and Lee Trevino. Nice to See Seve and Norman and maybe Price in
the hunt for a major. I guess we now have Ernie Els, Phil Mickleson and
Reteif Goosen, but they just don't seem to have the same punch; probably
because as a group they simply aren't in contention as much. Add in that
they are a lot more boring doesn't help! The best Spanish golfer was
Seve, now it's Sergio. The best British golfer was Faldo, now it's
Monty. The best Aussie was Norman, now it's Ogilvy. Yawn me out!

If it weren't for Tiger, the US PGA Tour would be moribund.

IMHO the cause of this is the fact that the tour is run by the players,
and great majority of them at any one point in time are journeymen who
will probably never win more than 2 or 3 events if anything at all. They
want to "earn a living", which is fine by me, but they don't contribute
anything to the growth of the tour. How much does Tome Pernice really do
to grow the tour in any sort of significant way?

How about limiting exemptions to maybe the top 50 at the time of the
tournament and everyone else qualifies? Have apoints system like 10 for
a win, 5 for a second and 1 for a top 10 and none for anyone else. Only
pay out the top 50. You want to "make a living" you HAVE to play well
enough to attract some interest or move aside and give someone else a
shot. As it is, journeymen like Kirk Triplett can hang around for years;
signifying nothing! IMHO, other types of more interesting golfers would
arise and you would get a lot more local and regional input and
interest. As it is now, there are maybe 10 golfers anyone cares about in
even the majors, and the rest are also rans...even if they win!

You'll never see anything like this in the PGA Tour though...the guys
out "making a living" will never let it happen. If Tiger more or less
punts the PGA Tour, and plays in maybe 5-10 events at the most (which is
really what he does now) the tour will be in a lot of trouble. Of
course, why should Tiger play in any more events?

Paul Who? ...didn't even draw 500,000 viewers!

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:47:11
From: radix33@gmail.com
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

I have the same problem with my Dish Network Top 120, why should I pay
$10 month more for The Golf Channel when in the past (pre-2007) I could
get the best tourneys on the regular network, ESPN, TNT, and USA
Network. TGC may have some rare gems like The Solheim Cup and European
tourneys, but that's an exception, not the norm.

Now that everything is basically on TGC, I have to consider upgrading.
Or switching to Time Warner Cable because they have TGC as part of
extended cable, for the same price package as Dish Network Top 120.

-RA

On Jan 17, 8:50 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com > wrote:
...
> golf, I find myself only watching the PGA tour and LPGA events. And
> with the Golf Channel getting more of them, I may end up watching less
> this year.
>
> I did a comparison of my TV satellite bill and figure that to go from
> what I really watch without the Golf channel that it is costing me
> $20/month because the Golf channel is only on the top tier while the
> rest of the channels are on a much lower tier.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 08:54:26
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"R&B" wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1169051479.971993.207650@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > annika1980 wrote:
> >> annika1980 wrote:
> >> > How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
> >> > the Champions Tour last year?
> >> > I sure can't. Loren Roberts?
> >>
> >> FTR, here was last year's Top-10 money winners on the Geezer Tour.
> >>
> >> 1 Jay Haas
> >> 2 Loren Roberts
> >> 3 Brad Bryant
> >> 4 Tom Kite
> >> 5 Gil Morgan
> >> 6 Scott Simpson
> >> 7 Jim Thorpe
> >> 8 Tom Jenkins
> >> 9 Bobby Wadkins
> >> 10 David Edwards
> >>
> >> How many of those Superstars are gonna make you want to buy a ticket to
> >> see them play?
> >> Not a lot of exciting personalities in that bunch. The Legion of Dull.
> >> The old guys with the personalities (Nicklaus, Palmer, Norman, Seve,
> >> Trevino, etc.) rarely compete.
> >
> > ...and of course there cannot be a system to develop new stars...after
> > all who could eclipse the immortal Brad Byant?
>
> The one thing about the Champions Tour that you've gotta like is that unlike
> the regular TOUR, the qualifications for getting into the list of exempt
> players is much more stringent, and a win on the Champions Tour only gives a
> player a ONE year exemption, not TWO like on the PGA TOUR. (Or at least it
> used to be that way -- honestly, I haven't really kept up with it in recent
> years.) I don't believe you find the same phenomenon that you don't like
> about the regular tour -- guys hanging around on the exempt list long after
> they've been consistent contenders.
>

Yup. It's great to watch Curtis Strange and Ben Crenshaw hack it up.
But they meet the "qualifications".

Date: 18 Jan 2007 09:00:44
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

warren montgomery wrote:

snippit...

I suspect that there are a ton of 50+ golfer who are great golfers, but
never went the tour route for this reason or that would could add a lot
to that tour. What really irks me about the Chumpions Tour is the
notion that it is something that the various chumps are owed. Like I
owe it to Lanny Wadkins to watch him bumble around the course in some
Chump event...or worse yet, that he someohow "deserves" my support.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:57:54
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"R&B" wrote:

snippit...

Again, you make excellent points. I guess a thing here to me is the
source of new "stars". Nick Price was an unknown at one time. The
current system restricts the pool of unkowns tremendoulsy; for the sake
of never were's like Kirk Triplett. I cannot accept that he draws as
much to a tournament as a "local hero" would. Again, now way a Ben
Hogan type could emerge on the current US PGA Tour. Very unlikely that
an Arnold Palmer could either. I really don't think it is extreme to
say that 90% of the current tour players really contribute nothing to
the tour other than being there.

Although...75 exemptions and 75 qualifiers would also go a long way to
opening the tour up to some new blood. 125 exemptions plus sponsors
exemptions and 4 or so qualifiers is ridiculous.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:31:20
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

annika1980 wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
> > the Champions Tour last year?
> > I sure can't. Loren Roberts?
>
> FTR, here was last year's Top-10 money winners on the Geezer Tour.
>
> 1 Jay Haas
> 2 Loren Roberts
> 3 Brad Bryant
> 4 Tom Kite
> 5 Gil Morgan
> 6 Scott Simpson
> 7 Jim Thorpe
> 8 Tom Jenkins
> 9 Bobby Wadkins
> 10 David Edwards
>
> How many of those Superstars are gonna make you want to buy a ticket to
> see them play?
> Not a lot of exciting personalities in that bunch. The Legion of Dull.
> The old guys with the personalities (Nicklaus, Palmer, Norman, Seve,
> Trevino, etc.) rarely compete.

...and of course there cannot be a system to develop new stars...after
all who could eclipse the immortal Brad Byant?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 01:08:20
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1169051479.971993.207650@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>> > How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
>> > the Champions Tour last year?
>> > I sure can't. Loren Roberts?
>>
>> FTR, here was last year's Top-10 money winners on the Geezer Tour.
>>
>> 1 Jay Haas
>> 2 Loren Roberts
>> 3 Brad Bryant
>> 4 Tom Kite
>> 5 Gil Morgan
>> 6 Scott Simpson
>> 7 Jim Thorpe
>> 8 Tom Jenkins
>> 9 Bobby Wadkins
>> 10 David Edwards
>>
>> How many of those Superstars are gonna make you want to buy a ticket to
>> see them play?
>> Not a lot of exciting personalities in that bunch. The Legion of Dull.
>> The old guys with the personalities (Nicklaus, Palmer, Norman, Seve,
>> Trevino, etc.) rarely compete.
>
> ...and of course there cannot be a system to develop new stars...after
> all who could eclipse the immortal Brad Byant?

The one thing about the Champions Tour that you've gotta like is that unlike
the regular TOUR, the qualifications for getting into the list of exempt
players is much more stringent, and a win on the Champions Tour only gives a
player a ONE year exemption, not TWO like on the PGA TOUR. (Or at least it
used to be that way -- honestly, I haven't really kept up with it in recent
years.) I don't believe you find the same phenomenon that you don't like
about the regular tour -- guys hanging around on the exempt list long after
they've been consistent contenders.

Randy

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:28:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

annika1980 wrote:
> How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
> the Champions Tour last year?
> I sure can't. Loren Roberts?

FTR, here was last year's Top-10 money winners on the Geezer Tour.

1 Jay Haas
2 Loren Roberts
3 Brad Bryant
4 Tom Kite
5 Gil Morgan
6 Scott Simpson
7 Jim Thorpe
8 Tom Jenkins
9 Bobby Wadkins
10 David Edwards

How many of those Superstars are gonna make you want to buy a ticket to
see them play?
Not a lot of exciting personalities in that bunch. The Legion of Dull.
The old guys with the personalities (Nicklaus, Palmer, Norman, Seve,
Trevino, etc.) rarely compete.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:26:26
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

On 17 Jan 2007 08:28:08 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>annika1980 wrote:
>> How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
>> the Champions Tour last year?
>> I sure can't. Loren Roberts?
>
>FTR, here was last year's Top-10 money winners on the Geezer Tour.
>
>1 Jay Haas
>2 Loren Roberts
>3 Brad Bryant
>4 Tom Kite
>5 Gil Morgan
>6 Scott Simpson
>7 Jim Thorpe
>8 Tom Jenkins
>9 Bobby Wadkins
>10 David Edwards
>
>How many of those Superstars are gonna make you want to buy a ticket to
>see them play?
>Not a lot of exciting personalities in that bunch. The Legion of Dull.
>The old guys with the personalities (Nicklaus, Palmer, Norman, Seve,
>Trevino, etc.) rarely compete.

There's a Senior event here in town every year and in the past I've
been offered free tickets to go and passed them up. But, I have
driven to Cleveland to go to Firestone and watch Tiger and the boys
play.
--

jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:17:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

The_Professor wrote:
> Doesn't seem to be working too well. I recall seeing data that
> suggested at least one of the televised events last year didn't even
> draw 100,000 viewers. Looks like no one wants to watch these self
> proclaimed "stars".

How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
the Champions Tour last year?
I sure can't. Loren Roberts?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:29:50
From: Bear
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

On 17 Jan 2007 08:17:43 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>The_Professor wrote:
>> Doesn't seem to be working too well. I recall seeing data that
>> suggested at least one of the televised events last year didn't even
>> draw 100,000 viewers. Looks like no one wants to watch these self
>> proclaimed "stars".
>
>How many of us die-hard golf fans can name the top-5 money winners on
>the Champions Tour last year?
>I sure can't. Loren Roberts?

I can't remember the last time I actually watched any of the old
timers tour. Leading money winners? Hell I can't even tell ya what
tunamints they have.

Seems to me the PGA is going the same way with moving tunamints around
and renaming them. The (insert name here) Western Bumfuck Open
presented by (insert name here) doesn't make me want to watch.
Corporate sponsorship may have helped with their paychecks but it
makes me less likely to pay attention.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:13:44
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2007 15:51:00 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
> >the Senior Tour.
>
> The Senior Tour is by nature - not about seeing the best golf. It's
> about seeing the stars from the past competing. So they don't make
> it easy for a non-star to crash the party.

Doesn't seem to be working too well. I recall seeing data that
suggested at least one of the televised events last year didn't even
draw 100,000 viewers. Looks like no one wants to watch these self
proclaimed "stars".

Date: 18 Jan 2007 00:21:33
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1169050424.303328.256480@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2007 15:51:00 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
>> >the Senior Tour.
>>
>> The Senior Tour is by nature - not about seeing the best golf. It's
>> about seeing the stars from the past competing. So they don't make
>> it easy for a non-star to crash the party.
>
> Doesn't seem to be working too well. I recall seeing data that
> suggested at least one of the televised events last year didn't even
> draw 100,000 viewers. Looks like no one wants to watch these self
> proclaimed "stars".

Again, you make a valid point. But consider how the Senior/Champions TOUR
began. It provided golf fans a way to see players like Arnold Palmer, Gary
Player and later, Jack Nicklaus and Lee Trevino, compete once again.

But just like in the regular TOUR, once those guys were too old to compete
even on the Senior TOUR, we were left with the next generation of players,
most of whom just never had the pizazz to excite golf fans. As much of a
surgeon as Hale Irwin was on the Senior TOUR for all those years, who's
going to get as excited about a neck-and-neck finale between Irwin and Gil
Morgan as they would over a Player-Nicklaus finale? And now, with this
latest batch of players, we're another generation removed from the
Nicklaus-Palmer-Player groups. Maybe the next step is for the TOUR to stage
a Wheelchair TOUR so these old coots can still play...maybe on their A-E
Sports Tiger Woods 2007 games on an X-Box. That's the only way they'll milk
more out of the old guys.

The wild card in the deck for the Senior Tour is that you never know which
guys are going to emerge in their later years as having the strongest games.
It's not always the same guys that dominated the regular tour. I mean, Hale
Irwin was a solid player, but never as dominant on the regular tour as he
was on the Senior Tour, and certainly when he and Gil Morgan were the two
big dogs on the Senior Tour, that didn't look anything like the regular tour
did when those guys were out there. Why did they rise up as the players to
beat in their 50s when other players who were more dominant on the regular
tour did not? I dunno. Maybe because they kept himself more fit. Or maybe
good genes. Who knows?

Randy

Date: 18 Jan 2007 08:18:28
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

>
> Again, you make a valid point. But consider how the Senior/Champions TOUR
> began. It provided golf fans a way to see players like Arnold Palmer,
> Gary Player and later, Jack Nicklaus and Lee Trevino, compete once again.
>
> But just like in the regular TOUR, once those guys were too old to compete
> even on the Senior TOUR, we were left with the next generation of players,
> most of whom just never had the pizazz to excite golf fans. As much of a
> surgeon as Hale Irwin was on the Senior TOUR for all those years, who's
> going to get as excited about a neck-and-neck finale between Irwin and Gil
> Morgan as they would over a Player-Nicklaus finale? And now, with this
> latest batch of players, we're another generation removed from the
> Nicklaus-Palmer-Player groups. Maybe the next step is for the TOUR to
> stage a Wheelchair TOUR so these old coots can still play...maybe on their
> A-E Sports Tiger Woods 2007 games on an X-Box. That's the only way
> they'll milk more out of the old guys.
>
> The wild card in the deck for the Senior Tour is that you never know which
> guys are going to emerge in their later years as having the strongest
> games. It's not always the same guys that dominated the regular tour. I
> mean, Hale Irwin was a solid player, but never as dominant on the regular
> tour as he was on the Senior Tour, and certainly when he and Gil Morgan
> were the two big dogs on the Senior Tour, that didn't look anything like
> the regular tour did when those guys were out there. Why did they rise up
> as the players to beat in their 50s when other players who were more
> dominant on the regular tour did not? I dunno. Maybe because they kept
> himself more fit. Or maybe good genes. Who knows?
>
All great points. I got a lot better at recognizing the Senior tour players
after working one of the leaderboards at the Senior Open 2 years ago (you
have to at least learn how to spell all the names :-) but am still amazed to
see new "stars" show up who never were top players on the regular tour. The
potential for injuries and physical deterioration clearly make it a bit of a
crap shoot who is going to be in top form. Everyone looked forward to the
debut of players like Norman, but most of the top players on the big tour
have been disappointments on the senior tour. (partly I suppose became a
lot, like Norman have had other interests and don't compete all that often.)

I always thought the biggest problem the Senior tour had was their TV
sponsors. Who wants to watch 3 hours worth of ads for products for
Impotence, Incontinence, High cholesterol, and prostate problems? After
10 minutes of that "reality TV" starts to look good as an alternative.

My wife had an interesting suggest yesterday on what the tour could do to
rev up some interest. Have some invitational events where the fans get to
pick them, like the all star games in other sports. Of course I suppose the
problem is in other sports the competitors are usually under contract and
have to play, while golfers are independent and won't necessarily show up
even if they are picked. Of course it is a way of guaranteeing that popular
players who the ans really want to watch will get to play. People are a lot
more likely to watch Daly, Sergio, and even Michelle Wie even if they aren't
competitive, and getting people to turn on the tube is half the battle.
Most people my age discovered golf because they or their fathers wanted to
watch Arnie vs Jack, but once they started looking they discovered new
generations of players to watch.

--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:34:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

How are the ratings in the father-son events?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 10:33:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:18:28 -0600, "warren montgomery"
<wamontgomery@worldnet.att.net > wrote:

>I always thought the biggest problem the Senior tour had was their TV
>sponsors. Who wants to watch 3 hours worth of ads for products for
>Impotence, Incontinence, High cholesterol, and prostate problems? After
>10 minutes of that "reality TV" starts to look good as an alternative.

Drugs are where the money is - so they pay for TV the way cigarettes
used to. (beer was always big as well).

It's not limited to senior tour ads at all.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:04:14
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 10:50:12
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

In article <1169050424.303328.256480@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:

> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2007 15:51:00 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
> > >the Senior Tour.
> >
> > The Senior Tour is by nature - not about seeing the best golf. It's
> > about seeing the stars from the past competing. So they don't make
> > it easy for a non-star to crash the party.
>
> Doesn't seem to be working too well. I recall seeing data that
> suggested at least one of the televised events last year didn't even
> draw 100,000 viewers. Looks like no one wants to watch these self
> proclaimed "stars".

I'm not surprised at that. As much as I enjoy watching a good round of
golf, I find myself only watching the PGA tour and LPGA events. And
with the Golf Channel getting more of them, I may end up watching less
this year.

I did a comparison of my TV satellite bill and figure that to go from
what I really watch without the Golf channel that it is costing me
$20/month because the Golf channel is only on the top tier while the
rest of the channels are on a much lower tier.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:51:57
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

The_Professor wrote:
>
> The "Champions Tour" is totally moribund probably for that reason. If
> they had say 30 exemptions and 30 monday qualifiers, they'd be a lot
> more vigorous. Of course they see that Tour as some sort of perquiste,
> like it's owed to them...like they didn't get paid when they played on
> the regular tour or something!

I've always viewed the Champions Tour as more of an exhibition than a
true test.
The US Senior Open is the exception.

But whatcha gonna do? Nobody is gonna pay green money to go see a
field full of guys like Robert Landers.
I'd rather watch Arnie and Jack shoot 80.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:35:44
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

annika1980 wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > I can't disagree with anything you say, and you could well be right.
> > IMHO, the current system shuts out too many potential stars though. Not
> > everyone has the time and resources to do what you need to do to go the
> > Q school/Nationwide Tour route. Some Ben Hogan out there with a family
> > to support, for example, really can't take the years it took him to
> > develop if he were to try to come up in the current system.
> >
>
> I agree with you that the tour is exclusionary. I'd like to see the #
> of available Monday qualifying spots each week go from 4 (if that's
> what it still is) to at least 10. That would allow more of these
> Cinderellas to pop through, ala Kenny Knox who Monday qualified and
> then won the tournament.
>
> But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
> the Senior Tour.

The "Champions Tour" is totally moribund probably for that reason. If
they had say 30 exemptions and 30 monday qualifiers, they'd be a lot
more vigorous. Of course they see that Tour as some sort of perquiste,
like it's owed to them...like they didn't get paid when they played on
the regular tour or something!

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:51:00
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

The_Professor wrote:
> I can't disagree with anything you say, and you could well be right.
> IMHO, the current system shuts out too many potential stars though. Not
> everyone has the time and resources to do what you need to do to go the
> Q school/Nationwide Tour route. Some Ben Hogan out there with a family
> to support, for example, really can't take the years it took him to
> develop if he were to try to come up in the current system.
>

I agree with you that the tour is exclusionary. I'd like to see the #
of available Monday qualifying spots each week go from 4 (if that's
what it still is) to at least 10. That would allow more of these
Cinderellas to pop through, ala Kenny Knox who Monday qualified and
then won the tournament.

But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
the Senior Tour.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 22:08:20
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

What Cinderellas didn't pop through last year? 263 guys cashed in 2006.
Made the cut and cashed, not just played Thursday and Friday.

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1168991457.247763.169450@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> The_Professor wrote:
>> I can't disagree with anything you say, and you could well be right.
>> IMHO, the current system shuts out too many potential stars though. Not
>> everyone has the time and resources to do what you need to do to go the
>> Q school/Nationwide Tour route. Some Ben Hogan out there with a family
>> to support, for example, really can't take the years it took him to
>> develop if he were to try to come up in the current system.
>>
>
> I agree with you that the tour is exclusionary. I'd like to see the #
> of available Monday qualifying spots each week go from 4 (if that's
> what it still is) to at least 10. That would allow more of these
> Cinderellas to pop through, ala Kenny Knox who Monday qualified and
> then won the tournament.
>
> But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
> the Senior Tour.
>

Date: 17 Jan 2007 03:04:01
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

On 16 Jan 2007 15:51:00 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>But if you think the PGA Tour is a tough nut to crack, take a look at
>the Senior Tour.

The Senior Tour is by nature - not about seeing the best golf. It's
about seeing the stars from the past competing. So they don't make
it easy for a non-star to crash the party.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:48:07
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

Pay Tiger a $1Mil appearance fee for Tiger Woods foundation. What's the
prob?

And get some shows that let us know the players. Mike the players and set it
up so we can learn something from their games. Give 5 players a segment on
every tournament to share their secrets. That putting path graphic is great.

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45AC44DF.43AF3760@att.net...
>I couldn't help but notice the increase in interest in golf, and the PGA
> Tour through the late 1980's and through the 1990's, culminating with
> the arrival of Tiger Woods.
>
> The best on the PGA Tour makes maybe 10 million from the tour. That is
> where on the food chain in the NBA? NFL? MLB? Doesn't say much for what
> you get from The PGA Tour. If there are 35 PGA Tour events and they have
> an average of 5 million in purses (just guessing) that's 175 million in
> total yearly purses for the tour? They talk about the growth of the
> tour, but the fact is it has shrunk dramatically while other sports have
> grown.
>
> To my eyes, guys like Faldo, Seve, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples
> were a nice continuation of a tradtion inherited from Jack Nicklaus, Tom
> Watson and Lee Trevino. Nice to See Seve and Norman and maybe Price in
> the hunt for a major. I guess we now have Ernie Els, Phil Mickleson and
> Reteif Goosen, but they just don't seem to have the same punch; probably
> because as a group they simply aren't in contention as much. Add in that
> they are a lot more boring doesn't help! The best Spanish golfer was
> Seve, now it's Sergio. The best British golfer was Faldo, now it's
> Monty. The best Aussie was Norman, now it's Ogilvy. Yawn me out!
>
> If it weren't for Tiger, the US PGA Tour would be moribund.
>
> IMHO the cause of this is the fact that the tour is run by the players,
> and great majority of them at any one point in time are journeymen who
> will probably never win more than 2 or 3 events if anything at all. They
> want to "earn a living", which is fine by me, but they don't contribute
> anything to the growth of the tour. How much does Tome Pernice really do
> to grow the tour in any sort of significant way?
>
> How about limiting exemptions to maybe the top 50 at the time of the
> tournament and everyone else qualifies? Have apoints system like 10 for
> a win, 5 for a second and 1 for a top 10 and none for anyone else. Only
> pay out the top 50. You want to "make a living" you HAVE to play well
> enough to attract some interest or move aside and give someone else a
> shot. As it is, journeymen like Kirk Triplett can hang around for years;
> signifying nothing! IMHO, other types of more interesting golfers would
> arise and you would get a lot more local and regional input and
> interest. As it is now, there are maybe 10 golfers anyone cares about in
> even the majors, and the rest are also rans...even if they win!
>
> You'll never see anything like this in the PGA Tour though...the guys
> out "making a living" will never let it happen. If Tiger more or less
> punts the PGA Tour, and plays in maybe 5-10 events at the most (which is
> really what he does now) the tour will be in a lot of trouble. Of
> course, why should Tiger play in any more events?
>
> Paul Who? ...didn't even draw 500,000 viewers!
>

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:26:56
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"R&B" wrote:
snippit...

I can't disagree with anything you say, and you could well be right.
IMHO, the current system shuts out too many potential stars though. Not
everyone has the time and resources to do what you need to do to go the
Q school/Nationwide Tour route. Some Ben Hogan out there with a family
to support, for example, really can't take the years it took him to
develop if he were to try to come up in the current system.

Have say 150 slots with 50 exemptions and you qualify for the rest
would allow a guy to simply pay the fee and try to qualify. He doesn't
have to worry about trying to get into every event to "keep his card";
he can even have a "day job". You could try the local/regional events
as they came up. IMHO, it's a more open system, and based more on
golfing ability than the current system. Seems to me a lot of guys more
or less quit after getting a win or a couple of top 10's. Think Goydos
is going to bust his butt anymore this year?

It also seems to me that no one really cares about old "Stars" who
can't produce anymore. None of these guys, except Woods, has the punch
of a Seve, a Palmer or a Nicklaus. Who wants to watch Nick Price shoot
75?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 00:14:55
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote ...
>
> "R&B" wrote:
> snippit...
>
>
> I can't disagree with anything you say, and you could well be right.
> IMHO, the current system shuts out too many potential stars though. Not
> everyone has the time and resources to do what you need to do to go the
> Q school/Nationwide Tour route. Some Ben Hogan out there with a family
> to support, for example, really can't take the years it took him to
> develop if he were to try to come up in the current system.
>
> Have say 150 slots with 50 exemptions and you qualify for the rest
> would allow a guy to simply pay the fee and try to qualify. He doesn't
> have to worry about trying to get into every event to "keep his card";
> he can even have a "day job". You could try the local/regional events
> as they came up. IMHO, it's a more open system, and based more on
> golfing ability than the current system. Seems to me a lot of guys more
> or less quit after getting a win or a couple of top 10's. Think Goydos
> is going to bust his butt anymore this year?

We could debate the specific numbers that would make the most sense, but the
main point you're making is that there ought to be more spots available for
Monday qualifiers, and I wouldn't argue against your point of view.

Where we do have some disgreement (but only a little) is in your next
statement...

> It also seems to me that no one really cares about old "Stars" who
> can't produce anymore. None of these guys, except Woods, has the punch
> of a Seve, a Palmer or a Nicklaus. Who wants to watch Nick Price shoot
> 75?

Bona fide stars like Nick Price are, I think, viable, to some extent, at the
box office, so to speak. If for no other reason than because they were
headline stars at one point, and because their career has spanned so many
years, I would argue that they do have a following. Yes, even guys like
Kirk Triplett have a following (their following may consist of nothing but
little old ladies, but there's a following, nonetheless). You can't say
that for complete unknowns. The only following they'd have is their
immediate family and friends. Unless, of course, they do contend for a
title and become a big cinderella story. Then there'd be some serious fan
interest. The problem is, I think, that more often than not (and probably
with only rare exceptions), those first-timers (or near first-timers) don't
get into position to have much of a chance to win. They're usually Friday
Trunk Slammers. So you'd be giving up a built-in gate (the little old
ladies) to make room for a "hunch" that one of these no-names might
occasionally contend.

Seems to me that over the long haul, you're better off (if you're the TOUR)
betting that a Nick Price or a Kirk Triplett might get into position to
contend on the weekend than hoping some no-name would.

But we're talking a difference in degree here, not a difference in kind.

I do think you make a valid point that the all-exempt TOUR tends to water
down the field with a lot of players who are content merely to cash, without
necessarily having much hope of ever winning. Personally, I think if they
just changed the Top 125 money list exemption to the Top 75, that would make
a huge difference. It would open up a lot of spots.

Randy

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:19:07
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > How about limiting exemptions to maybe the top 50 at the time of the
> > tournament and everyone else qualifies?
>
> And how would that help the Tour? You'd have a bunch more no-names
> playing in every tournament.
> Sure, some of them would get hot for a week or two and may even win a
> tournament, but so what? Using your own example, are you now gonna
> tune in every week to watch Paul Goydos? I kinda doubt it.
>
> What you suggest would make the casual viewer even less likely to watch
> as the number of big name players is reduced. People want to see the
> big name players. Ask any Nationwide Tour official if you don't
> believe me.

Right now, the system is all or nothing. You are either all the way in
or all the way out. You have to make a long term committment, a very
expensive committment, if you want to play on the US PGA Tour. A Ben
Hogan, who could scrape together a few bucks here and there every year
to enter this or that tournament would be out of luck with today's
system (and you have to be aware how bad he was for so many years to
understand what I am saying here). Playing the Nationwide Tour requires
big bucks, and if you aren't independently wealthy, you need a sponsor
with deep pockets. I know one local guy who could finish well in some
of the bigger events who had to withdraw because of the loss of his
sponsorship; a loss that had nothing to do with his performance. Q
school is a sick joke. Even if you make it, playing the tour is still
veryt expensive, and you have to devote your entire life to it right
off the bat, and Q school itself is expensive!

In the end, most of the tour is filled with boring journeymen of no
notable accomplishment; and the system shuts out a lot of new blood.
The current system limits potential PGA players to only those few that
can devote all their time to it, and have a lot of money to invest or
have invested on their behalf. No way a Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Arnold
Palmer, Sam Snead or Lee Trevino make it with the current
system...maybe Trevino!

With more qwualifying, just being "consistent" wouldn't be enough. IF
you are 1 of 200 guys trying to qualify for 50 spots, you have to
finish in the top 50 of that just to get into an event. If you want to
be ranked in the top 50 on tour, you are going to have to do a lot more
than just make cuts and top 10 a few times a year. Right now, make cuts
and top 10 a few times and you make millions on the PGA Tour; which is
ridiculous!

Date: 16 Jan 2007 14:12:28
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"R&B" wrote:
[snip]
> Much of what you said here I agree with. But your premise that allowing
> no-name players to qualify each week leading to greater fan interest is, I
> think, way off the k. The occasional Cinderella story notwithstanding,
> the greater popularity of most sports has depended on there being star
> players for fans to follow and root for.

I tend to find that the beauty of the TOUR is that in any one
tournament
you can have multiple stories all going at once. And they can be the
full spectrum of triumph and tragedy. You can have the young up start,
the new phenom, the old guard, and any other stock story all occuring
at
once. And "new blood" is constantly being introduced. They don't have
to win to begin to get noticed. They can lead a day, or even a few
holes
and begin to get name recognition. Look at Gore who didn't win but
quickly became a fan favorite.

It can be a mistake to focus on the known stars because the strength
of
the tour is that so many can play. Alternately one is foolish not to
feed
an "Arnies Army" because they have their interests too. Rivalries are
good,
when they happen, as are the various "cinderellas". Young guns have
their interest factor too. And there are always the "personalities".
It's a
mistake to assume that one is more important than the other. They all
contribute and one should be careful about over focusing on one to the
detriment of another.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:48:00
From: jf-golf
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

precisely. The networks have the modicum of coverage. See if the PGA
loses general interest without network face time.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:39:49
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"Robert Hamilton" wrote ...
>
>I couldn't help but notice the increase in interest in golf, and the PGA
> Tour through the late 1980's and through the 1990's, culminating with
> the arrival of Tiger Woods.
>
> The best on the PGA Tour makes maybe 10 million from the tour. That is
> where on the food chain in the NBA? NFL? MLB? Doesn't say much for what
> you get from The PGA Tour. If there are 35 PGA Tour events and they have
> an average of 5 million in purses (just guessing) that's 175 million in
> total yearly purses for the tour? They talk about the growth of the
> tour, but the fact is it has shrunk dramatically while other sports have
> grown.
>
> To my eyes, guys like Faldo, Seve, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples
> were a nice continuation of a tradtion inherited from Jack Nicklaus, Tom
> Watson and Lee Trevino. Nice to See Seve and Norman and maybe Price in
> the hunt for a major. I guess we now have Ernie Els, Phil Mickleson and
> Reteif Goosen, but they just don't seem to have the same punch; probably
> because as a group they simply aren't in contention as much. Add in that
> they are a lot more boring doesn't help! The best Spanish golfer was
> Seve, now it's Sergio. The best British golfer was Faldo, now it's
> Monty. The best Aussie was Norman, now it's Ogilvy. Yawn me out!
>
> If it weren't for Tiger, the US PGA Tour would be moribund.
>
> IMHO the cause of this is the fact that the tour is run by the players,
> and great majority of them at any one point in time are journeymen who
> will probably never win more than 2 or 3 events if anything at all. They
> want to "earn a living", which is fine by me, but they don't contribute
> anything to the growth of the tour. How much does Tome Pernice really do
> to grow the tour in any sort of significant way?
>
> How about limiting exemptions to maybe the top 50 at the time of the
> tournament and everyone else qualifies? Have apoints system like 10 for
> a win, 5 for a second and 1 for a top 10 and none for anyone else. Only
> pay out the top 50. You want to "make a living" you HAVE to play well
> enough to attract some interest or move aside and give someone else a
> shot. As it is, journeymen like Kirk Triplett can hang around for years;
> signifying nothing! IMHO, other types of more interesting golfers would
> arise and you would get a lot more local and regional input and
> interest. As it is now, there are maybe 10 golfers anyone cares about in
> even the majors, and the rest are also rans...even if they win!
>
> You'll never see anything like this in the PGA Tour though...the guys
> out "making a living" will never let it happen. If Tiger more or less
> punts the PGA Tour, and plays in maybe 5-10 events at the most (which is
> really what he does now) the tour will be in a lot of trouble. Of
> course, why should Tiger play in any more events?
>
> Paul Who? ...didn't even draw 500,000 viewers!

Oddly, much of what you say, I agree with. There's no question that the
"All-exempt" TOUR has contributed to there being an ever-increasing number
of players seeded into each field who are satisfied just to "cash" each
week.

That said, I also agree with Annika, who says that denying the otherwise
exempt players (who, let's face it, are the biggest names in golf) would do
nothing more than allow a few "no name" players to get in. While this would
surely cause an occasional Cinderella story to unfold, Cinderellas in sport
rarely win. More likely, the Cinderellas who squeeze into the field would
only miss the cut.

Then there is the premise that the otherwise exempt players wouldn't be the
ones who qualify in the first place. Certainly there'd be a few each week
who failed to get in, but I'm willing to bet that journeymen like the one
you cite -- Kirk Triplett -- would probably wipe the floor with most
upstarts who might be allowed a chance to qualify. In other words, your
assumption that the exempt players don't represent a better chance of
winning than some no-names who might try to qualify is, I think, flawed.

The evidence of this is found in how many Monday Qualifiers ever actually
contend. Certainly, it happens occasionally. But it is more the exception
than the rule. And there's no denying the fact that these no-names who
surprise the sports world by emerging from the Monday Qualifier to contend
on Sunday do no more (and arguably less) to attract viewers than do players
who actually have some name recognition (and therefore, a following, no
matter how ginal it might be).

As for the money, if you're going to compare apples to apples, you have to
multiply the purse of a given tournament by 40 or so to come up with a
number that represents the entire purse for the year. Then you can't divide
it amongst 156 players (a full field), but rather 70 players (the number who
make the cut and get a check). (This varies somewhat from week to week.)

Plus, you have to remember that an NBA or NFL player is going to get paid,
whether he plays well or not. There's something to be said for the fact
that PGA TOUR players (or players on any tour) have to perform well just to
get a check of any kind (except in those rare instances where everybody in
the field gets a check).

Finally, it's a little premature to assess whether the points system and big
cash bonus at the end of the year -- the FedEx Cup -- has any measurable
impact on fan interest. Personally, I've always thought the greencoats at
The Masters had it right -- that fans don't care that much for the money
involved, it's the winning that interests them. But we'll see. Certainly
this concept has worked for NASCAR.

Much of what you said here I agree with. But your premise that allowing
no-name players to qualify each week leading to greater fan interest is, I
think, way off the k. The occasional Cinderella story notwithstanding,
the greater popularity of most sports has depended on there being star
players for fans to follow and root for.

Randy

Date: 17 Jan 2007 03:02:33
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:39:49 -0500, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:

>Oddly, much of what you say, I agree with. There's no question that the
>"All-exempt" TOUR has contributed to there being an ever-increasing number
>of players seeded into each field who are satisfied just to "cash" each
>week.

Maybe so - but the tremendous amounts of money have meant that the
stars (those we pay to see) are set for life - they don't play for 2nd
place, as the 2nd place paycheck is meaningless to them.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:35:59
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

warren montgomery wrote:
[snip]
> As I've said before I think the increasing role of the Golf Channel in
> covering the tour isn't a good thing. It's not that their coverage is bad,
> but the very name implies it's for the hard core only. Growing up we watch
> golf with Dad in the living room on CBS and the other major networks and
> everyone got some appreciation of it. Now I suspect dad watches it alone.
> (To make an analogy here, I think Monday Night Football did a lot for the
> NFL both because it was on a real network at a time when the whole household
> watched TV, and they had a crew that made the games interesting and
> approachable to the casual fan. Serious golf veiwers may not like McCord,
> but he was fun to watch even for the casual viewer. I can't say the same
> of Faldo).

I'm afraid that PGA is merely at the front of the wave here. NBA
has
taken a similar route with TBS and TNT. The NFL is headed that way
with ESPN and whatever their cable network is. Baseball long ago
went to an "off network" strategy. Golf just sorta had a ready made
"Golf only" channel with which to work. The nature of cable and
satellite as well as internet based content delivery is such that a
sport
can consider taking control of much of its own broadcasting. What
you end up with is ultimately "NFL TV" or "The Football Network"
that can package and ket the product continually.

[snip]
> The money? Too much of it is part of the problem. Arnie, Jack, Gary, Tom,
> etc. and those before played together more often because that's how they
> made enough money to make a good living at it. Now the stars can pick and
> choose. Maybe the answer is to have the tour require players to play more
> often, or more importantly to play in all the big tournaments (i.e. pick out
> the top tier events and say that to maintain your exemption you can't miss
> more than one or two of them).

The players make the rules to some extent so I'll be interested to
see
how this pans out. I can see them at the very least trying to adjust
FedEx
points to make missing a top event painful.

[snip]
> Finally I think the combination of equipment improvements and course design
> has made the proessional game more boring. In the Arnie era, the tour
> played on REAL courses, and each event had a traditional home with a
> distinctive feel. Now most events are played on TPC courses and resorts
> which just don't have the same character. People tune in to watch Augusta,
> Pebble Beach, or the Old course. They don't tune in for the TPC at Pungent
> Valley.
[snip]

I've never really bought into this. Yes, folks KNOW Pebble or
Augusta, but
I'm dubious they tune into see the actual course. I think courses get
a reputation
for producing good entertainment. TPC Sawgrass has accomplished this I
think.
Yes, there are alot of resort courses used for events. But PGA
tournaments
have alot of demands upon them and US Open type courses aren't always
going to work for them. The one idea though that I think the PGA needs
to
consider is that "double cut rough" thing we saw last year. Where the
first
2 feet of rough are at 3 inches, and the rest is left to grow to 6.
Makes for
some good golf. That, and maybe the "deep furrow" thing that Jack
tried
at Memorial for the bunkers.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:03:40
From: jf-golf
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

Why do you think it's in freefall? You only mention the fact that the
money isn't growing, or huge compared to the (other) major sports. Have
you looked at the number of millionaires the tour generates EVERY YEAR?
Compare that to times past.
I agree that the personalities are not as strong as before, but where's
John Riggins in the NFL, or Rodman in the NBA? Anytime anyone shows a
'personality' the press hounds them into seclusion.
I think the PGA Tour is tempting fate with the Golf Channel, be
interesting to see how it survives with a modicum of network coverage.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:17:40
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

TGC isn't a modicum (a small portion, a limited quantity ) of coverage. They
have Thursday and Friday of most every tournament on the schedule.

"jf-golf" <jfainlight@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168977818.982028.158980@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why do you think it's in freefall? You only mention the fact that the
> money isn't growing, or huge compared to the (other) major sports. Have
> you looked at the number of millionaires the tour generates EVERY YEAR?
> Compare that to times past.
> I agree that the personalities are not as strong as before, but where's
> John Riggins in the NFL, or Rodman in the NBA? Anytime anyone shows a
> 'personality' the press hounds them into seclusion.
> I think the PGA Tour is tempting fate with the Golf Channel, be
> interesting to see how it survives with a modicum of network coverage.
>

Date: 16 Jan 2007 08:55:49
From: warren montgomery
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:45AC44DF.43AF3760@att.net...
>I couldn't help but notice the increase in interest in golf, and the PGA
> Tour through the late 1980's and through the 1990's, culminating with
> the arrival of Tiger Woods.
>
> The best on the PGA Tour makes maybe 10 million from the tour. That is
> where on the food chain in the NBA? NFL? MLB? Doesn't say much for what
> you get from The PGA Tour. If there are 35 PGA Tour events and they have
> an average of 5 million in purses (just guessing) that's 175 million in
> total yearly purses for the tour? They talk about the growth of the
> tour, but the fact is it has shrunk dramatically while other sports have
> grown.
>
> To my eyes, guys like Faldo, Seve, Greg Norman, Nick Price, Fred Couples
> were a nice continuation of a tradtion inherited from Jack Nicklaus, Tom
> Watson and Lee Trevino. Nice to See Seve and Norman and maybe Price in
> the hunt for a major. I guess we now have Ernie Els, Phil Mickleson and
> Reteif Goosen, but they just don't seem to have the same punch; probably
> because as a group they simply aren't in contention as much. Add in that
> they are a lot more boring doesn't help! The best Spanish golfer was
> Seve, now it's Sergio. The best British golfer was Faldo, now it's
> Monty. The best Aussie was Norman, now it's Ogilvy. Yawn me out!
>
I think there are a bunch of problems. Ernie, Phil, Tiger, Retief, et al
are entertaining -- when they play together. I can remember when the
Kapalua event was almost like a major. All the big names played in it and
there were some exciting battles. When most of the best take a pass, it's
not the same. Personality is another thing. Some folks have it, others
don't. I think one of the problems is the increased need for athletic
fitness. It's not that that is bad, but the kind of guy who spends hours in
the gym usually isn't the one with the colorful habits. John Daly draws
crowds, so does Michelson. Monty draws crowds too, as does Sergio. These
guys show you how they feel and make it interesting to watch. So many of
the young stars are hard to distinguish -- skinny young guys who don't say
much whether they are winning or losing, and don't have the colorful
personal lives that cause the casual golf fans to want to watch.

Management is another factor here. A lot of top players seem more like the
car than the driver in Nascar -- carefully tuned, polished and steered by
professionals to the point that you can't tell them apart. They have
trainers, coaches, psychologists, agents, fashion consultants, and others
handling things so of course they never develop a distinctive identity.
Earlier generations had a lot less help and a lot more of the player's
individuality showed through.

As I've said before I think the increasing role of the Golf Channel in
covering the tour isn't a good thing. It's not that their coverage is bad,
but the very name implies it's for the hard core only. Growing up we watch
golf with Dad in the living room on CBS and the other major networks and
everyone got some appreciation of it. Now I suspect dad watches it alone.
(To make an analogy here, I think Monday Night Football did a lot for the
NFL both because it was on a real network at a time when the whole household
watched TV, and they had a crew that made the games interesting and
approachable to the casual fan. Serious golf veiwers may not like McCord,
but he was fun to watch even for the casual viewer. I can't say the same
of Faldo).

Part of the problem is just too many choices, both in Golf and in other
sports. One reason why the early season tournaments seem like duds this
year is that you have to divide your time among Golf, NFL, NBA, NHL, and
college football and basketball. January was once too late for much in the
NFL, past the Bowl season in college football, and too early to worry much
about the results in basketball and hockey. More damaging though is the
competition from other tours, because that is in part what causes so many
players to skip tournaments.

The money? Too much of it is part of the problem. Arnie, Jack, Gary, Tom,
etc. and those before played together more often because that's how they
made enough money to make a good living at it. Now the stars can pick and
choose. Maybe the answer is to have the tour require players to play more
often, or more importantly to play in all the big tournaments (i.e. pick out
the top tier events and say that to maintain your exemption you can't miss
more than one or two of them). That would probably cause some Europeans to
blow off the PGA, but that's not awul if the result is that the public here
gets more comeptitive events with more interesting rivalries. Dumping more
money into purses with playoff systems and special bonuses or particular
parts of the year isn't going to to it because the guys you want to be
playing don't need the money -- they can make more of it in appearance fees
elsewhere if they feel like it than the PGA will ever be able to pay them to
play every week.

Finally I think the combination of equipment improvements and course design
has made the proessional game more boring. In the Arnie era, the tour
played on REAL courses, and each event had a traditional home with a
distinctive feel. Now most events are played on TPC courses and resorts
which just don't have the same character. People tune in to watch Augusta,
Pebble Beach, or the Old course. They don't tune in for the TPC at Pungent
Valley. Equipment has made it possible for players you never heard of to
overpower just about any course. I don't think you see as many distinctive
styles as you once did. Consistent winners have to be able to hit the ball
300 yards off the tee and putt conservatively enough so they don't have a
lot of 3 putts on greens running at 12 or faster. Maybe some more variety
in design and some measures to encourage different styles of play would
help, but I think this is a lot less of a problem than the lack of rivalries
and personalities.

--
Warren Montgomery (wamontgomery@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery

Date: 16 Jan 2007 05:54:55
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: PGA Tour in Freefall?

Robert Hamilton wrote:
> How about limiting exemptions to maybe the top 50 at the time of the
> tournament and everyone else qualifies?

And how would that help the Tour? You'd have a bunch more no-names
playing in every tournament.
Sure, some of them would get hot for a week or two and may even win a
tournament, but so what? Using your own example, are you now gonna
tune in every week to watch Paul Goydos? I kinda doubt it.

What you suggest would make the casual viewer even less likely to watch
as the number of big name players is reduced. People want to see the
big name players. Ask any Nationwide Tour official if you don't
believe me.