Being limited to only 10 starts per year is bad enough. But consider what the count of 10 includes - The four Grand Slam Majors, the three official money World Golf Championships and the Players Championship.
That leaves just two starts - and Campbell has already played one, the season opening winners-only Mercedes Championships. The remaining start will be at Arnold Palmer's Bay Hill Classic.
Including the Majors, the Players and the WGC's in the count of 10 is ridiculous. If it were up to me, I'd have the restriction rule work this way --
A: A player may only start in 5 regular PGA Tour events (3 open and 2 invitational -OR- 2 open and 3 invitational) per each year on restricted status. The Mercedes Championships will count as an invitational.
B: The 4 Majors, 3 WGC's and the Players are excluded from the restriction count.
C: While on restricted status, the player will not be eligible for (1) Special Temporary Member status, (2) Non-Member Top 125 Equivilancy exempt status and (3) the Tour Championship.
None of the articles I've read say anything about Campbell's options once the restriction period is over. I bring this up because - assuming he's "home free" beginning in 2009 - one option would be to join the PGA Tour as a full-time member for 2009 and 2010, using his 2005 US Open victory for exempt status.
We'll see!
Last edited by Frank-0-Sport : January 29th, 2006 at 06:42 AM.
Reason: To include signature
In effect Campbell is being penalised for his success.
If he were not good enough to be in the majors, and the World Golf Championships events, it would be much easier for him to pick and choose events he might like to play in.
In all honesty as a NZer I think he should just do the fingers to the USPGA and say happy to play those 10 tournaments and that is enough for me - stick to the European. I wish more players like Ernie would take the hardline with the USPGA - it is a global game not a US game.
Hopefully by 2008 Michael will have won at least 1 or 2 more majors and can then do the fingers when they invite him back.
Too bad for Campbell, but he knew the consequences of his actions in 2003 and chose to ignore them. Missing out on 2 events that he would have liked to play won't cripple him, and the other tours will benefit more from his presence in their events.
Not only did Michael know the consequences of his 2003 actions but when he asked for a "favor" after his Major win, the PGA would have reinstated him early if he now agreed to abide by the rules. He won't so it's not the PGA Tour dissing him.....it's totally his choice. Therefore, I see no reason for him or any of his supporters to have a problem with the situation.
Not only did Michael know the consequences of his 2003 actions but when he asked for a "favor" after his Major win, the PGA would have reinstated him early if he now agreed to abide by the rules. He won't so it's not the PGA Tour dissing him.....it's totally his choice. Therefore, I see no reason for him or any of his supporters to have a problem with the situation.
Yes he knew about the consequences, but he obviously made the decision that golf was not the be all and end all - and that his family was more important.
The argument is - why does the USPGA have these anal rules? As I said, more players should take the hardline like Ernie - golf is a global game and the other tours have looked after these players - so they feel it is only fair that they repay that in kind to the tours by playing more events.
I don't think anyone sees it as the PGA dissing them - their rules are just stupid. I can of course understand why they have them - to keep the players in the US so they can continue getting large sponsorships, but they may end up pushing more players away. He has already said he would prefer to stay on the European tour anyway - he has never made a decision on whether or not he wants to play on the US Tour full time.
Not only did Michael know the consequences of his 2003 actions but when he asked for a "favor" after his Major win, the PGA would have reinstated him early if he now agreed to abide by the rules. He won't so it's not the PGA Tour dissing him.....it's totally his choice. Therefore, I see no reason for him or any of his supporters to have a problem with the situation.
How hard was it for him to play in 15 events instead of the 12 he requested? With 10 events (WGC events, majors, Players Championship, Mercedes, and Bay Hill), it would not be hard to pick 5 more especially if he happened to qualify for the Tour Championship? Don't feel sorry for him.
I agree with the arguments that Campbell deserved to have certain rights and priviledges taken away.
I disagree with the PGA Tour's method of punishment. Let me re-quote my 3 original suggestions, plus add a 4th --
Quote:
A: A player may only start in 5 regular PGA Tour events (3 open and 2 invitational -OR- 2 open and 3 invitational) per each year on restricted status. The Mercedes Championships will count as an invitational.
B: The 4 Majors, 3 WGC's and the Players are excluded from the restriction count.
C: While on restricted status, the player will not be eligible for Special Temporary Member status, Non-Member Top 125 Equivilancy exempt status or the Tour Championship.
D: While on restricted status, the player will not be permitted to use Exemption Category 24 - Top 10 and Ties from the previous PGA Tour regular open event.
As some of you may know, I do a lot of tinkering with PGA Tour procedures and rules. I've conjured up some models where international pros could play in as many as 20 PGA Tour events per year - The Majors, Players Championship and certain other "special" events included - without having to be PGA Tour members -AND- without sacrificing membership on their home tours (Campbell's is the New Zealand-Australian circuit). Sadly the rules for that type of scenario would have needed to have been established about 10 or 20 years ago.
The argument is - why does the USPGA have these anal rules? As I said, more players should take the hardline like Ernie - golf is a global game and the other tours have looked after these players - so they feel it is only fair that they repay that in kind to the tours by playing more events.
Ernie still plays the 15 events though, doesn't he? If Cambo wants to be a "world player", the ways and means are there for him to meet the minima for both the European and US Tours. IMO he should just suck it up.
Yes he knew about the consequences, but he obviously made the decision that golf was not the be all and end all - and that his family was more important.
I don't think it was so much a family issue as it was a travel issue. He said that he was traveling with his family, and it was making him crazy. If he had the travel luxuries of the top players, he might be singing a different tune.
In any case, he won't be hurting. And he can use this as some incentive to play the US games with a vengance (kinda like the Waterboy mentality.)
Um, all the best players play in the U.S. Of this there is no debate, Ryder Cup or no Ryder Cup.
Bingo. The best players from all over the world play events on the PGA Tour. This is where the big $$$ is.
The best players from all over the world still get to play on their respective Ryder Cup teams provided they earn enough points to do so, or are captain's picks.
Where the Ryder Cup point system is concerned, I think it's pretty dumb that players don't get points if they're not playing on their "home" tours. If Goosen wins a U.S. event, why shouldn't he get points towards making the International Team? He's just beaten the world's best, after all.
January 29th, 2006, 06:41 AM
Michael Campbell's Restricted PGA Tour Status
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
