golfrewind.com

I love stirring the pot... So here is another one for debate.

Let's imagine for a second that you are the LPGA commissioner, and your goal is to grow your tour, get new sponsors, more purse money, and provide a future for the tour.

How do you market "your" players better???
Number one would be improving the website. On the website you could have more in depth information about the players.

Number two, would be to arrange the schedule to allow for one big event in each month (which is close to what they do now).

In the lesser field events, arrange for the Futures tour to play near the site the week previous and allow the top 5 finishers to play in the event. Develop from within.

How do you deal with the age restriction issue, without opening the door to minors???
This is a tough question. You can't just make a media exception and allow Wie to get a card because she is Wie. I think the rule of finishing high school should be mandatory. Pressel found out that writing term/thesis papers the week of an event, while she wants to be practicing was nothing short of all out frustration.

I think a rule that would allow "summer conditional membership" for underaged players would make sense. Allow them one exemption in the spring school session, one in the fall school session, and let them qualify for as many events as they can from June 1 - Aug 30.

How do you deal with players who want to play on the Men's tours as a goal???
Rodney_C - get your poison arrows loaded...

I think the tour needs to protect it's investments. I think a rule needs to be imparted which would restrict players from playing in a large number of Men's events. The rule could allow a player so choosing to play in a total of three events from either the US PGA Tour and European PGA Tour, and an additional three events from various other Tours (Nationwide, Asian, Sunshine, Canadian, Korean, Austal-asian, etc).

The problem is if you spend money promoting a player and then that player takes your promotion and benefits herself or another tour, they become a detractor of the LPGA. Players would be more apt to make a commitment to the tour instead of using it as an occassional stepping stone.

If you are looking to boost the LPGA event, I think that you should try and entice some PGA players, such as Fred Funk, he hits about the same as Annika, and it would boost appeal, especially if he got his fanny whomped.

The door should swing both ways, if women are allowed on the men's tour.

There is no men's tour, for the umpteenth time. The PGA Tour has no gender qualification.

If there is no Men's Tour, then why is there a designated Ladies tour. If the PGA was intended for either sex, then the Ladies tour would not exist, thus making the PGA a men's tour. Just like the NBA, WNBA

So your saying Fred Funk shouldn't be allowed on the women's tour, but the ladies can play where ever.

Unfortunatly i have to agree here! I know it does not say MPGA but if it were not meant for men then why have the LPGA?

While there are no rules preventing women from playing on the PGA tour, is that because they felt that the rules were kind of understood to be that way when the tour was created??? How many women professional golfers were there at the creation date of the PGA tour??? OK, for the sake of getting past this part of the topic... The PGA of America is all gender inclusive, and the PGA tour as stands currently does not specify the gender of it's participants.

I started this thread to discuss the reverse issue. Should a "person", decide to regularly play on one of the various "Coed" Tours, should they be allowed to drop back down and play on the LPGA tour???

Should the LPGA tour put in place a rule that players can not play regularly on the PGA's "Coed" tour??? Should they limit the number of events that one of their players can play on the various "Coed" tours???

While Wie is not the first female in recent history to play on tour which I now will deem as "Coed" to keep out of the PGA gender discussion. She is, however, setting a precident, by playing on a semi-regular basis. She may not be the last to venture in this direction, because other young females might see the money and media, and see this as the right way to go.

How does the LPGA then protect the Tour and market it's players???

Example: Lorena Ochoa is playing better golf than any female in the world. She has finished no lower than T2 in her last 6 events, and T4 or better in 8 out of 10 events. While she was doing this, all we heard about was Michelle Wie, making a cut in an Asian Tour event, signing an endorsement deal with Omega watches (which did get her into the European Masters) or winning her local qualifier for the "Coed" US Open (though she did beat the 15 y.o. male ameteur Tadd Fujikawa by two shots)

This thread was basically... What would you do if you were Carolyn Bivens, to say hey there are other women playing golf in the world, and some are even better than the one you are reading about...

Would you go as far as to set a rule so that other players decide to stay with the LPGA???

Thank you for pushing this out into the future. This isn't just about Wie, but she may have started something.

So let's dream ourselves into that future. It's 2010 and there are 5 to 10 ladies, who are all now card carrying PGA members. The LPGA is toast.

For as long as they have existed, it's always been where the best women golfers in the world played golf. They weren't the best golfers in the world, but the best women golfers in the world. Suddenly, that is no longer true, if in nothing but public perception, and let's not lie, that is what matters.

The LPGA would hold the sponsor leverage of the Futures tour. I mean come on, if these women were worth watching, wouldn't they have joined the "Coed" PGA Tour.

How do you go from "These girls Rock", to "We have the best of what's left over"???

No problem.


BIG MISTAKE.
The fundamental point is that
"The lpga needs Wie" BUT "Wie does not need the lpga".

You should take this principle into account in any decision. With your proposed rule change, you are literally threatening Wie. Do you threaten someone who could be the future of the women's game? I don't think so.



Spending money promoting Wie?
Why would the lpga need to spend any money promoting Wie? When Wie plays an event it is news, the lpga does not need to invest a penny in that.
As you correctly stated, Ochoa's GREAT success was barely noticed.

Basically, if the lpga puts forward rules that you suggest, limiting Wie's options, then she will simply not join the lpga.
In fact, if she is successful on mens tours, it could well suit her down very well to just keep playing the 8 lpga events, that she can as a non-member.

The lpga commissioner should decide to do whatever they can to let her play as many events as possible, because her playing in events helps the lpga in that event.

Here is my suggested rule changes:
- let there be 6 exemptions allowed plus majors. That gives Michelle 10 events.
- if a player qualifies for an event the following year by finishing in the top X number of places, then let them play that event the next year, and it not to count on their exemptions.
- that way a player like MW could build up a number of extra tournaments over a few years and it would stop the flood gates opening for other players unless they were able to qualify by finishing in the top X of an event.

You have lost the run of yourself there.
The lpga will not be toast. Even if Wie is really successful in mens events, she will still surely want to compete in womens majors and big events on the lpga circuit. And by 2010, there won't be 5 ladies with cards on the pga tour.
Wie MIGHT get a card by then. Given that she would be 20, it could be a while after though, that in my opinion.
As for other women, there is another one I know about who may be making an impression soon, but that's top secret stuff.

I am not sure that I agree with the one in every generation thing. Ochoa is only 24, Creamer is 19 or 20, Pressel 17. These young ladies can all play. Se Ri Pak has finished 10th in a Korean tour event. The ladies are hitting the ball further and further, training harder, and getting better.

My comparison about Ochoa and MW a couple of posts ago is already alarming. It shows that if you want to get noticed, you would do better making a cut in a weak field Asian tour event than to finish in the top 5 in 8 of 10 starts.

Your thought of the LPGA going the way of the Dodo bird being good doesn't seem a good thing. Tigers success on the PGA tour started bringing more minorities into the game.

Annika's success has brought the young superstars into being. The LPGA has grown because of that success, and it gains momentum for itself and for womens golf in general. If you are a young female golfer, you can play high school golf, get a college scholarship, and if your heart desires you can try to make it to the LPGA, or play on the Futures Tour and move up.

If it starts to falter, what happens to womens golf programs at the high school and college level. Do we just create the college golfers association which is coed??? Do you just tell young ladies that if they can't cut it with the men, this isn't for you???

The LPGA is a dream for young ladies. When the dream becomes unattainable, or not as fulfilling, there will be fewer young ladies to chase the dream.