golfrewind.com

Greetings ...

The subject of limited playing opportunities due to limited field events on the PGA Tour has become a significant topic lately.

A couple of online articles --

Trouble in Washington .. GOLF.COM article by Cameron Morfit

Limited Fields Hampering Masters Chances ... AP article by Doug Ferguson

As well as Comparison: PGA Tour Tournament Types in 2006 and 2007, compiled by yours truly.

Certainly looks like the shop is closing up a little tighter, especially during the Fed Ex Cup season. What do you think?

Thanx-A-Lot and Enjoy My 2-¢ents Worth,
Frank-0-Sport

It does seem that way after looking at the comparison that you did.

Greetings ...

I believe the concern of some players is that having fewer full-field events on the schedule means that there are fewer opportunities in which TO BE ABLE to qualify for the more elite tournaments.

It also makes being among the Top 125 Money Leaders a little tougher for some.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

Greetings ...

Have you wondered how many players are competing for spots in a full-field event each week? There's quite a lot of them out there!

The text below my signature is from late 2006. It is a "raw count" of players available for an event, using the PGA Tour Exemption Categories.

Thanx-A-Lot and Enjoy,
Frank-0-Sport

=== Original Text ===

NOTE: This count was originally done on 10-25-2006. Player standings in the Exemption Categories have since changed.

I have done some rough counts on each of the current PGA Tour Exemption Categories.

There are at least 116 exempt players in the first 19 categories preceeding the Top 125 Money Winners (Category 20). The count of 116 does not include pre-1970 winners of the US Open or PGA Championship.

There are at least 73 players who reside within categories 20 thru 24, so we are up to 189 overall. Category 20 (Top 125 Money Winners) alone has 53 players.

There are 48 players in Category 25 (Nationwide Top 20 / Q-School Top 30) alone - now we are up to at least 237.

With regards to categories after #25, the counts can't be measured precisely, but I would not be surprised if the counts total up anywhere from 80 to 100 players.

What it all means? Over 300-some-odd guys trying for 144 to 156 spots in each of the "open" PGA Tour events on the schedule. Not all try each week, and of course not all who do try get into the event.

At least you get an idea of what it is like.

Category # ... Estimated Player Count

1 ... 13 (excludes pre-1970 US Open/PGA)
2 ... 6
3 ... 1
4 ... 5
5 ... 1
6 ... 2
7 ... 2
8 ... 0
9 ... 55
10 ... 8 (4 USA, 2 Europe, 2 Int)
11 ... 4 (3 Top 50, 1 Top 25)
12 ... 8
13 ... 2
14 ... 1
15 ... 1
16 ... 2
17 ... 4
18 ... ??
19 ... 1 Total = at least 116
-------------------------------------------------------------
20 ... 53
21 ... 3
22 ... 6
23 ... 2
24 ... 9 Total = 116 + 73 = at least 189
-------------------------------------------------------------
25 ... 48 Total = 189 + 48 = at least 237
26 ... ??
27 ... 1
28 ... 12
29 ... 3
30 ... ??
31 ... ??
32 ... 1
33 ... ?? (why team winners?)
34 ... ??

Good info Frank. What benefit does Tiger get from making this an invitational other than ego-boosting exclusivity? How does it help the tour? How does it hurt? Does Tiger care about the latter two questions, or is he all about Tiger?

Greetings ...

Yo, Tamaj13

An invitational event doesn't use all of the normal Exemption Categories when putting together a field. So, Tiger and his people can issue 4 to 8 more sponsor invites, as well as invite players off the World Rankings or winners of significant amateur events.

While a full-field event can have 144 to 156 players at the start, an invitational can have 105 to 132 players at the start.

The money Tiger brings to the tour allows them to hold opposite events from the World Golf events. Instead of taking away 20-40 spots, he is adding around 400 a year, plus the players are playing for much larger money because of him.

If those guys still want to complain, they can play in Europe for less money (or Asia, or any of the mini-tours) or suck it up and play better.

I believe part of the reason Rich Beem and Brad Faxon expressed their displeasure at Tiger's event being an invitiational is due to Tim Finchem announcing it to the public. If he communicated this to Rich and Brad before announcing it to the press, it may be avoided some of the problems. This isn't the first time Finchem announced tour intentions before clearing it with the Tour Policy Board. Rememeber the Fed Ex Cup and the "playoff system" for the three events leading up to it?

This is a good point, the players are already worried that Tim Finchem is becoming a Tiger puppet, which is not true. But Finchem is definitely worried about bowing to Tiger, rather than bowing to the rest of the players. I agree, the other players want to be in on "action".

Acutally World Golf Championships take away 70-80 spots (maybe more) per event, because some of the participants aren't PGA members. Also, there may be 400 total spots, which makes 133 per event. It adds spots, but 60 per event at most.

The opposite events are the main reason the Masters got rid of giving invitations to PGA tour winners. Though Billy Payne wants to give automatic invitations to PGA tour winners, these events plus the Fall finish make it tougher for him to do this. He will either have to forgo this idea or come up with some kind of compromise in order to keep the field to 100 or less.

Though the players are playing for more money, they don't really need it now. I wonder now if some egos are hurt. Whether it's justifiable to the players, it seems to be reality.

[quote=Frank-0-Sport;342945]Greetings ...

The subject of limited playing opportunities due to limited field events on the PGA Tour has become a significant topic lately.

A Limited Fields Hampering Masters Chances ... AP article by Doug Ferguson

I liked this article. Even a writer in Golf World mentioned the CA Championship didn't have the same feel as the old Doral event. He preferred the old Doral event. It brings questions concerning World Golf events. Except for the Match Play, I have very ilittle interest in these events. I prefer the regular PGA and even opposite field events to these. My questions are:

1. Is it time to get rid of the stroke play World Golf Championship events?

2. If we don't eliminate these stroke play World Golf Championships, do we make changes to them?

3. What kind of changes do you propose? (i.e. full field event with a cut, rotating golf courses)

[quote=Golf Fanatic;345423]Perhaps we shouldn't eliminate them, but make them all match play events. Maybe that will help the Americans better prepare for the Ryder Cup. Unfortunately, the sad but true reality is that match play is not great for TV coverage. While I enjoy watching the intricacies of match play, for TV purposes, it is pretty slow, particularly as you get to the final rounds when there are few matches occurring. Furthermore, if some big names aren't in those few matches, TV viewership will be very low - I would still watch, but one person doesn't pay for those giant tournament purses.

There has also been complaint from the international players that the tournaments are rarely out of the country. That's kind of a double edged sword, as they want to move them around but are afraid that the big names won't travel too far to participate. Tim Finchem further defends the "World" name by stating the international field. I think the money is big enough to attract the big names, as long as they are not slotted somewhere that interferes with major schedules (for instance - playing the CA in Australia two weeks before the Masters, is unlikely to attract Phil or Tiger or several other big names, but if it was at the beginning of March in Australia, the chances would be higher for attendence.)