One thing that bugs me big time is the new rule they put in place on the Champions Tour about 2 years ago. Not sure if you are aware of this, but to make a long story short, they make it almost impossible for somebody to come say, from the Club pro ranks and gain real full time elidgeabilty. If you do make it through the grueling Q school in December, all it gets you is the right to tee it up on Monday with 75 other plus 3 guys for about 6 spots. Bottom line, on the following Sunday there will be a hand full of guys competing shooting 77 while the guy who made it through Q school, who shot 69 on Monday missing it by a shot to get , watches it on TV wondering if he can make every putt the next week and play that week. Its a joke imo. The system is completely horrible. I have no idea what the logic is behind the whole thing? It certainly is not like the PGA Tour. I'm done and feel better now.

Didn't Dana Quigley come from being a club pro?

JC

I think a lot of it is due to the challenge of marketing the Champions Tour.

The 'Senior Tour' was originally designed as a way to showcase popular golfers who no longer had the game to keep up on the regular tour. And to a big extent, there only hope of being a viable entertainment product is to lure the casual fan with names and games they recognize.

While the endless supply of really good fortysomething golfers who dream of being on the Champions Tour are a midly compelling story, they add precious little value to the product. Let's face facts, seeing a bunch of 'never was' golfers over 50 playing in a tournament does not make compelling television or spin the turnstiles.

So if you run the Champions Tour are you going to make it easy for these guys to get in the fieldt and further bog down your field? Or are you going to let a few of them squeeze their way in to fill out the field and hope and pray the known golfers litter the first page of the leaderboard? Would you rather risk a somewhat known golfer shooting a 77 or Joe Blow who nobody knows, follows or cares about ham and egging a 20th place finish. At the end of the day it's a business venture and about making money. It's not the Olympics trying to give the best 50+ golfers a chance.

While there are a few feel good stories of the guys who rose up from nowhere, the Champions Tour can't market a product built on that brand.

Dana Q did come from the Pro Shop ranks. He took advantage of the old Sr Tour Rules, which pretty much allowed anybody who made it thru Q school to tee it up every week. No more.

It's just a carreer mulligan. They want to keep the $$$ in house, that's all. You didn't play on the PGA tour, sorry. The no cut free money is for members only.

That's exactly it. It's an old boy's club that's closed to outsiders who may be more deserving.

One of the many reasons why it's a joke. The no cut rule is another.

Honestly, watch Euro tour, LPGA, Nationwide, even Canadian tour over this.

i thought top 5 at Q school get cards...

Wait for Tiger to reach there. It will be more interesting than.

Mantan, I couldn't disagree with you anymore. I do know it's all about the marketing, but I'd like to see the data that says playing this guy over a real young no name is bringing in more dough. Give the 50 year old guy a chance and sit down the 69 year old guy half the time who can't hit it further than 235 yards. I'm not saying let the legands retire, just be more realistic. And Who said your making it easy for these guys. Going through 5 to 6 days of golf , shooting light out, you deserve a spot in IMO. You'd rather watch the guy who played in 33 events in 07 averaging 14K a week. Sorry, not me, I'll watch the LPGA or Nationwide anyday over that.

Based on this Monday Qualifier, there are plenty of good players who do not regularly get in the field come Friday Morning.

http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tournaments/s0...ults/index.html

Mike Donald
Kenny Knox
Rick Rhoden
Larry Rinker
Dick Mast
Lon Hinkle
Phil Blackmar

All but Rhoden has some sort of success on the PGA Tour at one point or another. The Senior Tour does its best (in my opinion) to put out a good product. It allows for some of the more popular players to continue to play and generate interest, yet there have been plenty of fell good stories along the way as well.

I think the Champions Tour is struggling a bit. It was a great thing for me when I was 25, because I got the chance to see a bunch of the greats before they faded away from competition. One of my best tournament memories was at Champions tour event where Lee Trevino holed out on a par three...there were only a handful of people on the tee. For some reason, I just can't get as excited about it these days.

But the original premise for the Seniors Tour was that people would come out for the high profile players, not the competition. The good golf was a bonus, but now I think the truth of that original approach is being borne out. Good competition and golf won't draw the same level of interest when the field is full of people that nobody recognizes or remembers. Lon Hinkel and Larry Rinker may be very nice fellows, but I don't know that I'd pay $10 to watch them play for a day. Ray Floyd....now that's another story.

This is a sore subject for me. I happen to love the Senior Tour. I will give my opinion on the problem.

1) Arnie is to old to play- Just like the junior tour, he carried this tour the first few years. Throw in Jack, and personalities like Chi Chi, and Trevino, it is not hard to see why the tour took off in the early years.

2) The stars don't play.or they play badly- Norman, Faldo, Price, Langer, Seve? If this crop couldn't breathe life into the tour last year, the chances don't look too good. As the purses on the junior tour continue to increase, this problem will only get worse. They have so much money, why bother? The only solution to this is to quit giving money until 62 instead of 52 or to give incentives based on play on the Senior Tour. Neither is likely to happen.

3) The tour is trying to make it a closed shop. How and why they are getting away with it is beyond me. A player has virtually no chance to get out there and get comfortable now. I know a guy who had a top ten finish in Hawaii, and was under the impression he would get in last week. It was even mentioned on tv. He then found out later that he would have to qualify. Has the tour forgotten Larry Laoretti, Robert Landers and the likes who brought some fresh faces and good play? It would seem as more and more stars decline to play, they would try and make some room for some new people to get out there and show their skills.

4) As the ratings declined, the Seniors seemed to get less support from the powers that be. Remember when the Tournament Of Champions had the old and young guys play the same course? Great idea and it kept them in the limelight and proved they could still play.

I haven't given up and hope the SPGA can return to the glory days!

They get the "privelige" to try and Monday qualify. This changed last year.

Realize the motivations on all sides of this issue.

But nothing like seeing the likes of an Allan Doyle or Dana Q keeping things lively on the Sr Tour. Too bad this is mostly now in the past, as has been mentioned.

It would be hard to market this aspect of the tour to non golf "geeks" but Id love to the see the tour embrace this aspect, much like the way they treat some of the marketing for Q School in general.

The new rule IMO is really backwards. It makes it nearly impossible for the next Dana Quigley or Allan Doyle to get out there and play even though they have gone through the Q school successfully. I love to watch the legends of the game, but pardon me for saying this, but there are some guys out there, who imo shouldn't be playing full time, i'm not saying get rid of them, but give a guy a shot who deserves to play.

Obviously I am only speaking for myself, but the only reason I watch the Champions Tour is because there's no other golf on, and I love golf. I look for the handful of guys that I recognize, and that's it. I'm not really rooting for some Cinderella story or some dark-horse to take down the big guys. I'm just not that invested in it. I don't think I'm alone.

It's all politics and marketing.

Lonnie Nielsen came from club pro ranks and has won... last year i believe... and he also places highly in most every tourney

Perhaps the PGA should have a senior tour and the Champions tour. With the senior tour, you'd have to qualify just like in the the regular PGA tour. The Champions tour can continue to be the nostalgia act.

I wonder if it would be feasible to incorporate a 2-day Senior Tour event on the weekend before a regular PGA tour event (at the same course). That would give the event an extra weekend of revenue.

For us forty somethings who have game and was looking forward to the Senior Tour to play this sport professionally, this new system is crap! Going to q school to get a chance to monday qualify is unfair, and bacially closes the Senior tour to only those who have had success and won on the regular tour! I could see if this formula brought greater ratings, but did/does not, and I would think the golfing public would be more inclined to see a guy, who is like them, getting a chance to make it big, than some guy, who has already won 6 majors, and who really doesn't want to be there, take up those tourneyment spots. So it looks like in order gain entry and crack the senior tour, you have to play well in one of the Open championships. Not impossible, but damn near!

I would think a mix of known entities and a decent sized group of unknowns would be the most appealing. The unknowns would give the network a chance to tell some of their stories, and the viewers would identify with these guys trying to live the dream.

At this point I will watch an LPGA event over a Champions event hands down. And also, I would bet money that Tiger NEVER sets foot on the Champions tour.

That is BRUTAL and unfair. I'm sure that most people do NOT know this and I just decided that I will not tune in to watch another Senior Tour event unless this rule is changed.

I for one, find it MUCH more interesting to see a story about a guy that battled his way onto a tour by PERFORMING under pressure than watching the SAME group of guys split up the money every weekend.

The folks that run that tour are mistaken if they think more people will tune in to watch the same 6 guys play for the money. They will unfortunately probably have to learn the hard way, as the tour continues to shrink in popularity, because people would rather see great stories that watch Kite and Roberts EVERY week.

Tim

Unfortunately the sponsors and their money doesn't see it that way.

I think they should implement a cut before the last round, let the guys who make it through Q school play. That way the guys grandfathered in can play, the sponsors are happy and you get the best guys competing on Sunday. Wouldn't that be better golf? It sure would be more interesting for me to watch.

Lonnie Neilson is a great example of a club pro who has done really well. I think his 1st season was 04.

I discussed this issue several months back on a different forum and I got killed.

It's just that I have a serious problem with the closed shop and the no cut.

Now I fully realize why they do this. The Tour wants name players in the field. They are terrified of a tournament with the leader board covered with names no one has ever heard of. I can see the marketing disaster of such an event. The average fan cares nothing about the people they never heard of. The senior tour is not about the competition and it never really was. It's about the personalities. Watch the commercials and you see the "Walrus", or the "Boss of the Moss". They don't talk about the scoring or the great golf. They talk about past champions and image of the players.


BUT......

These guys made their living playing "competitive golf" They had to deal with "no names" kicking their butts all the time, and they had to deal with not making cuts when they didn't have their "A" game. Why did that change? Why are they no longer held accountable for failure? I hate the idea that they are now "entitled" to play no matter how badly they play. THAT is not competitive golf. THAT is a parade of stars. Which if they were honest, is how it should be presented. If the fans want to see their old favorites play a bit of golf, they won't care if they shoot a 100. But if they are going to market these guys as still playing competitive golf, then they need to be held accountable when they don't have the game to do so. I don't see any other honest approach.

Now, do I have a solution......Not one that will ever happen. But the senior circuit is not a legitimate competitive Tour, and I don't think it should marketed as such. This stuff about "these guys come to play" is hyperbole for all but the top 8-10 guys in the field. The majority are going through the motions and cashing guaranteed checks.

My personal opinion, which is worth exactly what you pay for it, is that while a leader board filled with "no-names" might be difficult to market, I also believe in my heart that such an occurrence would not happen more than once or twice. I believe that such a disaster would motivate the established "stars" to pick up the gauntlet and work on their games and come out and prove that they are still the best over 50 players in the world. They had to do it before, why not now? If not, if they truly don't care enough to stay competitive, they need to go home and reminisce about how good they used to be.

There is no shame in retiring.

Just because they did it once doesn't mean they should get to do it now just because they want to. Competitive golf is supposed to be competitive. If the no-names are better players, then that isn't their fault. That failure belongs to the "stars". I like the idea of a "Senior Tour" where the best 50-60 year olds play serious competitive golf. I truly believe that having the best players fight it out is a viable marketing tool. Then have a separate 60+ "Tour" where the celebrity players can walk the fairways, interact with the crowds, shoot 90, and play all three rounds.

Of course, I could be delusional to think such an idea will work. But I'll bet we never find out.

Also.......Tiger will NEVER grace the senior tour. When he can't beat the best, he will walk away. He doesn't need the money, and he sure doesn't need to play less than great golf.

100% Agreed. Also agree on the Tiger statement. I am pretty sure that Tiger will never sink to the lows that Duval has sunk to.

Tim

You know I had not heard this rule and I do not understand it as it has been explained. If it only gives the priviledge of qualifying to 5 guys where do the other qualifiers come from. I mean what is the advantage of tour school. Monday qualifying is a money hole for the tour the more the merryer

Now the original Seniors tour rules many which are still in place were made by a bunch of old seniors who wanted a check everyweek.

It was never meant as a second chance for guys that never played the big tour. But it has become that and its the most interesting thing about it.

I really would love clairification of this rule.

I'm also of the opinion that Tiger Woods will never play the Champions Tour. Once he can't be the the best on the PGA Tour, he'll quit.

I have a different point of view on this.
I think the tour has it right. Guys can Monday qualify and and if they have the game they will make it and become a regular. If they don't have enough game, then I'd rather watch someone that I know, even if they are no longer at the top of their game. I'd rather watch Nick Price swat it around than Joe Club Pro.
I'm not going to a Champions tour event to see the ultimate in golf-that's for the PGA boys to bring. I'm going to watch some decent golf by some "Champions" i.e. profile players that I recognize and with whom I am familiar. That is just better entertainment for me. If I want to see older unknown guys grinding it out, there are plenty of club pro tourneys to attend.

Gotta say - I agree. Neither I (nor, I'd imagine, anyone else) watches the Champion's Tour to see great golf. It isn't great golf. Doesn't even come close to hitting the level of the Nationwide or LPGA. It is full of people that are, by definition, past their prime. It is largely watched (when its watched at all) by other older folks that like to see the players they remembered when they were younger, or by those of us that are such golf junkies that we'll watch anything that has someone swinging a club ...

It isn't the "Senior's" Tour, its the Champion's Tour. I do understand the idea of merit - of why many would want the Champions to be as Darwinistic as the PGA/LPGA/Nationwide. But I have to slightly disagree with those who say it isn't "fair" that former PGA pros be so priviledged simply because of being known in the past.

The golf might be a little better if the Champions became fully competitive. But not a lot. It still would not come anywhere close to the level of the Nationwide or LPGA (in terms of the golf itself). Even further, everyone there is on a downward spiral. Younger players on the PGA still have time to establish their names, grow reputations, get better, become known. The Champions? Even if a no-name does get some traction, there are only a few years before he just fades away. (Age takes it toll, at an accelerating rate).

And at the end of the day? Its about money. You may say that the Champions is just old Tour Pros playing only to get a guaranteed paycheck - but the only way they can get that paycheck is because they did have names. The sponsors (who televise the events, and pay the purses) know exactly why people pay any attention at all to the Champions. And its not the golf. It just isn't. The quality of golf is about halfway between that of the Nationwide, and the mini-tours. The purses on the mini-tours are terrible. And even the Golf Channel doesn't bother to televise them (couldn't get any sponsors). The purses on the Champions, however, are not insignificant. Solely because the old, recognized names are there. (You may argue this if you want - but ask the people that write the checks why they are writing them ... and the answer will not be in dispute).

A true "Senior" Tour - based solely on merit, with no benefit from being a past PGA Pro, probably could not even get funded. The golf might be slightly better, but the purses would be little better than those of mini-tours. Because (truthfully) watching 50-60 year olds playing golf is about as exciting as watching them play tennis, or baseball. Age sucks.

As far as I see it - the few guys that do come through Q School, and "earn" their place, are themselves getting a huge benefit they didn't earn ... the chance to compete for purses that are only as big as they are because of those actual past "Champions".

Professionals in golf get paid - finally - by sponsors. Sponsors are not altruistic. They pay the money (and determine exactly how much they are willing to pay) because they do studies on what demographics are interested, and why.

Yes, its cruel, and unfair (from one point of view), to privilege past PGA pros over no-names who might be better (in terms of actual scores). Unfortunately, professional sports are not exactly "fair" - they are driven by dollars. No-name 50-something golfers would be about as marketable as no-name 50-something tennis players. No TV. Minimal purses. And that's just the reality of the market.
________________________________________________

As an end note - I actually think the Champions (in its current form) actually might get far more interesting in the next decade or so. Largely because "60 is the new 50" ... people are living a lot longer. Current 40-something tour pros are doing a lot more intelligent exercising, diet, and other things to keep themselves in much better shape (and the science to inform them has gotten quite good). The golfers of the 60's and 70's didn't exactly work out like the modern player does. They drank a lot more. Smoked a lot more.

Point is, I think the quality and level of golf on the Champions is going to take a huge leap in the next decade - because the folks currently on the PGA Tour now who will be on the Champions are taking (on the whole) a lot better care of themselves.

Fair enough, IMHO. But if a no-name manages to Monday qualify and then wins the tournament he should be granted a full card for two years.

And TW on the Senior Tour? Not a chance. He'll be President by then.

You know I am one of those old guys you talk about. I am not sure how the quality of golf on the Champions tour compairs to the Nationwide tour but indeed I think its better golf than I see on the LPGA. I do think something needs to be done about the players that can no longer compete. But believe me when I tell you that most of the top players still have a lot of game.

Then again I am still waiting for someone to explain the new rule.

Only a few from Tour School get cards. The next batch have the opportunity to qualify on Monday.
There is a pre-qualifier a few days before that that anyone can play in...just put up your cash and qualify. I forget how many make it thru the pre-qualifier. Check out the results.
http://sflorida.pga.com/index.cfm?listid=1...n=SectionEvents

JWF

FYI - I turned 50 last October. And I have been (in person) to events from pretty much every tour (PGA, Nationwide, LPGA, Champions, even a Hooter's event).

So I'm not trashing age ... . I am still in great shape. My handicap index is actually lower than it was when I was 30 (distance is starting to fade, but course management decisions, and my short game, are more than compensating ... and new club technology is greatly helping me compensate for age). But - as an aging guy - I grasp what age does (as you, too, must).

I also, however, run a corporation and need to intelligently allocate my own marketing dollars, and have worked for Fortune 500 firms that actually sponsored PGA tournaments. I've been in board meetings where the sponsorship was a topic of discussion. There is a very specific (and quite cold and rational) sort of mindset that governs these discussions. Hate to say it, but things like fairness to players, and making certain everyone gets an equal "chance" are simply not even variables considered at the table.

I shouldn't be saying this here - I'll look like a greedy capitalist - but large firms actually assess the bump that comes from the winner. They like big names. Northern Trust - privately - is very likely extremely happy that Phil beat Quinney. It is a brand association thing. It is measured with metrics. No one - other than fanatics - knows who Quinney is. Everyone knows who Phil is.

The hard truth of these sorts of decisions is that it is not just that sponsors have no interest in no-names being on the Champions Tour - they really have no interest in seeing them win on the Champions Tour. They would actually prefer that big names win (when they are sponsoring) on the PGA Tour. Letting no-names into the Champions? Why should they? It does them (the sponsors) absolutely no good at all. It is wasted money (this is their perception, their reality. But they are also the ones that sign the checks and fund the purses).

Yes - this mentality is so utterly foreign to our mindset here on WRX (full of golf fanatics) as to almost be from another planet. It is also (unfortunately) ... the truth.

Very good explanation midas. And although they're worlds apart, much the same thing happens in Nascar racing. I was involved in that for over 20 years, and been in those same board meetings regarding the marketing dollars spent. And because of that, Nascar has basically the same rules as the Champions Tour in that, if you're not in the top 35 in points each week, you have the "opportunity" to qualify for one of the 8 openings to make the 43 car field. This keeps the little guys out, and pretty much guarantees that a "no name" will win a big event. It's happened a few times in the past, but when they implemented the top 35 rule, that went out the window. Yep, the boys with the $$ want to see the Jeff Gordons and the Phil Mickelsons of the world win THEIR race/tournament to get the most bang for their corporate marketing buck.
I hate it too, but that's bidness in the sporting world.

Could care less about any Champions Tour event. It is essentially for club pros at this point. Most of the name pros only do well for a short period of time (probably wear and tear on their bodies on the real tour). Hale Irwin was the exception. I will watch european, asian, aussie, new zealand golf tournaments way before I would consider watching a Champions Tour event. The LPGA is much more interesting. They should rename the tour the Adams Golf Tour....

Now that's funny!!!