Sorry if this has been posted, but I didn't see it anywhere. Anyways, due to the economy and the threat of losing tournament sponsors, thus losing tournaments, Lee Trevino is suggesting that once every three years, PGA players should be forced to play every tournament on the calendar. Basically, to entice sponsors by assuring that the big names will be in the field for their tournament. While it would be nice, and would undoubtedly boost ratings to some degree if Tiger, Phil, Ernie, etc. were playing every week, I just don't think it would be fair to the players to force them to play every single tournament. More or less because of the toll it would take with the travel and such. However, you could also say that the MLB, NFL, NBA and pretty much all other professional sports essentially force their players to play every week, if not every day with travel in between, and I've never heard anyone talk of shortening the schedules in these sports. Nonetheless, I'd have to say that it's a novel idea at best, but I don't think we'll ever see it happen because of the influence that the big names have on the tour, and their preference to play the tournaments they like. What do you guys think? The link to the article is below.

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ba...urn=golf,148984

I am glad you posted this topic, becuase I think that this is a good topic to talk about. I would also add that I think that it is important for the A players to make themselves available to the public at these tournements. PGA could take a page from NASCAR in this regard. Now I do not like or follow NASCAR, but they did a great job of marketing.

For example how much fun would it be to watch Phil do some trick shots around the green, or how much would you pay to watch Tiger bounce the ball on his wedge.

These guys get big bucks form sponsors, and they work hard and deserve it, but they also need to make sure they take thier part in growing the sport.

golfers are independent contractors, if they want them to play all the events pay them to. until then its up to them what to play and when to play it..

I believe what Lee was suggesting is that each PGA player much commit to play at least 1 time in a 3 year span at all PGA tournaments, not all in one calendar year. For example if they played in the 2009 Houston Open they would not have to play that event again the following 2 years if they chose not to. This would be a guarantee of sorts that at least once every 3 years all the big names, Tiger, Phil, etc...would be there. I think it's a great idea, currently some tournaments will never have Tiger show without this type of rule in place.

Definately agree with playing every event during a 3 or 5 year span. I don't quite agree with the independent contractor stuff though. How as an independent contractor are you entitled to the huge pension plan and other benefits these guys have??? Seems to me that some of the players have the best of both worlds and in all honesty have probably become a bit too spoiled. I personally don't know any independent contractors that have any type of benefits these guys get.

Right on about the players no longer being true 'independent contractors'. They have benefits, a pension plan, medical staff on hand at every tournament, and exclusive rights to certain events (no cut WGC, for instance). I don't know any independent contractors that get that, do you?? All of these guys make a terrific living, EVEN the ones on the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak. I, for one, don't think that it would be asking too much to have them play in each tournament, if they are a member of the tour, once every 4 years. Gives them enough time to set their schedule accordingly, etc. They should be looking at it as self-preservation, more than anything. The more tournaments they lose, the more competition that will be in the ones that are left.

I've been saying they should do this for years. The LPGA does it and it seems to keep the sponsors happy. Lorena Ochoa skipped one last year or the year before and was fined. I think it's important that some of the smaller tournaments get to have Tiger or Phil every few years.

I would be for such a rule.

Perhaps the Tour should just think about upping the minimum number of events from 15 to 20. With the Majors, the WGC events and the Players, guys like Tiger only have to show up a handful of times at "regular" events.

This made me think of Tiger and Texas. Anyone know the last time he played there? I was thinking of him always playing the Memorial and Bay Hill and wondering if he ever played the Nelson? With his sense of history I am surprised he doesn't make that one of his regular stops. Maybe if they called it the Buick Byron Nelson, he'd show up. Or at least when Buick was one of his sponsors.

I think the players should feel a sense of responsibility to play in all of the events on the calendar. For the good of the tour. Even if it is just every once in while, so ALL their fans get a chance to see them. But, unfortunately, the elite players have chosen to skip events they don't like or don't pay as much. I think it's a shame. I agree with Trevino. In the absence of the players making sound decisions on where to play for the good of the tour, the tour should install some rules to force the players to attend all the events. The Lakers don't refuse to go to Oklahoma City. The fans in Milwaukee and Houston and New Orleans and etc. support their events every bit as much as the big venues and should be able to see Tiger and the other elites every couple of years. I think it is a small price for the players to pay for all the millions they are being paid.

I sure hope they don't skip The Masters, I have tickets for Monday's practice round.

Beener

Agree , Also do away with the pointless Fedex cup

It would have been either the last Byron Nelson he played or the Tour Championship when it was in Houston. I saw him at the TC about 3 years ago, but then they moved it to Atlanta. With that move and Byron Nelson gone, I don't know when he'll ever play in Texas again. Too hot for a U.S. Open or PGA Championship.

I agree with you on the rest.

That would definitely be more reasonable, and I for one would be in favor of such a rule. Perhaps the author of the article was using Trevino's words to make his own point and it presents itself as Trevino wanting players to play every single tournament in one season every third year. Also, if this were true, what would one do for weeks like the previous with the CA Championship and the tournament in Puerto Rico being played simultaneously? I guess as long as a player didn't take the week off altogether then he would be fine. Lastly, would the tour have to alter it's requirements for player's exemptions for certain tournaments to allow for someone that would otherwise not be exempt under the tournament's current qualifications, i.e. major championships, W.G.C. events etc.?

This is nothing new, Trevino was pushing this 20 years ago to help tournament sponsers. He did it himself...........it was a good idea then and still is now.

Sponsors have the upper hand....

The PGA needs them MUCH more than they need the PGA....

If I'm say....Wells Fargo.....why dump a bunch of money into a tourney..where Tiger may or may not show up.....knowing none of my competitors are spending that kind of $$ any more....???? and I can always go to the NFL for ads.....

They better do something to "guarantee" a return on sponsors investment $$...

When Wells Fargo bought out Wachovia, they had to buy the contracts for the Quail Hollow event. Tiger normally plays that tournament, hopefully he will this year.

They would certainly have exceptions, such as for opposite field events like the WGC's and the British Open. It would also only be for non-invitational events. The majors and invitationals wouldn't be affected - the players are competing for the opportunity to play in those already. The tournaments that would be helped would be the 'normal' PGA tournaments. You wouldn't open up the invitationals to the 125th ranked player just to meet a requirement. The whole issue of invitationals in general is a whole other topic in and of itself. The only invitational that maybe should be addressed is the Mercedes, where the top names seem to not care. Not sure how to do it, but there needs to be some incentive.

I recall reading a story some time ago in which a couple of more prominent tour players were offered an opportunity to play in a couple of minor event rather than fines/suspensions. I think it's a double positive...instead of fines meaningless to well paid players a tourney gets a real boost.

I agree with this 100%.

What are you going to do about the players from Europe who qualify and play only enough events to enter the Majors?

Tiger, Phil and a few others won't play the PGA Tour, they'll play enough events to play the majors. Are you going to ban anyone who isn't actually a member of the PGA Tour? Are you going to take away exemptions for winners who aren't members of the Tour?

It will get pretty boring if you go to a "closed shop."

ball players are expected to show up to work (baseball, basketball, and football). so are soccer players and hockey players. you are expected to show up to work everyday. why not golf professionals?

Especially with Race for Dubai is better money than FedEx cup

I agree to some extent to what everyone is saying. But you have to take into consideration, why Trevino and his peers played in every tournament "back in the day"? First of all, there weren't as many tourneys as there are now and they weren't making the same kind of money these guys are today. Second of all, being independent contractors, as it was stated, they had to hustle to make a decent paycheck. These guys today don't have to work as hard. (Thanks to the Tiger machine.)

However, I do think that the top 50 players should be forced to make the circuit. Otherwise, it should put their rankings in jeopardy. If you think about it, the lesser ranked players will make the circuit because they're trying to keep their tour cards and make the money list. Why shouldn't the top ranked players be kept to the same standards? It's almost like they're playing in certain events only to keep their ranking. Like a boxer that only fights twice a year instead of six times. And because of this, the lesser venues are hurt or don't get the same attendance. Which is hardly fair to either the other tour players or the fans.

It depends on the fundamental question: whether competitive golf is a sport or a leisure? If it's a sport, then it should behave like all other sports: basketball, baseball & football have not changed their schedules in however many years. They still play the same number of games in a season, no matter what. But get paid a ridiculous amount of money.

You can't force an independent contractor to play, that's fine. So we'll either pay you less money or take away a certain amount points for every event you don't play, depending on the venue and/or status of the event. That's just my .02.

First, let me say I like Trevino's idea. Second, let me point out that in today's world, only one guy matters.

The fact is, it's become of tour of having, or not having, Tiger. Having a home town tournament that once was one of the more prestigious on Tour, not having Tiger for the last 10+ years has definitely hurt us in more ways than one. During that time, we've had guys like Price, Perry x2, Mickleson x2, Garcia, and Watson (his last regular tour win) win our tournament. We've had some great, great players. We consistantly have one of the strongest fields on tour (but only of tournaments not featuring Tiger). We host the Ben Hogan Award during tournament week, given to the best collegiate golfer in the country. The winners get an exemption when they turn pro. All have kept coming back.

We haven't had Tiger.

We are the longest running tour stop on the PGA Tour (The Masters isn't governed by the PGA). We have as much history as any tournament out there. We have as much course history as any course in the country (Only course in the USA to host a regular PGA event, a US Open, a Women's US Open, and a TPC). We've consistantly been ranked amoung the Top 100 courses in the country since they started ranking courses, most of that time in the top 50 (and likely heading back up the chart after a recent major remodel).

We don't have Tiger (other than to shoot Nike commercials). He finished 4th the only time he came here.

Trevino has some great ideas, but the fact of the matter is that it's really up to Tiger. You are a have or have not based on whether or not he shows up in many people's eyes (including those who spend money on Tournaments).

I'm very proud of our tournament and look forward to it every year. We have great fields and I've enjoyed getting to interact with these players all this time and have gained many friendships from the tournament. We have great crowds, raise the 2nd most money on Tour for charities, have a major economic impact on our community, and maintain traditions that go back to the early days of Hogan's 5 wins on his home course, Tommy Bolt, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson, Phil Mickleson, and 70 years worth of others. Native son, Byron Nelson, may be the only iconic name of yesteryear not to grace our Wall of Champions.

What we would do to have Tiger. What every tournament out there would do to have Tiger.

The fact is, Tiger could start his own Tour, invite his own group of players, and bankrupt the PGA in pretty short measure during these difficult times. It really boils down to what he wants.

I love what Trevino says and think it's a great idea. However, one guy holds 51 cards out of the deck.

Maybe I'm wrong, but don't think I am.

It is unfair to compare an individual sport like golf to a team sport. A player on a team has an additional responsibility to their team mates. Baseball, basketball and football players are under contract and are paid, win or loose. Players who play the sports mentioned play a full one half of their games at home so they are with their families half the time. PGA players are rarely at home, and their events last 4 days so it is rarely possible to go home between events. Finally, the sports mentioned have shorter seasons than golf. Golf runs January to November.

The Race to Dubai would have no effect on such a rule. Guys like Stewart Cink and Jim Furyk and Nick Whatney aren't going to skip out on the PGA Tour to go play in Asia, South Africa, Australia and all over Europe because they don't want to go to New Orleans or Milwaukee once every three years. Certainly more PGA Tour players are going to take up Euro Tour membership so they can play in the season ending event in Dubai but for most of these guys that will only mean a handful of events in Europe in addition to their regular PGA schedules. With the WGC and the Majors they already play 7 European events and only have to travel abroad for one tournament.

What would the PGA Tour do with players from Europe who only play the Majors? Nothing. Those particular players aren't members of the PGA Tour and aren't the guys Trevino is talking about. The players who are members of the PGA Tour are members because they choose to be and I doubt if such a minuscule rule would have much affect on Tour membership. The weather and the courses are better in the US and guys like Els, Vijay, Sergio and others want to play here during the heart of the season. They don't want to be trotting around Europe playing in Russia, the Czech Republic and Italy, no offense to any of those places. Never been, I just know Vijay Singh would rather be in Florida.

No, but the big names this is meant to deal with would. Some already are. They are already playing 7 European events. The top players could do that on exemptions without being members of the PGA Tour and pick up the other needed events where they want.



Do you think Tiger needs to be a member of the PGA? Do you really believe he (or any of the other top 20) would need to play in the Czech Republic?

Well I think Lee Trevino was talking about the Tour, not Tiger. That said I think Tiger likes to play golf and I think he would like to do most of it in America. If it is about the money, Tiger would just play Europe where he can get paid appearance fees like the 4.5 million Melbourne is going to give him to come in November. But Tiger wouldn't be eligible for the Players, the Tour Championship or the Fed Ex play-offs if he didn't keep his PGA Tour Card. Those are things Tiger wants to play and win.

Tiger doesn't "need" to be a member of the Tour. He could just play the biggies and then take sponsors exemptions to the others. But why would he do that? Because the Tour asked him to do something that would benefit the Tour?

My comment about the Czech Republic was about guys who want to play competitive golf against the best in the world on a semi weekly basis. If everything is based on what Tiger "needs" we might as well close down the world because Tiger could retire tomorrow. The point is, if such a rule is going to have guys leaving the Tour then they are going to be looking for other places to play. During the heart of the European Tour season, they stop in places like the Czech Republic. Would anyone NEED to play there? Of course not. But none of the top players NEED to be playing Tampa this week, but many are.

I just think it is going to take a lot more than this to drive anyone away. Again, who is going to argue that playing in Des Moines is too tough while they are hopping on a plane to fly to Malaysia? Most of these guys aren't like Tiger, they want to play more than 15 times a season. Picking up a few events to fill in the gaps between the WGC and the Majors isn't enough, that is why you have such a good field this week and at the Honda. These guys want to play. I think the golfing world would get pretty lonely for guys like Furyk, Cink and anyone else like that who elected to leave the Tour. Would never happen. Especially since it would be largely up to said players to enact such a rule.

Tiger's only real interest at this point is majors. He's said it himself, and everything else is secondary.

He would be eligible for the Players but you're right about the Tour Championship and FedEx. I don't think he gives a rip about the FedEx.



Yes, basically. He has other things outside of golf. And so do most of the other top 20. He is not responsible for the tour's well being.



It isn't just Tiger. It is the top 20. Your argument is contradictory - if they wanted to play every week they would and this would be a non-issue. The fact is they aren't, and they don't want to, and they don't have to. There are options.

And you are right, they don't have to play in Tampa this week. That is precisely what we are talking about changing.


If they wanted to play so badly, why do we need to discuss this rule?

You can have a strong desire to play without wanting to play EVERY week of the season. Everyone needs a week off here and there.

Why do we need to discuss this? Because some guys, Tiger included never go to certain events. The PGA Tour is better off if big names are in the field. They don't all have to have WGC caliber fields but is it really outrageous to ask Phil, Ernie, Vijay, Sergio and Tiger to show up at Pebble Beach or New Orleans once every three years? If you play in the NBA you are forced to play in LA, Dallas, Houston and every other city, every year. The league would fall flat on its face if Kobe and Lebron could simply decide to not pay against Milwaukee, Charlotte, Oklahoma City and half the other teams. Obviously golf has some advantages that other sports don't but there is no arguing that the PGA Tour is only going to grow in popularity if the big names go to more places.

All Trevino wants is for the Tour to be successful and for the fans and sponsors to get a fair shake. He isn't being unreasonable.

I never said Tiger was responsible for the well being of the Tour. I just don't think he is going to run away from the PGA Tour because of any stipulation like this. Tiger can gear his game around the majors all he wants. That is fine. But if that is the case, why is he CURRENTLY a member of the PGA Tour if all he cares about are Majors? Why does he play WGC events, the Players and the Fed Ex Cup? Tiger sure looked like he was interested in the Fed Ex Cup in 07 when he won. I don't see him giving that up. He needs to play to prepare for Majors and this move would require one of two things. He play more or he switch up his schedule.

If Tiger didn't like this rule and threatened to leave the Tour, he wouldn't be alone, at which point you could bag the thing. There is nothing wrong with suggesting something that might not work. Obviously if Finchem was ever going to do such a thing, he would talk it over with the players. If the players were going to flip out, they wouldn't do it. And by players I mean, Tiger Woods.

Having a PGA card is a huge privilege, and IMO could have this obligation attached.

Tiger was going to leave the tour because his caddy couldn't wear shorts for a made for television event.

I already explained why it is unfair to compare team sports to golf. It is a poor analogy at best.

I don't know what they would do, I'm not them. Based on past acts I think if the top players were forced to play in second tier events the top players would consider leaving.

If an event can't attract top names, and it is going under, then it should go under. Instead, Trevino and others suggests watering down all the events. Fields would change as different players chose to play different events during different seasons. Certain events are plenty successful. Leave them alone and bag the losers and be done with it.

By the way, you're too focused on Tiger. I'm talking about Tiger and the rest of the top 20. In any case, Tiger is a member of the PGA right now because it meets his needs. As soon as it doesn't he'll leave.

You keep saying the top players would consider leaving. But where would they go? Signing up to play in the Race to Dubai is one thing but these "top 20" players you refer to like where they play. Jim Furyk is not going to up his family and tour around Europe. Steve Stricker is not going to leave Wisconsin to go live in Sweden. Phil Mickelson is never going to "leave". I guess I don't understand where you think these guys will go. Are they going to play on the Nationwide Tour? The Canadian Tour? You really think the answer to to the demand that they play second tier events is that they would go play a second tier tour? Gee, that would really show us.

The problem I see with your argument is that you're giving way too much credit to guys #2-20 in the world rankings. The fact is, there is Tiger and then everyone else. It's really that simple in the eyes of the people who right the checks.

The tournament I gave as an example above is a good illustration. Prior to 1997, Colonial consistantly had one of the top 5 fields on Tour every year. Tiger doesn't come here and now tournaments that used to be 2nd Tier are considered to be superior just because Tiger shows up there every year.

Consider the Nelson over in Dallas. For many, many years, the folks in Dallas would get frustrated that they couldn't get the fields Colonial drew. Then Tiger started going to that tournament to honor Byron. Byron passed away, Tiger hasn't been back, and many others quit going as well. It's still a successful tourament, as is Colonial, but in this increasingly tight environment for sponsors, not having Tiger is a pretty big factor when needing sponsorship dollars.

I'm not knocking the guy at all. He's amazing and has made those other 200 guys out there alot of money. But in the view of sponsors, it's a one-man Tour. This will be magnified in this current economy.

Also, when I'm talking about sponsors, I'm not just talking about the Title Sponsor. There are many other sponsors that are extremely important to the success of any tournament. These range from individuals buying Pro-Am packages to major companies buying hospitality areas, to presenting sponsors for pro-ams. This is the area where most tournaments are really hurting this year.

I think you'll see some pretty major changes to professional golf over the next few years.

The World Golf Rankings need to be more fluid. Currently they are too static and do not allow for big changes from "in-form" players. The 2 year points rotation system (or whatever it is) gives too much emphasis to past events. The most in-form player over a 3-month period should be the #1 player in the world. Generally, I reckon most of the top 20 golfers in the world pay too much attention to their ranking and if they are currently well up there, there is less motivation to play more tournaments. With a system that has more fluidity allowing in-form players dramatic rises in the rankings, more players will want to play tourneys and those who are in-form will want to capitilise on their current run to boost themselves up as high as possible. This combined with at least a min. 20 tournaments within a year will get more of the so-called big-name players out there more. Well, that's just my opinion.

EDIT: Players look to their rankings well before any of that Fed-Ex Cup crap.

Wachovia ink'd the deal with NO out clause!! So Wells is stuck for 4 more years

Phil has already talked about leaving. Tiger was going to leave if Stevie wasn't allowed to wear shorts for an event. These guys simply aren't going to be dictated to - it isn't in their mental makeup.

If the top 20 go and play regularly in Europe it isn't going to be second tier for long.

The top 20 don't have to be members of any tour - they have enough exemptions to play as much as they want, and anyone in the top 20 can get a sponsor's exemption to play any tournament they want.

That said, I don't know why anybody gives a rip about some tournament in Bumbleflip Iowa. If it can't attract the top players on its own, then it deserves to go away.

The truth of the matter is they will play where the money is. If another tour starts paying substantially more money in winnings many pro's will move to that tour. As long as the PGA can remain the dominant tour in prize money and prestige they can certainly dictate more terms than they are right now.

On a side note, I believe the tournament Tiger threatened to walk away from over Stevie's shorts was not a PGA event but one of the made for television ones.

Unfortunately the PGA has already started down a road they are going to regret by catering to the top players like Tiger and Phil too much. It's a slippery slope that I'm not sure they will ever climb back up it.

It was a made for television event, I think Bighorn. However, it was contractually tied to the PGA.

Tiger said he wasn't going to play if Stevie couldn't wear shorts. A PGA official told Tiger if he didn't play he wouldn't play on the PGA Tour for the rest of the season. Tiger said that was fine, he'd play in Europe. In less than 10 minutes Tiger's caddy had permission to wear shorts.

The PGA should have called his bluff right then and there, besides I don't think the PGA tour could have blocked him other than that event whether or not they were associated with it.

The funny thing is, no one has ever done what you claim the "top 20" will do.

You can't use as many exemptions as you want. There is a limit. Six I believe in one year. That would be enough for Tiger to keep him happy but not anyone else, not the guys who want to play 25-30 times. Players who only play a handful of events in a year will drop out of the world rankings and there goes Major invites and WGC invites. Then what. You have to play to keep your stature and if you don't play you aren't going to be top 20 anything. Unless you win like Tiger, you have to play 20+ events or it will kill your world ranking. I can't disagree more if you are telling me Steve Stricker will quit the Tour and go play 15 European Tour events. Same with Phil. He isn't going anywhere, as there is nowhere for him to go.

Hopefully as the economy gets worse this year and next many of the tournaments will lose sponsors to where they will have to play every tournament just because of the reduced number of tournaments won't give the opportunity to pick and chose. Right now a significant number of tournaments don't sell very well just because they can't draw flies, while Europe, Asia, Australia, Mideast all pay big show up bucks for the stars. Those tournaments should be dumped immediately since all they do is supply a pay day to the less talented lower tier pros.

Might be covered on the thread already, but to answer your question:
What are you going to do about the players from Europe who qualify and play only enough events to enter the Majors?

Nothing actually. Remember the Majors aren't actually PGA Tour Events. They are each run by their respective bodies.

Masters = Augusta National Membership
US Open = USGA
The Open = R&A
PGA Championship = PGA of America

The only "major" that is related to PGA Tour membership is The Players.

The Majors fields are based on World Ranking Points, Qualifying, positions on the various Tours money lists, invitations and qualifying, not based on whether the players are PGA Tour members.

So the Majors themselves have little to do with a particular Tour membership, hence the WGC events having a higher amount of World Ranking Point weight. The WGCs allow a player to rise up the rankings without being a PGA Tour Member per say, and therefore being affected by this potential rule.

So you wouldn't ban anyone from a major because they don't need to be a PGA Tour member in order to play. A player does need to be a member of a particular tour however though in order to accumulate enough WRPs to play in a WGC event or to gain WRPs from performance on the tour they belong to. In order to benefit from that, they would then have to abide by any rules imposed by the Tour they become a member of, like the one we are discussing.


Cheers