New scheduling rule for PGA Tour players (idea)

[Harmonious]

Your points are valid, but I am having trouble following your math-

4 Majors + 4 WGC + 4 FEC is 12, right?

Add in the Players and you have 13 events that everyone wants to play every year if possible.  I am not sure if the CIMB counts, so it looks like you have 43 or 44 total events meaning 30 or 31 optional (every 3 year events).  That means a minimum of 23 or so assuming they always play the top 13 events and only play the others 1 every 3 years.

My conclusion is the same as yours- NO as it is currently formulated.  For it to even be a consideration, it would have to be something like once ever 4 or 5 years.

In terms of the purpose it serves, not only would the local fans get to see Tiger or Phil every so often, but there would be more TV dates that would at least have a Tiger or Phil or other big name (but this would likely come at the expense of weakening events like Bay Hill or the Memorial to some extent).

You're right.  I don't know what happened to my math skills last night.  Maybe because it was late last night.

[newtogolf]

The PGA Tour could encourage its members to play in tournaments by offering FedEx Cup points, but ultimately it's up to the Tournament director to present a compelling enough reason for a pro to alter his schedule and play in one tournament over another or to add it to their schedule.

I heard that this was the best turnout Fry's has had from Tour players which is partially due to the 500 FedEx Cup points.  I'd also heard Waste Management Tournament wasn't real popular with the pro's until the Tournament director made it a fun event for them to attend.

You don't mandate independent contractors to do something you incentivize them.

[MEfree]

You don't mandate independent contractors to do something you incentivize them.

Makes sense...So what about appearance fees?

(FWIW, I know they are not officially permitted by the PGA Tour, but there are certainly loop holes)

[newtogolf]

Makes sense...So what about appearance fees?

(FWIW, I know they are not officially permitted by the PGA Tour, but there are certainly loop holes)

Appearance fees as you state are not officially permitted so the PGA Tour can reconsider their stance on them or use FedEx Cup points as motivation.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings .... In the PGA Tour's current state, where you already have the four Grand Slam Majors, the Players Championship, four World Golf Championship events and the four Fed Ex Cup playoff events, there's very little pick and choose freedom, especially when you consider that the Fed Ex Cup events are the same ones every year -AND- they all occur, more or less, within the same 4-week period each year. The playoffs themselves are a logistical nightmare--and will be even more of a nightmare in 2016 with the inclusion of golf in the Summer Olympics. As for requiring players to play all regular events at least once every 3-or-4 years, that's asking a lot. Also, what about competitive incentives--IE, little added perks that like enhanced purse and points values, victory rewards and whatever else that would make it worth a player's time and effort to tee it up?? For a brief time in the 1970s, the PGA Tour did an experiment called the "Designated Event". Any recent winner of a major, the Players or the (1976-77-78) World Series of Golf, as well as US Ryder Cup members and PGA Tour Top 30 Money Winners were required to play in Designated Events. But there were some problems -- (1) only three such events were played in 1974, and then only one per year from 1975 to 1978; (2) The only competitive incentive (IE, "perk") offered to players was a tournament purse 25 or 50 percent larger than the norm. A Designated Event victory carried no bonus rewards, nor did it award its winner (in 1976-77-78 only) a spot with 20 to 25 other players in the World Series of Golf. The Designated Event experiment was canceled after 1978. In my view, the PGA Tour should -- (1) do away with the play-offs and at least one WGC event; (2) simply have the season end at the Tour Championship with the Top 50 points leaders competing; (3) annually have at least 4-to-5 different events be worth something extra in terms of purse and points offerings as well as victory rewards. Mandatory entry is not a requirement. (4) With the addition of ample--and meaningful--competitive incentives, make the awarding of the Fed Ex Cup's Grand Prize at its full value of $10 million conditional. If the specified conditions (several options offered) are not met, then the Grand Prize would be worth only $5 million!!! Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[RandallT]

As a general rule, I'm for maximum liberty and minimal mandates. Anytime I hear about a new proposed rule that enforces some aspect of anyone's behavior or limits people's choices, I vote no. We have enough rules already, and need to get rid of many we already have.

[jamo]

As a general rule, I'm for maximum liberty and minimal mandates. Anytime I hear about a new proposed rule that enforces some aspect of anyone's behavior or limits people's choices, I vote no. We have enough rules already, and need to get rid of many we already have.

Like what?

[MEfree]

Greetings ....

In the PGA Tour's current state, where you already have the four Grand Slam Majors, the Players Championship, four World Golf Championship events and the four Fed Ex Cup playoff events, there's very little pick and choose freedom, especially when you consider that the Fed Ex Cup events are the same ones every year -AND- they all occur, more or less, within the same 4-week period each year. The playoffs themselves are a logistical nightmare--and will be even more of a nightmare in 2016 with the inclusion of golf in the Summer Olympics.

As for requiring players to play all regular events at least once every 3-or-4 years, that's asking a lot. Also, what about competitive incentives--IE, little added perks that like enhanced purse and points values, victory rewards and whatever else that would make it worth a player's time and effort to tee it up??

For a brief time in the 1970s, the PGA Tour did an experiment called the "Designated Event". Any recent winner of a major, the Players or the (1976-77-78) World Series of Golf, as well as US Ryder Cup members and PGA Tour Top 30 Money Winners were required to play in Designated Events. But there were some problems -- (1) only three such events were played in 1974, and then only one per year from 1975 to 1978; (2) The only competitive incentive (IE, "perk") offered to players was a tournament purse 25 or 50 percent larger than the norm. A Designated Event victory carried no bonus rewards, nor did it award its winner (in 1976-77-78 only) a spot with 20 to 25 other players in the World Series of Golf. The Designated Event experiment was canceled after 1978.

In my view, the PGA Tour should -- (1) do away with the play-offs and at least one WGC event; (2) simply have the season end at the Tour Championship with the Top 50 points leaders competing; (3) annually have at least 4-to-5 different events be worth something extra in terms of purse and points offerings as well as victory rewards. Mandatory entry is not a requirement. (4) With the addition of ample--and meaningful--competitive incentives, make the awarding of the Fed Ex Cup's Grand Prize at its full value of $10 million conditional. If the specified conditions (several options offered) are not met, then the Grand Prize would be worth only $5 million!!!

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

Sounds like change for change sake only.  Why do away with a WGC event and the playoffs only to replace them with 4 or 5 events with bigger purses than a regular event?  The WGC and playoff events already have bigger purses.  And what would the incentive to rewarding extra points if there are no playoffs?

[nick1998bunker]

If you want to see tiger and Phil than the tournament should change not make rules that force them to

[Harmonious]

If you want to see tiger and Phil than the tournament should change not make rules that force them to

Nick, before you hit SUBMIT, please read what you have written.  You are making absolutely no sense, and this is not the first time.

[nick1998bunker]

It makes sense. I'm saying if a tournament wants better players than they are gonna have to put on a better tournament. However that may be

[jamo]

It makes sense. I'm saying if a tournament wants better players than they are gonna have to put on a better tournament. However that may be

You didn't communicate that very well, because I didn't get it either. Punctuation is your friend.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ... [quote name="MEfree" url="/t/70515/new-scheduling-rule-for-pga-tour-players-idea/18#post_907862"]Sounds like change for change sake only.  Why do away with a WGC event and the playoffs only to replace them with 4 or 5 events with bigger purses than a regular event?  The WGC and playoff events already have bigger purses.  And what would the incentive to rewarding extra points if there are no playoffs? [/quote] In lieu of a long explanation --- (1)There should be a carefully considered revision of points distribution in each of the 46 PGA Tour events, resulting in a widening of the difference ratio (IE, gap) between 1st place (tournament winner) and many of the lower places, particularly among the Top 30. At the same time, and in the interests of competitive fairness, the difference ratio (or gap) between 1st place and the lowest places should be narrowed some. The widening of the difference ratios between 1st place and any of the Top 30 places would put a greater premium on finishing as high as possible in a tournament, including the most important place of all--the winner's chair! (2) Eliminating the current playoffs and re-assigning all their points elsewhere (to any of the 46 events, not just a select few)(BTW -- there are 66,660 total playoff points; a single regular event offers just 3,513) , combined with the increased emphasis on winning, plus the offering of other competitive incentives that have significant meaning, would in one sense make the entire 46-event season a playoff series. Every victory, regardless of the event or its individual status, would potentially have a special meaning. (3) The -ULTIMATE- goal is to meet conditions necessary to win the Fed Ex Cup Grand Prize at its full value of $10 million. Al Davis, late owner of the Oakland/LA Raiders, said it best -- "Just Win, Baby!!" Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[minitour]

It gets reset in that case. But usually the crappy players play in as many tournaments as they can.

And how will you handle those with lifetime exemptions (Tiger, Phil, etc.) that say "screw that!"?

You going to kick them out of the FedEx Cup events?  I'm not sure those types of guys would care.  Kick them off of the TOUR?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose?  I'm sure Tiger could make just as much (if not more) money playing the majors, WGC events and a bunch of tournaments in Asia/India/Europe/Australia for big appearance fees.

The way I see it, this really only impacts the guys in the middle.  The lower tier players are going to play as much as they can.  The lifetime-exemption guys are going to play when, where and how much they want regardless of the sanctions.  The middle of the road guys will have to bend to these rules to continue to keep their "pretty good" status.

[MEfree]

Greetings ...

In lieu of a long explanation ---

(1)There should be a carefully considered revision of points distribution in each of the 46 PGA Tour events, resulting in a widening of the difference ratio (IE, gap) between 1st place (tournament winner) and many of the lower places, particularly among the Top 30. At the same time, and in the interests of competitive fairness, the difference ratio (or gap) between 1st place and the lowest places should be narrowed some. The widening of the difference ratios between 1st place and any of the Top 30 places would put a greater premium on finishing as high as possible in a tournament, including the most important place of all--the winner's chair!

(2) Eliminating the current playoffs and re-assigning all their points elsewhere (to any of the 46 events, not just a select few)(BTW -- there are 66,660 total playoff points; a single regular event offers just 3,513) , combined with the increased emphasis on winning, plus the offering of other competitive incentives that have significant meaning, would in one sense make the entire 46-event season a playoff series. Every victory, regardless of the event or its individual status, would potentially have a special meaning.

(3) The -ULTIMATE- goal is to meet conditions necessary to win the Fed Ex Cup Grand Prize at its full value of $10 million.

Al Davis, late owner of the Oakland/LA Raiders, said it best -- "Just Win, Baby!!"

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

So under your format, Tiger would likely have had a virtual lock on the Fed Ex Cup by the first week in August- that doesn't really make a for a compelling end to the season.  While it might be nice to have the "best" player win the FEC more often, the PGA Tour is in the entertainment business, so some drama at the end is a good thing even if someone has outclassed the rest most of the season.  That is the same reason why an undefeated New England had to play a NY Giants team that had lost 7 games in the Superbowl a few years back.

FWIW, the $ distribution has more of a gap between 1st and the others in the top 30 compared to Fed Ex Cup points.  So maybe you should propose scrapping the points altogether and just award the Fed Ex Cup based on season ending $.  I prefer it like it is now.

[David in FL]

Count me as another no......

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings .... [quote name="MEfree" url="/t/70515/new-scheduling-rule-for-pga-tour-players-idea/18#post_908020"]So under your format, Tiger would likely have had a virtual lock on the Fed Ex Cup by the first week in August- that doesn't really make a for a compelling end to the season.  [/quote] Your point is well taken. It is true that Tiger has been dominate in many seasons, but for how much longer is that going to go on? Can he keep playing at such a high level each year? And whether or not he does keep going at his great pace, who is going to challenge him, how many are going to challenge him and how often will those challenges occur?? I am of the opinion that Tiger Woods is indeed a rare phenomenon, one that we may not seen again anytime soon. However, there's a catch to that rareness, and that catch is--TIMING!! Tiger Woods has succeeded in a period of time where the work ethic dynamics of PGA Tour players are much different than when the likes of Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, Tom Weiskopf, Lee Trevino and Tom Watson were each in their glory. Back when these legends were playing, the PGA Tour was a place where one had to work hard for success -- exemptions were tighter, courses were not always so easy to overpower, players--even the slow ones--finished rounds much faster and tournament prize money offerings--while obviously low--were mostly not overinflated or disproportionate. Today, the PGA Tour is a much different animal -- exemptions are looser, courses are getting knocked down with ease, slow play has become the unsung rule of the fairways, greens, hazards and concession tents and tournament prize money offerings (Greg Norman, you were right about something!) have skyrocketed way out of bounds. Although some pros are out there with a desire to win, it does not seem to be the same desire that existed years ago. It almost seems as if players just occasionally sneak in and grab something only when Tiger is either not playing his type of game, or isn't in the field at all. And while it is true that both Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh have each had fabulously successful careers--which obviously in a world without Tiger Woods would have been celebrated even more--their efforts have had no significant impact on Tiger's incredible string of successes. The suggestions and proposals made by me in the particular discussion thread are intended to do something that the PGA Tour is seemingly unable or (more likely) unwilling to do -- promote a stronger, tougher work ethic dynamic for its players, where their desire to compete and to win is driven to new levels. Hopefully, the end result would be that years such as what Tiger had in 2013 and on other occasions would be very few and far between, and that instead we get to see a great many PGA Tour seasons come down to the last event with several players all in the running for whatever big prizes are on the table. Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[jgreen85]

I heard this idea from the sports radio host Bob McCown, and it's worth repeating here, because it's a great idea in my opinion.

In 3 seasons, PGA Tour players must play in each tournament at least once. For example, if Tiger Woods does not play in the Canadian Open in 2014 and 2015, he must play in 2016. All players must follow this rule, with exceptions made for injuries/personal issues. This would be beneficial to the tournaments that get bad fields such as the Fedex St. Jude and Frys.com open.

It seems like every year, good players such as Woods, Mickelson, Scott, and McIlroy only play in the tournaments that fit in their personal schedules. It seems unfair to the tournament sponsors who put up the same purses as the other events, only to get Hunter Mahan as their best player in the field (no offence to Mahan).

Would you like to see this scheduling rule enforced? Or are you fine with the current system, where players can play in whatever tournaments they want to?

initially, I was on board. Then I thought about it again, "unfair to tourney sponsors" - they don't have to sponsor the event. "bad fields"?  cancel the tournaments then.

No reason to force anyone to do anything. If a player is good enough to keep his card w/ playing fewer tourneys more power to him and more opportunity for those who aren't. It kind of sucks if you're a fan and there's no big tour stop close by. But, honestly, a golf tourney in person isn't that exciting. I've attended the phoenix open the past two years. you're not really missing much imo.