The President's Cup Should Be a Men's/Women's Mixed Team Event

[mcanadiens]

I sort of like the idea, but do agree that it would be a very hard sell to the American men initially.

Isn't the President's Cup sort of the Not-The-Ryder Cup. I'm sure if you ask anybody, they'd rather win a Ryder Cup than a President's Cup. Having mixed teams would at least give the event a unique quality. Obviously, it could be a big help to promoting the women's game.

The prospect of a lot of losses and not much reward would probably be in the offing for the Americans at least initially. I'd imagine there would be a certain amount of pressure but on the men to participate, but it would come grudgingly. May take a few years before the thing would really get traction. 

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

To be fair, that seems like just as much conjecture as assuming that maybe a couple of them would play.  But the bottom line is if the sponsorship/prize $$$ is there, they'll play.

They've already complained about playing one event a year. They're independent contractors, and they're doing their jobs. They aren't paid much to play in these events, so again, why would any of them want to sacrifice yet another week in their schedules to play an exhibition match?

This event would also have NO history, and you'd have a hard time finding a time to fit it in the schedule. The top guys play hard February to August or so, and then like their downtime.

[DeadMan]

I love this idea, but I doubt it ever happens. As @iacassays, there isn't much upside for the PGA Tour, which runs the event. 

 

  

1 hour ago, bweiss711 said:

A new event created with the sole purpose of joint men and women's competition makes more sense.

There are already other minor team events like this that nobody knows about. Have you ever heard of the Seve Trophy? Or the EurAsia Cup? I don't think another team event is feasible long-term.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, mchepp said:

To be fair this is cyclical. Next year might be very different, and so on.

I can't think of many things less cyclical than Asian players dominating more and more since Se Ri Pak.

[bweiss711]

1 hour ago, bweiss711 said:

It can start of small... like "The Match" events that Phil and Tiger have made successful and go from there.

 

1 hour ago, bweiss711 said:

And again, I'm suggesting starting small anyways.  See where it goes, organically.  Maybe it starts with 4 men and women from each of Asia, Europe, and North America.  And if its not necessarily the very top 4 North American men, its not the end of the world.

 

1 hour ago, bweiss711 said:

But the bottom line is if the sponsorship/prize $$$ is there, they'll play.

 

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

They've already complained about playing one event a year. They're independent contractors, and they're doing their jobs. They aren't paid much to play in these events, so again, why would any of them want to sacrifice yet another week in their schedules to play an exhibition match?

This event would also have NO history, and you'd have a hard time finding a time to fit it in the schedule. The top guys play hard February to August or so, and then like their downtime.

 

I don't feel like anything I've said contradicts any of your points here.  It would have to start small.  So small that there would be enough sponsorship/prize money to make it worth it for maybe 4 of these guys to show up to an exhibition match.  And once (if) it gains some traction, some prestige, and the fun of an event like this is marketed correctly, it could grow from there.

Obviously you don't like this idea.  So what is more realistic... something like a small independent event that may or may not grow, or the President's Cup altering its format to make it a mixed gender event?  Or is your position that mixed gender events will/should never happen?

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

I don't feel like anything I've said contradicts any of your points here.

That you think it wouldn't be a train wreck as far as participation of the top guys contradicts my position.

22 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

It would have to start small.  So small that there would be enough sponsorship/prize money to make it worth it for maybe 4 of these guys to show up to an exhibition match.

Those contradict each other.

22 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

Obviously you don't like this idea.

My opinion has very little to do with "like" or "dislike." Rather, it's about whether it's feasible/likely

22 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

Obviously you don't like this idea.  So what is more realistic... something like a small independent event that may or may not grow, or the President's Cup altering its format to make it a mixed gender event? 

Neither are super likely, IMO.

[Big C]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

The PGA Tour is "the men." They're one and the same.

The PGA Tour is a member-run organization. So again, what incentives do the PGA Tour/the men (who would be playing in this) have here?

Then make one.

And please tell me how you're going to overcome the ROW team. The U.S. barely got out of Australia with the W. They're not going to win many events if you're spotting the "ROW" team 2/3 or more of the women's points.

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking the PGA & LPGA tours were related. If they are completely separate autonomous entities then I guess the incentives for the PGA Tour are not as clear. 

The case for it would simply be ratings related. I'm not sure how viewership for the President's Cup stacks up to a run of the mill tour event, but I am guessing the proposed co-ed tournament would garner more eyeballs because of the novelty. 

Then again, it's not like mixed doubles tennis is a ratings bonanza, so who knows?

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Big C said:

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking the PGA & LPGA tours were related. If they are completely separate autonomous entities then I guess the incentives for the PGA Tour are not as clear.

Very separate, though the PGA Tour did supposedly help the LPGA with their last TV rights negotiation deal. The cynical side of me might think that part of the reason they did that was also to keep the LPGA from poaching some of their prime times/channels.

21 minutes ago, Big C said:

The case for it would simply be ratings related. I'm not sure how viewership for the President's Cup stacks up to a run of the mill tour event, but I am guessing the proposed co-ed tournament would garner more eyeballs because of the novelty.

Again, how does that benefit the men who have to actually play in it? They're not given the purse, and even if there was a purse and it doubled… the additional money would likely go to pay the women.

23 minutes ago, Big C said:

Then again, it's not like mixed doubles tennis is a ratings bonanza, so who knows?

Right. Women's tennis is "big" four times a year right now because of the Williams sisters.

[jsgolfer]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

I think you'd find almost none of the top guys would play.

This^^^.  And then how much interest would it have, if none of the top players play.  

[StuM]

I am not opposed to a co-ed event as described but do not think it should be the President's cup. 

[bweiss711]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

That you think it wouldn't be a train wreck as far as participation of the top guys contradicts my position.

If some random tournament committee just pulled this idea out of our thin air, started to move forward with it without any support, and started asking, begging guys to sign up for a new mixed gender tournament, yeah, it'll probably be a train wreck.

That's not the hypothetical scenario I'm making up as I go along.

Start small.  As in field size small.  Just a few players.  And as I said in my first post about this, take a cue from "The Match".  That wasn't successful because a random promoter tried to recruit Tiger and Phil.  It worked because there was buy-in from Tiger and Phil first, and then they found support from sponsors.  Something like this completely-hypothetical-on-an-internet-message-board-mixed-gender event would require something similar.  You'd have to find a few male players to sign on first, and sell it from there.

 

22 hours ago, iacas said:

Those contradict each other.

And maybe my math is off, but I'm pretty sure starting small, as in the number of players in the field, means larger purses for each participant given the same amount of sponsorship money.  Tiger and Phil played for $9 million.  Splitting that 12 ways instead of 18 or 24 means more money per player. 

A first iteration or even first decade's worth of iterations of an event like this might not get prizes like that per player.  But again, player buy-in is a prerequisite.  You find the guys to build the event around first who understand what they are trying to build and are going into it with eyes wide open.  It doesn't have to be DJ and JT only at first.  Even just Phil and a top 20 guy would be enough of a start to get it going.  And over the years, if it works, you add teams.

Just for the sake of putting together a field with no top guys, are you really not tuning in for Phil Mickelson/Billy Horschel/Brooke Henderson/Michelle Wie vs Tyrell Hatton/Paul Casey/and 2 European LPGA players vs Sung-jae Im/Byuong-hun An/and 2 Asian LPGA players? (my apologies for not having enough of an understanding of the prestige of LPGA players to make this hypothetical player field complete.  I do assume top LPGA players would be more likely to commit however.)  At the very least, you'd be aware of what's going on with it.

[ncates00]

28 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

are you really not tuning in for Phil Mickelson/Billy Horschel/Brooke Henderson/Michelle Wie vs Tyrell Hatton/Paul Casey/and 2 European LPGA players vs Sung-jae Im/Byuong-hun An/and 2 Asian LPGA players?

Hell no.  I'm not tuning into that.  Unless it's a major championship with little to no coverage or an event that Tiger plays in, I rarely watch golf these days.  TV coverage is horrendous in my eyes.  I'd rather catch "every shot" 10 minute recaps on youtube of my favorite players.  Add horrendous coverage to an exhibition match that matters not?  I don't think so.  I want to watch the best golfers in the world play in events that matter; this proposition here would contain neither.

Edited January 28, 2021 by ncates00

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

Start small.  As in field size small.  Just a few players.

It's not going to work. The top guys aren't going to want to "start small" with something, and the other guys below them aren't going to warrant a large purse or much interest.

And adding women takes away from the men, unless you're going to pay them disparately. And that's a non-starter.

33 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

That wasn't successful because a random promoter tried to recruit Tiger and Phil.  It worked because there was buy-in from Tiger and Phil first, and then they found support from sponsors.

It was successful because Tiger and Phil built it, and because Tiger and Phil played in it. They weren't recruited, it was their joint company.

33 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

And maybe my math is off, but I'm pretty sure starting small, as in the number of players in the field, means larger purses for each participant given the same amount of sponsorship money.  Tiger and Phil played for $9 million.  Splitting that 12 ways instead of 18 or 24 means more money per player. 

You're missing the point: how in the hell are you going to get $9M for a few people almost nobody will care about to play in an event?

The purse size for this thing isn't going to start at $9M. The purse for the US Open is $12.5M.

33 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

Even just Phil and a top 20 guy would be enough of a start to get it going.

I don't think that's close to true.

33 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

Just for the sake of putting together a field with no top guys, are you really not tuning in for Phil Mickelson/Billy Horschel/Brooke Henderson/Michelle Wie vs Tyrell Hatton/Paul Casey/and 2 European LPGA players vs Sung-jae Im/Byuong-hun An/and 2 Asian LPGA players?

You're not raising $9M. The only real name on that list is Phil Mickelson, and he's a Champions Tour golfer now.

Michelle is practically retired. Nobody in the U.S. cares about Tyrell Hatton or Paul Casey, and they really don't care about anyone else you listed.

I think you're vastly over-estimating the average golf fan's interest here.

Sure, some of us hard-core types would watch. But we'll watch anything (once, at least). We also will seek out and watch the LPGA, which doesn't happen amongst the average golf fan.

[bweiss711]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

It was successful because Tiger and Phil built it, and because Tiger and Phil played in it. They weren't recruited, it was their joint company.

That's the same thing I just said. They weren't recruited by a promoter.  They were in from the start.

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

And adding women takes away from the men, unless you're going to pay them disparately.

You missed the part where I said a prerequisite is finding the guys who are going into this with eyes wide open, knowing what they are trying to build.

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Michelle is practically retired. Nobody in the U.S. cares about Tyrell Hatton or Paul Casey, and they really don't care about anyone else you listed.

The specific names don't really matter.  It was just to show what an event could look like without DJ or Rory.

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think you're vastly over-estimating the average golf fan's interest here.

You're probably very right. I still want to see it.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

That's the same thing I just said. They weren't recruited by a promoter.  They were in from the start.

That they were "in from the start" is completely irrelevant. That they were Tiger f***ing Woods and Phil Mickelson is what's relevant.

5 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

You missed the part where I said a prerequisite is finding the guys who are going into this with eyes wide open, knowing what they are trying to build.

I didn't miss it. You're missing that they'd say "build for what?" Especially when you then list Phil Mickelson? What's he going to "build" toward? He's 50.

An every-two-year event that might get big in ten years? Even Dustin Johnson will be pretty old by then. Rory would be early 40s. Etc.

What incentive do they have to build up an event that they'll be too old to play in once it gets suitably big?

5 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

The specific names don't really matter.

You should have started with that, because then I'd know you haven't though this through at all. 🙂

[Shorty]

It's an absolute sh*t of an idea.

Why would the U.S. men want to be part of a deal where the U.S. women are pretty much guaranteed to get hammered by the South Koreans, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis?

It's a guaranteed way to demonstrate the lack of depth in the U.S. women's professional game.

They can put as many flag transfers on their faces and ribbons in their hair as they can fit, but the sad fact is that it will just underline problems rather than solve them.

The Presidents Cup will always be less interesting than the Ryder Cup for European and U.S. fans. But it has a developing history and can be fantastic when it's close.

Non U.S. and European fans love to watch great golf and they also love opportunity to see the U.S. get beaten on the rare occasions it happens which is why the Ryder Cup is number one.

But why make a second string international event even less interesting by diluting its relevance even more? It can only make it worse, not better.

[bweiss711]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

You should have started with that, because then I'd know you haven't though this through at all. 🙂

I'm not going to apologize for not having a fully thought out, investor-ready, presentation based on a hypothetical on the internet.

The main points still hold no matter how hard you want to push there is no merit.  There is growing demand for a mixed gender event with evidence for such being that this thread even exists. And The Match has shown a blueprint for non-PGA affiliated golf events.

There's not no potential there.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

I'm not going to apologize for not having a fully thought out, investor-ready, presentation based on a hypothetical on the internet.

You don't even have the start of a good idea.

9 minutes ago, bweiss711 said:

The main points still hold no matter how hard you want to push there is no merit.

Keep telling yourself that.