Are there too many tournaments?

[Da Caddy]

I read an interesting article in Golfweek and wanted to throw it out there to get everyone's input and see what we can come up with.

Not counting the WGC’s or Majors there are approximately 34 tournaments on the PGA Tour and approximately 40 tournaments on the European Tour. Do you think there are too many tournaments on either tour? Given the state of the global economy, would both tours benefit by scaling back on the tour schedule? Do you think competition would improve with there being a more limited window to earn enough money to retain exempt status on either tour? Would love to get everyone's input. Let's hear your ideas.

[kpaulhus]

With guys having to play every tournament just to keep their card, no. The more tournaments, the harder it is to stay in the top 125, unless your playing well. Some guys need the extra breaks and smaller tourneys to make the important money. Plus, what am I going to watch all summer when its baseball season?

[uttexas]

Can you have too much of a good thing?
The free market has a nice way of correcting itself. If there are too many tournaments in a bad economy, some will lose sponsorship and disappear (I believe the Buick Open in Grand Blanc, Michigan contracted, but was replaced with the Greenbriar Classic)

The problem with professional golf right now is that there is no dominant player. The media and public, as much as they like to deny it, love sports dynasties.

[TXjammer]

My humble opinion is that it would be nearly impossible to intensify the competition in the most mentally stressful game on earth (comparitively), no matter what size the window of opportunity. I would find it hard to believe that any of these guys are out there playing "half-hazardly" when they make a living by winning, as opposed to athletes with contracts that get paid regardless of their performance. In addition, the possible negative effect could be "making the swimming pool too shallow". If a player (maybe a favorite underdog) takes a dive in performance, but has multiple opportunities to rebound, you may see him maintain exempt status for the following year. However, if deprived of those opportunities, may "hit the bottom of the pool" before being able to return to the top. And maybe, that was your point all along?

[sean_miller]

I would find it hard to believe that any of these guys are out there playing "half-hazardly" when they make a living by winning . . .

Me too.

There are too many tournaments though. When you have to scan down through all the names on the leaderboard (twice) to find a single player, let alone a group, that's worth checking out, I'm probably not going to be watching that tournament unless the venue is spectacular. There are too many events like that.

[Clambake]

The problem with professional golf right now is that there is no dominant player. The media and public, as much as they like to deny it, love sports dynasties.

While I concur that there is no dominant player, I think the bigger driver than sports dynasties are sports rivalries . I think the public often gets tired of a dynasty (think how the NBA was perceived while the Celtics seemed the only game in town) but love it when a few heavyweights who are who are the tops in their sport go back and forth (thinking NBA again, look how the NBA took off with the Bird/Magic rivalry). Viewership in golf skyrocketed when it was Jack AND Arnie. Tiger AND Phil, not just Tiger. Yes, people watched Tiger to see what wizardry he might pull off, but far more joined in when their was a tough battle involved.

[WUTiger]

If you're a Top 10 money winner, yes.

If you're a Nationwide tour member who gets an occasional PGA sponsor's exemption, no.

If you're a greedy TV exec who makes $$ falsifying reality, yes.

If you're a public course golfer who volunteers at friendly second-tier tournaments, no.

Note: Top 10 money winners have the moral high ground over the TV execs.

[Chas]

Interesting post Clambake, makes sense. Somewhat related to your post, the only downside for me would be if there were so many events that the top talent was excessively diluted, i.e. too many top players playing in different events at the same time, therefore not vying against each other. Other than that (not really a problem at the moment), bring on the goff ....

[zeg]

With guys having to play every tournament just to keep their card, no. The more tournaments, the harder it is to stay in the top 125, unless your playing well. Some guys need the extra breaks and smaller tourneys to make the important money. Plus, what am I going to watch all summer when its baseball season?

Not sure I entirely agree with the logic. If there are fewer tournaments, the big names will still win most of the tournaments they enter, leaving fewer opportunities for the "second tier" pros to pick up top-10 or -20 finishes, sure. But there's still the same number of players competing for the top 125 slots. Since you're comparing the pros to each other, rather than some fixed winnings number, you'd probably just see the winnings for the #125 slot decrease to reflect the smaller amount of less-contested prize money.

I suppose this would put a bit more emphasis on playing well consistently, since the number of chances to rocket up the list by winning one of the less-contested tournaments would be smaller. I don't know that this is a problem, though, because that's such a volatile, random way to get in, that it just means that different players scrape their way in, and isn't necessarily unfair to anyone.

[DocWu1948]

There's 34 tournaments and each pays out around $1-2 M or more to the winner, but the top 125 players still took home around $200M in prize money, meaning these tournaments must have payouts around $7M for the field. In the end, someone has to foot the bill and it's the public in the form of higher cable fees, higher prices on our toothpaste and even Cialis. Granted, it's a few pennies from everyone, but it does add up.

If I were a Kodak stock holder, and watched its price go from $40 to $5 in the last 5 years, I'd question what they get for this silly $1M competition they finance every year. Seeing them give away $1M isn't going to make me buy a Kodak over a Canon. Then again, it costs around $250K for a 30 second ad on any popular evening TV show, so $1M is cheap, but does it sell any product if it doesn't tell a story?

That said, I do not feel there are too many tournaments. I like watching golf on my DVR and I enjoy it more when a Goydos, a Sindelar, or a Garrigus comes from the back of the pack to win. Less events means only the big guys dominate.

[TXjammer]

, though, because that's such a volatile, random way to get in, that it just means that different players scrape their way in, and isn't necessarily unfair to anyone.

Which is exactly why I like the many lower profile tournaments...without them it seems like the top 125 list never changes. I absolutely LOVE to see some underdog that's been doing his homework and practicing hard come up and bump a Tier 1 player from the ranks, forcing him to scratch his way back instead of riding that gravy train.

It's like when we were kids.....remember "king of the mountain"?

[jgreen85]

It's like when we were kids.....remember "king of the mountain"?

Interesting perspective. I think the number of tourneys is fine. More golf the better IMO.

[ghalfaire]

I guess I believe that there can't be too many tournaments as long as they can make money (even if the money goes to charity). Isn't that the Capitalists way? The more the better me thinks.

[Bigtank]

If I were a Kodak stock holder, and watched its price go from $40 to $5 in the last 5 years, I'd question what they get for this silly $1M competition they finance every year. Seeing them give away $1M isn't going to make me buy a Kodak over a Canon. Then again, it costs around $250K for a 30 second ad on any popular evening TV show, so $1M is cheap, but does it sell any product if it doesn't tell a story?.

Because they have gotten about 8 million worth of national advertising for the 1 million dollar purse.....If I where a Kodak stock holder, I would be happy with good investments. The purpose is not to necessarly sell a specefic product, but to continue to have the public identify a brand and keep your brand relivant.

[sean_miller]

Because they have gotten about 8 million worth of national advertising for the 1 million dollar purse.....If I where a Kodak stock holder, I would be happy with good investments. The purpose is not to necessarly sell a specefic product, but to continue to have the public identify a brand and keep your brand relivant.

If the only money Kodak had to pay out is the 1M payday to Merrit, then the PGA Tour is a poorly run business.

[Thrash13]

I guess I believe that there can't be too many tournaments as long as they can make money (even if the money goes to charity).

I agree with this. As long as the tournaments are making a profit, how can it be a bad thing? The Golf Channel should also benefit because they will get more viewers for the Fall Series tournaments than they would for infomercials (I would hope so anyway). And where else can you see Charles Howell III rip off four consecutive top-25 finishes and two top-10 finishes in three events? :) The schedule is fine the way it is, although the selfish person in me wishes the top guys would play 30 times a year.