New Rules for Q-School

[NuclearMike]

I'm not a fan of the new plan but only implementation will prove whether or not it works.  The idea of winning or finishing high in the finals of Q-School and not making the tour or getting on the tour by finishing well on the Nationwide makes it seem like a much harder road to the tour.  Look at Keegan Bradley- goes from the Nationwide to the PGA Tour and wins the first major that he's in.  Lots of NW graduates have done well on the tour.  Why screw with something that works?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by NuclearMike

I'm not a fan of the new plan but only implementation will prove whether or not it works.  The idea of winning or finishing high in the finals of Q-School and not making the tour or getting on the tour by finishing well on the Nationwide makes it seem like a much harder road to the tour.  Look at Keegan Bradley- goes from the Nationwide to the PGA Tour and wins the first major that he's in.  Lots of NW graduates have done well on the tour.  Why screw with something that works?

It's hard to reason about whether the system works by looking at exceptional cases. Sure, there's a chance that Bradley would have had a bad round during the proposed tournament series and not made it to the Tour. However, I'd bet that golfers likely to succeed on the tour are also likely to do well in that tournament, so this may not lead to as big a shake-up as you'd think.

[mvmac]

Couple different sides of the arguement from Gary Van Sickle and Mike Walker

Against the changes

Quote:

The PGA Tour should not be a closed shop. The best players in the world should have a chance to play their way onto the Tour, no matter where they’re from or where they played last.

That, in a nutshell, is why the proposed changes to the Tour’s qualifying system are a bad idea.

Currently, the top 25 money winners from the Nationwide tour and the top 25 players and ties from Q-school’s six-round tournament earn exempt status on the PGA Tour. In the new system, according to the Associated Press , the top 75 money-winners from the Nationwide tour would compete with the 75 players who finished 126 ^th -200 ^th on the PGA Tour money list in a three-tournament series for 50 spots, possibly with some kind of points system weighted toward the Nationwide’s top 25.  The new system would begin in 2013.

The players who don’t get one of the 50 spots would presumably head for the new Q-school, where they and the rest of the field would only be playing for status on the Nationwide Tour.

Here are the issues I have with the proposed plan:

Amateur Hour: This new system would be bad for players and fans because it would potentially delay talented young stars from competing on the PGA Tour. Here are two high-profile examples.

If this system were in place when Tiger Woods started his pro career in 1996, Woods would likely have been relegated to an entire season of Nationwide events in place like Broussard, La.; Valdosta, Ga.; Santiago, Chile; and Newburgh, Ind.

Why? Because Woods would likely not have had time to play his way onto the PGA Tour, and Q-school would only have earned him a spot on the second-tier Nationwide tour.

In 1996, Woods competed in eight tournaments as a pro before the year ended, including qualifying for the limited-field Tour Championship after he broke through and won his first pro event in Las Vegas. Now, Woods would only be able to play in four fall events on sponsors’ exemptions because he wouldn’t be eligible for the FedEx Cup playoffs. His breakthrough victory was his fifth tournament as a pro, which would have been one tournament too late under the new system.

Golf’s biggest draw would have been sent to the minor leagues instead of winning the Masters in record-setting fashion the following April.

Rickie Fowler waited to turn pro until September of 2009, after he played in the Walker Cup. He played on sponsors’ exemptions but came up short of earning his card, so he went to Q-school and qualified. Under the proposed changes, his Q-school success would only have earned him a Nationwide season, and he would have missed the 2010 Ryder Cup.

According to the Associated Press, college stars like Fowler and other amateurs might still have a path to the big leagues under the new system. One possible solution would give amateurs credit for the money they would have earned while playing PGA Tour events on sponsors’ exemptions. If their total “earnings” on Tour got them into the top 200 on the PGA Tour money list, they would be eligible for the three-tournament series with the bottom-tier PGA Tour players and top Nationwide players. (Fowler would have made it into the three-tournament series with his actual winnings in 2009, when he finished second at the Frys.com Open after a playoff and won a total of $571,090.)

But why make it so hard for top amateurs and collegiate players to compete on the PGA Tour right away? When amateur golf produces players with some marquee name recognition, like Peter Uihlein of Oklahoma State or Patrick Cantlay, the UCLA sophomore who had a sensational summer, why relegate them to a year in the minor leagues?

Sure, they could theoretically still play their way onto the Tour, but with a limit of seven sponsors’ exemptions and a Monday qualifying system that requires non-members to compete in a pre-qualifier a few days earlier, Q-school is the only realistic path to the Tour for the vast majority of players.

At least, it is now.

The Deadwood Factor. What did the guy who finished 200 ^th on the PGA Tour money list or 75 ^th on the Nationwide list do that was so dazzling that he gets another chance at a PGA Tour card while the best amateur or collegiate players in the country don’t?

This proposed system appears designed to enable the PGA Tour journeymen to hang on to their perks while keeping talented young players at bay. If you finished 200 ^th on the money list after an entire season, maybe you should be designated for assignment on the Nationwide the next year without the chance of a reprieve. You had your chance, Mr. 200. Make way for someone else.

The Q-School Myth. There’s also a general feeling that Nationwide grads fare better than Q-school grads. Well, not in 2011. Nine of 25 Nationwiders finished among the top 125 on the PGA Tour money list and kept their cards. Nine of 29 Q-schoolers finished among the top 125. (Justin Hicks, who finished 179 ^th and didn’t keep his card, was counted in both categories, by the way—he finished 25 ^th on the Nationwide money list, then went to Q-school to try to improve his ranking.)

The percentage is close to the same, so let’s keep score another way: Q-school 9, Nationwide 9. The guys from Q-school aren’t as good? Tell that to Gary Woodland, who won the Transitions Championship and World Cup and finished 15 ^th on the money list, or Scott Stallings, who won at Greenbrier. (Nationwide grads were led by Keegan Bradley, whose two victories included the PGA Championship, and winners Brendan Steele and Jhonattan Vegas.)

The proposed system would’ve delayed Woodland’s blossoming into one of America’s most promising young stars.

The Money Search. Ever since the FedEx Cup was born, the PGA Tour seemed to lose interest in its fall tournaments. Once there were eight. Now there are four, and they’re smaller and less lucrative than the regular-season tournaments.

Despite comments from some corners that the PGA Tour season was too long, you won’t find many rank-and-file players who agree. They’re seeing their playing opportunities shrink along with the Tour and its growing penchant for limited-field events. This repackaged three-event series sounds like it might be compelling on the surface—guys playing for spots on the Tour.

But it won’t be compelling for the same reason that Q-school telecasts aren’t compelling: the public hasn’t heard of most of these guys. In a time where even some golf media members only pay attention to tournaments that include Tiger Woods and/or Phil Mickelson, this series is guaranteed to have no one in the top 125 and a bunch of off-the-radar names from the Nationwide tour.

Who’s really going to watch that show besides the friends and relatives of the players, and what sponsor wants to pay big bucks for such a small bang?

Of course, this repackaging may be attractive to the Tour because Nationwide Insurance is dropping its sponsorship, and the PGA Tour needs a way to make its minor league more attractive to potential sponsors. The changes would serve that purpose, but at what cost to the success of the big Tour?

...

Maybe it’s just a marketing push to make the Nationwide telecasts on Golf Channel more compelling and relevant. Maybe the rank-and-file PGA Tour players are simply afraid of good young players taking their places on the perk-heavy, endorsement-rich gravy train that is the PGA Tour.

Whatever the reason, these changes would make the PGA Tour more of a closed shop and less of a meritocracy. That doesn’t seem like a good idea for golf, a game that already has a long history of exclusion.

And for the changes

Quote:

Yes, Q-school is great. Professional golf is the ultimate meritocracy. Post a score and play on the big tour. So much of professional golf focuses on the 1 percenters – Tiger, Phil, Rory – but the PGA Tour’s qualifying school is about the middle class of professional golf, where the human stories of hope, ambition and heartbreak unfold over six rounds as players vie for sport’s equivalent of Willie Wonka’s Golden Ticket, a PGA Tour card.

However, Q-school’s days may be numbered. The Associated Press reported on a proposal -- nothing’s definite at this time -- to create a three-tournament series that would feature 75 non-exempt PGA Tour players (Nos. 126-200 on the money list) and the top 75 Nationwide tour money winners. The top 50 finishers from this series would get PGA Tour cards, and the rest could compete in a separate Q-school in which only Nationwide spots would be up for grabs.

The obvious difference is that this change would close a direct path to the PGA Tour for many young players. Non-PGA Tour members could make enough money on sponsors’ exemptions to get into the PGA Tour’s top 125, like Bud Cauley did this year, but a spot on the Nationwide tour is the best most players could hope for. (The AP also reported that amateurs might be able to count the money they would have won playing on sponsors’ exemptions toward the PGA Tour’s money list, which could earn them a spot in the three-tournament series, but that’s also a steep hill to climb.)

Regardless of the details, the most direct road to the PGA Tour would be closed, which smacks of protectionism. The vast majority of pro golfers might claim to be politically conservative, but when it comes to job protection, they sound like AFL-CIO spokesmen. Rickie Fowler criticized the proposal specifically on these grounds.

“It seems like the new qualifying system would protect guys on the PGA Tour, and that it would shut the front door to open qualifying,” Fowler told the Golf Channel . “There wouldn’t be the same direct path to the PGA Tour for college players and mini-tour players the way there is now.

“If Q-school went away, it would definitely cut off a path for those college players who aren’t the top three or four players coming out of college.”

A suspicious, knee-jerk reaction is often the best response to any proposed change (see: the FedEx Cup, moving the Players Championship to May, the mock turtleneck), but this time the traditionalists should seriously consider this idea. Why? Because it sounds like fun.

Casual sports fans tend to tune out golf after the PGA Championship, and all but the diehards desert the game after the FedEx Cup. However, for those fans who like the Fall Series events, the most exciting moments not involving projectile hot dogs involve the guys who are trying to stay in the top 125 on the money list. Seeing guys fight to keep their cards in the Fall Series is compelling drama, often more interesting than watching the players who are actually trying to win the tournaments. Yes, the current Q-school is full of these moments as well, but the PGA Tour has not been able to present them effectively to fans. The proposed three-tournament series would be all about this great drama and would bring it to a wider audience. It would be a lot more fun for fans and TV viewers.

Fowler’s criticism is valid, but making all but the most talented rookies compete on the Nationwide tour before joining the big tour isn’t much different from what happens to NFL and the NBA players who are practically required to play in college. Nearly all baseball players make it to the major leagues only after spending time in the minors. Requiring the best young golfers to play a season on the Nationwide tour would improve the quality of play on that tour and might give young players a chance to adjust to the pro game without the distractions of the PGA Tour.

It’s too soon to make any final decisions on this idea, but it’s nice to see the PGA Tour thinking about ways to make its products more entertaining. Now if they only could do something about slow play…

[k-troop]

Sounds like it would make the fall series more interesting and give you a reason to watch.  I agree that the only reason to watch the fall series now is for the end-of-season consequences that have nothing to do with hoisting the trophy (guys on the 125 bubble, money title, etc.).  This would give you a reason to pick some new heroes for three weeks and give a great preview to the new faces for next year.  Let's face it--most of us have no idea who the 25 dudes from the NW tour are when they show up in Hawaii in January--now we will have had a thrilling 3-week introduction as these guys battle it out in prime time for their shot at the tour.

It might close off an avenue for talent, but the PGA tour is about making money--and this gives them a way to sell the Fall Series events.

Maybe they should open up a few more direct-in routes to the PGA Tour as well.  I've always thought that the battlefield promotion from the NW tour should be for two wins, not three.  How about giving the US/British Am champ two years of unlimited sponsor's exemptions that they can use at whatever time they decide to go pro?  (That will, of course, detract from the amateur nature of that competition.)  Any top-5 finisher at any tour event gets conditional status?  Think about how many "Open" events there are on tour every year.  A player can qualify for an Open field event, earn conditional status with a top-5 finish, and then hit the Monday qualifier circuit until he plays his way on.  There are ways to make this work.

[zeg]

I really don't buy the arguments of "X would not have happened under the new system." There are just too many unknowns that go into those. There are so many possibilities that it's foolish non-logic. After all, since Tiger didn't spend a year honing his skills in the relative quiet of the Nationwide Tour after college, we missed the chance to see him start his career with a rookie-year Grand Slam. Curse that old system!

Furthermore, the "dream" of making it to Q-school, going on a roll, and hitting the Tour is a nice one, but numbers just don't warrant taking this argument very seriously. Statistically, this simply doesn't happen.

The bit disputing the success statistics is, IMO, the part to focus on. If Q-school does produce competitive golfers who would be overlooked by the current system, then by all means keep it open. There shouldn't be any room to disagree on the numbers there (though there are certainly different ways to cook them into conclusions). If it turns out that the history of the current system and honest projections of the proposed new system give very similar results, then considering some of the softer components might be reasonable. But those soft, squishy considerations shouldn't make up the heart of the rationale.

[MEfree]

The closed shop argument seems most compelling to me, BUT there are other solutions to this problem that might be consistent with the PGA Tours goals.

Q School stats

Graduate Comparison- Next Year

2006 to 2010	Total Graduating	Top 125	126-150	151+	Ave Earnings
Q School	151	47	16	85	$600,419
		32%	11%	57%
Nationwide	122	40	19	63	$666,410
		33%	16%	52%

http://www.mattelston.com/2011/12/17/pga-tour-big-changes/

Players, Golf Fans and Tour Officials have raised the following Issues :

1. Less Drama/Interest in Q School when it doesn’t result in a tour card.
2. Stuck on NW Tour for a full year . Top Amateurs, foreign pros, reinvigorated former Tour Members and Q School grads might have to put a full year in on the NW to get (back) onto the Regular Tour.
3. Merging of the Two Tours/Short Season Jim Furyk said: “I’m worried about blending the Nationwide and the regular Tour together. The first year we do this, the rookies and first-timers get an extremely short season.”
4. Need to find a lead sponsor of the current NW Tour .

Potential Solutions :

1. Hand out some cards at Q school, but fewer cards and/or for a limited number of Tour events/missed cuts. You would want to coordinate timing so that those failing to get cards at the 3 event series still have a chance to compete in Q school. Helps solve the first issue.

2. Less distinction/More Free Flow between Tours has a lot of advantages and helps solve issues 2-4. Lots of ways this could be done including:
• Combined Fed Ex Cup Points list that gives everyone a chance to qualify for the Playoffs
• Calling the former NW Tour the “_________ Series”
• Having some or all Reg Tour members play 1 (or more) events on the NW Tour
• Giving NW winners entry into the Tournament of Champions in January
• Giving top NW Players a chance to play in regular Tour events mid-year
• Drop NW Grads, Q School Grads (and others?) down to the NW Tour if they are not in the Top 175 of either the $ or Point list after their 10th(?) missed cut

3. Offer an extension , similar to the medical, to 2012 Q School graduates who are affected by the short 2013 season... Continue reading →