- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the PGA's beef with these Saudi events?
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:24 am to TDTOM
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:24 am to TDTOM
Protect the tour from what?
If DJ wants to play in an LIV event, what is the Tour's rationale for excluding him from a future Tour events?
What harm is inflicted on the Tour for a player to participate in a non-Tour event?
If DJ wants to play in an LIV event, what is the Tour's rationale for excluding him from a future Tour events?
What harm is inflicted on the Tour for a player to participate in a non-Tour event?
3
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:46 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
What harm is inflicted on the Tour for a player to participate in a non-Tour event?
You don’t think if the top 50 tour players went play a tournament on LIV rather than the RBC it wouldn’t hurt the tour? What about the tournament sponsors? It absolutely would and that needs to be protected from happening.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:27 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
If DJ wants to play in an LIV event, what is the Tour's rationale for excluding him from a future Tour events?
DJ made his bed, and he can lie in it. The PGA Tour doesn't need to amend its bylaws to accommodate DJ and Kevin Na. If those two don't like being excluded from the Tour, then they have themselves to blame as they knew the risks when they decided to play on the LIV Tour. This entitlement culture just baffles me. "I know there are rules in place, but I don't like them so you should change them." frick outta here
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:36 am to TDTOM
quote:
You don’t think if the top 50 tour players went play a tournament on LIV rather than the RBC it wouldn’t hurt the tour?
Im this specific instance, yes.
But the Tour has 50 events a year including the Butterfield Bermuda Championship, Fortinet Championship, 3M Classic, etc, etc that are totally unneeded bloat. The Tour should parse down their number of events which is better for the consumer and more money can be added to the big events where the big players show up.
There's no doubt guys like Speith, DJ, JT, etc are woefully under paid compared to other sports. Scheffler has made a little over $11 million this year winning 4 times. Bismack Byiombo made $17 million in the NBA last year.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:45 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
including the Butterfield Bermuda Championship, Fortinet Championship, 3M Classic, etc, etc that are totally unneeded bloat.
Tell that to the guys who need those tournaments to earn or keep their tour cards. You want to eliminate young guys coming up through the ranks, getting rid of golf tournaments you view as inferior is a quick way to do it. Everyone on Tour isn't a Rahm or JT type of player who can play in 15-20 events and still cash in on several million bucks.
quote:
The Tour should parse down their number of events which is better for the consumer and more money can be added to the big events where the big players show up.
None of this is about the consumer
And even if the consumers were relevant, removing what you view as "bloat" isn't going to make things better for the consumer. It's just going to decrease the number of weekends the consumer can watch golf. And they can't simply just take the money they pay out in those tournaments and roll it over to others. Where do you think the money comes from? It comes from the sponsors of those tournaments. You eliminate the tournament, you eliminate the money. Literally the only thing that is relevant is how much the players are making. Period. Like that's it.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 9:49 am
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:48 am to lsufball19
quote:
Tell that to the guys who need those tournaments to earn or keep their tour cards.
Play better
quote:
None of this is about the consumer
I didn't say it was. I said it was better for the consumer as an added bonus
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:49 am to Wildcat1996
quote:
If DJ wants to play in an LIV event, what is the Tour's rationale for excluding him from a future Tour events?
What harm is inflicted on the Tour for a player to participate in a non-Tour event?
I don’t understand how anyone can have these questions.
This is not just a one off event. This is a league which has the potential to destroy the tour as we know it today.
Why would the Tour allow a competitor to leverage the asset it created to destroy the Tour?
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:49 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Play better
This is such an ignorant comment. You can't grow the sport if you limit it to 50 players. Those young players can't "get better" if you're eliminating the tournaments that allow them to "get better." Everyone doesn't walk on tour and dominate like Tiger.
quote:
I said it was better for the consumer as an added bonus
read my edit.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 9:51 am
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:52 am to lsufball19
quote:
This is such an ignorant comment. You can't grow the sport if you limit it to 50 players.
When did we start shrinking field size?
quote:
read my edit.
I did, and that's not exactly how it works. I would suggest you do some research, but actually being informed is too big of an ask for most of this site
I've noted your concern for guys like Martin Trainor, Omar Uresti, and Johnson Wagner though. Your virtue is as pure as the driving snow
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 9:53 am
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:53 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
When did we start shrinking field size?
Oh so you want to double down on ignorant comments?
quote:
I would suggest you do some research
quote:
I've noted your concern for guys like Martin Trainor, Omar Uresti, and Johnson Wagner though. Your virtue is as pure as the driving snow
I've noted your concern for millionaires and feeling sorry for them. Maybe they will let you suck their dicks one day
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 9:55 am
Posted on 6/3/22 at 9:58 am to lsufball19
quote:
I've noted your concern for millionaires and feeling sorry for them.
I don't feel bad for them, I just have the mental capacity to understand they are comparatively underpaid.
quote:
Oh so you want to double down on ignorant comments?
You started talking about 50 person field size, I said eliminate events that legitimate PGA Tour players aren't even playing anyway
Posted on 6/3/22 at 1:28 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
You started talking about 50 person field size, I said eliminate events that legitimate PGA Tour players aren't even playing anyway
So IOW, structure your tournament schedule only to worry about the top 50 or so players in the sport....Like I said, you're never going to grow the sport doing that
Posted on 6/3/22 at 1:32 pm to lsufball19
quote:
So IOW, structure your tournament schedule only to worry about the top 50 or so players in the sport.
For pay, if you want to keep the players, yes. I don't really care that Martin Trainor, who can't make a cut in an opposite field event, will lose his spot. 50-125 will still make plenty of money.
quote:
Like I said, you're never going to grow the sport doing that
Why?
Posted on 6/3/22 at 1:38 pm to PhiTiger1764
quote:haha
This is a league which has the potential to destroy the tour as we know it today.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 1:39 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
if you want to keep the players, yes
I must have missed the mass exodus of players
quote:
Why?
Because these golfers you stated you don't care about include young players that won't be able to consistently make cuts (get paid) if every field is loaded with nothing but top 50 players. If they aren't making money, they won't pursue professional golf. Having these events you think are just bloat provide opportunities for those players to grow while also providing opportunities for others to gain fedex cup points for a much bigger pot of money at the end of the season. Those tournaments get players qualified for majors. Those tournaments get players ryder cup points. Those tournaments aren't taking money away from the top players in the world by any meaningful amount. This notion of only caring about your top players is not how you grow a sport, sorry. That is a short-term solution that will create long-term issues.
If you want to talk about the PGA Tour paying every player an appearance fee for a tournament rather than them needing to make the cut to get paid, I would be fully on board with that. But to think eliminating a bunch of golf tournaments is a viable solution to anything, then no sorry. The players who are suffering in the current model aren't the top players. The players suffering are the players you think don't matter.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 1:51 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Because these golfers you stated you don't care about include young players that won't be able to consistently make cuts (get paid) if every field is loaded with nothing but top 50 players
Mito Pereira was leading the PGA Championship. Luke List won a Torrey. Scheffler got his first career win in Phoenix. Neiman won at Riv. Cam Smith won the Players. Sam Burns won the Valspar
All these guys are in their mid 20s. Good players will be good. The Korn Ferry Tour exists for guys that need to develop and theres plenty of money there. Why do Matt Jones and Ryan Armour and Tommy Gainey need to keep getting starts? Starts by the way, they get over young guys for asinine priority rankings
quote:
Those tournaments get players ryder cup points.
So these guys aren't going to play professional golf because the tournaments are too hard and now you are talking Ryder Cup points?
Make a coherent arguement
quote:
This notion of only caring about your top players is not how you grow a sport, sorry. That is a short-term solution that will create long-term issues.
Olin Browne will be severely missed from professional golf after the Butterfield is cut from the schedule
Posted on 6/3/22 at 3:10 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Mito Pereira was leading the PGA Championship. Luke List won a Torrey. Scheffler got his first career win in Phoenix. Neiman won at Riv. Cam Smith won the Players. Sam Burns won the Valspar
every top 50 golfer wasn't winning tournaments in loaded fields in their low to mid 20s. Naming a bunch of random golfers isn't helping your argument.
quote:
Luke List won a Torrey.
sure this year when he was 37 years old, his only win on tour.
quote:
Mito Pereira was leading the PGA Championship
at 27 years old.
quote:
Olin Browne
he plays on the Champions Tour. He also has 3 tour wins, all at big tournaments.
quote:
Tommy Gainey
is 46 years old and hasn't held a full tour card in almost 10 years
quote:
Ryan Armour
is 46 years old and didn't hold a full tour card from 2008 until he won a tournament in 2017.
quote:
Matt Jones
He won the Honda Classic last year. That's a big tournament no?
Why are you naming players in their 40s who have actually won on Tour?
Maybe look at a guy like Kevin Kisner whose first two PGA Tour wins came in these "bloat" tournaments when he was in his 30s and couldn't retain his Tour card for longer than a year at a time until he was 30 years old and won his first Tour event to secure his card. Most of the cuts he was making back then were in "bloat" tournaments. He's now the 31st ranked golfer in the world and one of the more popular players on tour.
If PGA Tour players were so underpaid, the top guys would be compelled to play in a whole lot more tournaments a year than they do. They wouldn't be limiting their schedules to 15-20 events (or less) plus 4 majors if they were so underpaid. For instance, when Tom Watson was in his mid 20s, he was playing around 30 events a year. Same with Arnold Palmer. Same with Lee Trevino, etc. The players a tier below them were playing every weekend.
The top players in the world are making well over 8 figures a year with all their money from tour events, sponsors, etc. The PGA Tour isn't even in the Top 10 for the most profitable sports leagues worldwide, so if you think the top guys should be making money in line with other professional leagues I'd ask you why. Their revenue is projected to be around 1.5 billion this year, and almost $900 million of that is going to the players. Those revenue figures are less than MLB, NFL, NBA, EPL, NHL, 5 worldwide soccer leagues, and Formula One.
And what do you think happens to the PGA Tour's revenue if they axe half their tournaments? These network deals are based upon a full schedule of tournaments. Do you think they'd be paying the same amount with half the number of tournaments each year?
The players aren't bitching about the "bloat" tournaments. They're primarily bitching about the PGA owning their media rights. So why are you complaining about how many tournaments we have when they aren't?
This just seems like your typical, entitled "They should work less and get paid more" argument like most of Gen Z
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 3:53 pm to lsufball19
I don't want to enter the fray here too much, but your concern with growing the sport and the fear of a rival tour don't seem congruent.
If LIV catches some energy and takes 10-20 big names with it, it will only free-up spots in Tour events for younger guys. There would be more events and more quality golfers playing, not less.
To a question earlier...I certainly see how losing big names reflects a potential loss for the Tour. But we are also told the Tour is really deep and these guys are easily replaceable. If that's true, where is the loss for the Tour? In addition, such a loss would be self-inflicted. If DJ plays in an event and then is no longer allowed to play on Tour, that was the Tour's choice, not his.
Likewise, the "what if the top 50 all go to LIV" fear is both a hypothetical and the decision of the Tour. It's doubtful that many of the top names will want to exclusively play on the LIV. But if the PGA Tour digs in its heels and refuses to let them play in their events, they will have effectively forced their hands. And in so doing, they exclude the best players.
If LIV catches some energy and takes 10-20 big names with it, it will only free-up spots in Tour events for younger guys. There would be more events and more quality golfers playing, not less.
To a question earlier...I certainly see how losing big names reflects a potential loss for the Tour. But we are also told the Tour is really deep and these guys are easily replaceable. If that's true, where is the loss for the Tour? In addition, such a loss would be self-inflicted. If DJ plays in an event and then is no longer allowed to play on Tour, that was the Tour's choice, not his.
Likewise, the "what if the top 50 all go to LIV" fear is both a hypothetical and the decision of the Tour. It's doubtful that many of the top names will want to exclusively play on the LIV. But if the PGA Tour digs in its heels and refuses to let them play in their events, they will have effectively forced their hands. And in so doing, they exclude the best players.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 4:20 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:32 pm to Wildcat1996
I don't know the number, but the Tour allows players to ask for & receive exemptions for non Tour events.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:38 pm to COTiger
quote:
I don't know the number, but the Tour allows players to ask for & receive exemptions for non Tour events
Not this tour
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News