View: The PGA Tour should eliminate conditional status

This is obviously an opinion but the PGA Tour should get rid of conditional status. I think it is hindering the competitive quality of the average tournament.

Didn't earn enough money to finish in the top 125? Too bad. Go to Q-School and prove you still belong. I'm tired of players like Garrett Willis, Cameron Beckman, Scott McCarron, Tim Petrovic, Vaughn Taylor, etc not making the top 125 and still getting 20+ tournaments the following year. I have nothing against these specific players, I just used them as examples since they finished between 125-150 on the money list this year.

These spots could be filled better by people who have made it through Q-School or performed fairly well for an entire season on the Nationwide. Eliminate conditional players and award more spots through Q-School and the Nationwide. Many of these journeyman, conditional players don't even go to Q-School to improve their status because "eh, what the hell I'm going to play almost a full schedule anyway."

Well, if you did that you would have less players to fill fields with so i guess you could either have smaller fields or fill the fields other ways. Those other ways I guess would be to have 20 spots available at a monday qualifier or something like that, and to be honest I think you fill fields with better players with conditional status than you would by doing something like that. Your opinion is not uncommon, in fact its very similar to this one shared by Lee Trevino who suggests that the players like you mention and the guys finishing 125 on the money list are probably not really helping the tour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQBCalhhpQs

you wouldn't have less players to fill the fields with because you'd be taking more players out of Q-School and off the Nationwide to fill the 25 spots you are taking away from conditional status players. I'm not suggesting they tell someone like a Scott McCarron, for example, to "get the hell out and don't come back" but rather say "oh, you can still compete on Tour? Great. Go to Q-School, graduate, and then come back and play well in 2012."

I was looking at some mini tour results the other day and was really impressed with the scores those guys shoot. The winners of those top mini tour events are shooting 25 under on 7,000 yard tracks for 4 rounds. I know the courses are obviously easier but consistently having to shoot 25 under to win is golfing your freaking ball. It's just so stacked out there and I would I tend to agree with the OP and Lee Trevino.

Agree completely. Also heard Rocco last week suggest changing the payout percentages.

Anything to make some of these guys play a little more hungry, eliminate some of the closed shop aspects of the Tour, create some opportunity and some aggressive play.

Greetings ...

In other recent threads, I have advocated a change in the priority order of selection of players into events. Among the suggestions ....

(1) Reduce the Top 125 Money Leader Threshold (full exemption) to Top 90. Also, reduce the Top 150 Money Leader Threshold (conditional status) to Top 120.

(2) Increase playing opportunities for Top Nationwide Tour/Q-School finishers, with special rewards for the highest ranked finishers.

(3) Limit exempt status to no more than five years for winning a Grand Slam Major, the Players or a Money/Fed Ex Cup Title; no more than three years for winning the Tournament of Champions, Western Open (if restored to schedule), Bridgestone Invitational and Tour Championship (WGC series retired); no more than two years for any other win. No more multiple winner exemptions that extend one's status, as in the cases of David Toms and Justin Leonard, beyond the natural norm.

I also have advocated changes to the PGA Tour prize money payout structure, as follows ...

(1) First place prize increased to 20% of total official purse (currently 18%).

(2) Difference ratio between first and second place prizes increased to 2.000-1 (currently, 1.6667-1). Difference ratio between first and third place prizes increased to 3.1250-1 (currently 2.64706-1).

(3) Concentrate more of the total official purse among the first 10 to 20 places.

(4) There would be two cuts in 72-hole tournaments. The first would be a 36-hole cut to exactly 80 professionals (plus any amateurs). The second would be a 54-hole cut to exactly 50 professionals (plus any amateurs). In case of ties in each cut, playoffs would determine who advances. Any professional finishing at least 54 holes receives official money.

Thanx-A-Lot ...That's my 2 cents worth ... Frank-0-Sport

I would keep fields the same size and the same cut line, but only pay out for the top 30. That would light a fire under some of these lazy sots.

I agree somewhat, but I have a different stance.

I think there are far too many exempt players on the PGA TOUR, and the 144-man fields are too large. And I have always thought that Q-school is absolutely ridiculous.

Think about Q-school for a moment. Any player worth his salt should easily advance to the final stage. Then, these guys are rewarded exempt status on the world's greatest tour for finishing tied 20th in a tournament whose field strength doesn't come close to even the Viking Classic, perhaps the weakest field on the PGA TOUR.

I say make these guys prove they belong on the world's greatest tour, not by finishing in 20th place ONE WEEK, but by playing consistently well ALL YEAR on the Nationwide TOUR. Get rid of the PGA TOUR Qualifying Tournament.

Furthermore, I agree about guys like Scott McCarron, Vaughn Taylor, or anyone who can't crack the Top 100 on the TOUR's money list. Cut it from 125 to 100 and make those who don't qualify have to play on the Nationwide TOUR.

But do not increase the number of Nationwide TOUR grads. Let's face it, if a guy can't finish Top 25 on that tour, he really doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.

I say dramatically reduce exemptions, and cut the field sizes from 144 to something like 128, or even less. This way you'd either be allowed to space the threesomes with a tad more time in between, or you'd finish the days' play that much sooner before sunset, and we'd have less of those unfortunate situations when rounds must be resumed the next morning.

[quote name='ClarkGrswld4' timestamp='1319505083' post='3713547']
you wouldn't have less players to fill the fields with because you'd be taking more players out of Q-School and off the Nationwide to fill the 25 spots you are taking away from conditional status players. I'm not suggesting they tell someone like a Scott McCarron, for example, to "get the hell out and don't come back" but rather say "oh, you can still compete on Tour? Great. Go to Q-School, graduate, and then come back and play well in 2012."
[/quote]

The point of an exempt spot on tour is that you have the right to pick and choose your schedule because your number is high enough to do that. If you create more fully exempt spots the guys who have really low numbers in fully exempt spots would essentially be in the same boat as guys with conditional status. but i guess i am just debating policy at this point. Sounds like what you are really suggesting is get rid of the guys who have conditional spots now, and after the top 25 on the nationwide and the top 30 and ties (or whatever it is nowadays) at Q school give out a certain number of conditional cards for the next year to the guys who have earned it. its a little different but it could be an interesting way to go. the issue with that is that tournaments would rather have scott mccarron in the field because his notoriety is more of a draw than someone like Aaron Watkins from the nationwide tour who you wouldnt know from a stick in the mud unless you were really interested in golf or knew the guy.

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319510467' post='3713951']
I agree somewhat, but I have a different stance.

I think there are far too many exempt players on the PGA TOUR, and the 144-man fields are too large. And I have always thought that Q-school is absolutely ridiculous.

Think about Q-school for a moment. Any player worth his salt should easily advance to the final stage. Then, these guys are rewarded exempt status on the world's greatest tour for finishing tied 20th in a tournament whose field strength doesn't come close to even the Viking Classic, perhaps the weakest field on the PGA TOUR.

I say make these guys prove they belong on the world's greatest tour, not by finishing in 20th place ONE WEEK, but by playing consistently well ALL YEAR on the Nationwide TOUR. Get rid of the PGA TOUR Qualifying Tournament.

Furthermore, I agree about guys like Scott McCarron, Vaughn Taylor, or anyone who can't crack the Top 100 on the TOUR's money list. Cut it from 125 to 100 and make those who don't qualify have to play on the Nationwide TOUR.

But do not increase the number of Nationwide TOUR grads. Let's face it, if a guy can't finish Top 25 on that tour, he really doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.

I say dramatically reduce exemptions, and cut the field sizes from 144 to something like 128, or even less. This way you'd either be allowed to space the threesomes with a tad more time in between, or you'd finish the days' play that much sooner before sunset, and we'd have less of those unfortunate situations when rounds must be resumed the next morning.
[/quote]


A couple things..

A full field in a regular season PGA Tour event is 156 players, not 144. I am also confused as to who you think the Nationwide Tour would be comprised of; guys who finished outside the top however many on the money list in your fantasyland or the top mini-tour players or just handpicked by the tournament sponsors? Your stance on Q-School doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as I play on a mini-tour and I can firsthand say that a lot of guys I compete against week in week out are good enough to play on the PGA Tour. A guy I played with said, "The talent level on the Tour is very much the same, it's just getting there that is so hard." I think Q-School is fine, players have to finish among the top 20 or so in the field at each stage, so their game has to travel similarly to the PGA Tour. Your ideas take away opportunities it seems for young players like myself and others to be able to proceed to the next level and hopefully one day have the ability to compete on the PGA Tour.

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319510467' post='3713951']
I agree somewhat, but I have a different stance.

I think there are far too many exempt players on the PGA TOUR, and the 144-man fields are too large. And I have always thought that Q-school is absolutely ridiculous.

Think about Q-school for a moment. Any player worth his salt should easily advance to the final stage. Then, these guys are rewarded exempt status on the world's greatest tour for finishing tied 20th in a tournament whose field strength doesn't come close to even the Viking Classic, perhaps the weakest field on the PGA TOUR.

I say make these guys prove they belong on the world's greatest tour, not by finishing in 20th place ONE WEEK, but by playing consistently well ALL YEAR on the Nationwide TOUR. Get rid of the PGA TOUR Qualifying Tournament.

Furthermore, I agree about guys like Scott McCarron, Vaughn Taylor, or anyone who can't crack the Top 100 on the TOUR's money list. Cut it from 125 to 100 and make those who don't qualify have to play on the Nationwide TOUR.

But do not increase the number of Nationwide TOUR grads. Let's face it, if a guy can't finish Top 25 on that tour, he really doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.

I say dramatically reduce exemptions, and cut the field sizes from 144 to something like 128, or even less. This way you'd either be allowed to space the threesomes with a tad more time in between, or you'd finish the days' play that much sooner before sunset, and we'd have less of those unfortunate situations when rounds must be resumed the next morning.
[/quote]

You obviously have zero clue the level of play on the Nationwide Tour or how difficult it is to get through even 2nd stage of Q School.

Greetings ...

To Mr 59Mr59

Field sizes -- depending on time of year -- for regular open events

156 players from mid-April to late August

144 players early February to mid-April

132 players, January and October , as well as any event played opposite the British Open or a WGC event.

Regular invitational event (Arnold Palmer, Memorial, Heritage, Colonial, AT&T National) field sizes vary from 105 to 120

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1319513929' post='3714243']
You obviously have zero clue the level of play on the Nationwide Tour or how difficult it is to get through even 2nd stage of Q School.
[/quote]

Oh please...spare me, dude. A little sensitive, are you? Stickin' up for all your mini-tour buddies who are chasing the big dream?

Firstly, any guy who can't make it to the final stage of Q-school is exactly the kind of guy the PGA TOUR doesn't need. That guy is the guy who'll enter 25 tournaments and miss 15 cuts, finishing 175th on the money list, and getting a one-way ticket to the Nationwide TOUR.

And I fully realize, and appreciate, the talent and quality of play on the Nationwide TOUR. All I'm saying is, if a guy struggles on the Nationwide TOUR (and failing to crack the top 30 is struggling...just look at the finishes) he doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.

I am going to add, I wouldn't change it those guys fought hard to get there. I played the mini tour for a few years as a AM and ready to do it again now once things get more stable. He is correct on the play on the nationwide is very good no doubt but they are playing courses at the 6800-7000 length and not any longer..... The difference normally is who can hit the putt when it counts and well who misses. To the guy who says sticking up for your mini tour buddies on the Q-school thing..... There are top pro's who never want to get to that point. That is some of the hardest golf in your life. when guys shoot 1 under for 6 rounds on the same golf course that is hard. I can say that is not how I would want to get on tour in a way. I hope my putting turns around so I can give it a honest effort again.

Don't change up the way it works now. It works very well, honestly 90 percent of the guys out there in your guys eye's would not be playing golf anymore.

[quote name='jdhallissey' timestamp='1319518026' post='3714451']
I am going to add, I wouldn't change it those guys fought hard to get there. I played the mini tour for a few years as a AM and ready to do it again now once things get more stable. [b]He is correct on the play on the nationwide is very good no doubt but they are playing courses at the 6800-7000 length and not any longer..... [/b]The difference normally is who can hit the putt when it counts and well who misses. To the guy who says sticking up for your mini tour buddies on the Q-school thing..... There are top pro's who never want to get to that point. That is some of the hardest golf in your life. when guys shoot 1 under for 6 rounds on the same golf course that is hard. I can say that is not how I would want to get on tour in a way. I hope my putting turns around so I can give it a honest effort again.

Don't change up the way it works now. It works very well, honestly 90 percent of the guys out there in your guys eye's would not be playing golf anymore.
[/quote]

Jesus... give these guys some credit. That's not at all accurate. Most state AMs play longer than that.

I can only think of maybe 2 courses the nationwide tour plays that is less than 7000. Kinderlou Forest is something ridiculous like 7800 yards. The vast majority of them are long enough.

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319515811' post='3714333']
And I fully realize, and appreciate, the talent and quality of play on the Nationwide TOUR. All I'm saying is, if a guy struggles on the Nationwide TOUR (and failing to crack the top 30 is struggling...just look at the finishes) he doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.
[/quote]

You are so clueless it is amazing.

Try telling Tommy 2 Gloves that he doesn't belong on the PGA Tour. The guy struggled on nearly every mini tour until he "found it" one year and has now won over $2,000,000 on tour with 7 top 10's and 5 top 5's. Guys who come out of college who are so good that they can make it on Tour immediately are few and far between now days. You have to learn how to play at such a high level, something you know nothing about.

Try telling Zach Johnson that he doesn't belong on the PGA Tour. In 2000, Johnson made only 4 of 7 cuts on the Nike Tour and made a grand total of $10,280. He feel back to the mini tours for 2001 and 2002 and made it through q-school the end of 2002 to gain Nationwide status for 2003. He went on to win twice on the Nationwide Tour in 2003 and earn his PGA Tour status for 2004. In 2007, HE WON THE FREAKIN MASTERS....thats right THE MASTERS.

Second stage is brutal. Biggest laugh I've had in a while is the guy who posted that it's a cakewalk for anyone who can play. Just a few days ago I read a quote from a current PGA player who talked about how tough second stage is, that he was successful exactly once in seven tries.

My beef has always been the difficulty in advancing to the Nationwide Tour unless you get past second stage and then finish relatively high at final stage. It's too much emphasis on a handful of rounds. As Trevino emphasizes, guys are stuck on Gateway or Hooters. They succeed on those tours all year but if they hit a flat spot at second stage it's a revolving door...try again next fall.

Meanwhile, the lower tier PGA players are allowed to struggle in event after event. As quoted earlier in the thread, much more difficult to get there than stay there. Annually only about 35-40 guys manage 20+ starts and don't maintain Top 150. It shouldn't be that monotonous.

Greetings ....

Q-School may come only once every year but those who play it haven't been practicing up on their home country club. They come from amateur and professional tours here and abroad, and bring with them much playing experience. For each of these players Q-School is, hopefully, the final stop on a long hard journey to a promised land called "PGA TOUR".

So, There!

Thanx-A-Lot and Stay Hungry-Stay Foolish, Frank-0-Sport

[quote name='PRO' timestamp='1319521487' post='3714523']
[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319515811' post='3714333']
And I fully realize, and appreciate, the talent and quality of play on the Nationwide TOUR. All I'm saying is, if a guy struggles on the Nationwide TOUR (and failing to crack the top 30 is struggling...just look at the finishes) he doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.
[/quote]

You are so clueless it is amazing.

Try telling Tommy 2 Gloves that he doesn't belong on the PGA Tour. The guy struggled on nearly every mini tour until he "found it" one year and has now won over $2,000,000 on tour with 7 top 10's and 5 top 5's. Guys who come out of college who are so good that they can make it on Tour immediately are few and far between now days. You have to learn how to play at such a high level, something you know nothing about.

Try telling Zach Johnson that he doesn't belong on the PGA Tour. In 2000, Johnson made only 4 of 7 cuts on the Nike Tour and made a grand total of $10,280. He feel back to the mini tours for 2001 and 2002 and made it through q-school the end of 2002 to gain Nationwide status for 2003. He went on to win twice on the Nationwide Tour in 2003 and earn his PGA Tour status for 2004. In 2007, HE WON THE FREAKIN MASTERS....thats right THE MASTERS.
[/quote]

Do you actually read what you're responding to? The rules of this board prevent me from addressing you in the manner I'd like.

Did I ever say Tommy Gainey or Zach Johnson don't belong on the PGA TOUR? No. I said guys who are stinkin' up the joint don't belong, and that's exactly what Gainey was doing before 2010 and, hence, he wasn't on it.

In 2010 Gainey won twice on the Nationwide TOUR, and finished 4th on the money list, thus rightfully earning a PGA TOUR card, which is exactly the concept I have been espousing throughout this thread.

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319515811' post='3714333']
[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1319513929' post='3714243']
You obviously have zero clue the level of play on the Nationwide Tour or how difficult it is to get through even 2nd stage of Q School.
[/quote]

Oh please...spare me, dude. A little sensitive, are you? Stickin' up for all your mini-tour buddies who are chasing the big dream?

Firstly, any guy who can't make it to the final stage of Q-school is exactly the kind of guy the PGA TOUR doesn't need. That guy is the guy who'll enter 25 tournaments and miss 15 cuts, finishing 175th on the money list, and getting a one-way ticket to the Nationwide TOUR.

And I fully realize, and appreciate, the talent and quality of play on the Nationwide TOUR. All I'm saying is, if a guy struggles on the Nationwide TOUR (and failing to crack the top 30 is struggling...just look at the finishes) he doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.
[/quote]

Your lack of knowledge is insulting. I played Division I golf at a high level and I quickly got a reality check when I tried to compete on mini tours. I'd see guys go out and shoot 62 on a regular basis and just shake my head knowing that even If I played my best I might be able to pull out a 66. I can't even wrap my head around the depth in golf, it's unbelievable the amount of good players. Go back and Look at US Am & British Am quarterfinals and semifinal matches, even winners and you'll see guys that haven't even sniffed the PGA Tour.

[quote name='poizster' timestamp='1319527347' post='3714611']

Your lack of knowledge is insulting. I played Division I golf at a high level and I quickly got a reality check when I tried to compete on mini tours. I'd see guys go out and shoot 62 on a regular basis and just shake my head knowing that even If I played my best I might be able to pull out a 66. I can't even wrap my head around the depth in golf, it's unbelievable the amount of good players. Go back and Look at US Am & British Am quarterfinals and semifinal matches, even winners and you'll see guys that haven't even sniffed the PGA Tour.
[/quote]

My background is pretty much the same as yours (D1, struggled on the mini tours). If I have learned nothing else in my life it is that you are not going to convince someone who hasn't been out there how good the good players on the mini tours really are. It's staggering, but people think that they play at the level as the good players that they see at their club, in actuality the best players at the club are 0's or +1's and the good players on the mini tours are +6's and +7's. over 72 holes thats 20 shots, its incredible really. I mean, you see guys on the hooters tour and the canadian tour shooting 25 under for the week, its not because the course was easy, its because they are really really good. and yeah, there are quite a few guys out there who could make some serious dough if they could just get out on tour. Getting out there is hard, staying out there is even harder.

It's just a fact of life, if you haven't been there you don't know, the people on this thread who have been there all have a handle on it. strangely enough we are all saying the same thing.

[quote name='PGArox' timestamp='1319515811' post='3714333']
[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1319513929' post='3714243']
You obviously have zero clue the level of play on the Nationwide Tour or how difficult it is to get through even 2nd stage of Q School.
[/quote]

Oh please...spare me, dude. A little sensitive, are you? Stickin' up for all your mini-tour buddies who are chasing the big dream?

Firstly, any guy who can't make it to the final stage of Q-school is exactly the kind of guy the PGA TOUR doesn't need. That guy is the guy who'll enter 25 tournaments and miss 15 cuts, finishing 175th on the money list, and getting a one-way ticket to the Nationwide TOUR.

And I fully realize, and appreciate, the talent and quality of play on the Nationwide TOUR. All I'm saying is, if a guy struggles on the Nationwide TOUR (and failing to crack the top 30 is struggling...just look at the finishes) he doesn't belong on the PGA TOUR.
[/quote]
I don't have to stick up for anyone and I'm not sensitive. I played mini tour golf and now teach guys on the PGA and Nationwide Tour. I'm with PGA Tour and Nationwide Tour players every week and can tell you the difference between the two is extremely small. I teach three guys in the Nationwide Tour Championship this week, one who locked up his PGA Tour Card weeks ago and has played on Tour before, and four Nationwide Tour players outside the top 60. The difference between those guys in extremely small as well, one of them missed his card by a few thousand dollars last year and this year just missed the Tour Championship. It's a very fine line and if you arent out there on a regular basis there is no way you can respect how good these guys are.

Russell Knox is then perfect example of why younger dead wrong. Has never made it out of second stage of Q School yet never finished outside the top 5 on the Hooters Tour money list since turning pro. He played several Nationwide Tour events through Monday qualifiers the last couple years and finished 7th in one of two events he played last year. This year, the first year he played more than 5 events he has a win and 2nd place finishes. All he needed was the chance to play but according to you is exactly the kind of player the PGA Tour doesn't need. Same goes for Ted Potter and Troy Kelly.

Whats your golf background? Have you ever played at a high level? Have you ever been to a Nationwide Tour event or Second Stage of Q School?

I do not claim to know all of the ins and outs of the current system, but something is not right when you ask the question "where are all the great young American players?" and the response is "stuck down on the Hooters and Gateway Tours."

Now I am not sure that is really the case, because the separation between someone who is tearing up the Hooters Tour versus a player who is making a nice living on the PGA Tour is so small -- in many cases it comes down to just making one more putt per round. Think about how narrow that gap is -- on average, ONE putt per round goes down and you're now talking about a PGA touring pro versus someone who's sleeping in a Knight's Inn and eating Wendy's.

It is painfully obvious in threads like this who gets it and who doesn't. Whoever that was who implied that second stage of Q school is easy?

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1319538103' post='3714747'].
Whats your golf background? Have you ever played at a high level? Have you ever been to a Nationwide Tour event or Second Stage of Q School?
[/quote]

LOL

People who haven't experienced it have no idea how good ALL these guys are. In 1995 I won an exemption to 2nd stage, was handed the entry form, and remember just laughing out loud. At least I was smart enough to know how good I wasn't. :-)

Kevin

I do not claim to know all of the ins and outs of the current system, but something is not right when you ask the question "where are all the great young American players?" and the response is "stuck down on the Hooters and Gateway Tours."

 

Now I am not sure that is really the case, because the separation between someone who is tearing up the Hooters Tour versus a player who is making a nice living on the PGA Tour is so small -- in many cases it comes down to just making one more putt per round. Think about how narrow that gap is -- on average, ONE putt per round goes down and you're now talking about a PGA touring pro versus someone who's sleeping in a Knight's Inn and eating Wendy's.

 

It is painfully obvious in threads like this who gets it and who doesn't. Whoever that was who implied that second stage of Q school is easy?

Your post reminds me the movie Bull Durham and the great line by Crash Davis:

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."

So true.

it should be top 125 pga money list, top 50 nationwide money list, top 25 from q school. and thats it...

that gives 200 possible entries to each tournie