Reduce the fields in golf tournaments?

[bscinstnct]

10 minutes ago, MattyO1984 said:

 

To be fair, if there is someone adept at making themselves sound like that, then Billy would of course be near to the top of that list. I am not against these guys getting the chances to play as I am sure that Horschel isn’t either, it’s just that a good chunk of them are getting handsomely rewarded for relatively mediocrity…in typing that I am certainly going to admit that I am jealous 😂

 

Well, it’s relative and keep in mind that fluidity I mentioned. The guy who made a million one year may have been toiling for “peanuts” for years to get there.

 

But BHo should remember that a rising tide lifts all the boats. He is a huge beneficiary of the explosion of money on tour.

 

From what I see, his average owgr is around 40th over his years on tour.

 

If he played in 1980, that would translate, as far as #40 on the tour money list, to

 

$108,603 (Gibby Gilbert!)

 

Even inflation adjusted, that’s about 383k today. Good money far from from the $2.2MM BHo made for finishing #48 in 2019 ; )

 

 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

Thats why I don’t get BHo questioning these guys heart and effort. He knows all this and he sounds like a complete idiot. 

 

Read his full quote.  He isn't questioning their heart and effort, he is questioning the need to slide more of the money downward to people who may not be putting forth their full effort.  He acknowledged that there are likely many players who are struggling between the tours and struggling to keep up financially playing golf who are busting it.  His point was that the Tour was not a charity but a meritocracy.  There are good-headed, hard working players who just can't make it at that level.  There are guys who aren't going at it with their all who are naturally more talented and content with cashing a decent check each week hovering around T20.  How does shifting more money downward incentivize either category?

[golfortennis]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Read his full quote.  He isn't questioning their heart and effort, he is questioning the need to slide more of the money downward to people who may not be putting forth their full effort.  He acknowledged that there are likely many players who are struggling between the tours and struggling to keep up financially playing golf who are busting it.  His point was that the Tour was not a charity but a meritocracy.  There are good-headed, hard working players who just can't make it at that level.  There are guys who aren't going at it with their all who are naturally more talented and content with cashing a decent check each week hovering around T20.  How does shifting more money downward incentivize either category?

 

The Tour's 501(c)3 status might disagree with your bolded.

 

Your earlier question about the tour keeping too much money, go look up the form 990s.  The number of 6- and 7-figure salaries being paid out, along with building a $700 million new headquarters, and how about all of a sudden finding $40 million in the couch cushions for the stupid PIP?  It's stupid how much money does not find its way to the players.

 

As far as "players who can't make it at that level", isn't that why tour cards are played for each year?  And so what if guys are "content with cashing a decent check"?  It's their wallet affected, not ours.  Is the argument that the quality of play would be better?  How so?  Can anyone really tell?  Guys will take more risks?  Would someone tell a commissioned salesperson to risk an entire sale by pushing for a higher price/more lucrative condition that would blow up the entire sale?

 

I just don't get this idea that there are guys out there who shouldn't be out there.  If that were really the case, any of us could tee it up in events.  IMO, of course. 

[smashdn]

4 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

The Tour's 501(c)3 status might disagree with your bolded.

 

Literally, you are correct.  So is the NFL for that matter.

 

4 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

Your earlier question about the tour keeping too much money, go look up the form 990s.  The number of 6- and 7-figure salaries being paid out, along with building a $700 million new headquarters, and how about all of a sudden finding $40 million in the couch cushions for the stupid PIP?  It's stupid how much money does not find its way to the players.

 

I run into this with some conservation orgs that I work with.  People get wrapped around the axle when the CEO and VPs of those orgs are making what they make.  But when you compare those positions and pay to comparable private sector positions and the pay they are commensurate if not at times lower for charitable orgs.  

 

So it doesn't surprise me in the least that the upper people in the Tour are making nice salaries.  If they did not they would understandably take their skills and talents to the market where they would get paid for them.

 

Can't tell you about the headquarters deal.  Might pay for itself in a few years or less depending upon what is going on at the old place.  If you can get more efficient with a new building and reduce headcount as a result it might pay for itself rather quickly.

 

4 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

As far as "players who can't make it at that level", isn't that why tour cards are played for each year?  And so what if guys are "content with cashing a decent check"?  It's their wallet affected, not ours.  Is the argument that the quality of play would be better?  How so?  Can anyone really tell?  Guys will take more risks?  Would someone tell a commissioned salesperson to risk an entire sale by pushing for a higher price/more lucrative condition that would blow up the entire sale?

 

I just don't get this idea that there are guys out there who shouldn't be out there.  If that were really the case, any of us could tee it up in events.  IMO, of course. 

 

"Make it at that level" refers to financially making it.  So to your first question, no, that is not why tour cards are played for.

 

Guys "content with cashing a check" is what Horschel was getting at.  Yes, he was saying the quality of play would be better by virtue of guys having to place higher in order to financially be able to do what they do.  It deludes the competition when so many places are paid as highly as they are.  You can squeak through on the cut line and gross 30k in some tournaments.  Are you going to be able to financially maintain being a PGA Tour golfer with all the trappings that are needed to keep you there doing that week in and week out?  No.  But if you jump up and place high a week or two in a season, maybe in an alternate field event or silly season event, you can cash a good check that floats you the rest of the year.  Horschel might actually be a good example of this.   His point was fewer spots opening up each year through cards would increase the demand for them and result in more battling for the limited spots.  Smaller fields with fewer pay out spots would concentrate the purse to the upper end incentivizing players to need to place higher.

 

I don't necessarily agree that what he is proposing would have the desired effect.  I contend that it would then become more pronounced where a win or high finish gives you too much financial stability to the point where you are taking weeks off or can, in their minds anyway, not practice as hard or work out as hard since they are, at that point, financially secure for a while.

 

Your last point is laughable.

Edited November 18, 2021 by smashdn

[Soloman1]

The players and the PGA Tour don't do any of it for themselves. They're in it for charity. Think about the children.

[bscinstnct]

21 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Read his full quote.  He isn't questioning their heart and effort, he is questioning the need to slide more of the money downward to people who may not be putting forth their full effort.  He acknowledged that there are likely many players who are struggling between the tours and struggling to keep up financially playing golf who are busting it.  His point was that the Tour was not a charity but a meritocracy.  There are good-headed, hard working players who just can't make it at that level.  There are guys who aren't going at it with their all who are naturally more talented and content with cashing a decent check each week hovering around T20.  How does shifting more money downward incentivize either category?

My full quote gives full context. That’s why, due respect, snipping just that line does not accurately depict my point ; )

 

Who is he to question anyone out there?
 

From what I see, he’s the definition of making huge money for being like #40-50. 
 

In his entire career, Arnold Palmer made $3.6MM. Even inflation adjusted, that’s $25MM. 62 tour wins and 7 majors. 
 

BHo has no majors. Wins every leap year. He’s made almost $30MM

 

 

[ChrisL52188]

Look at Tiger and Jack... They were consumed by winning and not money. 

[smashdn]

10 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

My full quote gives full context. That’s why, due respect, snipping just that line does not accurately depict my point ; )

 

And Horschel's full quote from the interview addresses the point you brought up.  He said some guys are busting it but others are not.  And his point was if the money was given, slid, redistributed, whatever the word, to those "who need it" you are also giving it to those who aren't doing all they can do to be better.

 

10 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

Who is he to question anyone out there?

 

He was asked in an interview and is on the Player's Advisory Council.

 

10 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

From what I see, he’s the definition of making huge money for being like #40-50. 

 

Agree with that too.  Found it odd that he had that take given he fit the mold.

 

Anytime the veteran players talk about reducing cards given and removing stability it seems a bit self-serving to me.

 

----

 

Bring it back around in context to the PGL or Saudi mess.  They want to pay out appearance fees right?  This is supposedly what the PGA Tour is battling.  But PGAT is paying that PIP money which essentially is an appearance fee in another name.  Show up, tweet and twit, move the needle, get eyes on us and here is your check.  Moving to a more "cut-throat" payout model is opposite what the PGL is doing right?  If Billy Ho is wanting to get more of the top guys in events and more of them in the mix at the top of the leaderboard, and get everybody motivated to be at the top, I don't think money is the answer.

 

Like I brought up before, is Tiger playing for money at this point?  Is he going to the trouble to rehab to come back to golf to cash some more checks or is he coming back to chase something else?  (Is he golden bear hunting?)

[Titleist99]

36 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

The Tour's 501(c)3 status might disagree with your bolded.

 

Your earlier question about the tour keeping too much money, go look up the form 990s.  The number of 6- and 7-figure salaries being paid out, along with building a $700 million new headquarters, and how about all of a sudden finding $40 million in the couch cushions for the stupid PIP?  It's stupid how much money does not find its way to the players.

 

As far as "players who can't make it at that level", isn't that why tour cards are played for each year?  And so what if guys are "content with cashing a decent check"?  It's their wallet affected, not ours.  Is the argument that the quality of play would be better?  How so?  Can anyone really tell?  Guys will take more risks?  Would someone tell a commissioned salesperson to risk an entire sale by pushing for a higher price/more lucrative condition that would blow up the entire sale?

 

I just don't get this idea that there are guys out there who shouldn't be out there.  If that were really the case, any of us could tee it up in events.  IMO, of course. 

totally correct. IMO If the PGATOUR can't find more creative ways to give player a bigger piece of the pie, something a little more drastic has to happen. PIP is nonsense and getting rid of player in the field just to give the upper tier of players more money is totally insane.

 

If the Tour cut back on cards I think the players should consider collective bargaining or at least threaten it. Yeah, I said It!  JMO

[tw_focus]

I think there is room for more events with smaller / cultivated fields and more variety events (not just stroke play). If you look at WWE, the guys getting the most attention aren't necessarily the ones who are the best wrestlers, they are the ones with the best charisma, the mic skills, the biggest fan following. So why can't TW pair up with Paige Spirnac for an event or two, I guarantee the ratings will be higher than watching two no-name 50 rank golfers. It's good for the business and good for the game.

[oikos1]

17 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

And Horschel's full quote from the interview addresses the point you brought up.  He said some guys are busting it but others are not.  And his point was if the money was given, slid, redistributed, whatever the word, to those "who need it" you are also giving it to those who aren't doing all they can do to be better.

 

 

He was asked in an interview and is on the Player's Advisory Council.

 

 

Agree with that too.  Found it odd that he had that take given he fit the mold.

 

Anytime the veteran players talk about reducing cards given and removing stability it seems a bit self-serving to me.

 

----

 

Bring it back around in context to the PGL or Saudi mess.  They want to pay out appearance fees right?  This is supposedly what the PGA Tour is battling.  But PGAT is paying that PIP money which essentially is an appearance fee in another name.  Show up, tweet and twit, move the needle, get eyes on us and here is your check.  Moving to a more "cut-throat" payout model is opposite what the PGL is doing right?  If Billy Ho is wanting to get more of the top guys in events and more of them in the mix at the top of the leaderboard, and get everybody motivated to be at the top, I don't think money is the answer.

 

Like I brought up before, is Tiger playing for money at this point?  Is he going to the trouble to rehab to come back to golf to cash some more checks or is he coming back to chase something else?  (Is he golden bear hunting?)

Tiger is going to stay relevant because he makes more money from his sponsors being "Tiger" than he will ever make playing golf.  Of course he still wants to catch Jack, but I don't think he's going to balk at another couple hundred million or more over the next ten years just for showing up at an event every now and again. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by oikos1

[Uncle_Buck2]

More competitive? It takes the average D1 golfer 7 years after graduation to make it to the PGA tour, and he's wanting more competition?

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

And Horschel's full quote from the interview addresses the point you brought up.  He said some guys are busting it but others are not.  And his point was if the money was given, slid, redistributed, whatever the word, to those "who need it" you are also giving it to those who aren't doing all they can do to be better.

 

 

He was asked in an interview and is on the Player's Advisory Council.

 

 

Agree with that too.  Found it odd that he had that take given he fit the mold.

 

Anytime the veteran players talk about reducing cards given and removing stability it seems a bit self-serving to me.

 

----

 

Bring it back around in context to the PGL or Saudi mess.  They want to pay out appearance fees right?  This is supposedly what the PGA Tour is battling.  But PGAT is paying that PIP money which essentially is an appearance fee in another name.  Show up, tweet and twit, move the needle, get eyes on us and here is your check.  Moving to a more "cut-throat" payout model is opposite what the PGL is doing right?  If Billy Ho is wanting to get more of the top guys in events and more of them in the mix at the top of the leaderboard, and get everybody motivated to be at the top, I don't think money is the answer.

 

Like I brought up before, is Tiger playing for money at this point?  Is he going to the trouble to rehab to come back to golf to cash some more checks or is he coming back to chase something else?  (Is he golden bear hunting?)

 

Yes. Its understandable the tours immediate reaction is to do qhaterver they can to keep the golden gooses. The top 20 and especially the top 10.

 

But, if the PGL truly wants to build long term, the Pga tours real vulnerability is the guys ranked 50-200. These are the guys who, 

 

Contrary to dopey BHos thinking, you want to incentivize and build out even more. 
 

And college kids. 

 

Take a really good college player. Not the best but a kid who just has a good shot at getting on tour. Like a Harris English when he first came out. He can take his shot at the tour. But no guarantees. The PGL/Saudi’s guarantee him 20MM over 3 years, he thinks “hmmmm”. 
 

But, I doubt the PGL/Saudi’s have such long term thinking to invest like this and build out something grass roots.

 

They just what to focus on getting some top guys like Bryson, Rory, BK. 
 

And I just don’t think those guys are messing with the good thing they have. Play when they want, in the US, consistently make 20MM (or more) with endorsements. It’s not worth it to risk it.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by bscinstnct

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Literally, you are correct.  So is the NFL for that matter.

 

 

I run into this with some conservation orgs that I work with.  People get wrapped around the axle when the CEO and VPs of those orgs are making what they make.  But when you compare those positions and pay to comparable private sector positions and the pay they are commensurate if not at times lower for charitable orgs.  

 

So it doesn't surprise me in the least that the upper people in the Tour are making nice salaries.  If they did not they would understandably take their skills and talents to the market where they would get paid for them.

 

Can't tell you about the headquarters deal.  Might pay for itself in a few years or less depending upon what is going on at the old place.  If you can get more efficient with a new building and reduce headcount as a result it might pay for itself rather quickly.

 

 

"Make it at that level" refers to financially making it.  So to your first question, no, that is not why tour cards are played for.

 

Guys "content with cashing a check" is what Horschel was getting at.  Yes, he was saying the quality of play would be better by virtue of guys having to place higher in order to financially be able to do what they do.  It deludes the competition when so many places are paid as highly as they are.  You can squeak through on the cut line and gross 30k in some tournaments.  Are you going to be able to financially maintain being a PGA Tour golfer with all the trappings that are needed to keep you there doing that week in and week out?  No.  But if you jump up and place high a week or two in a season, maybe in an alternate field event or silly season event, you can cash a good check that floats you the rest of the year.  Horschel might actually be a good example of this.   His point was fewer spots opening up each year through cards would increase the demand for them and result in more battling for the limited spots.  Smaller fields with fewer pay out spots would concentrate the purse to the upper end incentivizing players to need to place higher.

 

I don't necessarily agree that what he is proposing would have the desired effect.  I contend that it would then become more pronounced where a win or high finish gives you too much financial stability to the point where you are taking weeks off or can, in their minds anyway, not practice as hard or work out as hard since they are, at that point, financially secure for a while.

 

Your last point is laughable.

 

Not good at splitting quotes, so bear with me.  The reason people get wrapped around the axle(I like that term actually) is because a not-for-taxes org is paying out those salaries because they have to spend a certain amount of money, or they lose their status.  And it's easier to hand out raises than actually put more into programs.  If their talents were so valuable they would be somewhere else making more.  The market in the not-for-taxes area is warped because the incentives are completely different.  How many get fired for a reason other than some really bad scandal?  There's a reason the saying is there's a lot of money to be made in non-profits.

 

I always go back to what Deane Beman said about the all-exempt tour.  If you want stars, then you need guys the stars beat.  And if the incentive is not there for all but a handful of guys, things are worse.  It almost sounds like my fellow Canadians complaining about the fact having NHL franchises in Phoenix and California, etc., are now yielding players from those areas.  How is that a bad thing?

 

 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, tw_focus said:

I think there is room for more events with smaller / cultivated fields and more variety events (not just stroke play). 

 

I tend to agree.  That American Century Celebrity Tournament at Lake Tahoe is a modified stableford.  I tend to watch it every year and I don't care about celebrities at all.  I like the format and I like the atmosphere of it.

 

Break off 25-50 guys through a few qualifying tournaments (maybe ones that tend to be weaker fields), give the small field/odd format event a sponsor, let those other qualifying events have a sponsored points race similar to Fed Ex Cup Points.  Make the payout something in the small field event something that can't be ignored and see what happens.  We have a majors gap after July now.  Throw something in there.  It can be an opposite field thing too.

 

Maybe mix in a team component to some tournament for the Sunday round.  Pair the 54 hole leader with the guy at the bottom and so forth through the field.  Let there be a combined score payout too.  Keep the guy at the bottom from mailing it in Sunday and just getting out of town.

[smashdn]

4 hours ago, golfortennis said:

If their talents were so valuable they would be somewhere else making more.  The market in the not-for-taxes area is warped because the incentives are completely different.  How many get fired for a reason other than some really bad scandal?  There's a reason the saying is there's a lot of money to be made in non-profits.

 

Don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole but to your point, the expectations and the measures for "winning" are different with non-profit and for profit companies and the c-suites in each.

Edited November 18, 2021 by smashdn

[wildcatden]

Horschel has 49 Top 10's out of 279 career starts.  That's just under 18% of his total tournaments. He needs to step up his game or take his $28M in career earnings and go home.

 

What an a** to question the heart and/or motiviations of other players. Typical narcissist.

[cdnglf]

 

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

totally correct. IMO If the PGATOUR can't find more creative ways to give player a bigger piece of the pie, something a little more drastic has to happen. PIP is nonsense and getting rid of player in the field just to give the upper tier of players more money is totally insane.

 

If the Tour cut back on cards I think the players should consider collective bargaining or at least threaten it. Yeah, I said It!  JMO

 

PGA Tour Collective Bargaining Session:

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by cdnglf
removed old quote

[Pepperturbo]

I believe Horschel is on to something.  He's realistic, and speaking from inside the fray.  Many Pros have said on camera, they don't care about money, but want to win.  However, golf performance has almost become an oversight.   Too many golfers are making more than enough money for marginal performance.  The top 10-20 get media attention, the rest slide by.  In other words I see them as complacent.  That's exacerbated by various sponsors throwing money at them, though they are not in the top 20.  If a pro loses a sponsor, for what ever the reason, they jump to another to keep the income stream flowing and the decent lifestyle.

 

Look at the official money for 2022... over a few months, Marc Leishman made over 800k in 4 events, no victories, nothing special.  All while 8 Pros have won an event.  Martin Laird played in 4 events, earned $232,230, now #80, last week #67.  If a tour player makes 500-800k he's living a damn good life.  Then there is this KF example; Trey Mullinax played in 32 events and earned $292.464, this week #33, last week #50.

Tours should cut back on the field size that makes the cut.  Even the KF tour players are making decent living now, when not in the top 10.  Remember, NOT everyone has a deep-seated desire to be a millionaire.  As this CEO of an HR services company sees it, golf has become a job, not unlike average Joe's job in the business world. 

If that's the case, an argument could be made saying once they find their comfort zone, they will do what most people in other industries, not care much about earning more money or promotions, so performance becomes statically complacent.  It's called the "Peter Principle", look it up. 

 

It doesn't take much research to see how many guys on tour show up, play, never make the top 20, much less 10, yet make a million or more a year, not including sponsor support, all while happily staying out of the camera lens and media scrutiny.  Best NOT assume touring pros have goals that you think you'd have if you were in their shoes.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[Titleist99]

Now let me see.... Players work all their lives to make it on or to the PGATOUR. The player misses 18 cuts in a row, then on one weekend he has a second in a tournament that pays $1M (happens all the time). This player now thinks to himself "I've made it, I can slack off and  just keep my card" NO HE DOES NOT!. He thinks that he must get better to remain on tour and that mindset remains for the rest of his career, even at the highest level see: Rory McILroy and Tiger Woods changing their swing and they're at the top of the game.

Getting to the Tour is easier than staying there.....

Let's hope Billy Ho doesn't find that out the hard way....JMO

The Golf God are always listening.

[DFS PFD]

I'd be in favor of maintaining current field size, and even increasing pay outs, under the condition of fewer exemptions. People ask for more competition, well making a larger percentage of the field qualify every week would certainly make sure you are getting the guys that are playing well and determined. Rather than guys with a ton of exemptions that don't compete for years on end. Ala Rickie Fowler. That way the money pot grows, competition thrives, and those that play at an elite level consistently can still earn their exemptions. 

[Pepperturbo]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Now let me see.... Players work all their lives to make it on or to the PGATOUR. The player misses 18 cuts in a row, then on one weekend he has a second in a tournament that pays $1M (happens all the time). This player now thinks to himself "I've made it, I can slack off and  just keep my card" NO HE DOES NOT!. He thinks that he must get better to remain on tour and that mindset remains for the rest of his career, even at the highest level see: Rory McILroy and Tiger Woods changing their swing and they're at the top of the game.

Getting to the Tour is easier than staying there.....

Let's hope Billy Ho doesn't find that out the hard way....JMO

The Golf God are always listening.

Lots of assumptions.  But you're welcome to assume, but it's NOT always true or how most people build their careers, must less human psychology.  You'd be surprised how many people use a morsel of success to assume they have arrived at a goal.  Motivation is obscure and changes as personal lives change.  I have spent the better part of 40yrs studying motivational behavior across a myriad of professions.

 

Arriving and staying at a certain level are synonymous to security when a person has paid off the moderate home, no debit to speak of, and a few million in the bank and not even 40 yrs old yet.  Maybe the only debit is to those investors that helped fund his trip to the tour.  Three of us were investors for an up and comer, mini tour player.  That's when it's easy to say it's more about winning than money.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

I believe Horschel is on to something.  He's realistic, and speaking from inside the fray.  Many Pros have said on camera, they don't care about money, but want to win.  However, golf performance has almost become an oversight.   Too many golfers are making more than enough money for marginal performance.  The top 10-20 get media attention, the rest slide by.  In other words I see them as complacent.  That's exacerbated by various sponsors throwing money at them, though they are not in the top 20.  If a pro loses a sponsor, for what ever the reason, they jump to another to keep the income stream flowing and the decent lifestyle.

 

Look at the official money for 2022... over a few months, Marc Leishman made over 800k in 4 events, no victories, nothing special.  All while 8 Pros have won an event.  Martin Laird played in 4 events, earned $232,230, now #80, last week #67.  If a tour player makes 500-800k he's living a damn good life.  Then there is this KF example; Trey Mullinax played in 32 events and earned $292.464, this week #33, last week #50.

Tours should cut back on the field size that makes the cut.  Even the KF tour players are making decent living now, when not in the top 10.  Remember, NOT everyone has a deep-seated desire to be a millionaire.  As this CEO of an HR services company sees it, golf has become a job, not unlike average Joe's job in the business world. 

If that's the case, an argument could be made saying once they find their comfort zone, they will do what most people in other industries, not care much about earning more money or promotions, so performance becomes statically complacent.  It's called the "Peter Principle", look it up. 

 

It doesn't take much research to see how many guys on tour show up, play, never make the top 20, much less 10, yet make a million or more a year, not including sponsor support, all while happily staying out of the camera lens and media scrutiny.  Best NOT assume touring pros have goals that you think you'd have if you were in their shoes.

 

 

Yo, PT!

 

I used the example of Carlos Ortiz.

 

The guy has been bouncing around ranked 100-500 for years

 

Got his card, lost his card. Got his card back. 
 

Thank goodness he could make halfway decent money to stay out there and he just won his first event last year and has cracked the top 50.

 

This may be his plateau.

 

Gotta remember, some of these guys really can’t win, they are not good enough. For them, being their best means being #50 instead of #250. 
 

It means they make half the cuts, get a couple top 20s, make a buck and stay on tour. Instead of losing status and getting dropped. 
 

But it doesn’t mean they aren’t busting their @ss and don’t deserve their share of the purse that’s structured as it is. 

[Titleist99]

35 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Lots of assumptions.  But you're welcome to assume, but it's NOT always true or how most people build their careers, must less human psychology.  You'd be surprised how many people use a morsel of success to assume they have arrived at a goal.  Motivation is obscure and changes as personal lives change.  I have spent the better part of 40yrs studying motivational behavior across a myriad of professions.

 

Arriving and staying at a certain level are synonymous to security when a person has paid off the moderate home, no debit to speak of, and a few million in the bank and not even 40 yrs old yet.  Maybe the only debit is to those investors that helped fund his trip to the tour.  Three of us were investors for an up and comer, mini tour player.  That's when it's easy to say it's more about winning than money.

Hmmm.....Lot of assumptions here as well....but that's what we all do.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, DFS PFD said:

I'd be in favor of maintaining current field size, and even increasing pay outs, under the condition of fewer exemptions. People ask for more competition, well making a larger percentage of the field qualify every week would certainly make sure you are getting the guys that are playing well and determined. Rather than guys with a ton of exemptions that don't compete for years on end. Ala Rickie Fowler. That way the money pot grows, competition thrives, and those that play at an elite level consistently can still earn their exemptions. 

Without the exemptions you won't have sponsors......It's their right for putting up the money $$$ IMO

 

Sponsors reward loyalty to their brand.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Titleist99

[Pepperturbo]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Yo, PT!

 

I used the example of Carlos Ortiz.

 

The guy has been bouncing around ranked 100-500 for years

 

Got his card, lost his card. Got his card back. 
 

Thank goodness he could make halfway decent money to stay out there and he just won his first event last year and has cracked the top 50.

 

This may be his plateau.

 

Gotta remember, some of these guys really can’t win, they are not good enough. For them, being their best means being #50 instead of #250. 
 

It means they make half the cuts, get a couple top 20s, make a buck and stay on tour. Instead of losing status and getting dropped. 
 

But it doesn’t mean they aren’t busting their @ss and don’t deserve their share of the purse that’s structured as it is. 

I am self-made, a capitalist and all about performance.  Most people deserve what they earn.  What they don't deserve is hanging around out of sight benefiting from an environment.  If someone busts his azz and hits the big pot, more power to him.  However, being over paid for not the best performance, and it keeps him hanging around; I am not in favor of that.

 

There is another question; are we being sympatric to the individuals experience, or are we viewers expecting excitement and game.  If there's one thing that doesn't get my attention, it's an unknown guy having his day in the light, only to never be seen again.   He benefited but the viewers and golf got nothing for the future. 

[Pepperturbo]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Hmmm.....Lot of assumptions here as well....but that's what we all do.

You may see it that way, and that's fine.  However, for the last 40yrs I built a North American company that assess motivational behavior across multiple professions.  Thankfully, there's a helluva lot of notable companies and executives that value my 'opinions.'  Opinions are different from assumptions, as the latter is bias, the former is a measure from experience. 

[Titleist99]

4 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I am self-made, a capitalist and all about performance.  Most people deserve what they earn.  What they don't deserve is hanging around out of sight benefiting from an environment.  If someone busts his azz and hits the big pot, more power to him.  However, being over paid for not the best performance, and it keeps him hanging around; I am not in favor of that.

 

There is another question; are we being sympatric to the individuals experience, or are we viewers expecting excitement and game.  If there's one thing that doesn't get my attention, it's an unknown guy having his day in the light, only to never be seen again.   He benefited but the viewers and golf got nothing for the future. 

Well, the PGATOUR works for the players. Once you get your card and become a member it's the tours job to keep players on tour. If you notice there's a lot of tiers and status on the tour.....there's 125-150, 150-200, sponsor exemptions, money list exemptions, one tine this, one time that, winner exemptions for the current year and the next two years for a regular event, five years exempt fof a major....Q-school, etc.....The tour is design to keep it's members on tour......as it should be. they're not slackers, they're card carrying members. IMO

[Soloman1]

 

[Titleist99]

20 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

You may see it that way, and that's fine.  However, for the last 40yrs I built a North American company that assess motivational behavior across multiple professions.  Thankfully, there's a helluva lot of notable companies and executives that value my 'opinions.'  Opinions are different from assumptions, as the latter is bias, the former is a measure from experience. 

Of course you're right.....but keep in mind that there are people who have just as impressive resume as yours but are to modest to assume they hold all the answers and their opinion is greater than anyone else. Perhaps we can agree on that...