USGA Changes Qualifying Rules - Is the USGA Drunk?

[AmateurAmateur]

2 minutes ago, seanjk123 said:

Yea, I think that’s my issue with it. Idk how many 1-handicaps have qualified, but can’t imagine the number is huge.
 

I guess one angle I can see is preventing someone that is a true top player from getting paired up with a vanity capper that shoots 90…. That would be unfair if guys like that affect playing partners. I feel like that could be solved through the pairings though.

They also lowered the handicap limit to try and qualify. Which if the focus is to prevent a solid player with a chance from getting paired up with some bum who is a 13 handicap on a good day, that makes sense. They also could have required a handicap with at least one tournament result in the last calendar year to ensure the players signing up aren’t just doing so to say “I played in a US amateur qualifier”. 

[Hawkeye77]

31 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Raise mid-am age to 30 and we have a shot 😂

Mid-am age should be raised!!! A lot has changed since 1981. 

[Stevens24]

The USGA is saying, without saying that the USAM is for elite college golfers and those just out of college. I agree the Mid Am should be 30-54 age. 

[So_Cal]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Mid-am age should be raised!!! A lot has changed since 1981. 

And the USGA needs to be at more prestigious courses.  Host them at elite old school clubs.  

[bladehunter]

43 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Raise mid-am age to 30 and we have a shot 😂

Wouldn’t be a bad idea.  Call 21-30 “ college aged “ and while they’re at it. Bring back the pub links.  Maybe even a regional pub links for each section of the country.  That event used to cut out a lot of the “ pro amateurs “ in my opinion.  

[bladehunter]

34 minutes ago, AmateurAmateur said:

They also lowered the handicap limit to try and qualify. Which if the focus is to prevent a solid player with a chance from getting paired up with some bum who is a 13 handicap on a good day, that makes sense. They also could have required a handicap with at least one tournament result in the last calendar year to ensure the players signing up aren’t just doing so to say “I played in a US amateur qualifier”. 

Love the name by the way.  
 

as much as i understand the need to weed out the guy who will shoot 90 …. Kids who are good enough aren’t hurt by that guy. If he hurts your score. You’re not good enough.  My opinion on that has changed as I’ve aged and got more experience.  I used to think The opposite.  If you ( not you personally ) can’t handle the pressure of playing with that guy , you can’t handle the big show. So it’s a moot point.  
 

I hope they don’t change the mid am qualifier requirements to require a certain finish in tournaments that year because it will likely count me out.  I happen to be close to a local qualifier course.  But travel for events is not possible for me at the moment.  So I’ve played in the qualifier a couple times , for experience. ( im 43 started playing at 35) As close as 5 shots out of a spot once.  On a very wet. Very long course with a balky putter.  I truly don’t think I’m in anyone’s way shooting 76 on a day where the medalist was 71.  
 

I guess my opinion is this. Last thing on earth that needs to happen is for these prestigious events to go back to feeling “ unreachable “ for the average plus handicap am.  Even if it’s a 1- million shot. It needs to remain possible.  And keeping the qualifiers accessible is the only way.  

[m d g]

Drunk?

 

No, not drunk...

 

[golfortennis]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I guess my opinion is this. Last thing on earth that needs to happen is for these prestigious events to go back to feeling “ unreachable “ for the average plus handicap am.  Even if it’s a 1- million shot. It needs to remain possible.  And keeping the qualifiers accessible is the only way.  

 

I really have to wonder who is behind this/who is benefitting from this.  NBC wanting better TV ratings?  Why are you cutting so many others out(if not directly, then indirectly by doubling the costs as described earlier in the thread)?  Either Mike Whan is a heck of a chameleon who went from knowing how to do things to screwing things up, or he has really been USGA-ified in a short period of time.

 

The more I read about it, the less sense it makes.

[AmateurAmateur]

12 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Love the name by the way.  
 

as much as i understand the need to weed out the guy who will shoot 90 …. Kids who are good enough aren’t hurt by that guy. If he hurts your score. You’re not good enough.  My opinion on that has changed as I’ve aged and got more experience.  I used to think The opposite.  If you ( not you personally ) can’t handle the pressure of playing with that guy , you can’t handle the big show. So it’s a moot point.  
 

I hope they don’t change the mid am qualifier requirements to require a certain finish in tournaments that year because it will likely count me out.  I happen to be close to a local qualifier course.  But travel for events is not possible for me at the moment.  So I’ve played in the qualifier a couple times , for experience. ( im 43 started playing at 35) As close as 5 shots out of a spot once.  On a very wet. Very long course with a balky putter.  I truly don’t think I’m in anyone’s way shooting 76 on a day where the medalist was 71.  
 

I guess my opinion is this. Last thing on earth that needs to happen is for these prestigious events to go back to feeling “ unreachable “ for the average plus handicap am.  Even if it’s a 1- million shot. It needs to remain possible.  And keeping the qualifiers accessible is the only way.  

I agree completely. You can be a good player and get bothered by it, but a GOOD player who is US amateur calibre will not get bothered by it. 
 

Personally I thought the system they had was fine. I just think If they HAD to change it, they could have had some better alternatives than what they changed it too. 
Like someone else in the thread said: for US Open (or pro events in general) this makes sense. But for amateur events it doesn’t. 

[golfortennis]

So I finally read the press release.  The fact they make mention of a reduction of 94 sites suggests they are having trouble getting clubs to host.  Does anyone know what the financial incentives are for hosting a qualifier?  I've heard here in Ontario, clubs get $10 a head(from a $200 entry fee), and so there is no surprise that clubs don't want to host.  It's not worth it.

 

This also seems like a first step towards moving the US Open to more of the R&A's new method where rather then being Open through qualifying, there are a bunch of spots now handed out at professional tournaments around the world.  I've lamented that move many times, and one area I've praised the USGA is they haven't gone down that route.  Sadly this suggests they may be moving towards that.  

[grochol17]

47 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Wouldn’t be a bad idea.  Call 21-30 “ college aged “ and while they’re at it. Bring back the pub links.  Maybe even a regional pub links for each section of the country.  That event used to cut out a lot of the “ pro amateurs “ in my opinion.  

 

I was kinda sad the pub links went away, but not really surprised.  While I was in grad school I decided to give one a go (2005 ish I think) at a course I really liked in Florida.  I showed up on the morning of the first day and the driving range was full of college golf bags... it was basically a college tournament.  For the two days I played great for me... 72-74 on a course rated at 73.7, but I finished T-20 and was something like 12 shots back. 

 

That same summer I played the US Am and Mid-Am.  The US Am was pretty much another college tournament and the Mid-Am was a bunch of former college golfers turned insurance salesmen who somehow don't ever have to work.  I haven't played in a USGA event since because I realized I was just wasting money playing a bunch of almost professionals.

[italianstallion]

51 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Love the name by the way.  
 

as much as i understand the need to weed out the guy who will shoot 90 …. Kids who are good enough aren’t hurt by that guy. If he hurts your score. You’re not good enough.  My opinion on that has changed as I’ve aged and got more experience.  I used to think The opposite.  If you ( not you personally ) can’t handle the pressure of playing with that guy , you can’t handle the big show. So it’s a moot point.  
 

I hope they don’t change the mid am qualifier requirements to require a certain finish in tournaments that year because it will likely count me out.  I happen to be close to a local qualifier course.  But travel for events is not possible for me at the moment.  So I’ve played in the qualifier a couple times , for experience. ( im 43 started playing at 35) As close as 5 shots out of a spot once.  On a very wet. Very long course with a balky putter.  I truly don’t think I’m in anyone’s way shooting 76 on a day where the medalist was 71.  
 

I guess my opinion is this. Last thing on earth that needs to happen is for these prestigious events to go back to feeling “ unreachable “ for the average plus handicap am.  Even if it’s a 1- million shot. It needs to remain possible.  And keeping the qualifiers accessible is the only way.  

Great post and conclusion.

 

I live in Florida and as it stands now the local Am qualifiers by me are two day events (18 holes each day) which I presume is due to the number of people attempting to qualify (can’t get that many people around 36 in one day). As a working 30-something with a 0.5 handicap it makes no sense to take two days off work to attempt a 1 in 100 shot of qualifying, so for me the US Am is already inaccessible as it is. I took one day off and played my first Mid-Am qualifier last year and finished 4 strokes out of qualifying. It’s tough enough as it is going up against all the reinstated ams down here, but it’s doable for me. It’ll be a sad day for me if/when they move to this new format for the Mid-Am qualifying. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by italianstallion

[smashdn]

45 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

I really have to wonder who is behind this/who is benefitting from this.  NBC wanting better TV ratings?  Why are you cutting so many others out(if not directly, then indirectly by doubling the costs as described earlier in the thread)?  Either Mike Whan is a heck of a chameleon who went from knowing how to do things to screwing things up, or he has really been USGA-ified in a short period of time.

 

The more I read about it, the less sense it makes.

 

Do the US AM qualifier rounds make it on TV?

[smashdn]

12 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

That same summer I played the US Am and Mid-Am.  The US Am was pretty much another college tournament and the Mid-Am was a bunch of former college golfers turned insurance salesmen who somehow don't ever have to work.  I haven't played in a USGA event since because I realized I was just wasting money playing a bunch of almost professionals.

 

This isn't directed at you but I quoted you as it seems to be a common sentiment.  This is for everyone and anyone to answer.

 

How does the USGA change this scenario and should they or could they?  What criteria could they impose that corrects the above?

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

I was kinda sad the pub links went away, but not really surprised.  While I was in grad school I decided to give one a go (2005 ish I think) at a course I really liked in Florida.  I showed up on the morning of the first day and the driving range was full of college golf bags... it was basically a college tournament.  For the two days I played great for me... 72-74 on a course rated at 73.7, but I finished T-20 and was something like 12 shots back. 

 

That same summer I played the US Am and Mid-Am.  The US Am was pretty much another college tournament and the Mid-Am was a bunch of former college golfers turned insurance salesmen who somehow don't ever have to work.  I haven't played in a USGA event since because I realized I was just wasting money playing a bunch of almost professionals.

Yep.  That’s exactly how I’ve seen it.  The qualifier I mentioned above for the mid am.  I had a guy around 26-30 years old tell me straight out ( we were in South Carolina) “I’m from Macon Georgia.   I played in two qualifiers this week and didn’t get in.   My boss gave me the rest of the week off and next week to come drive around and  try some more.”   So I said “what do you do “? As one would ask …, he says “ work in investment's and  insurance … my grandpa started the firm “.     So hey.  I get life isn’t fair.  And it shouldn’t be.  The cream will find a way to rise.  But I think it’s my right to point out the hilarious things humans will say if their perspective is shaded enough.    I on the other hand , had begged a favor to have my kid picked up from after school daycare , paid for the daycare , and was on a clock to get back at a reasonable time in order to return calls for the day and pickup the kid.  All choices I made.  But choices that mostly come in now after 32 or so.  Anyway. That’s whining.  So enough of that.  
 

point is.  Show up to the midam qualifier at 40.  You 100 % will be the oldest guy there. If you’re not , there’s one 49 year old in the corner with a towel in his hip pocket looking to shoot 107.  That’s it.  You’ll get “ yes sir-Ed” to death that day.  Because it’s all 25-34 year olds with their school logo still showing.  

[grochol17]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This isn't directed at you but I quoted you as it seems to be a common sentiment.  This is for everyone and anyone to answer.

 

How does the USGA change this scenario and should they or could they?  What criteria could they impose that corrects the above?

 

I don't know.  I don't think there is an easy way to solve this at the USGA level since there isn't a way to exclude people that are too good, too experienced, etc.  I think this is just the way golf is going to be at the highest levels... no way I'd be able to compete with that and that's why I'm happy just sticking to my local chapters of some national amateur tours.  Me and the other guys can all commiserate about how we're tired and our backs hurt because our kids wouldn't sleep unless we were holding them.  🙂

[dmecca2]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This isn't directed at you but I quoted you as it seems to be a common sentiment.  This is for everyone and anyone to answer.

 

How does the USGA change this scenario and should they or could they?  What criteria could they impose that corrects the above?

I dont think this needs to be solved, or even is a problem. I have no problem playing against failed pros who regain amateur status, or college players who didnt decide to go pro. I do have a problem when I'm not even able to compete with them because they get special treatment. Like exemptions from college tournaments that I can't get into, because they aren't weighted correctly with regard to WAGR points.

[italianstallion]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This isn't directed at you but I quoted you as it seems to be a common sentiment.  This is for everyone and anyone to answer.

 

How does the USGA change this scenario and should they or could they?  What criteria could they impose that corrects the above?

College golfers shouldn’t be excluded from trying to qualify. I personally don’t agree with reinstated amateurs being permitted to play but that’s a song for another time, and with NIL now that line is more blurry then ever anyway. For the mid am I do think the point about raising the age bracket from 25 to 30 might make a level of sense. Until then I can only focus on what I can control, and that’s working to be better. 

 

 

[jkumpire]

I don't post often anymore because most of my opinions are out of the mainstream, but here goes:

 

This is nothing but a class issue. The USGA only wants certain people in their events, based on $$$, club status, or the fact somebody is lucky enough to play well as D1 golfer. If you check all the right boxes you now get into the club. Everyone else is like a middle-class or lower-class tax payer, you're supposed to play golf, pay your money to the rich, or be a token to show the rich care about the poor. 

 

It seems quite simple: Who gets D1 rides these days? It's the kid that wins a ton of junior events at the right courses with the right sponsoring organization, usually with parents rich enough to take them around the country to big tournaments so they are seen. The parents or sponsors also have enough $$$ and status to get their kid lessons by big-time coaches/teachers, get invited to camps, etc.

 

Then once you are in college another culling process begins because there are some who are more talented than others, and those are the people that get all the attention because they may have the chops to be a pro player. These people in the 'college culling' level are the people the USGA is interested in, both male and female. 

 

The moral of the story is simply if you are a D2, NAIA, great high school player, single digit adult plus handicap or close to scratch you are of no interest to anyone except as a profit center. Just play in what events you can play at your level, take pride and satisfaction in being a great player in relationship to the overwhelming number of golfers in the world, and enjoy the game. That's the 'cement ceiling' the USGA has created.

 

Finally, if you don't like this, then there is an easy way to make your opinions known: Don't watch any USGA events on TV (even the US Open), and if enough people stop watching then the organization might care enough to do things differently.

 

Please note, I have no problem with people legally using their money however they want. I also respect those kids kids that have talent, work hard, and then get fortunate enough to get that scholarship and excel enough to get in the new 'USGA Amateur College Golf Almost Pro Championship'. It is the utter hypocrisy of the USGA (the same hypocrisy as many of our political and 'social' leaders show) with their rhetoric about caring for all golfers on display here that makes me mad.     

Edited March 23, 2023 by jkumpire

[CLEVELAND59]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

I really have to wonder who is behind this/who is benefitting from this.  NBC wanting better TV ratings?  Why are you cutting so many others out(if not directly, then indirectly by doubling the costs as described earlier in the thread)?  Either Mike Whan is a heck of a chameleon who went from knowing how to do things to screwing things up, or he has really been USGA-ified in a short period of time.

 

The more I read about it, the less sense it makes.

Remember Mike's background. He was a marketing guy who the LPGA hired to try to get their brand and tour out there into more of the public eye.  He did that by promoting players more than the product.  It worked to some degree.  There is no reason to think that his strategy is going to be any different.  He wants to make names that he can promote the USGA brand with so that their tournaments get more attention and they can capitalize on any future success of the said "name" players at the next level.

 

I don't know if these changes are being driven by wanting to have a bigger footprint on the stage of amateur golf, given the growth of attention of NCAA golf and the NCAA's relationship with the PGA tour through the PGA tour university program or if there is some strange desire to become a brand more than a rules making and caretaker of the game body.  

[dmecca2]

If you have an instagram, go as fast as you can to thecountryclubcollection's story and browse through the examples he puts forth. UNBELIEVABLE stuff. Players getting sponsors exemptions into overseas events, finishing dead last with scores in the 80's, are getting more points than players who are WINNING college events and state amateurs. I can draw no conclusion other than the WAGR system is BROKEN, and the USGA should not go anywhere near this ranking to give exemptions.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, jkumpire said:

The moral of the story is simply if you are a D2, NAIA, great high school player, single digit adult plus handicap or close to scratch you are of no interest to anyone except as a profit center. Just play in what events you can play at your level, take pride and satisfaction in being a great player in relationship to the overwhelming number of golfers in the world, and enjoy the game. That's the 'cement ceiling' the USGA has created.

 

Not sure how I feel about this.  I certainly get your sentiment and do see the [attempt by the] USGA squeezing money out of the bottom 98% of golfers in the US.  But are you also not complaining a little bit about not having game to the level where you can gain entry into events?

 

The USGA facilitates tournaments at the national level.  The state associations do that at the state level and sections a level below that.  Seems as you go up in each level of the hierarchy the talent gets a little better.

 

The USGA has existed without my money all these years.  Every once in a while they will send me some address labels or a little notepad despite my lack of contribution to their cause.

[golfortennis]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Do the US AM qualifier rounds make it on TV?

 

No, but like match play, a one day 36 hole qualifier is more likely to keep out some of the *names* than gifting them through the first 18 holes.  A lot easier to get through an 18 hole stage than 36 holes.

 

 

[klebs01]

How many people in here are actually impacted? This is the opposite of a money grab. They could have made money by expanding the qualifiers to include more 1 caps with no chance at qualifying. They are doing the opposite and focusing on players that belong (skill not class). 

[golfortennis]

2 hours ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

Remember Mike's background. He was a marketing guy who the LPGA hired to try to get their brand and tour out there into more of the public eye.  He did that by promoting players more than the product.  It worked to some degree.  There is no reason to think that his strategy is going to be any different.  He wants to make names that he can promote the USGA brand with so that their tournaments get more attention and they can capitalize on any future success of the said "name" players at the next level.

 

I don't know if these changes are being driven by wanting to have a bigger footprint on the stage of amateur golf, given the growth of attention of NCAA golf and the NCAA's relationship with the PGA tour through the PGA tour university program or if there is some strange desire to become a brand more than a rules making and caretaker of the game body.  

 

Well as with everything else it comes down $$$.  And someone has decided that there needs to be more money coming in, and thinks that branding is how you do it.

 

Maybe what has happened is that , while I think Whan was a great choice for the LPGA, some of the decision makers behind his hiring at the USGA got wowed by some corporate-speak (dazzle them with dynamite, baffle with bullsh*t) and thought they needed a "new direction" and all that crap.  It certainly would play to the ego of some of those people to have "been at the vanguard of change!" and all that other poppycock.  

[golfortennis]

3 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

How many people in here are actually impacted? This is the opposite of a money grab. They could have made money by expanding the qualifiers to include more 1 caps with no chance at qualifying. They are doing the opposite and focusing on players that belong (skill not class). 

 

Just because you aren't directly impacted by a decision doesn't mean you can't be correct in saying it's the wrong way to go.

 

Let's not forget, as well, you may not have a chance at qualifying this year, but the experience of going through the process can only help in the future.  Nobody stays at the same level.  And if someone were to catch lightning in a bottle, instead of getting in, they now have to fork out for more hotels, etc., rather than getting into the big event, all because someone thought these college players should get special status.    

[golfortennis]

I suppose in fairness, the one question that should be asked, since the state associations actually run these things, is did they ask for this?  I kind of don't think so, but perhaps they did.

[mark m]

52 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

I suppose in fairness, the one question that should be asked, since the state associations actually run these things, is did they ask for this?  I kind of don't think so, but perhaps they did.

I was wondering along the same lines. 36 holes would limit field size in order to try to ensure both rounds are completed. And then you have slow play or weather delays, etc. Potentially a long day for the tournament staff. I wouldn’t want to work it.

[mbb86]

I see the rationale behind this format for the US Open, but it's unfortunate to see them transition the US Am to this format as well.

 

In my mid 30s I feel like I'm pretty consistently the oldest player at my US Am qualifying site by 10 years. That's probably not quite true but it certainly feels that way. 

 

I can hold my own against the "average" college kids and generally am in the top 1/4th at my qualifying site. I like to think that if the golf gods were smiling I still would have a shot of sneaking through. But I feel like this type of change is designed exactly to make it harder for someone in my shoes. 

Somehow the US Am would be much more satisfying than the Mid Am. 

[CLEVELAND59]

50 minutes ago, mbb86 said:

I see the rationale behind this format for the US Open, but it's unfortunate to see them transition the US Am to this format as well.

 

In my mid 30s I feel like I'm pretty consistently the oldest player at my US Am qualifying site by 10 years. That's probably not quite true but it certainly feels that way. 

 

I can hold my own against the "average" college kids and generally am in the top 1/4th at my qualifying site. I like to think that if the golf gods were smiling I still would have a shot of sneaking through. But I feel like this type of change is designed exactly to make it harder for someone in my shoes. 

Somehow the US Am would be much more satisfying than the Mid Am. 

Try being in your 40's and showing up to your US Am local.....I'm in the same boat as you are in terms of being able to hang on to find my way into the top 25% or so, but never much more.  Got close about 10 years ago, missed out on a 8 for 1 playoff by a stroke, but that's about it.  But having turned 50 now, I'll probably just bag the US Am qualifiers going forward, if I feel like I'm playing really well maybe I'll seek out a Mid Am qualifier but no real expectations.