PGA to require more tournaments from the top players

[SquirrelyDave]

I get what the tour is trying to do and there are events that would benefit from the bigger names being there like the Wyndham did this year. I don't like the tour telling independent contractors what their schedule should be.

I heard tiger is ok with the every 5 year part.

Remember this, the PGA isn't telling anyone they have to play any specific tournaments, just just have to play 25. In the 40 tournaments a year, that's just over half of the tournaments. If they don't want to play 25 tournaments, just have to play a new tournament every year. There's nothing saying they have to permanently add a tournament every year. The way it looks is that a player could play 15 events a year as long as one of those is a tournament they haven't played in the last five years. So Tiger could play the Wyndham this year, the John Deere next year.

 

[CBaker]

I get what the tour is trying to do and there are events that would benefit from the bigger names being there like the Wyndham did this year. I don't like the tour telling independent contractors what their schedule should be.

I heard tiger is ok with the every 5 year part.

The independent contractor approach is an interesting one to me. They play on a professional tour on which you are required access to with a "tour card". It's not independent at all IMO. If the tour would require you to play a certain amount of tournaments to keep said card, then they absolutely have that right. No one is entitled to a tour card. They have to earn it in one way or another.

I think it would absolutely help make the lower tier tournaments stronger in every aspect knowing a decent amount of the top 125 would have to be there.

 

[McRock]

I don't like telling people what to do. That's just my thing. They are independent contractors, but that said, the PGA Tour can set whatever standards they want for that 'contract' (the tour card). So when a guy like me believes that the Tour shouldn't tell people how many tournaments they HAVE to play in, but at the same time, believes the Tour is totally free to set whatever standards they want for a tour card, which way am I supposed to go?

But speaking of Kaymer, what effect is this going to have on those that do a pretty decent split of Euro and PGA tour events?

~Rock

 

[blugold]

Are you exempt from this if you are high enough in the points? Rory has only played 9, does that mean even with the 3 playoff events left (he's not playing this week) that he will lose his card next year?

I thought Rory had a medical exemption because of his ankle.

 

[CBaker]

I thought Rory had a medical exemption because of his ankle.

very well could have been. That was kind of what I was asking. I didn't know what the deal was with him

 

[blugold]

very well could have been. That was kind of what I was asking. I didn't know what the deal was with him

I honestly have no idea. I always thought that Major winners had a 5 year exemption on tour.

 

[Mulligan9111]

I'm curious how this will effect players like Phil and Tiger who have lifetime exemptions on tour. Will the PGA Tour suspend or fine them?

 

[SquirrelyDave]

I'm curious how this will effect players like Phil and Tiger who have lifetime exemptions on tour. Will the PGA Tour suspend or fine them?

My understanding of the way the rule is currently worded it will be a fine for anyone violating the rule regardless of status.

 

[tequila4kapp]

My understanding of the way the rule is currently worded it will be a fine for anyone violating the rule regardless of status.

That virtually makes the rule meaningless. It needs to be FedEx points.

 

[Golf Ghost]

Doesn't really bother me, though I do like the 3 or 5 year rule of playing every event to bring attention to some of the smaller events.

 

[Canadan]

I got chastized by super fans for posting this exact thing in the previous tournament thread....Because apparently by discussing it, I was bagging on Tiger Woods. Which I found comical.

It should be done. It should be the "Play every 3 rule". Every 3 years, a player has to play in each of the tournaments on the schedule (once every 5 works too). It creats more parity, it makes the tour stronger overall and gives health to cities that have supported stops, without star power.

I support this in a big way.

 

[emart2173]

Remember this, the PGA isn't telling anyone they have to play any specific tournaments, just just have to play 25. In the 40 tournaments a year, that's just over half of the tournaments. If they don't want to play 25 tournaments, just have to play a new tournament every year. There's nothing saying they have to permanently add a tournament every year. The way it looks is that a player could play 15 events a year as long as one of those is a tournament they haven't played in the last five years. So Tiger could play the Wyndham this year, the John Deere next year.

Actually they are telling them because they are going to penalize them for not doing one or the other. The advantage of being exempt is that they can pretty much select what tournaments they want to play in to allow them to work what schedule they want, avoid playing to many tournaments in a row and getting burnt out, avoid courses that don't suit their eye or game. So by telling them their choices are okay 25 of 40 events or play a course you haven't played is dictating their schedule to them.

The independent contractor approach is an interesting one to me. They play on a professional tour on which you are required access to with a "tour card". It's not independent at all IMO. If the tour would require you to play a certain amount of tournaments to keep said card, then they absolutely have that right. No one is entitled to a tour card. They have to earn it in one way or another.

I think it would absolutely help make the lower tier tournaments stronger in every aspect knowing a decent amount of the top 125 would have to be there.

It's a weird situation because the players have a retirement plan with the tour but don't work for the tour so they are contractors with benefits. The other thing at least the way I understand it is the tour isn't changing the 15 tournament requirement to keep card but are telling them we will penalize your retirement $100k for a year if you don't play 25 tourneys or if you don't play one tournament you haven't played in 5 years.

Imo they are independent because they do t work for the PGA Tour and are not mandated to play in events. The PGA tour and players would need to enter into an employment relationship in order for them to not be considered independent contractors. They basically have a contract with the tour that allows them to work if they obtain a card, play 15 tournaments a year and stay in the top 125 of the money list.

I agree doing this benefits the sponsors of the lower level tourneys and the tourney itself

 

[emart2173]

My understanding of the way the rule is currently worded it will be a fine for anyone violating the rule regardless of status.

I understand it to be a $100k fine against their retirement plan. Guys that have tons a money this doesn't really affect but would hurt the guys who don't make a lot of money

 

[captaincaution]

I honestly have no idea. I always thought that Major winners had a 5 year exemption on tour.

Kaymer will get his full card back for the 2016-2017 season.

 

[staticline]

I like the idea. But, 25 is a big jump from the current minimum. They should probably phase it in, adding 1-2 a year to the minimum over the next 5 or so years. There are about 45 "real" tournaments. This will probably kill the guys trying to play both tours. And, I would bet that we will see more injuries pop up.

Is it 25 BEFORE the FedEx Playoffs begin?

Currently, only the below players in the Top 25 of the FEDEX have played 25
Robert Streb
Danny Lee (32...beastmode)
Kevin Kisner
David Lingmerth
Steven Bowditch

 

[Agent Jay]

I have no problem with this, or some sort of all tournament attendance over 3 years.

 

[staticline]

I understand it to be a $100k fine against their retirement plan. Guys that have tons a money this doesn't really affect but would hurt the guys who don't make a lot of money

The majority of the players that "don't make a lot of money" are already playing 25.

 

[TheWoo]

I like the idea. But, 25 is a big jump from the current minimum. They should probably phase it in, adding 1-2 a year to the minimum over the next 5 or so years. There are about 45 "real" tournaments. This will probably kill the guys trying to play both tours. And, I would bet that we will see more injuries pop up.

Is it 25 BEFORE the FedEx Playoffs begin?

Currently, only the below players in the Top 25 of the FEDEX have played 25
Robert Streb
Danny Lee (32...beastmode)
Kevin Kisner
David Lingmerth
Steven Bowditch

Very few players will need to play 25. Most will just pick one new tourney each year. That's the real emphasis of the plan, imo, and the 25 total is a way to protect those who already play a lot from having to add another tourney.

 

[emart2173]

The majority of the players that "don't make a lot of money" are already playing 25.

true. The big names are where the tour will have to get the votes for this to work

 

[jhstew1]

Forcing guys to play 25 events will help the PGA Tour, but it could hurt golf globally, guys won't have the ability to travel to worldwide events as much as they could w/ a 15 event minimum.

 

[TheWoo]

Forcing guys to play 25 events will help the PGA Tour, but it could hurt golf globally, guys won't have the ability to travel to worldwide events as much as they could w/ a 15 event minimum.

Nobody who is playing 15 today is going to play 25. They'll just make one of their 15-17 tourneys a new one.

 

[ShanksaloT]

Probably, which is a shame, because there have been members of the media, discussing this for years. People need pro-active not reactive, but change is a start.

Very true we need Pro-Active - lets hope this actually does happen...

 

[c0ncept]

JB speaks the tour listens...hmm I wonder if they are going to stop with the par 70/71 courses soon.

 

[Dawg 1]

Nobody who is playing 15 today is going to play 25. They'll just make one of their 15-17 tourneys a new one.

This… I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about the rule proposal.

Nothing has even passed yet and adding 1 new event for only a select few players is not a big deal

 

[Blazer]

They've been trying to do this since the days of Jack Nicklaus. I think it's a great idea to promote variety for players, but 25 tournaments a year sounds like a lot for some guys.