Why Couldn't Designated Tournaments Opt-Out?

I heard from another couple of tour insiders who insist that Tiger and Phil were NOT to blame for the demise of the designated tournament concept, but instead, it was a select few events fearful of the branding issues that came with such a designation.

And I have no doubt there are some tournaments out there incapable of getting over the ego blow and accepting a little help.

However, why couldn't the tour simply let a tournament decline the option?

Comments

[Jordan]

Sounds like propaganda to cover up the truth.

[Amenen Coroner]

Good question GS.... probably because they won't have enough to designate when the schedule trims itself due to losing sponsors and tv viewers!

[Del the Funk]

You know what this reminds me of? Banks and the TARP issue.

Some very healthy banks were pressured into taking TARP funds so as not to "out" the banks that were really FUBAR. But some really really solid medium to smaller sized banks declined TARP despite the pressure and in the end they were the banks that had their house in order and the stocks you wanted to own in the meltdown (assuming you were forced to own a bank stock). Examples are Westamerica (WABC) and Commerce of Missouri (CBSH). David Payne take a bow, and you too Bayard Clark.

It would be really interesting to know which events wanted no part of this effort.

[digsouth]

opt out?

like those pros who R-U-N-N-O-F-T.

[Oscar]

Why not designate the Fall Series events as the mandatory events? It's a secondary series of events by design as much as it is field strength. Those are events in communities that would respond to some star power - if not a minimum of increased participation out of the top 50.

[Oliver Chettle]

Americans are so spoilt it is unbelievable. They have far too many top events, and they need to give some up for the sake of the sport, not conspire to maintain their monopoly.