Today's Twitter Tiff...Capitalism Edition

I'll just put them in order and let you decide the victor!

Comments

[Amen Coroner]

Peter Kostis has got to be the biggest cry baby in golf.

[Pam P]

what the hell is Peter Kostis' problem with everybody on Twitter? His tweets are really aggressive, especially to golf journalists. He does realize that we can read what he writes and that eventually he will probably see some of these people face to face? Or does he think twitter happens in a vacuum? I have to say, it fascinating to me, because I always respected Kostis as a golf commentator; I think his analysis is usually spot on, but now being a follower on twitter, I feel like I am seeing what a petty and cranky dude he is and it's changing my opinion.

[Jay Townsend]

Score two for Sean

[Bob S]

Who is Sean Martin?

And what part of the tour would be better? Surely not the attendance nor the sponsorships ...

Believe it or not Sean, fans do want to see some of the older guys instead of the younger no-names.

[Del the Funk]

In any industry the top performers get the year end trip to Hawaii, the big bonus, the leased car for the next year, etc... Low performers get nothing and are lucky if they aren't looking for a new job in the new year.

The product here is entertainment. Try selling tickets to tour school, you'll go broke doing so. I haven't seen any golf on network TV since the Ryder Cup, guess what's on NBC 2 days this weekend?! These are the high performers. I'm not saying the show will blow the ratings out but the fact is it's on network TV and free for all to see...must be something going on. Not to mention that Tiger leads!!

I'm rarely in PK's corner but am for sure this time.

Sean Martin is tweeting from a place of complete irrelevance and simultaneously mastering the obvious. Oh wait, is he suggesting that the wealth be spread around?!?

[fatgoalie]

BTW, Past Champs and Veteran members take the lowest wrungs on the ladder.
Especially on the PGA Tour, they are nothing more than spackle.

On the Nationwide, there is argument at the beginning of the year, they have some preference over guys that finished at the ass end of QSchool, not sure there are too many players that create a "better product" that are being kept out

[lloydcole]

'Product'? Maybe he's looking for a job with Finchem

[Sean Martin]

Fargoalie -- Veterans' status is indeed at the bottom of eligibility. However, it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Player A, who finished worse than 150th on the 2009 PGA Tour money list, was able to make 13 starts this year thanks to his one PGA Tour victory, which occurred more than 10 years ago. He missed 7 cuts, and finished in the top 25 just once. He also was allowed to make 10 Nationwide Tour starts this year; he made just two cuts.

Player B, who worse than 200th on the 2009 PGA Tour money list, was able to make six PGA Tour starts in 2010. He missed the cut in four, and never finished better than 63rd. He also made five Nationwide Tour starts, missing the cut in all.

Player C, who also finished worse than 175th on the '09 PGA Tour money list, was able to make 13 starts this year because of his PGA Tour victories, the last of which came more than five years ago. In those 13 starts, he missed eight cuts and had just one finish better than 40th (a 30th-place showing). He also made four Nationwide Tour starts, missing two cuts, and never finishing better than 25th.

I did not name names because these players did nothing wrong. They were reaping the benefits of their victory in a PGA Tour event, an impressive feat.

However, performances like these lead me to believe that there are better ways to allocate the limited number of spots in PGA Tour events.

This year, the Nationwide Tour changed its eligibility so that past champions who did not meet fairly attainable performance benchmarks (top 100 on '09 NWT money list, or advancing to Q-School finals) were dropped to the bottom of the eligibility rankings. The PGA Tour could afford to implement similar policy. There seems to be a lot of dead weight at the bottom of some fields, players that are neither competitive nor capable of generating fan interest.

I can understand the value of having some name recognition in the field. People want to watch familiar names, even if they are off form. Many of these players are still sponsors' selections for the Wednesday pro-am because of their ability to entertain the businessmen they are partnered with. It's a skill that many 25-year-olds are lacking.

Maybe I overstated my view by saying PGA Tour eligibility should be based 'solely' on current form. But I definitely believe that eligibility could be better skewed toward players that are currently competitive.

[digsouth]

I say PK has a point, as a general statement/

However, we all know that the diffeence between 'being there', and Motel 6 is a few putts dropping.

The OWGR points, though for this exibition are pure BS, and unfair to all those guys who are trying to play better/get in higher paying gigs.


BTW, please hit me in the knee with a 5 wood, I ever twit.

[DavidC]

Kostis is right. The PGA Tour is the ultimate form of today's capitalism. The one rife with cronyism.

[Del the Funk]

fatgoalie NEVER slices...

...and he's even less likely to work for Flinchem :)

[david]

Professional sport is indeed the ultimate expression of the capitalist pradigm in its purest form - the rich get richer and the rest of you can just suck it up. Hence the spectacle this week of a bunch of zillionaires, who already have more money than they know what to do with, being paid even more of the stuff just for turning up and hitting a ball into a hole with a stick. Meanwhile there are those who think that in a world still rife with poverty, disease, famine and childhood deaths that the megawealthy global corporate sponsors who make this possible could possibly find better uses for their investment. I'm just sayin'....

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

Past winners deserve some consideration. But if the PTB in professional golf in this country really want to let the market decide, all they have to do is go back to the Top-60 on the Money List being exempt from qualifying. Give winners of regular events 3 years exempt status and Major winners 10 years (again); 5 years for the WGC events and the Fifth Major? Just go ahead and give 'em a lifetime exemption. Make Tim and his 47 Vice-presidents happy. Top-30 on the current year Money List not otherwise exempt are made exempt as long as they remain in the Top-30. 40-50 open spots per regular event should provide a genuine free market and give the hungry a chance to show what they can do. Sean's Players A, B, and C will have the same chance. Simple as a 3-foot putt for eagle to win your State Amateur Championship. This would put the Nationwide Tour in jeopardy, but since the sole (golf) reason for its existence is to graduate 25 players to the TOUR would that really matter? There are a bunch of self-sustaining mini-tours all over the country for these players to really sharpen their games using their own money.

And I beg your pardon for repeating myself. Again.

[Used to be Former S&T convert]

Kostis wins, past champions played well enough to earn their spot. Veteran players played well enough over a period of time to earn their spot.

If it was cronyism like Martin and others say why is Lee Janzen at Q School.

[digsouth]

Lots of good thinking here.

S.Martin's post an eye opener.

As a fan of the underdog, I want the others' to have a shot. One has to wonder how much the uncertainty of schedule, and the weekly pressure to make a cut when one gets in , keeps them from performing.
It can't be easy.

As to the Nationwide: it provides more than a top 25: it provides a local event/charity, and I thin a very enjoyable on site esperience if you have ever attended a tourney. Also the newbies get to tde it up with some vets, and that has to be a good thing as to buffing up the game..

[ggg]

The PGATour was invented so guys could make a career playing tournament golf. The Tour protects the jobs of those who bounce between the Nationwide and the big Show. It's corporate culture not a free market. Now the guys that are the ticket draws -- Tiger, Phil, McIlroy, etc -- are necessary to create the TV deals, which create the big $$$ purses. So they're more critical to the Corporation than the Corporation is to them.

However, I agree with the Ghost. I'd prefer to see more of a meritocracy. Give very limited exemptions to get/keep the Show Ponys for the TV deals but not to create hangers-on. I'm not going to name names but players that were once box office draws but a newbie golf watcher wouldn't recognize, should be put out to pasture. Force those who are just making a living to find a different way to make a living and open up the potential for better golfers to come through. I think it'd ultimately create a lot more interest than something silly like the FedEx Cup.

[Marky Mark]

There are no 10-year tour exemptions left - I think Lee Janzen was the last US Open winner to get this and the winner of the Players has not gotten ten years since the mid 90's.

(I am not counting the lifetime exemption resulting from winning 20 events of which I think there are only three active under 50 yr old players with that - Woods, Mickelson & Singh. And not counting the "exempt to 65 yrs" for the British Open and the Masters).

However, there does need to be some smoothing - to have a free market free-for-all every year on tour would be a gong show of one time wonders. There would be 700 "Brett Wetterichs" a decade - win once, play on the Ryder Cup team or whatever, and then descend into oblivion.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

@MM: Add DLIII to your list.

And you exaggerate considerably about the 700 "Brett Wetterichs" a decade. But 15-20 a year sounds about right.

[Lip Out]

They're both right.

[digsouth]

The Gong Show. Gene, Gene the dancing machine......

Over/ under on the spy story on Chuck Barris being true? Anyone....anyone....Bueller?

[Erik]

The statement that the Q School guys should be playing for a huge purse is a joke. This is a tournament to see who the filler will be for PGA Tour events. I love to tune in to see young guys coming up through the Tour, but give me Tiger vs. Phil or another big name anytime. A significant part in rooting/enjoying sports is having some familiarity with the competitors. There have to be stakes between the teams/competitors. I feel badly for someone that misses the Tour on 4 jack at the end of his 6th round, but that feeling lasts for about 5 seconds. Watching Tiger or Phil battle down the stretch is much more of a memory.

I agree watching the Chevron cash grab may not have real stakes, but saying that they didn't earn playing for that money is an interesting concept. If someone fronts it for Tiger alone or for the field then they have earned it with their reputation and willingness for people to pay to see them perform.

To think that since Q School is so important to the players there that it is worth something (i.e. $5M in sponsor $$$) is a joke. Compelling stories yes. Value for ad dollars - give me a break.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

I missed it. Who said Q-School should come with a big purse?

[Russ]

purses come from advertising/sponsorship dollars. ad/sponsor dollars go where the eyes/ratings are. follow the money....

[Erik]

Ky - read the Golfweek forecaddie tweet. It says flip the two. I assume since the context is in amounts of money that person is saying that the purse for Q School is too low in contrast to the Chevron.

[Del the Funk]

Right on Erik! And you too Russ.

Like it or not, it's all about the Benjamin's fellas...

[Oliver Chettle]

Defending these tournaments as the ultimate in capitalism is like an early 16th century churchman proclaiming the sale of indulgences as the ultimate manifestation of Christianity.

[The O]

Sean has a valid point about access to the tour by the best young talent, but I'm going to quibble with his use of the expression "better product". Product implies sales. As much as Lee Janzen isn't a contender much any more, he's still a bigger draw than saw Michael Sim. Fair? No. Reality? Yes.

[fatgoalie]

Usually, the biggest complaint about access for tournaments is directly related to those that have not been able to qualify for them.
The access for young talent is and should be the Nationwide Tour. There are issues there too, but.

[Chuck]

The Peter Kostis Twitter feed is going to be a gold mine.

[RM]

"Meanwhile there are those who think that in a world still rife with poverty, disease, famine and childhood deaths that the megawealthy global corporate sponsors who make this possible could possibly find better uses for their investment. I'm just sayin'...."

Congrats David, you have posted the most lame comment I've ever seen on this blog, and I've seen (and probably written) plenty of them. You're probably one of those guys that had a "MEAN PEOPLE SUCK" sticker on their car. Quit your whining, go listen to "Hey, Soul Sister" on your iPod for the millionth time and send Sally Struthers some dough, you vicious, vicous geek.

[digsouth]

Th earnings for Q school could certainly be better. This is the old ' paying the winner with the pit crew admission' at the local dirt track.

the entry for q school is 4500-first roound, 4000, 2nd, and 3500 final round, and the winner only gets 50k?..... I guess Tim and the vee pees need to pad their take.

Conservatively, the haul from the ENTRIY MONEY to Q school is in the millions, if my math is right. and the winner gets 50K??????/


Tim.....non profit...WTF?

[Porteous]

RM: Marley has just added you to his 2010 Christmas visit list.