PGA tour lifetime exemptions
iowagolf
I was reading the USA Today this morning, and there was an article
about Davis Love gaining life long exemption to the tour after winning
his 20th tour win last year and being on tour for 15 years , the only
tow other names on that list among active players are Singh and Phil.
Tiger Woods still does not have that status for another 2 years!
Which leads to the question , shouldn't the tour have given him life
time exemption with his 40th...50th...60th win or may be his 10th
major, how many palyers on the planet have reached these landmarks,
regardless of how long he has been on tour !
Howard Brazee
<sulei...@aol.com> wrote:
> I was reading the USA Today this morning, and there was an article
>about Davis Love gaining life long exemption to the tour after winning
>his 20th tour win last year and being on tour for 15 years , the only
>tow other names on that list among active players are Singh and Phil.
I didn't know that they needed 15 years for that exemption. The last
player to get the 20 win exemption qualified without playing.
Trivia question - how did he do this?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Birdie Bill
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:07:55 -0800 (PST), iowagolf
>
> > I was reading the USA Today this morning, and there was an article
> >about Davis Love gaining life long exemption to the tour after winning
> >his 20th tour win last year and being on tour for 15 years , the only
> >tow other names on that list among active players are Singh and Phil.
>
> I didn't know that they needed 15 years for that exemption. The last
> player to get the 20 win exemption qualified without playing.
>
> Trivia question - how did he do this?
The PGA Tour changed the rules.
annika1980
>
> I didn't know that they needed 15 years for that exemption. The last
> player to get the 20 win exemption qualified without playing.
>
> Trivia question - how did he do this?
>
Retro-actively?
Howard Brazee
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I didn't know that they needed 15 years for that exemption. The last
>> player to get the 20 win exemption qualified without playing.
>>
>> Trivia question - how did he do this?
>
>The PGA Tour changed the rules.
What in specific did they change?
Birdie Bill
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:42:57 -0800 (PST), Birdie Bill
>
> >> I didn't know that they needed 15 years for that exemption. The last
> >> player to get the 20 win exemption qualified without playing.
>
> >> Trivia question - how did he do this?
>
> >The PGA Tour changed the rules.
>
> What in specific did they change?
You don't know?
Birdie Bill
Next hint: Greg Norman
Tom
His British Open wins were considered PGA tour wins. That gave him a
total of 20 wins.
R&B
>
> I was reading the USA Today this morning, and there was an article
> about Davis Love gaining life long exemption to the tour after winning
> his 20th tour win last year and being on tour for 15 years , the only
> tow other names on that list among active players are Singh and Phil.
USA TODAY's reporting is inaccurate. Sort of.
It's important to note how the PGA TOUR's exemptions work. It's called
the Priority Ranking System.
Players earn a position on the priority ranking system through their
performance (they only occupy one position on the ranking list at a
time). This ranking system is used to fill out all full-field events.
While Singh and Mickelson may, indeed, each have 20 TOUR wins and 15
years as members, that would only earn them the 17th position on the
Priority Ranking System. So technically, since both of them qualify
for the #1 ranking on the Priority Ranking System (by virtue of their
both winning the PGA Championship within the last five years), their
having earned 20 wins in 15 or more years on TOUR is moot (for now,
until their #1 ranking expires, unless they win the PGA or US Open
again).
See the PGA TOUR's Priority Ranking System:
http://www.pgatour.com/players/pgatour-exempt/
(Unfortunately, they haven't yet updated this list for 2009. It still
reflects how the players ranked in 2008.)
"Lifelong" exemptions aren't given any longer. The #1 ranking --
"Winner of PGA Championship or U.S. Open prior to 1970" (which means
even Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus and Dow Finsterwald and Billy
Casper (and others) are still fully exempt to play on the PGA TOUR,
this exemption was reduced to a 10-year exemption many years ago, and
reduced further to a 5-year exemption starting in 1998.
The 20-win, 15-year exemption, which puts a player at #17 on the
Priority Ranking list, would, for all practical purposes, give them
access into most any TOUR event in which they'd want to play, since
that exemption puts them high enough on the ranking list that they'd be
safe from getting bumped even if everyone ahead of them on the list
entered an event. Still, it's not technically a "lifetime" exemption,
per se. Semantics, really. But worth noting.
Even the top-125 money winners, which we hear so much about on TV,
don't necessarily get into every tournament they want to enter.
Finishing in the top-125 on the money list only gets them to the 19th
position on the ranking list (and all the players who earned this 19th
position on the ranking list are ranked by earnings in the previous
year, so they're not all "tied at 19."
The reason the top-125 players are thought to be "exempt" is because
this status on the ranking list usually results in them being able to
gain access to MOST full field events. But as you'll see, even the
next 25 on the money list (126-150) are given exempt status. It's just
that their place on the ranking list is 27. With that status, they can
probably count on getting into a handful of events each year, but
probably not any more. They're better off begging for a sponsor's
exemption (which you can be sure some of them will occasionally seek).
The further down the list you rank, the more likely you are to get
bumped out of a field when all the players ahead of you try to enter.
A full field event consists of 156 players.
Of course this system is used only to fill out full-field PGA TOUR
events. Not majors. Not WGC events. Those events have their own
unique systems to fill out the field.
Randy
>>>
Howard Brazee
<bighor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You don't know?
Yes, I do.
Kev
[snip]
> "Lifelong" exemptions aren't given any longer. The #1 ranking --
> "Winner of PGA Championship or U.S. Open prior to 1970" (which means
> even Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus and Dow Finsterwald and Billy
> Casper (and others) are still fully exempt to play on the PGA TOUR,
> this exemption was reduced to a 10-year exemption many years ago, and
> reduced further to a 5-year exemption starting in 1998.
>
> The 20-win, 15-year exemption, which puts a player at #17 on the
> Priority Ranking list, would, for all practical purposes, give them
> access into most any TOUR event in which they'd want to play, since
> that exemption puts them high enough on the ranking list that they'd be
> safe from getting bumped even if everyone ahead of them on the list
> entered an event. Still, it's not technically a "lifetime" exemption,
> per se. Semantics, really. But worth noting.
Not exactly sure what hair you're attempting to split here?
> Even the top-125 money winners, which we hear so much about on TV,
> don't necessarily get into every tournament they want to enter.
> Finishing in the top-125 on the money list only gets them to the 19th
> position on the ranking list (and all the players who earned this 19th
> position on the ranking list are ranked by earnings in the previous
> year, so they're not all "tied at 19."
>
> The reason the top-125 players are thought to be "exempt" is because
> this status on the ranking list usually results in them being able to
> gain access to MOST full field events. But as you'll see, even the
> next 25 on the money list (126-150) are given exempt status. It's just
> that their place on the ranking list is 27. With that status, they can
> probably count on getting into a handful of events each year, but
> probably not any more. They're better off begging for a sponsor's
> exemption (which you can be sure some of them will occasionally seek).
>
> The further down the list you rank, the more likely you are to get
> bumped out of a field when all the players ahead of you try to enter.
>
> A full field event consists of 156 players.
>
> Of course this system is used only to fill out full-field PGA TOUR
> events. Not majors. Not WGC events. Those events have their own
> unique systems to fill out the field.
Your issue seems to be with the word "exempt". It is a poorly
chosen
word and I suspect it originally came from the concept of being
"exempt" from having to play in the Monday qualifier. As you suggest,
although alot of people are "fully exempt" not all of them could get
into
the full field events. A better expression would be "pecking order".
But the pointer you give calls it the "priority ranking system".
The lifetime exemption however is functionally a guarantee into any
full field event they wish to play. It's real purpose I suspect is to
avoid
having to use sponsors exemptions since most if not all of the guys
that
qualify on this exemption would have sponsors killing themselves to
let them in.
The more interesting aspect of the exemption list is the
difference
between Mr. 125 and 126. Mr 125 is at level 19, Mr 126 is at level
27.
There are alot of people between those two positions. Last year
there
were 50 folks between those two guys. There are over 156 folks that
are available just from the the first 24 exemptions alone.
Furthermore,
it was explained to me by a tour player one year that the 125 get
their
priority within that 125 reshuffled quarterly. So Mr. 125 can play
his
way into a higher position, but Mr. 126 (short of winning) will always
be basically in the 27th exemption position. And it is even a bit
more strange because all those guys that "got their card" by finishing
in the top 25 of Q-school? They are in position 24 and will stay
there until they either win, or end up in the top 125 for the next
year.
But they will still be ahead of Mr 126. (getting back to pedantry,
anyone below exempt status 23 can improve their position for the
next tournament by finishing in the top 10, but only for the next
tournament). Mr. 126 does have one strangely small advantage
over Mr 125. Mr 125 can't play in a Nationwide event in any
week that there is a TOUR event. Mr. 126 can however. One other
strange quirk in the system is that the winner of a FedEx cup event,
other than winning the whole shibang (or the Tour Championship)
doesn't get any more of an exemption than any other regular
TOUR event.
I think sometimes that TV doesn't explain enough how important
a win is for a guy who just "got his card", or even better
Mr 126 or below. It bumps them from exempt level 24 or 27 to 9, that
year
and for the next 2. So it switches them from never knowing week to
week if they'll get to play at all, to being virtually guaranteed to
get
into any regular season event they wish the rest of that year, plus
the next two. That alone makes it easier to play your way into the
top 125.
R&B
> On Jan 15, 1:27 am, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> "Lifelong" exemptions aren't given any longer. The #1 ranking --
>> "Winner of PGA Championship or U.S. Open prior to 1970" (which means
>> even Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus and Dow Finsterwald and Billy
>> Casper (and others) are still fully exempt to play on the PGA TOUR,
>> this exemption was reduced to a 10-year exemption many years ago, and
>> reduced further to a 5-year exemption starting in 1998.
>>
>> The 20-win, 15-year exemption, which puts a player at #17 on the
>> Priority Ranking list, would, for all practical purposes, give them
>> access into most any TOUR event in which they'd want to play, since
>> that exemption puts them high enough on the ranking list that they'd be
>> safe from getting bumped even if everyone ahead of them on the list
>> entered an event. Still, it's not technically a "lifetime" exemption,
>> per se. Semantics, really. But worth noting.
>
> Not exactly sure what hair you're attempting to split here?
It's not a hair, exactly. It's a matter of semantics.
The PGA TOUR does not grant "lifetime" exemptions, per se. It just
doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for well over a decade.
The only "lifetime" exemptions were granted to winners of the PGA
Championship and US Open prior to 1970. That lifetime exemption was
changed to a 10 year exemption many years ago, and to a 5-year
exemption starting in 1998.
>
Yes, that's the term I've often used, and it captures the essence of
the Priority Ranking System.
> But the pointer you give calls it the "priority ranking system".
That's the official name of it.
> The lifetime exemption however is functionally a guarantee into any
> full field event they wish to play.
But there's a distinction to be made here, which is why I posted the article.
Players who won the PGA Championship or US Open prior to 1970 were
given an exemption -- for life. And the pecking order that such an
exemption offers is #1 on the Priority Ranking System. So if he wanted
to enter the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am this year, even Billy Casper
could get into the field by simply paying his entry fee.
The 15-win/20-year exemption is only 17th in the pecking order. That
doesn't mean there are only 16 players ahead of anyone with this
exemption. Each exemption in the pecking order could have dozens of
players eligible on that criteria. So it is theoretically possible
that owning the #17 exemption doesn't "guarantee" a spot for life in
any tournament a player with the #17 exemption might wish to enter.
From a practical standpoint, it probably does. I'm not arguing that
point. But theoretically, it does not.
> It's real purpose I suspect is to
> avoid
> having to use sponsors exemptions since most if not all of the guys
> that
> qualify on this exemption would have sponsors killing themselves to
> let them in.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
By the way, sponsor exemptions are #11 on the Priority Ranking System.
While the 20 win/15 years exemption is #17. So if your theory holds,
even if the #17 ranking in the pecking order didn't get a player seeded
into the field, the sponsor would probably want to let them in anyway.
But sponsors only get eight exemptions, and those come with
restrictions. (Refer back to the list for details.)
> The more interesting aspect of the exemption list is the
> difference
> between Mr. 125 and 126. Mr 125 is at level 19, Mr 126 is at level
> 27.
> There are alot of people between those two positions.
There are also a lot of players within that #9 spot in the pecking
order (although not 125 of them, since many of those would qualify
under a higher position in the Priority Rankings).
> Last year
> there
> were 50 folks between those two guys. There are over 156 folks that
> are available just from the the first 24 exemptions alone.
I'll take your word for that. I didn't count 'em.
> Furthermore,
> it was explained to me by a tour player one year that the 125 get
> their
> priority within that 125 reshuffled quarterly.
I worked for the TOUR for five years, and while I recall hearing about
this so-called "reshuffling," I don't recall all the details about it.
But I believe their earnings in the current year factor into it.
I do know that the players within the #9 Priority Ranking (Top 125 on
last year's money list) do not all have equal access. They're ranked
within the #9 grouping.
> So Mr. 125 can play
> his
> way into a higher position, but Mr. 126 (short of winning) will always
> be basically in the 27th exemption position.
That could be. I seem to recall that a similar reshuffling occurred
for those guys as well. But I don't really remember.
> And it is even a bit
> more strange because all those guys that "got their card" by finishing
> in the top 25 of Q-school? They are in position 24 and will stay
> there until they either win, or end up in the top 125 for the next
> year.
> But they will still be ahead of Mr 126. (getting back to pedantry,
> anyone below exempt status 23 can improve their position for the
> next tournament by finishing in the top 10, but only for the next
> tournament).
Or by winning.
Winning cures everything. For two years anyway. (And for an additional
year for multiple wins, up to a five-year exemption.)
> Mr. 126 does have one strangely small advantage
> over Mr 125. Mr 125 can't play in a Nationwide event in any
> week that there is a TOUR event. Mr. 126 can however.
There's no real advantage to that relating to TOUR eligibility since
Nationwide TOUR earnings are not calculated in with PGA TOUR earnings
for the official PGA TOUR money list unless a guy plays in enough
Nationwide Tour events to finish among the leading money winners there,
or wins three Nationwide Tour events in a single year to receive the
so-called "battlefield promotion." (I haven't heard them use that term
as much since America became involved in the wars in the Middle East.)
> One other
> strange quirk in the system is that the winner of a FedEx cup event,
> other than winning the whole shibang (or the Tour Championship)
> doesn't get any more of an exemption than any other regular
> TOUR event.
Doesn't strike me as a strange quirk at all. Remember what the FedEx
Cup "tournament" was designed to accomplish:
Prior to the formulation of the FedEx Cup, pretty much all the
late-season TOUR events (anything after Firestone in Akron) was a total
TV ratings stiff. Before it was known as the World Series of Golf,
that event at Firestone in Akron was called the CBS Golf Classic, and
it was CBS's final golf telecast of the year. That was back when NBC,
ABC and ESPN didn't do golf (except for the occasional major they would
carry). So golf pretty much disappeared after Akron. But even more
recently, the tournaments after Firestone were always ratings stiffs.
Why? Because football season starts at that time. Bye-bye Saturday
and Sunday TV audiences for golf. Hello, college football (on
Saturdays) and the NFL (on Sundays).
When I was the lead play-by-play voice for PGA TOUR Radio, we found it
next to impossible to get radio stations to carry our coverage of
events once football season started (except in the markets where the
local tournament was being played, or unless we forged a deal with a
decidedly lower-tier station, like a Christian station -- yes, Jesus in
the morning and golf in the afternoon...quite a programming formula,
don't you think?). LOL! (And on the seventh day, God played golf.)
;-)
Plus, since all the majors are done by that time (and even all the WGC
events were done by that time prior to a reshuffling of the schedule),
the tournaments starting in September were all admittedly weaker events
-- weaker fields, lower prize money, lower attendance, and in most
cases, smaller markets, etc. These events were usually interesting
only to the golf officianados who liked to follow such gripping story
lines like "who's making a move to get into the top-125 to retain
playing privileges next year?" and such.
Events like the Buick Challenge at Callaway Gardens, the Disney event,
the old Michelob Championship at Kingsmill, Las Vegas Invitational, the
Southern Farm Bureau Classic -- these were all staples of that
late-season stretch on the TOUR's schedule, and they often produced
first time winners (because most of the marquee players skipped the
events), or you'd occasionally see the old journeyman veterans emerge
for one last moment in the sun. No better example of that than when
Gene Sauers captured the final Vancouver/Air Canada Open several years
ago on a sponsor exemption after he'd been off the TOUR for several
years. Or when Bill Glasson won the Las Vegas Invitational in 1997.
Not that these weren't good stories, mind you, but they weren't exactly
box office smashes, if you know what I mean.
When the TOUR forged a partnership agreement with NASCAR in the early
'00s, it was obvious that they'd be looking for some synergy between
the two sports (which struck me as rather strange, since the two sports
would seem to have very little in common other than the fact that most
NASCAR drivers are avid golfers). But as the relationship grew over
time, it became increasingly apparent to those of us who were paid to
pay attention to such things just what they were doing. The TOUR
wanted to tap into some of the marketing secrets of NASCAR, including
the Budweiser (?? sorry I don't follow racing) Cup chase. Pretty soon
we learned of this new-fangled FedEx Cup points contest, culminating in
a several weeks long, contrived, "playoff" format that would become
known as the FedEx Cup. It was patterned after the Budweiser (??) Cup
on the NASCAR circuit. And because of the season-long race to
accumulate "points" to qualify for the playoff, it gave the TOUR
(through its TV network partners) reason to PROMOTE the FedEx Cup
points chase and playoffs ALL SEASON LONG (millions of dollars worth of
free promotional advertising), building up to the climax of the playoff
events themselves. Massive hype all year, in hopes of driving
viewership to these late-season events that had, for so long, been
ratings losers.
It was all about promotion. And it's worked.
While no one will ever argue that these late season events stir the
same fan excitement (or ratings) as major championships, all the hype
leading up to the playoff format has resulted in an increase in fan
interest and viewership. Not a turn-the-industry-on-its-ear increase,
but an increase nonetheless.
>
> I think sometimes that TV doesn't explain enough how important
> a win is for a guy who just "got his card", or even better
> Mr 126 or below. It bumps them from exempt level 24 or 27 to 9, that
> year
> and for the next 2.
Well, when I was doing the broadcasts of golf on radio and television,
we always made a big deal out of it. You won't get an argument from me
about the importance of this. I always figured that for our audience,
it meant, "now that this guy has won, you're probably going to be
hearing more about him, so you might as well know who he is."
> So it switches them from never knowing week to
> week if they'll get to play at all, to being virtually guaranteed to
> get
> into any regular season event they wish the rest of that year, plus
> the next two. That alone makes it easier to play your way into the
> top 125.
"Easier" is not the word I would use to describe what it becomes.
Certainly the opportunity becomes more available for the player to keep
racking up prize money. But there are many, many cases of players
winning, thereby gaining their two-year exemption for winning, and then
letting up, figuring it came pretty easily the first time, but then
they never work as hard as they did to get there in the first place and
the whole thing falls apart on them. Next thing you know their
two-year exemption runs out and they're back to Q-School. Or the
Nationwide Tour. Or worse.
It always comes down to how naturally gifted a player is, how smart he
is at being able to make adjustments on the fly when he's in the middle
of a round, AND how hard he works at it.
Randy
Kev
> On 2009-01-15 09:02:50 -0500, Kev <zipplewr...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Jan 15, 1:27 am, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Priority Ranking list, would, for all practical purposes, give them
> >> access into most any TOUR event in which they'd want to play, since
> >> that exemption puts them high enough on the ranking list that they'd be
> >> safe from getting bumped even if everyone ahead of them on the list
> >> entered an event. Still, it's not technically a "lifetime" exemption,
> >> per se. Semantics, really. But worth noting.
>
> > Not exactly sure what hair you're attempting to split here?
>
> It's not a hair, exactly. It's a matter of semantics.
>
> The PGA TOUR does not grant "lifetime" exemptions, per se. It just
> doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for well over a decade.
>
> The only "lifetime" exemptions were granted to winners of the PGA
> Championship and US Open prior to 1970. That lifetime exemption was
> changed to a 10 year exemption many years ago, and to a 5-year
> exemption starting in 1998.
> > The lifetime exemption however is functionally a guarantee into any
> > full field event they wish to play.
>
> But there's a distinction to be made here, which is why I posted the article.
>
> Players who won the PGA Championship or US Open prior to 1970 were
> given an exemption -- for life. And the pecking order that such an
> exemption offers is #1 on the Priority Ranking System. So if he wanted
> to enter the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am this year, even Billy Casper
> could get into the field by simply paying his entry fee.
>
> The 15-win/20-year exemption is only 17th in the pecking order. That
> doesn't mean there are only 16 players ahead of anyone with this
> exemption. Each exemption in the pecking order could have dozens of
> players eligible on that criteria. So it is theoretically possible
> that owning the #17 exemption doesn't "guarantee" a spot for life in
> any tournament a player with the #17 exemption might wish to enter.
> From a practical standpoint, it probably does. I'm not arguing that
> point. But theoretically, it does not.
Well, the lifetime refers to how long one can hang on to that #17
exemption. As you point out, even major winners don't hold onto
their #1 exemption. Without double checking, the #17 exemption
is the only one you can't lose (well I guess there are all those after
28).
I guess you have to be an "active" member, whatever the details
of that are. Last year Watson was the only one listed so I presume
there is some reason the others who would otherwise qualify aren't.
I guess though someone with a #17 could possibly not get in,
but it'd mean that there weren't alot of multi-event, multi-major
winners at the time.
[snip]
> By the way, sponsor exemptions are #11 on the Priority Ranking System.
> While the 20 win/15 years exemption is #17. So if your theory holds,
> even if the #17 ranking in the pecking order didn't get a player seeded
> into the field, the sponsor would probably want to let them in anyway.
> But sponsors only get eight exemptions, and those come with
> restrictions. (Refer back to the list for details.)
Well, that's the point. #17 is virtually guaranteed to get in, so
they
can use the sponsors exemptions without having to use them to let
in guys like Watson.
> > The more interesting aspect of the exemption list is the difference
> > between Mr. 125 and 126. Mr 125 is at level 19, Mr 126 is at level 27.
> > There are alot of people between those two positions.
>
> There are also a lot of players within that #9 spot in the pecking
> order (although not 125 of them, since many of those would qualify
> under a higher position in the Priority Rankings).
Well there's an upper limit of about 100 based upon no repeat
winners.
Last year I think there were 50 or something like that.
[snip]
> > Furthermore,
> > it was explained to me by a tour player one year that the 125 get their
> > priority within that 125 reshuffled quarterly.
>
> I worked for the TOUR for five years, and while I recall hearing about
> this so-called "reshuffling," I don't recall all the details about it.
> But I believe their earnings in the current year factor into it.
Working from memory, the 125 are reshuffled based upon earnings
to that point, that year. It really only effects the guys between
something
like 70 and 125 because the rest are getting in on higher priority
exemptions.
A few exceptions but that is roughly how it works out.
> I do know that the players within the #9 Priority Ranking (Top 125 on
> last year's money list) do not all have equal access. They're ranked
> within the #9 grouping.
I think you mean #19. #9 is past winners. That's a MUCH smaller
group
typically. I think last year was about 50.
> > So Mr. 125 can play his
> > way into a higher position, but Mr. 126 (short of winning) will always
> > be basically in the 27th exemption position.
>
> That could be. I seem to recall that a similar reshuffling occurred
> for those guys as well. But I don't really remember.
Could be, there are only 25 of them but considering how close they
probably are week to week, it could be important.
[snip]
> > Mr. 126 does have one strangely small advantage
> > over Mr 125. Mr 125 can't play in a Nationwide event in any
> > week that there is a TOUR event. Mr. 126 can however.
>
> There's no real advantage to that relating to TOUR eligibility since
> Nationwide TOUR earnings are not calculated in with PGA TOUR earnings
> for the official PGA TOUR money list unless a guy plays in enough
> Nationwide Tour events to finish among the leading money winners there,
> or wins three Nationwide Tour events in a single year to receive the
> so-called "battlefield promotion." (I haven't heard them use that term
> as much since America became involved in the wars in the Middle East.)
>
Yeah, it's only important in a few ways. #1, he can get a pay
check.
#2, if he can finish in the top 25, he doesn't have to go to Q-school.
#3, I think the money counts towards their 401K type thingy. #4
the whole battlefield thingy.
> > One other
> > strange quirk in the system is that the winner of a FedEx cup event,
> > other than winning the whole shibang (or the Tour Championship)
> > doesn't get any more of an exemption than any other regular
> > TOUR event.
>
> Doesn't strike me as a strange quirk at all. Remember what the FedEx
> Cup "tournament" was designed to accomplish:
Yeah, I know. It just seems that considering these are limited
field
events, and they are hyping them, that you ought to get a 3 year
exemption
or something.
[snip]
> > So it switches them from never knowing week to
> > week if they'll get to play at all, to being virtually guaranteed to get
> > into any regular season event they wish the rest of that year, plus
> > the next two. That alone makes it easier to play your way into the
> > top 125.
>
> "Easier" is not the word I would use to describe what it becomes.
[snip]
Well, what it means is that they can get into more tournaments
and in fact plan in advance for them.
Darrell Jefress
"R&B" <none_of_yo...@all.com> wrote in message
news:2009011501270675249-noneofyourbusiness@allcom...
> Of course this system is used only to fill out full-field PGA TOUR
> events. Not majors. Not WGC events. Those events have their own
> unique systems to fill out the field.
Randy, do you know how the "invitational" events fit into this scheme? Are
they truly 100% invitational, or does part of the priority system apply?
There are what, maybe five invitationals? Buick, Arnold, Jack, Tiger, . . .
?
DJJ
R&B
Y'know, honestly, I don't remember the specifics. But my suspicion is
that some of these tournaments with the word "Invitational" in their
name were true "invitational" events prior to the advent of the
all-exempt tour and the Priority Ranking System, and the name was just
grandfathered in for one reason or another. I think all these events
(well most, anyway) use the same Priority Ranking System as the other
tournaments to fill out the field. The difference may be the size of
the field or other nuances related to the format of the event. But I
could be wrong.
I remember hearing about how long before I got involved in covering
golf, there was a distinction between "Open" tournaments (like the
Shell Houston Open), "Classic" tournaments (like The Honda Classic) and
the "Invitational" events (like the Buick Invitational). But I don't
remember what it was. Then you had a few other oddballs, like
"Challenge" -- as in the Buick Challenge, although I think that one was
more a function of them running out of names for Buick events -- Buick
Invitational (Torrey Pines), Buick Classic (Westchester), Buick Open
(Warwick Hills G&CC) and the Buick Challenge (Callaway Gardens).
It's funny. It seems there was a time when there could have been a
whole tour comprised of nothing but automobile brand-sponsored events:
Mercedes Championship
Buick Invitational
Bob Hope Chrysler Classic
Nissan Open
Honda Classic
Buick Classic
BMW Championship
Buick Open
Buick Challenge
and a few you may have forgotten...
Infiniti Tournament of Champions (now the Mercedes)
Convair-San Diego Open (now Buick Invitational)
Isuzu/Andy Williams San Diego Open (now Buick Invitational)
American Motors Inverrary Classic (now the Honda Classic)
Chrysler Championship (now the PODS Championship)
Hertz Bay Hill Classic (not a car brand, but a car rental company)
Buick Championship (yes, still another Buick event -- this one had been
the Greater Hartford Open)
Vern Parsell Buick Open (forerunner to today's Buick Open -- is Vern
Parsell a Buick dealer? I dunno.)
Chrysler Classic of Greensboro (now the Wyndam Championship)
Walt DisneyWorld/Oldsmobile Classic
National Car Rental Golf Classic at Walt Disney World Resort (one of
the longer names ever)
Buick Goodwrench Open (yes, I found another one -- had this name for 3
years -- now the Buick Open)
And how can we forget...
The Tour Championship presented by Mercedez-Benz and Michelob
(What brainiac thought it was a good idea to pair a car company with a
beer company, promoting drinking and driving? Why am I not surprised
that this didn't last very long?)
Then, just for good measure...
The John Deere Classic (for those wanting a more unconventional ride)
WGC-Bridgestone Invitational (gotta have rubber on that ride)
Bay Hill Invitational presented by Cooper Tires
Michelin Championship at Las Vegas
Shell Houston Open (not goin' far without a fill-up)
And you're gonna need insurance on that ride...
Southern Farm Bureau Classic (now the Viking Classic)
Independent Insurance Agent Open (now Shell Houston Open)
Insurance City Open (now the Travelers Championship)
And that doesn't even scratch the surface. You'll find a few more on
the Champions Tour, including...
Mazda presents the Senior Players Championship
Ford Senior Players Championship
...to name two.
By the way, as tournament names go, here are the three longest ones I
could find. These are some of the worst tournament names ever...
Shearson Lehman Brothers Andy Williams Open
Jackie Gleason's Inverrary National Airlines Classic
World Golf Championships - Accenture Match Play Championship (rolls
right off the tongue, don't it?)
World Golf Championships - American Express Championship (well, which is it?)
Canon Sammy Davis, Jr. - Greater Hartford Open
Ed McMahon-Jaycees Quad Cities Open
The Tour Championship presented by Southern Company and Mercedes-Benz
Panasonic Las Vegas Pro-Celebrity Classic
Children's Miracle Network Classic presented by Wal-Mart
Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospitals for Children Open (what the
fuck...get that guy away from the kids!)
And of course...
Augusta National Invitation Tournament (even the legendary Bobby Jones
made this regrettable mistake; he should have taken Clifford Roberts'
advice and named it The Masters from the very start)
And the stupidest name ever... (drumroll, please)...
Florida Citrus Open Invitational (how can it be an open AND an
invitational?) Yes, that's the one that became the Arnold Palmer
Invitational, known to most of us simply as "Bay Hill."
And finally, my favorite name for a tournament -- conjured up by yours
truly (so it never really existed, but it does capture, I think, the
lunacy of selling corporate naming rights to sporting events):
Fruit of the Loom Boxer Shorts Open at the Tournament Players Club at
Pungent Valley presented by Kellogg's of Battle Creek and Marlboro
Light Cigarettes in the Flip-Top Box
Try embroidering all of that on your damn golf cap, Bucky. Once they
get all that shit engraved on the trophy, there won't be much room left
for the winner's name.
Randy
Alan Campbell
Alan Campbell
Howard Brazee
qualified to play at Open events. This was a way to keep them out.
The newer Invitationals have different criteria, of course.
Howard Brazee
that one needs to apply in time, and not just fly half-way across the
Pacific expecting to play.
me
> "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...@all.com> wrote in message
This usually comes up every year during Arnies tournament. He is
obligated
by his agreement with the TOUR to invite some large chunk of the top70
or something
like that. And I think he is required to choose them from TOUR
members, although
I believe there is also some ability to choose from other major
tours. The difference
really I suspect (working from memory mostly) is that he can choose
without the
strick recognition of the nitty gritty of the priority ranking system.
Kev
In a recent article in golfonline.com:
LIFE MEMBERS: When Davis Love III won for the 20th time to become a
life member of the PGA Tour, he received notoriety for his achievement
everywhere but the PGA Tour media guide.
In his bio, it lists his exempt status as through 2010 because of his
victory at Disney.
But there's a reason for that.
The tour matches exempt status with its priority ranking system. That
starts with U.S. Open and PGA Championship winners (lifetime exemption
before 1970, now a five-year exemption), then goes through categories
such as winning the other two majors, The Players Championship, the
Tour Championship, any PGA Tour event, career money, etc.
Life members - 20 victories and active members for 15 years - is No.
17 on the priority list.
There's a reason for that, too.
According to Andy Pazder, the tour's senior vice president of
tournament administration, the lifetime tournament exemption is
effective only as long as the player maintains a proper scoring
average (three strokes above the field average for the tournaments he
plays) and competes in at least one PGA Tour event each calendar year.
Pazder said the scoring average requirement is what caused Lanny
Wadkins and Hale Irwin to be moved out of the "Life Member" category
and into the past champions category.
A player can regain lifetime membership if he meets the scoring
requirement in a subsequent year.