There seems to be conflicting messages.
On one hand, PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp argues that the middle class matters. “You cannot build a lifelong sport that outlives your stars if you don’t build a system that works beyond your stars,” Rolapp said last month during a CNBC leadership forum.
On the other, Rolapp and Tiger Woods, head of the PGA Tour’s new Future Competition Committee, preach the need for scarcity in the league’s competitive model, along with simplicity and parity, the latter of which, Rolapp says, the PGA Tour already has in abundance.
But for how long? How does parity coexist with scarcity? How does the PGA Tour, which just trimmed its number of fully exempt members, scale back and simplify its season without also further reducing the number of playing opportunities?
The answers could be found on the tennis court.
This is by no means an endorsement of the Association of Tennis Professionals. I watch four tournaments per year, the Grand Slam events, and maybe the ATP Finals – and I’m surely not alone. Still, I can’t help but find the ATP’s competitive model intriguing when applying it to the PGA Tour.
Here’s the idea I’m serving up:
One tour, six levels of tournaments
The ATP has four levels of tournaments, six if you count the Challenger and Futures events. The Grand Slam events award 2,000 ranking points to the winner, followed by the Masters 1,000 events, 500 events and 250 events. The Challenger and Futures events vary in points, between 50 and 175 for Challenger and 15 to 25 for Futures.
The PGA Tour example would shake out something like this:
- Majors and The Players (5 events) – 2,000 points to winner
- PGA Tour signature events (10) and playoff events (3) – 1,000
- PGA Tour open events (~15) – 500
- PGA Tour alternate events (~10) – 250
- Korn Ferry events (~25) – 125-175
- Americas events (~15) – 50-100
In tennis, there are usually several events per week across all levels, even multiple of the same level, though an emphasis is placed on showcasing the Grand Slam and Masters 1,000 events. Grand Slam and eight of nine Masters 1,000 events are mandatory for top players who qualify. For the PGA Tour, its signature events would be spaced out to about two per month for a total of 10, and there would be a requirement for top players to compete in at least nine of them. This creates a model of scarcity in which there are 18 tournaments that matter most – four majors, The Players, 10 signature events and then three playoff events.
All other events are considered pathways to the levels above.
Seven-month calendar
All tournaments would be played between early February, after the Super Bowl, and early September, before the start of the NFL season. Theoretically, some lower-level tournaments could start earlier, and the fall would feature a playoff series for the lower levels along with Q-School.
There could be scenarios, too, where there are multiple tournaments of the same level in the same week, even as high as the 500-point events. In that scenario, fields would likely split up the exempt membership, but if the PGA Tour truly believes that the gap between the 100th best player in the world and the 300th best player in the world is razor thin, then these fields shouldn’t be too different from what we’d normally see at events such as the Cognizant Classic and CJ Cup Byron Nelson.
More on the fall and Q-School later.
Varied field sizes
Like tennis, field sizes for most of these tournaments can vary. For the signature events, however, fields will be 90 players with a cut. The playoff fields would keep existing structure of 70-50-30.
Rolling ranking that factors only top performances
A new PGA Tour ranking would determine status and would resemble the ATP’s 52-week rolling ranking where players are ranked based on a cumulative point total that factors in only a certain number of top performances. On the ATP, a player’s ranking includes his best 19 performances, 20 if that player qualified for the ATP Finals, the ATP’s playoffs. All mandatory events must be included in the ranking. The PGA Tour’s number could be slightly higher; I’ll go with the best 18 performances plus three playoff starts for a potential total of 21.
Here’s what could factor into a PGA Tour player’s ranking, assuming that player is qualified for all events:
- Four majors and The Players (5)
- Nine mandatory signature events (9)
- Playoff events (3)
- Best four other performances (4)
For players who don’t qualify for all the mandatory events, they will count additional performances from other events to reach their 18-event threshold. But if a player skips a mandatory event without reason, like on the ATP, they will have zero points applied to their ranking; for someone like Rory McIlroy, it may matter very little.
Like the ATP, players who miss a cut will still receive points for qualifying for that tournament. For example, any player who qualifies for the main draw of a Grand Slam event receives 30 points automatically. These qualifying points are scaled down by level.
The reason this ranking works is because you can’t game it based on playing too much or too little, like a true cumulative ranking or average-points ranking.
Constant promotion and relegation
One way to think of this new PGA Tour ranking is a form of universal points that can effectively rank players across all PGA Tour levels. Players would earn exempt status for each level based on their end-of-postseason ranking (after the Tour Championship) though unlike the current points races, the ranking will not reset to zero between seasons.
This is a quick thought of who would be exempt for each level for the following season via the ranking, though this could be tweaked upon closer examination:
- Majors – existing criteria, though the new PGA Tour ranking could potentially be included
- The Players – playoff qualifiers (top 70)
- Signature events – top 50
- Open events – top 100
- Alternate events – top 135
- Korn Ferry events – top 200
- Americas events – top 300
The rest of the fields will be filled via the current ranking, qualifiers and sponsor exemptions, which creates a system of constant promotion and relegation that will reward players who play well, regardless of what level they’re at. With this model, Johnny Keefer would not have been stuck playing on the Korn Ferry Tour all year; he would’ve likely earned his way into the signature tournaments by the end of the season and the playoffs. This creates parity unlike anything the PGA Tour has seen.
Here’s how a signature event field could be constructed:
- Exempt players (50)
- Sponsor exemptions (2)
- Top available players in rankings (38)
- Rankings determine alternate list
Players would be able to play down level at any time should they need the points. I could see the open events getting a handful of top players competing, much like the non-signature events now. But with the ranking only taking your best 18-21 finishes, there won’t be many top-100 players playing a ton of KFT and lower events.
For Year 1, previous season’s performance will determine exempt status and initial ranking.
One more thing: Using a universal ranking to fill out fields could be complicated with players constantly moving up and down, but there is technology to handle the logistics of it. Players can be locked into fields a week in advance should they fall out of eligibility right before a start, while players who play their way into a higher-level event on a Sunday will have the option to change plans and play up right away. With most of these events in the U.S., travel shouldn’t be a hindrance. Players will adapt for the chance to climb the rankings.
Filling out fields is confusing, but it’s not the fans’ jobs to do that – and this still might be easier to comprehend than the current priority lists. Simplicity can be found, however, in the ranking. The better the play, the better the ranking.
Fall schedule and Q-School keep identities, with a twist
Even with football going on, there will still be a demand for golf tournaments in the fall. The PGA Tour season will technically end with the Tour Championship in late August or early September, but there will be a fall slate that includes a lower-level playoff and Q-School.
The lower-level playoff would be series of events each that offer players chances to improve their ranking for the following season. Point values for these events would be 250 winner’s points each. Remember, fields at all levels are filled based on the ranking, and with signature events including a handful of non-exempt players via the ranking, the best performers in these events could play themselves into signature territory in the ranking. Unlike the current fall, this series would be closed to players who are already exempt into the signature events for the next year, so Nos. 51 and beyond in the rankings after the main playoffs are eligible to compete.
Q-School would be unranked and would function as is, offering exempt spots in the 250 events and lower for those who make it to final stage. Once exempt, these players would build their ranking during their rookie season.
DP Word Tour involvement? Potentially
There could still be a pathway from the DP World Tour to exempt status in the 500 events or lower, while co-sanctioned tournaments could still offer ranking points.
Confused yet? Hopefully not.
Moving to this model might not be as simple a concept as Rolapp and Co. would like, but it would not only likely satisfy the goals and desires of much of the membership, but it would allow for an easy transition for existing sponsors and partners. Truncating the schedule within the existing structures would mean some tournaments would be squeezed out. Having essentially one tour with varying levels of tournaments would allow for flexibility with scheduling. And the cumulative ranking will not only accommodate more events, but it will help alleviate the extreme advantages created by the current signature model.
There is so much more to think about with this idea, but considering the current outlook, it’s an idea that, at the very least, holds serve.