Despite rumors to the contrary, the 2009 U.S. Women's Open WILL be held in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania next month as scheduled.  This despite the fact that no one in America will care to follow it since Michelle Wie and Natalie Gulbis will not be in the field.

Yes, I am being facetious.

While it is a shame that these two popular players (who both have played Top 30 caliber golf so far this year) will probably be absent from the premier event in women's golf, it doesn't diminish the significance or stature of that event in any way.  Every player in the field earned her spot under the rules and deserves to be there.  Besides, Wie and Gulbis still have two chances to make the field should either win Wegmans or the Jamie Farr.

That said, the rest of this post is a "what if", "pie-in-the-sky" discussion.  If you could tinker with the process which fills the U.S. Women's Open field, what would you change?  Would you limit the number of amateurs?  How about the international tours' qualifiers?  Would you reward more players for good play this year or for last year?

The current criteria for making the Open field breaks down this way:

• U.S. Open champions from the last ten years
• Other three majors' champions from the last five years
• Top 2 finishers from last year's U.S. Amateur
• Top 15 finishers from last year's U.S. Open
• Top 50 on last year's LPGA money list
• Top 10 on this year's LPGA money list (thru June 1)
• Winners of LPGA events since last year's Open
• Top 5 money winners last year from JLPGA, KLPGA and LET
• Local and Sectional qualifying

Let's start at the bottom.  To me, the beauty of the U.S. Open - and the source of its very name - is the fact that just about anybody in the entire U.S. of A. has the opportunity to qualify for it.  That process, despite being stacked to a large extent in favor of the touring pros, allows all domestic players the chance to earn a spot in the big dance.  I wouldn't change a thing here, except maybe to remove all of the "must be an amateur" modifiers on the Local Qualifying Exemption list (meaning that exemption would be rescinded if the player has turned pro since the exemption was earned - why should that matter?).  Some folks have a problem when a lot of amateurs make the field (32 this year, by my count) but my take on it is this - you played your way in, you're good enough to be there.  The pros who are sitting at home had their chance to take your spot and they failed.

You all know I usually turn a blind eye to nationalism as it pertains to golf.  Except maybe at Solheim Cup time, I only mention nationality when that fact makes a certain accomplishment a "first" (say, the first Italian player to win a Tour event) or if there is a new kid on the block (like Anna Nordqvist last week).  So I hope you'll not rush to judge when I say that the Top 5 money winner exemptions to the JLPGA, KLPGA and LET need to be reduced, to no more than three and preferably two apiece.  I don't know how many years the USGA has exempted five from each tour but I would imagine it's been this way for many years, to make sure that a goodly number of international players get welcomed into our national championship.  Considering how international the LPGA has become in the last ten years and how many international players gain entry to the Open through their LPGA success, I think the USGA can afford to throttle back that gesture a bit and allocate a few of those spots elsewhere.

One place they could add those spots is the category of this year's LPGA money list (as of June 1).  Expanding that category from 10 to 30 would have added exactly four players this year - Michelle Wie, Wendy Ward, Natalie Gulbis and Soo-Yun Kang - and expanding to 40 would have added four more - Vicky Hurst, Jimin Kang, Sandra Gal and Mika Miyazato.  Why not reward a few more players for their 2009 success on the LPGA?  Recognizing only the Top 10 is really no reward at all - those ten players already had an exemption, either by winning in the last 12 months or finishing in last year's Top 50.  Better to throw that component out the window than to leave it in as a worthless carrot.

I've got no qualms with allowing in LPGA winners or last year's money list Top 50 or any of the recent major champions.  Top 15 from last year's Open?  That seems to be about right, especially since it includes ties (let's have none of that funky tie-breaker stuff like they do at Q-School).  That leaves the two U.S. Amateur spots.  First - get rid of that ridiculous "must be an amateur" modifier.  Why should a player who earned this exemption last summer put off turning professional just to honor this archaic stipulation?  95% of those who do this go pro immediately after the Open anyway.  What a farce.  Second - why the top two?  Is there something special about the U.S. Amateur that requires us to honor the runner-up?  If so, shouldn't the runners-up in the major championships get some consideration?  Hang on, I'm getting facetious again...  Seriously now, I'd rather they exempt the last two U.S. Amateur champs and eliminate the requirement that they still be an amateur.

Those are my thoughts.  Aside from expanding the U.S. Open field to 300 players, let me know yours.