As promised, I've waited for a few more details to come in about the "player revolt".  I was also waiting to get home from vacation so I could catch up on those details properly.  With the ultimate detail just released by Golfworld's Beth Ann Baldry that Bivens is already out, here's what I've been pondering.

Reports vary, but it seems that about 15 players were at the dinner where the Bivens topic was discussed.  It is unknown how many players actually signed the letter but only two players - Paula Creamer and Suzann Pettersen - have stated that they themselves signed it.  I don't understand the reluctance of the other players (I assume these weren't the only two) to also confirm having signed the letter.  That information is going to come out eventually, and honestly - if I was going to the trouble to attach my name to a piece of paper intended to affect positive change to my organization, I would be publicly forthright about my stance on the issue rather than hiding behind a flimsy "let's respect the U.S. Open" excuse.  As a group, the ladies timed it perfectly - women's golf never gets more attention in America than during U.S. Open week and making this stance just prior ensured the largest possible audience.  Why dilute the effect?  Confirm you signed the letter and then you can tell the media "no more questions" on that subject.

Assuming that nearly all of those in attendance did sign the letter, Bivens' status was critical from the get-go.  Bivens is not a commissioner beholden to a couple dozen corporate entities (a la Bud Selig or Roger Goodell), she directly reports to a 13-member Board of Directors of which seven are players.  Golfworld magazine is reporting that five of those seven players agree with the call for resignation, although apparently Christina Kim is not one of them.  I'm not sure why any player wouldn't agree under these circumstances.  This much is a given - you have a document in hand calling for a change signed by a dozen of the top players on Tour.  If you don't make that change happen, you risk alienating (or driving away) those who supported it - and they just happen to be at the literal and figurative forefront of your organization.  We don't have the exact language of the letter in front of us but I would have to assume that when you start talking about somebody resigning, you have to put some specific muscle behind it.  The players at the meeting are definitely the muscle of the LPGA, and without them the Tour would fail. 

Yes, I said FAIL.  If Lorena Ochoa, Paula Creamer, Michelle Wie, Natalie Gulbis, Morgan Pressel and Suzann Pettersen all stopped playing LPGA events tomorrow, you tell me how the Tour survives.  If I was the Commish and these same players demanded my resignation, I would oblige even if I thought I was correct on every decision I had made.  If they are right, it's best for the Tour.  If they are wrong, it is they who will sink or swim with that choice.  Word is that Ms. Bivens would be receptive to a buyout of the final two years on her contract.  Well so would I, given the circumstances.  Perhaps she is not as clueless as some would have you believe.  BTW, don't argue whether she deserves the buyout or not - she's got a contract, you want her gone, you gotta buy her out unless you can prove she violated some term of that contract.  I seriously doubt you're going to be able to prove that.

Some people are asking why these players waited so long to do something about the situation.  I would counter that these same people would ask why the players were rushing to judge so quickly had they acted just six weeks earlier.  Near the end of May we endured the Mourning at Corning and we've had a Gloom & Doom Report nearly every week since.  Even throwing out the Kapalua announcement (who defaulted on their contract) and the course-less LPGA Championship, the 2010 expectations for five of the last seven events played are dismal.  Every example has featured this theme - the sponsor is unwilling or unable to comply with "the vision" of Ms. Bivens.  Each example has also featured THIS theme - the Tour is unwilling (or unable - I'll be fair) to be flexible with individual tournaments.

What is unfortunate about this situation is that Bivens' plan wasn't some hare-brained scheme.  Her original stated goal was to bolster the Tour's financial position and build the pension plan for retired players.  Picking up from where Ty Votaw left off, Bivens traveled a highly-defensible path.  Sure, she pushed the boundaries too far when she insisted that media turn over rights to their LPGA photos and stories in order to receive credentials, and the policy (program?) to force all Tour members to learn English blew up in her face.  But in some ways, her plan was succeeding.  She did attract several high-dollar sponsors (unfortunately high-risk as well) and did finally secure a long-term TV contract with Golf Channel, an item I have long lobbied for.  About 18 months into her administration though, the economic playing field changed and the Commissioner failed to modify her "vision" accordingly.  She stubbornly stuck to the plan even after multiple tournaments could not keep up with the demands.  History has several examples of where a leader rolls on with the status quo, ignoring the changing landscape until his constituents inform him (sometimes rather violently) that he should have adjusted.  I almost titled this piece "Off With Her Head" but that is a bit too melodramatic.  Bivens may be out of office but she certainly won't meet the same fate as Louis XVI or Czar Nicholas.