144 Or More?
by hound dog on Apr 13, 2010 3:00 PM PDT
Email
PrintLast week while I was on vacation (near Savannah, not Augusta - dammit!) I received an e-mail from Dave Kane, a writer for the State-Journal Register of Springfield, Illinois. Dave covers the LPGA every time they come through for the State Farm Classic as well as other area sporting events. He mentioned that Jane Geddes, the Tour's Senior VP of Tournament Operations, had talked the State Farm officials into allowing 150 entrants instead of the usual 144, and that three other "mid-summer events" would follow suit. He detailed these and other things in an article posted at the paper's website last week.
This is great news for the LPGA rank-and-file. Six extra spots per event doesn't sound like much but in a season with only 12 non-major full-field events, every available spot counts. If the Kia Classic had done this, six fewer players would currently have zero starts on the season - Sarah Jane Smith, Michelle Ellis, Marcy Hart, Eva Dahllof, Stephanie Louden and Meredith Duncan. The cut line will stay where it has been (top 70 plus ties) but the extra opportunity to play is really all these players could ask for.
Or is it? With normally 144 players in threesomes for the first two rounds of each event, the Tour sends out 24 groups in the morning wave and 24 in the afternoon. For each batch of 24, twelve groups start at #1 and twelve start at #10. Six more players equates to two more threesomes, which I would assume means one extra group in the morning and one extra in the afternoon. Since you're going off 1 and 10 anyway, why not admit 156 to the party and add two groups to each wave?
Expanding the field drastically would make it tougher to get rounds completed if play gets delayed by weather, so I won't lobby for an even larger number. Doing this with mid-summer events works well with the longer daylight hours but in lieu of more full-field events, I think the Tour should expand the field to 156 and they should do it more than just four times.
2 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
144 0r more?
How about less? Less players and move the cut to 60 and ties. Prize money is going down and the quality of play in the back of the field is just not worthy. Why plunge your guts out for 4 days in a million dollar tournament hoping for $1500-$2000 payday? The USA talent pool is not as deep with female players as it is with the males. There is just no solid reason to increase field sizes at this time. The LPGA should be moving toward streamlining their product until purses go up and the demand for larger fields actually exists.
interesting argument
but think of the possible consequences. With less opportunity to attempt to make a living, fewer women in the US will begin the long trek to become a professional golfer. None of them knows for sure in their early teens whether they will be one of those elite players. The safety net of knowing that you “only” have to be among the best 70 every week to make a decent living is very important.
Besides, prize money has been going down but that doesn’t mean it will continue to go down every year ad infinitum. And increasing the field size doesn’t dilute the existing prize money – the top 70 and ties rule stays in place. If the Futures Tour money was good enough for players to make a living, I’d agree with the “Premier League” concept. Encouraging more players to stay in the game until economic conditions improve is as solid a reason to expand the field as you could want.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
