Go Back   LPGA Golf Forum > General LPGA Message Boards > LPGA

View Poll Results: Do you support the 1 in 4 rule?
Yes 12 57.14%
No 9 42.86%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-11-2007, 12:38 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,613
Do you support the 1 in 4 rule?

There has been plenty of debate over the rule.

Just to clarify for anyone who might not know of the rule.
It states that a player has to play each lpga event at least once every four years. This was enacted so that the smaller tournaments would be guaranteed big names, at least once in a while, and this is a big perk for the sponsors.

Before I vote, I would be interested in some of your opinions.
I like the way it helps the smaller events, but I don't like the lpga telling the players what they have to do.

So do you support the 1 in 4 rule?
paddyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 12:52 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 442
I support the "1 in 4" rule completely.

To remain credible and viable, the LPGA must have a certain number of events. Some events are more popular than others because of prestige, purse, format etc., but without all of the other events, the LPGA would be reduced to 10 or 12 events a year. And that would be a joke.

Some sponsors very much want to be a part of the LPGA community, but don't have the resources to compete with McDonalds and Samsung and Ricoh and other major sponsors. But they step up and do what they can. In appreciation, the LPGA takes steps to ensure a regular, steady stream of big name players will play in each event.

I miss the LPGA when there is no tournament during the season. If the LPGA did not protect some of its events, imagine how many more weeks the players would be forced to take off because there is no tournament to play.
__________________
Dale
Fan of Park Ji Eun
(Grace Park)
virginian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 01:00 PM   #3
PW
Senior Member
 
PW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 926
I support the rule, but I think the LPGA needs to make it easy for the top players to comply. I don't know the history as well as many do, but it seems like some tournaments (e.g. the Canadian?) have been historically in a bad week. Maybe they could switch the schedule around more from year to year to help.
PW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 03:23 PM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Warren, Ohio
Posts: 8,807
I don't like the idea of telling an independent contractor that they have to play a certain tournament. If they want a rule like that, they have to do a much better job of scheduling.

The schedule was a major cause of the decline of the Giant Eagle, since anyone who was paying the Evian had to leave the course, directly to the airport to make their connection to France. Due to terrible weather the last two years of its existance, several players had to withdraw on Sunday, even though they were in contention.

If a tournament wants to attract the top players, they need to cough up the bucks for a bigger purse, make sure the players have adequate accomodations, and that travel is easy for them.
__________________
Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.
MarinePaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 04:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
wiefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,489
Hi ya everyone....here is my 2 cents....if you truly are a person that loves the LPGA and wish to see sponsors contributing....then how can anyone advocate against this 1 in 4 ruling....this is the one big carrot that the LPGA gets to dangle in front of the lessor known tournaments....like someone said earlier....these lessor tournament is VITAL for the LPGA....the smaller tournaments do deserve their "day in the sun" so to speak.....if you let the "High Profile" "Individual Contractors" dictate what events they are going to play or NOT play....what is the incentive for the sponsors.....posters talk about rescheduling it to a better date.....so does this mean " pushing out" a smaller tournament and forcing them to get this "not so good date"....how do you justify this to the event that is getting squeezed out

now before any of you start gettting on Carolyn's case as doing this very thing....please remember that she gave the tournament director PLENTY of opportunity to keep his date that he lost....it was the Tournament Directors fault that his date was taken away from him

anyway....I am sure that all of these LPGA players know of the importance of this rule for the survival of the smaller tournaments and the LPGA itself.....and even the High Profile players will "go with the flow" and not challenge this ruling in court....the behind closed doors mediation is good for both the offending player and the LPGA management

but regardless....this rule is a good rule and also an important one for growth of the LPGA.....just my 2 cents and a few extra pennies.....have a good day....see ya!!
wiefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 05:28 PM   #6
NTB
Senior Member
 
NTB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: hot springs village arkansas
Posts: 2,534
1 in 4 rule

I stand to be corrected on this.
If there is no agreement signed when you join the LPGA then as the judge states you could get in a heap of trouble trying to enforce any rule. But if they sign an agreement then probably wouldn?t matter who they complained to nothing would likely be done about it. They would either pay the fine or get suspended that would probably depend on the LPGA rules on the matter. There are a lot of laws on the books in every state in the union that never get enforced.

MP makes a sound judgment on independent contractors. If I.C.?s sign a contract then they have to live up to it. My opinion and a dollar and a half will buy you a bad cup of coffee.

I believe in good rules that apply to all. The LPGA players own the LPGA so it
Would be up to them to make the rules and enforce the rules. We probably haven?t heard the last of this. It will probably come up after the season end.

Now, my vote.
I am in favor of the rule. NTB.
__________________
God Bless America
\"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.\" - William Penn
NTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 07:30 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Warren, Ohio
Posts: 8,807
Wiefan, the problem with the schedule is that the tournaments just before and just after the European swing tend to suffer from the better players not wanting to be there. It would make more sense to schedule an idle week before and after, and use the weeks that don't currently have a tournament scheduled.

Some tournaments, including the Giant Eagle, never had a set week. The were always given a week at sometime in July, but it was seldom the same week from year to year.
__________________
Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.
MarinePaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 07:59 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
wiefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,489
Marinepaul....if I am not mistaken....last year's Canadian Open was in the same week as Annika's New Event....thus I believe there was a sort of compromise between the events for this year's schedule....so are you suggesting that the Canadian Open be pushed back another week.....or maybe tell me where in the schedule does the LPGA put this event

by the way....is Annika's event a sanctioned LPGA one anyway....if it isn't, then isn't the LPGA in fact putting a week between their European swing and their next scheduled event...which is the Canadian Open

anyway.....regardless....Annika knows what she is doing....I am sure that whatever comes out of all of this....I am sure that it was thought about prior

anyway...have a good day....about the Giant Eagle event....I am positive that you have way more info about that than I do as far as rhyme and reason....anyway....see ya!!
wiefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2007, 08:53 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
PAC RIM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 520
Originally Posted by MarinePaul View Post
I don't like the idea of telling an independent contractor that they have to play a certain tournament. If they want a rule like that, they have to do a much better job of scheduling.

The schedule was a major cause of the decline of the Giant Eagle, since anyone who was paying the Evian had to leave the course, directly to the airport to make their connection to France. Due to terrible weather the last two years of its existance, several players had to withdraw on Sunday, even though they were in contention.

If a tournament wants to attract the top players, they need to cough up the bucks for a bigger purse, make sure the players have adequate accomodations, and that travel is easy for them.
Actually the players become an "owner-member" when they join the tour. The LPGA was founded by professional women golfers for women golfers. They leave their business operations in the hands of professionals, but they do have a say in how the tour is run and depending on tenure, benefits and retirement plans.

On the PGA tour, members simply pay a fine to the association when they miss appearing at all the required events. Tiger does this regularly as the PGA has the same requirement for appearances. I'm not sure if this rule applies to the ladies also.

PAC RIM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 12:20 AM   #10
sag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 738
I like the rule in theory. The PGA Tour doesn't have the rule, and that tour is increasingly divided into "Tiger" events and "non-Tiger" events. When Tiger skips an event year after year, it becomes harder for the tournament to survive. The International went kaput, and others will likely follow in the years to come.

I don't like the rule in practice. I have a bias against rules like this one that are either not enforced or are selectively enforced, with everything being a secret.

I guess I'm more used to the major American sports like baseball, football, basketball where rule violations are handled relatively transparently. For example, if a player or coach criticizes a referee publicly after a game, as often happens in the NBA, in about two days the league office will inform the media that the offender has been fined $25,000 or whatever. Contrast that to earlier this year when Cristie Kerr put the bad mouth on Doug Brecht, saying that he was "abrasive" and had "bullied" her. What ever came of that situation? Who knows?! I'm not saying Cristie necessarily crossed the line, but I for one would have appreciated an explanation of what the line is on something like that.

After thinking it over, my inclination was to cast a reluctant "no" vote, but while I was looking for something else I found that Bivens has given every player on tour a once-in-a-career waiver of the one-in-four rule, supposedly due to "confusion" over which tournaments the rule covered, what happens in case of injury, pregnancy, etc....

Is it true that there has been such confusion? Sure, but that isn't the whole story. Last year Bivens stupidly gave Beth Daniel a pass on this rule, and my guess is that many players had a problem with one person getting special treatment and raised a stink about it. So now, to even things out, Bivens is essentially stuck with having to give everyone a pass.

This situation is a perfect example of why rules should be transparently and equally enforced from the outset or else there shouldn't be a rule at all.
sag is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2 PL2

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!