Futures tour ?????

neophyte · 08-24-2008, 12:33 PM

The LPGA has a responsibility to:
1. Make the Futures tour the best it can be.
2. Help develope the talent and skill of new golfers
3. Help those becoming the new "exempt players" be the best that are available.
4. Help make the lpga exempt process be user friendly. Q school has been called more Hell week, than a test of ability.
5. Help the money on the futures tour be more financially supportive of those winning.
6. Make the LPGA tour become more profitable for the LPGA.
7. Help players who are going nowhere to find better vocations.

Topics that the players on the tour might be concerned about.
1. Will I be squeezed off the LPGA tour?
2. Will I lose my ability to make a living on the LPGA tour?
3. Will I get a "pink slip"?
4. Will the field size of the LPGA tour events be reduced.
5. Will I/we lose our power and say on the tour.

golfnut · 08-24-2008, 07:55 PM

i agree, maybe q-school should be abolished. i think the futures tour offers a better proving ground and preparation for playing on the lpga tour.

golfnut · 08-24-2008, 08:04 PM

i dont think any player has to worry about being suezzed off the tour, unless they play poorly. the total money list exemptions is still at 90, which i would like to see at 100, i just think its a more even number.i also would like to see the 2 year exemption abolished for a top 40 finish on the money list. if they still wanted to do a 2 year exemption they could do it for the top 10 on the money list. finishing there is a lot tougher than finishing in the top 40.

MarinePaul · 08-24-2008, 09:12 PM

I disagree completely with doing away with Q-school. They're constantly trying to fix things that aren't broken, rather than trying to salvage tournaments that they're losing on a fairly regular basis.

Bivens' priority should be saving and adding full- field events, rather than trying to tweek who qualifies. It seems to me that she's doing everything ass backwards.

neophyte · 08-24-2008, 11:25 PM

I would like to keep Q School but have a 1.5 million purse, and tv coverage.

xman5 · 08-25-2008, 10:14 AM

1. This is hardly the end of the world, or the begining of anything. So things are shifted around a little bit and 5 other players from column A as oppesed to column B get a chance.

If you are on the bottom and can not make number 90, tough luck you should have played better. In this top heavy league, if you are at 90 or below, you are not very good, or at least had a pittyfull year. No sympathy for you. Try harder. This is a tempest in a tea pot.

2. Just because the commisioner has never ending work to do with securing tournaments and rights, that does not mean that everything else stops.

3. Q school should be hard and intense. You need to work for it. This is not a sunday walk in the park. This is your life long dream. You have to work for it.

4. Both Q school and the Futures tour should remain as avenues to the tour. Look at the PGA. Same concept and it seems to working out well.

MarinePaul · 08-25-2008, 11:27 AM

The fringe players don't like the change, and it isn't necessary. What IS necessary is having venues for them to play on. That doesn't mean everything else should stop, but it should have priority. This is change for the sake of change.

With the tournaments folding, I'd think that Bivens and company would be out there trying to locate new sponsors, or trying to renew old sponsors. Instead, the concentration seems to be on changing who qualifies for folding tournaments.

xman5 · 08-25-2008, 11:51 AM

Perhaps the fringe players should go and new blood should come in.
Maybe this will put more emphasis on the Futures tour and will bring in some more money, though marginal at best (and not the main intent), and highlight the Future. Or do you like watching Danielle Ammacapanie and Michelle McGann shoot 80 and miss the cut.

All organizations are divided into departments that have there own agenda. I am sure that there is a group within the LPGA that focuses on Futures Tour. Should they not do there work. I m also pretty sure that this was not done on a whim and that plenty of planning has gone into this and the complete reworking of the exempt, non exempt concept.

The dead wood has to go. Maybe it is time for "Carousel". A prize for anyone that gets that obscure reference.

PW · 08-25-2008, 12:13 PM

Doesn't make sense to slant the system to help the "fringe" players. If the goal is to make sure the best players are playing and the new players are well prepared (and it should be) the change makes a lot of sense.

However, totally eliminating Q-school is going too far. Remember that Q-school is not only for the new players, it is also a way for the players in danger of losing their card to have a 2nd chance. If the FT is the only route, they would have to spend a year (give or take) in the "minors".

MarinePaul · 08-25-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by PW

Doesn't make sense to slant the system to help the "fringe" players. If the goal is to make sure the best players are playing and the new players are well prepared (and it should be) the change makes a lot of sense.

However, totally eliminating Q-school is going too far. Remember that Q-school is not only for the new players, it is also a way for the players in danger of losing their card to have a 2nd chance. If the FT is the only route, they would have to spend a year (give or take) in the "minors".

That's exactly the point. The members who already have their cards have earned them, often through Q-School. Why should they have to change careers because some posters would rather do away with that option?

As far as watching players shoot 80 and miss the cut constantly, when do you ever see them? Even if you attend the tournament, do you follow them? That doesn't mean that they should be forced to find new careers.

08-24-2008, 09:12 PM	#24
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,001	I disagree completely with doing away with Q-school. They're constantly trying to fix things that aren't broken, rather than trying to salvage tournaments that they're losing on a fairly regular basis. Bivens' priority should be saving and adding full- field events, rather than trying to tweek who qualifies. It seems to me that she's doing everything ass backwards. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

08-25-2008, 11:27 AM	#27
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,001	The fringe players don't like the change, and it isn't necessary. What IS necessary is having venues for them to play on. That doesn't mean everything else should stop, but it should have priority. This is change for the sake of change. With the tournaments folding, I'd think that Bivens and company would be out there trying to locate new sponsors, or trying to renew old sponsors. Instead, the concentration seems to be on changing who qualifies for folding tournaments. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

08-25-2008, 01:43 PM	#30
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,001	Originally Posted by PW Doesn't make sense to slant the system to help the "fringe" players. If the goal is to make sure the best players are playing and the new players are well prepared (and it should be) the change makes a lot of sense. However, totally eliminating Q-school is going too far. Remember that Q-school is not only for the new players, it is also a way for the players in danger of losing their card to have a 2nd chance. If the FT is the only route, they would have to spend a year (give or take) in the "minors". That's exactly the point. The members who already have their cards have earned them, often through Q-School. Why should they have to change careers because some posters would rather do away with that option? As far as watching players shoot 80 and miss the cut constantly, when do you ever see them? Even if you attend the tournament, do you follow them? That doesn't mean that they should be forced to find new careers. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-24-2008, 12:33 PM	#21
neophyte Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 275	The LPGA has a responsibility to: 1. Make the Futures tour the best it can be. 2. Help develope the talent and skill of new golfers 3. Help those becoming the new "exempt players" be the best that are available. 4. Help make the lpga exempt process be user friendly. Q school has been called more Hell week, than a test of ability. 5. Help the money on the futures tour be more financially supportive of those winning. 6. Make the LPGA tour become more profitable for the LPGA. 7. Help players who are going nowhere to find better vocations. Topics that the players on the tour might be concerned about. 1. Will I be squeezed off the LPGA tour? 2. Will I lose my ability to make a living on the LPGA tour? 3. Will I get a "pink slip"? 4. Will the field size of the LPGA tour events be reduced. 5. Will I/we lose our power and say on the tour.

08-24-2008, 07:55 PM	#22
golfnut Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mandeville, Louisiana Posts: 484	i agree, maybe q-school should be abolished. i think the futures tour offers a better proving ground and preparation for playing on the lpga tour.

08-24-2008, 08:04 PM	#23
golfnut Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mandeville, Louisiana Posts: 484	i dont think any player has to worry about being suezzed off the tour, unless they play poorly. the total money list exemptions is still at 90, which i would like to see at 100, i just think its a more even number.i also would like to see the 2 year exemption abolished for a top 40 finish on the money list. if they still wanted to do a 2 year exemption they could do it for the top 10 on the money list. finishing there is a lot tougher than finishing in the top 40.

08-24-2008, 11:25 PM	#25
neophyte Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 275	I would like to keep Q School but have a 1.5 million purse, and tv coverage.

08-25-2008, 10:14 AM	#26
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,902	1. This is hardly the end of the world, or the begining of anything. So things are shifted around a little bit and 5 other players from column A as oppesed to column B get a chance. If you are on the bottom and can not make number 90, tough luck you should have played better. In this top heavy league, if you are at 90 or below, you are not very good, or at least had a pittyfull year. No sympathy for you. Try harder. This is a tempest in a tea pot. 2. Just because the commisioner has never ending work to do with securing tournaments and rights, that does not mean that everything else stops. 3. Q school should be hard and intense. You need to work for it. This is not a sunday walk in the park. This is your life long dream. You have to work for it. 4. Both Q school and the Futures tour should remain as avenues to the tour. Look at the PGA. Same concept and it seems to working out well.

08-25-2008, 11:51 AM	#28
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,902	Perhaps the fringe players should go and new blood should come in. Maybe this will put more emphasis on the Futures tour and will bring in some more money, though marginal at best (and not the main intent), and highlight the Future. Or do you like watching Danielle Ammacapanie and Michelle McGann shoot 80 and miss the cut. All organizations are divided into departments that have there own agenda. I am sure that there is a group within the LPGA that focuses on Futures Tour. Should they not do there work. I m also pretty sure that this was not done on a whim and that plenty of planning has gone into this and the complete reworking of the exempt, non exempt concept. The dead wood has to go. Maybe it is time for "Carousel". A prize for anyone that gets that obscure reference.

08-25-2008, 12:13 PM	#29
PW Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 926	Doesn't make sense to slant the system to help the "fringe" players. If the goal is to make sure the best players are playing and the new players are well prepared (and it should be) the change makes a lot of sense. However, totally eliminating Q-school is going too far. Remember that Q-school is not only for the new players, it is also a way for the players in danger of losing their card to have a 2nd chance. If the FT is the only route, they would have to spend a year (give or take) in the "minors".