Jamie Farr Coming Back Another Year

MarinePaul · 10-26-2009, 07:53 PM

I can't agree with you here. The point is, it's better to have something than nothing. Would you rather have more idle weeks, or more tournaments? Personally, I'd rather see thirty million dollar tournaments than ten at 1.5 million.

Buzzer · 10-27-2009, 10:41 AM

Couldn't agree more with you, MP.
I'm sure the ladies would agree that playing a full season for $30 million beats playing a short season for half the money.
And the more tournaments there are means more full-field tournaments, which means more players get a chance to earn a living. It also means more opportunities for the ladies to parade their product before the masses and thus garner more interest and chances for the tour to grow.
More tournaments for less money might be slow-growth, but it sure as hell beats the"no-growth" that would accompany fewer tournaments.

Viva Annika

gxer · 10-27-2009, 12:50 PM

There is another way to handle reduced purses and that is to reduce the number of fully exempt players, reduce the overall field sizes and reduce the cut.

Keep the best players, get rid of the rest.

xman5 · 10-27-2009, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by gxer

There is another way to handle reduced purses and that is to reduce the number of fully exempt players, reduce the overall field sizes and reduce the cut.

Keep the best players, get rid of the rest.

It's not gonna happen, but I agree with you. I have been saying that for a long time.

The bottom group needs to be cut out.

Instead of 140 in a full field it should be closer to 120 .And the cut should be about 60.

wiefan · 10-27-2009, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by xman5

It's not gonna happen, but I agree with you. I have been saying that for a long time.

The bottom group needs to be cut out.

Instead of 140 in a full field it should be closer to 120 .And the cut should be about 60.

Hi ya xman...I will have to disagree with both you and Gxer...I like the full field as it is....this gives a lot of players "at least the chance" of playing a lot of tournaments...afterall...who is to say "WHO IS GOING TO HAVE A GOOD TOURNAMENT on any specific week"...all of those ladies that might be on the bottom now can "shoot a low round" at any ol' time...and this will provide a living for themselves and their families hopefully

cutting the field might make the "Bad Weather" tournaments more easy for the tournaments...but even with the Bad weather delays, things have a way of working itself out all of these years

anyway...I like the fact that a bigger field means more of a chance for "ALL" to perhaps increase their bankroll

just my opinion...if people start thinking about ONLY the top 60 after a cut...then why not decrease the field to top 20 players only and then after two rounds, let the top two go heads up....same type of thinking about cutting the field to 120/top 60 after cut...where does anyone DRAW the line...100/50...50/25....hmmm....as I see it...the 144 players now is probably the ideal maximum number in terms of Time allotments prior to the cut....making the tournament field smaller allows more leeway for time constraints...but the drawback is that it DELETES potential players from making a living

anyway...the above is just my opinion...have a good day folks...see ya!!

xman5 · 10-27-2009, 05:41 PM

The LPGA is basically following the PGA model of ~140 Field cut to 70.

The difference is that the LPGA does not have the depth of field that the PGA has and does not have the Prize Moeny and revenue that the PGA has.

But as I said it's not gonna happen.

I suppose that it is 140 because that is basically the max that can get played in one day.

MarinePaul · 10-27-2009, 05:43 PM

Wiefan, I agree that the field size now is about right. I also agree that it allows more of the marginal players a chance to make a living.

As far as the Farr is concerned, I'm personally happy that it's coming back. It's at least within driving distance. Ohio used to have three great tournaments. We're down to one now. I don't care that the purse size is smaller. Better to play for in a million dollar purse than to have another empty week in the schedule.

gxer · 10-27-2009, 05:55 PM

Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players.
However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties.

xman5 · 10-28-2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by gxer

Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players.
However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties.

Yes, that seems to be true for the events called "Invitationals" in there names. Though that is an older term that I don't think that they are using anymore.

ctmurray · 10-28-2009, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by gxer

Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players.
However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties.

When you are god you make the rules....

10-26-2009, 07:53 PM	#11
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,003	I can't agree with you here. The point is, it's better to have something than nothing. Would you rather have more idle weeks, or more tournaments? Personally, I'd rather see thirty million dollar tournaments than ten at 1.5 million. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

10-27-2009, 12:50 PM	#13
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	There is another way to handle reduced purses and that is to reduce the number of fully exempt players, reduce the overall field sizes and reduce the cut. Keep the best players, get rid of the rest. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

10-27-2009, 04:08 PM	#14
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,904	Originally Posted by gxer There is another way to handle reduced purses and that is to reduce the number of fully exempt players, reduce the overall field sizes and reduce the cut. Keep the best players, get rid of the rest. It's not gonna happen, but I agree with you. I have been saying that for a long time. The bottom group needs to be cut out. Instead of 140 in a full field it should be closer to 120 .And the cut should be about 60.

10-27-2009, 05:09 PM	#15
wiefan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 4,135	Originally Posted by xman5 It's not gonna happen, but I agree with you. I have been saying that for a long time. The bottom group needs to be cut out. Instead of 140 in a full field it should be closer to 120 .And the cut should be about 60. Hi ya xman...I will have to disagree with both you and Gxer...I like the full field as it is....this gives a lot of players "at least the chance" of playing a lot of tournaments...afterall...who is to say "WHO IS GOING TO HAVE A GOOD TOURNAMENT on any specific week"...all of those ladies that might be on the bottom now can "shoot a low round" at any ol' time...and this will provide a living for themselves and their families hopefully cutting the field might make the "Bad Weather" tournaments more easy for the tournaments...but even with the Bad weather delays, things have a way of working itself out all of these years anyway...I like the fact that a bigger field means more of a chance for "ALL" to perhaps increase their bankroll just my opinion...if people start thinking about ONLY the top 60 after a cut...then why not decrease the field to top 20 players only and then after two rounds, let the top two go heads up....same type of thinking about cutting the field to 120/top 60 after cut...where does anyone DRAW the line...100/50...50/25....hmmm....as I see it...the 144 players now is probably the ideal maximum number in terms of Time allotments prior to the cut....making the tournament field smaller allows more leeway for time constraints...but the drawback is that it DELETES potential players from making a living anyway...the above is just my opinion...have a good day folks...see ya!!

10-27-2009, 05:43 PM	#17
MarinePaul Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Warren, Ohio Posts: 8,003	Wiefan, I agree that the field size now is about right. I also agree that it allows more of the marginal players a chance to make a living. As far as the Farr is concerned, I'm personally happy that it's coming back. It's at least within driving distance. Ohio used to have three great tournaments. We're down to one now. I don't care that the purse size is smaller. Better to play for in a million dollar purse than to have another empty week in the schedule. __________________ Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you have.

10-27-2009, 10:41 AM	#12
Buzzer Moderator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Hilton Head, SC Posts: 2,831 Images: 13	Couldn't agree more with you, MP. I'm sure the ladies would agree that playing a full season for $30 million beats playing a short season for half the money. And the more tournaments there are means more full-field tournaments, which means more players get a chance to earn a living. It also means more opportunities for the ladies to parade their product before the masses and thus garner more interest and chances for the tour to grow. More tournaments for less money might be slow-growth, but it sure as hell beats the"no-growth" that would accompany fewer tournaments. Viva Annika

10-27-2009, 05:41 PM	#16
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,904	The LPGA is basically following the PGA model of ~140 Field cut to 70. The difference is that the LPGA does not have the depth of field that the PGA has and does not have the Prize Moeny and revenue that the PGA has. But as I said it's not gonna happen. I suppose that it is 140 because that is basically the max that can get played in one day.

10-27-2009, 05:55 PM	#18
gxer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,050	Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players. However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties. __________________ *My "dream" girl: LPGA seasonal tour stats <=65.50 & >=270*

10-28-2009, 09:59 AM	#19
xman5 Contest Statistician Join Date: May 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 3,904	Originally Posted by gxer Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players. However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties. Yes, that seems to be true for the events called "Invitationals" in there names. Though that is an older term that I don't think that they are using anymore.

10-28-2009, 11:26 PM	#20
ctmurray Donating Member Contests: Joint 3rd place overall winner 2010. Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,176	Originally Posted by gxer Arnie, Jack and Tiger limit their PGA TOUR events to 120 players. However, they do keep the cut at 70 and ties. When you are god you make the rules....

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