2022 PGA Tour

voidfunkt

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
931
/dev/null
This whole thing makes me wonder if The Tour and The European Tour would consider merging to get a truly global Tour and pickup more sponsorships
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
I think the PGA Tour players resigning their membership is an interesting wrinkle. So basically the Tour can't take any disciplinary action against these players. I'm not sure what the contract lengths are for LIV, but if DJ wanted to come back in, say, 3 years is the Tour going to deny him?
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
11,930
The Paris of the 80s
If anyone wants to watch an uncomfortable press conference.
Interesting. He declined to answer about a suspension, the PGA Tour in general, and then talked a few times about having earned a lifetime exemption and that he believes he should be able to show up whenever he wants. So he seems to want to be able to play PGA Tour events when he feels like it and do LIV as well.

The problem with that is the PGA Tour rules cover when "Regular Members" (defined to include the lifetime exemption group with 20+ wins) want to play conflicting events. The lifetime exemption only allows him to show up but he otherwise he needs to follow the rest of the Tour's rules.

The players who resigned are, I think, handling this correctly from a process perspective. They agreed to the Tour's rules and just can't do both while maintaining membership.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
Nah ... if he makes it through Q School, they'll give him a chance
I hear you but I believe DJ has a lifetime exemption since he has 20+ wins. He's 37, if he says fuck it and wants back in at 41 or 42 when he's still competitive, will the Tour actually block it?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
76,410
Oregon
I hear you but I believe DJ has a lifetime exemption since he has 20+ wins. He's 37, if he says fuck it and wants back in at 41 or 42 when he's still competitive, will the Tour actually block it?
I was joking, but I suspect this isn't going to turn out to be a big deal in the long run
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
I was joking, but I suspect this isn't going to turn out to be a big deal in the long run
That's probably true. I find it a little interesting that the Tour has been silent thusfar. It's their policy to never disclose disciplinary action against players so maybe it's just that, or they're waiting for the players to actually hit a shot on LIV before publicly responding.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
76,410
Oregon
That's probably true. I find it a little interesting that the Tour has been silent thusfar. It's their policy to never disclose disciplinary action against players so maybe it's just that, or they're waiting for the players to actually hit a shot on LIV before publicly responding.
Seems as though that's the case

A PGA Tour official told ESPN last week that the players probably wouldn't face discipline until they actually tee it up at the LIV Golf event in London. The punishment probably would come in the form of a sliding scale. For instance, players who were actively involved in creating the league or recruiting tour players to LIV Golf would face stiffer punishment than those who simply play.
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/34020759/what-know-know-liv-golf-circuit-challenging-pga-tour
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,931
Arvada, Co
Im not worried about the quality of the PGA dropping until LIV starts pulling large numbers of younger players into it. Losing Reed is addition by subtraction. The others are all… meh.

The Tour has the momentum here but they need to figure out how to pull more eyeballs in and make more money to combat the Saudi blood money. They probably need to re-evaluate what “the field” looks like and how to get more money into the pockets of the players.
The TOUR will never compete with the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. The TV deal over 10 years is only ~5x what DJ alone was given up front by LIV. If the player ONLY care about money then no one can compete with LIV.

At this point, the cake is baked on "more eyeballs" and "more money". The TV deal is by far the majority of the income for the TOUR and that's locked in over the next 10 years. That deal is not paid out evenly over the 10 years so expect to see significant increases in both prize money and bonus money, but no one is ever going to make $120M in guaranteed money. The only way for the TOUR to push the payouts significantly higher is to reduce the number of full PGA TOUR members. That's an idea with both positives and negatives, but not one likely to get voted into existence since it would require half of the players to decide that they are no longer on the PGA TOUR.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
11,930
The Paris of the 80s
Last I saw Matt Wolff he was trying to putt out of a bunker (and was not successful).

So far in 2022 he's missed 7 cuts in 11 events and his other finishes at T25, T60, T61, 64.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
Correct, he's in a bad place and has been battling mental health issues for more than a year. But if he gets his game together, he's a young, marketable star. That's a loss for the Tour.

Anyways, it souds like Jay will drop the hammer after the tee shots are hit in London. Still don't know if anything will be public, the Tour is kind of in a tough spot. They never disclose the disciplinary stuff, but they are hemoraging players and need to have some sort of public response.

View: https://twitter.com/eamonlynch/status/1534878166455566337?s=20&t=9Uh0lqhGU6lYmdI86Q2stg


Watching the early coverage of the RBC Canadian Open and there is an acknowledgement of the LIV stuff on the broadcast, but they are mostly laughing it off and using Rory's "pre-Champions Tour" line. They are not calling it LIV, the line they've been given is apparently "another world tour." They are playing JT and Rory's press conferences yesterday on a loop.
 
I think this is right, and I suspect the US and British open will both honor their current exemptions until expiration, and continue with their open qualifying format, regardless of what tour anyone plays on. The Masters and the PGA are the 2 in the best position to exclude LIV players if they choose to. The PGA will almost certainly go that route, IMO. The Masters is the wildcard. The event has become the most anticipated and prestigious major by a considerable margin, and I can see exclusion from it giving players significant pause about switching to the LIV, if Augusta ever did adopt a hard line.
I meant to respond to this yesterday...I agree that he Masters is the wildcard vis-a-vis LIV, insofar as it is an invitational tournament and it would be very easy for Augusta National to drop the hammer and exclude any players it wishes to exclude (i.e., change the qualifying criteria as it sees fit). And I agree that the Masters has really always been the most anticipated major - because it's played on the same beloved course every year, because for many people it signifies the real start of spring, because there's a big gap without majors between July (previously August) and April, etc. But is it really the most prestigious major? Jack Nicklaus always ranked it fourth on his personal list of which majors were the most important to him, because it's the only one not backed by an important golf organization (i.e., the USGA, the R&A or the PGA of America) and doesn't really represent anything as such. Whether that matters to you, and while the PGA seems clearly to be the least of the four majors, I think the US Open and the British Open are still right up there with the Masters in terms of prestige and importance.

(I was reminded of this in reading this article about Adam Scott, nearly 10 years on from blowing the Open Championship at Royal Lytham, in which he says that the Open is the major he's always wanted to win the most.)
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
So I'm just tuning in. LIV is a *team* form of golf?

So I had to read this: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jun/08/what-is-the-liv-golf-series-and-how-will-it-work

And learn how this all works. Interesting. Different for sure.
Yeah, it's supposed to be a format similar to F1. Individual and team component.

This first year is a little different in that they'll have different teams for each tournament. In the future, the teams will be drafted ahead of the season and there's a roster/transaction component. I believe players that don't get rostered go play on the Asian tour, which LIV has invested in.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
I watched for a bit. Good broadcast, lots of shots shown. Arlo White is a little intense for my liking. Once the initial curiosity wore off after half an hour or so, I flipped back to the Canadian Open.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,176
from the wilds of western ma
I meant to respond to this yesterday...I agree that he Masters is the wildcard vis-a-vis LIV, insofar as it is an invitational tournament and it would be very easy for Augusta National to drop the hammer and exclude any players it wishes to exclude (i.e., change the qualifying criteria as it sees fit). And I agree that the Masters has really always been the most anticipated major - because it's played on the same beloved course every year, because for many people it signifies the real start of spring, because there's a big gap without majors between July (previously August) and April, etc. But is it really the most prestigious major? Jack Nicklaus always ranked it fourth on his personal list of which majors were the most important to him, because it's the only one not backed by an important golf organization (i.e., the USGA, the R&A or the PGA of America) and doesn't really represent anything as such. Whether that matters to you, and while the PGA seems clearly to be the least of the four majors, I think the US Open and the British Open are still right up there with the Masters in terms of prestige and importance.

(I was reminded of this in reading this article about Adam Scott, nearly 10 years on from blowing the Open Championship at Royal Lytham, in which he says that the Open is the major he's always wanted to win the most.)
Fair point. I guess I was looking at the Masters from the perspective of it having the broadest appeal among mainstream sports fans, in many cases being the one golf event they will watch every year, for all the reasons you listed. And therefore, it may have the most star-making/endorsement potential. But you're right, the 2 opens, with their associations with golfs 2 main governing bodies, and their long histories and traditions, absolutely have huge cache among the players themselves. The PGA championship is definitely the poor cousin. To the point that I think a not insignificant number of golf fans, myself included, look more forward to watching the Players championship over the PGA.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,288
New York City
Fair point. I guess I was looking at the Masters from the perspective of it having the broadest appeal among mainstream sports fans, in many cases being the one golf event they will watch every year, for all the reasons you listed. And therefore, it may have the most star-making/endorsement potential. But you're right, the 2 opens, with their associations with golfs 2 main governing bodies, and their long histories and traditions, absolutely have huge cache among the players themselves. The PGA championship is definitely the poor cousin. To the point that I think a not insignificant number of golf fans, myself included, look more forward to watching the Players championship over the PGA.
If you asked players who have won no majors which major they would prefer to win, I bet the majority of them would say The Masters. Some might say the US Open. Even less would say the Open Championship.(most likely some Euro players) And 0% would say the PGA.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
I tried to find some data on that but came up empty. 78,000 does seem really low given this is the first event, a ton of golf media is on site and they've constantly been in the news for the last week. I figured they'd do better given the first event undoutedly generated curiosity clicks. I could be way off, maybe it is comparable to early morning Thurs/Fri PGA Tour coverage.

I watched it for a bit but after two holes it felt like a shitty DP World Tour event and I went back to JT and Rory in Canada. Maybe it will feel different if they continue to add quality players and the Peter Uilhein and Andy Ogletree's of the world get pushed out of the field.

Meanwhile, Phil has taken off the Masters vest for a straight black vest. Really stramge.

View: https://twitter.com/KylePorterCBS/status/1534914794679050243?s=20&t=9Uh0lqhGU6lYmdI86Q2stg
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
76,410
Oregon
Phil? Drawing attention to himself? ... Shocking

The vest thing isn't as weird as hanging out with Rahm on the practice team as Rahm was keeping warm in case there was a playoff in the US Open, but I lost my ability to be surprised at anything coming from Phil anymore
 
I watched the broadcast for about a minute. I'm definitely not going to say I liked it, but the leaderboard down the left side of the screen was at least an interesting concept, albeit a total ripoff of a Formula 1 race graphic. Takes up way too much space on the screen and draws too much attention to itself, but using the short F1-style abbreviations for each player lets them put many, many more names on the screen at once than we're used to seeing while also having the team logos visible. (Not that I know enough names in the field to be able to decipher more than 20% of the abbreviations, but still.)
 
If you asked players who have won no majors which major they would prefer to win, I bet the majority of them would say The Masters. Some might say the US Open. Even less would say the Open Championship.(most likely some Euro players) And 0% would say the PGA.
FWIW, I rummaged around and found a Forbes article from 2012 which cites a Sports Illustrated poll from that same year in which 50 pros were asked which major they most wanted to win; the results were Masters 50%, British Open 25%, US Open 23%, PGA Championship 2%. And then there's this Golf Digest article from 2020 in which 46 pros were asked the same question, and they said Masters 77%, British Open 16%, US Open 7%, PGA Championship 0%. (Now I really want to know which clown picked the PGA a decade ago...)

I don't think that necessarily proves that the Masters is head and shoulders above the other majors in terms of prestige - it could be that most of these golfers prefer Masters by a fairly narrow margin. But the numbers are still pretty eye-popping to me, because in writing my previous post on this subject I was recalling a Golf Digest survey from I think back in the 1990s that always stayed with me (that's where I remember Nicklaus saying the Masters was 4th in his list): that article listed a bunch of individual players' rankings of the four majors (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), and they were really quite varied. So I do wonder if I was wrong to challenge to @cornwalls@6's original hypothesis - and if so, I wonder how much of the current preference for the Masters is down to Tiger's dominance of the tournament in the era where so many of today's pros thought of Tiger as their idol and role model.

Anyway, apologies for the digression.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
54,288
New York City
FWIW, I rummaged around and found a Forbes article from 2012 which cites a Sports Illustrated poll from that same year in which 50 pros were asked which major they most wanted to win; the results were Masters 50%, British Open 25%, US Open 23%, PGA Championship 2%. And then there's this Golf Digest article from 2020 in which 46 pros were asked the same question, and they said Masters 77%, British Open 16%, US Open 7%, PGA Championship 0%. (Now I really want to know which clown picked the PGA a decade ago...)

I don't think that necessarily proves that the Masters is head and shoulders above the other majors in terms of prestige - it could be that most of these golfers prefer Masters by a fairly narrow margin. But the numbers are still pretty eye-popping to me, because in writing my previous post on this subject I was recalling a Golf Digest survey from I think back in the 1990s that always stayed with me (that's where I remember Nicklaus saying the Masters was 4th in his list): that article listed a bunch of individual players' rankings of the four majors (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), and they were really quite varied. So I do wonder if I was wrong to challenge to @cornwalls@6's original hypothesis - and if so, I wonder how much of the current preference for the Masters is down to Tiger's dominance of the tournament in the era where so many of today's pros thought of Tiger as their idol and role model.

Anyway, apologies for the digression.
My guess was close, whiffed on the Open Championship. That is interesting. And I personally do think that means the Masters is the most prestigious. If the actual golfers feel that way, I won't argue.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
The Masters is the hardest to gain entry, easiest to win.

I think ANGC is an interesting lynchpin in this LIV stuff. They have a lot of power. The tournament is an invitational so ANGC can really do whatever they want. Would ANGC banning otherwise qualified LIV players be enough for guys on the fence to side with the PGA Tour? On the flip side, removing DJ, Bryson and any other top players diminishes the prestige of the tournament. I'm not sure what ANGC will do, but it's definitely something to keep an eye on.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,130
FWIW, I rummaged around and found a Forbes article from 2012 which cites a Sports Illustrated poll from that same year in which 50 pros were asked which major they most wanted to win; the results were Masters 50%, British Open 25%, US Open 23%, PGA Championship 2%. And then there's this Golf Digest article from 2020 in which 46 pros were asked the same question, and they said Masters 77%, British Open 16%, US Open 7%, PGA Championship 0%. (Now I really want to know which clown picked the PGA a decade ago...)

I don't think that necessarily proves that the Masters is head and shoulders above the other majors in terms of prestige - it could be that most of these golfers prefer Masters by a fairly narrow margin. But the numbers are still pretty eye-popping to me, because in writing my previous post on this subject I was recalling a Golf Digest survey from I think back in the 1990s that always stayed with me (that's where I remember Nicklaus saying the Masters was 4th in his list): that article listed a bunch of individual players' rankings of the four majors (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), and they were really quite varied. So I do wonder if I was wrong to challenge to @cornwalls@6's original hypothesis - and if so, I wonder how much of the current preference for the Masters is down to Tiger's dominance of the tournament in the era where so many of today's pros thought of Tiger as their idol and role model.

Anyway, apologies for the digression.
I wonder if there's a tilt toward the Masters by those who haven't won one yet. Nicklaus, OTOH, can pick and choose his favorite from among all of them with no such concerns.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,130
The Masters is the hardest to gain entry, easiest to win.

I think ANGC is an interesting lynchpin in this LIV stuff. They have a lot of power. The tournament is an invitational so ANGC can really do whatever they want. Would ANGC banning otherwise qualified LIV players be enough for guys on the fence to side with the PGA Tour? On the flip side, removing DJ, Bryson and any other top players diminishes the prestige of the tournament. I'm not sure what ANGC will do, but it's definitely something to keep an eye on.
ANGC basically told Arnie and other oldsters to stop coming. I think it's pretty confident in its power.
 

Plantiers Wart

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 16, 2002
3,963
west hartford
FWIW, I rummaged around and found a Forbes article from 2012 which cites a Sports Illustrated poll from that same year in which 50 pros were asked which major they most wanted to win; the results were Masters 50%, British Open 25%, US Open 23%, PGA Championship 2%. And then there's this Golf Digest article from 2020 in which 46 pros were asked the same question, and they said Masters 77%, British Open 16%, US Open 7%, PGA Championship 0%. (Now I really want to know which clown picked the PGA a decade ago...)

I don't think that necessarily proves that the Masters is head and shoulders above the other majors in terms of prestige - it could be that most of these golfers prefer Masters by a fairly narrow margin. But the numbers are still pretty eye-popping to me, because in writing my previous post on this subject I was recalling a Golf Digest survey from I think back in the 1990s that always stayed with me (that's where I remember Nicklaus saying the Masters was 4th in his list): that article listed a bunch of individual players' rankings of the four majors (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), and they were really quite varied. So I do wonder if I was wrong to challenge to @cornwalls@6's original hypothesis - and if so, I wonder how much of the current preference for the Masters is down to Tiger's dominance of the tournament in the era where so many of today's pros thought of Tiger as their idol and role model.

Anyway, apologies for the digression.
Someone who needs only the PGA for the career slam, or someone really tied to a teaching pro - a kid, etc....
 

Zomp

Dope
Dope
Aug 28, 2006
13,396
The Slums of Shaolin
Shipnuck tweeted he was physically removed from Phil’s press conference.

I watched a little of it but I’ll go against the grain and say I don’t like the team format. I don’t know. Golf to watch is better than no golf to watch but I guess I’m a traditionalist.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
10,749
The Coney Island of my mind
Shipnuck tweeted he was physically removed from Phil’s press conference.

I watched a little of it but I’ll go against the grain and say I don’t like the team format. I don’t know. Golf to watch is better than no golf to watch but I guess I’m a traditionalist.
The team idea might be more compelling if the teams were stable from event to event, but this is just choosing up sides for a dodge ball game in gym class. Guess it gives the books something elso to offer to the gamblers, though.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,573
Someone who needs only the PGA for the career slam, or someone really tied to a teaching pro - a kid, etc....
my guess is someone a little different who had only won the PGA Championship and was trying to make it seem extra special.

Keegan Bradley.

edit to be fair if I had *only* won the Wannamaker I’d be telling everyone it was really the biggest tournament.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,496
How will world rankings be impacted by LIV? It would be like having power rankings that include the NFL and CFL (kinda).
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
How will world rankings be impacted by LIV? It would be like having power rankings that include the NFL and CFL (kinda).
Well, they kind of already do this. The OWGR aren't a PGA Tour eclusive. It is an independent organization that ranks all professional players in the world regardless of Tour. Essentially, players earn points based on their finishes in tournaments. The total points accumulated by a player is divided by the number of tournaments the player played (or a minimum divisor) and that average is what determines the rankings. Tournaments are weighted by strength of field. Majors are worth the most. PGA Tour events are weighted more heavily than the DP World Tour, Asian Tour, Korn Ferry Tour, Sunshine Tour etc. The weight/points available for each tournament depends on the individual players playing, it's not just X amount for a PGA Tour, Y for DP World Tour.

LIV has applied for membershop to OWGR. It's a really important piece for the players because being in the top 50 of the OWGR is what gains entry into the majors. If OWGR doesn't accept LIV, then all the players on will fade out of the top 50 quickly and basically have no avenue to play in the Masters or PGA Championship. Obviously both Opens still have Open qualifying so they could do that.

I don't see why they would be rejected. If they get it, then it's a matter of weighting the fields. The stronger the players they get initially, the stronger the fields will be. If the fields continue to be shitty, like this week, then the tournaments won't be worth much and it'll be very difficult to reach the top 50 and stay there. Currently, it's possible to reach the top 50 in the OWGR playing outside the PGA Tour but I can't really recall a player having top 50 staying power without at least some starts on the PGA Tour.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,931
Arvada, Co
Well, they kind of already do this. The OWGR aren't a PGA Tour eclusive. It is an independent organization that ranks all professional players in the world regardless of Tour. Essentially, players earn points based on their finishes in tournaments. The total points accumulated by a player is divided by the number of tournaments the player played (or a minimum divisor) and that average is what determines the rankings. Tournaments are weighted by strength of field. Majors are worth the most. PGA Tour events are weighted more heavily than the DP World Tour, Asian Tour, Korn Ferry Tour, Sunshine Tour etc. The weight/points available for each tournament depends on the individual players playing, it's not just X amount for a PGA Tour, Y for DP World Tour.

LIV has applied for membershop to OWGR. It's a really important piece for the players because being in the top 50 of the OWGR is what gains entry into the majors. If OWGR doesn't accept LIV, then all the players on will fade out of the top 50 quickly and basically have no avenue to play in the Masters or PGA Championship. Obviously both Opens still have Open qualifying so they could do that.

I don't see why they would be rejected. If they get it, then it's a matter of weighting the fields. The stronger the players they get initially, the stronger the fields will be. If the fields continue to be shitty, like this week, then the tournaments won't be worth much and it'll be very difficult to reach the top 50 and stay there. Currently, it's possible to reach the top 50 in the OWGR playing outside the PGA Tour but I can't really recall a player having top 50 staying power without at least some starts on the PGA Tour.
I believe they would gain entry to OWGR by way of the Asian Tour, but there's not really a points system for the full Asian Tour and 54 hole events. If they get the same points as the other 54 hole tours then none of them have a chance at the top 50. That's without considering that the strength of field in these LIV events is going to be really, really bad and continue to get worse as time goes on and their world rankings continue to diminish.

Official World Golf Ranking - History (owgr.com)
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,319
San Diego, CA
Chamblee doesn’t disappoint here.


View: https://youtu.be/1ee7xY0dQ7k
The sanctimoniousness there is really something

Is it ok if I just don't care either way? On the one hand he's absolutely right (the Saudis are terrible people and are absolutely trying to bribe their way into legitimacy and public opinion), on the other hand no-one seems to give half a shit that the CEO of Exxon or Shell is making a ton of $ from working with the Saudis, so why are golfers this unique and upstanding group that we need to turn to to uphold our collective moral character?
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
37,323
The sanctimoniousness there is really something

Is it ok if I just don't care either way? On the one hand he's absolutely right (the Saudis are terrible people and are absolutely trying to bribe their way into legitimacy and public opinion), on the other hand no-one seems to give half a shit that the CEO of Exxon or Shell is making a ton of $ from working with the Saudis, so why are golfers this unique and upstanding group that we need to turn to to uphold our collective moral character?
Mostly, because nobody buys tickets to go and root for oil companies. They are a necessary evil. These players turning their backs on the tour and its fans will have a completely different impact, not to mention the fact that we have a bunch of uber-wealthy people deciding to take money from a bunch of assholes who don't even pay lip service to human rights.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
76,410
Oregon
So, LIV has made a big deal of the shotgun start. That would seem to imply that the max field for a LIV event is 72. If there's a sudden rush of players going that pushes them past that number, what happens?
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
So, LIV has made a big deal of the shotgun start. That would seem to imply that the max field for a LIV event is 72. If there's a sudden rush of players going that pushes them past that number, what happens?
I believe they play on the Asian Tour.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
31,457
306, row 14
I think the plan is to keep fiels at 48 players since that's 12 teams of 4. Obviously they'll have a larger player pool as they grow. Captains will choose a lineup for each event and then the players not in the LIV lineup can play the Asian Tour. I may be wrong, the formats have been a moving target, but that's how I've understood things.