|
|
Post by HappyFan on Feb 29, 2016 7:11:36 GMT
This is true, but allow me my regular rant about how stupid it is. If you get a sponsor's exemption and have a card, you still have to play well enough to make it worth your while. If you are getting the invite because you have a cute smile and little talent, you won't earn enough money to make a difference; but if you play really well, and after all, they are counting POY, ROY points, etc., why should you also get official money counted towards your total? You are also making the sponsor happy by accepting the invite, so why should the LPGA discourage you from accepting the invite by not counting the money? Just a lame system IMO. I agree with your sentiment, but it's what is. Let's look at it a little differently though. The $149,262.00 is real money, it's probably enough to pay for Dr. Won Park's travel expenses for 2016. The only thing official money makes a difference is in determining In Gee's exemption priority for 2017 and in deciding her ranking for 2016 Race to CME Global tournament. So, if In Gee finishes 2016 with an official money of $3,000,000.00; then $149,262.00 she forfeited doesn't make a dent. If she finishes with $200,000.00, then $149,262.00 will be a matter life and death. I hope In Gee will finish 2016 closer to $3,000,000.00 than to $200,000.00. On the other hand; the Rolex Ranking, POY and ROY points she gets are something money can't buy. Not so much for In Gee, but for someone like Cheyenne Woods, if she were to get an exemption and actually finish that far above her ranking, it really might make the difference between a card or none. And it's not like it was a gift: she may not have to deal with a cut, but she does have to perform well against a tough field in an unfamiliar place to produce a finish like that. Why not reward her with the money? When the LPGA says it doesn't count, a player has to decide: do I want to play that event, or rest and play a different event where my finish will count towards my money? Thus, the LPGA is subtly telling the player not to accept the sponsor's invite, which is a knock against what the sponsor wants. Not the stupidest rule in the LPGA book, but one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Feb 29, 2016 8:28:36 GMT
When the LPGA says it doesn't count, a player has to decide: do I want to play that event, or rest and play a different event where my finish will count towards my money? Thus, the LPGA is subtly telling the player not to accept the sponsor's invite, which is a knock against what the sponsor wants. Not the stupidest rule in the LPGA book, but one of them. What is there to decide for a lower ranked pro(which is usually an sponsor invite goes to) ? It is money in the bank, and all expense paid. And if she really want to go cheap, just hire a local caddie. Rest is something for the Lydia Kos and the Queen Bee's. Low rank pro needs every penny they can get. Last year someone shot 85 (I think it was Rosales) , freaking 85 !!! And she got a check. |
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Feb 29, 2016 8:53:49 GMT
This LPGA rule of not counting sponsor invite money on no cut event is the fairest thing to do.
Take Cheyenne Woods as an example. We all know why she got all those invites,most likely not because of her golf.
Last year she played in Thailand and Malaysia on sponsor invites while she was fighting for her tour card. She ended up having to go back to Q school.
HAD those money counted, she might not have to go to Q school. Then how is it fair to those players who DID NOT get the invites and finished behind her in the money list and as a result, had to go to Q school??
|
|
|
|
Post by HappyFan on Feb 29, 2016 17:23:18 GMT
This LPGA rule of not counting sponsor invite money on no cut event is the fairest thing to do. Take Cheyenne Woods as an example. We all know why she got all those invites,most likely not because of her golf. Last year she played in Thailand and Malaysia on sponsor invites while she was fighting for her tour card. She ended up having to go back to Q school. HAD those money counted, she might not have to go to Q school. Then how is it fair to those players who DID NOT get the invites and finished behind her in the money list and as a result, had to go to Q school?? Yet the money would count if she was invited to a tournament with a cut. My point is, if she plays well enough to get a second place, like In Gee did, the cut is immaterial, she would make money either way. Yet her money would be counted in America, but not in an Asian event. She earned that money by playing so well and should get the credit. And if she doesn't play that well, she may cash a check, but it is not likely to be the tipping point in her season in terms of earning a card anyway. So count it. And if it IS that important to earning a card, then reduce the number of sponsors invites one can have. I have always thought six was too many. Return it to the pre-Wie two invites/year. |
|
|
|
Post by mr3putt on Feb 29, 2016 18:41:10 GMT
What...Whan's not taking your calls? Huh...the LPGA office picks up calls on Sunday....I assume Jennifer is the high school intern who designed the blue on blue website....lol. I bet the LPGA gets a lot of free child labor....lots of people want to get into the golf industry...it wouldn't surprise me that the LPGA has 10-20 free interns at any point in time. mr.3putt...... That was me who said that I spoke to Jennifer not HappyFan. The thread does look a bit confusing. I don't know if the LPGA takes calls on Sunday at their offices, but when I need info I call their cell numbers. Tony: I knew it was you and not Happyfan.....Happy wouldn't call the LPGA...never mind on a Sunday....lol.  |
|
|
|
Post by fourwaymiss on Feb 29, 2016 20:15:31 GMT
This LPGA rule of not counting sponsor invite money on no cut event is the fairest thing to do. Take Cheyenne Woods as an example. We all know why she got all those invites,most likely not because of her golf. Last year she played in Thailand and Malaysia on sponsor invites while she was fighting for her tour card. She ended up having to go back to Q school. HAD those money counted, she might not have to go to Q school. Then how is it fair to those players who DID NOT get the invites and finished behind her in the money list and as a result, had to go to Q school?? Yet the money would count if she was invited to a tournament with a cut. My point is, if she plays well enough to get a second place, like In Gee did, the cut is immaterial, she would make money either way. Yet her money would be counted in America, but not in an Asian event. She earned that money by playing so well and should get the credit. And if she doesn't play that well, she may cash a check, but it is not likely to be the tipping point in her season in terms of earning a card anyway. So count it. And if it IS that important to earning a card, then reduce the number of sponsors invites one can have. I have always thought six was too many. Return it to the pre-Wie two invites/year. Fair point. If it is up to me, no money earned from sponsor invite should be counted as official money. Period. No cut or full field event. But you can also argue that in full fields event, at least you have to beat half of the field to earn money, versus in a no cut event, all you need is showing up , shoot 85 and deposit the check. Dumbo earned her money by playing well, so she can keep it. But she did not EARN HER PLACE in the field, that's why her money should not be counted on the official money list. POY or ROY points are ok . Since those do not involve the "livelihood" of other players. |
|
|
|
Post by arthur on Feb 29, 2016 23:25:45 GMT
The reason (in my opinion) for getting no official money in no cut events is because of the reshuffle. Any player on the priority list with one sponsor's invite at a no cut event would get official money. After the reshuffle they will get category 15 status and qualify for almost all full field events for the rest of the year.
A better rule might be to count official money in no cut events from a sponsor invite but only if you place T30 or better so you still have to beat at least half the field.
|
|
