Bettors: The Annual Call For Unionizing PGA Tour!

I took over July 1 and based on Rex Hoggard's posting, I have a claim ticket to cash in!

What remains to be seen is how the new rule impacts play on Tour – most players didn’t think there will be a drastic adjustment but few have actually tested wedges with the new grooves – and how players will react to having their opinions brushed aside by the Tour.

“If Tim wanted a union, he’s got one now,” said one player who noted that a healthy cross section of the Tour was in favor of delaying the rule one year.

Of all the reasons to form a union and open up the books, this is the topic that got some guys worked up? Really?

"Over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch"

After giving a remarkably cogent explanation of the groove rule history--really, not jargon!--Commissioner Tim Finchem was asked this interesting question:

Q. Tim, the only manufacturing company that has objected publicly to the reinstitution of the V-grooves has been a golf ball company so far. Do you have any research indicating that the adoption of the V-grooves will somehow impact the performance of golf balls and therefore affect golf ball companies?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: With respect to companies, I've spent a lot of time talking to manufacturers as you might suspect over the last six weeks. They have different opinions among them on different aspects of the rule and equipment and where it should go and all those things.

You know, all I know is that with this change you're not going to be able to spin the ball as much out of the rough. There's some assumptions that players will as a result, maybe, in some instances, look for a ball that spins more generally. That's not necessarily the case in my view, but it's possible.

With respect to the manufacturer that objected, they were a party that recommended the delay. We looked at the request based on whether or not -- because one of the arguments made was there's not enough time to make the transition, and we primarily were looking at it from that perspective.

We also looked at it from the perspective of the timeline and the fairness issue of delaying after individuals and entities and companies had spent time, energy and resources reacting to the timeline. That was a major concern.

But in terms of how it develops, you know, that's something the players will sort out as they pick up the equipment. They go practice with it and then they make the adjustments that they feel like they need to.

Q. So just real quick, nobody presented you with any research indicating that there would be an impact on a specific golf ball product?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: No, no.

Hmmm...

This was particularly encouraging, but also in an peculiar roundabout way, an admission that course setup took on Draconian measures in response to technology changes:

Q. One more on grooves. Yesterday you said one of the challenges is the qualifiers and that you may look at possibly different rules for that. USGA and R & A are also looking at that. Are you likely to act in lockstep with them or will you act independently regarding rules on qualifiers? And on a different note, do you see with the new groove being implemented next year that course setups may evolve, possibly pin placements get a little more accessible?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Let me answer the second question first because it's more fun. Yes, we do. We have changed our rough heights this year at a number of golf courses and did some fairly meticulous analysis of what happened when we brought those rough heights down a little bit compared to earlier years, and the reason we did that was to set the stage for now measuring what happens on those same golf courses when we shift grooves.

So this will be a -- you're not going to see us revolutionize our setup the first month next year, but over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch from a variety of perspectives, and that would be helpful to us. So we're going to be -- we have more people, more energy, we have this wonderful ShotLink program that tells us everything, so we're going to really, I think, enjoy the process of doing some things differently and playing around with it.

PGA Tour Drug Testing Exposes Severe Performance Anxiety Issues

The buried lede in Leonard Shapiro's analysis of Tim Finchem's drug testing remarks was not this statement--"We may have had some test results that trouble us in other areas that we treat in a different bucket"--no, it's what Jim Furyk revealed.

He said he'd been tested at least three times during the last year, and the only problem with the program was that some players were initially unable to provide urine samples after they completed their rounds and were told they were being tested.

"I guess it's kind of humorous that some guys have had a hard time producing a sample," he said. "Guys have said 'I couldn't go, it took me two hours,' or guys have said, 'There were five people in front of me, so it took a long time.' But I haven't heard anyone really complaining other than the amount of time it takes."

They're human! Guys who can hit a little white ball 300 yards with ease as millions look on sometimes can't produce in front of five lab-coated scientists. I feel so much better about that time when I was 13 at Pauley Pavillion, and they only have two urinals in the entire freakin building and well, we won't go there.

By the way...five people? Really? No wonder this program costs so bloody much.

Here's what Finchem said when pressed about his distinction between no positive test results for one class of drugs.

Q. I just want to confirm, so you're saying there have been no positive tests, either recreational or performance enhancing --

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I didn't say that. I said we have had no positive tests with respect to performance enhancing. We may have had some test results that trouble us in other areas that we treat in a different bucket. But we don't publicize those. We treat those as conduct unbecoming.

We may in those instances -- I'm not saying this has happened or not, I'm just saying what the process is. If we get a test like that, we will consider it conduct unbecoming, and what are our choices? We can suspend a player, we can fine a player, we can do both of those and put a player into treatment. We could also add to that regular testing.

As I said last year, we have three kinds of testing. We have random testing, we have selective testing. That means we decide to test you because you haven't been tested for whatever reason. It's not random anymore. We're selecting you. And then we have regular testing. We have reason to believe that a player may be using an illegal substance or may have a substance problem and he's in a program and we want to test him. Or a player is playing under a TUE where he's allowed to have certain levels of a substance and we just test him on a regular basis because we want to make sure we get him the TUE, but you've got to play by the rules. So it takes on different forms.

With respect to conduct unbecoming, we don't announce that. With respect to performance enhancing, we would be announcing that.

Q. You can't confirm for us then that there has been any positive testing?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I wouldn't say yes or no to that, no. I'll say this: We don't have a problem in that area.

Got that?

How Finchem Got The Grooves Back

The grooves coverage features several intriguing tidbits.

Mike Stachura writing for GolfDigest.com, writing about industry reaction:

Others in the industry see no cause for alarm, however.

"We're very happy they took the decision to move forward," said Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer at TaylorMade. "The USGA had a pretty set schedule, and we have been working to develop solutions within the new rule, so there was no rational reason for us to want to postpone implementation for a year."

E. Michael Johnson talks to players and gets their take on how this will play out, including this from Ping man Ted Purdy, who is about to take delivery on conforming wedges that Ping didn't want to make:

"The game is hard as it is, to make it harder doesn't make a lot of sense to me," he said. "I think people want to see excitement. We'll evolve and we'll be fine and there will be great scores and great shots being hit. But I don't think this was the will of the majority of the players."

Golf.com's Rob Sauerhaft reminds us all that this will have little impact on the everyday game for some time.

How will the rule affect amateur and "casual" golfers? First, equipment companies can continue to sell current models with U-grooves through the end of 2010. Beyond that, the new regulation on conforming grooves will take effect for high-level amateurs in 2014 and for "casual" players in 2024.

That didn't stop Jeff Rude from complaining that this rule change is cruel to the average golfer. They're taking away their Oxycontin! (In 2024.)

If the PGA Tour wants to have its players use smaller-groove irons and wedges, fine. But leave the recreational golfer alone.

Isn’t the game hard and long enough? We’re going to make it harder for the masses in a few years (elite amateurs in 2014, the rest in 2024)? Doesn’t golf already have a difficult time keeping recreational players in the game? Isn’t the game hurting in most corners?

The theory is that reduction of the size of the current U-grooves and the sharpness of their edges would make playing from rough more difficult and, in turn, put a greater premium on driving accuracy and shotmaking.

That’s fine for the Tour, but not for you and me. We play for enjoyment (and today’s equipment makes the game more enjoyable than ever for the garden-variety amateur).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

"Exactly why the board decided to let Finchem make the call remains, for the moment, unclear."

Steve Elling on the PGA Tour's Policy Board Tim Finchem's groove call:

It will be interesting hearing the four players who have seats on the board explain what happened at the meeting, but at minimum, it removed them from a potentially uncomfortable situation – the players have endorsement deals with manufacturers, which might have created a conflict of interest.

And The PGA Tour's Groove Rule Verdict Is...

...they are going ahead with the 2010 "condition of competition." Victory for USGA, Finchem, rough mowers. Finchem conference call highlights:

"full and thorough discussion on delaying, reaffirmation of general support for rule, some issues with the enacting date"

"the board finished discussion by continuing the history policy of using condition of competition, our intention to move ahead January 1, 2010"

"full court press" to make sure every player is paying attention to what he has to do, working with his manufacturer, to be prepared

"some challenges"

"Delaying at this point in time was not in our overall best interest"

"continues to be wide support for rule itself"

Ferguson asks: why in best overall interest? Finchem: "late in the process"

"Board did not take action" according to Finchem. Means no vote was taken, left up to the Commissioner.

Update on 2009-06-30 18:06 by Geoff

Here's the transcript.

Finchem Teleconference Scheduled

Just reading between the lines here, but I'd say someone is pretty confident that he has the votes to uphold the new groove condition of competition. Otherwise, why schedule a highly unusual media teleconference to talk about just another policy board meeting?

TELECONFERENCE:
PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem, Policy Board update

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL June 29, 2009

Members of the media are invited to take part in a teleconference with PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem on Tuesday, June 30, during which he will provide an update from that morning’s PGA TOUR Policy Board meeting.

Date:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Time:
12 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Groovy Goings On...

...assuming you like tales of big egos, big money and big power plays.

The PGA Tour Policy Board votes Tuesday whether to adopt the 2010 condition of competition requiring the use of new grooves. As Alex Miceli reported Friday, three of four player votes are likely going to say no to adopting the condition for January play.

That means in order to uphold the PGA Tour's original stance in support of the USGA/R&A groove spec change, the five non-player policy board reps would have to overrule the player directors. Most insiders believe this has never occurred in the history of the policy board.

Because it's Congressional week and I try not to contemplate the idea of watching golf played there, let's consider the possible votes and ensuing fallout should the policy board postpone the implementation until 2011:

• Postponement would be a hit to Tim Finchem's perceived power or at least, the assumption that he has control of the policy board. Finchem has made several public statements in support of the groove change. Having to spin a reversal at this late date will test Ponte Vedra's For Immediate Release wordsmiths.

• A blow to the USGA/R&A. For obvious reasons. They'll have to retreat from their 2010 implementation at the U.S. Open and can expect to face a full assault, and perhaps even legal action. Bomb and Gouge summed it up better than I in this post.

• Postponement would be a major victory for Titleist and Wally Uihlein. Several players have told me that master wedge designer Bob Vokey has not yet come up with a replacement groove configuration to his and Titleist's liking. Couple that ongoing research with Acushnet not feeling it will have enough time to properly develop a ball they believe is to their standards and soft enough to satisfy players who would be shifting to less-helpful grooves come January, and you begin to understand why this has become an issue (and why there was Ian Poulter's recent Twitter whining).

• Postponement could be a major blow to the image of PGA Tour pros depending on how it's spun. Shoot, some have already likened this to golf's version of steroids. If the players need more time to prepare for the changeover, I think they'll be shocked at the apathy and even hostility they face from serious golf fans. Media types have been asking since last fall what players were doing to prepare and most had not given the subject any thought. Curiously, the Nike guys seem very prepared and many of the more thoughtful players have done their homework. (Cink here, Woods here, Immelman/Mickelson/Furyk here, Ogilvy here.)

• Tough questions would be raised about the policy board's motives. The three players leaning toward a no vote all play the Titleist ball. Ironically, all three stand to benefit from the rule change based on the USGA's theory of forcing a softer ball into the hands of players. David Toms, Brad Faxon and Zach Johnson aren't the longest hitters in the world but all are respected for shotmaking and short game prowess. They will be expected to make convincing arguments about the strength of the USGA's research and implementation if they hope to deflect inevitable criticism. Doable, but also a lot of headache and annoyance they don't need.

• A huge setback for the new groove configuration. Many behind-the-scenes types roll their eyes at this latest chapter in the grooves saga because they insist that the policy board would only be postponing the inevitable. I don't agree. This is bifurcation and I've never understood how the manufacturers would allow this precedent to be set without a fight. We discussed this several times (including here, here). If the board postpones, I predict that over the next year we will see the USGA's research scrutinized, attacked and we'll witness an all-out PR assault on the decision. You'll hear questions--some very legitimate--about just how many players were interviewed, how many were involved in testing, how wet newspaper shreddings simulate rough, how bifurcation is good for the sport and how exactly the USGA concluded that driving accuracy declined because of grooves instead of say, 22 yard wide landing areas.

If the board adopts the condition of the competition, it's a clear victory for Finchem, the USGA, R&A and fans of the flyer lie. Consider how many golf courses and tournaments were already improved this year by having less rough in anticipation of the rule change (along with common sense kicking in). More of that starting in 2010 is good for the PGA Tour, even better if the less-rough mentality filters down to the everyday game.

If you are in favor of regulating distance for the safety, function and interest of golf architecture, you have to love the equipment rollback precedent set by the groove rule change. But big money is at stake here and I'd be shocked if certain manufacturers go quietly.

At least after Tuesday night we'll know who the most powerful man in golf is.

"Because some of the comments that were made, they were isolated on a very narrow part of the value equation."

Looks like National Golf Day was a success since there seems to be a pretty consistent use in reporting (here and here) of the economic and charity numbers tied to golf, which are staggering. Even if you cut them in half.

Tim Finchem sat down with good buddy Greg Norman and Fred Couples for a President's Cup press conference. But there was this question about the lobbying effort.

The morning was a breakfast about the First Tee primarily, but it kicked off us going out and talking to members and the basic message is reminding members that golf is an industry of $75 billion, $76 billion. You put it in these terms: It's the equivalent of the motion picture and publishing industry combined, and that goes for revenue, jobs and overall economic impact. That's part one.

And part two is the professional side of the game, the significance, which includes sponsor tournaments has a $3.6 billion impact and raised $124 million for charity. We are integrated into communities to raise money for charity.

Warning, new v-word usage coming:

Most of the reaction I get from members of Congress is they recognize the value of corporate sponsorship in sports marketing generally, and particularly, with the PGA TOUR which is 100 percent organized for charitable purposes, and we have always got a good response from members on that subject and we certainly are getting a good response now.

But what happened a couple of months ago taught us a lesson that this is something that needs to be reaffirmed on a regular basis with members so they have that as a backdrop before public commentary is made. Because some of the comments that were made, they were isolated on a very narrow part of the value equation. Whether you're going have a dinner and have some musical entertainment, I think it's a very subjective thing. Whether you or I might go to a dinner that has Sheryl Crow playing, you might think it's lavish; I probably wouldn't, but then that's my opinion.

Poor Sheryl. But Commish, she opened for the Stones. Your band!

Heinrik!

Reader David reported that Commissioner Finchem bungled Henrik Stenson's name during the trophy ceremony. Since Kenny G was not part of the proceedings, I didn't pay attention. Turns out, David heard right, as Lulu McGrew reports:

Hey, did anyone else catch the PGA Tour Commish, Timothy Finchem mispronounce Stenson’s name at the trophy presentation? He called him Heinrik…twice. This is not the first time that Stevenson…er, I mean, Stenson has dealt with his name being mangled. It is one of the easier names out there, sounding just like it written. How do you think he was have pronounced Cejka’s name?

Actually, it was Cejka's fault. Finchem was up late the night before practicing his German and he just never recovered from that.

Writers Infiltrates PGA Tour Headquarters; Finds No Sign Of Duplicitous Behavior

Thomas Bonk gained entry into the west wing of PGA Tour headquarters where Tim Finchem and most of the vice presidential army pushes paper crafts arfully worded memos and religiously reads GeoffShackelford.com (#1 in city in Florida, four months running!) PGATOUR.com.

Inside the West Building is where you find Finchem's office, down a carpeted hallway, past a flotilla of dark brown wooden office furniture and rows of metal cabinets. Photographs of smiling players cover the beige walls.

The green-carpeted Executive Suite is the biggest office in the building, as it probably should be. At the end near the window, two sofas and two chairs surround a coffee table. And at the other end of the office, Finchem's horseshoe-shaped wooden desk fronts a phalanx of six chairs that face him.

Is that one chair for every VP making over $1 million?

There are two computers on the credenza. A huge, flat screen television hugs on the wall. An armoire rests against the opposite wall, a striped dress shirt hanging on the outside.

Besides dozens of golf clubs leaning against the wall, other mementos are all around, most prominent among them a couple of dozen photographs of Finchem with presidents and golf's elite. There are also golf bags from four past Presidents Cup events -- a Finchem invention, just like the three-year-old FedEx Cup.

From the looks of things, Finchem runs a buttoned-down ship, at least judging from the buttoned-down dress shirts that are part of the dress code. Ties are required, except this week, because it's tournament time. But even on casual Fridays, golf shirts aren't allowed. Finchem walked in at a brisk pace. He was wearing a red golf shirt (Dress codes aren't for commissioners).

In all seriousness, I finally figured out how to look like an important tour staffer: Carry leather "padfolio" under arm, light blue oxford, dark slacks, designer shades. You can gain entry anywhere on the property with that look. Anywhere!