Masters Qualifying Tournament?

[GolfSpy_APH]

https://www.si.com/golf/news/the-masters-should-have-its-own-qualifying-tournament

Okay I haven't read the article, but just the title got me thinking. 

They already stand alone as the only major to only be at one course. They have so many of their own rules and traditions that this is one tournament it could be possible at.

What do you think?

[jaskanski]

I don't get it. The Masters already has it's own qualifying criteria through varoius other avenues, why would another 'qualifying' tournament be necessary?

[FrogginBullfish]

1 hour ago, jaskanski said:

I don't get it. The Masters already has it's own qualifying criteria through varoius other avenues, why would another 'qualifying' tournament be necessary?

To give more players the opportunity to play. The Masters has by far the smallest field of any major in golf and a number of players in the field are past champions that are past their competitive days. I think we're on pace for the smallest Masters field this year in some time. 

[jaskanski]

9 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

To give more players the opportunity to play. The Masters has by far the smallest field of any major in golf and a number of players in the field are past champions that are past their competitive days. I think we're on pace for the smallest Masters field this year in some time. 

Like I said - players already have numerous other opportunities to qualify for the Masters - namely winning other events being the primary criteria. The whole point of the Masters is not to give more players more opportunities - it's to give the select few who have been proven to be successful the chance to play against their peers for a 'champion of champions' title. Hence the title 'Masters'. It's also important to remember the Masters is technically a Tournament rather than a Championship.

'A champion is someone who has won the first prize in a competition , contest , or fight . [...] A tournament is a sports competition in which players who win a match continue to play further matches in the competition until just one person or team is left'

Edited January 4 by jaskanski

[GolfSpy_APH]

17 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Like I said - players already have numerous other opportunities to qualify for the Masters - namely winning other events being the primary criteria. The whole point of the Masters is not to give more players more opportunities - it's to give the select few who have been proven to be successful the chance to play against their peers for a 'champion of champions' title. Hence the title 'Masters'. It's also important to remember the Masters is technically a Tournament rather than a Championship.

'A champion is someone who has won the first prize in a competition , contest , or fight . [...] A tournament is a sports competition in which players who win a match continue to play further matches in the competition until just one person or team is left'

Think you are taking this hypothetical too literally. 

The field this year at the Masters is going to be super small. Sure that could be something that is fine and with no apparent downside. It is exclusive, but what if there was a way to have a set minimum. Again this is all just for fun and a hypothetical. 

All the other Majors have pretty decent fields (yes I know some are called Opens before you go there), but would ensuring a minimum field size be such a bad thing? Especially if it went through a play in tournament of sorts run by Augusta? I'm not sure about many, but at least personally I would be more interested in watching that then many of the regular tour events as there is a real prize at the end. They could also make it more entertaining by tweaking formats and going to a match play. Have 8 or 10 spots available have then have 16 or 20 golfers going head to head for a spot at the masters? 

Of course there is history and tradition entrenched into the game of golf, but at the end of the day it is an entertainment product. This would fit that mold better than most of being a great entertaining event (not to mention it would close the mouths of LIV critics that want to see several of those players have a chance at playing in the masters). 

[jaskanski]

Good point, but I guess it's up to the organisers at ANGC who they want to invite. LIV winners would be a good shout, but Rory's tears from whining would be enough to fill Rae's Creek I fear.

[cnosil]

Seems to me that this just may be showing that the masters really isn’t that great of a tournament and may not be worthy of being considered a major.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Seems to me that this just may be showing that the masters really isn’t that great of a tournament and may not be worthy of being considered a major.  

 

[Preeway]

In theory, I would be against adding a qualifying event. I do think the Masters needs to find a way to keep the field competitive but size isn’t the only measure. With the world rankings now being wonky with LIV, something probably needs to give in order for the Masters to retain its relevance in the grand scheme of things. 

[Fore67]

For year's now, the Masters has been the weakest field of any major. The criteria for getting into the tournament is the most restrictive (other than the former Sentry Champion of Champions). Former Masters winners get to play in the event as long as they like (some, far too long). Yes, the Masters is steeped in tradition. All those old fogeys are stuck in the time of Nicklaus, Player and Palmer still. The board will have to figure out a way to shake up the invite criteria and a play-in tourney could certainly fit the bill. Hard to say what changes would set the Masters up to be one of the better majors but I certainly agree that something needs to change.

Mike

 

[ebaileymershon]

Televised professional golf is dying on the vine. It is their tournament, an exclusive membership inviting who it wants. Are sponsors chaffing? Would be surprised if we hear. Imagine if ANGC let Masters coverage out for bid. Or CBS let contract lapse.  ANGC will do what’s in their best interests. 
 

There are 2 Open championships that provide fairness and meritocracy. 
 

 

[Preeway]

1 hour ago, Fore67 said:

For year's now, the Masters has been the weakest field of any major. The criteria for getting into the tournament is the most restrictive (other than the former Sentry Champion of Champions). Former Masters winners get to play in the event as long as they like (some, far too long). Yes, the Masters is steeped in tradition. All those old fogeys are stuck in the time of Nicklaus, Player and Palmer still. The board will have to figure out a way to shake up the invite criteria and a play-in tourney could certainly fit the bill. Hard to say what changes would set the Masters up to be one of the better majors but I certainly agree that something needs to change.

Mike

 

Weak field? Not sure I agree but the field has definitely been missing a few people capable of making for a better tournament. I think the Top 50 and past champion approach, along with a handful of tournament winners thrown in for good measure, is past its prime. I know nothing will change this year but something needs to give soon. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/is-it-time-for-the-masters-field-to-expand/ - A very timely article given this discussion!

 

[KC Golf]

I may be an outlier, but I like the unique aspects of the Masters. So I don’t think they should change a thing.  It’s nice to see high level Amateurs that qualify and the old Masters Champions in the field. 

It’s by far the best Major to watch in person or on TV.  

[hckymeyer]

I think that first article is a solution looking for a problem.  The Masters does not have a problem.

I do think we need to find a way to play nice with LIV and include their top guys in majors.  How is Taylor Gooch not one of the top 50 golfers???  But that applies to all the majors, not just The Masters.

I also did not read any of the articles though, so just basing thoughts off the headlines.