GolfHos

I've trolled a few Wie threads including the one on FIGs.  I've also read a few articles on the subject.  Nowhere have I seen this point raised.

Rule 88 pertains only to those who are not members of the LPGA Tour.
v.
Minimum age requirement for LPGA Tour membership is 18.

Now, I know Morgan Pressel was granted an exemption and Wie would be a slam dunk if she applied but isn't this just a teeny bit relevant?  Wie is, by charter, not allowed to be a member of the tour yet rule 88 would have applied to her had she finished her round.  Another thing for the LPGA to look at as they self-exam after this debacle?

P.S.  There are enough Wie-diculous threads out there already.  If possible, let's keep this one on topic.

as you wiesh

wiesier said than done

 ;D

Whiskers,
I haven't read much on this, including any of that 9 page debacle at the other joint.  I'm aware of the situation, but I'm not sure I follow your angle, or where you're going with it.

I'll ante for the argument though. ;)

I feel the urge to take this to other boards.

But I'll refrain.

Excellent point however.

Do it.  I plagiarize his *feces* all the time.  I try on TFT's, but I can't nail the accent.

How can I say no to you?  ;)

erm....that sounded gay...........

One?  There's, like, five or six.

I don't find it probative.  Wie could have requested the exemption but didn't.  Granted, she refrained so she could finish high school, but the fact remains that she enters tournaments subject to whatever constellation of rules apply to her particular situation and status.  I expect each player to know the various options, the rules, to choose a path, and then to live with the consequences of that choice.

Or did I misunderstand your point?

My point is not about Wie.  It's about the LPGA. 

They have a rule stating that a player must be 18 to be a member.  There's an out in that they have an exemption process.  However, exemptions have been few and far between.  I know Wie would have been granted one but, as I said, my point has nothing to do with Wie.

Now, they allow under-18 players into their tournaments yet they're still subject to this silly rule 88.  It's a catch-22 sort of situation and I find it relevant. 

I'm not offering my opinion on the Wie part of the story.  I'd just say that only by pure luck has the Tour avoided a situation where a Wie/Pressel clone whom they denied membership (as they did with Pressel the first time around) had a single bad week (perhaps due to injury) and got hammered by this thing.  I suggest that the LPGA needs to consider the situation and not count on providence to bail them out next time.  They would look like complete idiots and I think find themselves in a position where they'd reverse the decision effected by rule 88.

Think Ryan Seacrest but clip your vowels.

Well...I broke down. I blame stroh.  ;D ;)

We'll see what our FiGs friends have to say Whiskey.

http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=2155784

 :o :o  [sm_shock] why not fan the flames a bit more (http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/3392/noporkchopsyd1.jpg)   LOL  ?  ;)

 [sm_devil]

j/k of course.....


we now return to the actual topic at hand....

Interesting point...

What I understand is that the rule is actually designed to keep the Danielle Amaccapane's of the world from making millions of dollars in 'Mature pröñ' and then clogging up the Futures Tour, but I can't recall where I read that...

Clive, this dueling forums thing is interesting but I feel the need to clarify here based on your post there (and here previously).

My post is not about Wie and what she should be responsible for knowing and so forth.  My post is about the LPGA and the fix in which they have got themselves.  It might have been much, much worse.  They almost got themselves in a spot where their marketing bonanza would have been sidelined for a year.  Then you have the pressure from the sponsors, the press and God knows who else.

The LPGA dodged a huge bullet.  They're lucky the story has thus far been mostly about Wie.  It might very easily have been 100% about them.  What if Wie hadn't withdrew?  That would have been a nightmare for the Tour.  Now, take it one step further and imagine a scenario where not only was the player sidelined but the whole mess was compounded by the fact that the Tour had previously refused her membership.  It would have been an utter fiasco.

That's my whole point.  The LPGA got lucky and they need to immediate action before, next time, it doesn't work out quite so well from their perspective.

Well, at least Fuzz and eltigrecda actually read my words.  ;)

Good Gawd.   :sad3:

I think the LPGA losing a star attraction had been addressed over there.  But the view that the LPGA needs to act fast to jettison the 88 Rule has not.

I see what you're saying now, and I agree.

(FWIW, I was trying to divorce my response from Michelle Wie as best I could.  But when you think about it, YOUR response is Wie-centric in that she is the semi-unique fan draw that was almost lost.)

Yeah, that's basically what I was sayin'/thinkin'.

You know, I'm with you now. At first I was thinking this is a teenager who is being pulled in many different directions. But the LPGA does have a dilemma here. What do they do? Try to override the rules as they go giving special exemptions when it meets their needs or fix the rules so they don't get into this corner.

Jeez, guys. I saw Uisce's point right from the git-go.