Thoughts on The Players and Rolapp’s State of the Tour address

Each week, we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.

Last week at The Players Championship, PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp held the annual State of the Tour press conference in which he addressed changes to the Tour. While nothing has been finalized yet, Rolapp outlined a six-pronged approach of where the Tour is likely headed. They include a splashier start to the season, a two-track series of tournaments, bigger fields with cuts, promotion and relegation for players between the two tracks, bigger markets and possible use of match play in the playoffs. What was your take on Rolapp’s message and what part gets you most excited?

Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): I haven’t had a chance to review the full program, but on the surface I’m quite favourable… especially “possible use of match play in the playoffs”.  Much of it sounds over-ambitious, but if it’s implemented and works out, good for Rolapp.  Certainly, something needs to be done to bring some excitement back into the Tour, beyond TPC and the majors.

Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): I don’t think there was too much to get excited about, other than no No Cut events. I feel like Tiger was behind that decision. I’d like to wait and see how this unfolds. If going to big markets, I hope that means bringing some iconic courses onto the circuit.

Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: Brian Rollapp makes things better just by appearing. He certainly hasn’t taken long to get a ‘handle’ on the task, and he answered every single question until there were no more. I have always preferred the season to be in a calendar year and a 120 field with a cut is reminiscent of the past, which I like. One prohibitive factor to larger fields is the amount of daylight in the fall and failing weather in northern climates. Both result in west coast play to get the most prime time coverage. My favourite is the “ladder” concept. Currently, there are several pathways to the TOUR during the season which can all be amalgamated. This is a new approach that is long overdue.

Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver: By avoiding answering any of the pressing (real or imagined) questions facing the PGA Tour, Rolapp managed to create new ones. And by not mentioning FedEx, the Tour’s playoffs banker since 2007 — even in passing– he may have alienated one of the last of the Tour’s old school supporters. So, he mentions doubling “Signature” events — but with bigger fields and a cut — and where is that prize money coming from? Reminds me of the manic push for EVs. Where is all that electricity supposed to come from? A second tier or track? Say wot? There’s a Korn Ferry Tour (originally the Hogan Tour back when most kids could spell balata) etc etc. What companies are lining up to finance that new ‘Track’ and what media companies are clamouring to pay huuuuge for the broadcast/streaming rights? Maybe he’s finally found a way to spend the $1.5 B the Strategic Sports Group slipped PGA Tour Enterprises during the height of the LIV crisis. Ya, but looking at the roster of guys who wrote the checks (US) to SSG, they are used to returns on investments. Does any one of Rolapp’s six prongs point to that?

Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine: Still more questions than answers. Larger fields with a cut is the biggest positive I heard but plenty of concern about the overall direction they’re taking.

What did you see as the biggest negative or question mark in the six-pronged approach?

Deeks: “A two track series”.  Does this mean a continuation of Signature events and less-than-signature events?  If so, I feel badly for the less-thans.

Loughry: Sounds like contraction, the less is more approach. That means fewer stops, less golf to watch, and potentially less money for players to play for, unless it is offset elsewhere with partners/TV contract, etc. I’d like to understand what this means for RNC and the RBC Canadian Open. If it is an elevated to a Signature event, that could mean a better field (no guarantee though as players could still skip it). But that also means a larger purse, and presumably more investment by RBC. They could re-allocate some of the money going to Team RBC players to the purse to manage budget. And, if going to a Signature Series, it would certainly mean far fewer Canadians playing in it (as there would be no exemptions). It would also mean it would not be a true “Open” Championship too. Of course it doesn’t have to be a signature event, but that impacts the quality of the field. Interesting times.

Schurman: The new process is incomplete. More injections could change some of those implemented. Until the entire package is put forth, I think I’ll wait to decide.

Quinn: The defining aspect of Rolapp’s Tour remake is that nothing is defined. It’s all still like a bunch of pasta thrown at the wall to see what sticks. Everything is going to be based on meritocracy, bigger markets, best vs best more often, with standings easier to understand, and of course promotion from tier two and demotions from tier one easier to understand, and fans will be able to enjoy $16 beers in bigger markets. It’s all without the how; we all suspect the why, with the only guarantee the price of beer ain’t going down.

Mumford: Rolapp seems to have forgotten or disregarded some of the basic elements that helped build the current Tour. Like charity, community and meritocracy. A vague reference to a pathway between the two tracks is what passes for meritocracy. So, now there are four Tour levels? Where is that money coming from? And are long-term sponsors and hosts that have been relegated to the second tier going to be happy when they can’t attract top level talent to their events? Some of those communities generate way more excitement and fan support than big markets that have so many more activities competing for eyeballs and dollars. So far, not impressed.

The Players Championship itself had plenty of excitement with dramatic lead changes on Sunday, a wild finish and a wonderful Canadian story. What’s your final thought on the tournament?

Deeks: It was another highly entertaining TPC, but the biggest highlight was discovering Sudarshan Yellamaraju, whom, I confess, I had never heard of prior to Friday’s play.  What a wonderful Canadian CINDERELLA story, indeed!  Apparently learned his golf from YouTube.  I hope we see more of him in the months to come.

Loughry: The Players really couldn’t have been any better, it had everything you’re looking for in a tournament, except maybe world #1 and #2 coming down the stretch in the last group. But it was certainly entertaining, down to the wire.

Schurman: It’s my 5th major! By every standard, every concept, every meaning of the word, it’s a major. LPGA has named events majors, taken away the title and then given it back. Which I disagree with. We should start with a research team and study the matter.

Quinn: Is this the year of the collapse? Lowry, then Berger, now Aberg. Like the others, The Players’ felt like watching a slow-moving car crash rather than a thrilling race to a championship. Sure, blown leads and missed tap ins are part of the game, but leaders suddenly morphing into weekend hackers is not fun to watch. Of course, the whole fandango hit the lowest point Friday when GolfChannel brought Gary Koch back to talk over a whole new group. Wonder if anyone gets to finish a sentence at a Koch family gathering. Doubt it.

Mumford: The Players has always been one of my favourites and the 2026 version didn’t disappoint, except for Aberg’s collapse. The best events almost always have the best courses and Pete Dye’s Stadium Course is as thrilling as any on Tour.