The Round Table: Can this International Team finally end US dominance?

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.

The Presidents Cup is on this week at Medinah Country Club in Chicago. The International team holds a 1-13-1 record in this event including losing the last 10 straight. We’ve just watched exciting team matches at the Solheim Cup and the Walker Cup, but history tells us that this week’s Presidents Cup match could be a snoozer. Is there anything we should be aware of that maybe it won’t be another U.S. rout?

Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): Nothing I can think of.  The US squad looks particularly strong this year.  But honestly, who knows?  A rookie or a not-expected-to-do-well player on the International side could surprise everyone and post an unexpected victory or two.  But even then, the US team seems to have a lot more depth.  If it’s another lop-sided victory, there will be an even louder clamour from the golf world: change the format, for heaven’s sake!

Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): On paper, the record is ugly, but this International team feels a little deeper and more balanced than past years. The U.S. still has the edge in my opinion. Medinah is also a venue that can create momentum swings (depending on setup, which is generally pretty soft to give lots of birdies for the audience to cheer. If the Internationals can get an early lead on the first day and build belief, they just may be able to keep this close, but I still see the US Team winning.

Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, OGA of Canada: The President’s Cup has never caught on. It was a greedy aspiration by the PGA TOUR to coattail the Ryder Cup. They failed! Try something new and innovative like involve LPGA players or drop it.

TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): Maybe the International team can take inspiration from the European team’s comeback at Medinah in 2012. But that’s not likely.  The US team is so much stronger, and I don’t expect any surprises this year.  Hopefully it’s a tight competition that makes it worth watching Sunday afternoon.

Hal Quinn, Freelance Writer, Vancouver:  Have been pondering what could be even less compelling TV than the Prez Cup. It’s a toss up between a match of a group oddly called Red Blacks and one called Elks to be staged in front of a sea of empty seats, and a replay of a pickle ball game. Admittedly, it’s a tough call. May check Monday’s paper, probably in agate type on last Sports page, to see if non-American Cuppers got any points.

In past Presidents Cups, there’s often been a surprise breakout star that compiles one of the best records. Which player for the Internationals do you think might rise to the occasion?

Deeks: He’s pretty much the anchor of the International team, and while his peak as a player dates back almost 20 years, Adam Scott has played better this year than he has for a long time.  Even though the Presidents Cup will do nothing to boost (or tarnish) his image or his reputation, I still think he’ll be the actual, as well as de facto, leader of the International team.

Loughry:  If I’m looking for a surprise points machine, I’d keep an eye on Min Woo Lee. The guy loves eyes on him and does not shy away from big stages, brings plenty of energy, and has the type of aggressive game that can be a fit for match play. He’s creative and seems to embrace the atmosphere rather than shrink from it. Every Presidents Cup produces a player who becomes the emotional spark for the team, and Lee has the ingredients to be that guy this week for the International squad.

Schurman: I feel for the players, but this ‘ship’ has sailed. The President’s Cup is boring.

Rule: I really hope it’s Nick Taylor, who should find some inspiration from being left off the last team competing on home soil.  He’s a grinder that can be a thorn in the side of the US team, and I do expect him to play well.

Quinn: Would be fun if everyone’s new favourite Kiwi — Ryan Fox — set the pace (so to speak). And it would be heart-warming if Adam Scott, at 46, holds his own.

PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp has been releasing details about the new Tour in dribs and drabs. Last week he outlined the eligibility rules for the Championship Series and the Challenger Series. According to Rolapp it’s a more meritocratic system and allows for 20 players to move up while 20 players will be sent down each season. What are your thoughts on Rolapp’s latest announcement?

Deeks: I just looked on both PGATour.com and GolfChannel.com for more information on these new eligibility rules — neither site had a word on it.  Which is pretty weird, because Brian Rolapp is changing professional golf in much the same way Donald Trump is upending the world political order, in my opinion.  On paper and in practice, I just don’t see the need for what he’s doing.  The Challenger Series will simply seem like a lipsticked version of the Korn Ferry Tour, albeit with many recognizable names that not many people will care about.  That will diminish the very limited prestige of the Korn Ferry Tour; in fact, all “lesser” tours will suffer a bump downward in prestige and media coverage. Players moving up and down at the end of each season will provide some drama as the season winds down, but will it be enough to generate and maintain fan interest in the new system?  Time will tell, I guess.

Loughry: I actually like the direction. Golf has long talked about meritocracy, but too often status has outweighed performance. A system where 20 players move up and 20 move down creates consequences and opportunities every season. It should make the races throughout the standings more meaningful and give emerging players a clearer pathway to the top level. The key, however, will be getting the balance right so stars remain visible while ensuring performance, not reputation, ultimately determines where players compete.

Schurman: Rolapp is a very cagey dealer. He seems to have some future plans but keeps testing the market with a variety of ideas. He no sooner releases one concept when he is off bringing in another. He is talking about players’ lives and consistency for fans and sponsors. There comes a time when all people want is stability. Golf might be a stogie, old, quiet world but it does have traditions and an historic atmosphere that fans rely on. Please, let me turn-off world news, the bickering, name calling, two faced cheating and pour myself a drink while I just watch golf.

Rule: I do like the idea of promotion and relegation. I think it’s a necessity, how else are players expected to climb the ranks to the Championship Series.  In fact, it should be more than 20 in my mind, which would put more pressure on the top players if they have a so-so year.  That will provide more motivation and ensure the top players play in a sufficient number of events.  And it would make the final couple of tournaments tons of fun to watch, seeing guys scramble to hit the number to guarantee their job the following year.

Quinn: There are golfers and fans of pro golf of a certain age who have always known that the Tour is a meritocracy, more dramatically than any other pro sport. Now on Friday evenings, it’s not the sound of car trunks slamming but the hiss of jet staircases closing. Still, same deal. Maybe Rolapp is stretching to offer some crumbs to the jilted Tour sponsors and communities casting the tail-end events as dramatic must-see events as the stragglers strive for the 20-spots or try to hang on. BS, especially as his old stompin’ ground — the NFL — has every viewer locked up that time of year. Rolapp is quickly running out of paper and paste.