Exempt This!

In which I take on Gary Van Sickle, Senior Writer at Sports Illustrated.

Gary has a weekly feature at golf.com called Van Cynical's mailbag.  You know, as I've mined this particular lode previously.  Before responding to his mail, Gary pens a few graphs on whatever, and I'm going to strongly disagree with this week's installment.

You don’t want to step on a guy when he’s down, and there’s no reason to criticize John Daly for shooting a 90 last week in the Valspar Championship at Innisbrook. That score was inflated thanks to a 12 on one hole and what he said was a full-blown case of the putting yips.

When else would you step on a guy?  This isn't the first time that John has "Tin Cupped" it when he had no chance of being around for the weekend.  The 12 wasn't some unforeseen bolt from the blue, it's what the guy does when he's dogging it.

Daly’s unfortunate disaster is only notable because he was playing on a sponsor’s exemption. His performance revives the debate over who should receive sponsor’s exemptions among the usual assortment of rising stars, washed-up former champs, and friends of the sponsor or someone else. 

It’s pretty simple. It’s the sponsor’s tournament, so the sponsor should choose -- end of debate. Daly had a bad week. It happens. He wasn’t trying to shoot 90. If a sponsor gives the occasional spot to a sideshow, such as former NFL quarterback Mark Rypien or Michelle Wie or Annika Sorenstam, so be it. Anyone who sells tickets or helps promote the tournament is fair game. Golf was better for having Annika play at Colonial.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with a watchdog keeping track of who’s getting the exemptions. When Ray Halbritter, CEO of Turning Stone Resort & Casino in New York and founder of the PGA Tour's Turning Stone Resort Championship was going to use one of the exemptions to play in the tournament himself a few years back, the public backlash forced him to step down. He wasn’t even a scratch golfer. It was a bad, ego-driven idea, and when he went out and shot 103, it would’ve left a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

I'm getting whiplash here.  It's the sponsor's choice, no questions permitted, though we have the right to have a watchdog see who's getting the exemptions.  Ninety is OK, 103 not so much?  Back to Gary...

Daly didn’t do that, despite his 90. So he’ll turn 48 next month. So he has a history of injuries, a record number of withdrawals and makes no effort to regain any tour status by going to Q-school or Monday qualifying. So what? Valspar wanted him. That’s all that matters. Our opinions don’t.

Gary, you ignorant slut!  This appeared on golf.com, Van Sickle's employer, way back when we were all younger in 2010:

John Daly has been suspended five times and cited 21 times for not giving his best effort, according to a 456-page rap sheet kept by the PGA Tour that is now public record because of libel lawsuit Daly failed to win.

SNL jokes aside, Daly makes no effort FULL STOP.  I'm guessing those numbers have only increased in the intervening years, and shame on any sponsor that wastes an exemption on Daly.  I think the day when Long John sold tickets or moved the publicity needle is long gone.  I'm willing to give sponsors who overpay to support the Tour (that's perhaps a future post) complete discretion in allocating their exemptions, but Daly should be persona non grata on Tour, by lifetime suspension if necessary.