Replies

If the same argument was made against all exemptions, ever, then I would probably be swayed by that argument. But exemptions have been around forever, and no one says boo about them.

The sponsor earned the right to those spots, by their financial support for the event. And part of their rights in this regard is the right to decide by what criteria someone would earn an invitation from them.

Bank of America decided she had earned an invitation from them. Based on the publicity she brought the event, and her class in handling the media circus, and her long record of achievement on the LPGA tour, I find it difficult to argue with their judgement that she earned the invitation.

I can see how others can say that in their opinion she hadn't earned the invitation.

But frankly, my opinion, yours, and theirs don't matter. The opinion of the sponsor, who earned the exemption, is the only one that mattered.

And part of their rights in this regard is the right to decide by what criteria someone would earn an invitation from them.

Only partly true. The PGA sets some very exacting standards for those exemptions. No way in hell BofA could have given me and my 14 handicap an exemption, even if I was a favorite former local club pro and current CFO of BofA.

Parse it anyway you want, the fact is exemptions are nothing but a way to get around qualification rules. By your definition, if BofA gave an exemption invite to Bill Clinton because they thought it would increase media coverage and TV ratings, he would have "earned" that spot.

Gimme a break.