The PGA Tour/USGA v. Solheim

Has such a retro vibe to it, no? Deane Beman must be so nostalgic. Or fired up. Or not answering his phone!

Anyway, I have no idea what's going on behind closed doors, but after having some time to reflect on today's events and the filings of three writers on site who talked to the various folks involved, it's just hard to envision this groove/PING/USGA/PGA Tour saga coming to a swift conclusion.

For starters, as Steve Elling notes, the power is in John Solheim's hands and as Elling lays out, it's hard to see the PING CEO folding too quickly.

If you want a nice primer on where things stand, Jeff Rude lays out the three primary ways this could play out and based on post-presser quotes from Tim Finchem, the various sides here are not as close in their interpretation of the situation as Finchem laid out in his rosy press conference version.

And as E. Michael Johnson lays out, the worse case committee option instigated by the tour (for the first time ever) could only make the mess...messier.

The purpose of the committee is to consider whether a special rule relating to balls or equipment is necessary for PGA Tour competitions. The committee would not recommend such a rule unless, based on the results of its investigation, specific criteria are satisfied. Among the requirements: the committee concludes the equipment under consideration "significantly affects the nature of the game" at the PGA Tour level; the current USGA Rules of Golf are not adequate to address their concerns; the legitimate interests of tour players, manufacturers and others have been considered; the recommendation is considered to be the most reasonable means of addressing the problem; and a majority of the committee is in favor of the recommendation.

Although that seems like a substantial burden for the committee to overcome, Finchem feels differently. "I think the chances are reasonably good, perhaps more than reasonably good, that the committee would say yes," said Finchem, who added the committee had never been used since its inception.

Solheim, however, had a different take. "PGA Tour Commissioner Finchem and I had a brief discussion [Tuesday afternoon] and he shared his belief that the 1993 settlement agreement allowed his organization to utilize the protocol to consider a special rule that would ban Ping Eye 2 irons and wedges," Solheim said. "While we strongly disagree with their interpretation of the agreement, we agreed further dialogue on the topic was healthy. We hope to speak again in the next week or so. I've also been in contact with the USGA and expect to meet with them as well."