"Because our scatter value on television would go up, and that's why we like to have better ratings, because it is a value proposition."

Commissioner Tim Finchem took a few minutes from his schedule to visit the Farmers Insurance Open press center Tuesday. While some scribes were taken by the newsworthiness of his request to the USGA, I will contend that it was his concoction of a potentially life-changing b-speakism that should be the lede.

Anyway, here goes...starting with my question about the "product":

Q. On that topic, anecdotal stuff like ratings declines or the Sports Business Journal survey that came out today with golf having a big decline, does that make you want to rethink how you present the product of the TOUR, whether it's formats or on television?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Ratings are a unique animal. As I've said many times, if you're a 30-minute program sponsored solely by scattered sales and the ad market, or a 60-minute program, you live and die on ratings. We have more hours on air probably than any other sport.

We're on at a minimum three hours on Saturday and Sunday on network television, not to mention the cable lead-ins sometimes four hours or four or five hours on Thursday and Friday. So we have a lot of hours.

Our value comes from two things, the cumulative, the size of our cumulative audience. 141 million Americans watched some of us last year. 110 million watched a fair amount. The other thing is the quality of our audience, because if you are doing certain things as a business, we are the best place to reach the customer that you want to reach. That's why you see us virtually -- we have a couple of holes right now for a brief period. But virtually 100% sponsored during the worst recession since the depression. There is a reason for that.

Skipping past metrics, business-to-business and value propositions...

Now, having said that, if we had better ratings, we can do better. Because our scatter value on television would go up, and that's why we like to have better ratings, because it is a value proposition.

Got that?

But we don't depend on it. We don't have to -- we can still eat lunch without it. But ratings also -- we'll see what happens this year.

Ratings are affected by a lot of different things. In 2010 they were primarily affected by three things. In the first part of the year, the Olympics had an all-time record year. Three weekends we were head-to-head with the Olympics. Tiger out for a big chunk of the first part of the year, and then not playing at his normal level had an effect on our ratings.

Late in the year, the NFL record ratings impacted us, so it's kind of a perfect score. We'll see how we perform this year. We're up a little bit early in the year, but it's way early. We'll see. However that goes, our basic value proposition is going to be solid for the future.

So on the original question, I'll put you down for no?

On the recent DQ's caused in part by phone, email, Tweet, telegram and other viewer-spotted violations.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Well, we are on record from a few years ago with the USGA questioning the rule as it is written as it relates to the penalty. Because we questioned and asked several years ago for a review of the rule because we felt that perhaps the penalty was out of sync with the infraction in some of these situations. So that continues to trouble us.

Based on the two situations in recent weeks, we are re-articulating our concern to the USGA. And I've spoken at length to the European Tour a couple of times in the last ten days, and they also are joining with us in questioning this rule.

Really, when I say question it, asking for a full and thorough review of the rule. Asking ourselves is there a better way to do this from a rules standpoint, especially in light of today's technology.

I think the question of somebody in a booth is kind of a sideline question. Which is if you have the rule, and it is an onerous penalty, should you try to protect the player by getting that information somehow in advance? And that's got its own set of problems and issues, but that should be part of the discussion as well as we look at it.

But I'm meeting with USGA Executive Committee late next week. I hope to have a conversation with them at that point in time, and I would hope that we could have a global conversation about the rule and certainly the penalty that is attached to it, because it obviously troubles a lot of people in terms of how it shakes out from time to time.

Now this was interesting regarding the possibility of bifurcation if the USGA and R&A do not figure out a way to make this work.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Well, it's premature to say yes or no to that. We have the option to write our own rules and it's happened a you couple of times historically. We maintain that position under our regulations. It's been in the regulations for 40 years.

However, you know, we think it's important for the sport, if at all possible. And if, at all possible, to maintain a consistency of the rules throughout. Everybody pretty much in golf agrees with that.

Now, there may be reason for deviation from time to time and we've had a couple of those, but right now we're not even thinking about that. We're thinking about one thing, and that is can we have a comprehensive discussion about the rule, and about its implications and about options. And that's what we're asking for.

 Here's where it seemed odd that the normally well-prepared Commissioner didn't have a little more evidence on his side:

Q. You said you were optimistic about designated events this year. Can you give some examples of players changing their schedule or other anecdotes that make you optimistic about it?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I don't know. We've already had a number of players who haven't played in tournaments in a number of years play, which, we're asking players to preferably add an event to your schedule, and or play some place you haven't played in a good period of time.

I know for a fact having either myself or my team has talked to almost every player now, and we will get virtually 100% of the players doing that. Let's just see how the year unfolds. But I'm pleased with the reaction.

Virtually 100%!

Q. Was Sony there an example so far this year?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: There were two or three players at Sony that hadn't played there in five or six years. Not sure about Hope as much. Though Stewart Cink played there for the first time in a few years.

And what a boon to the gate that was.

AP's Doug Ferguson asked about exempting top 10 players to play whenever they want, freeing up someone like new #1 Lee Westwood.

As I've said, I think right now with European players playing so well this past year. Candidly I'm disappointed about players not playing here and this and that because it helps our field.

But, on the other hand, I feel like we have the right mix of international players on the TOUR. I see no need for us to have more international players. I also feel strongly that the European Tour needs to be a strong TOUR. It's a very good thing for golf globally.

They have struggled more than we have with this downturn. They've had to morph their schedule into the Middle East and now Asia to find markets to support their Tour. I applaud that.

They had to morph? Interesting considering the PGA Tour is morphing into one of those territories which, as  Sean Martin points out in his breakdown of Finchem's talk, the European Tour had morphed into those during the first Bush administration.

But a lot of these players, if they didn't play -- they need to play more to help the European Tour.

I'm not going to argue whether the European Tour player whether he's doing the wrong thing, if George O'Grady feels because it's so important for that player to play over there. Candidly, it's probably more important on the European Tour that some of those players play over there than it is for us that they play here.

As Tiger would say, hoo-yah!!

And because I'm always looking out for others, I tried to end the session on a high note:

Q. Why did you issue a statement on the Hope and Clinton possibility? It seemed like an unusual negotiating [ploy]?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Because, candidly Joe Ogilvie, who is one of our TOUR members, called for the idea of President Clinton hosting the event. A number of people who, for various reasons, primarily business oriented, we were having discussions which were confidential.

Not anymore!

It was my conclusion that with, I think it was Golf Digest putting online that story, that it was likely going to leak that we were having these discussions. And if it was going to leak, I'd rather put it in the context that it was appropriate so that people understood, yes, we're having discussions. We'll see where they lead and avoid all of the speculation that might surround a leak, which would be unnecessary and might end up being counter-productive to us getting something done. It's very simple.

Why do I not believe it's very simple?