PGA Championship 2011: A Switch Back to Match Play Will Revive Worst Major

Who are we kidding? The PGA Championship is the unloved stepchild, the Rodney Dangerfield, the Tito Jackson of the four major championships. 

It doesn't have the austerity of Augusta National and the Masters. It doesn't have that "our national championship" appeal of the US Open. And it doesn't have the connection to the birthplace of the sport and almost 150 years of tradition that the British Open has. 

That's not to say it's on the same level as the John Deere Classic or Reno-Tahoe Open. But the PGA slogan "Glory's Last Shot" is pushing it and couldn't seem any more manufactured and artificial. 

So I propose one simple tweak to the event. Well, it's not so simple: bring back match play.

As much as any American sports (minus, baseball) golf has a special connection to it's past. Even it's "ancient past." Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Byron  Nelson, Sam Snead--players whose prime was before or right after World War II--are still legends of the game and household names. So why not turn back the clock to the way they routinely played their biggest events. (Yes, I am aware that Jones never played the PGA, but every one of his British and US Amateur championships came via match play). 

Until 1958 the PGA was a match play event: Hogan won his two PGAs in match play, Snead all three of his, Hagen's record five as well. 

Now it's no coincidence that the switch to stroke play came in the late 1950s: at the time, stroke play was much more appealing to the television networks. Instead of having two players battle for the title in the finals, there was a hope that dozens of players would be battling it out on the final Sunday.

But the PGA and CBS (or whoever pays for the TV rights when their contract expires) should think about how compelling a switch back to match play can be. 

For one, instead of four days, depending on the size of the field, the event could be more than a week long, much like the Grand Slam events in tennis. Have a two-round qualifier that whittles the field to 64 and play from there. Think about it: eight or 10 days of ticket sales, racks in more money than four. 

That paves the way for some great head-to-head showdowns. We're always decrying how Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have never been paired together in the final round of a major championship. Match play would offer a much better shot at those two going head to head with a ton on the line--even if it isn't the Finals, the semis or quarters would be great television. And there could be similarly interesting matchups throughout: Tiger vs. Rory McIlroy, Phil vs. Jim Furyk, Dustin Johnson vs. Bubba Watson, etc.  

The Accenture Match Play event couldn't compete with that if a major title was on the line. And since the Ryder Cup divvies  the field up by nationality the same is true: Tiger can't play Dustin Johnson in  the Ryder Cup. 

A decade ago, and even as recently as this summer, there's been talk about how without Tiger in the field, there's no intrigue. Well, Tiger has missed the last two majors and four of the last 13, yet somehow golf has managed to survive. So if Tiger were eliminated in the quarters or failed to even make the round of 64, then would it really be so bad?

And to those who say "switching to matchplay would be a gimmick, a novelty, that wears off after one or two years" I'm not so sure that's true.

The PGA needs to find a way to stand out and match play would be a nice way to do it.  Besides, it it's good enough for the amateurs, it should be good enough for the pros.