I am trying to determine how the USGA awards US Open exemptions to women and men and whether or not it is equitable. The reason is, the runner-up for the recently-concluded US Women’s Amateur Public Links qualified for the US Women’s Open, held this week in Minnesota at Interlachen. The actual champion, coincidentally the NCAA Division I individual champion, is not exempt for the event.

Jennifer Song evidentally qualified the old-fashioned way and should be applauded. Based on her runner-up finish at the WAPL to Tiffany Joh, Song is capable of success in the Open. Joh, on the other hand, is a two-time WAPL champion, member of the Curtis Cup team (2.5 points) and the current NCAA titleholder. Given all the exemptions that the USGA hurled at Michelle Wie, you’d think they could extend one to someone who truly deserves one.

I checked on the exemption offered to the men’s champion and it is the same: exempt from local into sectional qualifying. My new question becomes, why does the US Amateur winner play in the next Open, but the APL winners don’t? For that matter, why doesn’t the mid-am champ receive an exemption into the Open? If the Masters deems APL and MID-AM champs deserving of exemptions, why won’t the ruling body that conducts all three championships reach the same conclusion?

It reminds me of the time that the US Congress or Capitol selcted FedEx or UPS instead of its own postal service to deliver its packages; they went private because private was more reliable and expedient. It still seemed odd. The USGA ought to redress the apparent lack of respect accorded the APL and MID-AM champs by conceding full exemptions into the Open. Tiffany Joh wouldn’t have to head back to class this week if that were the case.

Permalink Leave a comment