Why The Masters Is a Major

After watching the Players Championship Sunday, one question came to mind - why is the Masters a major golf championship, and the Players Championship isn't? A comparison:

Category Masters Players Edge
--------- -------- -------- -----
# in Field --------------- 100 150 Players
Strength of Field (*)----- 40 80 Players
Prize Money ------------- $7 M $8M Players
TV Coverage hours ------ 14 18 Players
Golf Course Equity (**) 8 9 Players
Years of Tradition 70 32 Masters

(*) how many players have a realistic chance of winning
(**) does the course favour one type of player (rating out of 10)

In my mind, the Masters is a major only because of tradition. There I've said it.
I really feel the Masters is lacking in a few areas, not the least of which is TV coverage. Why there isn't at least 5 hours of coverage every day is beyond me. Missing the end of last year's 3rd round because it was on Sunday morning was a travesty. Would any other tournament (or major sporting event) not show so much action especially at such a pivotal time?
Believe me I like watching the Masters. However I do not think it should be a major. It should be recognized for what it is - a celebration of the past. Even if it wasn't a major, it would still be a prized event to win, and highly watched. I think both the Masters and Players would flourish if the Players became the 1st major, especially with its date change to May.
Will it ever be considered? Maybe. In spite of getting a letter sent to me to the contrary, I believe the PGA Tour would like to change the major designation on these tournaments.
Would there be fallout? Probably big fallout, like when Martha Burk stirred the gender membership pot. That was 3 years ago, and has become just a memory to most of us.
Let me know what your thoughts are.

Regards,
Steve