Comments on: Money List vs. FedExCup Points List

By: Reid Sheftall, MD

Reid Sheftall, MD — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:23:26 +0000

That was an excellent article.
The reasons for the behavior of the FED EX CUP organizers are, like many things in professional sports, based on getting the most for the advertising dollar. The Fed Ex Cup points list was invented (even though it is nearly identicle to the money list) so the announcers would have to say: " Fed Ex Cup points list " 82,000 times during the season. The reason they guarantee the top players a spot in all four tournaments no matter how bad they might play is because they know the TV revenue suffers if the stars aren't there. (Thus the very predictable and embarassing (for Fed Ex and the PGA Tour )outcome: Woods and Michelson each skipping one of the events (and Woods still winning easily).
Playoffs are playoffs. The regular season should only count for qualifying the player for the playoffs. Like in all other sports, everyone in the playoffs should start from scratch (barring home field advantage etc, -unavoidable since you have to play somewhere in the team sports).
Does it make sense to give Roger Federer a 30-love lead in every game in the playoffs because he won the most money in the regular season?
It would have provided far greater drama had there been some chance of a top player getting "cut" in one of the earlier tournaments.
It is one more example of the "closed shop" mentality of the PGA Tour and is NOT good for golf in the long run.
On a similar note, The winner of the Champion's Tour Q school wasn't given a card to play on the tour last year. He still had to qualify- a very disturbing decision on the part of the Champion's Tour organizers. One reason for the popularity of that tour is because of the dreaming it engerndered in so many 40-something low handicap golfers. "What if......"
It was great for the tour. Now the answer to "What if....." is: "No . Even if you win the Q School, you can't play." Bad idea, guys. You're viewers are going to lose interest if they can't dream. One more glaring example of the closed shop mentality.

By: J. Mueller

J. Mueller — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:12:22 +0000

The FedEx points are used to try to get users away from focusing on how much money a golfer earns. The US PGA Tour probably feels that the public will soon get upset at how much money a golfer earns as compared to their own wages, as the purses have increased by close to 70% over the past 7 years (2000: $162.2 million to 2006: $273.5 million) -- equates to a 10% increase per year. This increase was even during a downturn in the US economy.

The US PGA Tour was seriously thinking about not even providing the earnings this year on their web site and just providing the FedEx Cup points that each golfer earned. They really want to see the money list go away as it relates to the public user knowing how much a golfer earns. Your article in comparing the FedEx Cup points and the money earnings basically illustrates that.

If the US PGA Tour only showed the FedEx Cup points, then they could show the public one list (i.e. the FedEx Cup points list) and their members (the golfers) another list (i.e. the money list). Thus, they would be getting the public to stop thinking about the money each player earns in total.

By: Cris

Cris — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:00:56 +0000

I agree with most of this article, very well written and the research is definately there to back up the claims. The only part I'm a little confused on is this exerpt:

"Let's suppose Vijay Singh wins all four playoff events. He'd blow Tiger Woods out of the water in the FedExCup "Playoffs," win the $10M annuity and that hideous trophy. Vijay would end the year with six victories (one more than Tiger), but would also be major-less in 2007 (he even missed the cut in a few majors). Would his year have been "better" than Tiger's? I think not."

I agree that if this happens that Singh has not had a better year than Woods, but isn't that how most playoffs work? Last year in the NFL, NBA, and MBL the team with the best year (win/loss record) did not win its championship. Thats kind of what makes play-off systems intriguing and entertaining to most people. The fact that anything can happen in the post season, and if a team, or golfer peaks at the right time, they have a chance to win it all. Other than that minute point, I agree the PGA play-offs need some tweaking.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:37:02 +0000

I love the fedex cup system, and the reseeding. In all sports the goal of the regular season is to get to the playoffs, and the goal in the playoffs is to get to win whatever championship you are trying to win wether it be the Super Bowl or the World Series or the FEDEX Cup. In most sports having th better regular season performance has no major advantage when you get to the playoffs. The only thing i dont like is getting the 10 mil at 65. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE UP FRONT BECAUSE lets say i was someone like zach johnson, someone wh has a chance to win but isnt making 10+Mil a year, i could use that money more now when i am 65.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:56:46 +0000

First off, I agree with your major point about the FedEx Cup points versus money list.

Where I guess I disagree with you is about the re-setting of points. I guess it all depends on what the point of these playoffs is? See I think it would be best if they made the re-set of points less than they are now. It seems like the champion of the 4 weeks ought to be the guy who plays best over these 4 weeks. As it is, the winner is probably going to be whomever does the best out of the top 10-15 players from the regular season. I understand why they did it this way, this way the best players are pretty much assured of being in the tour championship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the top 10 players more or less assured of being in the final event? I'm unsure how this is going to play out but it's a tricky thing to pull off and like the BCS likely to leave someone if not most everyone complaining about how it all played out.

By: Steven T.

Steven T. — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:05:07 +0000

Upon reflection, I think this is TW's way of saying that the playoff system needs major tweaking. He could have finished last in the WGC and PGA and still finished first in the FedEx Cup points list and heâ€™d be no worse off to start the FedEx Cup because all of the seasonâ€™s points get wiped out and reset, based on where you finished. What if he wins 3 or 4 majors in the future? Where's the advantage if the points get reset for the playoffs? He could skip them altogether. Does he really need a 10M annuity at age 65?

By: Erik J. Barzeski

Erik J. Barzeski — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:25:42 +0000

JP Bouffard said on August 21, 2007:

This discussion reminds me alot of those about the Bowl Championship Series...it's hard to do something like this well.

It sure does, but I go back to one of the earlier ideas (I believe either Dave or myself suggested it): a "strength of field" qualifier. Kind of like a one-year "Official World Golf Ranking" algorithm with no fall-off in points totals. Double the point total for the majors.

The playoffs themselves are lacking for two simple reasons:

Resetting point totals isn't fair, but Tiger Woods taking a month off because he's locked up the trophy isn't exciting either. No good answer here.
Vijay can miss the cut in the first tournament - heck, he could miss three cuts - and still play in the Tour Championship and even still win the FedExCup.

The current system doesn't address either of those very well… but I don't know how that might be solved. Either way, that's beside the point of the article: the playoffs could still be done with the re-seeding and all that… I just see no point in having a "FedExCup Point" when there's already a "Money List." As I said, rename it "FedExCup Money List" if you want, assign your re-seeded values when the playoffs start, and stop keeping two separate and virtually identical lists: the FEC List and the $$$ List.

By: JP Bouffard

JP Bouffard — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:09:30 +0000

My initial reaction to your article was "ok, so they're similar. But if the points system addresses some anomaly in the money list in order to make a better ranking of players' performance, that's good. Even if the difference between the two is small, a little better is still better."

Then I read your point about Byrd winning almost the same number of points in the John Deere as did the winners of majors and, well, obviously there are some questions about the validity of the point system.

I guess it becomes more understandable if you assume the tour/FedEx is using the points as an incentive to play events, rather than as a reward for performance in the hardest events.

When you think about it, if the tour were to rank something like the John Deere--a traditionally weak field event--really low on FEC points, the Deere people would be rightfully up in arms.

This discussion reminds me alot of those about the Bowl Championship Series...it's hard to do something like this well.

By: Norm

Norm — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:56:48 +0000

Being a new golf fan I've been trying to keep an open mind about the FedEx Cup points amid mostly negative points of view. But after reading this article I too agree with the 'What's the point?' crowd.

By: Garry

Garry — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:52:19 +0000

I couldn't agree more. I have been curious as to why they didn't use the money list myself but just kind of accepted it for what it is. Great article Erik! The difference was even less than I thought it would be, further convincing me that the FedEx Cup points list is a joke. Why complicate something further that is already somewhat complicating to the general golf fan. Kind of reminds me how the Ryder Cup Points system was a joke before Azinger decided to make it all about money. There's an idea, reward the guys who make the most money! I'd say the PGA Tour is off to a bad start with this thing.