Fed Ex Cup- Jordan Spieth

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Where you're getting stuck is that the criteria is top 125 earners of full PGA Tour members, Jordan hasn't officially qualified as a full member yet.  If he wins a tournament then he's considered a full member.

As for basketball, I agree with you, but the thought process was it's easier to stall utilizing the entire court than just 1/2 so the half court clock forces teams to at least advance the ball to half court with the bulk of the shot clock remaining.

I'm not stuck ... that is the rule I think is unnecessary.   I just don't get why that extra requirement is needed.

And I thought about that same reasoning with basketball as well, except I discounted it when I realized that now you or 90 feet away from the basket with 3 seconds left on the shot clock instead of 40 ... seems like any team you are stalling against would be more than happy to let you twiddle your thumbs way back there.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I'm not stuck ... that is the rule I think is unnecessary.   I just don't get why that extra requirement is needed.

It's necessary because you're a good guy and not considering the potential abuse of the rules and the importance of full membership to the PGA Tour.  Without full membership most guys like Jordan don't get enough opportunities to play in PGA Tour events to qualify for the FedEx.   I believe each tournament gets an allocation of sponsor exemptions but it's not typical for new kids to get many sponsor exemptions unless they play really well or "know" somebody.

I believe Jordan was fortunate that he received a few exemptions during tournaments that were held in Texas (his home state) which he did well in but a kid from Nebraska or NY might not get the same opportunity unless they made some back room deals because there aren't as many tournaments in those states.

The PGA Tour also doesn't want golfers that are full time members of others tours walking away with the Cup and money.  They use the Cup and money to attract the top players from other Tours to get them to commit to the PGA Tour instead.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by MEfree

After 3 top 25s and 2 top 10s in his first 4 tournaments, Jordan Spieth had earned enough $ to become a "Special Temporary" Member of the PGA Tour in March of this year.  Since then, he has had 3 more top tens and played well enough to make the playoffs IF he was considered a Tour Member and given the points he would have earned based on his finishes.

As it stands, the only way for him to get into the playoffs is to win an event- if that happens, then he gets all of the points he would have earned retroactively and would have a legit shot at making the Tour Championships.  Going into this week (he is in 5th place at Greenbrier as I type this) Spieth has won more $ than Watney, Furyk, Huh, Poulter, Cink, Els and Duffner- those guys are in the playoffs (and some only split their time between the PGA and Euro), but Spieth, who is fully committed to the PGA Tour will likely be on the sidelines.

I think it would be in the interests of the PGA Tour to not only allow Special Temporary Members to earn Fed Ex Cup Points, but to also give playoff spots to the top 2 or 3 players from the Web.com Tour- this would make for some good Cinderella stories and help bring more attention to the Web.com Tour.

As golf fans, what do you think?

The kid deserves it and I agree with the bolded but, unfortuantely, I don't think they should change rules in mid stream. Maybe a change going forward after the season.

Frankly, I think he'll make it moot and win before the playoffs. Hes gotta figure out Sundays.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's necessary because you're a good guy and not considering the potential abuse of the rules and the importance of full membership to the PGA Tour.  Without full membership most guys like Jordan don't get enough opportunities to play in PGA Tour events to qualify for the FedEx.   I believe each tournament gets an allocation of sponsor exemptions but it's not typical for new kids to get many sponsor exemptions unless they play really well or "know" somebody.

I believe Jordan was fortunate that he received a few exemptions during tournaments that were held in Texas (his home state) which he did well in but a kid from Nebraska or NY might not get the same opportunity unless they made some back room deals because there aren't as many tournaments in those states.

The PGA Tour also doesn't want golfers that are full time members of others tours walking away with the Cup and money.  They use the Cup and money to attract the top players from other Tours to get them to commit to the PGA Tour instead.

OK, I get that.  But then why is there a caveat in there for winning a tournament?  Why does that validate his position as "belonging" so much more than doing really, really well for several tournaments?

Also, I get that it's not "fair" to the other non-full members that he gets more chances to play in tournaments, but I don't get why what he earns during those tournaments doesn't apply towards the playoffs.  At this point, he's not taking anything away from those guys.  If included, he's only "taking" a spot away from a guy who earned less than him this season.  Effectively, the 126th player on the list.

I would counter-argue by saying that guy does not belong in the playoffs and simply needs to play better if he's getting beat by a guy who has only played in half as many events (or whatever) as him.

But I'm also a guy who would argue in favor of Yasiel Puig making the all-star game, so what do I know? ;)

I just don't see it.

EDIT:  But I also agree with phan52 that they should not (could not) change the rules mid-stream.  I am just saying I think it's silly that they have the rule, and maybe should consider losing it in the future.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

OK, I get that.  But then why is there a caveat in there for winning a tournament?  Why does that validate his position as "belonging" so much more than doing really, really well for several tournaments?

Also, I get that it's not "fair" to the other non-full members that he gets more chances to play in tournaments, but I don't get why what he earns during those tournaments doesn't apply towards the playoffs.  At this point, he's not taking anything away from those guys.  If included, he's only "taking" a spot away from a guy who earned less than him this season.  Effectively, the 126th player on the list.

I would counter-argue by saying that guy does not belong in the playoffs and simply needs to play better if he's getting beat by a guy who has only played in half as many events (or whatever) as him.

But I'm also a guy who would argue in favor of Yasiel Puig making the all-star game, so what do I know? ;)

I just don't see it.

EDIT:  But I also agree with phan52 that they should not (could not) change the rules mid-stream.  I am just saying I think it's silly that they have the rule, and maybe should consider losing it in the future.

I think Jordan is the exception or outlier, if you prefer.  I'd guess the rule was created to prevent members on other tours that play less than the qualifying amount of PGA Tour events from stealing the Cup and money from their Tour players.  The situation that is occurring with Jordan was so unlikely to happen they didn't consider the potential fall out.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Agree to disagree. Winning is winning. If you and I are competing and you work harder than me but I still win...I win. Doesn't matter that you put in more effort. I'd also argue that the "prodigy" isn't a slacker, but just knows how much effort he needs to put in to learn what he needs to learn and get the best grades. More time spent working is just a wasted effort.

With that said, I agree that Spieth should be in the playoffs, I'm just playing Devil's advocate per usual.

I wouldn't disagree with that in the "real world."  But this was a school analogy after all, so I am willing to bet that almost all teachers/administrators would agree with me. :)

They would take smart kids who work really hard over smart kids that work when the want to (Randy Moss style) any day of the week.

EDIT:  Doesn't really matter here since we both agree that Spieth earned what he has and he belongs in the playoffs.

The teacher's job is to educate.  If they are successful in that goal then what difference does it matter who worked the hardest to get there?  It's still a breeze for both of them.  The teacher has done has job.  If I'm a teacher, I'm not that concerned with either of the smart kids - they will get through just fine.  I'm going to focus my best efforts on the hard working average or above average kid who is busting his ass to try and keep up with those smart kids.   That's the student I'll bend over backwards for, and any teacher worth his tenure would do the same.

Next up: The FedEx Cup...

...is just a manufactured competition to enrich the PGA Tour.  It's a blatant copy of Nascar's Cup series, without any originality to it.  It was created as nothing more than a way to get gullible fans to continue to follow the Tour after the PGA Championship.  It used to be that by mid August, golf on TV was done - time to get excited about football.  I still look at it that way - in fact, I'm pretty much done with televised golf after the Open Championship unless it's a Ryder Cup year.  So for me, all the debate about does he or doesn't he deserve it is much ado about nothing.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The FedEx Cup...

...is just a manufactured competition to enrich the PGA Tour.  It's a blatant copy of Nascar's Cup series, without any originality to it.  It was created as nothing more than a way to get gullible fans to continue to follow the Tour after the PGA Championship.  It used to be that by mid August, golf on TV was done - time to get excited about football.  I still look at it that way - in fact, I'm pretty much done with televised golf after the Open Championship unless it's a Ryder Cup year.  So for me, all the debate about does he or doesn't he deserve it is much ado about nothing.

What are you talking about!?!?!?!?!?!  The Nascar Cup is a manufactured play off event to attempt to prolong interest and get more money and is sponsored by a global wireless phone company, whereas the Golf Cup is a manufactured play off event to attempt to prolong interest and get more money and is sponsored by a global shipping company.

I'd say that's pretty danged original and they were definitely thinking outside the box there!

EDIT:  newtogolf ... I think you are probably right on all accounts there in your last post, but I still question why the exception to the rule once you've won.  I mean, if they don't want Branden Grace (just thinking of a random European guy who's pretty good) sneaking over here and finishing in the top 10 5 times and stealing their championship, why would they be OK with it if one of those 5 top tens happens to be a win?  It doesn't quite add up.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The FedEx Cup...

...is just a manufactured competition to enrich the PGA Tour.  It's a blatant copy of Nascar's Cup series, without any originality to it.  It was created as nothing more than a way to get gullible fans to continue to follow the Tour after the PGA Championship.  It used to be that by mid August, golf on TV was done - time to get excited about football.  I still look at it that way - in fact, I'm pretty much done with televised golf after the Open Championship unless it's a Ryder Cup year.  So for me, all the debate about does he or doesn't he deserve it is much ado about nothing.

What are you talking about!?!?!?!?!?!  The Nascar Cup is a manufactured play off event to attempt to prolong interest and get more money and is sponsored by a global wireless phone company, whereas the Golf Cup is a manufactured play off event to attempt to prolong interest and get more money and is sponsored by a global shipping company.

I'd say that's pretty danged original and they were definitely thinking outside the box there!

EDIT:  newtogolf ... I think you are probably right on all accounts there in your last post, but I still question why the exception to the rule once you've won.  I mean, if they don't want Branden Grace (just thinking of a random European guy who's pretty good) sneaking over here and finishing in the top 10 5 times and stealing their championship, why would they be OK with it if one of those 5 top tens happens to be a win?  It doesn't quite add up.

What always slays me is when they talk about winners in the previous generation of Nascar drivers, they still talk about them as "Sprint Cup" winners, yet when guys like Cale Yarborough were winning, it was the Winston Cup.  They do the same with the various incarnations of the Nationwide Tour in golf, and when the inevitable  comes  and FedEx drops the cup, today's winners will be credited against whatever sponsor picks up the reins.  Are we not supposed to remember that Nascar's highest honor was once bestowed by one of the nation's largest tobacco companies?  Are the new sponsors really so jealous of the naming rights that we are no longer even allowed to pay lip service to those earlier backers?  How really stupid has the commercial side of this country become?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What always slays me is when they talk about winners in the previous generation of Nascar drivers, they still talk about them as "Sprint Cup" winners, yet when guys like Cale Yarborough were winning, it was the Winston Cup.  They do the same with the various incarnations of the Nationwide Tour in golf, and when the inevitable  comes  and FedEx drops the cup, today's winners will be credited against whatever sponsor picks up the reins.  Are we not supposed to remember that Nascar's highest honor was once bestowed by one of the nation's largest tobacco companies?  Are the new sponsors really so jealous of the naming rights that we are no longer even allowed to pay lip service to those earlier backers?  How really stupid has the commercial side of this country become?

LOL, I know!  That's also true about golf tournaments too.  Did you know that Arnold Palmer won the Farmers Insurance Open in 1957?? ;)

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL, I know!  That's also true about golf tournaments too.  Did you know that Arnold Palmer won the Farmers Insurance Open in 1957?? ;)

Yes, it bothers me that they leave the City (or other original name) out.  I get that the sponsors are paying the bills/prize money, etc. but, I it makes it hard to remember some of the tournaments when the names are changed.  When I was a kid it was the Glen Cambell Los Angeles Open...wish it was the Northern Trust L.A. Open now.

Spieth will need to improve his putting if he is going to be anywhere near as good as Tiger- right now I see him more as having Bill Haas type talent...Like Spieth, Haas missed in his first trip to Q School.  Worth repeating that Haas won the Fed Ex Cup in 2011 with his only victory of the year being the Tour Championship- There will be about 100 guys in the Fed Ex Cup playoffs without a win this season, so I don't see why that should be the all or nothing difference for Spieth (and others like him going forward).

I think convincing some of the top Euro players to become PGA Tour members was one of the reasons for the rules, but many of those guys still compete on the Euro Tour and hold membership on both tours.  I think the Fed Ex Cup playoffs are good because they attract all the big names to compete against each other- without them (and the big money WGC events), Tiger and the other top US players might only be competing against Rory and the other top Euros 4 or 5 times per year.

I agree there is almost no chance of them changing it for this year- the main goal behind the thread was going forward, especially with many of the young guys being forced to put a year in on the Web.com Tour going forward.

[Golfingdad]

Well, well, well. The word of the day is ... "Moot." :)

[boogielicious]

Great shot to win it.

[brj872]

So does this mean that all past points accrued now count towards the playoffs? Or just the points for his tournament win?

[David in FL]

As I understand it, he gets them all.

[saturday]

Does he earn his card through the win as well?

[Chilli Dipper]

He gets it all. His tour card until 2015, his full allotment of FedEx Cup points for this season, any question of whether anyone without a card can win Rookie of the Year honors, and possibly a Presidents Cup spot at Muirfield Village in the fall.

[tuffluck]

That was awesome! I enjoyed watching today's round more than playing yesterday's round lol

[saturday]

He gets it all. His tour card until 2015, his full allotment of FedEx Cup points for this season, any question of whether anyone without a card can win Rookie of the Year honors, and possibly a Presidents Cup spot at Muirfield Village in the fall.

wow, impressive. How did he get special temporary playing status on the tour anyway? I don't know enough about those kind of things.