Change Ryder Cup qualification process

Here is the current process, which is prize money based, covering all tournaments the year of the Ryder Cup plus prize money from the majors in the previous year.

So I found the most recent rankings and they show points earned in 2014 - if we go by that, this would be the US rankings - puts Kirk and Horschel on the team, knocks out Zach Johnson and Mickelson.  This seems like a MUCH better way to do the rankings to identify the players that are playing best this year.  This gives emphasis to guys playing the best in the tournaments with the strongest fields, not guys who maybe win a lesser tournament and then have some backdoor Top 10's on Sunday.

1    Watson        321.714
2    Furyk        280.174
3    Fowler        267.890
4    Kuchar        224.334
5    Horschel    209.421
6    Spieth        204.768
7    Walker        197.198
8    Reed        183.426
9    Kirk        180.165
10    Mahan        160.419
11    Na        139.339
12    Palmer        138.277
13    Z. Johnson    138.209
14    D. Johnson    137.248
15    Mickelson    137.215
16    Todd        131.771
17    Bradley        126.861
18    Haas        124.698
19    Senden        122.869
20    Simpson        95.692
21    Woodland    91.068
22    Streelman    88.644
23    Moore        80.036
24    Snedeker    78.871
25    Dufner        76.288
26    Stricker    57.238
27    Woods        6.569

How are we ever going to win if we keep using players with long term losing records? A good player may have a bad year, but not every year.  We need players who put more red than blue on the board.

How are we ever going to win if we keep using players with long term losing records for leadership positions?

There are exceptions to every rule, but for the most part we should avoid players who put blue on the boards.  Europe doesn't need players on the American team.

Why do we have to keep allowing losers to keep qualifying?

Why are the top players in the world unable to win over half their games?

If my memory serves me correctly, Tiger complained that Ryder cup dinners, and media events interfered with his preparations to play and win, and he was told to zip it - that the media events were just as important as winning.

Well seems to me if we have system of qualifying players for the Ryder Cup team based on their performance and yet we keep losing maybe our measuring system isn't correctly identifying the performance needed in Ryder Cup play.  I have always wondered why Europe seems to dominate in the foursomes competition and to some extent in the four ball competition. If I were in charge of selecting the next USA Ryder Cup team (and Captain for that matter) I would take a look at what the winners do to select teams and captains.  I would also take a close look at how they prepare for the tournament after selections are made.  The Ryder cup is all match play and a significant part is team play.  So what different characteristics does a player need to perform in this play format  Vs what he needs to qualify for the team (individual stroke play)?   So, again, if it was me I'd take a look at how Europe selects and prepares for the Ryder cup and I might even take a look at some other sports, like Tennis and Davis Cup teams, to see what successful organizations are doing different than we are.   Just a thought that maybe someone out there knows something we have yet to learn.

I'd just send the top college players to the contest. It would be a lot less of a hassle. A lot less drama too. Of course that won't happen. I think the college kids would be stoked, and hungry to play well.

What I would do is take the top ranked pro players, using a four week span, just prior to the contest. That way the team would be made up of players who are playing their best games during that time frame. This would take a way sending players who, although rated higher over the past two years, do not have their "A"  game during the time of the contest.

It's pretty much been proven that our two year top ranked players are not a good match up for the top ranked Europeans.

I would also let the team pick who they want as a captain. The PGA could supply them with a list of 20 possible candidates, plus a couple of write in blanks. The American player over the course of the prior year prior to the contest would select their captain from that list. The persons getting the second and third place votes would be assistant captains. This would prevent the players, should they fail, from placing most, if not all of the blame on their captain.

All we have to do is look at the records.  Jack, Arnold, Billy Casper, Trevino, Larry Nelson, Faldo, all could win more than 50%.  Tiger is better than any of them, Phil is just as good as most on my list.  So, why can't they do as good as Jack, Arnold, Billy Casper, Trevino, Larry Nelson, Faldo?

Arnold played successfully for Hogan.  And they were like oil and water.

We don't know all the facts.

I believe the Captain is the critical cog in Ryder Cup play because they set the teams and order of play.  The Pod system is a proven system but there are others as well.

The key is you have to analyze the data and put guys together that either are very similar or complement each other.  For example, Bubba is used to hitting his driver a ton and having a short iron or wedge into his next shot on a Par 4.  if you're playing alternate shot and you team Bubba up with a short driver he's going to be playing approach shots from distances he's not used to playing.  If you have an inconsistent player like Phil, you want to team him up with someone that is consistent to maintain team balance, you can't have both guys go off the rails like him and Keegan did on Friday afternoon.

Doing a statistical analysis on their games, projected weather conditions and personality profiles will help to determine the best pairings and order for the different days.  Some guys do better in the morning, others prefer the afternoon, some guys play well in the wind or rain, some don't, etc.

This methodology is used in business and the military quite often, Azinger is first I'm aware of to apply a variations of it into golf.  These guys are all great golfers, it's the captains job to put them into a position where they can win.

I found this on another website. It was posted by good friend of mine This guy is in his early 70s and has PGA players for neighbors. He also shoots scores in the 70s. We sometimes think alike. Not often but sometimes. His post was in regards to Mickelson and Woods being part of a group who will pick the next RC captain.

"First off I don’t think players with losing RC records should have anything to do with picking the captain. They have already proven they provide little to this contest.

What they should do is let the top 50 American players vote from a list of 20 possible candidates provided by thePGA, with two write in blanks. The blanks are for the players who want to vote for some one else who might not be listed in original 20. Then, to cull it down even further the players would vote again on the top 5 candidates, with the leading vote recipient becoming the captain. The second and third place runner ups would be the assistants.

Next, to pick the team, 6 weeks in advance of the start of the contest, separate rankings would be kept on all American players. Those top 10 American players garnering enough rankings in the first four weeks would be placed on the team. The remaining two weeks could be used for a final tune up so to speak. There would be no captain’s picks. Those picks would be voted on by the original ten players already selected. This would give them the chance of playing with whom they want to.

What this does is put the onus on the players to win since they put together their own team. It also means the players who are playing the best golf during the contest’s time frame are on the team. If a no name is playing great golf, and Mickelson is tanking, then the no name plays in the tournament just as an example. Mickelson would have to finish it the top 10, or be voted in by those players already in the top 10.

Since the captain is basically a figure head who handles logistic support, and (maybe) puts together a schedule of match ups, the out come of the contest is not really on his shoulders. The players would be held responsible for their own play, win, or lose. They want to control everything as it is, and this would do it for them."

I couldn't disagree more with the idea the Captain is just an administrator who just looks at statistics and uses some sort of magic mathematical formula to assign players based on those data.  If that were true the Tiger/Phil team would never have lost a match.  But clearly they were oil and water and just didn't mix well.  Rather I believe the Captain is a manager that takes the time to know his players' skills, strengths and weaknesses, personalities, and their thoughts on the other team members as partners.  I believe that getting some "buy in" from the players on these assignments is an important aspect of what the Captain should do.  If you don't do that then the players are "just working for the man", but if you get their buy in and support then there should be some motivation to make the plan and the team a success.

Somehow or another the European Captains have figured out how to do this as often our teams would appear to be "better" based on the performance statistics but just don't get the job done on the course.  I think that has as much to do with the leadership as the players.

Just for the record I am not suggesting the Captain takes a vote on the assignments, I am suggesting he lets the players know he wants and considers the individual players thoughts on what the plan for winning the Ryder Cup is and not act as a dictator.  Nor am I suggesting that is what Tom Watson did,  I was not there and don't know anymore than was in the press.  I think Tom Watson is one of the great players of the game and would never believe he was motivated in any of his actions other than trying to win the Ryder Cup.  You can do all the "correct" actions in developing a plan and still lose.  Some days are just not your day and every golfer knows there is no defense in golf.

No it isn't.

The U.S. team won when Azinger used it. It isn't necessarily the reason they won. They wore a certain brand of clothing that year too. That doesn't prove anything.

The ONLY change I would make would be to make the Captain's picks later in the process. It would have benefited the US a lot to wait til at least after the BMW to make their picks. I would like to see one pick after the Duetsche Bank, one after the BMW and one after the TOUR. The three picks were the best choices at the time, but all 3 of them then played horrible down the stretch in the playoffs and didn't exactly bring their A-game to the Ryder Cup, either.

My suggestion is have the captain pick them all.....

In addition to Captain's picks there needs to be 1 Captain's DQ.  That is . .the captain can disqualify one player who made it on points if he wants to. From here on known as "The Bubba Clause".

After this past RC would you really trust Watson to pick the entire team? Not me.

cubdog