PGA Tour Might Change Cut Rule?

[Shindig]

This Golf Digest article popped up to me;  if I'm reading it correctly, the proposal is that the cut becomes top-65 and ties, with a removal of MDF.  As one of the few people who likes the MDF rule, I don't like removing it.   But I suspect starting the "and ties" a little bit higher might help -- I'm sure they did some back testing.

Why PGA Tour winners will receive bigger payouts thanks to proposed new rule - Golf Digest

---

A couple tweaks to the PGA Tour's cut policy could have a big impact on winners' paydays, according to report.

I also don't like moving the winner's share to 20%.  I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but there's something nice about 18% of the purse going to the winner of a professional golf tournament. 

 

[Frank-0-Sport]

23 hours ago, Shindig said:

See his first post in this thread.

RE - MDF ..... No matter many players make the Low 70-and-ties cut, only one is going to win, and then the rest finish accordingly, My belief is that there should be two cuts, the first at 36 holes to the Low 70-and-ties, and then the second at 54 holes to the Low 40-and-ties.  Those not making the 54-hole cut would receive appropriate money and points. Also, those who do make the 54-hole cut but (for whatever reason) do not complete their 4th rounds will be treated as if they too did not make the 54-hole cut, and let them receive appropriate rewards.

A smaller 4th round field (at least 40 to, say, 56 players playing twosomes) would enjoy tee times more flexibly spaced between groups. The final twosome would go off at around 1:20pm ET, or about 30-40 minutes earlier than current practice. This would allow for a not-so-harried conclusion and proper TV sign-off. Also, in the event of a playoff the extra minutes gained with the 54-hole Low 40 cut would allow the TV network (CBS or NBC) to stay with the action longer and perhaps avoid shifting coverage over to Golf Channel at the 7:00pm ET "Zero Hour".

RE - PGA Tour's Proposed Low-65 Cut ... When I see words to the effect saying that the top money prize would go from 18 percent of the purse to 20 percent, I am concerned about what tinkering the PGA Tour may do with the lowest place prizes. Currently, the difference ratio between the 1st place ($ 900,000 in a $ 5 million event) and 70th place ($ 10,000) prizes is 90-to-1 in regular PGA Tour events (excluding WGC's and majors). This was an improvement over the PGA Tour's 20-percent distribution method of the 1970s, when the difference ratio between 1st place ($ 40,000 in a $ 200,000 event) and 70th place ($ 300) was 133.33-to-1.

In the first two years of the Fed Ex Cup, 2007 and 2008, the points distribution method mirrored that for money. Then in 2009, the points distribution method was changed (perverted, in my not-so-humble view) to a non-standard method. Further adjustments (more perversion) occurred later on, so that now the points distribution math works this way -- For regular PGA Tour events offering "full-point allocation". the difference ratio between 1st place (500 pts) and 70th place (3 pts) is 166.66-to-1;  for WGC's, where 1st awards 550 pts and 70th awards 3.40 pts, the difference ratio is 161.76-to-1; for the Majors and the Players, where 1st awards 600 pts and 70th awards 3.40 points (the 21st thru 70th place points for WGCs, Majors and Players are the same !!!), the difference ratio is 176.47-to-1.

So, I am dreading the "gross perversion" of the prize money distribution that may result should the Low-65 proposal be adopted.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Frank-0-Sport

[turtleback]

On 5/26/2019 at 11:33 AM, Shindig said:

This Golf Digest article popped up to me;  if I'm reading it correctly, the proposal is that the cut becomes top-65 and ties, with a removal of MDF.  As one of the few people who likes the MDF rule, I don't like removing it.   But I suspect starting the "and ties" a little bit higher might help -- I'm sure they did some back testing.

Why PGA Tour winners will receive bigger payouts thanks to proposed new rule - Golf Digest

---

A couple tweaks to the PGA Tour's cut policy could have a big impact on winners' paydays, according to report.

I also don't like moving the winner's share to 20%.  I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but there's something nice about 18% of the purse going to the winner of a professional golf tournament. 

 

It was 20% for a long time before they reduced it to 18%.  I don't know why one number is 'nicer' than another.

1 hour ago, Frank-0-Sport said:

RE - MDF ..... No matter many players make the Low 70-and-ties cut, only one is going to win, and then the rest finish accordingly, My belief is that there should be two cuts, the first at 36 holes to the Low 70-and-ties, and then the second at 54 holes to the Low 40-and-ties.  Those not making the 54-hole cut would receive appropriate money and points. Also, those who do make the 54-hole cut but (for whatever reason) do not complete their 4th rounds will be treated as if they too did not make the 54-hole cut, and let them receive appropriate rewards.

A smaller 4th round field (at least 40 to, say, 56 players playing twosomes) would enjoy tee times more flexibly spaced between groups. The final twosome would go off at around 1:20pm ET, or about 30-40 minutes earlier than current practice. This would allow for a not-so-harried conclusion and proper TV sign-off. Also, in the event of a playoff the extra minutes gained with the 54-hole Low 40 cut would allow the TV network (CBS or NBC) to stay with the action longer and perhaps avoid shifting coverage over to Golf Channel at the 7:00pm ET "Zero Hour".

RE - PGA Tour's Proposed Low-65 Cut ... When I see words to the effect saying that the top money prize would go from 18 percent of the purse to 20 percent, I am concerned about what tinkering the PGA Tour may do with the lowest place prizes. Currently, the difference ratio between the 1st place ($ 900,000 in a $ 5 million event) and 70th place ($ 10,000) prizes is 90-to-1 in regular PGA Tour events (excluding WGC's and majors). This was an improvement over the PGA Tour's 20-percent distribution method of the 1970s, when the difference ratio between 1st place ($ 40,000 in a $ 200,000 event) and 70th place ($ 300) was 133.33-to-1.

In the first two years of the Fed Ex Cup, 2007 and 2008, the points distribution method mirrored that for money. Then in 2009, the points distribution method was changed (perverted, in my not-so-humble view) to a non-standard method. Further adjustments (more perversion) occurred later on, so that now the points distribution math works this way -- For regular PGA Tour events offering "full-point allocation". the difference ratio between 1st place (500 pts) and 70th place (3 pts) is 166.66-to-1;  for WGC's, where 1st awards 550 pts and 70th awards 3.40 pts, the difference ratio is 161.76-to-1; for the Majors and the Players, where 1st awards 600 pts and 70th awards 3.40 points (the 21st thru 70th place points for WGCs, Majors and Players are the same !!!), the difference ratio is 176.47-to-1.

So, I am dreading the "gross perversion" of the prize money distribution that may result should the Low-65 proposal be adopted.

Why was giving more money to lowest losers at the expense of the winner an 'improvement'?  Isn't it enough that with 125 exempt players rather than the earlier 60 the lower level guys get enough already?

It is the guys who win or have a chance to win that draws the fans and the TV ratings (i.e., where the money comes from), not the guys who finish 50th, or 65th.

Edited May 27, 2019 by turtleback

[Frank-0-Sport]

34 minutes ago, turtleback said:

It was 20% for a long time before they reduced it to 18%.  I don't know why one number is 'nicer' than another.

Why was giving more money to lowest losers at the expense of the winner an 'improvement'?  Isn't it enough that with 125 exempt players rather than the earlier 60 the lower level guys get enough already?

It is the guys who win or have a chance to win that draws the fans and the TV ratings (i.e., where the money comes from), not the guys who finish 50th, or 65th.

To Turtleback ... I am not opposed to the rewarding of players based on their finishes in any given event. The player who finishes first gets an appropriate reward for that finish and so does the last place finisher and all in-between. And, as in any sports event, the winner (as well as anyone finishing among the Top 5, 10 or 25) will always be the one that successfully executes on a consistent basis as well as when it matters the most.

My main argument here is that some level of fairness for the benefit of all finishers be maintained. The winner would still get the lion's share, and the rest would get what they each deserve. But the difference between first and last place should not be so much that it becomes competitively unfair, which the current Fed Ex Cup Points set-up is in my view.

On the Top 125 Money Winner standard, I've always thought that it allowed too much "deadwood" to stay afloat for much too long. Trimming the threshold to the Top 80 or 90 would be appropriate, but those numbers may not sit well with the tour players. I also advocate a trimming of the WEB.COM exemptees from 50 to 40, which again may not sit well with the membership.  A reduction of both money leader and WEB.COM exemptions might justify reducing full starting field sizes to, say, 120 players, vs 132, 144 or 156.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Frank-0-Sport

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, Frank-0-Sport said:

To Turtleback ... I am not opposed to the rewarding of players based on their finishes in any given event. The player who finishes first gets an appropriate reward for that finish and so does the last place finisher and all in-between. And, as in any sports event, the winner (as well as anyone finishing among the Top 5, 10 or 25) will always be the one that successfully executes on a consistent basis as well as when it matters the most.

My main argument here is that some level of fairness for the benefit of all finishers be maintained. The winner would still get the lion's share, and the rest would get what they each deserve. But the difference between first and last place should not be so much that it becomes competitively unfair, which the current Fed Ex Cup Points set-up is in my view.

On the Top 125 Money Winner standard, I've always thought that it allowed too much "deadwood" to stay afloat for much too long. Trimming the threshold to the Top 80 or 90 would be appropriate, but those numbers may not sit well with the tour players. I also advocate a trimming of the WEB.COM exemptees from 50 to 40, which again may not sit well with the membership.  A reduction of both money leader and WEB.COM exemptions might justify reducing full starting field sizes to, say, 120 players, vs 132, 144 or 156.

@Frank-0-Sport

If you use the "@" symbol (mentions), you can notify the person you are responding to.