Your thoughts on the PGA Playoffs

[Tugglife2]

RE: Not caring about winning the FedEx trophy itself, I'm pretty sure most of these guys are motivated enough by the 10 MILLION dollar prize to the overall winner.

[uttexas]

There was a big problem from say 1999 to 2007. The best golfers were making so much money that they wouldn't play hardly any events from PGA Championship to next year's Masters (OK, I admit it, it was mostly Tiger). Viewership=TV revenue=the big cash cow for the PGA would drop significantly if the best players (mostly Tiger) didn't play.


Solution: Throw more money at the golfers (mostly Tiger).

Tiger pretty much subverted the "system" the first year, so they quickly changed the rules.


2007 PGA revenue $972 million
2007 revenue from television $368 million
source http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58947

How valuable is/was Tiger to the PGA?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009...oods-golf-220m


Overall, I like the Fed Ex Cup. I get to watch more quality golf on TV.

[sean_miller]

I liked his heroic Greg Norman like charge - too little too late on Sunday. The Tiger haters didn't have much to say and he was done golfing when I started watching. Win win.

[The Recreational Golfer]

As I recall, Tim Finchem was worried about the late-season competition from pro football, so he borrowed something from NASCAR and came up with this playoff system, though it's not that clear what is being played off. When I start reading the players saying in January, "I'm got my game in shape to make a run this year at the FedEx Cup," and not mention a word about the majors tournaments, I'll believe in the playoffs. Until then, it's just four more tournaments, as far as I can tell. Nothing against that, but it's just four more tournaments.

[gogolfing]

I like them since the tweaks they made last year. It keeps the major players in tournaments after the PGA, and it is pretty wide open in terms of players being able to move up the standings with good showings. First two years I wasn't as high on them, but last year and this year I have enjoyed them.

[JWL1957]

Lipstick on a pig. But you can call it whatever you like. The 4 majors are finished for the year, and nobody will give a chit who won the 2010 Fedex Cup next spring.

[Zeph]

It makes the end of the season more entertaining, but is kinda unfair since how well you've played through the season doesn't necessarily mean anything in the end.
Kinda like a sports league in football, basketball or something where the last 5 matches gave you 10 times the points a normal match would.

[max power]

  Zeph said:

It makes the end of the season more entertaining, but is kinda unfair since how well you've played through the season doesn't necessarily mean anything in the end.

It's just like every other major American sport. Performing well all season gives you a "seeding" advantage.

[Rexx]

  max power said:

It's just like every other major American sport. Performing well all season gives you a "seeding" advantage.

Exactly. Although, with each year they make the seedings less and less relevant (e.g. more points awarded for playoff events, points reset after 3rd playoff event, etc.). This was done specifically because Tiger would win half a dozen events during the regular season, including a couple of majors (double points), and his lead was nearly insurmountable.

Anyways, I can think of 3 ways why this "fails" in some people's minds: 1. I think folks just don't like the fact that the winner of the final event may not actually win the Cup, although the PGA Tour has tried to remedy that. I predict they will eventually just make that last event a winner-take-all. 2. Using the term "playoffs" commonly elicits the notion that the champion is THE champion of the year -- which is obviously not the case in golf (# of majors is still tops). It's somewhat important and meaningful (and over time that may increase even more), but the winner does not determine the success of his season on winning the Cup (like all other playoff-based sports). 3. Most golf fans are passive observers -- meaning they don't live and die with a particular golfer (like they do with their favorite football/basketball/baseball team). Certainly, this has something to do with folks being fans of particular teams due to home city proximity -- a very odd behavior when you think about it ("New York sucks! Boston rules!") -- not something you get in large enough #s with golf fans. Also, the fact that the top golfers only win < 10% of their "games" doesn't help. That would be like being a Lions fan.

[Connor.]

i would like it more if the following round was not determined by points, but specifically the previous rounds performance.
for example, if Ernie Els finished 101 last week, hes not playing in the Deutsche Bank this weekend, despite the fact that he was no.1 going into the Barclays.
Then the top 70 the following week etc.

If they are trying to make it more like a "playoff" then this is how it should be done. In other sports, despite how you played in the regular season, if you play poorly in the playoffs, there are no second chances.

[max power]

  Connor. said:

i would like it more if the following round was not determined by points, but specifically the previous rounds performance.

Never happen-would alienate too many viewers, not to mention hardcore golf fans who want to see the guys who played well all year stick around. I think the current system is a good balance, gives a slight advantage to those who had a good season, but not overwhelming-the playoffs are still very much wide open.

[CG031]

I think it makes things more interesting, but it's nothing like the four majors. I think the PGA Tour does a great job of trying to hype it up.

[iacas]

  max power said:

Never happen-would alienate too many viewers, not to mention hardcore golf fans who want to see the guys who played well all year stick around. I think the current system is a good balance, gives a slight advantage to those who had a good season, but not overwhelming-the playoffs are still very much wide open.

What he said.

Plus, cutting to 100 players would be awkward, and what do you do about the people who are T100? And what are you gonna do at the BMW? Cut to the top 30 after play when it's relatively easy to win even if you're T36 or so after two rounds? It not only doesn't make sense to eliminate Ernie and Phil right away, but it doesn't make sense to make the cuts like that each week.

[Tiger Spuds]

I won't pretend to know exactly how these FedEx cup points are calculated.. But I was just checking out the current standings and I have to say I find it ridiculous that Martin Laird, with 0 wins and 3 top 10's all year , can be 6th in the standings while Tim Clark is 22nd with 1 win and 6 top 10's. Rory too, is 29th with a win and 5 top 10's. I realise playoff events hold more ranking points and Laird finished 2nd last week, but outside of the Majors, The players and Quail Hollow are two of the biggest events on the Tour. Surely the system would work better if a player's performance throughout the entire season was rewarded more handsomely. As it is, any player who gets hot for a week or two at the right time has a chance of winning it, regardless of their performances during the season. It's a lottery in that sense, rewarding temporary form over long term performance. That philosophy doesn't make much sense to me.

[mcfc_nick]

  Tiger Spuds said:

I won't pretend to know exactly how these FedEx cup points are calculated.. But I was just checking out the current standings and I have to say I find it ridiculous that Martin Laird, with

yeah but they want it to mainly depend on the playoffs. i dont really have an example for you but ill say american football, you could win every match in the regular season but if you dont play well in the playoffs then you dont win. they have it so that the regular season gives you some sort of advantage but you better show up in the playoffs if you wanna win anything

[paxtonman]

I like the concept, but the courses should be setup tougher. I'd like to see winning scores in the 5-8 under range. Just a hair easier then US Open conditions. The tour in general needs tougher rough, I don't like seeing guys bombing away and missing fairways because the rough doesn't penalize them enough. Let'em think about pulling the driver out at times. I don't mean 500 yd par 4's, 450-475 with serious rough would do. Admit it we're all waiting to see the guy who has to make a 15ft putt at the end for $10 mil.

[senorchipotle]

  paxtonman said:

I like the concept, but the courses should be setup tougher. I'd like to see winning scores in the 5-8 under range. Just a hair easier then US Open conditions. The tour in general needs tougher rough, I don't like seeing guys bombing away and missing fairways because the rough doesn't penalize them enough. Let'em think about pulling the driver out at times. I don't mean 500 yd par 4's, 450-475 with serious rough would do. Admit it we're all waiting to see the guy who has to make a 15ft putt at the end for $10 mil.

here here....

[O.B. Right]

Overall, I like the playoffs because it means more good golf on TV. I find the point system hard to understand. Maybe because I don't understand the system, it doesn't really seem like a "play-off" to me but more like a series of related tournaments. If they called it the FedEx Fall Series or something like that, it would make more sense to me.

I would like to see a "playoff" that took place over 1 week and started with stroke play and ended with match play and culminate in a #1 vs #2 match play final round. I'm not saying that would be best for the tv ratings . .but it would be cool.