By failing to find a pass for Woods, PGA Tour has sabotaged its final event

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

Well first off, Tiger sabotaged himself with his off-course follies and on-course swing revamp, and yet he still managed to get within one event of the Tour Championship.

And yes, the PGA Tour did indeed sabotage the Tour Championship, but -NOT- when they created the Fed Ex Cup Series. The sabotage was committed when the Tour Championship itself was created way-a-ways back in 1987.

The Tour Championship's invitational criteria has always been the Top 30 - specificly, any player in positions one thru thirty - whether it be in money (1987-2006) or in Fed Ex Cup points (2007-GodOnlyKnowsWhen). No replacements for vacant spots are allowed, and there's never been any provision for inviting the previous year's winner of the Tour Championship, Leading Money Winner Title or Fed Ex Cup if any such player was not otherwise eligible.

If it were up to me, and regardless of whether the PGA Tour operates with or without playoffs, I would have the Tour Championship's invitational criteria as follows ......

1. The Top 50 Money (or Points) Leaders up to the start of the event.
2. For each case of a vacant spot among the Top 50, the first available player beyond the Top 50 on the Money (or Points) List up to the start of the event.

ALSO: If not otherwise eligible -AND- on the condition that the player is among the Top 120 in Money (or points) up to the start of the event--

3. The previous year's winner of the Tour Championship
4. The previous year's Leading Money Winner (or Fed Ex Cup Champion)

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[golfro]

I understand your point. But golf will find its own center again, and will continue to attract its share of people who just love the game........ instead of the hype.

again... people who love golf will love golf. the networks don't make money off that (well they do but not the bulk), its when the general public take interest, is when the money really starts coming in. Call it hype if you will, it is what it is and the PGA and the TV networks thrive on it.

Of course golf will find its way, after all the PGA tour didn't always have a Tiger...but point is, they need to step up with their marketing and figure out a way to reach out to the general public without Tiger.

[bwdial]

Gerrymandering the rules for one guy would have a much more damaging effect on the sport long term.

[Harmonious]

The TV ratings for golf have never been close to those of the major sports. The reason so much golf is shown on TV is that the demographic of the target audience is off the charts, in terms of household income. Golfers have more disposable income than bowling or football fans. Why do you think the golf sponsors are brokerage houses, banks, luxury cars and the like, and the biggest sponsors on football games are beer companies? I know there are exceptions, but I hope you get my point. Those sponsors are trying to reach the people with real money in their pockets, and those core viewers follow golf regardless of who is playing in a given week. Tiger in contention will bring in more viewers, but as far as the sponsors are concerned, the core viewers are who they are going after, not the casual viewer.

That's a long-winded way to say that the article writer is wrong. If Tiger earned his way, fine. If he didn't, then he'll have to wait until next year. Heck, the Yankees aren't in every World Series, either.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

That's a long-winded way to say that the article writer is wrong. If Tiger earned his way, fine. If he didn't, then he'll have to wait until next year. Heck, the Yankees aren't in every World Series, either.

Well said, Harmonious

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[newtogolf]

I understand your point. But golf will find its own center again, and will continue to attract its share of people who just love the game........ instead of the hype.

It's not a matter of finding center, it's a matter of having enough fans to watch golf on television and attend golf events to keep advertisers interested. Tiger brought golf to the masses, even people who didn't like golf would watch golf because of Tigers play (not his personal life) was usually the talk around water coolers.

This isn't about the game, it's about marketing and the share of people who just love the game isn't enough to create bidding wars for broadcast rights and maintain the broadcast advertising rates. It's not enough to excite golf equipment manufacturers and other advertisers to pay $100K+ to buy television ads during televised broadcasts. If broadcast rights contracts and ad rates decrease so do the sponsored tournaments and prize money. It's a downward spiral that impacts the entire sport and loyal fans. As much as I like Watson, DJ, and Fowler, they're not positioned to take the cover on EA Sports Tiger Woods. If Tiger gets his swing back the PGA will be safe for a while. They need to take that time to develop the young talent.

[Cornbread]

I've never read anything else by Cameron Morfit, so maybe this is a one-time slip but I think he should be fired. A sports writer who suggests that a national sports league bend or manipulate the rules to give top-bill players an advantage? Why, then, doesn't the NFL manipulate the superbowel so smaller market teams can't get in? Surely there are more Giants fans than Cardinals fans, right?

As I have been argued with numerious times in here.... many folks think it should be entertainment, not sport. I still totally disagree.

[Cornbread]

the general public doesn't care about the Dustin Johnsons and Hunter Mahan's of the PGA Tour. Mass of millions of general public, golfers or not, like to watch exciting golf. Exciting for them is Tiger.

Woods is no more exciting than Bubba Watson, Dustin Johnson, John Daly or many many other pro's.

The excitement is gererated by the announcers who constantly told/tell us what to think. JB Holmes can go birdie, birdie, eagle, birdie, eagle and hit 340 yard shots in the process. The announcers don't build him up, nor is his every shot and every move shown! Building Holmes up would not have brought untold numbers of minorities into the sport or and as TV viewers. The media can create superstars. Thus we have lady GaGa... and Maria Sharapova and Anna Kourinkova.

[jamo]

Woods is no more exciting than Bubba Watson, Dustin Johnson, John Daly or many many other pro's.

I would take 72 wins of excitement over 2, 4, or 5 PGA TOUR wins, respectively.

The media can create superstars. Thus we have lady GaGa... and Maria Sharapova and Anna Kourinkova.

How many of those 14 major wins are media created?

[pittpanther]

I would take 72 wins of excitement over 2, 4, or 5 PGA TOUR wins, respectively.

You get it, jamo. We don't know what kind of a star the other guys would be, because they JUST DON'T WIN ENOUGH! Tiger would not be a big star if he didn't win so much more than everyone else did. Hype will only go so far (which is why Kournikova is a joke). Not sure Cornbread chose to dis Sharipova - she's won her fair share, including multiple majors.

What's funny is that the casual sports fan (not golf fan) knows of Jack Nicklaus. That's not because of any "hype" - it's because he won, a LOT. The PGA Tour has proven that if someone would win a lot, they will be come a household name. Unfortunately for the tour, no one other than Tiger has done it since Nicklaus.

[jamo]

What's funny is that the casual sports fan (not golf fan) knows of Jack Nicklaus. That's not because of any "hype" - it's because he won, a LOT. The PGA Tour has proven that if someone would win a lot, they will be come a household name. Unfortunately for the tour, no one other than Tiger has done it since Nicklaus.

Good point. Through much of his career Jack was "Fat Jack" who was trying to steal the spotlight from beloved Arnie and a lot of people resented that. His 18 majors put that feeling to rest.

[sean_miller]

Good point. Through much of his career Jack was "Fat Jack" who was trying to steal the spotlight from beloved Arnie and a lot of people resented that. His 18 majors put that feeling to rest.

Players are portrayed diferently by different media outlets I guess, but we never had US network TV growing up, just magazines and newspapers, and they always spoke very highly of Nicklaus. Especially when he seemed to revel in close competition with Trevino, Weiskopf, Watson, etc. By the time Jack reached the 71st hole at the 1972 US Open, Arnie was a already a caricature. Sure he might have won in the 1970s, if he could putt (like Watson in the 1990s), but no dice. He seemed very old for his age in the 1970s.

Anyway, there were people who never accepted Nicklaus, just like there are Tiger and Phil fans who think it should be one of those two guys on the screen at all times. Personally, I thought their round together last Sunday was as uneventful. When Tiger's not in contention, watching paint dry has more excitement.

[Shindig]

I'll join the chorus of those saying the TOUR Championship is just fine without Tiger this year.

Back in February, I watched the Super Bowl, which is kind of like the Tour Championship, only for the NFL. And yet, I knew two weeks before it that the Patriots wouldn't be playing, as they had messed up farther back in the playoffs (remember that quarter when the Ravens made them look like the Lions?). Tiger got to the penultimate event; the Patriots barely made it past the first quarter of the playoffs.

Just because the group that I find the most exciting to watch -- whether it's Tiger Woods and Anthony Kim or the Patriots and the Bears -- didn't qualify, and didn't get special treatment, doesn't mean the event is any less exciting.

[sean_miller]

I'll join the chorus of those saying the TOUR Championship is just fine without Tiger this year.

That's what the Tour Championship needs . . . they need cheerleaders. And if they can get The Who to play at halftime it would really push it over the top!!

[Zeph]

I don't see the problem here. Tiger is ranked #1 on the OWGR, not on the FedEx Cup. The FedEx cup is a year long competition for only one year. Tiger had such a big lead in the OWGR that he could play poorly and still remain #1.

One should rather question how the OWGR is calculated, that is if this is really a big problem.

The best players are often the most entertaining, and what draws the crowd or TV viewers. It is however not really fair that the top players get exempt into all the top tournaments just because they have played well a year earlier. I know I would not have wanted to be player number 31 into the Tour Championship and saw 2-3 players ranked high on the OWGR get a spot in it, despite being 30 slots down on the FedEx Cup ranking.

With the new system, anyone can win the FedEx Cup with playing well in the playoffs. Ernie Els, leading the Cup all year is not in a good position to win it. I see the point with getting all the excitement and good players into the playoffs, but I don't agree with it.

[JWL1957]

The playoff is at a bad time of year for the tour and the associated TV networks. NCAA Football, NFL, and the Nascar chase are far more lucrative for networks in obtaining sponsors. Tiger or no Tiger........ the championship is a afterthought for most viewers. The 2 courses I hang out at have football on the TV this time of year and all eyes are glued to it.

[ghalfaire]

I don't agree with the editorial. The FedEx will be fine without Tiger and I'll be watching. I would hope Tiger will get his game in order and play his way in next year as I'm not a Tiger detractor and admit the playoff without him isn't as exciting. But I don't see it as a long term benefit to golf to change rules at the last minute to admit someone just because of their popularity and TV draw. It would just make a mockery of the playoffs. It would akin to changing the BCS rules so Boise State can play in the NCAA championship in spite of their soft schedule.

[zeg]

One should rather question how the OWGR is calculated, that is if this is really a big problem.

Yep, the FedEx cup is its own thing. I don't think there's any problem with the OWGR---if you want to know who the best player is this year, look at the FedEx cup (or money list). If you want to know this week, look at the tournament. The OWGR is (I guess) designed to smooth over short bad periods, and when you've been as dominant as Tiger for so long, it rightly takes a pretty long doldrum before you get bumped.

I agree it's a bummer that Tiger isn't in the FedEx cup, but that's the way it worked out. Rigging the system to get your big names in the playoffs may seem tempting, but it will backfire when people realize your "sport" has turned into pro wrestling. Not to dis pro wrestling as entertainment (though it's not my thing): it may be entertainment, but it's not a competition. It's cool that the FedEx Cup gets the big names to play in the last few tournaments of the year. Personally, I think that's great. The scoring and points system to me, however, seems so contrived that I don't find myself that interested in who wins the Cup itself. I don't think golf can be wrangled into the sort of playoff format they want it to be where, somehow, you have to do well through the season and in the playoffs, but you can't actually lock it up until the final event. If they've shot themselves in the foot, that's where they've done it---I think they panicked assuming Tiger or Vijay would make the final irrelevant every year... but that's just my opinion.

It would just make a mockery of the playoffs. It would akin to changing the BCS rules so Boise State can play in the NCAA championship in spite of their soft schedule.

I'm not sure you want to bring up the BCS as an example of a "better way" to set up a championship.....