FedEx Point system..the way it SHOULD be

[majorchamp]

I 100% agree with this article:

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/...020325,00.html

For a system based entirely on points, the FedEx Cup series continues to miss the point. Completely. After criticism in the first two seasons that the point system was too complicated, the PGA Tour tweaked it. What that meant, simply, was greatly reducing the number of points. It also significantly increased the importance of the four playoff events, which are worth 2,500 points each, five times what a regular season tour event is worth. The four major championships are each worth 600 points. You can do the math: Winning the Grand Slam would be worth 2,400 points, 100 points fewer than Matt Kuchar got for winning the Barclays. But since the points reset before the Tour Championship, like NASCAR bringing everyone back to the same lap for a final sprint to the finish, maybe it doesn't matter. If you can live with that, then you're probably also fine with Charley Hoffman being No. 3 in points going into the Tour Championship even though he didn't qualify for any of this year's four major championships. Kevin Streelman is 67th on the money list, and he's in Atlanta. Martin Laird is 44th. They're golf's wild-card teams, and that's O.K. The Tour could tweak the points system every year, however, and it wouldn't address the real problem: the points don't relate to anything real. They're arbitrary numbers, and no amount of adjusting will change that fact. (Also, it's virtually impossible to "keep score." Sure, the TV networks try to provide the projected FedEx Cup standings, but they change every minute as big chunks of points are added and subtracted from players' projected totals.) The only chance of making the FedEx Cup race interesting to viewers and the media is to score in terms of something we can understand: relation to par. Simply keep track of players' cumulative scores during the four playoff tournaments. At each FedEx Cup event after the opener, there would be two leaderboards. One for that event, and one for the FedEx Cup. Dustin Johnson might be leading the BMW at eight under, but Matt Kuchar is leading the FedEx Cup at 29 under. That way, every player in the field (and every fan) knows where he stands in relation to the FedEx Cup race. That's pretty much the only way anyone will arrive at the 72nd hole at East Lake and know what he has to do to win the FedEx Cup, and the only way any player will ever stand over a putt knowing it's worth $10 million, a moment I think we're all rooting for. I have computed how the FedEx Cup standings would look using my system. Ten players who made it into the field at East Lake would be out in my scoring system because they either failed to play (Jim Furyk was disqualified because he missed his pro-am tee time) or missed a cut along the way. That includes Furyk, Phil Mickelson, Geoff Ogilvy, Justin Rose, Tim Clark, Ben Crane, K.J. Choi, Jeff Overton, Ryan Moore and Bo Van Pelt. Cumulative scoring would encourage, and possibly require, perfect attendance, and field sizes could be adjusted accordingly. To reward the players who win each playoff event, I give them a five-shot bonus. Kuchar won the Barclays in a playoff at 12 under, so his FedEx Cup score is adjusted to 17 under. Hoffman and Dustin Johnson also earned the bonus with their playoff wins. A few things stand out in these new standings, listed below. Tiger Woods easily makes it to the Tour Championship with a cumulative three-week score of 18 under. In the real FedEx Cup system, Woods finished 42nd and didn't advance. Some other notable differences: Y.E. Yang moved from 67th to 13th, Adam Scott moved from 14th to fourth, and Streelman jumped from 29th to eighth. Ernie Els, eighth in the real list, dropped to 28th in my table. The Tour says its revised system guarantees victory for any top-five player who wins the Tour Championship, and that it is mathematically possible, though unlikely, for the player ranked 30th to claim the FedEx Cup. In my top 30 players, there's a spread of 31 strokes between Kuchar at 33 under and Angel Cabrera at two under. Since the winner gets a five-stroke bonus, that's really a 26-shot spread. It is very possible to make up 26 shots in a 72-hole event. The spread between first place and last place at the BMW Championship, for instance, was 26 shots. What a coincidence. Tiger would begin the Tour Championship 15 shots behind Kuchar. Wouldn't it be fun seeing him try to whittle away at that lead every day? Cumulative par may be an obvious alternative, and it doesn't reflect how well a player performed during the regular season, but that's O.K. Once the playoffs start, it doesn't matter how many games the Yankees won in the regular season, either. Cumulative score relative to par for Barclays, Deutsche Bank and BMW Championships. Tournament winners earned a five-shot bonus. Rankings under current FedEx Cup point system are in parentheses. 1. Matt Kuchar (1) -33 2. Charley Hoffman (3) -29 3. Steve Stricker (4) -27 4. Adam Scott (14) -25 5. Dustin Johnson (2) -23 6. Paul Casey (5) -22 7. Luke Donald (7) -20 8. Kevin Streelman (29) -18 8. Tiger Woods (42) -18 10. Retief Goosen (17) -17 10. Jason Day (6) -17 10. Charlie Wi (33) -17 13. Y.E. Yang (67) -16 14. Ryan Palmer (16) -15 14. Bubba Watson (18) -15 16. Kevin Na (20) -13 17. Martin Laird (9) -11 17. Michael Sim (45) -11 19. Zach Johnson (19) -10 20. Nick Watney (28) -8 21. Bill Haas (31) -7 21. John Senden (50) -7 23. Greg Chalmers (56) -6 23. Justin Leonard (59) -6 25. Stewart Cink (38) -5 25. Marc Leishman (44) -5 25. Hunter Mahan (15) -5 28. Ernie Els (8) -3 29. Robert Allenby (27) -2 29. Angel Cabrera (61) -2 31. Rickie Fowler (32) -1 32. Matt Jones (63) 0 33. Rory McIlroy (36) 0 34. D.J. Trahan (49) 0 35. Camilo Villegas (25) 0

[becksfan2185]

I agree as well... seems much more logical, easy to follow, and provide a potentially more dramatic finish. Only have two issues I can think of...

1) Under the current system, any of the top 5 going into the final week can win the Fedex Cup with a victory. But - under the new proposal - if someone were to tear through the first playoff events and create a massive stroke lead, you could have a situation where they play conservative at East Lake and remove any drama by the final day. Not saying that player wouldn't deserve it, but it could provide a boring finish

2) What if a player were to win one of the first playoff events, but miss a cut in the next one? He would then be DQ'd from the next event, despite still being in the hunt with his cumulative score. Should he receive no protection from the cut in smaller, more competitive fields?

[sean_miller]

I 100% agree with this article:

HAHA - whatever it takes to justify adding Tiger to the field, eh?

I do think more merit should be given to some regular season events, but 3 of 4 Major winners have no status on the PGA Tour, it's a moot argument for 2010. There should be no cut in any of the events. Make players try their best right up until they hole out on the 72nd hole no matter how the're playing. I can see it now, "Jim Furyk has second place locked up by 2 shots? But he's going to take his usual 4 minutes on that 6 footer, because this stroke is still very important!!"

[zeg]

I agree that the FedEx Cup points system is ludicrous, essentially for the reasons outlined there. It's too arbitrary and opaque.

However, many of its problems (and the problems with the par-based system outlined) are also true of other sports. A win or loss in the playoffs is far more significant than any other game in the season---this is far, far more true in the NFL than anywhere else, but it's generally true. A team can build up such a lead that there's little drama left in the final game or final period of the final game---heck, in most playoff sports the final three scheduled games might not even be played.

The par-based system has some pretty serious problems, most notably that not all golfers play the same tournaments, so someone could game the system and play only the easy tournaments. (Plus the cut-based issues described by others above.) A field-based sport like stroke-play golf just doesn't lend itself to the kind of format they're trying to push. For what they want, you have to do match play, but that doesn't let you get all the big names out at the end, and there's no way you'll get interest in watching 4 hours of golf with just a couple groups out there and only two guys in actual contention for the win.

Still, while I find the FedEx Cup aspect utterly pointless, it *is* nice that the big prize keeps the big names coming back for a few extra tournaments at the end of the year.

[Chilli Dipper]

The real solution to all this nonsense about the purported flaws of the FedEx Cup: Match Play, Winner Take All.

Here is what has come out of the FedEx Cup in its first three years...

• 2007: Tiger Woods has a dominant season, and clinches the Cup before the Tour Championship, despite skipping the first playoff event.
• 2008: the point system is changed to place emphasis on playoff events, but Vijay Singh all but secures the Cup after winning the first two events, even as Camilo Villegas wins the remaining two tournaments.
• 2009: the points are reset prior to the Tour Championship so that the top five players in the standings automatically win the Cup with a victory. Phil Mickelson wins the Tour Championship, but Tiger Woods' second place is enough to clinch the Cup.

The PGA Tour really wants the FedEx Cup to come down to the last putt on the 18th green Sunday afternoon. It would get what it wants by modifying the Tour Championship from a 30-player stroke play format to a 32-player match play format, with the last man standing earning the $10 million grand prize. It would also be a great primer for the Ryder and Presidents Cup matches that take place shortly afterward.

Keep the playoff format as it is right now, but provide secured entries into the Tour Championship for the following criteria:

• the defending FedEx Cup champion
• the winners of the season's four major championships (pending PGA Tour membership)
• the top three finishers, plus ties, of the season's Players Championship (since the Players is the tour's "marquee" sanctioned event, additional entries are at stake)
• any winners of two or more full-field PGA Tour events during the season

The remaining slots in the 32-player bracket are filled by the players at the top of the points standings after the BMW Championship; the points standings are also used to determine the bracket seedings. Five rounds of match play ensues until there is one player left standing.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

This article and the Cameron Morfit "Sabotage" article are (unable to say disgusting graphic details straight out).

You can set up any playoff qualifying system you want, but if certain names don't always qualify, and if they can not qualify for reasons that do not necessarily have anything to do with the invitational criteria, whose fault is that?

Next "brilliant idea" please!

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[billysandy]

Haha. I was just about to post the exact same link on the other thread about how the points system has doomed the tour championship. It seems like a GREAT system!

[jamo]

I never thought of it the OP's way, but it certainly is interesting. Maybe even better with bonuses for wins, and smaller bonuses for top 5s/10s. There are certainly kinks but overall I think it's an interesting proposition.

The real solution to all this nonsense about the purported flaws of the FedEx Cup:

That's a pretty good idea, but the PGA TOUR really doesn't like match play. They seem to dread what they think is the inevitable final round matchup between two nobodies.

Keep the playoff format as it is right now, but provide secured entries into the Tour Championship for the following criteria:

I like this, but I personally would get rid of the last bullet. If you win twice the only way for you not to be otherwise exempt is if you miss every other cut or just stop playing PGA TOUR events. The Tour wouldn't want guys to skip a bunch of events because they are already qualified all the way to the Tour Championship.

[shades9323]

The par-based system has some pretty serious problems, most notably that not all golfers play the same tournaments, so someone could game the system and play only the easy tournaments. (Plus the cut-based issues described by others above.) A field-based sport like stroke-play golf just doesn't lend itself to the kind of format they're trying to push.

The relation to par only starts at the first event of the playoffs. Everybody starts off back at even par.

[max power]

Current system is far from perfect, but I like it better than these proposed changes. It's a playoff, and Tiger Woods didn't advance. That's all there is to it. I love the matchplay idea, but it won't happen.

[MJP]

The real solution to all this nonsense about the purported flaws of the FedEx Cup:

You should've been the president of the PGA. that would be a thousand times more interesting

[Chilli Dipper]

That's a pretty good idea, but the PGA TOUR really doesn't like match play. They seem to dread what they think is the inevitable final round matchup between two nobodies.

Yeah, Tim Finchem still has nightmares about the first WGC Match Play Championship in 1999, which he hyped up beyond all meaningful proportions and was left with a final four of Jeff Maggert, Andrew Magee, Steve Pate, and John Huston. (How can a foursome with 20 tour wins between them be so unsexy?)

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

RE - The Chilli Dipper proposal

It would be nice if the Fed Ex Cup title did come down to the very last putt in the Tour Championship, with the putt itself for both the tournament and the Cup. IMHO, it does not always have to be that way, and in reality will not always be that way. But that is not necessarily a bad thing if certain scenarios occurred that produced the right kind of drama.

Inviting players who are not yet full regular members, but then become such with only a scant few events played during the current season, is a no-no in my book. The full regular membership must have priority first. I speaking not so much about those who play in the the playoffs as I am about anyone trying to make these end-of-year Money Winner Thresholds -- Top 70 (regular invitational events); Top 125 (full exemption); Top 150 (partial exemption, direct pass into 3rd stage of Q-School). If you want to participate in the playoffs in any given year, I believe that you -MUST- start the year -AS- a full regular member. If not, then wait till next year!

Match play between individual players in a season-ending championship event carries far too much risk because top names could be eliminated very early on. So, while individual match play may be OK elsewhere, it is definitely -NOT- an option for the Tour Championship, playoffs or no playoffs. Besides, and also IMHO, the team match play events (Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup) are much better producers of drama as far as match play in professional golf is concerned.

Finally, I remind you of something I've posted elsewhere ----

There are two and -ONLY- two conditions for claiming the Fed Ex Cup's $10 million Grand Prize (plus a five-year PGA Tour exemption) - 1. Be a full-time regular PGA Tour Member, and 2. Earn more points than anyone else.

Why not have it where a $5 million grand prize and the five-year exemption is earned unconditionally, but if certain conditions are met, both the cash and the exemption can be doubled ($10 million, 10 years). That kind of possible finish might be more appealing to fans - as well as to sponsors and TV! A season-long championship that features conditional doubling of the grand prize would not necessarily need to have playoffs, but it should most definitely involve all official PGA Tour tournaments in a manner that encourages the top names to play at places they would normally skip.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[sean_miller]

Personally I just want to see who wins.

Not really interested how much extra money they make and for how long they're exempt. I don't watch the Stanley Cup Finals or the Superbowl with a summary of contracts - oh boy, who's getting a bonus if this puck or ball goes between the pipes - WOOT - another 10 million dollars for Bill Anyman - I'm so happy for him and his children!

[max power]

Personally I just want to see who wins.

Great point. Performing well during the season gives a player a bit of an edge during the playoffs (see Phil Mickelson at #10 despite less than stellar play), but strong performance

during the playoffs is ultimately required. Bottom line-appears that more people will watch any run of the mill tournament with Tiger playing and/or contending than would watch a major if Tiger was absent. I can sympathize with the argument that too many players get entry into the playoffs in the first place, but that would have excluded Tiger completely, and we'd have had over a month of whining from sportswriters.

[iacas]

Current system is far from perfect, but I like it better than these proposed changes. It's a playoff, and Tiger Woods didn't advance. That's all there is to it. I love the matchplay idea, but it won't happen.

Ditto.

Plus where's the reward for play during the regular season if everyone starts off at even par in the playoffs? You could eliminate a guy who won 18 tournaments and all four majors in round 1 using this scenario. And anyone pining for match play is simply wasting their breath.

[zeg]

Plus where's the reward for play during the regular season if everyone starts off at even par in the playoffs? You could eliminate a guy who won 18 tournaments and all four majors in round 1 using this scenario.

In most playoffs, the reward for doing well in the season is that you make it into the playoffs, plus adjustments to pairings through seeding, etc. I don't think that's a real problem. Maybe you get a bye into the second round. But still, if you lose in the first match-up you're out.

I think the real problem stems from how boring it is to watch two guys play a round of golf end-to-end. A round of golf consists of a very small amount of activity and a lot of walking, unlike other sports. That's why you really need to have the whole field out there---to provide something to watch for a few hours of coverage. For people to be interested in that, you have to have a relatively large number of players with a legitimate hope of winning.

[iacas]

In most playoffs, the reward for doing well in the season is that you make it into the playoffs, plus adjustments to pairings through seeding, etc. I don't think that's a real problem. Maybe you get a bye into the second round. But still, if you lose in the first match-up you're out.

As I said match play is a non-starter, so I was not responding to the idea of match play or getting byes.

I was responding to the idea of cumulatively keeping track of strokes relative to par for the FedExCup trophy. In which case a guy who wins the grand slam and 10 other PGA Tour events (or more) gets no advantage at all over a guy who might not keep his PGA Tour card (the 144th guy on the list). I think the FedExCup is close to being perfect. They could tone down the volatility just a wee bit, but hey, Streelman played well when he had to. Good for him. The Patriots weren't given a 7-0 lead because they were 18-0 when they lost to the Giants.