FedEx Point system..the way it SHOULD be

[B-Con]

From the article:

To reward the players who win each playoff event, I give them a five-shot bonus.

Hypocrite. Giving the winner strokes vs points? Same concept, different face.

This is why the point system exists. We want to reward how players score and give payoffs for their final standing, independent of the score. The author took the first step toward establishing a point system within that very article, and if it were actually used, in 3 years it would undoubtedly accrue more characteristics to make it points-like. Could the current system's point distribution be re-distributed to make it more "fair" or closer to being like a stroke system? Eh, maybe, I don't know, but it's pretty good the way it is. The proposed stroke system is so odd it can't even be proposed without being made more like a points system. If you used the stroke method, why even have four tournaments? Why not just have one long one? For that matter, why not just have one? Sounds like what the PGA Championship used to be, just longer. And, as others have pointed out this proposed system is way too brittle and doesn't reward performance during the regular system to help get a player through the first round.

[majorchamp]

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

not at all. Tiger didn't qualify for the Tour Championship, so he shouldn't be in it. I just think the entire Fed Ex point system is a joke and whether you think its moot or not, I think if you win a Major Championship, for crying out loud, you should have the opportunity to play in the Fed Ex Cup.

You mis-read the article. The par based system applies to the Playoffs ONLY, not regular events. If you qualify for the playoffs, good for you. Now keep up with field in terms of strokes and see who is left standing at the end.

Greetings ....

I agree the Sabotage article was just plain stupid. Tiger didn't qualify, move on next. No tears for him. The par based system, IMO, I think is a pretty good idea and has logic behind it.

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

exactly.

Ditto.

so what? If that guy who won 18 tournaments and all 4 majors sucks balls in the first playoff event...well boohoo for him, he loses. I don't care if its Tiger Woods or some 1st time pga tour rookie.

If the Indianapolis Colts win 16 games in the regular season, and then lose the first playoff game...I wonder what happens? Oh thats right, they hop back on their plane to Indy because the year is over. In any sport...you bust your ass during the regular season to get to the playoffs (nba, nfl, etc....). How you play during the regular season doesn't matter once you enter the playoffs..because poor play is not rewarded. In football, you are gone if you lose 1 game. In NBA, you have 7 games to go at it, etc.... EDIT - I read your last post... I see where you are coming from. Honestly, the playoffs should be a match play format. Just let people knock each other out of brackets. That is how every other playoff system works, why does the PGA Tour have to be different and overly complicated. The regular season play builds up their "seed" position (not world ranking)..if you knock Tiger out in day 1, oh well tough luck.

[DocWu1948]

You want excitement. The top 100 golfers will have all earned $1M. Make them put up their own money for a $200K buy-in event, winner take all.

[zeg]

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

Although I used the word match, I wasn't suggesting match play. My point was merely that most playoffs don't do much to reward doing well in the regular season, so I don't see that as a must-have feature.

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 guess I'm a bit confused as to whether you think the guys who do well in the regular season should or should not be rewarded by the playoff format, because it seems like these two paragraphs disagree with each other on that point.

In any case, I think part of the problem is that because of the complicated system, it's not clear what exactly the winning Cup indicates. It's not really the best overall year, and it's not just winning the playoffs. The closest quick answer you can give is the whole "top 5 control their destiny" thing. To me, that makes it a bit less interesting (not because I don't understand the system, but because it just seems contrived).

[Zeph]

I don't like that proposed system. A player playing in the John Deere Classic can scrape up 15 to 20 shots in one tournament.

I think the system as far as points awarded on events coming up to the playoffs are OK. You win a Major, you get more points than winning a alternate event. What I don't like about the system is the playoffs, the points reset and the stupid amount of points awarded for winning one of the four tournaments. Being rewarded with more points than regular events, sure, but not by the amounts of today. Also, the points reset. The FexEx Cup is really about the last four tournaments. Ernie led the cup all the way into the playoffs, but now Charlie Hoffman is leading him by 1000 points before the Tour Championship because he won a playoff event.

They should have two kind of cups, that would be better. Sort of like in football where they play the year long season, getting the same amount of points for a win on the first as the last match. At the same time, there is a cup of groups and later on elimination. One team win the league, another win the cup (can be the same of course).

Get rid of the extra points and reset stuff in the playoffs for the year long cup and let the playoffs be an individual thing. You get points in the year long cup by playing in the playoffs, but no more than you normally do. At the same time, have some other system for the playoffs where there is one winner of those four tournaments in the end.

Most other sports I watch do it like this, and I don't get bored with it because of that. If they want good players in the playoffs, make the playoff cup purse big enough. If they want good players in the year around, set a minimum limit in the amount of tournaments they have to play to be in the PGA Tour.

[iacas]

I'll say again that I think the points system currently in place is about as close to being perfect as it will get. They could perhaps take winning from 2500 to 2000 (just a little less volatility) but I like leaving everything else the same.

It rewards players with a head start in the playoffs. Ernie Els is still high despite sucking in the playoffs. Not a lot of people fell out of the top 30 that were in it all year. And the ones who did had some sucky playoffs.

Since there are 144 players in round one, a "sixth seed" is like the guys who are ranked #121 - #144 making it to the Tour Championship. It doesn't happen often enough but it can happen. It's also like the #1 seed (#1 through #24) failing to qualify for the final game, and we probably have a similar percentage there to what we see in football or baseball, too. Since there are 144 "teams," you have to think of the #1 through #6 seeds as clumps of 24 players, almost. Know what I mean?

Streelman was a #6 seed who played well in the playoffs and has advanced to the Super Bowl. That happens, say, 5% of the time. And Streelman was one of about 24 people in that group to do it, so the odds work out pretty well. He's rewarded, but the other 23 #6 seeds weren't able to pull off the upset(s).

[shades9323]

I don't like that proposed system. A player playing in the John Deere Classic can scrape up 15 to 20 shots in one tournament.

Since the John Deere isn't in the playoff rotation, the player could win by a million strokes and it wouldn't matter. Cumulative totals during the season would "reset" at the beginning of the playoffs. So again, everybody starts from scratch in the playoffs.

[laconic517]

I think the real question is why not just make the tour championship more prestigous with a bigger prize pool and avoid all this playoff nonsense to begin with. They could have kept the money list the way it was.

[ghalfaire]

I may be (probably am) wasting my breath, but I like the match play idea.

[pixel5]

As in all sports, the REGULAR season should NOT matter once playoffs start! Thats the problem with the BCS as well.

Keep the FEC points system to determine the first playoff field...after that, screw the points.

Barclays: Top 125 points earners
Deutsche Bank: Top 100 from the Barclays
BMW: Top 70 from the DB
Coke/Tour: Top 30 from the BMW

Winner of the last event is the real winner. Its RETARDED that you can finish 10th in the Tour championship and still win the cup.

[Zeph]

As in all sports, the REGULAR season should NOT matter once playoffs start! Thats the problem with the BCS as well.

What is the point with having a FedEx cup coming up to the playoffs if the regular season should not matter? You got a ranking after 95% of the tournaments, which you get nothing for leading, then you got one ranking for the last 5%, where you win 10 grand and become the "season long best player"? Tiger won 6 times last year, but he could have lost the FedEx cup in the Tour Championship. I just don't see the point with having a year long system that in the end of they year doesn't matter all that much.

[B-Con]

As in all sports, the REGULAR season should NOT matter once playoffs start! Thats the problem with the BCS as well.

In most sports, regular season carries over a little. First, it places you in the playoff brackets, which usually means giving better performers easier opponents in the first round and also possibly the second round as well. Performance of the team during the entire regular season, or vs their opponent in the regular season, may dictate who has home court advantage.

Yes, they're smaller influences than the current Cup point system, but important ones nonetheless. And the Cup point system is heavily skewed to the playoffs, so the only way to "take advantage" of the system is to do very well in the regular season and then only do moderately well in the playoffs. You still have to play decently, just not great, and that only lasts for the first 2 tournaments, by the time you finish the 3rd it's over.

Winner of the last event is the real winner. Its RETARDED that you can finish 10th in the Tour championship and still win the cup.

Only if one of the top five doesn't win. The points are allocated such that if any of the top five going into the tournament win the tournament, they win the Cup outright. You can only have an odd scenario like what you describe if someone outside the top five wins, like Phil did starting the Championship in 6th (right?) place last year. Yes, Woods won the Cup, but he still finished 2nd place.

The point system really can't be improved that much. It gives a little cushion for good regular season performance and rewards good play throughout the playoffs.

[Zeph]

I don't see the point with playoffs in the first place, except to draw the best players, but they could achieve that by other means. Beside golf, I watch a lot of football, which don't have any playoffs. They do have cups though, Champions League, Carling Cup and similar national cups.

[shades9323]

I don't see the point with playoffs in the first place, except to draw the best players, but they could achieve that by other means. Beside golf, I watch a lot of football, which don't have any playoffs. They do have cups though, Champions League, Carling Cup and similar national cups.

Those cups are "playoffs".

[Zeph]

Those cups are "playoffs".

Yeah, but they don't got anything to do with the regular season. A cup is where you get eliminated, something not possible in the regular season.

Playing good all year long and winning a league is a harder feat than winning 5-6 matches to win a cup. Winners of the league and cup both are winners. In football it's pretty much the Champions League that matter in the cups. The teams want to win the Champions League and their home league primarily. Winning the national cup is also a feat, but not as big as winning the league.

[shades9323]

Yeah, but they don't got anything to do with the regular season. A cup is where you get eliminated, something not possible in the regular season.

Of course it has to do with the regular season, atleast for the Champions League Cup. Who makes it into the Champions League Cup tournament? It sure isn't the last place team in the EPL. You have to win your league or come in top 4 in the larger leagues.

[zeg]

What is the point with having a FedEx cup coming up to the playoffs if the regular season should not matter? You got a ranking after 95% of the tournaments, which you get nothing for leading, then you got one ranking for the last 5%, where you win 10 grand and become the "season long best player"? Tiger won 6 times last year, but he could have lost the FedEx cup in the Tour Championship. I just don't see the point with having a year long system that in the end of they year doesn't matter all that much.

Yeah, but what we have now is something like 50/50 season and playoffs (not sure the ratio, just thinking number of points available in the two segments), with extra weighting to the last event due to the reset. As a result, I have no idea how to describe what it means to win except you accumulated the most points according to the arbitrary system.

[ERdiesel]

I may be (probably am) wasting my breath, but I like the match play idea.

It would be pretty interesting...............