FedExCup Playoffs - Letting The Numbers Speak

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings .....

I have a comment about the Fed Ex Cup playoffs, presented in the form of numbers (see below). It should be easy to guess the general meaning of what you see. Feel free to post whatever guesses you make. In response to any feedback, I will provide plenty of explanation in words about the numbers presented.

 8/25-28 ....... 125 (-31)

9/ 2-5 ........ 100 (-56)

9/ 8-11 ....... 0 (-156)

9/15-18 ....... 70 (-74)

9/22-25 ....... 30 (-20) / 30 (-114)

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[deasy55]

Are you trying to say they should have full fields?

[sacm3bill]

Doesn't this belong in the "Puzzles and Games" forum?

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

Reading across on each line the numbers refer to  Tournament Dates, Field Size and in parenthesis number of players not in field because it's either a playoff event or an open week with no event scheduled.

Apologies - Should have given at least more one clue besides the reference to the Fed Ex Cup.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings .....

I no longer care for the play-offs or for the Fed Ex Cup race. I also don't care for an obscenely large $10 million Bonus Pool prize that can be won with very few conditions required. Also, I don't like it that both the Play-offs and the WGC events restrict how PGA Tour members and non-members alike can plan their yearly playing schedules. There are players, events, cities, sponsors and media outlets, as well as golf fans, who may be wishing for a more flexible annual schedule that is easy to plan for. Sacrifices would have to be made to achieve that schedule, such as reducing the number of events played,  and reducing total prize money offered. Hopefully such sacrifices, along with a simpler yet more compelling season-long competition, will have a positive effect.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[deasy55]

Are you being serious?

Originally Posted by Frank-0-Sport

Greetings .....

I no longer care for the play-offs or for the Fed Ex Cup race. I also don't care for an obscenely large $10 million Bonus Pool prize that can be won with very few conditions required. Also, I don't like it that both the Play-offs and the WGC events restrict how PGA Tour members and non-members alike can plan their yearly playing schedules. There are players, events, cities, sponsors and media outlets, as well as golf fans, who may be wishing for a more flexible annual schedule that is easy to plan for. Sacrifices would have to be made to achieve that schedule, such as reducing the number of events played,  and reducing total prize money offered. Hopefully such sacrifices, along with a simpler yet more compelling season-long competition, will have a positive effect.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[iacas]

Yeah, the thing is, you're in a really small minority.

The general golf population likes the WGCs. They like the majors. They like the playoffs, too, despite the pundits trying to tell us for years that it's crap.

I vote for LESS playing opportunities, I vote for smaller fields, and I vote for 75 people retaining their PGA Tour cards each year, not 125. I want to see people trying to win, not people counting their top-10 finishes or being content to finish 111th on the PGA Tour money list because they have more status than a guy who finished third on the Nationwide Tour money list.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

To Iacas --

I'm in agreement with you on reducing the Top 125 Exemption Category, but getting it down to 75 may be a tough sell. 90 is a number I would accept.

In addition to reducing the Top 125 category, there should be better opportunities for Nationwide Tour and Q-School Graduates to enter events. You could have a category just a rung or two below that for PGA Tour Tournament Winners that is open to the Nationwide Leading Money Winner, the Nationwide Tour Championship, the Q-School Medalist and Nationwide Tour 3-time winners. Also, you could add at least two extra reserved sponsor invitations for Nationwide/Q-School players.

The overall number of Nationwide Tour Graduates should be increased to 30 (from 25). The Q-School graduation threshold can be kept at Low 25 and Ties or reduced to Low 20 and Ties.

You could also rattle the "Old Boys Network" by limiting how often players could enter events using the Life Member Exemption or the Career Earnings exemption in any given PGA Tour season.

I also agree with you that winning is important, and players should be motivated to go out and win as much as possible. One way to do this is to confine multi-year victory exemptions as follows -- 5 years for a Money Title, Grand Slam Major or the Players; 3 years for the Tournament of Champions, Doral-Cadillac, Western Open (if restored, which it should be), Bridgestone and the Tour Championship; 2 years for anything else. Don't give out extra years of exempt status for multiple wins within any given period.

I have excluded the Accenture Match Play because I feel that an individual professional match play event, while unique and a joy for purists, is an increasingly risky venture for the PGA Tour in terms of both economics as well as who may or may not make the weekend matches. The two Biennial Team events (Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup)  are more compelling (to me anyway) and there is a definite assurance that top names will be seen every day.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[Chilli Dipper]

You're imagining a problem that doesn't exist, yet again. There's nothing sacred about the number 156: it's simply the maximum number of players who can tee off in a tournament round that can be expected to finish before darkness falls.  There are roughly 230 golfers with PGA Tour cards; a third of them choose not to play on any given week, and that's not counting players who are injured or have membership status on other tours. If a player has status on the PGA Tour, and is healthy, he will be able to enter enough tournaments to try to keep his status for the next season.

The results this year speak for themselves. PGA Tour winners in 2011 include four 2010 Nationwide Tour graduates (Vegas, Steele, Bradley, Kirk), two 2010 Q-School graduates (Woodland, Stallings), a player with conditional status after finishing outside the top 125 on the money list in 2010 (Wagner), and a player using a medical exemption (Frazar). If there were concerns that the current PGA Tour schedule did not provide less-established players sufficient opportunities, this season has proven them wrong.

[Kieran123]

Greetings ...

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

TO Chilli Dipper

You're right -- It has been a great year for several "New Bloods" and "Roaring 20's" - I hope the trend continues.

TO Iacas

Do you think that the current economic downturn will lead to some eventual re-structuring of the tour?

Regarding tournament purses, I believe that PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem's strategy to cash in on Tiger Woods with big TV contracts in 1999, 2003 and 2007 has now backfired on him, given the economic downturn and the apparent end of Tiger's era of dominance. Of course he probably didn't quite see it all coming, and it will be interesting to see how much more (or less) money the TV networks and sponsors will be willing to give him in the post-2012 contracts. I also wonder this - with all the TV ads we have to put up with on a weekly basis, where's the money from those ads going, and why are some tournaments having trouble keeping sponsors and staying in existence???

Maybe Greg Norman really did know that something was badly afoot..!!!!

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Frank-0-Sport

Regarding tournament purses, I believe that PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem's strategy to cash in on Tiger Woods with big TV contracts in 1999, 2003 and 2007 has now backfired on him, given the economic downturn and the apparent end of Tiger's era of dominance.

That makes no sense. What was he supposed to do - NOT take advantage of the situation? You get the most you can each time you're there. Simple concept.

[michaeljames92]

I agree that 125 is probably too much. I suppose you'd see Q-school filled with PGA tour players after that. I'll say I don't like the fedex playoff's, especially how heavily weighted the play off events are compared to regular events. But I think that the original format which Tiger won easily, was too much of an anti-climax if someone was having a great year. But as sport is, it is not always fair where the best player/team in a season doesn't always win the championship/premiership.

Originally Posted by iacas

Yeah, the thing is, you're in a really small minority.

The general golf population likes the WGCs. They like the majors. They like the playoffs, too, despite the pundits trying to tell us for years that it's crap.

I vote for LESS playing opportunities, I vote for smaller fields, and I vote for 75 people retaining their PGA Tour cards each year, not 125. I want to see people trying to win, not people counting their top-10 finishes or being content to finish 111th on the PGA Tour money list because they have more status than a guy who finished third on the Nationwide Tour money list.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

To Iacas ...

Indeed, Finchem went for whatever he could get each time out. But never with any controls on the rise of purse levels, and apparently never with any fallback plan in case the Tiger bubble (or any one else's bubble) suddenly burst. The Four Major Championships, though not controlled by the PGA Tour, went along for the ride. Now all of them are paying dearly.

Pro Sports in general were overpriced way beyond their means even before the economic downturn. And still they go on, thinking they can get even more money. No one wants to wake up to the true reality which is that the money is becoming harder and harder to get.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Frank-0-Sport

Indeed, Finchem went for whatever he could get each time out. But never with any controls on the rise of purse levels, and apparently never with any fallback plan in case the Tiger bubble (or any one else's bubble) suddenly burst. The Four Major Championships, though not controlled by the PGA Tour, went along for the ride. Now all of them are paying dearly.

Pro Sports in general were overpriced way beyond their means even before the economic downturn. And still they go on, thinking they can get even more money. No one wants to wake up to the true reality which is that the money is becoming harder and harder to get.

How do you figure they're paying dearly?

Look, it's simple math. At each negotiation you get the best deal you can. You don't say "no, I want less money now, because in the future you'll owe me a favor and will over-pay when Tiger retires."

That's just silly.

Let's assume the deals were for $50M, $75M, $100M, and $125M, and the new deal will be worth $40M. What was Tim supposed to do? Take $45M, $65M, $85M, and $100M, so that he could get $45M for the new deal (and that's banking on the possibility of a group of networks actually "returning" a favor)? Do the math. It doesn't work. It doesn't make sense.

You get the best deal you can each time you negotiate. That's it.

[deasy55]

In what way?

Originally Posted by Frank-0-Sport

The Four Major Championships, though not controlled by the PGA Tour, went along for the ride. Now all of them are paying dearly.