Fed Ex Cup Champion, Leading Money Winner

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ...

For the second year in a row, we may see the Fed Ex Cup Championship and the Leading Money Winner Title won by different individuals. In 2010, Jim Furyk claimed the Fed Ex Cup, while Matt Kuchar took Leading Money Winner honors. Both titles carry a five-year PGA Tour exemption.

Current Fed Ex Cup Playoff Leaders ... Current Official Money Leaders

Poll #1 -- As far as the exemptions go, what's your choice?

{a} Continue to have exemptions of both titles "as is"

{b} Keep the Fed Ex Cup exemption "as is". Beginning 2012, reduce Leading Money Winner's exemption to three years.

{C} Keep Leading Money Winner exemption "as is". Beginning 2012, eliminate Fed Ex Cup.

Poll #2 -- would you prefer that the chase for the Fed Ex Cup title --

(a) Be contested from early January to the Tour Championship in September?

(b) Be contested from the first Fall Series event after the Tour Championship to the next year's Tour Championship.


Poll # 3 (Yes or No) --

If there was no Fed Ex Cup, just the Leading Money Winner Title -AND- if the Tour Championship continued to be held in September, would you want the Leading Money Winner Title to be decided at the current year's Tour Championship, the Title Chase having started with the first Fall Series event after the previous year's Tour Championship.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[michaeljames92]

I think the Fedex cup is stupid, where winning a playoff event is too heavily weighted to winning the cup. A fair system would be that every tournament is worth the same in terms of points(obviously majors/wgcs worth slightly more) and the most points after the tour championship is the winner. However, they hate an anti-climax so this won't happen.

[Double Bogey]

I have to agree with Michael, the FedEx Cup is cool, but the "playoff" events are weighted to heavily.  I do not have a problem with different tourneys being weighed a bit differently, but DJ gets his first win and is number one?  By a huge margin?  That seems a bit off to me.  Again I see no reason to weight all the tourneys the same, but cut back the scale of the "playoff" events.

Also I do not care for the "whoever is in the top ten and they win at East Lake, wins the cup."  Again that just seems stupid to me.

[deasy55]

If it's possible for #125 to reach #1 by winning the first playoff event then you know it's too overly weighted.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I think the Fedex cup is stupid, where winning a playoff event is too heavily weighted to winning the cup. A fair system would be that every tournament is worth the same in terms of points(obviously majors/wgcs worth slightly more) and the most points after the tour championship is the winner. However, they hate an anti-climax so this won't happen.

You nailed it there!

I'd take the points assignment idea a step further. Let's assume that the point values are 1.0x (regular events), 1.2x (Tournament of Champions, Doral-Cadillac, Western Open, Bridgestone,Tour Championship) and 1.4x (Majors/Players). Each year, assign 1.2x points to at least five different regular events, according to an annual rotational schedule. This could help draw a few top names to events which they otherwise might not play.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[B-Con]

Isn't the idea of the FedEx Cup similar to any other sport's playoffs? Namely, that pre-playoff performance can provide a comfortable edge, but the playoffs are all about how you play in the playoffs, not the regular season. If the bottom seed can't upset the top seed by out-playing them, then it's not the same spirit of playoffs that we're used to. The regular season just provides a comfortable starting point so that mediocre performance in the first tournament or two doesn't knock a good player too far out of contention. Maybe the weighting's a tad too weighted on the actual playoff games, but it can't be by much.

[sean_miller]

I voted for:

D.) As in why D oes the leading money winner get any exemption at all? If he won a tournament along the way, there's his exemption, otherwise the money is his reward. If golf is truly a sport, which some contend it is, then the only thing that matters is the playoffs. The weighting for each Fed-Ex Cup event might be a bit high, but why are guys in the top 10 not sealing the deal and allowing a guy from 100-125 winning anyway (in this hypothetical scenerio)? They deserve to lose if they don't peak for the playoffs. Losing losers.

E.) As in E xcellent which is what any playoff system is if golf make the first 1/2 hour of sports coverage which only happen for majors.

F.) As in F ail, which is what this thread is.

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I voted for:

D.) As in why Does the leading money winner get any exemption at all? If he won a tournament along the way, there's his exemption, otherwise the money is his reward. If golf is truly a sport, which some contend it is, then the only thing that matters is the playoffs. The weighting for each Fed-Ex Cup event might be a bit high, but why are guys in the top 10 not sealing the deal and allowing a guy from 100-125 winning anyway (in this hypothetical scenerio)? They deserve to lose if they don't peak for the playoffs. Losing losers.

E.) As in Excellent which is what any playoff system is if golf make the first 1/2 hour of sports coverage which only happen for majors.

F.) As in Fail, which is what this thread is.

DEF

As in, falling on DEF ears....this thread is fail and it is almost impossible to make sense of the first post.

[Chilli Dipper]

A few comments here...

• Personally, I think the money list is a ridiculous way to determine an athlete's worth in competition over the course of a season. What other sport puts such weight on a player's earnings? I'd rather see the money list done away with altogether as a primary judge of merit, and replaced with a points-based system, than to revert back to what existed before the FedEx Cup was created.

• As B-Con already mentioned, the FedEx Cup playoffs aren't meant to reflect the entire season: they're meant to determine not simply who is the best, but who is the best among the best. The regular season has brought the top 125 players on tour this far, but those results won't mean anything if they don't display excellence during the next four events. If the 125th-ranked player during the regular season proves himself to be the best during the playoffs, why shouldn't he be the FedEx Cup champion?
• There's no chance the PGA Tour will adopt a non-calendar year-based schedule. When the Indianapolis Motor Speedway split from the top open-wheel racing teams in the mid-1990s and created the Indy Racing League, their original intent was to end the season with the Indianapolis 500 on Memorial Day weekend. They quickly found out that team owners' and sponsors' budgets would not accommodate with the new schedule, engine and chassis makers didn't want to test and introduce new designs in midseason, and fans were confused by a new season starting the week after the Indy 500, with an extended break during the winter months. The series decided to end the experiment, but not before it already crowned a champion for the three-race 1996 "season;" the remaining races on the 1996 calendar were counted as part of the 1997 season.
• Finally, I want to ask a question to the people responding to this thread. In 2008, Vijay Singh was the FedEx Cup champion; he won three times, and also led the overall money list that season. Tiger Woods won the most victories that year with four and finished second on the money list, but injuries ended his year at the US Open. Sergio Garcia won the Players Championship, and was awarded the Vardon Trophy as the player with the lowest scoring average on tour that year. Padraig Harrington won two major championships, and was voted by his peers as Player of the Year. Out of those four players, who do you think was the best golfer that year?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

Finally, I want to ask a question to the people responding to this thread. In 2008, Vijay Singh was the FedEx Cup champion; he won three times, and also led the overall money list that season. Tiger Woods won the most victories that year with four and finished second on the money list, but injuries ended his year at the US Open. Sergio Garcia won the Players Championship, and was awarded the Vardon Trophy as the player with the lowest scoring average on tour that year. Padraig Harrington won two major championships, and was voted by his peers as Player of the Year. Out of those four players, who do you think was the best golfer that year?

It depends. Who was #1 according to the OWGR at the end of the season?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

Finally, I want to ask a question to the people responding to this thread. In 2008, Vijay Singh was the FedEx Cup champion; he won three times, and also led the overall money list that season. Tiger Woods won the most victories that year with four and finished second on the money list, but injuries ended his year at the US Open. Sergio Garcia won the Players Championship, and was awarded the Vardon Trophy as the player with the lowest scoring average on tour that year. Padraig Harrington won two major championships, and was voted by his peers as Player of the Year. Out of those four players, who do you think was the best golfer that year?

Tiger no doubt.

He won 4 times and played the least

[Chilli Dipper]

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Tiger no doubt.

He won 4 times and played the least

Perhaps, but who gives an MVP award to someone who missed half the season due to injury?

[Kieran123]

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

Perhaps, but who gives an MVP award to someone who missed half the season due to injury?

Maybe a guy who won the the U.S Open on a destroyed knee? A guy who won the most and had best ratio in terms of wins/events entered?

[deasy55]

Harrington. 2 major wins. Both of them won with him shooting 32 on the last 9 holes.

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

Out of those four players, who do you think was the best golfer that year?

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

Personally, I think the money list is a ridiculous way to determine an athlete's worth in competition over the course of a season. What other sport puts such weight on a player's earnings? I'd rather see the money list done away with altogether as a primary judge of merit, and replaced with a points-based system, than to revert back to what existed before the FedEx Cup was created.

Well said, Chilli Dipper --as long as it is an objective points system. Yes, I know there are things such as strength-of-field and course difficulty. But the only thing that matters to me is pure raw performance. Players like Nicklaus, Palmer, T. Watson, Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Norman, Kite, Casper, Mickelson and Woods have all competed on courses that were either easy or hard, and against a variety of fields that were either weak or strong. The bottom line is that regardless of course and competition each man played, won and placed high more times than the vast majority of other players. In the plainest of words, they went out there and JUST DID IT!

When all the finishes of these men are added up with an objective points system, you know that they will all be right at or very near the top of the standings. That's how you can best compare all these players. You sure can't do that with the PGA Tour's Career Money List.

Consider just the Masters Tournament itself -- occasionally you might see some online media outlet flash the stat "most career money won in the event". Yeah, like we really care. When you use an objective points system to tally up the finishes of all those who have ever competed at Augusta, for which NO special weighting is required, you know hands down who's going to be leading the list -- names like Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Player, Mickelson, Snead, Hogan and Nelson, just to name a few.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[deasy55]

Greetings

[iacas]

I think the system is fine.

Rewards are higher in the playoffs, as they should be. In other sports if you lose you go home. Winning is a big deal. The only change I think I'd support is if each event offered somewhat more points across the board so that a win later in the playoffs meant more than a win at the Barclays.