Will the Tour Championship ever take over majors as the biggest event in golf?

[lville lefty]

Originally Posted by MSchott

OK, it will not happen that the Fedex Cup overtakes the Major's in importance. The Fedex Cup (which by it's name alone being a corporate sponsored series) is a made up concept. Second and more important, ask any professional golfer whether they'd rather win a major or the Fedex Cup. I think we know the answer.

Not sure we do know the answer.  Tiger and maybe few others certainly feel a major is more important.  The rest of the field is looking at the $10 million prize. Hard to imagine the players not caring about that sum of money even if it is an annuity.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by lville lefty

Not sure we do know the answer.  Tiger and maybe few others certainly feel a major is more important.  The rest of the field is looking at the $10 million prize. Hard to imagine the players not caring about that sum of money even if it is an annuity.

I would be willing to bet that the sponsorship, speaking and appearance fees related to winning a major exceed that $10 million annuity.

[MEfree]

I would be willing to bet that the sponsorship, speaking and appearance fees related to winning a major exceed that $10 million annuity.

Is it still an annuity? thought they may have switched it to cash. I like the Fed Ex Cup, but look at these dates for Tigers pro debut 9/01/96 Greater Milwaukee Open T60 67 69 73 68 -- 277 -7 $2,544.00 9/08/96 Bell Canadian Open 11 70 70 68 -- -- 208 -8 $37,500.00 9/15/96 Quad City Classic T5 69 64 67 72 -- 272 -8 $42,150.00

[lville lefty]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Is it still an annuity? thought they may have switched it to cash.

I stand corrected. The top ten finishers next week get most of the winnings in cash. Found this tidbit on Wikipedia...

"Because of possible legislation affecting deferred retirement plans, in the wake of business stories that speculated that Tiger Woods could amass a $1 billion retirement fund if he won the FedExCup six more times, the PGA Tour announced a change to the payout system effective in 2008. The top 10 finishers now receive the bulk of their FedExCup bonuses in cash up front; for example, the 2008 FedExCup champion received $9 million up front and $1 million in his tax-deferred retirement account. FedExCup bonuses to finishers below the top 10 are still paid solely into the players' retirement accounts.[6]"

[lville lefty]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

I would be willing to bet that the sponsorship, speaking and appearance fees related to winning a major exceed that $10 million annuity.

That may be true.  Certainly a valid point today as the FEC has not reached the same level as the majors from the fan's perspective.  I do wonder though if Open winners Stewart Cink or Darren Clarke, really benefited financially a great amount more than the prize money.

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by Golf Man

Personally I don't find any course easy

At the Fed Ex Cup eevents we have had 35/50/55 players under par at the Barclays/DB/BMW, at teh majors this year it was 18/0/8/20 - the courses for majors are far far more difficult - simply can't be denied

On Haas - no problem if he won a major like that - all part of the attraction but look at this weekend

McIlroy could come second and have a 24/1/1/2 record in the 4 events

Snedeker could win and have a 2/6/37/1 record in the 4 events

Snedeker would win even those his record over the tournament wouldn't be as good - which is the fatal flaw of the Fed Ex.

All playoff events are like that. The giants were 9-7 last year, but won the NFL championship.

Everyone expected the Spurs to destroy OKC in the WCF b/c of how good the Spurs looked in rd.1 & 2 and in the regular season; Spurs lost. Everyone expected OKC to dominate the Heat b/c OKC just beat the Spurs and the Heat struggled to get out of the East. The Heat won the NBA championship.

Even in golf this happens. Adam Scott was the best golfer in England at this year's Open for 68 holes (was it par 72), but didn't win the championship.

I'll agree the final round of the FEC needs to be at a difficulty level on par w/ the majors, but the earlier rounds shouldn't be. It's tough to play golf 3 weeks in a row, let alone in major championship conditions. And again in other sports, rd. 1 is easier than rd2 is easier than rd 3, and so forth.

FEC lone flaw at the moment, in my opinion, is that it isn't as international as the majors. Though I'd be interested to see the multinational breakdown of majors compared to the multinational breakdown of the FEC. I'm betting on a percentage basis they're pretty close.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jgreen85

All playoff events are like that. The giants were 9-7 last year, but won the NFL championship.

Everyone expected the Spurs to destroy OKC in the WCF b/c of how good the Spurs looked in rd.1 & 2 and in the regular season; Spurs lost. Everyone expected OKC to dominate the Heat b/c OKC just beat the Spurs and the Heat struggled to get out of the East. The Heat won the NBA championship.

Very good point.  I was thinking it seemed awfully unfair that he built such a big lead, then had it "taken away" by the powers that be, but you are absolutely correct that that is what happens in playoffs.  The Yankees could be 162-0, and the Tigers could go 82-80 and if they manage to win the division, then they are both on equal ground (save for home field advantage).  The one and only goal in playoff events is to advance to the next round ... period.  From that point you start clean.

Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem unfair at all to Rory that he hasn't already won.

[jamo]

Very good point.  I was thinking it seemed awfully unfair that he built such a big lead, then had it "taken away" by the powers that be, but you are absolutely correct that that is what happens in playoffs.  The Yankees could be 162-0, and the Tigers could go 82-80 and if they manage to win the division, then they are both on equal ground (save for home field advantage).  The one and only goal in playoff events is to advance to the next round ... period.  From that point you start clean. Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem unfair at all to Rory that he hasn't already won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_season

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Very good point.  I was thinking it seemed awfully unfair that he built such a big lead, then had it "taken away" by the powers that be, but you are absolutely correct that that is what happens in playoffs.  The Yankees could be 162-0, and the Tigers could go 82-80 and if they manage to win the division, then they are both on equal ground (save for home field advantage).  The one and only goal in playoff events is to advance to the next round ... period.  From that point you start clean.

Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem unfair at all to Rory that he hasn't already won.

The problem is comparing golf to other sports - longish streaks are a rarity in golf but  much more common in other sports - there have been 4 players who have had 3 win streaks in the last 30 years - admittedly Tiger has multiple 3 win (and longer) streaks but they are still very rare.

Looking at past history (not a reliable predictor of the future but never mind) Rory would have been better tanking at Crooked Stick to ensure he didn't go into the Tour Championship looking for his 3rd straight victory.

[Golf Man]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Very good point.  I was thinking it seemed awfully unfair that he built such a big lead, then had it "taken away" by the powers that be, but you are absolutely correct that that is what happens in playoffs.  The Yankees could be 162-0, and the Tigers could go 82-80 and if they manage to win the division, then they are both on equal ground (save for home field advantage).  The one and only goal in playoff events is to advance to the next round ... period.  From that point you start clean.

Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem unfair at all to Rory that he hasn't already won.

Its apples and oranges though

If there was a matchplay element to it then the point would be valid - but Rory (or whoever) isn't in a winner take all shoot out - he is up against 29 other guys

If the only goal of the last three events was to get into teh next event then there would be no need for points - simply reduce teh field each week and whoever wins the last event is teh overall winner - this actually has more merit - it results in a last man standing situation

However the current system is flawed in that it wants it both ways - the first three events count towards the winning of teh overall competition but not so much that its fair

It should be one way or the other - overall points over the four events (with extra weighting for the Tour Championship if necessary) - this will ensure that the best player over the 4 events wins it, but may not be as exciting for TV. The other option is a pure playoff system - you are playing each week to get into next weeks compeition - if you finish first in Week 1 you get no more advantage than the guy who finishes 50th - you both start the next week, and reduce the field to maybe 25 - whoever wins the Tour Championship wins it out (this will lead to more suprise results obviously). Whats there at the moment is a bastardised version of the two - and one of the key reasons that it will never overtake the Majors

Further ideas to make it better (in an ideal world - practically not all of these will work)

Start with the Top 125 from the USPGA Tour, but invite another 25 from European Tour, World Rankings etc

More difficult courses - not US Open/British Open hard but more challenging than are being used at the moment

Reduce the field to 80, then 40, then 20 (for whichever system you are playing)

Don't finish it the week before the Ryder Cup

Personally I would go with the pure playoff system - will keep it interesting and its different

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

The problem is comparing golf to other sports - longish streaks are a rarity in golf but  much more common in other sports - there have been 4 players who have had 3 win streaks in the last 30 years - admittedly Tiger has multiple 3 win (and longer) streaks but they are still very rare.

Looking at past history (not a reliable predictor of the future but never mind) Rory would have been better tanking at Crooked Stick to ensure he didn't go into the Tour Championship looking for his 3rd straight victory.

this assumes that because he won two weeks in a row, he cannot win this week. One flip of the coin does not determine the next flip. Though they seem connected, they are completely independent events and outcomes are not related.

@Golf Man - points are like seeding in other sports. For example, Dufner and Sergio both skipped a tourney b/c they could. They esentially received byes in those events and Tiger/Rory and other top players coming in could have done the same.

I understand what you mean regarding Rory is not playing 1:1, but what are you going to do? match play is not the answer b/c it's only one round. at the end of the day, we're working with golf and no system is perfect. In other sports, especially basketball, you have match-up problems. I personally think the Spurs would've beaten the Heat had they played them (bias Spurs fan here), but the Spurs didn't match up well against OKC, so they lost. I'm hearing constantly how NBA experts think the 2013 Lakers are better than the Heat, but not better than OKC, and OKC though better than the Lakers are not better than the Heat due to the matchups. In hockey/baseball, a hot goalie/pitcher is really the difference. I still remember Josh Beckett's dominating playoff performance for the Marlins a few years ago.

Nothing will ever be perfect, but I think the playoff system in golf is very good as it is.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by jgreen85

this assumes that because he won two weeks in a row, he cannot win this week. One flip of the coin does not determine the next flip. Though they seem connected, they are completely independent events and outcomes are not related.

True but coins don't deal with the effects of winning - physical, mental and the press. 3 heads in a row isn't uncommon, the number of people winning golf tournaments 3 weeks on the bounce is tiny.

Either make it so that the previous events have a significant effect or, preferably, make it winner takes all. Haas not having a clue he had won the £10m last year says it all.

[trek8500xtr]

Isn't the FEC still in way too infant of a stage to even compare it to the majors?  I may be remembering wrong, but I think they've changed the rules and the way the points work 3 times in 5 years trying to make it work.  The biggest frustration was when Vijay won the first 2 events in 2008 and then didn't even have to play in the last 2 to win the FEC.  Villegas ended up winning the last 2 which was at least equally as difficult of an accomplishment and wasn't even close to overtaking Vijay for the 10 mil...There's a chance it will mean a lot at some point, but until they perfect the system or at least find one that has longevity it won't mean close to as much.  IMO

[newtogolf]

They could narrow it down to 16 and make it a 4 day Match Play tournament, with a single bracket so #1 plays #16, #2 plays #15, etc.  The #1 player has advantage of playing weakest of Top 16 so the points still matter in the final.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by trek8500xtr

Isn't the FEC still in way too infant of a stage to even compare it to the majors?  I may be remembering wrong, but I think they've changed the rules and the way the points work 3 times in 5 years trying to make it work.  The biggest frustration was when Vijay won the first 2 events in 2008 and then didn't even have to play in the last 2 to win the FEC.  Villegas ended up winning the last 2 which was at least equally as difficult of an accomplishment and wasn't even close to overtaking Vijay for the 10 mil...There's a chance it will mean a lot at some point, but until they perfect the system or at least find one that has longevity it won't mean close to as much.  IMO

Yeah right now it definitely is, but that's why I'm asking if it will ever grow to that level.

[Golf Man]

Originally Posted by jshots

Yeah right now it definitely is, but that's why I'm asking if it will ever grow to that level.

I don't think that it will ever grow to that level.

I can't see a way that they can make it more international (inviting the Top 25 international players not already qualified sound great but can't work in practice - they will have commitements elsewhere)

The format, what ever way they go, is imperfect

Fed Ex will pull out at some stage - not many sponsors will pay that kind of money, or if someone does, they'll want to put their own mark on it (can you see this happening at any of the majors?)

Its interesting and can be exciting and leads to top heavy leaderboards, but I'd be suprised if its even in existence in 10 years

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golf Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by jshots

Yeah right now it definitely is, but that's why I'm asking if it will ever grow to that level.

I don't think that it will ever grow to that level.

I can't see a way that they can make it more international (inviting the Top 25 international players not already qualified sound great but can't work in practice - they will have commitements elsewhere)

The format, what ever way they go, is imperfect

Fed Ex will pull out at some stage - not many sponsors will pay that kind of money, or if someone does, they'll want to put their own mark on it (can you see this happening at any of the majors?)

Its interesting and can be exciting and leads to top heavy leaderboards, but I'd be suprised if its even in existence in 10 years

Pretty hard to justify cancelling flights, offering people buyouts, and generally not exactly making record profits, then offering someone $10 million for winning a golf tournament.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Pretty hard to justify cancelling flights, offering people buyouts, and generally not exactly making record profits, then offering someone $10 million for winning a golf tournament.

See, this is part of the reason why I don't see it rising to the level of a major - it's called the Fed Ex Cup, not the PGA Playoffs or Tour Playoffs sponsor by Fed Ex or whatever. So part of it is a marketing issue -

"I won The Masters."

"Oh yeah? I won the Fed Ex Cup."

"Your point?"