Fed Ex: Sirak states the obvious

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

Check out Ron Sirak's most recent take on the Fed Ex Cup

Sirak focuses on Tiger Woods' 2007 performance as well as the large number of players involved in the playoff series.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

He does state the obvious, at least obvious to me but it's a good article. The season really does end for all intensive purposes with the PGA Championship. It kind of always has though (although I do enjoy the Ryder Cup/President's Cup in September), and there's just more money still to divy up this year. I hope the Fed Ex Cup is exciting from at least the fan's perspective but I have a feeling it's going to be a bit of a letdown. And it's not off to a great start when the best player in the world is mulling over whether to play in the Barclay's or not.

[CG031]

Can someone explain to me how the Fed Ex cup tournament will work, as well as where it will be played? I'm kind of confused on the entire thing.

[iacas]

Can someone explain to me how the Fed Ex cup tournament will work, as well as where it will be played? I'm kind of confused on the entire thing.

Why don't you start here:

http://thesandtrap.com/trap_five/fiv...t_the_fedexcup or here: http://thesandtrap.com/swing_thought...from_the_start

[AndrewM]

This "playoff" thing seems so foolish to me, there is some convoluted point system to get a "place" in the playoffs then you get another set of points, also convoluted when you are "in" the playoffs.

The whole point of playoffs in EVERY other sport that I can think of, is that EVERY team has a chance to win. The very lowest seed at Wimbeldon can win, the team with the worst record can win everywhere... Except here.

There is literally NO way that the last place player can win the Fed Ex Cup. Further more, because of the nature of golf, no one eliminates another player directly. You want real playoffs?? Make it match play. The problem with that is, no one would ever agree to that. Oh and the other reason is we already have a large scale match play event.

If I am mistaken please correct me, but that is how the whole system occurs to me. Way too complicated, with no real point. The only thing that matters is that it is some insane amount of money, but name one player that would rather win the "Fed Ex Cup" instead of the Masters or the US Open, etc etc

[digger21]

Yeah the main problem is that stupid points thing. However considering its only the first year, itll be alright. If you expect perfection immediately then youll be let down in a lot of things in life. I will easily give the PGA 10yrs to perfect it.

[Burg]

He does state the obvious, at least obvious to me but it's a good article. The season really does end for all intensive purposes with the PGA Championship. It kind of always has though (although I do enjoy the Ryder Cup/President's Cup in September), and there's just more money still to divy up this year. I hope the Fed Ex Cup is exciting from at least the fan's perspective but I have a feeling it's going to be a bit of a letdown. And it's not off to a great start when the best player in the world is mulling over whether to play in the Barclay's or not.

It's "intents and purposes" NOT "intensive purposes". Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[TheNextBen]

I disagree with that idiot. The one who wins the Fedex Cup Playoffs is the real champion. Tiger might be the best player and have made the most money. But he isn't the Tour Champion if he doesn't win the playoffs. Just like the President's Trophy winner of the NHL isn't the Stanley Cup champions.

[AndrewM]

I disagree with that idiot. The one who wins the Fedex Cup Playoffs is the real champion. Tiger might be the best player and have made the most money. But he isn't the Tour Champion if he doesn't win the playoffs. Just like the President's Trophy winner of the NHL isn't the Stanley Cup champions.

So if Tiger doesnt win some convoluted prize created by corporate America and the Tour in favor of ratings and money, he wouldnt be the best player on Tour? PAALEASE. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard someone say OR type IN MY LIFE. Comparing the Stanley Cup with history and tradition dating to 1892 to the Fed Ex Cup with history (money) and tradition dating back oh, a YEAR is preposterous. I sincerely hope you were joking. Btw, whoever wins the Tour Championship doesnt really matter either, or any other singular tournament. The measuring stick for the best player on tour each year would either be the World Ranking or The Vardon Trophy. IMO the Vardon trophy is the thing that most signifies the best player. Even if the winner never won a tournament, the person who has the lowest average score out of every single other player on Tour, to me, is the best.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

You just can't compare the Fed Ex Cup with any other major sporting championship, ie Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA Finals, Superbowl, etc. They are definied championships, with an actual trophy I might add. The Fed Ex Cup is just a glorified tournament, or group of tournaments with lots of money in the end. You can make the winner the "champion" or I guess player of the year but the problem I have is Tiger has to actually care about it. Seeing how he's already thinking about skipping the first event I don't think he does, at least not like a major. That would be like a NHL team forfeiting the first game or two of the Stanley Cup finals, using your analogy.

[TheNextBen]

So if Tiger doesnt win some convoluted prize created by corporate America and the Tour in favor of ratings and money, he wouldnt be the best player on Tour?

Yeah, that's the dumbest thing someone has ever said. I agree with you. And you were the one who said it. Because I clearly said in my message that Tiger Woods would still be the best player even if he doesn't win the playoffs. I just said that he wouldn't be the Tour Champion for 2007. Like the dumbass in the article is stating.

[AndrewM]

Yeah, that's the dumbest thing someone has ever said. I agree with you. And you were the one who said it. Because I clearly said in my message that Tiger Woods would still be the best player even if he doesn't win the playoffs. I just said that he wouldn't be the Tour Champion for 2007. Like the dumbass in the article is stating.

No, you said Tiger "might have been the best player"

Tiger IS the best player. By any measure there is EXCEPT if he doesnt win this entirely contrived "playoff" series of events. EVERY single other sport has a history and tradition of playoffs that we know and enjoy today. Golf has the four majors, Vardon Trophy, PGA Player of the Year, World Ranking etc... THOSE are the measuring sticks for the PGA Tour and inventing some new system based ENTIRELY on ratings and money doesnt change that... I cant believe you are suggesting anything else... maybe I'm just reading your posts incorrectly, I have to be, that is the only way to explain what you are writing.

[iacas]

IMO the Vardon trophy is the thing that most signifies the best player. Even if the winner never won a tournament, the person who has the lowest average score out of every single other player on Tour, to me, is the best.

What about last year when Tiger didn't have enough rounds to qualify, so he didn't win the Vardon trophy despite winning two majors and, what, eight tournaments in total?

[AndrewM]

What about last year when Tiger didn't have enough rounds to qualify, so he didn't win the Vardon trophy despite winning two majors and, what, eight tournaments in total?

I tried to slip that in... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[TheNextBen]

No, you said Tiger "might have been the best player"

Well, yes... yes, you are reading my post incorrectly. I am

not suggesting that Tiger is nothing but the very best player by far, there is no question about that. And I am not suggesting that FedEx Cup desides who is the best player. I am simply suggesting that the player who wins the FedEx Cup Playoffs is the champion of the 2007 season.

[Big Lex]

I agree with people who think we need to give the FedEx cup some time to see how it plays out.

I think the reason the point system is so complicated is that they were trying very hard to set the thing up to accomplish several goals. Included in these goals are an effort to get top players to play more events, to reward big tournaments more heavily, and still maintain some of the uncertainty and excitement of playoff systems in other sports.

I happen to think the concept is fantastic, and I applaud the PGA Tour for trying to do something different with their season, to make it a better spectator product, and to give us something different than the same list of tournaments every year.

I'll agree that playoffs may not "suit" golf, and that the major championships are what the players care about, and even that certain statistical categories might paint a better picture of the "best golfer." But I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to come up with something new and better.

[hurley9192]

what if Vijay won all 4 of the final events? He'd have more wins than Tiger.

Also, the 144th person can win the FedEx Cup, but he'd have to have a ton of help.

[Frank-0-Sport]

Greetings ....

There was a time when Leading Money Winner, Vardon Trophy and PGA Player-of-the-Year (the PGA of America's award, not the PGA Tour's) were the most sought-after season-ending honors.

Furthermore, there was no season-ending championship, just whatever was the last official event on the PGA Tour schedule.

A much under-ballyhooed season-ending honors battle occured at the 1981 Pensacola Open (# 1). Several big-name players of that time, who normally would not have played in this small Florida town event, showed up for one last chance to claim the Leading Money Winner, Vardon Trophy and Player-of-the Year titles.

The PGA Tour hasn't seen such drama since!

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank-0-Sport