Fedex Cup vs Majors

[Will]

I've wondered why there seems to be some antagonism toward the Fedex Cup format, and I think there's a good reason. It has nothing to do with the supposed complexity (it's really pretty simple), and it's not due to its contrived nature (any playoff format is, by definition, contrived).

If you think about it, the reason most folks are "lukewarm" about the new playoff system is due to the potential for minimizing the importance of the traditional four majors. If the Fedex Cup succeeds in becoming an important, or even the defining measure of the golf season, then that necessarily detracts from the majors. In fact, it's possible that a Fedex Cup success will relegate the majors to secondary status.

That could explain why some folks are reluctant to "get with the program." I think it's a reasonable concern. Look at the purses of the majors: two are 7 million, the British a bit more, the PGA a bit more at 9 million. Each of the 4 Fedex playoff tourneys are 7 million, with an overall winning prize of 10 million. From a purely monetary standpoint, the Fedex tourneys are more significant.

So, what then makes a major a major? I can see the British and US Opens as having a significance of their own, due to their open qualifying and national intrinsic importance. But what about the Masters and PGA? How are they better than the Fedex tournaments?

I think the Fedex Cup will be successful, somewhat to my surprise. It's a very exciting format, with a lot going on. The players on the bubble seem to be energized, trying to make it to the next level. There's a lot at stake. Folks who criticize the terms of the payout are ill-informed, it's a huge payout, deferred or not. Golf writers should be careful to opine on financial matters (take note, sand-trappers).

To summarize, I don't think the historical concept of the four majors and the new Fedex Cup format can co-exist. If the Fedex Cup succeeds, the majors will suffer. If it fails, they will survive in their present form.

Anyway, that's why I see there's some antagonism to the Fedex concept.

[iacas]

If you think about it, the reason most folks are "lukewarm" about the new playoff system is due to the potential for minimizing the importance of the traditional four majors.

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly that this is a major factor in the general dislike or disinterest of the FedExCup.

In fact, it's possible that a Fedex Cup success will relegate the majors to secondary status.

I don't think so. The majors have 70-100+ years of history (most of 'em). The FedExCup isn't gonna surpass the majors in our lifetimes.

Look at the purses of the majors: two are 7 million, the British a bit more, the PGA a bit more at 9 million.

Elite golfers do not play the majors for the purse.

How are they better than the Fedex tournaments?

Let's see. The Masters is the youngest of the majors. It's been played since, oh, 1934 or so. C'mon, you can't be serious...

Golf writers should be careful to opine on financial matters (take note, sand-trappers).

That's what you've just done in comparing the purses. The purse has nothing to do with a major being a major. They could play them all and award $1 to the winner and the fields would be the same.

To summarize, I don't think the historical concept of the four majors and the new Fedex Cup format can co-exist. If the Fedex Cup succeeds, the majors will suffer. If it fails, they will survive in their present form.

I think you couldn't be more wrong, and I don't think this assumption is why there's a general lack of interest in the format.

[Shindig]

The purse has nothing to do with a major being a major. They could play them all and award $1 to the winner and the fields would be the same.

It's worth adding that three of the majors have players go through some serious ordeals to be able to play in them, despite knowing that even if they make the cut, they aren't taking home any prize money.

[iacas]

It's worth adding that three of the majors have players go through some serious ordeals to be able to play in them, despite knowing that even if they make the cut, they aren't taking home any prize money.

Huh? All majors award prize money to all professionals who make the cut. Amateurs, of course, don't get any of the prize money.

[Shindig]

Huh? All majors award prize money to all professionals who make the cut. Amateurs, of course, don't get any of the prize money.

Actually, the amateurs were who I was referencing. I think I read when the U.S. Open qualifying events were going on that more amateurs attempt qualifying for it than any other professional event, even though their chances at, say, an alternate-field event (like Mayakoba) might yield a better chance to play with the pros. The prestige is just that big.

[gogolfing]

Phil's comments on NBC right after he won may lend some insight; he is first in the 'Playoff' race and strongly considering fanning the BMW next week. This would never be discussed if it was a major next week.

I for one have enjoyed the playoff format more than I thought I would. It brings out most of the players, and I like the extra game in it of seeing who is on the bubble to continue next week. I also like the end of the season regarding the top 125 for the same reason.

I wouldn't mind knowing what Phil was referring to when he called out the Finchem in his post round interview saying he had asked the Commissioner to do a few things that weren't done, so was not sure about next week. Any insights?

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

The FedEx Cup is never going to surpass the importance of majors. Not even close. Actually I don't even see how this can be debated. It's not about the money when it comes to majors. FedEx Cup is all about money and we are finding out what is more important.

[Bo the Golfer]

I don't think players are trying to win the FedEx Cup for the cash-it's an annuity that doesn't pay out for 20 years so that wouldn't make a lot of sense. These are not anything like the Majors and I don't see them being passed of as such. This is a playoff system intended to give this time of year some meaning on the PGA Tour and infuse some life into their fan base. I have enjoyed the tournaments and think it's cool to see some of these guys trying to play their way into next week. I also see the need of some tweaks as 4 in a row clearly does not work. Kuddo's to the tour for coming up with this but let's hope they can make changes in a way that makes it work better for all.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

I like the idea of watching guys try to play their way into the next tournament but the way the point system is set up it just doesn't do it for me. Guys can skip a week and still advance while others, such as Rich Beem can finish T7 at the Barclays and still have to finish first or second the following week. Beem dropped back a bit on the weekend but still had a pretty good tournament. What if he, say, finished 5th. 7th, 5th and that wouldn't advance? I guess it just lacks the drama for me. We'll see how these next two weeks shake out. Any more Phil vs Tiger and I'll have all the drama I need! That was fun to watch... Of course Phil may skip this week... but I guess it doesn't entirely matter since he's already secured a spot in the Tour Championship. Padraig Harrington is going to skip this week too, and he's not secured a spot in the top 30. Probably won't get into the Tour Championship now. That's cool though, I guess he'll go home and shine his Claret Jug. I wonder what he thinks is more important, FedEx or Majors?

[laconic517]

the 10 mill is an annuity, thats change to tiger and co.

[iacas]

the 10 mill is an annuity, thats change to tiger and co.

I think $20M or so isn't "change" to anyone. I truly believe Tiger doesn't really care about the money, but the $20M or whatever he'd get from the annuity for winning it this year alone would make a nice donation to his charity - about which he cares very deeply - if nothing else.

[laconic517]

I think $20M or so isn't "change" to anyone. I truly believe Tiger doesn't really care about the money, but the $20M or whatever he'd get from the annuity for winning it this year alone would make a nice donation to his charity - about which he cares very deeply - if nothing else.

10 mill over 10-20 years is nothing to them because they make well over a million a year in earnings on tour. Hell I think a million dollars only guarantees you top 70 or 80 on tour.

[iacas]

10 mill over 10-20 years is nothing to them because they make well over a million a year in earnings on tour. Hell I think a million dollars only guarantees you top 70 or 80 on tour.

I think you're misunderstanding how the annuity works. It's not $10M over 10-20 years. It's $10M now + interest, then they get a lump sum when they retire (at 45 or later). It's not spread out, and it's always going to be larger than $10M (unless a 45-year-old wins it and promptly retires).

Again, even $10M in a lump would mean a lot to Tiger if he can put it all into his TW Foundation.

[J.P.]

The structure of the Fedex Cup is flawed. It does encourage the best players playing late in the season, but . . .

The players I know of skipping at least one of four of these tournaments are Tiger, Phil now, KJ Choi, Padrig, Ernie Els, Scott Verplank - there may be more I have not heard about. Has anyone heard of any player skipping a major to get the kids to school or see their first soccer game? Sure they miss em for births - but that is a bit more important.

I can't think of any playoff system where competitors can take one of the rounds off and still win the overall prize! I know some will mention that the NFL gives 4 teams a buy in the first round of the playoffs, but that is a predetermined first round policy. We've got guys here taking week one, two, or three off. It just doesn't look like there is much passion to win this thing.

I can envision a time when the top players won't come to play in this thing. Too much of a grind right after the PGA and right before the Rider Cup or Presidents Cup. But we'll always see the top players at the Majors.

[iacas]

I can't think of any playoff system where competitors can take one of the rounds off and still win the overall prize! I know some will mention that the NFL gives 4 teams a buy in the first round of the playoffs, but that is a predetermined first round policy.

Hey, the way I see it, the guys are giving themselves byes. That's all. Tiger, Phil, Vijay, etc. can afford to take off, and if Padraig wants to screw himself out of a chance to win by taking off, so be it - they're all independent contractors.

[Cleveland Gunmetal]

Hey, the way I see it, the guys are giving themselves byes. That's all. Tiger, Phil, Vijay, etc. can afford to take off, and if Padraig wants to screw himself out of a chance to win by taking off, so be it - they're all independent contractors.

You're absolutely right. The problem I have is Padraig Harrington clearly doesn't care

that much about the FedEx cup. I'm sure he's not alone either and if the players don't care about it how are the fans going to care about it? I have enjoyed watching tournaments with all (or most) of the top players in the world. That's a lot of fun but I'm having a tough time getting really into the actual FedEx standings. Again, maybe that will get more exciting the next couple of events. Oh yeah... one thing I do like is the players are playing with guys based on their rank. I understand the bye week analogy. However, it makes more sense to me the way Tiger did it. You know, take the first week off when 144 players are in the field. A bye during the third tournament, right before the end event? That doesn't make sense. You shouldn't be able to do that.

[Big Lex]

This is a great thread...look for more on this subject in an upcoming Sand Trap column, wink wink.

Jack Nicklaus is probably 90% responsible for the modern focus (obsession, in my opinion) with the "four majors." But I think sometimes we forget that the modern major championship structure, and the prestige that goes with it, wasn't something carved into stone tablets on Mount Ararat. Some people don't even consider Jack's "majors" as the real four majors; Bobby Jones to his dying day said that the four majors were the ones he won, meaning the open and amateur titles of US and Great Britian. What about some other great tournaments, or ones that could or should be great? Australia has a huge presence on the US and european tours, and yet their national open championship is not considered a "major." In an era when the European tour players clearly hold an advantage in the Ryder Cup, why is the European Tour's PGA Championship or Volvo Masters not considered a major? What about the Western Open, which is older than the Masters? Or the Metropolitan Open?

Ben Hogan was asked about "majors" many times, and the answers I've read from him were usually something like "all the tournaments are important. I don't see how you can miss any of them."

The most important events are the ones that the players think are the most important. This has changed in the past, and there is no reason to think it won't or can't change in the future. A golf championship series or playoff type thing could definitely become very prestigious, if the players treat it as such.

To suggest that simply because today's players, in the FedExCup's first year, haven't treated the event like the Celestial Championship of the Universe means it's stupid or doomed as a prestigious championship is offbase and premature, I think.

Another point: I think the term "annuity" has created confusion. Usually, the term "Ten million dollar annuity" means an account which will have about ten million in it for the owner/holder over the life of the annuity. If you win the Mega Millions lottery, say, it's maybe a 300 million dollar annuity, meaning you get paid 15 million dollar increments per year for 20 years. If you elect the lump sum, you get maybe 140 or 160 million.

The Cup prize is ten million NOW. Ten million samolian, ten million dollar-eenies, right now, deposited in an interest earning account, accessible to the owner in 20 years, or whatever the restrictions would be.