2019 FedExCup Playoff Changes

[allenc]

Regardless of the exact format, I would like to see more of a true playoff.  Everyone in the playoffs is on equal footing, but far few players actually make the playoff.  Maybe just the top 30 from the regular season.  That would take care of rewarding regular season play.

Then they play 3 regular events or whatever, either widdling them down further or just accumulating points or maybe cumulative score.  My preferred system would be everyone plays two playoff events, then there is a big cut for the final.  Maybe top 10.  Now the winner of that 10 man tourney wins it all.  Or maybe even top 8 for a mini match play bracket.

 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, allenc said:

Then they play 3 regular events or whatever, either widdling them down further or just accumulating points or maybe cumulative score.  My preferred system would be everyone plays two playoff events, then there is a big cut for the final.  Maybe top 10.  Now the winner of that 10 man tourney wins it all.  Or maybe even top 8 for a mini match play bracket.

That doesn't seem that different than what we've had.

125 is whittled down to 100, then 70, then 30.

You're just changing the numbers up a little bit.

[rehmwa]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

That doesn't seem that different than what we've had.

 

Except for the whole - 'everyone is on equal footing' after they make it into the event.  That changes everything and I believe the only key point to his post.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

Except for the whole - 'everyone is on equal footing' after they make it into the event.  That changes everything and I believe the only key point to his post.

True, I read that part and then forgot it when I responded a bit later.

Even in most playoffs, the higher seeded teams get some advantage - home field, a bye week, etc. So while it's "more like a playoff" in some ways, it's less like it in some others.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

For this particular tournament? No.

But that's got nothing to do with the point I was making.

That point is that if you choose to care about who actually shoots the lowest score of the Tour Championship, then you don't get to care much after this year, because that's not the format. It's now a four-round "seeded" shootout simply to determine who wins the FedExCup, and just like seeding in match play, the higher ranked players are being given an advantage.

You'll know this going in, so you can't claim to be mislead, nor can any of the players.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't really care about it enough to even consider whether I like it or not. I didn't find the current methods or iterations all that confusing, but the PGA Tour believes that many have, and they want to award a single winner on Sunday.

I really have no problem with them using a seeded way to determine who wins the cup.  My objection is to treating it as a tour win, at the expense of another player who shot the lowest score.  Using the stroke adjustment makes sense to me for determining the cup winner, but there should still be a tournament winner determined without stroke adjustments.  How much would it have sucked if this had been the system this year and Tiger was therefore deemed to not have won his 80th?

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I really have no problem with them using a seeded way to determine who wins the cup.  My objection is to treating it as a tour win, at the expense of another player who shot the lowest score.  Using the stroke adjustment makes sense to me for determining the cup winner, but there should still be a tournament winner determined without stroke adjustments.  How much would it have sucked if this had been the system this year and Tiger was therefore deemed to not have won his 80th?

I'm going back to my first answer: meh.

It's a contrived event as it is already. It's just handicapped now.

Other events like the Match Play have somewhat handicapped ways of doing things. (Arguably that's largely because of match play, and how in one bracket you can advance by playing crappy golf, while in another you lose every match playing great golf, but still…).

The players know the rules going in.

And had Tiger needed to shoot -2 on the final day, maybe he would have.

[allenc]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

True, I read that part and then forgot it when I responded a bit later.

Even in most playoffs, the higher seeded teams get some advantage - home field, a bye week, etc. So while it's "more like a playoff" in some ways, it's less like it in some others.

Seeding is usually only mildly important though.  In golf it could be something like, the players with the most regular season points get the first pick of tee times.

[Vinsk]

48 minutes ago, allenc said:

Seeding is usually only mildly important though.  In golf it could be something like, the players with the most regular season points get the first pick of tee times.

Aside from preference to time alone..would be a bummer if players were ‘rewarded’ with pick of tee time only to get screwed by unpredictable weather. 

[turtleback]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

True, I read that part and then forgot it when I responded a bit later.

Even in most playoffs, the higher seeded teams get some advantage - home field, a bye week, etc. So while it's "more like a playoff" in some ways, it's less like it in some others.

That is an uncharacteristically terrible analogy.  In what sport's playoffs is a team given an advantage in the very measure that determines the winner?  The team with the best record in baseball doesn't get spotted runs, the team with the best record in basketball or football doesn't get spotted points.  Sure they may get some peripheral advantage like home field advantage, but no sport screws with the fundamental scoring of the game in the playoffs.  Except, now, golf.  And the first time someone gets screwed out of a PGA win because of this nonsense I think it will go away and everyone will try to forget, as quickly as possible, this absurd and embarrassing episode.

Personally I hope it is dawning on TPTB what an unmitigated disaster this year's Tour Championship would have been had the new rules been in effect and Tiger had been robbed of his 80th title and first in 5 years.  EVERYONE, including the cup winner would have been embarrassed.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, turtleback said:

That is an uncharacteristically terrible analogy. In what sport's playoffs is a team given an advantage in the very measure that determines the winner?

I disagree. The point holds that the team or player with the better regular season doesn't literally start on the same footing as their opponents. They have some sort of leg up.

It doesn't have to actually be by starting a field goal up on the other team.

I get that you don't like it, Rich. But perhaps my posting implies something other than the truth: I don't really care about the change. I see the "logic" from the PGA Tour's perspective (I'm fine with awarding two winners), and I've tried arguing that side a little.

The PGA Tour thought that too many people were confused by the two winner situation, so they did what they thought would work to eliminate the confusion. The Tour Championship has never had, IMO, the weight of a full PGA Tour win, so I don't really care about the change that much. I can see how in the PGA Tour's mind the compromise is worth it.

21 minutes ago, turtleback said:

no sport screws with the fundamental scoring of the game in the playoffs.

Races (like NASCAR) stagger where drivers start, and that directly affects the scoring result.

And golf - at every level other than the highest - handicaps results. This handicaps the thing, too.

21 minutes ago, turtleback said:

And the first time someone gets screwed out of a PGA win because of this nonsense I think it will go away and everyone will try to forget, as quickly as possible, this absurd and embarrassing episode.

I'll take that bet.

And they won't have gotten "screwed" because they'll have known the deal going in.

[Dr. Manhattan]

23 hours ago, turtleback said:

I really have no problem with them using a seeded way to determine who wins the cup.  My objection is to treating it as a tour win, at the expense of another player who shot the lowest score.  Using the stroke adjustment makes sense to me for determining the cup winner, but there should still be a tournament winner determined without stroke adjustments.  How much would it have sucked if this had been the system this year and Tiger was therefore deemed to not have won his 80th?

 

I think it's OK because they will all know what they need to do. 

[Hardspoon]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Races (like NASCAR) stagger where drivers start, and that directly affects the scoring result.

That was the first analogue I thought of when I read about the new system: drivers in racing qualifying to determine where they start on the grid.

[turtleback]

On 9/26/2018 at 9:35 AM, iacas said:

 

Races (like NASCAR) stagger where drivers start, and that directly affects the scoring result.

 

Again, terrible analogy.  Starting position is a factor in EVERY race, not something they do differently for the playoffs.  IOW it is fundamental to auto racing because you can't have tracks wide enough to have 32 cars start equally.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Again, terrible analogy.  Starting position is a factor in EVERY race, not something they do differently for the playoffs.  IOW it is fundamental to auto racing because you can't have tracks wide enough to have 32 cars start equally.  

Regardless, the very thing used to score is handicapped in racing. My point stands.

I still don’t really care. It’s contrived anyway.

[Braivo]

FWIW, one of the most popular sports league in the world, the English Premier League, does not even have a playoff system. Top team at the end of the regular season wins the title. 

On 9/28/2018 at 2:06 PM, iacas said:

Regardless, the very thing used to score is handicapped in racing. My point stands.

I still don’t really care. It’s contrived anyway.

I agree, contrived. I think sports should highlight their strengths rather than trying to be like other sports. 

You want to crown a season long "Champion" based on money earned or total victories? Great! (side note: no one ever talks about the money list anymore, wonder why?)

But to break down a long, grueling season to a couple of shots in the last tourney is gimmickry. 

I'll still watch though.  

[rehmwa]

Fedex Cup, or any other sport with a playoff finale.....  If you can win the playoffs and not have the best season record, you aren't really the best team, you are the playoff winner.  so what?   it's about having a fun and exciting season finale... that's good enough.

[Buckeyebowman]

The FedEx cup is a season long competition for a huge payoff at the end. It's aim, I guess, is to reward consistency of excellence throughout the season. As iacas said, it's a bit contrived.

Let's face it, you can put a lot of hay in the barn prior to the playoffs if you have a great year. However, as far as starting the #1 guy out at -10, I'm dead set against that! It reminds me of MLB Commish Rob Mannfred's idea to put a runner on second for the team at bat in extra inning games. Yes, they do that in the minors, but those guys are riding buses and making spit compared to the guys in the big show, who are riding chartered jets and making a bundle!

The idea to zero out everyone's FedEx cup points for the Tour Championship is interesting, but it runs counter to the season long nature of the challenge.

So you have two different winners. So what? It's not like Tiger will go hungry just winning the tourney right?

[Aces Wild]

I am OK with the present system, even when we have two winners on the final day.

I would like to see a different split though going from 160-80-40