2019 FedExCup Playoff Changes

[mdl]

3 hours ago, Eric C said:

While I like the idea from a pure competitive play perspective, the lack of revenue from only a week-long playoff event at a single venue as opposed to spreading it across 4 events / 4 venues would wind up making the purse much smaller. I guess I don't know this for sure, but it seems logical.

Also, given that every qualifying event with the exception of the WGC Match Play is stroke play, I don't think the playoffs would then be representative of the competition throughout the season.  Correct me if I'm off base here, but someone who is great at stroke play isn't necessarily always great at match play.  

I vote four events, 16 rounds, lowest score each week wins the week and lowest score over 16 rounds wins the cup.

 

That's why I mentioned you could do a hybrid or something.  Say start the same as now, first playoff just another tourney with extra fedex points to get into the top 70 to make it to the next week.  Then maybe do a light handicapping like in the proposed system over the next two weeks to go to 50 then 32, then have a match play finale for the win.

I hear you on the fact that only one tourney a year is match play, so it's making the championship about a slightly different game than what's really being played all year long.  But, what the hell.  You'd have a tour champion and a fedex cup winner.  And it would be fun!

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Eric C said:

To me, another reason in favor of my format. You don't see Tom Brady taking a week off during the playoffs.

Yes you do. It’s called a bye week.

[boogielicious]

15 hours ago, Eric C said:

While I like the idea from a pure competitive play perspective, the lack of revenue from only a week-long playoff event at a single venue as opposed to spreading it across 4 events / 4 venues would wind up making the purse much smaller. I guess I don't know this for sure, but it seems logical.

Also, given that every qualifying event with the exception of the WGC Match Play is stroke play, I don't think the playoffs would then be representative of the competition throughout the season.  Correct me if I'm off base here, but someone who is great at stroke play isn't necessarily always great at match play.  

I vote four events, 16 rounds, lowest score each week wins the week and lowest score over 16 rounds wins the cup.

Well stated, but I do like them being able to potentially skip a week if they have enough points. They are risking position by not playing, but resting a week can be very helpful.

[Hardspoon]

I don't think the current system is that bad.  My concern, if any, has nothing to do with the FedEx cup winner; I just don't love that the final tournament of the season has such a reduced field that winning it doesn't include all of the best players in golf (see: Spieth, Jordan).

I think the proposed solution is weird as hell...it's very much outside of anything elsewhere in golf.  It seems stupid.

I'd love match play, but that's probably not happening.

I'm intrigued by @Eric C's suggestion of an aggregate stroke play over 4 weeks, but I think that has too high a potential to be a blowout, and it doesn't work well if people want to sit out a week.

 

 

[Angler]

So if the Patriots get in the super bowl we give them two touchdowns

because they were number 1?   Who would watch?

I’m from Philly. I like underdogs to have a chance.

 

 

[rehmwa]

So the idiots are really going to do it then....

I guess this really means that the final week isn't really a tournament of any kind since it doesn't stand alone now.  It's just a wrapup with only one purpose sort out the leaders from a reduced field and pick the season winner.

So it went from being two things - 1. an elite tournament of arguably the best 30 players in the world and:  2. the Fedex cup playoff finals.

to just the one thing - #2.  They took away #1.  (though you know they'll still report who had the best "unadjusted score" anyway and was the true winner of the weekend, even if not of the season)

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to grasp the dual nature of the final tournament.  Perhaps they licked paint as children.

[iacas]

Also this:

Quote

A doubling of the total FedExCup bonus pool money from the current $35 million to $70 million starting next season. The FedExCup winner’s share will have the largest increase, from $10 million to $15 million.

 

[Braivo]

The entire FedEx Cup is a bad idea imo.

Trying to crown season long "champions" has been a mostly futile effort in individual sports. See NASCAR as a similar example. All of the tweaks in the world don't generate excitement. 

Outside of the majors and Ryder Cup the PGA Tour is a niche sport and they should accept this. 

Same with NASCAR outside of Daytona / Talladega. 

Anyway, now they are throwing more money at it to contrive excitement. Yet the RC has zero money and great excitement. The money doesn't matter and won't change things. 

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The entire FedEx Cup is a bad idea imo.

Completely disagree.

We have the top players continuing to play golf - meaningful golf - past the last major of the year. I feel like people forget what it was like before - we wouldn't see the top players (sometimes they'd even skip the Tour championship) from August until January or March. Tiger would pop up in December or whatever for his event, and overseas in February… and that'd be about it.

The FedExCup has done a good thing for golf.

24 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Anyway, now they are throwing more money at it to contrive excitement. Yet the RC has zero money and great excitement. The money doesn't matter and won't change things. 

I suspect that the money matters quite a bit to the players themselves, and since they're the ones we will be tuning into watch, it matters to us by proxy.

[DeadMan]

I like that they kept the confusing formula until the last event. And then they put together a gimmick for the last event that makes the event seem less serious. Good work, PGA Tour.

Of all the things they could come up with, this seems like the worst of both worlds.

[Sandy Divot]

It's their ballgame, they can make the rules. I really don't care what changes they make, I'll probably still watch. I guess they think this will raise interest, and if it doesn't work out, they can always change back. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Either way, I have no skin in the game.

[rehmwa]

56 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I like that they kept the confusing formula until the last event. And then they put together a gimmick for the last event that makes the event seem less serious. Good work, PGA Tour.

Of all the things they could come up with, this seems like the worst of both worlds.

Well, in all honesty, they currently have a gimmick for the last event (with the points reset).  Without some kind of reset, there wouldn't be a playoffs when there is a clear leader from the regular season (he'd just be the defacto winner - probably as it should be)......  This is just the same thing to the next level.  Much like political policy, enact a really stupid policy, and then, when it shows itself to be stupid, double down.

It's pointless change to essentially do what there are currently doing, other than to eliminate the win for the guy that actually takes the last tournament.

I guess I'd have gone the other direction and just have the playoffs be a series of tournaments with dramatically increasing points in each event to ensure the final event had a good number of people playing who are not mathematically 'cut' from a chance at a win..  Winner is the points total winner at the end....  keep the tournament winner separate.

Edited September 19, 2018 by rehmwa

[Wally Fairway]

IMO - this blurs the results, by making the last tournament and the season event one set of results. The current set up allows the top 30 player with the best week to win the tournament and the person with the adjusted season most points to win the season championship.

Look at it this way, if Tiger were to shoot the lowest score this week, but "only" by 5 shots over the field with BDC finishing second then Tiger would not be recognized as winning an event.
I wonder how the OWGR will use the 2019 event finish for rankings, that will be interesting - if they ignore the "handicap", or give full winning points for the player who did not shoot the lowest score for the week.
I don't know the "right" solution, but this seems to create as many problems as it attempts to fix.

[rehmwa]

26 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

IMO - this blurs the results, by making the last tournament and the season event one set of results. The current set up allows the top 30 player with the best week to win the tournament and the person with the adjusted season most points to win the season championship.

Look at it this way, if Tiger were to shoot the lowest score this week, but "only" by 5 shots over the field with BDC finishing second then Tiger would not be recognized as winning an event.
I wonder how the OWGR will use the 2019 event finish for rankings, that will be interesting - if they ignore the "handicap", or give full winning points for the player who did not shoot the lowest score for the week.
I don't know the "right" solution, but this seems to create as many problems as it attempts to fix.

I wonder if it should be worth anything.....reduced field, screwed up scoring process.....etc.  the only 'fair' way is to ignore the handicap and give it the minimum.  Or it ignore it and consider it an exhibition.

[turtleback]

My question is whether winning that handicapped final event will count as an 'official' tour victory.

I'm glad the NFL didn't have such an absurd process in place in 2007 and 2011.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, turtleback said:

My question is whether winning that handicapped final event will count as an 'official' tour victory.

Yes.

[GolfLug]

I just don't see how they can award equitable strokes to the amount of points accumulated to everybody. Points have more nuanced value.

This system would overvalue accumulated points of players who would be a large amount of points behind the player above them and at the same time undervalue some other players' points who might be only slightly behind the player ahead of them.

So yeah, I agree with posters above who think this solves nothing and would add that it actually unfair to some.  

 

[Zeph]

It puts a lot of emphasis on the playoffs, which of course today's system also does. I don't think they'll stray too far from such a system, where if you are in the top 125 by the end of the regular season, you got a chance to take it all.

The best players will always be in the top 125 and with good playoffs be able to win it all, without necessarily having been the best through the entire year. It's more "if you are good enough to make it this far, you can win everything".