Missing the Cut…

[Bballref]

I know the only players who receive Fedex points are those who make the cut. However, should there be a penalty or deduction of points if someone does not make the cut? Or even DQ'd? Theoretically a pro could play an event each week, miss the cut in every (500+ for win)tournament except one where he wins thus gaining a two year exemption and enough points to get into Fedex Cup playoffs. Same would go for a pro who only achieves a couple of top 2 or 3 finishes. There are a number of scenarios in which a consistent cut maker is not rewarded or situations where an inconsistent cut maker is not punished for missing the cut. These guys are pros, so they don't get paid for missing cuts. 

Cuts are such an integral part of the game and since these are pros with money always on the line, then should the cut line have an emphasis on the Fedex points system? Sponsorships, endorsements and other income aside from actually playing professional golf, it costs money to play in a tournament and would be an expense if the cut is not made. However there is no expense, and by that I mean no Fedex points lost, if the cut is missed.  

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, Bballref said:

I know the only players who receive Fedex points are those who make the cut. However, should there be a penalty or deduction of points if someone does not make the cut? Or even DQ'd? Theoretically a pro could play an event each week, miss the cut in every (500+ for win)tournament except one where he wins thus gaining a two year exemption and enough points to get into Fedex Cup playoffs. Same would go for a pro who only achieves a couple of top 2 or 3 finishes. There are a number of scenarios in which a consistent cut maker is not rewarded or situations where an inconsistent cut maker is not punished for missing the cut. These guys are pros, so they don't get paid for missing cuts. 

Cuts are such an integral part of the game and since these are pros with money always on the line, then should the cut line have an emphasis on the Fedex points system? Sponsorships, endorsements and other income aside from actually playing professional golf, it costs money to play in a tournament and would be an expense if the cut is not made. However there is no expense, and by that I mean no Fedex points lost, if the cut is missed.  

If I understand your suggestion, you would like to see a player who wins once, and misses the cut the rest of the time finish behind a player who makes every cut, but finishes 68th every week.  I'n not sure I agree.  Making the cut is important, but wins are huge.  

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

If I understand your suggestion, you would like to see a player who wins once, and misses the cut the rest of the time finish behind a player who makes every cut, but finishes 68th every week.  I'n not sure I agree.  Making the cut is important, but wins are huge.  

I agree.

[Swooshgolf]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

If I understand your suggestion, you would like to see a player who wins once, and misses the cut the rest of the time finish behind a player who makes every cut, but finishes 68th every week.  I'n not sure I agree.  Making the cut is important, but wins are huge.  

I think he might be suggesting is that winners get too many points but consistent non-winners that make the cut don't get enough. 

[Vinsk]

It really depends on the place one finishes really. And that can be evaluated on money won and/or points. Dave’s example of finishing 68th shows the one win being superior I think. But what about 10 tournaments ...one player wins one of them and misses the cut in 9. Another player places top 10 in 5 of them, top 20 in 5 of them...who should get more points? It seems he’s thinking too much is given for a win and not enough credit is given for making an cut. 

[Bballref]

What I'm saying is this... other than zero points, there is no penalty for missing the cut. Then I asked whether there should be more emphasis placed on making the cut and should it reflect upon the fedex point scoring system. Also should DQ'd or even WD be considered?

What kind of penalty i think would have to be decided. Perhaps there isn't enough of a point differential between the last player making the cut and the guy who doesn't. Maybe a point deduction from current totals. I don't really know if there is an answer or whether it's a valid concern. Merely asking opinion...thanks

[iacas]

You're almost arguing for an average points earned list or something, a way to minimize the points earned by players who earn a lot of points by PLAYING a lot of events. You think it's not fair for a guy to play 45 events, miss the cut 30 times, but win enough in the 15 events that he has a higher position than someone who plays 20 events and makes 18 cuts but has fewer points.

I think the current system is fine, because no system is going to be perfect, and this one rewards not only players who play well (win) but players who play a lot, and I imagine the PGA Tour likes players who play a lot.

[chspeed]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think the current system is fine, because no system is going to be perfect, and this one rewards not only players who play well (win) but players who play a lot, and I imagine the PGA Tour likes players who play a lot.

I actually think the Fedex points system is terrible. Not because it doesn't penalize players who miss the cut, but because it's not intuitive. I'm a big TV golf fan, I like watching, I even subscribe to PGA Tour Live. I'm also good at math, and like statistics, etc. But I have no clue how the Fedex points system works. It just seems, to me anyway, artificial, uninteresting, complex, and arcane. Even during the playoffs it's tough to follow.

A little OT, but I think they need to throw the entire system out and start from scratch.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, chspeed said:

But I have no clue how the Fedex points system works.

I don't know what you mean there. It's very simple.

FedExCup 101

---

PGA TOUR

Players earn points based on where they finish in an event. They win the most for a win, and win more points for bigger events.

That's not complicated, so I'm confused as to where your confusion lies.

[chspeed]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know what you mean there. It's very simple.

FedExCup 101

---

PGA TOUR

Players earn points based on where they finish in an event. They win the most for a win, and win more points for bigger events.

That's not complicated, so I'm confused as to where your confusion lies. 

I just read through it. Here's where I lose interest:

1. Why all the different combinations of points of different events? Some get 500, some 550, some 300 depending on the field.

2. Why do you carry points into the playoffs? Other sports don't do this - is this just to give you the equivalent of a "home field advantage"?

3. What is reseeding?

4. Check out the full point distribution chart for the playoffs. It's hideous.

I'm not confused. I just think it's way too complicated and uninteresting for a golf fan to get excited about.

 

[iacas]

You’re completely changing your story. You had “no clue” how it worked but now you are not confused at all.

Different events get different points because they’re different levels of events. Simple.

Points carry over to maintain a sense of seeding.

Reseeding is answered.

It’s fine IMO. Good luck making something better.

[Wally Fairway]

Sure there are some issues with the FedEx point system, same thing with OWGR points - but I can't come up with a better, more equitable way to do rankings.

As @iacas stated, there is no perfect system for rankings - especially when the field is different every week, and the course, and the conditions.
They both work, and it doesn't take much effort to follow them; if you don't want to look into the mechanics of how they are calculated it is easy. They post updated standings every week.

[Herkimer]

How about this:  You FedEx points should be the same number as your PGA Tour winnings.  

[Vinsk]

4 hours ago, Herkimer said:

How about this:  You FedEx points should be the same number as your PGA Tour winnings.  

So Tiger’s the default FedEx champion? Lol. I assume you mean of that year. What do you mean by ‘winnings’? Dollar amount earned? Again, all tournaments aren’t equal in SOF nor purses. You can’t be considered equal by winning the John Deere vs The Players Championship. 

[Herkimer]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

So Tiger’s the default FedEx champion? Lol. I assume you mean of that year. What do you mean by ‘winnings’? Dollar amount earned? Again, all tournaments aren’t equal in SOF nor purses. You can’t be considered equal by winning the John Deere vs The Players Championship. 

Yes, of course for the year.  The money counts for all the tournaments they play so to pick out just two tournaments is statistically insignificant.  I would argue that the top 30 money winners on tour are the top 30 players on tour.

[Vinsk]

So do you think Shaufelle, Kuchar and Woodland are the top 3 golfers on tour? They’re the top 3 in earnings as of March 3rd. How can Shaufelle be the top money winner and not be the top ranked player?

[Pretzel]

47 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

Yes, of course for the year.  The money counts for all the tournaments they play so to pick out just two tournaments is statistically insignificant.  I would argue that the top 30 money winners on tour are the top 30 players on tour.

So let's break down what you're advocating for here:

• Big/important tournaments (with bigger purses) are worth more for people who win than small/unimportant tournaments (with smaller purses)
• Placing higher earns you more points
• Missing the cut earns you zero points
• At the end of the year the person who won the most points/earnings wins the FedEx Cup with no resets in the middle

Congratulations! You just recreated the current FedEx Cup points system, but with bigger numbers for the points and no playoffs in the fall.

Currently the tournaments with big purses (WGC, Majors) award more points than the tournaments with smaller purses (John Deere, Wyndham Championship, etc.), and the points are awarded with more points going to people who finish higher (just like more money going to people who finish higher). The only difference between what you suggest and how it really works is that the current playoff events also give additional points to make things more exciting at the end of the year. This also, funny enough, coincides with larger purses in the events like the Tour Championship compared to many standard tournaments. 

If you look at the 2018 PGA Tour money list (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.109.2018.html) vs the 2018 FedEx Cup standings (https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/final-fedexcup-results-rose-wins-10-million) you'll notice they look remarkably similar with just a few minor changes to the order based on how players performed in the playoffs.

 

[Herkimer]

1 hour ago, Pretzel said:

So let's break down what you're advocating for here:

• Big/important tournaments (with bigger purses) are worth more for people who win than small/unimportant tournaments (with smaller purses)
• Placing higher earns you more points
• Missing the cut earns you zero points
• At the end of the year the person who won the most points/earnings wins the FedEx Cup with no resets in the middle

Congratulations! You just recreated the current FedEx Cup points system, but with bigger numbers for the points and no playoffs in the fall.

Currently the tournaments with big purses (WGC, Majors) award more points than the tournaments with smaller purses (John Deere, Wyndham Championship, etc.), and the points are awarded with more points going to people who finish higher (just like more money going to people who finish higher). The only difference between what you suggest and how it really works is that the current playoff events also give additional points to make things more exciting at the end of the year. This also, funny enough, coincides with larger purses in the events like the Tour Championship compared to many standard tournaments. 

If you look at the 2018 PGA Tour money list (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.109.2018.html) vs the 2018 FedEx Cup standings (https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/final-fedexcup-results-rose-wins-10-million) you'll notice they look remarkably similar with just a few minor changes to the order based on how players performed in the playoffs.

 

Thank you.  That's great reporting!  I do believe in playoffs, which I assumed was understood.  My money list method would be used only to identify those players who would be eligible.  And it would be extremely easy to understand, as opposed to the present point system.  And I believe that you have proved here that the result would be just about the same.