chriskzoo

We do a team match play format in our league, but wanting to run a parallel individual standings using Stableford. Leaning towards modified Stableford (8 pts double eagle, -3 for double bogey and higher, etc.) since the normal Stableford is essentially just low net minus limiting blow up holes. If your league uses it, thoughts on modified vs. regular scoring?

Even as an American who thinks they've absolutely botched everything from how they put the team together to Johnson's captaincy thus far, just want to have something to watch this weekend that's mildly interesting. Actually more of a fan of the Euro players as individuals.

The Euros will not have LIV players, but I don't think that's been ruled out for America. If someone qualifies based on points (Brooks is really the only one with a chance), they will be on the team.

Who is the largest sponsor of the LPGA Tour? Saudi Aramco.

Not wrong, - people would find a way to justify it. "Oh, I can take $50M guaranteed and use $20M of that to help victims of 9/11 and still give my family generational wealth."

The fans who say this will never be in a position to take the money, so it's easy to say. You're talking GENERATIONAL wealth - you'd take it.

I didn't want this argument, but OK. PGA Tour Title sponsors do $40-50B in business with Saudi Arabia. You can't make the argument as Jay Monahan that defecting players are doing business with reprehensible people for money when many of the very companies that make your own tour happen are doing business with the very same people. So let's move on to the format.

I find the morality police almost comical when PGA Tour sponsors are entangled with "bad regimes" all over the place, so let's completely ignore that issue and only talk about format. I've watched the first 2 LIV events and my issue is with the format itself, but I think it is bringing some potentially good changes to table, so I won't ignore those. The Good Thursday/Friday shotguns. I hate it for the weekend when you need the element of chasing the leader for drama, but for the first two rounds, I think it actually brings a little excitement all around the course. Reduced schedule with premium fields. I think 8 events plus 4 majors isn't quite enough, but if 4-5 more events like WGC events are built in and attract all the guys, that pretty much replicates the kind of schedule the top guys play. Guys don't have to play pro-ams on Wednesdays. Every guy on Tour hates those pro-ams - even to the point that the Tour said they can just play 9 holes if they want. The Bad Shotguns go against any flow an architect tried to build into a course. Putting something like The Bear Trap early in the round just doesn't have the same pressure as knowing you have to play those holes to make a cut or hold a lead. Team play (as currently implemented) is dumb. With varying fields, guys getting injured, it's nothing more than a bonus pool every week. 54 holes just doesn't feel like a full tournament and the weekend needs tee times. There is an element of pressure that I feel gets lost making the leader wait to tee off last. The Future With the Tour upping their prize money in 8 tournaments, I'd like to see a relegation setup like European Soccer has (maybe this is the plan) - give guys outside the top 50 a chance to claw into those tournaments, but also force guys not performing down into the bottom 150-50 tournaments, or wherever that cut is. Best case, IMO, is a dually successful PGA and LIV Tour - and replace the President's Cup with a LIV vs. PGA Cup. The big loser will be the European Tour.

I think Cam Smith is as good as gone - Norman has huge Aussie influence and if he can play in the majors the next 5 years, I'm sure he doesn't care about playing the mid-level PGA events. It will really be on the majors to take control of this situation if they want. The PGA Tour is going to be forced to embrace Norman's vision, but I just can't get behind LIV as a product. It has nothing to do with the Saudi money - it's just a terrible format for golf.

I play Arcadia Bluffs (Bluffs Course) pretty much every year and just had the opportunity to play Erin Hills and wanted to see how it would compare, aside from being excited to check it off the list. If I only had to play one, it would be Arcadia Bluffs. Erin Hills is awesome and will be heading back there next year. The atmosphere with the Lodge and the Irish Pub is super cool. As for the course, Erin Hills is definitely harder - it felt like Arcadia on steroids. It's a stern test of golf, but I found the number of elevated greens with extreme runoffs a bit much. In some sense, Arcadia plays easier because it's a much easier driving course, IMO - a lot funnels back into the fairway, while Erin has holes where you have to hit the right part of the fairway or it will kick you into the rough. The holes at Arcadia feel more varied. A lot of holes at Erin Hills feel like #18 at Arcadia, which is my least favorite hole - elevated green, can't see where it lands, etc. The feel of the courses is actually very similar with the obvious difference being no Lake Michigan to look at at Erin Hills. That said, they did it right with the atmosphere they created at Erin - it's all about golf and that's it. Glad to have added this to the list of Top courses I've been able to play.

Look at the Twitter icons for any international company and the icon for their Saudi operations - they aren't playing the "Pride Month" games with their Saudi social media for a reason - they already play the game with the Saudi's and the rest of the Middle East. Is it right? No. Will it change? Not as long as the money flows. The idea people are up in arms over golfers taking free money should be the LEAST of our issues with the Saudis.

It's definitely the money right now, but was listening to a podcast discussing it and what this has really done is who how little power the PGA Tour has and might force a change. The power rests solely with the Majors and the Players. I don't think they can ever compete with the Saudi money, but it could force a change along the following lines: Split the PGA Tour up at the end of the year by the Top 50 Players and the 51-150 guys. The top 50 guys compete in the premier events - Riviera, The Memorial, Bay Hill, Pebble Beach, The Players, and WGC events. The 51-100 guys compete in the other tournaments and maybe there is some way to rotate some of them into the premier events. I don't know how the team concept will play out, but I like trying new stuff. Could be cool to see guys form their own teams by some commonality - same manufacturer sponsor, alma mater, etc. Similar to F1. I get the criticism of the LIV, but shaming these guys is nonsense. Nobody has a tighter relationship with the Saudis than the United States government - so why are we hassling a handful of golfers if we're not holding our own government accountable? No idea where this goes, but I think it could lead to some change to make golf more engaging outside the majors.

I think Brooks does this in purpose to keep the blame of himself. If he plays poorly, he has the "I told you this doesn't work for me" and if he wins and the team loses he says "I did my part." More and more the guy looks like douche.

Have been traveling, but there is a lot I want to download on: Furyk was the goat here. I never got the impression he had command of this team - the Euros wanted to win for Bjorn and there was zero evidence the Americans we "playing for Furyk" in any way. It was more like "Jim and friends" and they played with little passion. We will likely never know the reason Spieth/Reed was broken up, but if we believe Justine Reed's tweet (no matter what you think of her), and Spieth's bromance with JT, it was Spieth that forced the move. I get wanting to fulfill what is probably a lifelong dream to play with your childhood friend, but I think that gutted this team. JT was strong enough to carry another team and you don't break up a team like that - they will get over whatever personal differences they had and if it was untenable after the first match, then break them up. Finau was clearly the hottest player besides JT and not playing him in the afternoon on Saturday was a mistake - that is on the captain for not recognizing it. Dechambeau was screwed both in being paired with Phil in Foursomes and not being given a chance at Fourballs. He's #7 in birdies on tour and I have to believe that playing your own ball is an easier transition into a big event like this rather than Foursomes. Tiger lacked energy until maybe hole #11 today. Furyk needs to recognize that - again, I never felt like Jim was really doing anything to read his team. He wanted to play everyone on Day 1, which compromised his afternoon pairings, and that cost the team. Both teams play the same course and kudos to Bjorn for advantaging his team in the setup, but as much fun as all those island greens were, I'd prefer a Ryder Cup where I felt it was won through the team that played the best and not won by the team that made the least mistakes. Somewhere between the Hazeltine setup and this would be good - whatever that is. I have to assume that either Stricker or Phil will be the captain in 2020, but I'd honestly do whatever they can to bring back Azinger and maybe give it to him for the next 2 Ryder Cups. It would be interesting to see what a captain does if they were given a home and away Ryder Cup to prepare for. Whatever credit you want to give to the "pod system", I felt that it at least gave some direction to the pairings and this year it almost felt like Furyk drew pairings out of a hat.Congrats to the Euros - well deserved!

There is no upside to pairing Tiger/Phil - all the pressure is on them and if they lose it would be a huge boost to the Euros. Not even taking into account that Phil is playing like dog balls and Tiger doesn't need someone he's beaten for 20 years telling him how to read a putt.

That guy that made the putt to win $100 off Rose is a Legend - I can't even imagine having that story to tell. Love may also be the worst at pairings - Spieth/Reed was a no-brainer, but why would you play Phil in Foursomes?

Rory is potentially transcendent enough that he can carry the mantle going forward - anyone with a legitimate chance of catching Jack will be enough to carry the Tour and maintain most of the money that Tiger has pumped into the game. The only thing that would absolutely kill the tour would be if something like the LPGA Tour occurred and tournaments were dominated by Asians that did not speak English.

Why only save 1 pick until after the BMW Championship? This seems to be the Billy Horschel rule, but why not just wait until then to pick all 4 guys if they want?

I've been a fan since I saw this WITB last year: Bought his 3 wood off ebay for $140.

Here is the current process, which is prize money based, covering all tournaments the year of the Ryder Cup plus prize money from the majors in the previous year. At closer glance, the 2014 U.S. Ryder Cup points system: • Prize money earned in the 2013 major championships (Masters, U.S. Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship): One point is awarded for every $1,000 earned; all U.S. players making the cut will earn points. • Prize money earned in 2014 PGA Tour events, beginning Oct. 7, 2013, at the Frys.com Open through the 2014 PGA Championship, ending Aug. 10, 2014. One point is awarded for every $1,000 earned, excluding the major championships, events played opposite major championships and events played opposite World Golf Championships; all U.S. players making the cut will earn points. • Prize money earned for the 2014 major championships: (Masters, U.S. Open, Open Championship, and the PGA Championship). Two points are awarded for every $1,000 earned; all U.S. players making the cut will earn points. • Prize money earned in 2014 events played opposite the major championships and opposite World Golf Championships between Jan. 1 and the 2014 PGA Championship - one-half point will be awarded for every $1,000 earned; all U.S. players making the cut will earn points. So I found the most recent rankings and they show points earned in 2014 - if we go by that, this would be the US rankings - puts Kirk and Horschel on the team, knocks out Zach Johnson and Mickelson. This seems like a MUCH better way to do the rankings to identify the players that are playing best this year. This gives emphasis to guys playing the best in the tournaments with the strongest fields, not guys who maybe win a lesser tournament and then have some backdoor Top 10's on Sunday. 1 Watson 321.714 2 Furyk 280.174 3 Fowler 267.890 4 Kuchar 224.334 5 Horschel 209.421 6 Spieth 204.768 7 Walker 197.198 8 Reed 183.426 9 Kirk 180.165 10 Mahan 160.419 11 Na 139.339 12 Palmer 138.277 13 Z. Johnson 138.209 14 D. Johnson 137.248 15 Mickelson 137.215 16 Todd 131.771 17 Bradley 126.861 18 Haas 124.698 19 Senden 122.869 20 Simpson 95.692 21 Woodland 91.068 22 Streelman 88.644 23 Moore 80.036 24 Snedeker 78.871 25 Dufner 76.288 26 Stricker 57.238 27 Woods 6.569

I generally thought T.Watson did a lackluster job - he seemed just a little too set in his ways and sitting Spieth/Reed on Friday Foursomes and then didn't even have an answer as to why he did that, other than "those aren't things you discuss with the press." That being said - the final was 16 1/2 to 11 1/2, meaning the US needs to flip 2 1/2 matches to be even. You can never count on anything in the Ryder Cup, but consider this: Fowler/Walker 2 up with 2 to play - they halve Reed misses a 2 footer to go 1up, they win 17 (would have ended the match) and lose 18 for a half Spieth 3up after 9 - blows up on the back 9 Mahan 4up through 8 and only get a half point We can say the Euros we're making putts all over the place, but in the end, the US seems to have a case of the "Furyk's" and simply aren't closing out matches they should be closing out. The fact is, the guys of the Furyk/Mickelson generation have simply not gotten it done and should be left off future Ryder Cups. If they don't qualify on their own in 2 years, I do not pick any of the following, no matter how they are playing: Mickelson Furyk Z. Johnson Kuchar Mahan Simpson The Euros are going to be very tough to beat for the foreseeable future, so better bring in guys who do not have the scar tissue.

I really like these matchups for the US I think the pairings came out great for the US. I like the idea of getting all the rookies out in Fourballs right away and I really like that Spieth/Reed got matched up against Poulter/Gallacher. It could either be a bloodbath if the Euros get going there or a huge boost for the US if 2 rookies can slay Poulter - who, let's be honest, has been playing worse than Phil and Keegan coming. I think all 3 of those guys, however, will step their games up.

I'd go Bradley, Snedeker and then a toss-up between Mahan and Simpson. Sneds has the kind of passion the team needs and can get hot with the putter and start rolling in from all over.

Just want to make sure I saw this right - Heath Slocum bogeyed the last to finish 129th in the FedEx Cup rankings - with a par, he would have finished 57th. Thought I saw that before he teed off on 18. Ouch.

10 guys within 4 shots of the lead going into Sunday - does it matter if the leader is at -13 or -3? I'd rather have a setup like Valhalla where it gives guys a chance to go low early in the final round and put the pressure on the leaders rather than guys just dropping like flies.