Gary Van Sickle's FedEx Cup 3.0.2
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 20, 2008 4:25 PM EDT
Email
PrintGary Van Sickle was the man behind the proposed change to the FedEx Cup that would determine the series champion based off of the cumulative scored over 16 rounds of the Playoffs.
I railed it because it didn't seem like the plan addressed missed cuts, finishing consistently well but not winning, etc. But, it was an interesting idea and unique.
Van Sickle has come back out with a revised plan, explained after the jump.
Here's the whole idea:
We still use cumulative scoring for the playoffs, but each winner of a FedEx Cup event will earn a six-stroke bonus. For instance, if Singh wins the Barclays with a score of 12 under par, the victory boosts his official FedEx Cup total to 18 under.
There are two other scoring adjustments. First, players who miss the cut in the first two FedEx Cup events (the last two don't have cuts) will suffer an additional three-shot penalty. Otherwise, on weekends when the weather turns ugly and over-par scores become common, those who missed the cut would have an advantage. Second, any eligible player who doesn't compete in a playoff event receives a four-shot penalty. A player who withdraws mid-round also gets the four-shot penalty plus whatever his total was before he withdrew. You don't want a player who's eight over after four holes thinking, "I'll just quit and take the four shots for missing the cut."
I think you could tweak with the numbers for bonuses and penalties, but it's not a bad idea. Strokes are easy to follow. I think you would want to make the missed cut penalty as 3 strokes per round. There are plenty of times when weather gets nasty enough on the weekend that players fall way below the original cut line.
No need for points, per se, but using just strokes raises the question of how do you handicap fields with fewer (and therefore stronger) players? Does a two-stroke win in the Barclays (144 players) mean the same as a two-stroke win at the BMW Championship (Western Open, 70 players)? Does it mean more to beat more players, or a better field?
Whatcha think?
6 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
???
When did Van Sickle jump from media hack to tournament consultant ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Why not...
…it’s just as fallible as any other system – he said it himself – “it is almost impossible for any player not named Woods to build an insurmountable lead.” There’s that Woods guy again – mucking up the system. :-)
And no – that’s not what PLAYOFFS are. Playoffs are eliminations – that word playoff is what caused half of this mess – so did meddling by the media. Because of the media, the Fed Ex Cup went from 70 players to 144 at the start – and things went downhill from there when some smart aleck media guy started asking players about having eliminations – which is what playoffs are about – elimination.
“The beauty of using cumulative scores is that most margins of victory are one, two or three strokes. It will be very difficult for any player not named Woods to build an insurmountable lead or clinch the Cup early. It will also reward the players who play the best, round after round, for four straight weeks. Isn’t that what playoffs are supposed to be about — how you’re playing now when it matters, not what you did during the lengthy regular season?”
If this system had been in place – using Van Sickle’s example of this past FEC season – you can bet that Vijay would not have played the way he did. His whole mental approach was screwed up BECAUSE of the points system and that he had already clinched. He was playing not to get injuredor DQ’d – not to win like he usually does – and his theory falls apart again. Vijay DID have an insurmountable lead with this system or any other – it just depended on how Vijay played. Thinking that Singh would have played +9 is ridiculous – but it WOULD have been more about his play to the end with Van Sickle’s plan instead of being over before the first ball in Atlanta.
Like I said – why not ? It’s as good a plan as any except for his use of the word “playoffs”. Until that word is either gone, or people accept the cruel facts of playoffs (how many Red Sox fans are still crying in their beer today ?) – the semantics of the discussion are going to be a mess.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I agree
that you cannot stop a train. Tiger, then Vijay, were trains. They were going to win the FEC under almost any format except the one round/tournament shootout idea.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 20, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly...
…that means the FEC is two for two on trains. Who’s to say it doesn’t happen again next year under whatever system someone comes up with ?
I like your idea of having the finale as a stand alone tournament and the winner takes the big prize – but what do you do when a Bart Bryant steps up and wins ? I like the idea of using the “playoff” rounds to determine who gets in and I’d like to see a stipulation that major and WGC winners are automatically in, with the exception of not playing in at least 2 playoff events.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I think that's the best bet
I like your automatic berths, although I would modify it to just the winner of the Players. Five auto berths and the top 30 get into the TC. I think it’d be awesome.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 20, 2008 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
new math ?? :-)
you don’t want to start with the assumption of an odd number of players. I goofed, too – my number was 37 because I forgot the Players to make it 38. That’s just 4 extra tee times IF for some (nearly impossible) reason none of those 5/7/8 winners don’t qualify through the (how’s this sound ?) PLAY IN tournaments.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
Related FanShots on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
