I swear that the major golf publications read this blog for content ideas sometimes.  I know it's shear coincidence (that's not sarcastic), but the day after we start a great discussion here about what to do with the Fall Series, John Hawkins of Golfworld gets involved with his take.

He hits on some of the same points that I made in the original post and the comments section and cites similar examples - Cameron Beckman and Harrison Frazar (a good one that I didn't think of using) - with more stats.

Hawk also reaches a similar conclusion that I did, which is that the Fall Series is fundamentally flawed.  But Hawk comes at it from a different angle, which I will leave to you to judge.

One of his main points is that the Fall Series really doesn't determine a player's livelihood or status for next year and talks about Frazar in particular.

A few dimes shy of $8 million in total earnings, Frazar won't be waiting tables or shagging balls anytime soon. Despite falling deeper down the money list in 2008, he's likely to get into at least 20 tournaments next year, and there will be plenty of others who do the same. So the next time you hear some Golf Channel analyst talk about do-or-die time or refer to the top-125 bubble, feel free to laugh.

He kind of reaches my point about having lower purses for weaker fields, but reaches back in time to demo his angle, by basically saying that Tiger made less in 2003 to win the Buick Invitational (?) than the winner of the Ginn sur Mer this week will get.

Hawk poses the same question that court and I did, in slightly different terms:

[Y]ou wonder how long Corporate America will shell out $6 to $8 million for title-sponsorship rights to an event with Mike Weir as the headliner.

And then he talks about the inconsistencies between the FedEx Cup being based in points and the money list being based on, well, money.  That subject has been explored by Steve Elling and on here, too.

Anyway, the ultimate conclusion of the piece is almost the exact same one drawn on here (at least by me, and I know several of you disagree):

You want to give the Fall Series a cut-throat disposition? Turn it into a Q-School for veterans, all the guys who have either lost their cards or simply want to play their way into the big leagues. That would leave Q-School as we know it now a proving ground for rookies and other aspiring tour pros. The goal here isn't to prevent good golfers from making good money, but to instill a sense of value in being a fully exempt player.

Just remember, you heard it here first. :)  Whether or not having backup in the mainstream golf media is good or not will be determined by the responses.