John Hawkins' FedEx Cup 2.0 Verdict is Wrong
by Ryan Ballengee
on Sep 29, 2008 2:54 PM EDT
John Hawkins likes to go off from time to time. As a guy who gets a lot of print space in Golf World and on ESPN.com, as well as on the Golf Channel, he probably considers it his duty. But, he's wrong on this one.
Hawk went off on the FedEx Cup format and said it required tweaks. Here's his prominent rationale:
The big picture is causing bigger problems, however, and when someone (Villegas) wins the final two playoff tournaments but still has no chance of catching Singh, who won the first two, there is something very wrong with the system. You, [Tv Votaw], know it, the tour knows it, and so commissioner Tim Finchem and his army of VPs will head back to the conference room and figure out a way to ensure that the winner of the Tour Championship is the same guy who takes home the $10 million overall prize.
Really? Let's bring Hawk off of the ledge.
First, let's take a look at the actual performance of the two principals in all of this: Vijay Singh and Camilo Villegas.
To start the Playoffs, Singh was ahead of Villegas. Singh sat in 7th after the regular season and Villegas in 42nd. I don't have the specifics in front of me, but let's say approximately 1200 points to start the Playoffs.
Now, let's talk about performance in all four events:
| Barclays | Deutsche Bank | BMW | Tour Champ | |
| Singh | 1 | 1 | T44 | T22 |
| Villegas | CUT | T3 | 1 | 1 |
Ok, so Villegas arguably played better than Singh in the four events, though that MC was huge. One part of that was because Singh knew that he could statistically mail in the Tour Championship and still win the $10 million. He did what he was supposed to do.
But, in the final analysis, the difference between the two was about 500 points. That's basically the difference between making the cut and not making the cut. And that's why the FedEx Cup got it right. This is proof positive.
Yes, there can be more volatility and more ways to earn points and fewer qualifiers, etc. At its core, though, the points system identified the best player - the one who had the better season, the one who came into the Playoffs with a deserved advantage, and the one who did all of the things necessary to win $10 million.
0 recs |
35
comments
|
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
good stuff
Villegas HAD to play better than Singh – SIngh had a better regular season, so he had an advantage going in – then he stepped up early to get the big lead in the Playoffs. One made putt in The Barclays by Villegas and the whole situation at The Tour Championship changes – Vijay doesn’t just glide through the finale.
Vijay admitted to being off balance going to Atlanta. For three weeks, he had people congratulating him on the big win – and that’s not how his mind works. He is a competitor. When the battle was pulled out from under his feet before the first tee shot, he didn’t know how to get his game cranked up. If the Fed Ex Cup prize had not been decided already, you can bet that he would not have played the way he did at East Lake.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Sep 29, 2008 3:06 PM EDT 0 recs
You can rationalize...
…that Vijay still deserved it down to the end, and you might be right.
However, there’s one big factor in every other playoffs that I’ve ever watched that’s not present in the Fed Ex Cup: that everyone still alive has the chance to win it all. The fact that anyone was mathematically eliminated coming into Atlanta is kind of a joke.
And I do believe that the winner of the TC should have won the Fex Ex Cup. Not in this system (i.e., I’m not saying Villegas “deserves” it), but in a proper playoff format, it should happen that way.
by Double Eagle on Sep 29, 2008 4:23 PM EDT 0 recs
I'm confused
are you saying that it is a “joke” that some/most who made it to the finale were already out of contention to win ?
If that’s what you’re saying – I doubt that only two people would disagree with you – Tiger and Vijay. :-) Calling this a playoff system is using the word playoff in the loosest sense.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 29, 2008 4:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I disagree
Especially because this playoff was modeled after NASCAR. In their Chase, you can be eliminated halfway through. You have to perform over 10 races to have a chance. You have to perform over 4 events to win the FEC. Miss a cut, and you lose. Makes good sense to me.
Even if you avoid that argument and go to other sports, I still disagree. Think NBA. In a seven game series, a team can fall down 3-1 and take it to a game 6 or even a game 7. But all the better team has to do is put one of the next three away and they win. That’s what Vijay did.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 29, 2008 4:37 PM EDT 0 recs
says who ?
Who said that you have to PERFORM over 4 events to win the Fed Ex Cup ? Tiger and Vijay are both proof. Tiger skipped a tournament, and Vijay finished 44th and 22nd in the last 2. Villegas missed the first cut this year – but finished second.
Saying that the Fed Ex Cup is modelled after the NASCAR chase is true, but kind of like a Hollywood movie that is BASED on a real story. They may be similar – but they aren’t the same.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 29, 2008 4:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
Just because NASCAR does it doesn’t make it right. Not being a NASCAR fan, I can’t say if it’s appropriate for that sport or not. But I do think it has made the Fed Ex Cup uninteresting.
The TC as an individual tournament was a lot of fun. But as the culmination of the FEC, it was a big yawn.
I think I’d overhaul the format by resetting the point totals at the start of the playoffs and then by adjusting the point awards each event so that 1. Everyone mathematically has a chance to win it coming into the TC, and 2. That no one can phone in the last event and still win it.
by Double Eagle on
Sep 29, 2008 5:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Are you suggesting?
3 tournaments to get to a final 30, and then one tournament for the bonus pool? (And scrap the separate tournament for $7 million?)
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 29, 2008 5:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I read elsewhere...
… someone suggesting match play for the TC. I’d go along with that. Three stroke play events that trim the field each subsequent week, followed by a field of 32 for the TC. That way, each week the entire field consists of viable winners. And we avoid the problem of someone only needing to make the cut to win the whole thing at the end.
Change to that, and now we’re talking. Frankly I’m for more match play in general, but I think it would work well in the TC.
by Double Eagle on
Sep 29, 2008 5:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think I said something like that
on here, but I don’t feel like finding where it’s buried. :) I’m sure others have mentioned it, too.
I have nothing against a format change, but Hawk was too over the top in his piece. It was just a hack job.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 29, 2008 5:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't think
you can compare this and last year. The formats don’t really compare. But winning two golf events out of four is like winning 10-15 in a row in baseball.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 29, 2008 5:22 PM EDT 0 recs
sure you can
the formats are identical – only the points system has been adjusted.
Match play is a great idea for golf fans – but TV hates it because you have no control over finishes and upsets happen all too often for the networks. They want the best guys possible on the weekend – match play is too risky for a $35 million pot.
The system works for NASCAR because there are only 43 cars building points,10 that get into the chase, and they all buy into the system. They have had a number of problems – especially the years when “Junior” didn’t make into the chase – but they get support for the system.
The PGA Tour hasn’t figured out their system yet – this is only the second year and clearly it isn’t exactly what they have been looking for. They only get one try a year – so the process takes a very long time.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 29, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Your answer is curious
If there are only 43 teams and it works because they all buy in, then shouldn’t it work here with more players? Seriously, this is a playoff system in which everyone (practically) qualifies. Everyone should buy in.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 29, 2008 8:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
the bigger the group...
…the harder it is to get everybody to agree.
And not all of the 43 are going to be 100% behind the NASCAR plan 100% of the time – but only half of the cars that start the season have a realistic shot at making the chase. There it’s all about the money behind the team.
On the PGA Tour – any of these guys can step up and win once in their career – or maybe go on a roll of good finishes. There were over 200 guys (ok ok – and one chick) who got starts on the PGA Tour this year – 144 of them got to the playoffs. Who expected Ken Dukes to make it to Atlanta ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 29, 2008 9:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Anyone can win once
And that doesn’t mean they should get in the playoffs. That’s not the point.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 29, 2008 10:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
what IS the point ?
so if someone like Ben Curtis steps up and wins a major like he did a few years ago – he shouldn’t be in the playoffs ? What about Rocco Mediate ? If he had won the US Open, then played the way he did the rest of the way – he wouldn’t be in ? A little extreme – but not unheard of. Trevor Immelman stepped up and won the Masters after having surgery just a couple of months before and being sick after – but he was in Atlanta.
What I was saying is that ALL of these guys have the talent to win – even if it’s just once – and if someone wins a regular event (not one of the tournaments opposite a WGC or the British Open) they will either be in the top 30 or pretty close, depending on what they do with their other starts.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 29, 2008 11:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That's a tangent to the point
I’m not saying that fluke winners don’t deserve a chance at the playoffs. What I am saying is that 144 guys get in the playoffs – 19 more than the # that keep their cards automatically. Over the course of a season, much fewer guys actually have a “good” season by an objective standard, maybe 80. That’s about the number of guys that should get in on the basis of the body of their work for the year.
If you win once and MC every other event, you don’t deserve to get in the Playoffs. The concept is for players that have a solid season – not one great week. Back up your win with decent play and you’re in.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 29, 2008 11:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And that's why...
…the points should be reset at the start of the playoffs. It’s a great way to determine initial eligibility, but the playoffs should be a whole new game.
by Double Eagle on
Sep 30, 2008 8:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
well why didn't you SAY so ? :-)
That 144 number wasn’t the original number they started with. They WANTED to have just 70 for three rounds and the top 30 go to Atlanta — but Tom Pernice and a few others started reading newspapers and blogs and watching TV — the media “geniuses” were saying that it wasn’t really a playoff if nobody was eliminated, so these guys piped up in public, and the Tour started bumping numbers up until they started the Barclays as a full field event.
I know – athletes should be thinking…(bah dum bum) :-)
Eagle – the points ARE reset at the start of the playoffs. The top guy gets 100,000 points and some bizarre formula lays out points down the line to 144. This year, #144 had a shot at moving up at least to the second week, but not much further. Last year, he was the street sweeper at the end of the parade.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 30, 2008 9:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
When I say, "reset"...
…I mean reset to zero.
In all honesty, I haven’t really had a complete grasp on the point system. If I did, I would have had these complaints before the playoffs even started. The more detail I learn about the system now, though, the more bizarre it seems.
by Double Eagle on
Sep 30, 2008 9:14 AM EDT
up
0 recs
WELL !
Clearly you didn’t do so well in that chaos theory class or you’d understand the point system !! :-D
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 30, 2008 10:47 AM EDT
up
0 recs
you know what's sad?
The LPGA has a better playoff and a better entry system than the PGA and they’ll scrap at least one if not both if the tv money is right.
by The Constructivist on Sep 29, 2008 11:33 PM EDT 0 recs
true..
…so true
but they weren’t playing for $35 million – money like that brings the media “experts” into the scene to tell the world how things should be run.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 30, 2008 9:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Dead on
I love the ADT Championship format because it doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is – an awesome, fun crapshoot.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 30, 2008 9:29 AM EDT
up
0 recs
yep
The Tour Championship was the same way until Fed Ex bought their way in.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 30, 2008 10:47 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Not quite
The TC had no cut and 30 guys playing for guaranteed big bucks. That’s not as cool as the ADT allocating over 2/3 of the prize pool to the winner.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Sep 30, 2008 12:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I meant...
……it wasn’t anything other than what it was supposed to be. Fed Ex made a mess of it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Sep 30, 2008 12:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Scrap point system and use total strokes
Idea for next years Fedex Cup. Most golf fans can’t grasp the point system – get rid of it. Keep the point system to determine the top 144 players. Then at start of playoffs regroup them in terms of strokes. Top 6 players start at even or 0, next 6 at +1, and so on until #138 thru #144 are at +23. This is the value for the season play. Then the Fedex Cup equates into a 16 round tournament, where the player with the least amount of strokes over 4 tournaments plus starting playoff strokes wins the Fedex Cup. If a player skips a tournament, misses the cut or be disqualified, they are out of the playoffs. Only other change, is in first tournament, the cut is either 105/110 players, because you’ll need to have 16 rounds of play.
With the Fedex Cup over for this year, I looked at the data from the top 10 finishers. With this system, Sergio Garcia would have won by only 2 strokes over Anthony Kim. Rest of top 8 in relation to Sergio strokes
Sergio – 0
Kim – 2 back
Furyk – 3
Leonard – 10
Choi – 11
Curtis -13
VJ – 14
Wier – 16
Mickelson and Villegas would not have gotten to the Tour Championship since they both missed a cut during the Playoffs. This system doesn’t guarantee someone won’t run away with the Fedex cup, but the fans and the players will understand what they need to do to win. Its basically a 16 round tournament!
by Ernie86 on Oct 1, 2008 9:51 AM EDT 0 recs
interesting...
…but it would never be accepted.
(1) The top guys don’t play 4 weeks in a row – then add a 5th week for Ryder and President’s Cups
(2) Miss a cut and you’re out – if a top player misses a cut the first week – what happens to interest and ratings the other three ?
(3) If you’re going to handicap the players with as many as 23 strokes – what’s the point in having that many players in the field ? The reason they are that far back is because their scoring is higher than the guys at the top.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Oct 1, 2008 10:49 AM EDT
up
0 recs
(1) the scheduling of the Playoffs – I didn’t try to solve that problem – let Tim Finchem worry about this.
(2) Missing the cut – this is obviously an opinion, but in what other sport do you get to go to the next round of the playoffs, if you failed (missed the cut) ? I think this is an important point that the playoffs must have. Also – Tiger never misses cuts
(3) I basically treated the season as a 5th tournament. Look at the average tournament, having a spread of 23 strokes over 144 players is actually be quite generous. Resetting to 0, just isn’t fair to the guys that had good seasons. You need some sort of distribution or seeding of the players. I can’t give them home court advantage. Of the top eight finishers – Mike Wier had the worst year, starting the playoffs (in my system) +7, yet he was able to finish 8th in my system, 6th in the current Fedex Cup point system.
by Ernie86 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
no argument on advancement
if you’re going to call it a playoff system – you have to be willing to take your chances on eliminating anybody who doesn’t play well enough.
the points in 2007 were set up top heavy to make sure that the top players got through from week to week – and as long as Tiger played halfway decently, he would win the top prize. this year they were set up more to help the bottom guys and a few of them didn’t make it to Atlanta.
that’s the risk of playoffs
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Oct 1, 2008 11:58 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Gary Van Sickle
Suggested something very similar. I think having a simple elimination system like this may work, but not in aggregate. Like, say 120 get into the playoffs. The 70 and ties (who make the cut) go to the next event. Then, you have two no cut events in which the top 50 and 30 make it on to the next rounds respectively. In the final, wipe the slate clean, and the winner gets all the marbles.
by Ryan Ballengee on
Oct 1, 2008 12:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
it's the top players...
…the golf media focuses on Tiger and Phil, and a few other rotating top players. The lower players are “unknown” and “undeserving” of playing in the final events according to these media elitists. Any system that doesn’t give the top players a free ride to the finals is going to eventually draw fire.
We here have a genetic deficiency – we actually like the GAME – not just the top personalities.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Oct 1, 2008 12:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Here's what we'll do...
Instead of all this playoff nonsense, we’ll just make the whole PGA Tour season a ladder tournament. Tiger will be on the top rung to start. Anyone who thinks they’re worthy of the media attention will try and topple him. Oh, and we won’t televise any of the other ladder matches. Just Tiger’s because that’s all anyone wants to see. Then, if any of the unknowns happen to do well, we won’t have to risk them getting on TV. Tiger should have no problem dispatching any and all challengers and will cruise to the FedEx Cup championship without breaking a sweat.
That way, the media types will get exactly what they want.
I haven’t strung together that much sarcasm in a while and I think it upset my stomach. :)
by Double Eagle on
Oct 1, 2008 1:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
LOL !
Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf would love it !!
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on
Oct 1, 2008 1:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
New FanPost
Golf News Net Shows
The 19th Hole Golf Show - 1/8 - We kick off the season by previewing what you can expect from The 19th Hole in the year to come. Then we jump right into the Mercedes Benz Championship - who is missing and who would be a good bet to win. Jim McLean joins us to discuss his new 8 DVD series called "The Building Block Approach." And, we touch on the LPGA's reorganization moves. Last, Ryan wonders what to expect when Tiger Woods return.
Listen NOW on the Golf News Net Media Player!
Find both NOW on iTunes!
The 19th Hole Golf Show on iTunes
