Defending Kevin Streelman and the FedExCup Top 30

Every year, someone does it. Someone sneaks into the top 30 on the FedExCup points list via one good week in the three Playoff events. Marc Leishman did it last year. This year, it's Kevin Streelman.

The difference? Last year, Leishman was lauded for the one week that defined his season and saved his Tour status. In 2010, Streelman is vilified. Both each earned the same thing by getting through to Atlanta - a guaranteed payday of nearly $300,000, a berth into the first three majors of the season, and a much more secure PGA Tour existence. So why no love for Streelman?

He hovered this whole season in the range of 40-90 in the FedExCup points list until the waning weeks of the season. Before the Barclays, Streelman had dropped to 102 on the points list. Finishing only the opposite-field Reno-Tahoe Open in a six start stretch will do that to a guy.

But with a third place finish in New Jersey, Streelman practically assured himself a spot in the Tour Championship. Good for him. Since he has only three other top ten finishes in 2010, though, he is labeled with a scarlet P. 

The argument made is the Playoff concept is ruining the fields of the first three majors because of the undeserving guys who get into the Tour Championship benefit with tickets to the biggest stages in golf.  

Effectively, who did Streelman kick out? Bill Haas, who won the Hope, ended 31st. Rickie Fowler, a captain's pick, was 32. Maybe they'd be slightly more entertaining to have in East Lake, but are they really all that more deserving to be there than Streelman? Half of the knock against Fowler making the Ryder Cup team was a lack of recent production, basically since Memorial Day. 

So what if Streelman had four good weeks all year. There were a dirty dozen first time winners on the PGA Tour this season. Largely unproven to that point in their careers, essentially having the proverbial one good week got them into the Masters. Oh no! The Masters tried to revamp its invitation process in order to preclude fluke winners on Tour from skating into their tournament. Then everyone complained about it because they wanted winning to mean something again, and now it's back (for the most part). 

Everyone needs to make up their mind on this. Should one or two or four good weeks make someone's season? It seems like it's ok for one good week, but not one good week that doesn't end in a win. In that case, then, how many good weeks does someone have to play without winning to equal a potential fluke win? Winning is hard enough on Tour. I'm not going to short the value of a good week.

The PGA Tour branded these four tournament weeks as playoffs. Playoffs are intended to have serious risks but great rewards. If the Tour had kept FedExCup 1.0, people would still be complaining about the lack of fluidity in the standings. God forbid v. 2.0 still be around because of its massive fluctuation. Seems like this iteration - the only one to be used again - is pretty close.

This one guy - one guy! - played his was into the Tour Championship on one good week from way behind in the standings. Is there something so wrong with that? It's not like every player in the field started at 123 and worked their way up with a string of top tens. Just Kevin Streelman. Seven other guys got into the top 30 during the course of the Playoffs, including Martin Laird, who began at 95 in the points list. Rage against the Scottish! No?

Maybe it's all moot anyhow. The likelihood of the FedExCup enduring past 2012 seems bleak at the moment. And then we can all go back to letting a string of 30 or 40 tournaments and a simple addition problem define a sizable chunk of three major fields. Sounds very exciting to me.