What If Majors Were Valued the Same as Playoff Events?

This is just a quickie post in response to John Feinstein's largely lauded, but obvious examples of where the FedExCup may overstate its worth.

(For what it's worth, I wrote an article similar to Feinstein's in May 2006 - before they ever even contested the first FedExCup. Nothing's changed here except time and the point values. I'm kind of over it at this point.)

Primarily, Junior - as only Tony Kornheiser can call him - doesn't like that Matt Kuchar got more points from winning The Barclays than Phil Mickelson did for taking the Masters. (The other three major winners got nothing because they're not PGA Tour members.) Feinstein also takes issue that Boston winner Charley Hoffman is in a better position to win the $10 million prize than Mickelson - and others - despite not even playing in a single major.

Since I've always been told to suggest solutions when I complain, let's hypothetically placate Feinstein and see how this would pan out going into East Lake.

Currently, winners of regular Tour events get 500 points, majors (and The Players) 600 points, and WGC winners earn 550. Playoff winners get 2500 points. For Phil, who sits in 10th place right now, he would get 1900 more points. He would still lag behind Matt Kuchar by some 800 points going into East Lake, but would be third on the roll heading there. He would have a "win and win" proposition to take down the $10 million prize.

Let's take the opposite approach. Say we reduce the value of Playoff wins to that of a major. Does that make it any better? Not really. Short of basically doubling the point value of the majors compared to a Playoff event, Mickelson - who has had a rather mediocre year sans Augusta - wouldn't get the advantage Feinstein would like.

Feinstein (accurately) says players would trade in up to 50 FedExCups for one major. So who gives a crap if Lefty has an advantage in something that's going to go away anyhow? It may not be in 2012, but one day, it is likely that the FedExCup will go away. The majors will endure.

I agree that the majors are empirically more valuable in golf lore than these four tournaments, but what's the problem in throwing around a bunch of confetti and trying to convince everyone that a party is worth attending? Otherwise, we'd all be here complaining about the lull in golf between the PGA Championship and the Ryder Cup - an unofficial end to a neverending season. Remember those columns? I do. I wrote 'em.

The points concept behind the Playoffs could be shed altogether and I'd be a happier man for it. I still believe the FedExCup is miles better than the alternative, though. Make it "survive and advance," leading to some kind of zany - and preferably match play - showdown for the moolah. In the end, it's a real playoff and no one's feelings get hurt about valuing tournaments.