When the Best Worst Case Scenario Happened
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 28, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintAs Jim Furyk hit his bunker shot from short and right of the pin at East Lake's closing hole, he was wishing that the spin he imparted with his explosion shot would catch the wet putting surface and leave him an easy putt for $11.35 million. When it caught just 30 inches away from the hole, a collective sigh of relief was breathed by Furyk, his self-named team, fans - and the people at the PGA Tour.
You see, at multiple stages during Sunday's final round of the Tour Championship, the PGA Tour was bracing for any of multiple nightmare scenarios for their coupled trophies.
At one point on Sunday, it was plausible that one of two players - neither of which who had won a PGA Tour event in 2010 - could win the FedExCup. In the case of Luke Donald, he could take the FedExCup with a win. Even scarier, Ryder Cup snub Paul Casey could have won the FedExCup if the right player won and he finished alone in second place. What's the opposite of a Pyrrhic victory again? A Casey conquest?
Matt Kuchar, the man who entered the final event at the top of the FedExCup standings and most hurt by its drama-infusing reset, played horribly in his collegiate home this week. With no chance to win the tournament on Sunday, no one told Kuchar he still had a chance to win the FedExCup. If he finished better than solo 25th and Nick Watney won the Tour Championship, he could have won the hardware and the life-changing seven figure bonus.
Confused? Don't be. The points system isn't only complicated for fans. It's so complicated for the players that they didn't even play to the points. The suggestion of such strategery generated a snicker from Matt Kuchar, so downtrodden by the lousy effort during the first three days that it was nearly impossible for him to muster hope that a pitiful close to the Playoffs could hand him the bounty it offered.
In the end, Jim Furyk winning the Tour Championship and the FedExCup was the best possible scenario for the Tour and its Playoff concept. For one thing, Furyk actually won a tournament this year. In fact, he won two, which was tied for the PGA Tour lead in this most bizarre of years. The third win handed Furyk the lead for the year on these shores and tied him for most wins on the two major men's tours on the planet. Effectively, the third win differentiated Furyk from the other contenders for Player of the Year. The reward of offseason hardware will cap off Furyk's most accomplished season in his long career.
Jim may even be able to propel himself into the World Golf Hall of Fame - right next to President George HW Bush - on the back of this win. Sure, the 2003 US Open was great, but this FedExCup, that locked it up.
Even so, the FedExCup champion for 2010 becomes the second guy who didn't play in all four series events to take the title. In 2007, Tiger Woods defiantly avoided the Barclays at Westchester because he hates the course. No matter, though. Woods won the third and fourth events in the Playoffs to claim his $10 million annuity. Knowing what happened in the last ten months, that's got to be sweet money to have in the pension account.
Vijay Singh may have played all four events in winning the FedExCup in 2008, but he only had to participate in three. Singh merely had to finish the Tour Championship to claim the trophy in a Woods-less Playoffs.
After a thrilling finish with several deserving players in the mix at the end for the last Playoff event and all of its marbles, the same scenario developed in 2010. The difference this time is that the among the handful of players who had a realistic chance on Sunday afternoon to take it all down, only one reall deserved it. Fortunately, he won.
(That's not to say anything of contesting a golf tournament which decided nearly $43 million in payouts was done so in conditions after which normally the Red Cross pays out that kind of cash. A logistical nightmare was avoided though hopefully this will quiet the minority of Tour whiners who need a week off out of four tournaments in succession.)
The right guy won, though, and that's great. But, we walk away from the 2010 FedExCup thinking that there has to be a better way. Maybe it is cumulative par over four events - 288 holes for $10 million - as suggested by SI's Gary Van Sickle. Perhaps as I and other have advocated, it is a series of simple to understand cuts that lead to a single tournament shootout for all the money. Or the points could stay, but keep the shootout. Then there are different forms to the shootout - straight medal play, modified Stableford, the LPGA's innovative (and currently retired) playoff event, match play, match of cards.
The possibilities are endless. None would probably be perfect. So let me muddy the water even further with one more master plan for the FedExCup.
First, 120 cannot start the Playoffs. It needs to be 90 - or 70 - enough to have the full field play four rounds and it not be a logistical nightmare. Entering the first Playoff event, points are not reset. The points for the first event are only slightly more than a major. Instead of 500, 550, or 600 for an event, make it 800 or a 1000 points. The players that are then in the top 60 move onto the next event, which gives away 1200 or 1500 points for first. Then cut to 40. Have a third event with points more valuable than the other two, and cut down the thirty.
The point is to make each Playoff event more valuable than the one before it. The drama seems more natural. It placates critics who feel the points system is an insult to the majors and a sure display of PGA Tour hubris. Most importantly, it increases the stakes to every round of the playoffs.
Playoff series, though, are all a setup for the end. Athletes get to the finale, the title game moment in order to have an equal chance to become champion. The beauty of most playoffs - at least this nation's most successful - is the one-game scenario.
The PGA Tour has repeatedly said it supports the tournament within a tournament, though. So here's my compromise: be like the ladies used to be (and should be again) and play the Tour Championship with the format behind the old ADT Championship. Play thirty-six qualifying holes, cut the field to sixteen. Another 18 and another cut to eight. Then wipe the slate for a single round for all of the money. If everyone complains, make it cumulative score for the top eight. It will probably be close anyhow.
Sure, it might sound unfair, but playoffs aren't supposed to be fair. They're not even supposed to identify the best player. Repeatedly for four years now, critics have mistakenly confused the playoff format with an attempt to identify the best player. That's the USGA's goal - not the PGA Tour's. They want ratings. They want ROI. They want eyeballs. One round for $10+ million will do that.
Even better? There's no way any network needs to tape delay a final round competed among eight players.
Then again, since the right guy won this time, the likelihood that the right way will manifest itself next year is unlikely.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is the kind of stuff that amazes me about the “new generation” of sports writers. If the highest ranked guy or the most popular name in the field (any sport) doesn’t win a particular game or tournament – then there is something wrong with the game. Or, in this case, if that guy happens to overcome a tough starting position, then all is right with the world.
The reason we watch sports is because at any time, any of these VERY talented guys can step up. And at any time, a guy on a hot streak but not in a position he hasn’t been in before, can suddenly start thinking about where he is and not be able to hit a fairway to save his life.
Sports is not a popularity contest. You win because you play best.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Court...
If that were true, then Matt Kuchar or Dustin Johnson should have won. They played the best at the end of the season, and Furyk played well in the final event. Is that worth $10 million? Even after missing the entire first round of the playoffs? Not in my book.
Restructure the format to be entirely par-based. Best possible way you can do it.
Adam Fonseca
Par Based?
So, let’s say the Cowboys beat the Giants 35-10 in the Wildcard this year. Do you think that they should then face New Orleans with a 25-0 lead in the Divisional game?
That’s the same thing you are advocating…
by Charles Boyer on Sep 28, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Not even close to the same thing.
How can you compare a team sport to an individual sport? Do we want a true tournament bracket for this playoff system, or a format where a player that hasn’t won all year having a real chance at the championship?
Adam Fonseca
by Adam Fonseca on Sep 28, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
no – Kuch and Johnson were only the FEC points leaders. Furyk is the second highest ranked name from the field – behind only Mickelnuts – who played like the evil twin once again when he had a chance to be #1. Kuch and Johnson were the guys who had never been in that spot before….well…Johnson has, and he wet the bed both times. (but I’m convinced he’s going to break through that little blockage pretty soon)
Kuchar played extremely well across the entire season. Not the most wins, but he was in the top 10 more than anybody else, plus his wins. Furyk also played well across the whole season with his two wins. His alarm screw up could very well have cost him a much easier route to the FEC title.
I’m not a big fan of calling these things “playoffs” – but the system worked the way they wanted this year – and Furyk did everything he had to do to hold that cup. Good for him.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
All the hype in the world won't sell a bad product.
And the Fed Ex cup is a bad product in any format. Honestly, most of the field looks fed up with it ( no pun intended ) Playoffs are an American concept and it works with the NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB. But sorry, this is crap. For Ryan to say “Sure the US Open was great, but the Fed Ex cup locked it up” refering to the HoF for Furyk, a major is the ultimate. All the money in the world won’t make the Fex ex cup anything close. And to constantly harp on about the prizemoney to a watching public might just alienate the event from the fans in these hard times. Footballers here get 200,000 dollars a week here for playing soccer and half the public who love football find that much for kicking a ball distasteful. 10 or 15 million for one event might do the same, even in America. Who won again ?
Is It REALLY a BAD Product?
Tell me, would you have watched Joe Wilson and Mark Durant coming down the stretch and battling for a win the second weekend of September? If you would have, you are in an exclusive minority. That’s what golf was like pre-FedEx Cup. Once the PGA Championship was over, barring a World Golf Tour Event, you wouldn’t see the Top 10 until the Ryder Cup.
It’s not perfect, and it does need tweeking. But I wouldn’t go so far to call it a bad idea.
Regarding what footballers (either kind) make, they are only being paid what the market will bear. They have short careers on the pitch or on the gridiron, so in some ways, they are compressing their career into anything between 2-10 years.
Besides, the average annual salary for a Premiership player was 676,000 pounds a year in 2006, so call it a million now.
But ask THEM what they say:
Premiership footballers are often caricatured as a playboy set who demand massive wages in return for a few hours work each day. One of the survey’s findings confounds the stereotype, with almost 60 per cent of all players in favour of a salary cap – or in other words, limiting the total amount any club spends on its total wage bill. The survey found that the more a player earns, the more likely he is to support a salary cap.
The players were asked the specific question: “Bearing in mind the financial problems that have affected many clubs in the past few years, would you support a rule that says that not more than 75 per cent of a club’s income should be spent on its total wage bill?”. Across all divisions, 58 per cent were supportive, rising to 64 per cent in the Premiership. The figure was 54 per cent in the Championship, 59 per cent in League One and 56 per cent in League Two.
The survey, done in conjunction with the players’ union, the PFA, is only the second time that salaries have ever been confirmed by the players themselves. The first time was six years ago, also in response to an Independent-PFA questionnaire, seeking views on a wide range of issues from the country’s professionals. A representative sample of nearly 400 players, from across all four professional divisions, have responded to the current survey on a confidential basis.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 28, 2010 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Still a bad product OMP...but
I concede golf fans in America who watch the PGA tour like the “meaningful” end to the golfing season in America. But there are other events to watch worldwide I would prefer to see in any case. When Tiger or Phil don’t preform in the Fed Ex, some of the golfing media in the US call it a flop. So it is in a sense nothing more than a PR stunt as far as some are concerned.The Ryder Cup has been pushed back into October because of the Fed Ex. That’s not good. The only good thing about it I can see so far is the big check for the winner. It’s not a major. When they reel off Furyk’s achievements in 10 years time, when he goes on the Champions tour, the US Open will stand far and beyond anything else he did. The Fed Ex will never have credit as a big event.
As for footballers here in England …“the more the player earns, the more he supports a salary cap”…well they would say that after they have had their millions. They have enough to have their salaries capped. The up and coming ones wouldn’t until they get theirs.
Good points.
With Liverpool on the edge of collapse and frankly uncompetitive by their standards thanks to some very stupid economic moves by their ownership, one has to think that it would be in the best interests of the Premiership to adopt the Bundesliga salary structure, which is that teams are tied to their income in terms of wages. Some would like to call that “socialism” or something, but the reality is that it keeps the entire league viable because it keeps an owner from leveraging his team almost into bankruptcy to buy players.
Truth is, the Budesliga’s salary policies have not hurt the likes of Bayern Munich and other top-table teams, they can still go and get who they want — within reason. Bayern may not be able to spend like Real Madrid or perhaps AC Milan, but they have somehow been able to retain Robben, Schweinsteiger and Thomas Muller and win the UEFA Cup. Sure, Werder Bremen sold Ozil to Real Madrid, but I think that was a “get it before you get nothing” sort of deal…almost like Manchester United did with Ronaldo.
Speaking of United, I hear Wayne Rooney is out for 2-3 weeks with a bum ankle. Frankly, that makes them a better team, as Berbatov is playing much better than Rooney and it will give them a chance to give Chicharito some quality seasoning. Rooney’s problem with his pants have translated onto the pitch and his more liability than threat this season. United will be slaughtered by Chelsea and Arsenal if he keeps playing as he has so far this year.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 29, 2010 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree 100 %
Football has become crazy. It’s the main example I use when 10 million is mentioned in the Fed eX. The PGA and Euro tours trying to outdo each other is counterproductive for the game. 7 events counting on both tours is the first step to a world tour, golf from all nations working together. As for Liverpool, my team, you are right. After the fall out of the tragic Hysel and Hillsbourgh years, they never really recovered, and got left behind when the Premiership was launched in ‘93. Trying to play catch up all these years, in the wake of United’s success, they are on the brink. If the owners, who have torn the heart out of the club continue to hold out to make a profit , there might not be much left to sell. Sad times for football. Greed has caused it, I’m afraid.
I'm happy for Furyk at any rate
he’s long been one of my faves.
"What I’m trying to say is that Lovie is an idiot. Let’s not forget this." --celerysalt, WCG commenter
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!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
