If you frequent the same golf blogs that I do, then you might have seen some of my comments on the FedEx Cup strewn about the web.  I felt the need to consolidate my thoughts on the subject and, frankly, to rant a little bit.

Let’s take a look at your thoughts first.  For several weeks, I’ve been running a poll in the sidebar.  The question is, “Is the 2008 FedEx Cup shaping up better than 2007?” At the time of this writing, out of 49 votes, a full 61% answered, “No”. Perhaps the question should have been, “Did they get the formula right?”

My answer to that is a resounding, “NO!”

As I see it, there are two things that happened this year in the FedEx Cup playoffs that violated the unwritten rules of common sense in sports.  Those things are:

1. The playoff winner was pretty much decided before the last tournament, and
2. There were players in the playoffs with no mathematical chance of winning.

How can this be?

In the United States, we have a number of major sports.  Most notably, NFL football, Major League baseball, NBA basketball, and NHL hockey.  (I’m ignoring NASCAR, because it has a similar playoff system.  Based on viewership, it probably belongs in the top four, though.)

In the four sports I named, those two unwritten rules of common sense in sports hold true.  Once the playoffs start, each team is in it until elimination, and then it goes home.  Period.  On top of that, no team gets to start strong and then just phone in the championship (assuming it isn’t playing a completely over matched underdog, which happens sometimes).

Golf is a bit different because it’s an individual game.  But if you’re going to have a season followed by something called “playoffs”, then the common sense rules must apply.

Those of you who watched saw Vijay Singh basically lock it up well before the Tour Championship.  All he needed to do was show up and make the cut.  What kind of playoff championship is that?  If the Superbowl winner was decided by a team that only had to show up and score at least 10 points regardless of what the other team did, it would be a joke.

The sad thing is, the Tour Championship was a great tournament to watch on Sunday.  There were some fan-favorites in it down to the wire and it was a great finish.  But as the culmination of the FedEx Cup playoffs, it was a big, fat, yawn.  Vijay Singh showed up, made the cut, took home the trophy, and filled his bank account.  Oh, and Camillo Villegas won the Tour Championship.  Maybe Tour Sub-Championship would be a better description.

To add to the lack of FedEx Cup drama (not necessarily tournament drama), there were a number of players that had no mathematical chance of winning the Cup.  Why were they there?  Sure, they would have liked to win the Tour Championship, but as the final FedEx Cup event, it makes no sense that they didn’t have a chance to win.

So how do we fix it?

I didn’t come up with the idea, but I’ve read it suggested on several blogs that the FedEx Cup playoffs should consist of three stroke play events that whittle the field down progressively to 32, and that the Tour Championship and FedEx Cup both be decided by a final match play event.

I love that idea.  Here’s how it could work:

• Players accumulate points all year for entrance into the FedEx Cup playoffs.
• Let’s say 80 players make the playoffs.
• The points become irrelevant beginning with the first playoff event.
• The top 60 from the first event make the second event and the top 40 from the second event make the third.  Everyone else goes home.
• The fourth event consists of the top 32 finishers from the third event.
• The Tour Championship and FedEx Cup are simultaneously decided in a match play event.  Winner takes all.  All the glory, anyway.  I don’t have a problem if they spread prize money throughout the field, as with normal tournaments.  But the winner should win the Cup and the big prize.

What’s wrong with that?  Sure, the number of players and number of events could be tweaked, but the basic result would be a playoff system that culminates in the final event with every player still alive having the possibility of winning.

There are several up sides, but the only down side I see with that kind of format is that the field in the last event could be populated with players who aren’t the big stars, if lesser-known players get hot at the right time and the stars are off their games.  But you know what?  That means that they’re playing better golf at the time, and that’s more fun to watch.  In reality, though, the best players are the best players for a reason and in all likelihood, some of them will be there right down to the end.

Could we get a no-name player winning the FedEx Cup?  Sure.  But the same thing happens in the other sports I mentioned earlier, and in other sports with true playoff systems.  That’s something we would need to be willing to accept.

Television ratings take a hit without Tiger in the field.  Honestly, though, does anyone not expect him to make the final event once his knee is healthy again?  And even if he doesn’t, we’ll get to know other great characters on Tour like we’ve done this year with Camillo Villegas, Boo Weekly, Rocco Mediate and a whole host of other players who are fun to root for.  Tell me the Ryder Cup without Tiger wasn’t still a lot of fun.

What do you think?  Am I crazy here?  Let’s get a real playoff format going and dispense with the silliness.

Did you like this post? Get free RSS updates!

Leave a comment | Comment Policy | Trackback URL