It’s rare that I use this space to talk pro golf, but the recently completed FedEx Cup race put a burr under my saddle so I really feel the need to vent a little. I typically try and remain positive too, but I feel drawn to direct some negativity at the whole FedEx Cup playoff scheme.

This year’s “playoff” marked the third since the FedEx Cup was introduced in 2007, with Tiger Woods winning in somewhat predictable fashion.  Then, the following year, Vijay Singh took the Cup home while an injured Tiger Woods sat home recuperating.  The joke of that year was that the outcome was pretty much decided before the last event and Singh basically just had to continue breathing to take home the cup.

Over these first three playoffs, the Tour tweaked the format each year to try and make sure there was a little drama going into the last event.  Well, this year the situation was a little better.  Sunday at the Tour Championship was dramatic, and ultimately, the FedEx Cup was awarded to Tiger Woods, the player who also had the best year (more on that later).

And that player also finished second in the event.  Therein lies the problem.  I’m trying to think of another major sport where the loser of the championship wins it all.  And make no mistake – in any tournament there is exactly one winner, and a whole crowd of losers.

There is not a bigger Tiger Woods fan in the world than I am, but on Sunday he was a loser.  I’m not suggesting Phil Mickelson “deserves” the Cup.  After all, Tiger won it fair and square playing in the framework that the Tour set up.  I submit, though, that this system is severely broken.

Can you imagine if the loser in the Superbowl game actually won the Lombardi trophy because it had accumulated more points throughout the season and then again in the playoffs after the points were reset?  Or, what about the World Series, Stanley Cup, or NBA Championship?  Winning teams don’t blow out the opposition and then lose the final game.

As the FedEx Cup playoffs started approaching this summer, a number of players were vocal in their feelings about the unfairness of the idea that a player who had the best season could get bounced out of the playoffs or that a player who had a mediocre season could win the Cup with some great play in the playoffs.

I’m failing to see the problem there.  If you just want to reward the player who had the best season, then why bother having a playoff system?  Just throw the $10 million at the guy at the top of the money list and forget the playoffs.

In sports that have a playoff system to decide a champion, these are the “unfair” realities.  But in those sports, the regular season is also looked upon as really just a way to buy a seat at the playoff table.  The rewards of playing well in the regular season come in the form of bye weeks, advantageous seeding, and home field/arena advantage.  In all those cases, however, the ultimate winner is the team that wins the last game.

I’m not a tennis guy, but someone tell me:  can a player lose the final match and still win it all?

The fact is, sometimes the teams that had the best year get upset in the playoffs.  The best team doesn’t always win it all.  That adds to the drama. Occasionally, an underdog slips in and wins the championship game in an upset.  And when that happens, they win it all. They don’t give the trophy to the loser.

So how would I do it?

The current format isn’t too far from a good one – with some minor tweaks.  I would have the players accumulate points throughout the regular season, just like now.  Those points would be used to determine the field for the first playoff event.  Once the field is set, toss the points.  Don’t reset them, don’t adjust them.  Trash them.  The winner of the FedEx cup should, well, win.  Accumulating points doesn’t cut it.

As the four events progress, the field should be cut smaller and smaller as the events progress.  If a player doesn’t perform, he goes home – period.  Just like in the current system, start with 125 and then the top 100 move on.  From there, the top 70 move on.  Finally, the top 30 play for the Tour Championship.

The big difference would be, the winner of the Tour Championship wins the FedEx Cup.  Period.

Now, if I had my way, the Tour Championship would also be a match play event.  A mano y mano fight to the finish.  I’ve heard people say that it wouldn’t work for television.  I say, “Bah”.  The WGC Accenture Match Play championship works for television.

Remember, the 2008 U.S. Open playoff between Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate?  That worked for television, and it happened on a Monday for crying out loud.

I’m willing to let go of a match play Tour Championship, though.  I would be happy if the winner of the last event was the winner of the FedEx Cup.  Match play works best for me, but not awarding the trophy to a tournament loser works better.

Look, I’m not naive.  I know a Tiger or Phil win is better for the Tour because it means better TV ratings.  They want their big names out there getting coverage.  However, the cream tends to rise to the top.  More often than not, the Tour is going to get the big names in it down to the wire, even if the winner isn’t who they wish it was.

If that’s not a good enough argument, then just drop the hokey playoff system and award the cup to whomever has the most points at the end of the season and stop calling it “playoffs”.

That’s all I’ve got to say about that.

Did you like this post? Get free RSS updates!

Leave a comment | Comment Policy | Trackback URL