FedEx Cup 3.0

With time to digest this years' version of the golf "playoffs" I find the taste in the back of my mouth growing more bitter by the day. After watching the newest edition of the of the points system yet again culminate in somebody winning a tournament and yet not claiming the largest prize I still wonder about the validity of this whole thing. I still don't believe Padraig Harrington when he says "At dee enduv yore cah-rear dayer gone-a ask humany FedEx Cuups didya wiin? An be keeeepin an aye out fore dahnew why-et goff balls in evry box o' Looky Chahms!" I can't see history caring about the number of FedEx Cups you win and here's why;

The Misnomer: To call these "playoffs" is a joke because there is nothing playoff about them. Playoffs don't have points systems and they certainly don't allow for someone to not win the finale and yet still take home the trophy. The model was based off the wrong individual sport, car racing, and not say tennis. Under this years' revised system we still saw a scenario in which Tiger actually didn't even need to play any of the playoff tournaments and still would have finished third in the points heading into the Tour Championship. With the reset and enormous favoritism towards the top five point earners Woods still would have won the Cup and the bonus money for not playing a playoff round and finishing second, as he did, in the Tour Championship. That's like letting a football team skip the playoffs, go directly to the Super Bowl, lose, and still walk away with the Vince Lombardi trophy. The system also afforded Jim Furyk a shot to win the Tour Championship and thereby win the Cup despite the fact that he hadn't won a tournament all year. That's like calling a band the Lone Rangers, it makes no sense. Let the points system determine a seeding order, but the "playoffs" need to be single elimination i.e. match play. I've heard the argument that Tiger may lose in the second or third round if it were match play and no one would watch from there on out. I would. For the same reason I would still watch a Wimbledon final even if Federer gets bumped early in the tournament. They don't cancel a tournament because they didn't get who they wanted in the final and it's no less exciting if the quality of play is there. Plus if you want a putt on the last hole to be worth ten million dollars (which is what Tim Finchem has prayed for for three years now to no avail) the odds are definitely better with a match play format. Speaking of the $10,000,000 here's my next problem with the FedEx Cup...

The Money: That's all this thing is about. There is no prestige that can be built from cold hard cash in an individual sport. The four majors and probably the Player's could be contested for zero dollars and they would still have the strongest fields and highest viewership. Bobby Jones didn't get The Masters going with much more than a few invitations and the chance to play against the greatest golfers of the day. It's the Green Jacket the players play for, not the money. The guys on Tour want to win those tournaments because they can define a career, not for the lion's share of the purses (which consequently aren't much bigger than a regular tournament). Plus the way the system is set up it the FedEx Cup works out to be more of a performance bonus than anything else. With all the problems surrounding sponsorship for events it becomes sort of a big step back to award a bonus to someone for playing well all year. How did you feel when the boys with the largest yearly earnings at AIG gave themselves bonuses? Granted, the AIG boys performed poorly and got the bonuses, but the slap in the face must leave a similar sting to those events that may not have the money to press on with certain players not in their fields. Tiger made ten million and change during the season and then received a bonus of the same amount for his efforts thanks to the Cup. One of the tournaments Woods won to help earn the original ten million, The Buick, is disappears after this year. Hmmmmmm.

Solution: Version 4.0 needs to be what the PGA settles on because there is no tradition being generated from an ever changing system. If the PGA won't here my plea for match play then the field should be whittled down to 125 players at the beginning of the "playoffs" for a stroke play format. The low 90 scores play the weekend of the first event and the other 35 are cut. The next playoff event is played but the cut is made Friday based on the low 70 aggregate scores over the first 108 holes. Get it? The format continues this way with a winner of each tournament but the FedEx Cup being decided by the lowest total of strokes throughout the playoffs. This way it forces the players to play the events rather than considering to maybe skip one or two because their points are such that they can afford to do so. It also makes for a much more likely scenario that either a single putt or penalty stroke could determine the FedEx Cup winner. If you want to reward consistent play make them keep all the strokes and the player with the best "playoff" run will end up with the top prize.