I cant stand how they run this fedex cup thing. Its a disaster, makes no sense. Tiger was going to win the fedex cup regardless who won the tour championship. Crazy. The only way it would have worked out otherwise, was he needed to finish very untigeristic.

This would be a better scenario:
event 1- top 125 points get to play
event 2- top 75 points get to play
tour championship- top 30 points get to play
Fedex cup tourney- points reset back to zero, top 20 get to play and winner wins fedex cup.


What do you think?

+1 That makes too much sense. Unfortunately, they will never do it that way.

I applaud you for coming up with an idea rather than just bashing the format with no solution. I think the cup would benefit from a match play format, however I don't think the TV executives would ever go for it.

Hey... not bad... I really like the proposed solution that the OP came up with. It certainly makes the final event worth watching... a real tournament, if u guys know what I mean. The Fedex winner would be determined on that final event, not on a total point system accumulation, which is pretty laughable.

Here is my idea,... Get rid of it......

One of the biggest problems with the FedEx Cup is, that the last 4 tournaments make too much of a difference. If you barely squeak in the Top 125 and find a way to win (Heath Slocum) you jump from 124 to #3.. That's too big of a jump for him not having a good year, just one week. If they could find a system that would reward those that were very consistent throughout the year and also in the final 4 tournaments. I'm not 100% of what that would consist of though.

I like it the way it is minus the reset and last tournament.

It works much like team sports, as last year where the Cardinals got hot and slipped into the superbowl, so did a lot of golfers this year, a la Slocum who was already mentioned.

The final tournament should be a hybrid match play/stroke event where the Top 20 are included. Match play on Thursday to determine the final 10, and then the final 10 can play a 3 day shootout for the cup.

this is a great idea!!!
getting rid of it would ruin the whole "playoffs" theme in golf

is it unacceptable because Tiger won? now, I don't mean this by suggesting anti_tiger sentiments on your part, but because it is designed for the best on tour to win? I actually think it should reward the player with the best consistency on tour..what would be the point in being the point leader through out the season only to get wiped out to start from scratch? sounds like from your assessment, players should just qualify for the fedex and rely on the wipe out of points to equalise things and then win the 10m. which would be far more than most make in any season. The entire season points should count for something. Otherwise it rewards the "lesser" player" which is fine to you guys, but won't make it fair at all.
What would you have thought if Mickelson came from behind to win both the Fedex and tour Championship? this after not even making one top 20 in the 3 events prior to his win? exciting? no complaints?

The Fedex cup will never, ever, ever mean anything other than providing $10 million to the winner. You can't just decide after a hundreds of years of golf, and a hundred years of majors suddenly this new scheme is somehow as important as a major.

Who decided golf needed to become a hybrid of other sports and have playoffs? It's like that one jacka$$ at every party who has never played golf, doesn't know the rules, doesn't know the history, but insists it's not a "sport" because he tried to play once, found out he sucks and can't get better... that dude decided he was going to make golf into a real sport and have playoffs.

Having playoffs is as assinine as entertaining thoughts such as "they should let people yell when they're about to hit the ball, that would be cool."

What if someone wins the first 3 tournaments, then finishes 3 or 4 at the Tour Championship? I think he still deserves the cup.

The playoffs were not designed to make golf a 'real' sport. Golf is already a real sport. It was not designed to try to be another major. It was designed to show who was the most consistent player on the tour for that year. Yes all these guys want to win, but they all want to be consistent. The Fedex Cup has allowed for this to be shown on a trophy and in dollar amounts that all. No matter who would have one won it. You need to play fairly well all year and very good the last strech of the year.

Just because Tiger is consistent is the reason we won, and Phil did not. Granted he has some personal issues to deal with. To some of the guys on tour ten top 5 finishes may be a better season than one win, one top 30 and 7 missed cuts. That is what the Fedex Cup was designed for. To be honest after the re-working of the points last year I thought it worked out pretty well.

• Money List
• Vardon Trophy
• Number of Wins

All show who was consistent on the TOUR for that year. The FedEx cup does not.

-mini

Remember, it's the FedEx Cup "Playoffs". The regular season has to count for something. Tiger won it this year because he deserved to win it. Who can argue that? He was the most consistent golfer of the year...yes, without winning a major...and there were several scenarios in place that did not guarantee him the Cup.

If you have whoever wins the Tour Championship win the FedEx Cup, that would be unfair at its core.

That would be like the Cincinatti Reds suddenly winning the World Series contested between the Yankees and Dodgers.

Yes, but for your consistency you could win 10,000,000.

The FedEx Cup playoffs don't reward consistency. You don't even have to win the Tour Championship to win it. Smoke and mirrors.

"If A wins and B finishes in a 4 way tie for 19th with C shooting 71 or better but no better than 66 and the moon lines up with Haley's Comet and Batman is on TV at 7pm specific time (bonus points for whoever gets that reference), then Q wins the FedEx cup"

-mini

My point exactly.



Then what's with all those commercials where tour players are bing forced to gurgle such nonsense as "you know, people are going to start asking not just how many majors you won, but how many fedex cups you won as well... bl bla bla..."

The most consistent player is the guy at the top of the money list.



Even if we agree it "worked out pretty well," it still has no real meaning.

The rules are made around 1 player, and that's Tiger Woods. They want Tiger to play in all 4 events, unlike year 1 when he skipped the 1st event and still won the FedEx Cup. So instead of keeping the system simple, they adjusted the points to this crazy system to "force" Tiger to play all 4 events.

Why not just say you MUST play in all 4 events in order to win? I get that the PGA wants Tiger to play. And I completely understand why.

I love match play. But there is only 1 match play event all year. It's hard to base the season-long championship on match play when match play isn't the focus.

MY only thought to change this.... Open up the Tour championship to a few more players and have a cut. You have cuts ALL YEAR but then you don't? Put some pressure on the guys at the top to make the cut.

None of those show consistency.


Money List - Players play in events that are worth different amounts. Player A could win 1,000,000 on day, and Player B could win 800,000 in a different tournament with the same score.

Vardon Trophy - Just because you have the leading scoring average does not mean you are consistent.

Number of Wins - Player A plays in 25 events, wins 5. Thats a great season, Player B plays in 7 events wins 4. A better average and arguably a better season, but Player A has most wins. But we all know Player B is the better player.


I'm not saying the Fedex system is flawless, but it is fun.. It just adds a little extra to watch for in golf. Like you said, If the sun is aligned in such a way, and Tiger ends up in 27th or worse, and Batman makes a hole in one on 18.. than Phil can still win the Fedex Cup. Clearly none of that is actually possible, but it makes for good t.v.

You don't win the money title without having a consistent season.



YGTBFSM. You can't be serious. You have the best scoring average...you have scored better than anyone on a per round basis. You've out played everyone (on average) every round. If that isn't consistency, then we might as well make the FedEx cup the 5th Major.


You can't play in 7 events as a PGA TOUR member, short of a medical exemption.



No. It makes for flipping over to the Jets-Titans game (that I didn't care about) because I was tired of hearing about who was projected to win the feded cup now. That's not good TV, that's stupid. It's too "american idol" (made up) for me. Make it so you have to win the TC to win it...at least that would be somewhat like a playoff.

-mini

Er, what? Tiger won the FedEx cup because Mickelson won the tour championship and he finished high enough to keep his spot at the top. If Stricker, Furyk, Johnson or Slocum had won the tour championship, Tiger would have not won the FedEx Cup. If Tiger had finished 5th this week, then Stricker wins by finishing 3rd, Furyk wins by finishing 2nd and everyone down to 10th place can win by winning. To say that Tiger was going to win regardless is ridiculous.

IMO, that wouldn't be a better scenario either. We already had a tournament this week between 30 players all of them starting from the same point, with the winner winning. It was called the Tour Championship. The FedEx Cup is supposed to reward play throughout the season and the playoffs. Your suggestion doesn't do that in the slightest. If you're going to reset it like that, you need to have a significantly smaller field at the end. Like 5 people. Otherwise, it's just making the prize for the tour championship $10 million more. What excitement is there in that that isn't already there from the tournament itself?

How about something where in the playoffs if you miss the cut you are out. Seems wrong you can miss the cut in the first two and then maybe win the last 2 or have a good to great showing you could win the cup.

In other sports if you lose in the first round (i.e. miss the cut) you are out.

So have it where you have the first two events, yo miss the cut and you are out. Everyone that makes the cut moves on. Then take the cumulative score of the last two events and decide a winner.

Just off the top of my head not alot of thought in this one. Dont bash me too hard.

Screw the point system all together, there should be a system where the ranking is calculated by score, Such as Tiger is -22 and leading the Fed Ex Cup. Im not sure how it would work exactly, with cuts and what not, but at least it would make sense and you would get a true understanding of how big a lead actually is.

In no other sport can they win the final championship (eg. super bowl) without actually winnng the last game. yesterday morming, I was actually convinced that this could be a good system. there were so many good possible scenarios, but it could not have been any more boring. I think Tiger would agree.

Match play would be great, or have the tour championship with only the top 5 in it. Then have the top 5 have a 72 hole tourny for the fed ex cup. it should not be a test of the most consistent layer throughout the year. that's what the vardon trophy is for. It should be a championship, like the world series or super bowl.

The world series is a 7-game series (as is the Stanley Cup). You don't have to win game 7 to win the world series. You just have to win four of them along the way. The problem I see is in viewing the four playoff events as being independent rounds of the playoffs. They're not. They're all part of one series.

If you're ever watched the skins game, you'll know that watching one group play is interminably boring. You'll have three times as many ads for cialis and I for one can do without that.

Dan Patrick: With the first nine months of the Baseketball postseason out of the way, the playoff picture is starting to emerge.
Kenny Mayne: So, with last night's victory over Boston, next week the Milwaukee Beers must beat Indianapolis in order to advance to Charlotte. That's in an effort to reduce their magic number to three.
Dan Patrick: Right, and then the Beers can advance to the National Eastern Division North to play Tampa.
Kenny Mayne: So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned

LMAO thats exactly what it reminded me of!

If they wanted to make things interesting, this is what I would do: Start the Tour Championship on Wednesday. Play 4 rounds till you get the top 4. Then on Sunday play a 4-some for the big bucks. It would make it as watchable as any major if not more so for a number of reasons. First, we never see 4-somes on tour, which in most cases is understandable and wouldn't work. But, in this case it would be perfect and great entertainment. Second, Tiger is bound to be in the top 4 almost ever year, so he would almost always be in the 4-some. And third, you could have Joe Schmoe and his cousins playing one round for $10 million and I would want to watch that.

I get the whole idea of rewarding the best player throughout the year, but it's like the Patriots in 2007. Clearly the best team throughout the year, which allowed them to get the the Superbowl, but they still had to win the Superbowl to be the champs. Not to mention it was one of the best Superbowls ever.

I think that is how they fgured it out.

Terrible movie, but had some good lines.

Let me start by saying that I agree with those who think that Golf doesn't need play-offs and that it is a contrived idea. However, since we live in a world in which everything needs to become more spectacular than it once was (just look at sports simulation computer games 15 years ago and now), I have come up with a suggestion for a format which blends a few of the conflicting interests (regular season performance vs "play-off" performance, making sure that the "big names" are in until the end vs match-play, keeping it interesting as long as possible and giving TV a predictable schedule).

Here it is:
The Tour Championship will be an 8-man event, played in a skins format. Reason: skins games are match-play, but will certainly go to the 18th, and allow for more than two players to take part in a "final". Details see below.

Here's how to qualify:
After the "regular season", the first 128 in FedEx points get to play the first "play-off" event. There is no points reset, and there is a cut after 3 rounds to 80 and ties. The first play-off tournament awards the same amount of FedEx cup points as a regular season event.

The second play-off round is an 80 player 4 round stroke play event with no cut. The qualifiers for the second play-off event are:
a) The first 32 of the final regular season points standings. b) The first 32 of the combined points standings of regular season and first play-off event, who are not already qualified under a). c) The first 16 of the first play-off event who are not already qualified under a) or b).
In this event, points will be awarded according to the points system of the WGC events (550 to the winner).

The third play-off event will be contested by 64 players. 4 round stroke play with two cuts, the field will be cut to 48 and ties after the first two rounds and 32 and ties after the first 3 rounds.
The qualifiers for the third event are:
a) The first 16 of the regular season point standings. b) The first 32 of the combined regular and play-off point standings who are not already qualified under a). The first 16 of the combined points standings of the first two play-off events, who are not already qualified under a) or b).
In this third play-off event, points will be awarded according to the system used for the Majors and the Players' Championship (600 points to the winner).

Now the to the final:
8 players are qualified. Those 8 are:
a) The top 2 of the final regular season points standings. b) The 3 winners of the first 3 play-off events (runner-up gets in, in case someone wins two play-off events, or in case one of those winners is already qualified under a), ties to be decided by total combined points of regular season and play-offs). c) The top 3 of the combined regular and play-off point standings who are not already qualified under a) or b).
Those 8 play two four man semifinal skins games over 36 holes on Thursday and Friday, with the top 2 of each match advancing to the four man final (again, 36 holes skins) on the weekend.
In each of the semifinals, the skins are weighted. $ 10.000 for holes 1-6, $ 20.000 for holes 7-12, $ 40.000 for holes 13-18, $ 50.000 for holes 19-24, $ 75.000,- for holes 25 to 30 and $ 100.000 for holes 31 to 36.
The top 3 of the combined regular season and play-off points standings start with $ 40.000,- each. The winners of the 3 previous play-off events start with $ 80.000 each in the semifinals. The top 2 of the regular season standings start with $ 0. This is the incentive for the regular seasons points leaders to take part in the earlier play-off events.
In the final, the two winners of the semifinals start with $ 40.000 each, and the holes are weighted the same way as in the semifinals. Whoever has won the most skins money after the 36 hole final, wins the FedEx cup.

It sounds a little complicated, but I am sure that the conditions for qualifying for the next play-off event will be a lot easier to judge during the tournaments themselves.

Remember you've read it here first. Those ideas are the intellectual property of the author. Any unauthorized use is prohibited and will lead to legal action.

reason for edit: spelling (and I probably still missed something)

How do you propose getting those two to play in the first three playoff events? What's the point of showing up?

And there's a reason that skins games are part of the silly season. They're too much weighted on luck.

Read two or three lines below. Those who qualify via the play-off events get a bonus to start with in the semifinals.

36 holes: less luck involved.

As I said: the whole idea of "play-offs" in golf is really far-fetched and unnecessary. But there seems to be some notion in the US that crowning a season's champion based on the combined results of the whole season is not enough. Trust me, it is hard to comprehend for a European, because in our football ("soccer") leagues, it is the most natural thing that the team with the most points in the end wins the championship, no need for play-offs.

I'm guessing Family Guy. Brian's slightly retarded girlfriend?
Great quote by the way !!!

Sure you can. Try finishing 70th, MC, 45th, 1st, 62nd, 38th, 59th, 29th, MC, 1st. That's 10 tournaments of bouncing around the leaderboard and around two million dollars in winnings. As of today, $2 million would rank 34th on the PGA Tour for 2009.




Having scores of 60, 78, 62, 76 is not consistent - you are either setting a course record and playing your way out of contention. Having scores of 71, 71, 71, 71 is very consistent. That's not to say that the consistent player is the better player, just that his scores are more consistent. A better measure of scoring consistency would be the standard deviation.



You are missing the point. The point is that the number of wins tells you nothing about a players consistency. You don't know if the player won a lot of tournaments because he played in a lot of tournaments, or if he was a dominating player who won all the time.

Maybe a bit too gimmicky but here goes...

The regular season point total could work as some type of handicap. For example...Maybe if a player finish in the top 5 in FedEx regular season points, it equals lets say -3 strokes. That stroke number decreases the farther down a player is on the regular season points list. Then, all players eligible for the playoffs play the first 2 tournaments. A cut line is established based on the combined scores of each player relative to par in both tournaments...along with the applied "handicap" adjustment (this rewards players for consistent play and accumulating points in the regular season). In the third playoff tournament the remaining players play with the top 30 finishers advancing to the Tour Championship. At that point, whoever wins the Tour Championship wins the FedEx Cup.

That's pretty similar to what they had year 1. There was a small reset, but not enough to upset the balance of who was #1. Tiger was able to skip the 1st even and still win.

Again, because of Tiger, you "can't" do that. Tiger would have a HUGE lead going into the final events. Some would say make the points for winning a Major huge. But in most years, Tiger wins a major. This was just an off year.

If Tiger wasn't around, this would be a lot easier. But the guy wins so much. Not only wins, but finishes in the top 10. Since the Honda Classic (March 5-8), Tiger has finished in the top 10 all but twice. Only missing 1 cut. That's 14 top 10s out of 16 events. 6 of which were wins, 3 of which were 2nds. Almost all would kill for that as a CAREER! Phil, Steve S. and Kenny had good years, but not even close to what Tiger did.

Sorry, but I don't know how you can make "exciting" with Tiger around.

Everything gets "tiger proofed" eventually. It makes me laugh.

I am not saying that you haver to win game 7 to win the world series. you can win it in 4. but I am saying that it is impossible to win the world series without winning the last game, whether it be game 4, 5, 6, or 7. it is still impossible to win the world series without winning the final game of the season, and I think that it should be the same way in golf. The vardon trophy awards the most consistent player of the year. I think that the Fed Ex Cup should be a championship type game ,rather than a consistency award.

We already have 30-odd of these all year anyway. If you just give it to the person that wins the Tour Championship, then the Tour Championship just becomes an event with a joke prize fund. The whole rest of the year becomes a glorified qualification system for a ridiculously rich tournament. The money that they are banding around is supposed to go to the person with the best year. No one cares what the prize fund is. If you give the FedEx Cup to the winner of the Tour Championship then the FedEx Cup ceases to mean anything at all. It's just the Tour Championship.

The problem is that golf is completely different from football and baseball and hockey and all those sports. Those sports, the best team wins somewhere between probably 85% of the time in football and 60% of the time in baseball. In golf, absent Tiger, the best player wins 10% of the time. When Tiger's around it's more like 30%, but even then it's unusual for the best player to win. The field has the advantage.

So, you can make it so the winner of the Tour Championship wins the FedEx Cup if you like, but you can't then publicise it throughout the year. And you can't call them the season long champion. You call them the Tour Champion. That's it. Because that's all they are. As it is, at least, the person who was the best through the season and the best through the playoffs won the thing.

OK, I'll play.

*My* problem with the Fedex cup....
It does not determine the player of the year. The claim is, it does.
Do away with the claim. It IS designed to bring some excitement to the end of the season,
and get the best players playing. Call it what it is. It's a four week money grab.
It's the *Race for the Fedex Cup*, the richest prize in golf.

To qualify for these four events, or month long single event, if you will...
points are awarded throughout the year.(you know the system).

Those that qualify, must make the cut to move on to the next event.
Miss the cut, skip the event....you're done, see ya next year.

If you want to have a *tour championship* event...
it should not be part of this series.

While we're at it...season points mean nothing once the cup events begin.
Reset the points to zero after each stage. If a player doesn't care about winning the
individual weeks event, all he's got to is finish high enough up to continue to the next week.
(hmmm...seems much like q-school.)
Week four is a 30 man free for all for $10 million first place.

You = Sports Fail on this one.


10,000 bonus points to you.


It's the same way in the NFL, NBA, HNL, MLB, MLS, etc. Any sport that has a playoff system (as we're told this is - the Fed Ex Cup "PLAYOFFS") requires that you win the championship game or final game of the championship series in order to be the champion.


Exactly. Anyone that thinks you can win the Vardon trophy shooting 60-78 all year is delusional.

As for "consistency"...80-80-80-80-80-80-80-80 is consistent but not worth a trophy.



162 Baseball games is a glorified qualification system for the Playoffs (a tournament).

16 Football games is a glorified qualification system for the Playoffs (a tournament).

80-some odd NBA and NHL games are a glorified qualification system for the Playoffs (a tournament).

Look at the Patriots. 16-0 and weren't the NFL Champions because they didn't win the Super Bowl (last game of the playoff tournament). Regular season means n-o-t-h-i-n-g when you have a playoff system.

-mini

Again you're assuming that the playoffs are more than one "event". The four playoff events should be like the world series. If you happen to wrap it up in the first three games, then it doesn't matter a damn what happens in the fourth one. They happen to still play the fourth one because it's an event in its own right. Unfortunately a bunch of people were whining about last year's outcome and so they changed it this year, for the worse IMO.

Not bothering to play games 5, 6 and 7 in the world series if someone wins the first four is the same thing. You would be right if they played all 7 and made 7 the only game that mattered.

As to the glorified qualification system, I meant for the Tour Championship, which it may have escaped you is a different entity from "the playoffs".

And there's still the issue of how do you deal with golf throwing up surprise winners a LOT more than those other sports. Sure the best team doesn't always win the world series and the best team doesn't always win the superbowl, but it happens a heck of a lot more frequently than the best player winning a golf tournament (even with Tiger playing). Trying to make the playoffs the same for golf as they are for those other sports is just stupid. If you're making it just one tournament, then it's the same thing as the thirty other tournaments they play each year and at least four of those are always going to be way more important than the fedex cup. They need to do something to make it different and linking it back to the entire season is the best way of doing that that I've seen anyone come up with so far. I think the system was a better one last year, but Americans can't handle someone winning before the end. Although people who've bought tickets for game 7 of the world series apparently don't care.

Lastly I don't think it counts as being the "championship game" unless you know it's the last game of the season, which is singularly not true until game 7 in the world series. They don't bother playing dead games, but only because the results of those games wouldn't make any difference. Under your scenario, the results of those last games would make a difference.

Good point. I bow down to your tremendous debating skills. You win.

No, it's okay...we'll continue to live in fantasy land where you don't understand how a playoff system works.

Honestly, I just don't have time tonight, so Jesus has to take care of it. I'll get back to you tomorrow when I've got a little more time on my hands.

-mini

This would be your fantasy land where I don't understand how a playoff system works?

I just can't believe you guys weren't thrilled by Tiger's compelling and unforgettable second place victory !!??

Alright, since you lack reading comprehension or any basic knowledge of how sports works, I'll take time out of my night when I should be getting ready for work to explain it to you.


Yeah. That's how it works. Playoffs. Plural. More than one.


That's kinda how it was the last two years and it sucked.


1) Uh, that's not how the World Series works. If you win the first 4 games, they don't play the last three...which are events in their own right.

2) You're really better off thinking of the playoffs as the different rounds of the playoffs, not the World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, quarters of the Super Bowl, etc. Think of them as the First round, Second round, Third round and Finals.


Yeah and Finchem was probably whining the worst when his ratings tanked for the Tour Championship. He just doesn't understand that in America you can't put Golf up against Football and expect ratings to remain competitive.


Same thing as what? You didn't multi-quote so I have no idea what you're referring to here and this comment is just out in the middle of nowhere.........kind of like this hotel I'm stuck in.


If they got to the 7th game...game 7 would be all that mattered. Not any of the 162 games of the regular season, any of the 5 games in the Division Series, any of the 7 games in the LCS...just game 7 of the World Series (draw your own parallels to the NHL and NBA).



No. No it isn't. At least that's not how the PGA TOUR is selling it to us, which is how we have to look at it...because they're the ones making this up as they go.

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way here http://www.pgatour.com/2009/tournaments/r0...hamp/index.html . You'll see where it says "Playoffs results" and it lists the Barclays, the Deutsche Bank, the BMW and the Tour Championship.

No different to the NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, World Series or Super Bowl. All are part of the same post season Playoff Tournament. Same as College Backetball. You have the tournament that leads up to the championship game...part of the same playoff tournament yet different games/events.


That's why you have your "regular season" which is a glorified qualification process for the Playoffs. If you're good enough, you get in. If not, you don't.


The team that wins was the best that day, week, season, etc. The person that wins the golf tournament was the best that week.


Again, if you won...you were the best that week. Even if that means you aren't Tiger.


Agreed, but that's exactly what Finchem is trying to do.


They aren't.


It's not the Fed Ex Cup Championship...it's the Fed Ex Cup Playoffs....or "The Playoffs for the FedEx Cup". Whatever they want to call it this week. It's more than one event, but the events are part of the same playoff tournament.


Can you tell me what the MLB Post season playoff tournament will have to do with the Yankees being super-awesome (vomit) this year? Other than getting home field advantage, what does it have to do with the regular season? Do they start every game up 2 runs? Start every series up 1 game? Get to pitch from 30'?


That just sounds dumb. In sports, when someone wins...that's the end. When the last putt drops and the tournament is official, someone has won. It's over. That's the end. When the pitcher strikes someone out in the 9th inning for the 3rd out to end the game because the defensive team had more runs than the team hitting, someone has won and it's over.


You only pay for them if there is a game 7. You buy them so you'll have them if there is a game 7, but if not your money comes back to you. They have no reason to care.


You know it's the last game if you lose when the other team has won 3 games in the series already. I guarantee you that if the team wins the game for their 4th win, they consider that game their "championship game". The other team probably considers it an (I hate this term) "elimination game".


How do you figure? Once someone wins the final event (World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, Super Bowl), it's over. In golf, it just takes everyone 72 holes. Just like in the NFL it takes everyone 60 minutes in the Super Bowl.

Hopefully that's clear enough for you and now you have an understanding of how playoffs work in sports. I really wasted too much of my time on you tonight, but I'm always glad to educate. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask, m'kay pumpkin?

-mini

My reading comprehension is fine and I understand how the playoff system works just fine thank you.



I know that's how you're looking at it. My point is that the playoffs as you seem to want to play them (i.e. everyone qualifies for the last event has an equal chance of winning) does an extremely bad job of determining who is a deserving winner. If you think of it as Playoff events, where there is one playoff series, making the points be decided over four events is a fairer way of determining your winner in a game like golf. It's why the world series isn't played over 1 game. Why do you suppose that is?




Says you. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of someone winning before the end if they deserve to.



Oh? What do you win for winning each game? Or is it just a better chance of winning the whole thing? If you win games 1, 2 and 3, what have you won? You've won games 1, 2 and 3, but no prizes, no world series, nothing of note. Unless you win a fourth. So how is each game an event in its own right? It's meaningless on its own. Ask the Red Wings.



That's how you think of them and that's your right. I'm merely suggesting that if you think of them as one series then it makes a lot more sense to have the points carry like they do.



Not my problem. I don't care about the football. Doesn't mean I can't complain about how they try to trick it up to compete. And making everyone start from the same point in the tour championship is tricking it up even more.



The same thing as the tour championship not having any impact on the fedex cup winner. If you win the first four games of the world series, no one cares what happens in games 5, 6 and 7, so much so that they don't bother playing them, because they don't matter. The Tour championship is an event of its own (where if you win it, you win something, unlike the dead rubbers in the world series) so they still play it. That's what I meant there.



I know that. I was saying that if they made the world series so that they always played all 7 games even if one team won the first 6 and then made the winner of the 7th game the winner, that would be like resetting the points to zero for everyone before the tour championship. The whole point of the 7 games is to reduce the chances of a freak winner (that and money). Why can't it be like that in golf? Where they play it over four events to reduce the chance of a freak winner?



Yes, it lists the barclays, the deutsche bank, the bmw and the tour championship. These are four events that together comprise the playoffs. the tour championship does not include the barclays, the deutsche bank, the bmw and the tour championship, therefore "the tour championship" and "the playoffs" are different entities. Not difficult I hope.



How does allowing 125 players to qualify do anything at all to reduce the chances of a freak winner?



I disagree. They may have shot the lowest score, but that doesn't mean they were the "best". At least not to my mind. Tiger is a better player than Heath Slocum. This is as true now as it was six weeks ago as it was during the week of the Barclays.



See previous.



I think he's trying to generate the same excitement. He has zero chance of doing so, but at least they are trying to even out the higher variances you get week to week in golf versus football.



Maybe they should.



If they make it so that they restate the points at the beginning of the tour championship, then they make it the same as all the other events through the season. Take baseball. The Yankees just swept the Red Sox the last three days. Good for them. What did they win for doing that? Nothing. Take golf. Stewart Cink shot the best score for four days at Turnberry in July. What did he win for doing that? He won the Open Championship. See the difference? In baseball, the world series is it. It's basically the only thing that they are playing for at the beginning of the season. The golf season is a whole bunch of world serieses. To tack another one on the end is stupid, unless you do something to make it a little different, which is I think what they're trying to do.



Besides that they get to play in it nothing. If you want me to sit here and say that I think the way that US sports do things is daft, I'm more than happy to. In England for football, they have two different things. One covers the season (The Premier League) which is won by the best team over the season and the other is a knockout event kind of like your playoffs (the FA Cup). To my mind (and maybe I'm just biased because of where I'm from) this is a much more sensible way of doing things.



so if someone wins the fedex cup before the tour championship, then that's the end of the fedex cup (at least so far as first place is concerned). They still play the tour championship because they have to determine the other positions, which obviously no one but the players cares about, and also they play the tour championship because it's the tour championship. My take on that is if that happens, then so be it.



If you want to see the last game, then you have to buy tickets to games 4, 5, 6 and 7 to make sure you get it.



Note the qualifier. So you don't know it's the last game. You only know it's the last game "IF" something.



Again here I was referring to the situation if you make the last event the be all and end all, which in golf terms doesn't make sense for the reasons I cited earlier.



I know the feeling.





Sorry I couldn't quote all of mine back at you. The board wouldn't let me. Now I have to go to bed.

Instead of diving into Semantics-O-Thon 2009®, what about another playoff idea?

There's no real home field advantage to earn by doing well in the regular season.

The way they've been doing the points bonuses (I would guess mostly to Tiger-proof the damn thing), it barely creates any separation (Hello, Heath Slocum!)

So what else is valuable to these guys?

Strokes!

Play all year to get into the playoffs and from then on, finishing well gets you a head start on the field for the next tournament. It'd be a great way for guys on the bubble to fight for some separation. You want to see an exciting battle for a spot nowhere near 1st place? How about a bunch of guys coming down 17 trying to get to 15th place for another bonus stroke?

Anyway, I'm sure there are a million holes in this in practicality, but to give players something real to play for, especially nearing the end of the regular season and through the first few rounds of the playoffs, it'd be pretty cool.

Anyway, back to playing "Who Knows Your Sports Terms".

I have a question. Do you find it difficult to be condescending when quoting Will Smith characters? I mean, on one hand, Hitch was really cool, smooth, full of self-confidence, and all that. But on the other hand, supplementing your arguments with his closer gives me the impression that you lack all that on your own.

Just wondering.