I understand it's one week shorter this year, but it's also instituting some sort of weighted scoring system depending on your ranking? I started reading and my eyes glazed over. Someone help out the layman fan please.
FedEx Cup Format
5,552 Views |
50 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Zombie
Their calculation has always been changing and confusing and IMO really undermines what they are trying to do with this format.
There is probably no way to work the math out on this right, but I think it would be cool to turn it into a match play event at some point, kind of like the NCAA tournament works. And maybe you use their ranking to give them an advantage. For example, guys toward the bottom are out after their first loss, where guys in the middle have to lose twice to be out, guys near the top need to lose 3X. Or maybe you use ranking difference to start players even, 1up, or 2up.
There is probably no way to work the math out on this right, but I think it would be cool to turn it into a match play event at some point, kind of like the NCAA tournament works. And maybe you use their ranking to give them an advantage. For example, guys toward the bottom are out after their first loss, where guys in the middle have to lose twice to be out, guys near the top need to lose 3X. Or maybe you use ranking difference to start players even, 1up, or 2up.
Will be interesting to see how the Tour Championship format works out. I like the concept as far as making the ultimate result very clear, but at the same time, it is certainly risking being a yawner of a tournament if one of those top guys getting a lot of strokes puts it together.
If the current standings hold, giving Brooks Koepka a 6 stroke head start on all but 4 guys in the field (which he'll have 2 strokes on those 4) is potentially setting the event up to be something no one will watch.
If the current standings hold, giving Brooks Koepka a 6 stroke head start on all but 4 guys in the field (which he'll have 2 strokes on those 4) is potentially setting the event up to be something no one will watch.
I agree with the premise that the last man standing should be the outright winner but I don't see the reasoning behind giving strokes.
The Wyndham rewards can be the "regular season" champ like a division or even conference winner in baseball or football but let the playoffs be just that. Over the course of three weeks, the top players whittle themselves down to the top 30 and the last man standing wins it all.
If you want to still do the strokes method, let everyone keep the strokes they've gained during the previous rounds and the final score after 12 rounds wins it.
The Wyndham rewards can be the "regular season" champ like a division or even conference winner in baseball or football but let the playoffs be just that. Over the course of three weeks, the top players whittle themselves down to the top 30 and the last man standing wins it all.
If you want to still do the strokes method, let everyone keep the strokes they've gained during the previous rounds and the final score after 12 rounds wins it.
My biggest problem with the change is it doesn't give everyone a chance to win. The last three years the tournament was won with -11, -12, and -12. If you are in the group that starts at -2 or worse you almost need every player in front of you to be E or over-par for the week to have a chance.
I would love some sort of elimination type format. Something along the lines of...seeds 21-30 play in the first round with the top two advancing, seeds 11-20 plus the two in round 2 with the top two advancing, and the final 12 players play 2 rounds winner take all.
I would love some sort of elimination type format. Something along the lines of...seeds 21-30 play in the first round with the top two advancing, seeds 11-20 plus the two in round 2 with the top two advancing, and the final 12 players play 2 rounds winner take all.
Oh man...you mean I wasted all that effort understanding Modified Stableford?
bodaciousbood14 said:
I agree with the premise that the last man standing should be the outright winner but I don't see the reasoning behind giving strokes.
The Wyndham rewards can be the "regular season" champ like a division or even conference winner in baseball or football but let the playoffs be just that. Over the course of three weeks, the top players whittle themselves down to the top 30 and the last man standing wins it all.
If you want to still do the strokes method, let everyone keep the strokes they've gained during the previous rounds and the final score after 12 rounds wins it.
But, being a regular season champ gets you an easier path to the finals. That doesn't happen in golf. I like rewarding in some way. Not sure the best way.
I like this new system
I dislike the FedEx cup so much. It means nothing. Too many players make it. There's no need in having 125 players in a "playoff". Is Jordan Spieth a "playoff team"? Are Sebastian Munoz, Martin Laird or Denny McCarthy? No.
Also then they just throw in this meaningless Wyndham Rewards which runs concurrently and is essentially the same thing. Can anyone clearly explain the difference or why there are two other than PGA got an additional payday.
And the points given out each week are so arbitrary.
Also then they just throw in this meaningless Wyndham Rewards which runs concurrently and is essentially the same thing. Can anyone clearly explain the difference or why there are two other than PGA got an additional payday.
And the points given out each week are so arbitrary.
It means something to the top players. Get to the tour championship, win the tournament, and get a $11,500,000 check
I think it'd be cool to keep everything the same, then have the tour championship consist of the top 32 players, build out a bracket and play match play to see who wins the $10mil
Huell Babineaux said:
It means something to the top players. Get to the tour championship, win the tournament, and get a $11,500,000 check
Except now you can win the tournament and still lose because of the handicapping system.
The Milkman said:Huell Babineaux said:
It means something to the top players. Get to the tour championship, win the tournament, and get a $11,500,000 check
Except now you can win the tournament and still lose because of the handicapping system.
You could already do that last year. Remember when tiger won the tour championship but didn't win the FedEx cup?
Yup. It sucked then too. Thats all part of the problem.watty said:The Milkman said:Huell Babineaux said:
It means something to the top players. Get to the tour championship, win the tournament, and get a $11,500,000 check
Except now you can win the tournament and still lose because of the handicapping system.
You could already do that last year. Remember when tiger won the tour championship but didn't win the FedEx cup?
I just think the whole thing is a sham, just like the Wyndham thing. Players dont care. Paul Casey was the only player in the top 10 of the Wyndham rewards points to even play in the "championship" last weekend.
Upped it to $15 mill this year. If Koepka plays well the next three weeks, he could very well bank $30 mill playing golf this year. Crazy.
Yeah, I don't mind the standings being significantly jumbled each week now. That's the whole point of it being a playoff. In fact, I'd be okay if they threw them out entirely and just gave players some sort of advantage based on their Fedex standings before the playoff.
Exactly.
The Wyndham rewards thing was designed to reward the regular season with a little something extra, and playoffs are designed to be much more valuable than regular season games. THAT'S WHAT PLAYOFFS ARE.
You can argue and debate whether or not you like playoffs or you think they're fair (I actually hate playoffs in a lot of instances and think they are ridiculous, but in some cases I love them), but you can't act surprised when a playoff acts like a playoff. No one acts surprised when a wild card team in the NFL gets to advance when they beat a team who beat them in the regular season.
The Wyndham rewards thing was designed to reward the regular season with a little something extra, and playoffs are designed to be much more valuable than regular season games. THAT'S WHAT PLAYOFFS ARE.
You can argue and debate whether or not you like playoffs or you think they're fair (I actually hate playoffs in a lot of instances and think they are ridiculous, but in some cases I love them), but you can't act surprised when a playoff acts like a playoff. No one acts surprised when a wild card team in the NFL gets to advance when they beat a team who beat them in the regular season.
Just looked at the scores for the first time today and thought...."holy s*** Justin Thomas is going off, oh wait he started at -10"
This is going to take some getting used to.
This is going to take some getting used to.
Does anybody really care about who wins the FedEx Cup? I only care about which golfer wins the actual tournament.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
RealTalk said:
Does anybody really care about who wins the FedEx Cup? I only care about which golfer wins the actual tournament.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
I'm super interested because of the payout. And this year the winner of the tournament wins the Cup.
They are one and the same now.RealTalk said:
Does anybody really care about who wins the FedEx Cup? I only care about which golfer wins the actual tournament.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
I'm not getting any of it so I don't care about the money. I would like to watch an interesting golf tournament and know who wins it. I watched for an hour or so and this is boring. I had assumed they would also be showing who was leading the actual stroke play but didn't see any of that while I watched. If 2 or 3 of the top 5 go low today the bottom 15 can just pack it in as far as having any chance to win.
I get that.watty said:They are one and the same now.RealTalk said:
Does anybody really care about who wins the FedEx Cup? I only care about which golfer wins the actual tournament.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
I meant in the context of describing a golfer's accomplishments. It's pretty much, "this golfer won this many majors and this many PGA Tour events...and oh yeah, he also won the FedEx Cup."
Right, no one cares... but at least from now on, it will just be "he won the Tour Championship." And I think people will learn to associate it as both "a tournament" and "that big season playoff win" at the same time, if that makes sense.
Whoever has the lowest score wins it. It's no different than car racing, where someone has an advantage to start.jja79 said:
I'm not getting any of it so I don't care about the money. I would like to watch an interesting golf tournament and know who wins it. I watched for an hour or so and this is boring. I had assumed they would also be showing who was leading the actual stroke play but didn't see any of that while I watched. If 2 or 3 of the top 5 go low today the bottom 15 can just pack it in as far as having any chance to win.
I love they are thinking outside the box.
I understand that. It's not interesting to me. Someone starting at even might shoot -20 and if JT shoots -11 he wins. I get it he had a head start. I'm honestly more interested in who has the fewest strokes this week than who wins how much money. The constant money talk in sports is the least enjoyable part of it.
FWIW, for OWGR purposes they are looking solely at who has the fewest strokes. So there is at least a little reward there. I do have issues with it counting with only a 30 man field, but that's another story.jja79 said:
I understand that. It's not interesting to me. Someone starting at even might shoot -20 and if JT shoots -11 he wins. I get it he had a head start. I'm honestly more interested in who has the fewest strokes this week than who wins how much money. The constant money talk in sports is the least enjoyable part of it.
It's literally one tournament, that took the whole season to qualify for.jja79 said:
I understand that. It's not interesting to me. Someone starting at even might shoot -20 and if JT shoots -11 he wins. I get it he had a head start. I'm honestly more interested in who has the fewest strokes this week than who wins how much money. The constant money talk in sports is the least enjoyable part of it.
Is it that hard to skip one week and watch the rest if it bothers you that much?
I like it too - and no one is running away with it as of now despite some early head starts. It's going to be a tournament with the best players in the world competing for a purse that is ten times the normal tour event. Not sure what part of that isn't enjoyable.ORAggieFan said:Whoever has the lowest score wins it. It's no different than car racing, where someone has an advantage to start.jja79 said:
I'm not getting any of it so I don't care about the money. I would like to watch an interesting golf tournament and know who wins it. I watched for an hour or so and this is boring. I had assumed they would also be showing who was leading the actual stroke play but didn't see any of that while I watched. If 2 or 3 of the top 5 go low today the bottom 15 can just pack it in as far as having any chance to win.
I love they are thinking outside the box.
Worked perfect. Stacked leaderboard and top 12 are within 5 shots after round 1.
RealTalk said:
Does anybody really care about who wins the FedEx Cup? I only care about which golfer wins the actual tournament.
"This golfer won a FedEx Cup and that's why he's better than the other golfer."......says no one ever.
Bill Haas, Jim Furyk and Billy Horshel have one the cup, so yea, I don't give a damn on keeping up with the "season long champ" .
As for the tournament, other than 2018 and 2003, I'd have to think long and hard on who actually won the Tour Championship most years. It's just not a tournament I've had much interest in.
#TeamSchauffele
Featured Stories
See All
FINAL from Olsen Field at BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M 13, Houston 11
by Richard Zane
7:21
9m ago
242
8:16
10h ago
2.1k
Dalton Hughes
"Big Ten will 'definitely' have Texas school by 2026"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
138