Golf playoffs catching on

[Kilroy]

It may just be that somebody needs to splat an octopus on one of the greens at East Lake in Atlanta, dump ice water over commissioner Tim Finchem, or the folks who televise next week's Tour Championship could air hilarious, new commercials between shots to kickstart playoff passion on the PGA Tour.

More...

[quinner]

Up to this year, I haven't really cared about the playoff / Fedex Cup, but I must say without having a clear cut winner, I was pretty intrigued watching yesterday's round to see who was getting bumped out and who was getting in.

I am actually excited to watch next weeks Tour Championship to see if the top five can pull it off. I am definitely jumping on the wagon and routing for Dustin Johnson.

[Shivas Irons]

I think the so called 'play-offs' are catching on, but also, there seems to be a plethora of good young players emerging this year, Dustin being one of them.

[mpare]

I confess to being completely uninterested in the Fedex Playoffs. I just don't like the way the winner is determined. I'd prefer a system that dropped more players more quickly in the preliminary events and in the small field final event, the winner of that tournament would take home the first place Fedex cheque. I can't get excited about a non-winner in the penultimate event being declared the winner. Winners win. They don't place or show.

[Eldred]

Interesting point. Can you provide examples on how the playoff format should be? The current system does provide a small field where top 5 have realistic chances. If this was poker, these top 5 are already going in with pocket pairs of aces, kings, queens, jacks and 10s in that order. (and these hands were earned from the previous rounds) The rest of field are required to not only win, but win with 4 of a kind which would nullified every one else.
BTW: this is my first attempt to debate Mr. mpare, I hope I have enough references and arguements.

I confess to being completely uninterested in the Fedex Playoffs. I just don't like the way the winner is determined. I'd prefer a system that dropped more players more quickly in the preliminary events and in the small field final event, the winner of that tournament would take home the first place Fedex cheque. I can't get excited about a non-winner in the penultimate event being declared the winner. Winners win. They don't place or show.

[mpare]

Now, that was funny. As for what that playoff system would look like, I haven't thougt about it much. To some extent, it could resemble the present set up, save that in the final event, the winner gets the 10 million. The others get whatever lesser amounts are deemed appropriate. This does no injustice to winners of earlier events since they get the winners cheques for those preliminary events as they do in any other tour event. Players would bust a gut to get into that final cashspiel, and would play for keeps once in, because every person in that limited field would have a chance of winning the big prize. That to me is a better way to go.

... BTW: this is my first attempt to debate Mr. mpare, I hope I have enough references and arguements.

[bobblehead]

Didn't the LPGA have this format where the winner gets all the money and there is a cut after each round. Not sure if they still have this tournament.

[Hacker]

Now, that was funny. As for what that playoff system would look like, I haven't thougt about it much. To some extent, it could resemble the present set up, save that in the final event, the winner gets the 10 million. The others get whatever lesser amounts are deemed appropriate. This does no injustice to winners of earlier events since they get the winners cheques for those preliminary events as they do in any other tour event. Players would bust a gut to get into that final cashspiel, and would play for keeps once in, because every person in that limited field would have a chance of winning the big prize. That to me is a better way to go.

Come on!!

You know that you want the top 128 involved in a massive match play for the Tour Championship and the 10M.

#1 plays #124, #2 plays #123 etc.

After each round the losers are eliminated and the seedings are redone with the highest remaining seed playing the lowest etc.

Now THAT would add some drama to the play-offs and it would also make guys want to finish as high as possible during the "season" so that they can get the easiest possible draw in each round.

[mpare]

Nice try, but match play is not what I had in mind. As for easy draws in match play, I don't think there are any since any player on the tour can win against any other player in a single match. In a way, that's why I favour stroke play over 4 days for the $10 million.

Come on!!

You know that you want the top 128 involved in a massive match play for the Tour Championship and the 10M.

#1 plays #124, #2 plays #123 etc.

After each round the losers are eliminated and the seedings are redone with the highest remaining seed playing the lowest etc.

Now THAT would add some drama to the play-offs and it would also make guys want to finish as high as possible during the "season" so that they can get the easiest possible draw in each round.

[Slicer&Dicer]

If the Top 5 have a realistic chance, then why do they have 30 in the field for the last event?

If everyone doesn't have a realistic chance, then this is ridiculous as far as playoffs go.

[mpare]

My point exactly. This isn't NASCAR after all.

If the Top 5 have a realistic chance, then why do they have 30 in the field for the last event?

If everyone doesn't have a realistic chance, then this is ridiculous as far as playoffs go.

[quinner]

Now, that was funny. As for what that playoff system would look like, I haven't thougt about it much. To some extent, it could resemble the present set up, save that in the final event, the winner gets the 10 million. The others get whatever lesser amounts are deemed appropriate. This does no injustice to winners of earlier events since they get the winners cheques for those preliminary events as they do in any other tour event. Players would bust a gut to get into that final cashspiel, and would play for keeps once in, because every person in that limited field would have a chance of winning the big prize. That to me is a better way to go.

But like you said Winners win...so if you do what you explained you could have a 30th place person essentially take the 10 million when they haven't won a thing all year. You are essentially going to end up with an earlier fall series where the guys that are well within the top 30 not playing because they don't need to and the guys that have a chance will be playing every week leading up to the final event. How does that change anything other than you are going to possibly have weaker fields leading up to the "final event"?

I am not saying that the current system is perfect, but I struggle with people who believe that it's not working. I feel as though this conversation will be around for a long time.

[Slicer&Dicer]

But like you said Winners win...so if you do what you explained you could have a 30th place person essentially take the 10 million when they haven't won a thing all year.

Well, it's like that in Baseball, hockey and probably a lot others.

As long as you make it to the playoffs, shouldn't you have a chance to win the playoffs if you play exceptionally well?

Otherwise, if you follow your thinking then only the previous winners coold win the playoffs and so only they should be in it, otherwise the others are just wasting time, theirs and ours.

Just my two cents.

[mpare]

But they have won something. They've won the right to be in the final 30. And why should prior wins earlier in the year, for which they were paid I might add, give them an upper hand on taking the $10 million. In my world all they've done previously gets them into the final show. What they do there is what determines whether they win the $10 million. In short, final performance counts. That's the way I like it.

But like you said Winners win...so if you do what you explained you could have a 30th place person essentially take the 10 million when they haven't won a thing all year. ...

[Shivas Irons]

I'm among those who think it would be better to have a complete reset of the points for the top 30 players, and whoever wins takes the 10 million.
Still, having players playing to get into that top 30 certainly made last weeks BMW more interesting.

[quinner]

But they have won something. They've won the right to be in the final 30. And why should prior wins earlier in the year, for which they were paid I might add, give them an upper hand on taking the $10 million. In my world all they've done previously gets them into the final show. What they do there is what determines whether they win the $10 million. In short, final performance counts. That's the way I like it.

???...then why have trophies or cheques then...make it all for not, have the four majors and onetime tournament where all 700+ ranked players have a chance to win 10 million and let that be it. Are you saying that someone who has won tournaments and / or played well through the whole year shouldn't have more of an advantage over other players that have been just doing enough to make it through to the next round? In any other major sport they give the advantage to the higher ranked team. If you use your logic above then all playoff formats are flawed.

[mpare]

You're mixing apples and oranges. My altered Fedex Playoff system does not diminish the value of victories through the season, nor does it undermine the value of performing well generally through the year. After all, individual tournament winners receive their winner's cheques as well as the various accolades and exemptions that may come with victory. At the same time the manner in which an individual performs through the year is important because the top rated golfers are allowed to play in the initial Fedex Cup event. If you've played poorly through the year, you don't get in. But you're right, apart from its effect on amassing qualifying points, my system gives season tournament winners no advantage once they enter the Fedex Cup Playoffs. The only way that you advance in my system is to perform in those tournaments. If you don't, then you'll be culled from the reduced field for the next event. In that regard you understand me absolutely correctly. My system is a perform or perish playoff. Your past performance means nothing save that it assure your entry into the initial field.

As for whether the playoff systems for other sports are flawed, I'll reserve comment on that for another thread. I will say, though, that my system is not beholding to the manner in which other team sports (which golf isn't) choose to configure their playoffs.

???...then why have trophies or cheques then...make it all for not, have the four majors and onetime tournament where all 700+ ranked players have a chance to win 10 million and let that be it. Are you saying that someone who has won tournaments and / or played well through the whole year shouldn't have more of an advantage over other players that have been just doing enough to make it through to the next round? In any other major sport they give the advantage to the higher ranked team. If you use your logic above then all playoff formats are flawed.

[corchard]

I think 5 days, 36 holes a day cumulative score should determine the winner. 180 holes to separate the best from the riff raff.

Sponsored by Aleve.

[Brewcee]

I agree with match play, but don't see anyway it could work from a fan engagement standpoint since it would take too long. I don't think the world match play does all that well tv wise.

I think the PGA should somehow come up with a team format (do it by sponsor i.e team Nike, Titliest, etc ) and do as NCAA does, stroke play with 3 best counting on a 5 person team (or some variation). Set aside a series of events throughout the year for team play. Turn fedex cup playoffs into team playoffs, leave the majors for the individuals. Get the money up to some ridiculous amount like 50 million and give 10million per player on the winning team.

I would watch someone lining up a 10 foot putt, not only for his own 10million, but for 10 million of 4 other guys money as well - thats pressure.