FedExCup Nightmare Scenario
By Kickntrue on 8/26/09
Did you know Tiger can win the first 3 FedExCup events and still not win overall? Depsite the fact that going into the first of 4 FedExCup events Tiger is leading by over 33% over second place (3,431 points to 2,155 for 2nd placed Steve Stricker) and has 5th placed Lucas Glover doubled up- because the points reset after the 3rd event, Tiger would lose if someone in the Top 5 after 3 events wins and Tiger finishes out of the top 5. The PGA Tour made changes to the FedExCup after Vijay Singh had the event wrapped up before heading to the final event last season.

There has to be some line though, right? Can you imagine the outcry if anyone won 3 straight playoff events and then didn't win overall? Fortunately for the PGA- Tiger will not play in 4 straight events, so they'll at least have an excuse, but I think it's hard to make a case that he shouldn't still have it wrapped up if he'd win 2 of them.

Amazingly- what I cannot find anywhere is info on the PGA's site about how points are actually determined. Seems shady.

FedExCup Home

[ comments ]
Banker85 says:
very shady.... i like watching golf but this is just golf hopped up on advertisements. the majors are where it counts bottomline.
tburchell says:
"Can you imagine the outcry if anyone won 3 straight playoff events and then didn't win overall?"
On that point, they should have just given the Patriots the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, since they were undefeated before that game, right?

Why bother playing in the first 3 then, other than warming up for the Tour Championship? I'm glad the final tourney actually determines the winner, at least it has some meaning. The benefit of points leaders is not having to grind in the final weeks before the end-all, like first-round playoff byes in other sports.
jwilder78 says:
Like jesshunt said, the only thing that matters are majors. So my recommendation would be to take everyone who finished T10 or higher in any of the 4 majors and construct a 5th tournament called The Grand Championship, or something corny like that. Then you'd have a very prestigious field of about 40-50 players competing for a solid title at the end of the year. And the majors themselves would become the playoffs. They could still play the Barclay's, etc., as usual, but it would just be like any other tournament (as it should be).
nickmomrik says:
@tburchell You can't compare winning golf tournaments to winning a football game. In a football game there is winner and a loser. In golf you have 50-100+ individuals all competing for a win.

Someone may have a good year on the PGA Tour and never win a tournament. I'm a Lions fan, but I would never say they had a good year in 07-08.
nickmomrik says:
Or 08-09 ;-)
Shankapotamus says:
I don't follow Nascar and I know absolutely nothing about it but it seems golf could model their playoffs after whatever they do. They have a bunch of competitors every week and they still have their big events like golf that are very important but fans/drivers seem to care who wins the title at the end (I think it might even be called the cup like FedEx Cup). For all I know, it's a runaway every year but I think the leader going into the last race has historically at least had to compete in the final event.
blackhawk says:
Fed Ex playoffs are a joke. That said, I will watch this weekend because I want to see the course. (Too bad it's private.) If you want to see who the top players are this year, I posted on the upcoming tournament forum the top 25 point earners in the majors,Players and WGC events only. I included non-PGA players like Henrik Stensen and Lee Westwood. To be the best you have to beat the best. There is one more event this year now that the HSBC championship is a WGC event.
jm32 says:
The difference for Nascar is that all events are equal in points value. The top 12 teams are reset for the final push and race for points over 10 races. Not the insane world where The Masters and all other majors are only 600 points for a win and the Barclays is 2500. Would anyone argue that someone who won the Grand Slam was not hands down player of the year?
mjaber says:
Is there still a cut after the 2nd round @ the Barclays?
Backquak says:
I think the playoffs should end with a championship match play event. That would solve the problem of winning 3 and not the cup problem. The brackets would be determined by the points, so the players would want to have as many points as they could to keep the best position in the bracket.
erickbelus says:
I agree that the Fedex Cup is a joke, and that all the players saying it's a huge deal is just lip service. It would be better if it were 4 weeks of match play put together bracket style and your YTD points seeded you. Keep winning and keep playing. That's how real playoffs are supposed to be. Convoluted points systems are for the BCS.
Figs says:
I like the match play idea but I'd still prefer the first 3 tournaments as they are - maybe go from Top 120 down to Top 75 down to only the Top 30 playing in the 3rd event. Then, for the 4th event, have an 8 player match-play tournament - 36 holes a match. The problem with a huge match play event is that you'd get another tournament like the Accenture match play where you could easily have two low seeds playing in the finals. With only an 8 player match play, you have time to hype it and you could actually see the best two players remaining at the end.
mjaber says:
How about we take the winner of each of the playoff events and do a skins game to crown the champ?
[ post comment ]
    New Products
    Caption This
    World Am
    How Bizarre!
Most Popular: