The Future of the Fedex Cup/Changes/Revisions/Media Speculation for 2019 and beyond

[Mr. 82]

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/doug-ferguson/sources-major-overhaul-headed-fedexcup/

 

Starting next year, the number of playoff events will be reduced from four to three. The Northern Trust will rotate each year between Liberty National in Jersey City and the TPC Boston, followed by the BMW Championship and then the Tour Championship. The size of the field is reduced each week until 30 reach East Lake in Atlanta.

 

Five people aware of the discussions say FedExCup points will not be involved in the final playoff event at East Lake. Instead, the No. 1 player would start the Tour Championship at 10 under par, with scores to par staggered depending on the 30 players' position in the standings.

The winner will be the FedExCup champion, and the bonus is expected to be more than the current $10 million prize.

That means whoever gets the 30th spot at East Lake would have four rounds to make up as many as 10 shots. The change eliminates the awkward moment – and divided attention – of one player winning the Tour Championship and another winning the FedExCup, which happened last year for the second time.

The PGA Tour last year announced a 10-year extension for the title sponsorship of the FedExCup, an important deal because it gave the Tour's postseason continuity for another decade. PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan said last year he expects the bonus pool – previously $35 million with $10 million for the winner – to increase.

 

I'm not sure why they reduced the playoffs from 4 to 3 events.  The change from eliminating points at the Tour Championship to basically giving the leader a 10 shot lead seems odd to me, but that's an interesting twist on an already strange anti-climactic ending to the PGA Tour season.

 

Is it just me or is the Tour Championship a mere afterthought?  I mean, using last year as an example, is Xander Schaufelle's life changed by winning the Tour Championship, versus one of the four majors, as an example?

 

And considering that the likes of Billy Horschel won the Fedex Cup, perhaps that's a driving force in wanting to blow this whole thing up and start over?

[GolfSpy_BNG]

I could see reducing the number of tourneys but not giving the leader a 10 shot lead over 30th. If there is any truth at all to these changes, they just as well eliminate the playoffs and do one tourney for it all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[GB13]

I get reducing the number of tournaments. They want to make sure all of the big names play in all of the playoff events.

I am not opposed to the 10-under start. This will give you a much bigger incentive to play in the first playoff events. It also makes it a lot simpler for the average fan who doesn't have a super computer trying to figure out who is leading the darn thing. It takes it from crazy math problem with 100000000 different variables to a simple winner take all event.

It also gives 30th a much bigger chance to win the FedEx cup. Currently 30th needs to win and have pretty much everyone in front of them come in reverse order of their ranking.

At least now everyone has a legitimate chance.

[DPattGolf]

I like the general idea. I just think I would like to see the guy in 30th have a slightly less overwhelming lead to over come.

[TheWahoo]

Regardless of its future structure, I think the Fed-ex tournaments will continue to serve their intended purpose-to keep the top players on the course after the last major is concluded until football season starts.     Moving the PGA Championship and reducing to three events enhances such purpose.  

[chemclub]

I get reducing the number of tournaments. They want to make sure all of the big names play in all of the playoff events.

I am not opposed to the 10-under start. This will give you a much bigger incentive to play in the first playoff events. It also makes it a lot simpler for the average fan who doesn't have a super computer trying to figure out who is leading the darn thing. It takes it from crazy math problem with 100000000 different variables to a simple winner take all event.

It also gives 30th a much bigger chance to win the FedEx cup. Currently 30th needs to win and have pretty much everyone in front of them come in reverse order of their ranking.

At least now everyone has a legitimate chance.

 

This ^^

 

The causal fan (heck even the committed fan) doesn't bother crunching the fedex cup points. I can see the appeal of wanting to have the winner of the final tournament as the overall winner—it's just simpler.

 

While I'm not sure how they arrived at the 10 stroke advantage, you also don't want to make it too easy for the 30th best to unseat one of the top 10.

[Berg Ryman]

Here's the one question I have, how will the stagger work at the Tour Championship? I assume it'll be tiered, but where do those tiers get cut is the bigger question. Here's my potential look.

 

#1            -10

#2-5         -9

#6-8         -8

#9-11       -7

#12-15     -6

#16-18     -5

#19-21     -4

#22-24     -3

#25-27     -2

#28-29     -1

#30          E

 

That way, you finish super consistent throughout the year, you have a real shot at East Lake, you squeak in... the shot is there. Hell, I'd even say you wouldn't need to go crazy with bonus points for the playoff events like they do. Score the two playoff events like a WGC instead of these massive bonuses that cause so much shifting.

 

If it's a year-end event, which is really what it is as the Tour Championship and FedEx Cup would in all practicality merge into one entity for purposes of competition, why should the two events previous to the final be so indicative of who can win it?

[DPattGolf]

Here's the one question I have, how will the stagger work at the Tour Championship? I assume it'll be tiered, but where do those tiers get cut is the bigger question. Here's my potential look.

 

#1            -10

#2-5         -9

#6-8         -8

#9-11       -7

#12-15     -6

#16-18     -5

#19-21     -4

#22-24     -3

#25-27     -2

#28-29     -1

#30          E

 

That way, you finish super consistent throughout the year, you have a real shot at East Lake, you squeak in... the shot is there. Hell, I'd even say you wouldn't need to go crazy with bonus points for the playoff events like they do. Score the two playoff events like a WGC instead of these massive bonuses that cause so much shifting.

 

If it's a year-end event, which is really what it is as the Tour Championship and FedEx Cup would in all practicality merge into one entity for purposes of competition, why should the two events previous to the final be so indicative of who can win it?

What about a starting score system based more on how many points back of 1st you are rather than purely your placement in the FedEx rankings?

[Mr. 82]

Since apparently the PGA Tour has gone off the deep end with these crazy ideas, why not go this direction with the Tour Championship.  Take all 30 players cumulative under par score for the entire year, and they get to start there when they tee off at East Lake.  Hypothetically, with 20 events someone can average about 10 under par, so they start with a running total of -200.

 

Hmmmm....now wouldn't that be interesting.  I wonder how dudes would factor that into every tournament they played if that sort of system were implemented.  I can just imagine, "meh, I'm 15 shots out of the lead, but let's go out today and shoot lights out, because I'll need these 3 extra birdies for the Tour championship.

 

Lol.  This whole thing is insane.  The only thing missing is the clowns mouth.

[Berg Ryman]

What about a starting score system based more on how many points back of 1st you are rather than purely your placement in the FedEx rankings?

 

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? I assume that the tour wants a streamlining to create a similar effect as the current point structure while making it easier to the casual viewer to understand.

 

Let's tease this line out though. Andrew Landry is currently 30th, 2492 points behind Bryson DeChambeau. Let's cap your structure the following ways. Everyone within 1000 points of Dechambeau starts at -8, 1500 gets you -6, 2000 -4, 2250 -2, the rest E

 

Tier 1: Bryson

 

Tier 2: DJ, JT, Finau

 

Tier 3: Koepka

 

Tier 4: Rose, Day, Bubba, Webb, Phil, Cantlay, Reed, Molinari

 

Tier 5: Billy Ho, Wise, Cam Smith, Rahm, Kizzire, Na

 

Tier 6: Casey, Stanley, Fowler, Fleetwood, Leishman, Woods, Reavie, Perez, McIlroy, Hadley, Landry

 

The problem I have with this approach compared to mine is that you aren't rewarding guys for having great seasons. There is no advantage from finishing anywhere from 20-30 in the FedEx Standings. At least with the approach I've listed above it still rewards the overall season you've had with a slightly better chance to win at the end and still strikes at what the playoff's were supposed to do in the first place, reward consistent play throughout the season.

[chemclub]

What about a starting score system based more on how many points back of 1st you are rather than purely your placement in the FedEx rankings?

 

I can see the logic in your system but I think they already tried this in a way.

 

They reset points for the tour championship precisely because they didn't want someone to come in with such a point total lead that they almost didn't even need to play in the tour championship to win. 2008 VJ won it before the tournament was even played.

[GB13]

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? I assume that the tour wants a streamlining to create a similar effect as the current point structure while making it easier to the casual viewer to understand.

 

Let's tease this line out though. Andrew Landry is currently 30th, 2492 points behind Bryson DeChambeau. Let's cap your structure the following ways. Everyone within 1000 points of Dechambeau starts at -8, 1500 gets you -6, 2000 -4, 2250 -2, the rest E

 

Tier 1: Bryson

 

Tier 2: DJ, JT, Finau

 

Tier 3: Koepka

 

Tier 4: Rose, Day, Bubba, Webb, Phil, Cantlay, Reed, Molinari

 

Tier 5: Billy Ho, Wise, Cam Smith, Rahm, Kizzire, Na

 

Tier 6: Casey, Stanley, Fowler, Fleetwood, Leishman, Woods, Reavie, Perez, McIlroy, Hadley, Landry

 

The problem I have with this approach compared to mine is that you aren't rewarding guys for having great seasons. There is no advantage from finishing anywhere from 20-30 in the FedEx Standings. At least with the approach I've listed above it still rewards the overall season you've had with a slightly better chance to win at the end and still strikes at what the playoff's were supposed to do in the first place, reward consistent play throughout the season.

If you are within 250 point of one another, has your season really been too much better than the other players?

 

I do like you system better though, it gives a better spread throughout the field. There is a greater variance than having four guys with a big lead and 26 other trying to chase them down.

[Mr. 82]

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? I assume that the tour wants a streamlining to create a similar effect as the current point structure while making it easier to the casual viewer to understand.

 

Let's tease this line out though. Andrew Landry is currently 30th, 2492 points behind Bryson DeChambeau. Let's cap your structure the following ways. Everyone within 1000 points of Dechambeau starts at -8, 1500 gets you -6, 2000 -4, 2250 -2, the rest E

 

Tier 1: Bryson

 

Tier 2: DJ, JT, Finau

 

Tier 3: Koepka

 

Tier 4: Rose, Day, Bubba, Webb, Phil, Cantlay, Reed, Molinari

 

Tier 5: Billy Ho, Wise, Cam Smith, Rahm, Kizzire, Na

 

Tier 6: Casey, Stanley, Fowler, Fleetwood, Leishman, Woods, Reavie, Perez, McIlroy, Hadley, Landry

 

The problem I have with this approach compared to mine is that you aren't rewarding guys for having great seasons. There is no advantage from finishing anywhere from 20-30 in the FedEx Standings. At least with the approach I've listed above it still rewards the overall season you've had with a slightly better chance to win at the end and still strikes at what the playoff's were supposed to do in the first place, reward consistent play throughout the season.

Maybe you missed it, or were just speculating without mentioning it, but the article did mention that the regular season top 3 players in the Fedex Cup would get a check after the regular season ended, something about splitting $3 million or something like that.

 

So they are apparently factoring in the regular season points leaders - at least the top 3 anyway, and then we reset for the playoffs and go from there.

 

Honestly, let's just call this whole thing what it is, a glorified money grab.  If you ask any of the players, to a man, what their goal is for the year, I'm quite certain that 100 our of 100 players would say, "win a major".  And not that I'd ever have a chance of this, or even dream of playing in any of them, if you asked me if I had my choice of one thing to win as far as professional golf goes, I'd say "The Masters" 10 times out of 10, and it's not even close.  I mean, just ask Freddie Couples or Larry Mize if they'd prefer to trade their green jacket in for $10 million from the Fedex Cup.  You might get some very nasty expletives from them, and just about every other Masters winner in that regard.  Well, at least that is my prediction on a conversation like that in how it might go down.

 

Put another way - Patrick Reed has a green jacket, and Billy Horschel has a Fedex Cup in seemingly each players only premier event that they have won to date.  Who would you say has the greater glory, and the longer lasting legacy?  Bottom line, no one gives a crap about the Fedex Cup, and everyone in the golfing world knows who won the Masters.  Heck, Danny Willet may never win another tournament as long as he lives, but everyone will know he won the Masters, because 30 years from now we'll still see him on Thursday and Friday at Augusta teeing it up.  Same deal with Trevor Immelman.  Dude is sitting in a TV studio now, but don't you know he'll be there every April to tee it up and miss the cut at the Masters.

[TheWahoo]

 

The problem I have with this approach compared to mine is that you aren't rewarding guys for having great seasons. There is no advantage from finishing anywhere from 20-30 in the FedEx Standings. At least with the approach I've listed above it still rewards the overall season you've had with a slightly better chance to win at the end and still strikes at what the playoff's were supposed to do in the first place, reward consistent play throughout the season.

I tend to agree with you, especially since Fed-ex and the broadcasters like to tout that the Fed-ex Cup is a "Season long event".    After the first events of the year, they show the Fed-ex standings as if anyone really cares or that they actually mean anything.   I had just assumed that they had figured out how they wanted it structured.   In the initial years, they made two changes, one to keep players from skipping tournaments and to assure like Vijay, no one wins the cup prior to the Tour Championship.   

 

Permit me to ask:  Currently, what holds more interest to you-the Fed-ex results or who will be on the Ryder Cup team and how will the US team do.   I will admit, that the Ryder Cup team and their play is of more interest to me.  To me. the Fed-ex tournaments are just season ending events where the winner gets a lot of money.

[DPattGolf]

The problem I have with this approach compared to mine is that you aren't rewarding guys for having great seasons. There is no advantage from finishing anywhere from 20-30 in the FedEx Standings. At least with the approach I've listed above it still rewards the overall season you've had with a slightly better chance to win at the end and still strikes at what the playoff's were supposed to do in the first place, reward consistent play throughout the season.

I think you have misinterpreted my suggestion. I would argue mine actually would reward those having good seasons more by giving both a run away FedEx Cup leader a fair lead (that isn't always just 1 stroke) based on their dominance but conversely in a season where the guy 20th in the FedEx Cup Points won't penalized out the gate by being given a standard 6 shot deficit of a guy who they aren't all that far behind based on the season they have both had. A system like this would be able to be fluid and dynamic to fit each individual season appropriately. 

 

Now if your purely just wanting a simpler system for the casual fan to be able to grasp incredibly easy, than I don't think you really aren't trying to find the true best and most fair solution.

[DPattGolf]

I can see the logic in your system but I think they already tried this in a way.

 

They reset points for the tour championship precisely because they didn't want someone to come in with such a point total lead that they almost didn't even need to play in the tour championship to win. 2008 VJ won it before the tournament was even played.

In a starting score system though you still need to play the event and just about no lead is safe for 4 days without being earned. Also if you have a great season where you have racked up a ton of points and have a big lead, you clearly have earned the right to start the tournament in a format like this with more than just an arbitrary 1 shot lead.

[downlowkey]

Patrick Reed has a green jacket, and Billy Horschel has a Fedex Cup in seemingly each players only premier event that they have won to date.  Who would you say has the greater glory, and the longer lasting legacy?  Bottom line, no one gives a crap about the Fedex Cup, and everyone in the golfing world knows who won the Masters.  Heck, Danny Willet may never win another tournament as long as he lives, but everyone will know he won the Masters, because 30 years from now we'll still see him on Thursday and Friday at Augusta teeing it up.  Same deal with Trevor Immelman.  Dude is sitting in a TV studio now, but don't you know he'll be there every April to tee it up and miss the cut at the Masters.

 

Trevor "Dude" Immelman came out of the booth to shoot (-15) in the 2018 Scottish Open, his T-3 a single shot shy of _earning_ an Open Championship bid.

 

A perfect demonstration of both the razor thin margins at the top of this game _and_ the pitfalls of painting with broad strokes of hyperbole.