Fedex cup -success or farce

[Yerman]

Is the Fedex cup a farce as yet again the best player didn't win, or a success for the home audience as yet again an american won.

 

[USER1999]

It's a success, in that it has got the best players in the world to convene in the states, to play in a golf tournament, in the autumn, when there used to be a bunch of nothing comps no one played in or watched. I quite enjoyed it, and as I didn't win the money, I don't really care who did.

 

[thepodgster]

Is the rugby season a farce as the top team don't win it outright with the top four then playing each other.

Possibly makes it more exciting as it was still up for grabs otherwise Rory would have had it all wrapped up before that competition therefore potentially taking away some of the interest.

 

[Imurg]

Americans tend to win in America - there's probably more of them!

Who says the best player didn't win?
The best player won each tournament - it just happens that by winning the last one Sneds won the whole thing.
Makes him the best over the course of the Fed-Ex.........

Why does the best player have to win all the time?

 

[HotDogAssassin]

Is the rugby season a farce as the top team don't win it outright with the top four then playing each other.

The season - No
The method of award - Yes !

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I can't see the point of a play-off that wipes the slate clean before the last event. In general anything that prolongs the season so I can watch the best players after the USPGA which use to bring the curtain down on the PGA tour is a good thing for me

 

[rgs]

It is a bit of a farce in that McIlroy wins two of the four events whereas Snedeker wins one yet Snedeker is declared the winner. It needs to be adjusted. Maybe the points should be adjusted at the start of the fedex cup and not before the last event.

 

[d2cko]

Sport in America has always confused me.

I wonder if we'd be having this conversation if the tables were turned and Rory won the last event and took the title over Sneds who had won 2 play-offs?

 

[DappaDonDave]

farce...how can more points be given to a tournament with fewer players. How can some win 2/4 tournaments in the play off and not win.

Waste of time and energy. Plus the emphasis on the $10m is vulgar...in a time of a recession it's inappropriate. We know footballers are paid a fortune, but after the end of every game we don't show how much they earn running about or sitting on the bench!

On the other hand, made Westwood look like a handicap golfer.

 

[Jon321]

Farce. I don't think Rory should have had it in the bag, but after 2 wins in the 4 playoff events and a T10 and a T24 you would think that would be enough. If he had won 2 and come as low as possible to get through in the other two I could see the the argument for him not winning it. Usual Americans though, they love a playoff.

 

[bobmac]

They could just forget the whole fed ex thing altogether and just have one big tournament and call it the $11.4m Biggy.
That's what it is after all

 

[ScienceBoy]

The season - No
The method of award - Yes !

Works a treat for rugby league though, I adore the grand final, been many a time!

 

[One Planer]

I agree with Bob on this.

With the Fed-Ex being a series event, based on points accumulation, why are the points wiped for the final event

Take the world rankings, are they wiped before the last tour event and whoever wins it, is #1? Of course they don't it just wouldn't work.

If during the Fed-Ex series a player wins 2 or 3 events and coming into the final tournament, like Rory would have been, streets ahead and pretty much nailed on to win, well done to him.

Consistancy through the series would have been rewarded, similar to when Luke was #1 in the world rankings.

I also think the money involved is a bit daft as well $11.4M is just plain wrong. I would rather see it halved to $5.7M (Still too much I know) with the sponsor (Fed-Ex) making an equal donation ($5.7M) to a charity of the winners choice.

Just my opinions mind you :thup:

 

[StrangelyBrown]

They could just forget the whole fed ex thing altogether and just have one big tournament and call it the $11.4m Biggy.
That's what it is after all

It's a cultural difference twixt us Brits and the Americans. They love a bit of play off action, as they need the excitement. In the UK we can see the bigger picture, the long game if you will. Hence why our Race to Dubai is a proper season long tournament where the most consistant player wins.

If you look back before the start of the Fed-Ex cup I can see why it was created; Tiger Woods. He was so dominant, he won their money list so often that something else was required to excite the fans again.

 

[need_my_wedge]

Bit odd for me, money aside, it's kind of like playing 32 games in the Premier League, someone sitting 10 points clear on top before wiping all the points out and having one cup final to determine the winner, whereby the 5th placed team 20 points behind can win it if they beat the top team......

A league/ points series should be based on total points accumulated, man with the most points wins the prize, the rest get nowt.

 

[Region3]

I don't see what the problem is. Everyone knows how it works before it starts, and it's only a golf tournament after all.

Unfair? Last in the standings after the final tournament got $300,000.

I'm only guessing, but I think the points are wiped at the start of the final event (and the top 5 given a set amount of points) because people would be moaning about it being unfair if Rory (for example) won the final event but had no mathematical chance of winning the Fed-Ex cup because he was so far behind to start with.

Get in the top 5 before the final event and you win the Fed-Ex if you win the last event. Simple.

I liked Tiger's answer when he was asked if he'd worked out what needed to happen points-wise for him to win the Fed-Ex.

"No. Just win the tournament and everything else takes care of itself."

 

[Ethan]

It was a success for Brandt, for sure.

There is an inherent problem with this kind of format. You want to have some drama at at the end of the season, but you want to rig it so one of the best players of the year wins, so there is a tension between making it a foregone conclusion, and letting all the air out of the balloon, such as what happened in early years, or suspending the drama so that you stack the odds in favour of the best players but it is still only determined at the last event. The problem with the latter is when someone comes out of the pack, like Bill Haas last year. Nice enough guy and good player, but I am sure Tim Finchem wanted to shoot him. It is very difficult to get that tension right, because unlike football or basketball (which also have playoffs in the US) the best golfers only win a small minority of events and a player can win after not having won for months or years.

 

[dufferman]

I'm only guessing, but I think the points are wiped at the start of the final event (and the top 5 given a set amount of points) because people would be moaning about it being unfair if Rory (for example) won the final event but had no mathematical chance of winning the Fed-Ex cup because he was so far behind to start with.

They would complain that the best player of the tournament won it??

They may as well for get the whole playoff thing, as said previously, and just have one big event for the whole prize. Save watching the likes of Rory play is butt off then not win for being off for one day.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Why they don't do it as a mass stableford accumulating over 4 events, or even mass stroke play rolling over the 4 events is beyond me.

 

[cookelad]

I think the answer to the opening question is.....

Yes!