With Vijay Singh as a dead lock to win the FedEx Cup, I’ve realized that FedEx Cup 2.0 is also not bulletproof against a guy who will win half of the Playoff events. So, in an effort to make this thing slightly more exciting, I offer suggestions for Version 3.0 at Waggle Room.
In my monthly piece for Sports Central, I touch on how critical it is that the PGA Tour finds and defines a real identity for the FedEx Cup. After having gone to two extremes in the first two years, it may need to stick with one or risk diluting the point by going to the middle.
I have a post over at Waggle Room (cross-promotion!) on the realities facing the PGA Tour and its strong linkages to the financial sector in the context of an East Valley Tribune piece on FBR.
If you thought the LPGA Tour getting in bed with Bobby Ginn was dangerous, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Steve Dennis of the PGA Tour and Geoff Shackelford debate the subject on PGATour.com. Dennis is in favor of the current format for a few reasons – each week has meaning, generates a deserving champion, and keeps the stars in it. Shackelford disagrees because the format is tough to understand, there is little chance for a nobody winning, and eliminations in each tournament focus on the crappier players being whittled down to the elites.
For me, I think that the format is on the right path, but it still missing something. That something is a true sense of playoffs. The Tour did a good thing in making the points system much more volatile in nature by narrowing the points reset and increasing the number of points awarded per place in playoff events by 2000. That means that fringe players that perform will be more likely to pave a path to the lucrative Tour Championship and FedEx Cup bonus money.
The PGA Tour has taken the approach that the four events together should combine to determine the champion. I am of the mind, though, that the first three events should lead to a final chase for the cash in the Tour Championship. Players are gunning to get into the final 30 to get a piece of the bonus pool (FedEx Cup).
Why not continue the trend of having three elimination events and then attaching real value to the Tour Championship by clearing the slate? Have the thirty golfers battle for a chance to win the title without having to worry about finishing in a certain place to win. To win $10 million, a player should have to win a marquee event – primarily, the Tour Championship.
You can get there a lot of ways. You could have a 72 hole medal play event and the winner takes all. Boring format, but exciting. The Tour could adopt the LPGA Tour’s exciting ADT Championship format of having eliminations after every round – leading to a final round free for all for all of the cash. That’s being done already, though the event may die after this year and then it would be for the PGA Tour’s taking. Finally, the Tour could have 32 players in the Tour Championship and have a match play tournament.
Perhaps the best situation is a combination of these ideas. Wipe the scores clean for the 30 men who make the Tour Championship. They then play 36 holes on Thursday and Friday. After Friday, we knock it down to 8 players. On Saturday, there are two sets of matches – 8 down to 4 and 4 down to 2. On Sunday, there is one marquee match for everything. Can you imagine a close match play battle leading to a single putt for $10 million? WOW! And that’s what the PGA Tour has been hoping for from this format.
This hybrid format leads to the highest probability that Sunday in East Lake matters to determine the FedEx Cup champion. Last year, it was pretty much done by Saturday. Sunday was a coronation and boring for Tiger Woods. While the Tour may tell you that it would be more exciting were Woods not involved (like this year), the reality is that the format should be tweaked to account for the reality of Tiger’s dominance.
Look, I know the original intent of the FEC was to determine the best player. Guess what? That player may still be an injured Tiger Woods unless Paddy Harrington wins the FEC. So, the original intent can be shot and forgotten. The intent of the FedEx Cup SHOULD be to make golf exciting and relevant in September …football season. If there is genuine volatility, regardless of how dominant Woods is, fans will tune in to watch a $10 million putt. If people watch poker in droves for the money, they’ll watch golf for the same reason.
What makes a major? It is something we talk about every May now with the Players Championship. Tim Finchem wants to convince you that enough time has passed that the Players should be a legitimate fifth major – not just in moniker. Most of us laugh because that’s ridiculous that the presenter of an event could declare the event a major and expect everyone to accept that. It is also equally ridiculous that a Tour could declare any event as being a major championship.
Grant Boone filed his Grant Me This column pre-PGA, but I had missed it. Read it yesterday and loved it, particularly the part where he talks about how majors got to be that way on the PGA Tour side. Made me ask some fundamental questions.
First, (but later in the piece) a bit of a history lesson on defining the Grand Slam:
Bobby Jones valued the U.S. and British Opens and Amateurs — the oldest events in golf, even then — above all other championships and set out to win all four in the same year, which he did in 1930. That pursuit and achievement were awe-inspiring enough, but the legend grew because O.B. Keeler so eloquently dubbed Jones’ feat as “having stormed the impregnable quadrilateral.” Of course, most people didn’t have Keeler’s I.Q. so his moniker of those same initials didn’t really stick. But the idea of winning four big events in the same year did.
Which is why Arnold Palmer — whose first “Major” victory was at Jones’ Masters in 1958 — is reputed to have said sometime around 1960 that the modern I.Q. should be the Masters, U.S. Open, British Open, and PGA Championship. By then, time had allowed those events to calcify in their significance. In 1960, the British Open turned 100. The U.S. Open began in 1895; the PGA in 1916; and even the baby of the group, the Masters, had been around a quarter century. (Plus Palmer must have given special dispensation to the Augusta “tunamint” seeing as how its co-creator Jones, via Keeler, immortalized the notion of trying to win four big events in a single season.)
At that point, it was far more reasonable, not to mention easier to say and spell, for a baseball-crazed nation to latch on to “Grand Slam,” a term from Wagner’s world, the Major Leagues. But those guys got it right. They borrowed the term because it fit the number of major events — four runs score on a grand slam, four major tournaments — as opposed to adopting the idea, then scrounging up four tournaments you think will fit the bill.
It’s a good refresher, just like an Arnold Palmer – half iced tea and half lemonade. Boone uses this as ammunition against both the LPGA and Champions Tours in how they define their majors.
The LPGA has called no less than seven tournaments “Majors” through the years. Its current lineup consists of the Kraft Nabisco Championship (nee Dinah Shore), McDonald’s LPGA Championship, U.S. Women’s Open, and the aforementioned Women’s British, an event previously sponsored by Weetabix. Nothing connotes significance quite like breakfast cereal. (”It’s a major! No, it’s breakfast! You’re both wrong. It’s a major championship and a breakfast cereal!”) In 2001, with the old du Maurier in Canada increasingly wobbly in its sponsorship and finances, the LPGA yanked its “Major” label and slapped it on the Women’s British. Makes perfect sense. After all, the men’s Open Championship is a major. Except that one predates the American Civil War. The women’s version barely predates the Carter Administration. It’s not the specific tournament the LPGA chose that’s the problem; it’s the fact that they would think simply calling a championship a major actually makes it one.
The Champions Tour is worse. For one thing, they have five “Majors.” That’s more than one-sixth of the tournaments on the schedule. Some need to be stripped of that ranking, beginning with the three which have presenting or title sponsors. Generally speaking, the shorter the name of the tournament, the more prestigious it is. For example, the Masters. That’s it. Not the Masters presented by Krispy Kreme. The two most important events for players age 50 and over are the Senior PGA Championship (founded in 1937) and the U.S. Senior Open (1980). You can call them majors. I’m giving the others an honorable discharge.
And he also issues a beautifully written slam at the PGA Tour and the Players.
I’m not sure which is Dumb and which is Dumber: that a tour would suddenly prop up a particular tournament as a major championship or that they’d expect us as golf fans to treat those events with any semblance of gravitas.
In short, Boone seems to be of the mind – and I agree – that majors are defined by the players (not PLAYERS) and fans and writers. The golf public determines what is most prestigious in the game, not the organizations and corporations that present these tournaments. Perhaps in another twenty years, the next great golf phenom will redefine the modern Grand Slam. Maybe the Players will be in it. Maybe it won’t.
If you’re in charge of defining a major championship, then, what defines it for you? And, if you had to start over today, what four (and only four) events would be the majors?
I did not see this column yesterday, but it is in the Orlando Sentinel and is Josh Robbins’ Golf Confidential. In it, he talks about how the Golf Channel is seeing gains in viewership this year for their PGA Tour coverage.
[Golf Channel] executives point to Nielsen Co. data that show their network can enjoy modest growth even without Tiger. From last year to this year, the Golf Channel actually has seen a ratings increase of 5 percent in its hole-to-hole coverage of nine tournaments Woods didn’t enter in 2007 and couldn’t enter this year because of knee trouble.For the network, these are encouraging numbers. The statistics indicate that the Golf Channel has a core group of die-hard golf fans who will watch even without Tiger.
To some extent, I think you have to account for the increased number of homes to which the Golf Channel has access now that they are the home of the PGA Tour. That earned the network a lot of street cred. The question, then, is if this 5% is just because more homes get the Golf Channel, or the channel is increasing in popularity.
Either way, here’s something to take away from comparing 2007 to 2008’s PGA Tour telecasts.
At a time when broadcast networks are seeing less than 3 percent growth in PGA Tour viewership, the Golf Channel delivered an impressive 19 percent increase over its 2007 PGA Tour coverage with households and a 21 percent increase with its key demo, men 25 to 54.
Again, this may lend a hint to the increase in viewers for non-Tiger events. People finally realized that TGC is where to go for PGA Tour coverage and started getting access to it through satellite and cable.
Finally, from the second piece, something to prove why the Olympics will do nothing for golf.
[G]olf programming is watched by the most affluent television viewers, and the network has been ranked No. 1 in median household income six years running. Golfers not only aspire to play better, they aspire to achieve the better things in life.
Thomas Bonk must hate his job right now in delivering bone-shivering bad news every week to the golf fan about golf TV ratings. But, since I’m just a third party messenger, I feel ok about it.
Saturday’s third round of the WGC Bridgestone Invitational had a 1.5 overnight rating for CBS and Sunday’s fourth round had a 2.1. The women fared worse on ABC, with a 0.7 on Saturday and a 0.6 on Sunday at the Ricoh Women’s British Open.
The Women’s Open number isn’t really that bad. Bridgestone looks pretty bad, though I don’t have comparison numbers. I should really get that subscription to Nielsen, but I have no sponsorship nor the resources of major news operations. So it is Bonk you will get and nothing else.
Last year, Firestone yielded just one player to finish under par at the WGC Bridgestone Invitational. That was Tiger Woods and he won by a dominating eight shots over the field and, in the process, silenced Rory Sabbatini for good. The conditions were ridiculous and player complained.
This year, Tiger Woods was not available to win yet another World Golf Championship. The Tour, therefore, found it a perfect week to “experiment” with a concept that many amateurs love – lower height of the rough. The move was designed to let players miss off of the tee and at least have some reasonable opportunity to advance the ball to the green.
The experiment turned out to be a brilliant success. Twenty-six golfers finished under par for the event this year. Fans were treated to recovery shots from the players – Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh in particular – that were a sight to behold. It created more exciting golf from tee to green.
Unfortunately, though, it is pretty much impossible to cut the grass down any lower on the greens at Firestone. They are nuanced and fairly quick, but really not nearly as difficult as the players are going to see at Oakland Hills in next week’s PGA Championship. Still, despite their fairly benign nature, almost all of the contenders for the Bridgestone Invitational ceded strokes due to lackluster short games.
Phil Mickelson gave away the championship because of his inability to two putt following an inability to shape a bunker shot in line with green receptiveness to bunker play.
Lee Westwood has made a career of being solid from tee to green, but leaving the balance of a tournament only in doubt of whether or not he can make putts of any significant length. On Sunday, he really could not, and gave up an opportunity to force a playoff with Vjiay Singh on a simple putt uphill at the last hole.
The eventual champion, Vijay Singh, was simply dreadful for the entire week on the greens. Between four and eight feet, he made less than half of his putts for the week. That is embarrassing for a PGA Tour pro. On the Sunday back nine, Singh could have had the tournament wrapped up were it not for his lack of confidence in putting. He over-thought every putt and it almost cost him the title. The final putt to win the tournament practically ran around the edge of the cup before finally giving in to gravity.
This event was certainly compelling. But it was compelling for all of the wrong reasons. Only one man was playing great golf down the stretch. Stuart Appleby was that man, but he began his charge too late to rustle away the championship from undeserving contenders.
The outcome of the back nine at Firestone leads one to question what we are really getting in the absence of Tiger Woods from the Tour. Commissioner Tim Finchem was in the booth with CBS’ Jim Nantz to talk about the Tour sans-Tiger. Finchem alluded to the variety of intriguing storylines that now had a chance to receive real attention with Woods out of the way. He discussed Anthony Kim and wins by Kenny Perry as stories worth watching, and even drew in the duel between Singh and Mickelson.
If I were Commissioner Finchem, I would look at the product we saw on Sunday and be worried. Fans would much rather have seen another Tiger thumping than four guys play footsy to see who would win over a million dollars. The ratings will show that I’m not lying.
What is worse is for the PGA of America. The PGA Championship is generally considered the weakest of the four majors despite about a decade of improvements to the championship rotation. It is the last major and most players are simply gunning to get a major in without Woods in the field. Depending on Woods’ rehab, this may be their last shot for a while to do just that. That may cause some inspired and desperate play, but if that play is of the caliber that we saw at Firestone, then fans can expect an over par winning score for the 90th PGA Championship at Oakland Hills.
Steve Buffery of the Toronto Sun was at the Canadian Open to cover the event for the paper, just like a hundred other guys and girls were. In an interesting swerve, though, he wrote a column talking about what it’s really like for the media to cover a golf event. It’s so spot on that I had to share it.
If you’re a reporter, Canadian Open week was mostly about sitting in the media tent and stuffing yourself with old tuna sandwiches, gross coffee and stale potato chips. And after it’s all over, a few beers to wash it down.
And people wonder why sportswriters tend to be sweaty mouth-breathers.
I did go on the Glen Abbey course and walk some holes with the leaders a few times, but every time I stepped anywhere near a fairway, it poured rain.
And so, for the majority of the tournament, we sat in the tent, passed wind, and made fun of everybody and everything — like the dude sitting behind my colleague Ken Fidlin and I. About every 15 minutes he would call someone named Sara and yell into the phone: “Well Sara, Chez Reavie is still holding a five-stroke lead over Anthony Kim, after picking up a birdie on 15 … blah, blah, blah.” (A golfer named Chez. There’s a stretch.)
Anyway, after the guy called Sara for about the 15th time, Fids turned to me and said, “I don’t know who this Sara is, or why he has to call her with updates every 15 minutes, but, man, is he ever whipped.”
Turns out the dude was a radio guy. He was loud, though.
This happens at almost every golf event. There’s a radio guy providing updates for syndication, or a sports talk station, or a news station. That happened here in the DC area for the AT&T National with WTOP Radio and SportsTalk 980 (now ESPN 980).
Then Buffery gets into some observations on the golf fan that I enjoyed:
I actually enjoyed wandering around the Glen Abbey grounds, observing the crowds and wondering to myself what it is about golf that compels conservative, middle-aged white guys to dress like pimps, with their blue pants, orange shirts and multi-coloured fedoras.The other thing I noticed about golf fans? They’re the biggest bootlicks in pro sports. I realize that fans love their athletes and, as a society, we tend to put more stock on a guy who is good at hitting a little ball than someone who performs life-saving brain surgery. But golf fans are just too much.
Every time one of the golfers hit a ball off the tee, the fans would yell: “Great shot Stephen!” or “Way to go Mikey!” followed by a revered gasp. The ball would fly into the trees or land in a bunker and the fans would all stand there looking ridiculous. And the golfers, most of whom make white bread look exotic, would walk away mumbling to themselves.
It is quite interesting to see the disparity between the constant exasperation of pros inside the ropes and the over-exuberance of drunk guys that are walking around the course. Those same guys, usually, are somehow alone – or at least without female accompaniment. The good looking women are usually following the young guys around the links. And the pros notice good looking women. If you’ve read Chris Lewis’ The Scorecard Always Lies, you’ll know that the term for those women is “talent.” (Also, this may explain why guys dress like pimps and goofs.)
I saw an interview with Hunter Mahan over at golf.com (and is in the latest edition of Golf Magazine). I didn’t know much about the guy before this interview other than he is a talented golfer. He seems to shoot from the hip, though, and I like that about him.
Most interesting to me is this part of the interview.
Most of you guys still aren’t household names. If Tiger pulled an Annika and decided to retire, the Tour would be in deep trouble, no?
Monumental trouble. The Tour would never admit it but they need Tiger way more than Tiger needs the Tour. It’s tough — people don’t know the younger players. If you ask most fans following a tournament to write down who they know, they’ll write Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods.So shouldn’t the Tour do more to promote up-and-comers like you?
Personally I think they do a lot more for the international players. They try to get Camilo [Villegas] out there as much as any player I’ve ever seen, basically because while he’s good-looking and young, he’s also Colombian. He’s Latin. They don’t do the Americans many favors.Do you feel slighted?
Yes and no. I understand where the Tour’s coming from. They want as much parity from different countries as possible so they can hit each market and gain as much money as they can. But when it comes to American players they don’t do as much as they could. As in anything, money talks.
Interesting that Mahan feels that the Tour could be doing more for their American players not named Woods and Mickelson, especially considering that the Tour has done so much to dig its trenches in the United States. I understand that there is a lot of money to be made by marketing international players that come to the States to play. But, does that money make up for the fact that most people have no clue who is going to be on the Ryder Cup team?