The Local Knowlege

Is This Fast Becoming A Lose-Lose Proposition?

Fedex_cup
On a rainy Tuesday before the PGA Tour's inaugural FedEx Cup playoff series, you could do a lot worse than to run into Tom Pernice, one of the tour's deepest thinkers and most outspoken veterans. Questions about the playoff format have taken on new meaning with the absence of Tiger Woods, who will skip this week's gathering at Westchester CC after saying for months that he planned on playing in all four events.

Unlike last November, when he was extremely critical of Woods for missing the season-ending Tour Championship, Pernice had a more pragmatic viewpoint on Tiger's latest no-show. "We need to have regulations that will make everybody play," he said. "We're all independent contractors, per se, but we tend to hide behind that too much. It ultimately comes down to Tim [commissioner Finchem] needing to be stronger."

When Woods announced last Friday that he wouldn't tee it up at the Barclays, he had, however intentionally, dealt several blows to the credibility of the postseason structure. The whole idea of this four-week finale was to get a full commitment from all of the game's best players. You weren't supposed to be able to win this thing unless you played in every tournament. If the concept doesn't resonate with the world's top golfer, why should even hardcore fans feel obligated to care?

The big loser here is Barclays, a financial institution that has spent millions of its advertising dollars with the tour. Television ratings obviously will suffer without Woods in the field -- this happens to be the only playoff event covered by CBS, which has become the tour's largest and most important network carrier. "How can you get Tiger to be passionate about our tour and act in everybody's best interests?" Pernice wondered aloud. "I don't think there's an easy answer to that."

There is also the embarrassment factor. Woods actually made a commercial promoting the playoff series, whistling "Eye of the Tiger" as he laces up his spikes in the locker room before heading out to battle. The tour has promoted its new end-of-summer shindig excessively, operating under the premise that sponsors, networks and golf fans would get the best it has to offer for an entire month.

That isn't going to happen. Woods will play next week in Boston and the week after that in Chicago, but with five victories in 2007, a victory list that includes his 13th major title and two more WGCs, he has basically locked up Player of the Year honors before the playoffs have started. He doesn't need the $10 million in retirement credit that will go to the playoff-series champion, but if he wins two of the three remaining playoff tilts, he's likely to claim the top prize, anyway.

Bottom line? A guy who can find motivation in a kernel of popcorn seems to be suffering from a lack of incentive when it comes to the postseason. "We can't promise that everybody's going to play unless we have regulations," Pernice added, referring to everyone who might have been counting on Woods' unconditional commitment. "At some point, Tim has to sit down with Tiger and Phil [Mickelson] and find out what they want to do, because this thing won't work without them."

--John Hawkins

Comments

Archived Comments (16) Click to expand

Don't blame Tiger: The FedEx concept is unrealistic when it expects the top players to go from the Bridgestone to the PGA, have one week off, and then four consecutive weeks of the FedExCup Series. From a fan's perspective I would like to see Tiger play in all four events. But as a businessman, I would hate to have a similar schedule of seven almost consecutive weeks of meetings of the Board of Directors, for each of which I had to be at the top of my game.

Posted by dave August 22, 2007 10:31 AM

I think Finchem has known all along that Tiger (or Phil) was going to skip one the four events. Why else would you call something a playoff if you're not required to play and can still move on?

TF should be thankful that TW is skipping the first one. A funnnier scenario would be if Tiger played and won the first three events and didn't show up for the Tour Championship.

Posted by galantin August 22, 2007 1:25 PM

Some of the arguments about Tiger playing would be valid if not for one thing: a system like this is what he and Phil were lobbying for two years ago. And Finchem claims he consulted the top players, included Tiger, every step of the day, and I've never seen any of them refute that.

Tiger's being a bit disingenuous for flexing his muscle to force this change in the Tour format, then not honoring it.

Posted by fhoward August 22, 2007 2:11 PM

most major playoff formats (like the nfl) offer a bye for the top seeds.

why is this such a big deal?

tiger is the best player in the world. If he came to all 4 events, and won them, people would be turning off the tv for the championship anyway.

My guess is that the only reason he is even participating is that he wants "Tiger Woods" to be the first name on the trophy. After that, who cares.

Good for him for taking the week off. He earned it. Hope he cleans up on the rest, and walks away with the trophy.

Then I hope the pga get a grip and stop copying nascar, and come up with something that makes more sense, like 4 weekends of match play, win or go home.

"Playoffs" are sudden death. Lets see how the golfers like that format.

Posted by dadsgolfing August 22, 2007 3:10 PM

While there is no doubt the TOUR has to look at the format of the FedEx Cup, this is just the beginning. All the focus here has been about Tiger Woods. He has brought the TOUR to unchartered waters for the past 10 years. Thanks to him, the television contracts have been extremely lucrative. The players are rich and believe me, very grateful. Thanks to Mr. Woods.
The FedEx Cup will not survive. The TOUR has a more pressing issue at hand.
Tiger Woods is quickly approaching Jack's record. When he breaks this record and atags a few majors on for pride, what is going to keep him interested in competitive golf. NOTHING! The TOUR tries everyday to promote their younger stars, but let's face it, they better hope Tiger has a boy real soon.

Posted by leftandright August 22, 2007 5:41 PM

I do not know how much more Tiger can do to improve the lot for the rest of the PGA Tour players. The increased interest in the Tour, which he has single-handedly driven, has made millionaires out of previously $150K per year guys. Everybody is riding on his coat tails. They should recognize it and be happy about what Tiger has done for them.
In Pernice's case in particular, over his career, how many tickets have ever been sold to people wanting to see him play? How many fans have turned on the TV to watch him play?

Posted by vcanseco August 22, 2007 7:01 PM

just look at mr woods no show as receiving a bye week for being number one in the ranking. It seems to work for other sports

Posted by basil14157basilgriffinniskeylakeroadatlantaga30331 August 22, 2007 8:14 PM

Yes Tiger is a big draw but he has the right to golf when he wants to golf. If they are counting on Tiger to carry every golf tournement, the PGA had better figure out how "get by" without Tiger. I think it makes all the other top golfers feel like crap when all they do is talk Tiger, Tiger, Tiger!!!

Posted by alongiron August 23, 2007 10:01 AM

To repeat myself ... it was Tiger and Phil who pushed for this formt and a shorter season. The Tour gave Tiger what he wanted, and he still blew them off. If he thinks he's bigger than the Tour (and he might be) he should resign his membership. He could still play in the majors, the World Golf Championship events (which are based on the World Golf Ranking) and The Players Championship (with a world ranking provision). That's eight. He can receive seven sponsor exemptions as a non-member of the Tour. That's 15. He's only playing 15 or 16 per year anyway.
He should quit pretending -- or start supporting the Tour.

Posted by fhoward August 23, 2007 10:54 AM

Why is everybody still searching for solutions? The solution was long out. This was suggested by none other than Phil Mickelson more than a year ago. Suprised it did not get generate much buzz.

Every year the tour desinates about 12-15 events a player must play. If a player does not play then he forfeits his membership. This way we are guranteed to see Tiger + Phil + everybody else together for these 15 events. To be fair, every year we rotate the courses.

I'm so tired of hearing the "independent contractor" talk. Just because they are contractors does not mean they can do whatever they want. Nobody seems to wear shorts on course just because they are "independent contractors". Contractors, like in any business are governed by rules and regulations. This requrires the commissioner to flex his muscles and runs PGA just like any Other CEO in the country.

David Su
Ashburn, VA

Posted by dajiang August 24, 2007 4:50 AM

All PGA players should shut up their mouth and play the game they have chose for their living, period. Tom Pernice is really NUTS and living in colonial era.As it is, the whole issue of money they are earning are not in the inerest of ordinary people who work day to day to just survive.What I am trying to say here, is, the media should also stop hyping the issue.THERE IS NO ONE AT THE PRESENT TIME TO CHALLANGE TIGER WOODS.BLESS HIM FOR YOUR FORTUNE AND GRAB(NOT EARN)THE MONEY WHILE YOU CAN.

Posted by simbagame August 24, 2007 6:05 AM

It's very hard to get interested in a playoff system that hasn't a defined winner except for the annuity. That's all these guys need is more money. The season is over as to the player of the year. Who is going to top his record for the year and beat his place as number one on the money list. The season is over guys. What has happened is that the tour has expanded to large money events (World Tour and Invitationals) that have restricted the number of participants and given the top earners ( not the best players) more money to separate them from the rest. I think that only full field events (144) should count toward the points list and the others should be relegated to silly season events for money only. Finchem has created a wealthy tour and players do not have to win to make a very good living, consequently "these guys are not good", only richer and unable to beat Mr. Woods. I like having the hungry guys rising up to beat Goliath. Finchem has also created the World Tour that plays in this country. What is that? They say they are playing against the best players when some foreign players are at the top of their tour but not competitive against lower ranked players not invited.

Posted by realgolffan August 26, 2007 11:49 AM

My question is this: if the winner of the British Open is called the world champion irrespective of how little else he wins for that year, why is there a problem if the winner of the FedEx cup is called the top golfer of the year whoever it is that wins.

Does it really matter either way.

Posted by ellisg2000 August 26, 2007 3:45 PM

The British Open thing ("the champion golfer of the year") is their feeble attempt to try and define the best player just because it's the oldest major and the Royal and Ancient believes that gives them the right to set the agenda. But no one thought Todd Hamilton or Ben Curtis were the best players the year they won the British.

As far as the FedEx Cup goes, it would be hard to imagine a better tournament and a better finish, even with Tiger in the field. When the last group made the turn Sunday, about 10-12 players were within three shots of the lead. They included Mickelson and Els. Choi made bombs from all over the place, Stricker birdied four of his last five, etc.

The media, impatient folks that they are, need to quit demanding instant results. It will take this year and maybe a few more to see how the FedEx Cup goes. But this week was a good begining.

Posted by fhoward August 27, 2007 9:06 AM

Just like other major sports have tweaked their playoff formats (NFL, BCS, NASCAR) as the owners/players/etc. figured out how to work the system, the PGA can as well. But it first must decide what are the most important attributes of the playoffs. Is it to crown/name the best PGA Tour Player? If so, then design into the format/system some sort of BYE system that allows the highest ranked players the option to skip an event of their designation. Or is it most important that their best players (or most popular) play the maximum number of events? If so, then rather threaten w/cancellation of membership, deduct points from their ranking (say 25%) to let the players decide if it's worth it; or give a week break in between events (like between 3 & 4 like the NFL used to be between the playoffs and the Super Bowl).

And those are just a couple of examples... but the most important thing is for the PGA to decide what is the most important thing that the fed-ex cup is supposed to represent...once that is done, a system can be designed around it.

As another thought, does anyone really believe it should be called a playoff? Mathematically, the 144 seed could win all 4 events and not win the fed-ex cup (if any of the top 5 finish in the top 5 of each event)... unlike the NCAA basketball tournament where the 65 seed does in fact have a real legitimate shot at becoming national champion if they win all their games.

Posted by pmcary August 27, 2007 5:57 PM

Just like other major sports have tweaked their playoff formats (NFL, BCS, NASCAR) as the owners/players/etc. figured out how to work the system, the PGA can as well. But it first must decide what are the most important attributes of the playoffs. Is it to crown/name the best PGA Tour Player? If so, then design into the format/system some sort of BYE system that allows the highest ranked players the option to skip an event of their designation. Or is it most important that their best players (or most popular) play the maximum number of events? If so, then rather threaten w/cancellation of membership, deduct points from their ranking (say 25%) to let the players decide if it's worth it; or give a week break in between events (like between 3 & 4 like the NFL used to be between the playoffs and the Super Bowl).

And those are just a couple of examples... but the most important thing is for the PGA to decide what is the most important thing that the fed-ex cup is supposed to represent...once that is done, a system can be designed around it.

As another thought, does anyone really believe it should be called a playoff? Mathematically, the 144 seed could win all 4 events and not win the fed-ex cup (if any of the top 5 finish in the top 5 of each event)... unlike the NCAA basketball tournament where the 65 seed does in fact have a real legitimate shot at becoming national champion if they win all their games.

Posted by pmcary August 27, 2007 5:58 PM
Post A Comment

The latest on golf digest

Close

Thank you for signing up for the Tip of the Week newsletter.

You will receive your first newsletter soon.
Subscribe to Golf World
Subscribe today

Golf Digest Rewards

Golf Equipment: 3Balls.com - New and used golf equipment

Sign-up for Golf Digest's Above The Cut