Dennis1, responding the FedEx Cup suggestions post here takes us to task for not covering Tiger's final "snub" of Tim Finchem at the closing ceremonies:

"Am I the only one that noticed the snub Tiger Woods gave Tim Finchem during the presentation of the Fed Ex Cup. Finchem handed the cup to Tiger and said that it had never been kissed, implying that Tiger should kiss the cup. Tiger looked at the cup but wouldn't kiss it. This was Tiger's way of showing his disdain for the way the FedEx Cup was crammed down their throats. I thought it was intended for all of us to see the tension between Tiger and Finchem. I Haven't seen any mention of this in magazines orsports pages. Are you guys afraid to print this story?"

"I thought it was pretty obvious watching the presentation that Finchem very much wanted Tiger to kiss the trophy and Tiger was making a point of not kissing it," said one...

In general, Tiger does not like to be pushed or forced to do anything, so this was his naturally contrary nature at work. But I also think he was sending a messag from himself and the players that the FedEx has not yet earned the kiss until some changes are made. As far as no coverage, I've seen it in several stories (Ferguson asked Tiger the question in the victory press conference and Tiger laughed it off), but perhaps it fell through the cracks at Golf World. "Snub" might not be the right word, but Tiger definitely defied Finchem.

Not quite, said another tour regular. Tiger's dissatisfied with aspects of the FedEx Cup, especially the deferred compensation, but this was not defiance.

He smooches the hardware when he wins majors. Don't know if he puts his lips on anything else that is awarded on an 18th green. As Finchem goes, I'd rate their relationship as a 4 on a 1-to-10 scale.

Not the hugs-and-kisses level for sure.

--Bob Carney

One of our readers has suggested that getting the tour players' attention for the FedEx Cup is simple. Make it winner take all. Actually, that reader's also a playing editor: Phil Mickelson. "Like the World Series of Poker," he says. "I think it would be cool."

Add that to the suggestion box. MulliganStu on Waggle Room takes the idea one step further. Make it winner-take-all and make it match play.

The three "playoffs" are played back-to-back-to-back, but then there's a one-week break - just like the week off prior to the Super Bowl - before the Tour Championship. That week break gives every golfer a chance to rest after at least three straight weeks of golf. It also gives the hype machines a chance to go into overdrive, as they do during the off-week before Super Bowl Week.

And there'll be plenty to hype, because the format of the Tour Championship will be so different.

First, the top four players in the FedEx point standings will get first-round byes. That makes those top four spots much more important than they are under the current format. It (along with the week off prior to the Tour Championship) provides incentive for golfers to play all three preliminaries.

Ok, but Stu acknowledges a big issue with his system: The winner of the last event may not be the FedEx Cup points winner. That's a problem. The other problem is (banish the thought) Tiger or Phil or Ernie, even with a bye, might be knocked out early. There goes the finale.

Let me suggest something really radical: Maybe this thing is working. Evidence: Tiger's into it, and yet he's not got it locked up. Stricker and Sabbatini have raised their games and would love to sneak that first Cup away from Tiger. There are a couple of others who could bring down Goliath. So we'll be watching this weekend. (If you went to Michigan, as I did, you might want to catch every minute on Saturday, too).

But a friend of mine who spends some time with the players thinks there is one issue in the "playoffs" about which the players won't talk: pro ams. Put bluntly, he asks, do pro-ams belong if these are really the playoffs? Is there something else we could do for the amateurs at this time of year?

Maybe a version of the East Lake Clinic (or the PGA Championship's champions clinic) is an idea that sticks.

--Bob Carney

Like the Bowl Championship Series in college football, the FedEx Cup "playoff" system is a solution crying out for another solution. In fact, a cynic would say both were designed to make us talk about them forever--and, of course, make endless suggestions for fixing them. Here's Dave Riffey of Shell Lake, Wisconsin, offering a very straightforward fix:

There is an easy solution to all the big boys skipping out on the Fed X Cup events....   MAKE ALL OF THE ORIGINAL 144 START FROM SCRATCH...EVERYONE STARTS WITH ZERO POINTS....   THEN YOU WOULD SEE A REAL PLAYOFF !!!   JUST LIKE ALL OTHER SPORTS AND THEIR PLAYOFFS...BASEBALL ...FOOTBALL..HOCKEY...TENNIS..ETC.  

Okay, Dave, it came through much clearer because of the all caps. But I'm not sure your idea will do it. As BTE says in a comment here yesterday, how do you convince guys who have multi-millions and want to see their kids make their first I-phone call that $10 million counts, be it deferred, annued or just spent on Bentleys?

Here are suggestions kicked around our water cooler, with their accompanying complications:

1. Allow the big guys (Top Three?) to sit out the first week. (Please keep that a secret from the folks at Barclays until a few minutes before the event.)

2. Rotate the first tournament among the Barclays, the Deutsche Bank and the BMW, and make it a "play-in" tournament that the very top players would not have play. As in, the Rose Bowl will mean zilch this year, but next year it will lead to the national championship game." Hire a Marine platoon to deliver the message to the first "play-in" event. Corollary: Rotate the Tour Championship among the four events.

3. Allow the big guys to choose one week to sit out. Interesting that this year Tiger, Ernie and Phil picked different weeks to throw Tim Finchem under the bus. Almost makes you think it was planned that way-- if it hadn't been for the press conferences the Commissioner had to endure.

4. Make everybody play all four. If you miss one, you might as well miss them all: You're gone; no chance to make any of the $63 million. Let the spouses provide consequences. ("Excuse me. You did what so that you could see who off on her first school bus?!!! Have you completely lost your mind?!")

5. Space out the four events, buying room to do that by asking the PGA to move the PGA Championship back and the Ryder Cup forward. Sell combined PGA Tour/NFL ticket packages. On second thought, never mind.

6. Eliminate one event. Three players will be fine with that. You may get a comment or two from the other fellows.

Number 3 looks better and better. Top three players are each allowed to choose one event they don't have to play. Player ranked No. 1 chooses from A, B or C event. Player No. 2 goes second and chooses from remaining two events. Player No. 3 gets the remaining week off.

Commissioner doesn't have to do any press conferences.

--Bob Carney

LEMONT, Ill.--Two weeks ago it was Tiger. Last week it was Ernie. This week it's Phil missing one of golf's lucrative "playoffs." Lots of talk here in Chicago about why one of these great players would miss a chance to earn some large piece of $63 million. We'll get letters suggesting that they're spoiled. We already have. We members of the media will stoke that a bit, as demonstrated by this exchange today with Commissioner Tim Finchem,  at the BMW Championship.

Q: Did you ever think you'd see the day where you would put up $63 million in prize money over four weeks and guys would be bitching about it?

Finchem: I don't think they're bitching about it. I wouldn't characterize it that way.

Q: Whining?

Finchem: We've got $28 million in cash and $35 million that's going into players' deferred accounts. I think thats--our job is to take actions and make decisions that are in the best interests of the tour players generally and the fans, and I think that's what we've done in this case. Can it be done differently? When you stand back and look at--you guys are taking a couple comments here, and I understand that, but when you stand back and look at the import of what these comments are about, these, again, are not fundamental questions.

Translation: The thing is OK, but players didn't pay attention when we explained it  and now they aren't happy. We may do something about that. In the next two months--Finchem's timeline--some "heavy lifting" (because contracts are in place) may be done to:
a) reschedule next year's events so that they are not four consecutive weeks;
b) reconsider the deferred compensation and possibly replace it with a mix of cash and deferred or all cash, or
c) make sure we have some formal meetings with the players so they can no longer say, as Ernie Els did Wednesday, that "unfortunately, no, they did not express anything to the players. They asked....questions but they didn't come out and say, 'OK, look, this is what we're going to do. What do you think?' It was all about---you know, it wasn't directly asked. . . . "

Q: Including the deferred $10 million first prize?

Els: The $10 million deal was a big deal. I don't think Tiger knew about it. Phil didn't know about it. I didn't know. When we heard about it, we thought, geez, that's unbelievable. It still is, but it's we're going to see that money hopefully 20, 25 years down the line.

Hey, this is  golf's version of the Bowl Championship Series,  the  BCS.  It will be debated endlessly, every year, whether it does or it doesn't change. Somebody will always be unhappy.  But we're talking about it, aren't we? And as with the BCS, the final result can make all things right.  In these four weeks, how many finishes will we get like last week when Phil and Tiger went down to the wire? And who will win that first Cup in Atlanta?

--Bob Carney