(From RealClearSports)
Dear Tiger:
Some of your celeb friends are worried about you. They're wondering if you're getting sound advice.
Well, we know we can reach you even if you turned off all your phones - because you're gonna read this. So here's the best piece of advice for you:
Get a divorce, now.
(And come back play some killer golf.)
Your marriage is beyond saving. There have already been reports that Elin wants to end this thing. You should agree with her and let her go. She's really the only victim here (and maybe your kids) and she's suffered enough.
It's obvious your marriage at this point is in a shambles. Elin is furious at your betrayal, but we get the feeling that you haven't been a happy camper for some time, either. More than a few of your flings have mentioned that you're miserable, and we suspect they're not all lying.
Maybe you rushed into this marriage thing because your handlers wanted it to burnish your image or you felt it was the right thing to do. But you're at a point where you can't carry on like this. Remember, a sham marriage only works if there is equal utility for both sides (see Clinton: Bill and Hillary). That's not the case here.
So here's what you need to do:
We're pretty sure you have an iron-clad pre-nup, and since you live in Florida, you're probably in good shape. But you should be magnanimous: Give Elin 100 mil as a parting gift. For good measure, send her $1 million a month for child support.
If she wants the new digs in Jupiter Island, let her have it. The same goes for "Privacy" the boat, the Gulfstream, whatever. You can always get new ones.
Ending your marriage is the best thing you can do right now. Your sponsors are jumping off your wagon. Your approval rating is sinking faster than Obama's. But the one thing you can't allow to take a nosedive is your standing as the world's best golfer.
The biggest threat to your future well being isn't your crumbling marriage, but this accusation that you're associating with a doctor who is tainted by HGH and PED. People will eventually forgive you for running around on your wife (it's America, after all), but they, and what's left of your sponsors, will abandon you in a heartbeat if you turned out to be a cheat on the playing field.
Steiny's response to the New York Times on the question of Dr. Galea was beyond amateurish (did he really think the NYT would get off your back because he asked them to "give the kid a break?" Didn't he learn in PR school about the Pentagon Papers and how that worked out for Nixon?). You're gonna have to come out and do some damage control on your own. You'll have to stand in front of the press throngs and cameras, and deny any and all of this, unequivocally.
But you don't want to do that until your infidelity mess is squared away, which is understandable. That's why getting a divorce, like tomorrow, is a must.
Divorces don't end careers, in sports or otherwise. Lance Armstrong and Andre Agassi did OK after their first marriages broke up. Ronald Reagan became the leader of the free world even though things didn't work out with Jane Wyman. We could go on.
And after getting a divorce, you can feel free to play the field if that's what you want to do. Then whoever you're sleeping with is just gossip, not a scandal. It also doesn't mean you have to stop being a father. Given that you have complete control of your schedule, you can spend as much time with Sam and Charlie as you're willing.
Get this thing done. Stop groveling to Elin. That's just so not you and besides, she deserves so much better anyway. End it amicably (put in a mutual no-disparagement clause so nobody will get an idea about a book deal down the road). But most of all, quickly.
Come back to do the one thing you love to do more than any other: Play golf. The only way you're going to redeem yourself is on the golf course. At the end of the day, your legend will be about catching and passing Jack, not how many times you were married and how many skirts you chased.
You just need to be decisive. Act quickly and do it with no regrets. That's perfectly within your character.
To quote one of your former sponsors:
Go on, be a Tiger.
Sincerely,
Your Real Friends
Showing posts with label Golf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Golf. Show all posts
17 December 2009
22 July 2008
Missing Tiger ...
(From RealClearSports)
Let me just say that I'm a golf junkie. I watch. I play. I play it on my video game. I talk about it incessantly. And I used to be a golf columnist, too.
Let me just say that I'm a golf junkie. I watch. I play. I play it on my video game. I talk about it incessantly. And I used to be a golf columnist, too.
I was always annoyed by the Johnny-Come-Lately golf fans who only care about golf when Tiger Woods plays. C'mon, people, I say, golf's been around for a long, long time before Tiger came around, and it will do just fine with or without him.
It never occurred to me what Tiger meant to golf until he's not playing. Last weekend, he missed a major tournament for the first time since he turned pro in late 1996. And his absence was palpable. I still followed the British Open with interest, but it just wasn't the same.
You don't realize what you're missing until he's gone. You don't appreciate his importance and magnificence until he's conspicuous by his absence. And then I ran across this song ... well, it just about said it all.
Get well soon, Tiger ...
11 January 2008
Kelly Girl in a Back Alley
Is being stupid a firable offense?
If so, then Kelly Tilghman most definitely should lose her job as the lead anchor on the Golf Channel telecasts.
Let's be honest, even before she uttered those six infamous words about Tiger Woods: "Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman had dubious credentials to get the gig after the PGA Tour inexplicably signed a 15-year deal with the Golf Channel.
Ironically, the first and foremost reason for Tilghman to be chosen was her too-chummy and cozy relationship with Woods. She forged a friendship with Tiger after having many opportunities to interview him during tournaments when she served as a reporter for the Golf Channel.
Tilghman is always deferential toward Tiger on the air, nary a negative word or inference. She would frequently substitute "The World No. 1," or "the best golfer in the world," for Woods' name. While technically not wrong, her actions betrayed an unprofessional amount of worshipping. And it is perhaps fitting that she spewed out her ill-advised attempt at humor during yet another moment of Tiger Kiss-Ass.
Secondly, she got the job because she's a woman, and a pretty one at that. Anyone who disputes this is just being dishonest or naive. There was a virtual silence from the predominantly male golf media members immediately after the incident. It was no coincidence, to a man, they were all wishing this would've gone on unnoticed.
I say "to a man" because besides the esteemed Ann Miller (Honolulu Advertiser) and Melanie Houser (PGATour.com), the golf media is one big fraternity. And the guys generally like Kelly because she's a good-looking woman who's also a nice person. The boys wanted to be chivalrous and cut her some slack by maintaining silence.
And what of the Tour? As the entity that signed on with this outfit for 15 years, don't you think Tim Finchem and Co. at least express their displeasure? Not a word.
The fact that this entire episode almost went on unnoticed reflected the abysmal ratings PGA Tour events have recorded ever since the Tour ditched ESPN in favor of the Golf Channel. Almost nobody watches it.
Unfortunately when the good Rev. Al Sharpton got the wind of this, it wasn't gonna get swept under a rug. The Golf Channel at first was only going to issue a reprimand -- and three days after it happened. After ESPN, no doubt indulging in a bit of Schadenfreude, made this a national story, TGC had no choice but to hand down a more severe punishment: Two weeks suspension.
It's not enough. Not nearly enough.
You think if Roger Maltbie or Mark Rolfing said this, they'd skate with a two-week suspension?
Never mind that Tilghman is not a racist and probably felt horrible about making such an idiotic comment. The point is: She's in way over her head at a job she should never have gotten in the first place. Frankly, she's quite incompetent. And making such an absurdly offensive comment only illuminated how ill-suited she is for the job.
And it doesn't matter that Tiger "forgave" her quickly, as opposed to in 1997, when he famously let Fuzzy Zoeller twist in the wind for several weeks after Fuzzy's "friend chicken and collared greens" wise crack. This is now bigger than Tiger. Tilghman's remark may not seem much to Tiger, it is deeply hurtful and offensive to a lot of folks, particularly African-Americans.
She should be kicked out of the broadcast booth and be returned to Orlando for "Golf Central" telecasts. People have been fired for less so she should consider herself lucky that she still has a job.
But TGC is banking on the two-week suspension to take the edge off the story. And when she returns to the booth at Torey Pines, Tiger will be making his first appearance of the year. He'll put his arm around Kelly and tell her that everything's fine and that he doesn't understand what the big fuss was. Tilghman will be giddy as a schoolgirl, smiling and giggling as the pathetic sideshow unfolds.
That's why nobody watches the Golf Channel.
If so, then Kelly Tilghman most definitely should lose her job as the lead anchor on the Golf Channel telecasts.
Let's be honest, even before she uttered those six infamous words about Tiger Woods: "Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman had dubious credentials to get the gig after the PGA Tour inexplicably signed a 15-year deal with the Golf Channel.
Ironically, the first and foremost reason for Tilghman to be chosen was her too-chummy and cozy relationship with Woods. She forged a friendship with Tiger after having many opportunities to interview him during tournaments when she served as a reporter for the Golf Channel.
Tilghman is always deferential toward Tiger on the air, nary a negative word or inference. She would frequently substitute "The World No. 1," or "the best golfer in the world," for Woods' name. While technically not wrong, her actions betrayed an unprofessional amount of worshipping. And it is perhaps fitting that she spewed out her ill-advised attempt at humor during yet another moment of Tiger Kiss-Ass.
Secondly, she got the job because she's a woman, and a pretty one at that. Anyone who disputes this is just being dishonest or naive. There was a virtual silence from the predominantly male golf media members immediately after the incident. It was no coincidence, to a man, they were all wishing this would've gone on unnoticed.
I say "to a man" because besides the esteemed Ann Miller (Honolulu Advertiser) and Melanie Houser (PGATour.com), the golf media is one big fraternity. And the guys generally like Kelly because she's a good-looking woman who's also a nice person. The boys wanted to be chivalrous and cut her some slack by maintaining silence.
And what of the Tour? As the entity that signed on with this outfit for 15 years, don't you think Tim Finchem and Co. at least express their displeasure? Not a word.
The fact that this entire episode almost went on unnoticed reflected the abysmal ratings PGA Tour events have recorded ever since the Tour ditched ESPN in favor of the Golf Channel. Almost nobody watches it.
Unfortunately when the good Rev. Al Sharpton got the wind of this, it wasn't gonna get swept under a rug. The Golf Channel at first was only going to issue a reprimand -- and three days after it happened. After ESPN, no doubt indulging in a bit of Schadenfreude, made this a national story, TGC had no choice but to hand down a more severe punishment: Two weeks suspension.
It's not enough. Not nearly enough.
You think if Roger Maltbie or Mark Rolfing said this, they'd skate with a two-week suspension?
Never mind that Tilghman is not a racist and probably felt horrible about making such an idiotic comment. The point is: She's in way over her head at a job she should never have gotten in the first place. Frankly, she's quite incompetent. And making such an absurdly offensive comment only illuminated how ill-suited she is for the job.
And it doesn't matter that Tiger "forgave" her quickly, as opposed to in 1997, when he famously let Fuzzy Zoeller twist in the wind for several weeks after Fuzzy's "friend chicken and collared greens" wise crack. This is now bigger than Tiger. Tilghman's remark may not seem much to Tiger, it is deeply hurtful and offensive to a lot of folks, particularly African-Americans.
She should be kicked out of the broadcast booth and be returned to Orlando for "Golf Central" telecasts. People have been fired for less so she should consider herself lucky that she still has a job.
But TGC is banking on the two-week suspension to take the edge off the story. And when she returns to the booth at Torey Pines, Tiger will be making his first appearance of the year. He'll put his arm around Kelly and tell her that everything's fine and that he doesn't understand what the big fuss was. Tilghman will be giddy as a schoolgirl, smiling and giggling as the pathetic sideshow unfolds.
That's why nobody watches the Golf Channel.
17 October 2007
Wiesy Does It
Dear Tournament Director:
I am writing to request a sponsor's exemption into your 2008 tournament. I am an accomplished golfer and my records speak for themselves.
In 2007, I played in eight LPGA tournaments for a total of 21 rounds. I quit in two of them for dubious reasons, but as ever helpful, I have pro-rated my scores for those two rounds to give you a more complete picture. So here it is:
My stroke average in those 21 rounds was 77.38. I shot 79 or worse in 10 of them, and failed to break 80 six times. In the seven tournaments where there were 36-hole cuts, I missed the cut three times and quit two more. I did manage to finish 84th (last) and tied for 69th (3rd from last) in the two events that I made the cut. If you looked at the leaderboard from the bottom, my year went like this: WD-1-WD-T3-CUT-CUT-CUT-2. Outstanding!
In the Ginn Tribute hosted by I Don't Have to Apologize to Annika, I quit after 16 holes after piling up a 78. I would've shot 88 or worse, thus causing me to be banned from the LPGA for the rest of the year, and I would've been last in the field, behind 15-year-old MacKinzie Kline.
I did it again at the U.S. Women's Open. For fear of finishing behind 12-year-old Alexis Thompson, I withdrew after shooting a 42 on my first nine in the second round. I was not going to make the cut anyway after an 82 on the first day.
Of the 41 LPGA tournaments I entered, I won zero, including 0-for-17 as a pro. Because of my ability to dominate the women's tour, I was invited to play in a number of men's events. I have played in 13 of them and made one cut, in Korea, for an Asian Tour tournament. And I'm 0-for-7 in PGA Tour events.
In my last five events against men, I quit (after 27 holes and 10 shots out of the cut); finished dead last (13 over the cut); dead last (14 over cut); last among pros and second from last (17 over cut); and 3rd from last (14 over cut). If you flipped the leaderboard upside down again, it looked like this: WD-1-1-2-T3. No wonder people think I'm the second coming of Tiger Woods!
In my last 35 rounds, I broke par twice. In my last 11 events, I made two cuts. I have not broken 70 in a year and a half; and my best rounds in 2007 were a pair of one-under 71s.
In my long and distinguished career, I did win one national tournament -- the 2003 U.S. Women's Public Links Championship. Since then, I have won nothing, zilch, nada, zippo, goose egg.
And now I have turned 18. Other girls my age have won a major (Morgan Pressel), rookie of the year (Angela Park) and multiple tournaments (Paula Creamer). But I'm the one who has a $10 million endorsement deal with Nike and Sony. Never mind that my 2007 earnings of $23,024 would've placed me 141st on the LPGA money list.
So how about it? How could you possibly turn me down? I've fired five caddies and two agents have left me over the last two years. And I don't really like to fraternize with the people who pay big money to play in the Pro-Am. And of course, I have no intention of ever trying to earn anything, let along going through Q-school to get my LPGA card.
Not if suckers like you keep giving me exemptions.
Sincerely,
Michelle Wie
I am writing to request a sponsor's exemption into your 2008 tournament. I am an accomplished golfer and my records speak for themselves.
In 2007, I played in eight LPGA tournaments for a total of 21 rounds. I quit in two of them for dubious reasons, but as ever helpful, I have pro-rated my scores for those two rounds to give you a more complete picture. So here it is:
My stroke average in those 21 rounds was 77.38. I shot 79 or worse in 10 of them, and failed to break 80 six times. In the seven tournaments where there were 36-hole cuts, I missed the cut three times and quit two more. I did manage to finish 84th (last) and tied for 69th (3rd from last) in the two events that I made the cut. If you looked at the leaderboard from the bottom, my year went like this: WD-1-WD-T3-CUT-CUT-CUT-2. Outstanding!
In the Ginn Tribute hosted by I Don't Have to Apologize to Annika, I quit after 16 holes after piling up a 78. I would've shot 88 or worse, thus causing me to be banned from the LPGA for the rest of the year, and I would've been last in the field, behind 15-year-old MacKinzie Kline.
I did it again at the U.S. Women's Open. For fear of finishing behind 12-year-old Alexis Thompson, I withdrew after shooting a 42 on my first nine in the second round. I was not going to make the cut anyway after an 82 on the first day.
Of the 41 LPGA tournaments I entered, I won zero, including 0-for-17 as a pro. Because of my ability to dominate the women's tour, I was invited to play in a number of men's events. I have played in 13 of them and made one cut, in Korea, for an Asian Tour tournament. And I'm 0-for-7 in PGA Tour events.
In my last five events against men, I quit (after 27 holes and 10 shots out of the cut); finished dead last (13 over the cut); dead last (14 over cut); last among pros and second from last (17 over cut); and 3rd from last (14 over cut). If you flipped the leaderboard upside down again, it looked like this: WD-1-1-2-T3. No wonder people think I'm the second coming of Tiger Woods!
In my last 35 rounds, I broke par twice. In my last 11 events, I made two cuts. I have not broken 70 in a year and a half; and my best rounds in 2007 were a pair of one-under 71s.
In my long and distinguished career, I did win one national tournament -- the 2003 U.S. Women's Public Links Championship. Since then, I have won nothing, zilch, nada, zippo, goose egg.
And now I have turned 18. Other girls my age have won a major (Morgan Pressel), rookie of the year (Angela Park) and multiple tournaments (Paula Creamer). But I'm the one who has a $10 million endorsement deal with Nike and Sony. Never mind that my 2007 earnings of $23,024 would've placed me 141st on the LPGA money list.
So how about it? How could you possibly turn me down? I've fired five caddies and two agents have left me over the last two years. And I don't really like to fraternize with the people who pay big money to play in the Pro-Am. And of course, I have no intention of ever trying to earn anything, let along going through Q-school to get my LPGA card.
Not if suckers like you keep giving me exemptions.
Sincerely,
Michelle Wie
09 September 2007
The Last FedEx Cup Post
Since just about all of the golf fans are watching the NFL now, the Tour Championship really should be played from Tuesday to Friday, making way for the weekend of football. But of course that's not gonna happen, so I digress.
OK, for a refresher for my recommendation on how to improve the FedEx Cup, see here and here. Basically the "Zoo Points" represent a far superior system to the convoluted setup currently in use. And it's much more fair.
Let's take a look:
There are five players mathematically alive for the FedEx Cup under the current system, but only three that can really win it.
1. Tiger Woods (112753 points) will win the Cup with a win at the Tour Championship, or if Steve Stricker finishes fourth or worse, or if Phil Mickelson finishes third or worse.
2. Stricker (109600) will win the Cup with a win, or by outgaining Woods by 3,200 points.
3. Mickelson (108613) will win the Cup with a win and if Woods finishes no better than third.
That's the abbreviated breakdown, but you still need to crunch more numbers and require a chart as big as the ones that football coaches carry on the sidelines to figure out all the scenarios.
Under the "Zoo Points" system, it's simple:
1. Woods (153.2 points) will win the Cup if he finishes no worse than 12th place (tied or otherwise).
2. Stricker (118.1) will win the Cup if he wins the Tour Championship and if Woods finishes 13th or lower.
3. Mickelson (112.0 points) will win the Cup if he wins and if Woods finishes 19th or worse.
That's it.
You don't need a chart. You don't need a calculator. It's all there.
Tim Finchem: It's time to use the Zoo Points to save your FedEx Cup.
OK, for a refresher for my recommendation on how to improve the FedEx Cup, see here and here. Basically the "Zoo Points" represent a far superior system to the convoluted setup currently in use. And it's much more fair.
Let's take a look:
There are five players mathematically alive for the FedEx Cup under the current system, but only three that can really win it.
1. Tiger Woods (112753 points) will win the Cup with a win at the Tour Championship, or if Steve Stricker finishes fourth or worse, or if Phil Mickelson finishes third or worse.
2. Stricker (109600) will win the Cup with a win, or by outgaining Woods by 3,200 points.
3. Mickelson (108613) will win the Cup with a win and if Woods finishes no better than third.
That's the abbreviated breakdown, but you still need to crunch more numbers and require a chart as big as the ones that football coaches carry on the sidelines to figure out all the scenarios.
Under the "Zoo Points" system, it's simple:
1. Woods (153.2 points) will win the Cup if he finishes no worse than 12th place (tied or otherwise).
2. Stricker (118.1) will win the Cup if he wins the Tour Championship and if Woods finishes 13th or lower.
3. Mickelson (112.0 points) will win the Cup if he wins and if Woods finishes 19th or worse.
That's it.
You don't need a chart. You don't need a calculator. It's all there.
Tim Finchem: It's time to use the Zoo Points to save your FedEx Cup.
05 September 2007
Fix the Fed Cup II
Before we get to the points system, Phil Mickelson's decision to skip this week's BMW Championship once again underscored the need to modify the "Playoff" format. Forcing top players to play six tournaments in seven weeks, including four consecutive, just isn't going to fly. Mickelson's snub marked the second time in three weeks that the top player in the FedEx Cup standings decided to sit out. And yet, Mickelson and Tiger Woods are still going to be the favorites should they both play in the Tour Championship in two weeks.
One way to make the setup a bit more attractive is to shorten the "Playoff" to three weeks, giving the top players two weeks off after the PGA Championship. And limit the field to the first event to 100. To play one week just to weed out 24 players (from 144 to 120) as it is arranged now is just plain silly and unnecessary. The second event should have just 50 players and 30 for the Tour Championship.
And of course, adopt the Zoo Points as first proposed here a week ago. The FedEx Cup system right now is both confusing and hard to calculate. While the Zoo Points deal with simple numbers that anybody on his couch can figure out.
Here's the top 10 in the FedEx standings:
1. Phil Mickelson 108613
2. Steve Stricker 106200
3. Tiger Woods 103733
4. K.J. Choi 102900
5. Rory Sabbatini 102388
6. Vijay Singh 99108
7. Jim Furyk 98963
8. Geoff Ogilvy 97954
9. Adam Scott 97827
10. Zach Johnson 97623
Here's the top 10 according to Zoo Points:
1. Mickelson 112.0
2. Woods 103.2
3. Stricker 94.1
4. Sabbatini 79.6
5. Ogilvy 66.6
6. Choi 61.7
7. Scott 50.4
8. Aaron Baddeley 46.3
9. Singh 45.7
10. Ernie Els 45.1
Besides its simplicity and user-friendliness, the Zoo Points are also more fair in this sense: Currently, the FedEx Cup system gives too much credit for somebody finishing second and third. Also, instead of divvying up the points for a tie like the FedEx Cup system, the Zoo Points simply award the same total to all ties. Again more fair and easier to calculate.
I'll be back next week with another update ... if anybody is still awake.
One way to make the setup a bit more attractive is to shorten the "Playoff" to three weeks, giving the top players two weeks off after the PGA Championship. And limit the field to the first event to 100. To play one week just to weed out 24 players (from 144 to 120) as it is arranged now is just plain silly and unnecessary. The second event should have just 50 players and 30 for the Tour Championship.
And of course, adopt the Zoo Points as first proposed here a week ago. The FedEx Cup system right now is both confusing and hard to calculate. While the Zoo Points deal with simple numbers that anybody on his couch can figure out.
Here's the top 10 in the FedEx standings:
1. Phil Mickelson 108613
2. Steve Stricker 106200
3. Tiger Woods 103733
4. K.J. Choi 102900
5. Rory Sabbatini 102388
6. Vijay Singh 99108
7. Jim Furyk 98963
8. Geoff Ogilvy 97954
9. Adam Scott 97827
10. Zach Johnson 97623
Here's the top 10 according to Zoo Points:
1. Mickelson 112.0
2. Woods 103.2
3. Stricker 94.1
4. Sabbatini 79.6
5. Ogilvy 66.6
6. Choi 61.7
7. Scott 50.4
8. Aaron Baddeley 46.3
9. Singh 45.7
10. Ernie Els 45.1
Besides its simplicity and user-friendliness, the Zoo Points are also more fair in this sense: Currently, the FedEx Cup system gives too much credit for somebody finishing second and third. Also, instead of divvying up the points for a tie like the FedEx Cup system, the Zoo Points simply award the same total to all ties. Again more fair and easier to calculate.
I'll be back next week with another update ... if anybody is still awake.
28 August 2007
Fix the FedEx Cup
One week into the much belly-ached FedEx Cup "Playoffs," the howls from the golf scribes can be heard from here to Madagascar. It's "irrelevant," "too complicated," "contrived," among other things.
So, we know the system is broken even before the first edition is completed. But does anyone have an idea on how to fix it?
I do.
Let's just assume the FedEx Cup concept is here to stay for a while: Since the PGA Tour has invested considerable resources to make this a go, it's not getting ditched after a season or two. And let's assume the current four-tournament format will stay in tact, too.
That leaves us with the most vexing problem: The points system. At the moment, it can only be described as an accountant's wet dream. It's convoluted. It's not user-friendly. It requires a mainframe and/or a highly-capable spreadsheet -- not something an average sports fan has at his disposal between the beer and chips.
The points system can easily be fixed and still achieve desired results. Keep in mind that baseball statistics are popular because most of it can be done with a pencil and paper -- and at most with a small calculator. The points system should be the same way.
Here's how it can be done:
1. Ditch the pre-playoff points system: This year, just before the "playoffs" the top 25 on the money list and the FedEx Cup points list are exactly the same 25 players, with slight variations in order. This tells me that the whole concoction of the pre-playoff points system is useless. The money list has been around for a long time and is an accurate assessment of a player's season. Stick with it.
2. Convert the money list into the playoff points list: That's simple to do. For example, Tiger Woods earned $7.82 million before the playoffs. So he has 78.2 points entering the playoffs. Vijay Singh at $4.47 million has 44.7. You're just moving the decimal point around a bit -- any fourth grader can do that.
3. Assign points to the top 25 players in each tournament -- but only in double digits. The winner gets 50 points, second place 25, third place 24, and on down the line, with the 25th-place finisher getting 2 points and anyone making the cut 1 point. The winner gets a big bonus as he should, allowing anyone within 50 points of the pre-playoff leader a realistic chance to catch up.
And just to compare, this is what the current FedEx Cup points list looks like:
1. Steve Stricker - 104950
2. K.J. Choi - 102900
3. Rory Sabbatini - 100650
4. Tiger Woods - 100000
5. Phil Mickelson - 99613
6. Vijay Singh - 99000
7. Jim Furyk - 98850
8. Zach Johnson - 97350
9. Adam Scott - 97150
10. Ernie Els - 96967
This is what my scale -- let's call it the Zoo Points -- looks like:
1. Woods - 78.2
2. Stricker - 76.1
3. Mickelson - 62.0
4. Choi - 61.7
5. Sabbatini - 58.6
6. Geoff Ogilvy - 45.6
7. Els - 45.1
8. Singh - 44.7
9. Mark Calcavecchia - 42.9
10. Scott - 40.4
The Zoo Points are much easier to keep track of, and I will argue, more fair. Zoo Points give a little more weight to regular-season accomplishments. Yet, any player on this list still can catch Tiger Woods, if they win one of the remaining tournaments. And you can sit on your couch and figure all this out toward the end of each tournament, not needing the Tour or CBS computer for the last word.
And one more thing -- I know you'll ask this, so I'll go ahead and answer it: Why should Woods be able to skip a tournament and still keep his lead? My response: Why not? Woods had a terrific regular season, amassing $3 million-plus more than the next guy (Singh) on the money list (and deserves to be more than just 1% ahead of him). Look at it as if Tiger earned a bye in the first round of the playoffs. Don't they do that in the NFL, too?
As a public service, I'll unveil the Zoo Points each week until the conclusion of the "playoffs." I'm sure you'll be quite satisfied with the results.
So, we know the system is broken even before the first edition is completed. But does anyone have an idea on how to fix it?
I do.
Let's just assume the FedEx Cup concept is here to stay for a while: Since the PGA Tour has invested considerable resources to make this a go, it's not getting ditched after a season or two. And let's assume the current four-tournament format will stay in tact, too.
That leaves us with the most vexing problem: The points system. At the moment, it can only be described as an accountant's wet dream. It's convoluted. It's not user-friendly. It requires a mainframe and/or a highly-capable spreadsheet -- not something an average sports fan has at his disposal between the beer and chips.
The points system can easily be fixed and still achieve desired results. Keep in mind that baseball statistics are popular because most of it can be done with a pencil and paper -- and at most with a small calculator. The points system should be the same way.
Here's how it can be done:
1. Ditch the pre-playoff points system: This year, just before the "playoffs" the top 25 on the money list and the FedEx Cup points list are exactly the same 25 players, with slight variations in order. This tells me that the whole concoction of the pre-playoff points system is useless. The money list has been around for a long time and is an accurate assessment of a player's season. Stick with it.
2. Convert the money list into the playoff points list: That's simple to do. For example, Tiger Woods earned $7.82 million before the playoffs. So he has 78.2 points entering the playoffs. Vijay Singh at $4.47 million has 44.7. You're just moving the decimal point around a bit -- any fourth grader can do that.
3. Assign points to the top 25 players in each tournament -- but only in double digits. The winner gets 50 points, second place 25, third place 24, and on down the line, with the 25th-place finisher getting 2 points and anyone making the cut 1 point. The winner gets a big bonus as he should, allowing anyone within 50 points of the pre-playoff leader a realistic chance to catch up.
And just to compare, this is what the current FedEx Cup points list looks like:
1. Steve Stricker - 104950
2. K.J. Choi - 102900
3. Rory Sabbatini - 100650
4. Tiger Woods - 100000
5. Phil Mickelson - 99613
6. Vijay Singh - 99000
7. Jim Furyk - 98850
8. Zach Johnson - 97350
9. Adam Scott - 97150
10. Ernie Els - 96967
This is what my scale -- let's call it the Zoo Points -- looks like:
1. Woods - 78.2
2. Stricker - 76.1
3. Mickelson - 62.0
4. Choi - 61.7
5. Sabbatini - 58.6
6. Geoff Ogilvy - 45.6
7. Els - 45.1
8. Singh - 44.7
9. Mark Calcavecchia - 42.9
10. Scott - 40.4
The Zoo Points are much easier to keep track of, and I will argue, more fair. Zoo Points give a little more weight to regular-season accomplishments. Yet, any player on this list still can catch Tiger Woods, if they win one of the remaining tournaments. And you can sit on your couch and figure all this out toward the end of each tournament, not needing the Tour or CBS computer for the last word.
And one more thing -- I know you'll ask this, so I'll go ahead and answer it: Why should Woods be able to skip a tournament and still keep his lead? My response: Why not? Woods had a terrific regular season, amassing $3 million-plus more than the next guy (Singh) on the money list (and deserves to be more than just 1% ahead of him). Look at it as if Tiger earned a bye in the first round of the playoffs. Don't they do that in the NFL, too?
As a public service, I'll unveil the Zoo Points each week until the conclusion of the "playoffs." I'm sure you'll be quite satisfied with the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)