Sunday, November 22, 2009

ONGOING COVERAGE: SPRING GOLF 2007

Commentary

Points race dishonors tradition

FedExCup points were likely not the topic of discussion between Zach Johnson and Phil Mickelson. (Associated Press )

Mike Tokito
Newhouse News Service
April 14, 2007

When Phil Mickelson put the green jacket on Zach Johnson after Johnson won the Masters on Sunday, you can be sure this conversation did not happen:

Mickelson: "Congratulations, Zach. Well played."

Johnson: "Thanks Phil. Say, do you know how many FedExCup points I just got?"

This year's Masters gave us Johnson's gritty victory, Tiger Woods' first real major championship stumble, and a course setup that will be the topic of debate for the next year.

And it also gave us a one-week respite from the contrivance that is the PGA Tour's FedExCup, the confusing points race that leads to a four-tournament "playoff" designed to drum up interest in golf after the PGA Championship ends Aug. 12.

As the tour resumed its normal schedule this week with the Verizon Heritage in Hilton Head Island, S.C., we will be told repeatedly that Vijay Singh leads the FedExCup race with 12,361 points. And most of us will shrug and move on.

ADVERTISEMENT

The tour, in trying to keep interest in golf after the PGA Championship — when football steals the spotlight — concocted this idea, unabashedly stealing the concept from NASCAR.

In making the transition, the tour has abandoned its old standby, the money list, as its main measure of season performance. In the past, being the leading money winner was an accomplishment. Now? Apparently, it's just a banking thing.

Nevermind that money is a simple, relatable statistic. Weighted points? If college football's Bowl Championship Series has taught us anything, complicated does not mean better.

To be fair, there are flaws to the money list as a measure of performance. Purses, after all, depend on the willingness of sponsors to pay them. But a tournament's turnstile success depends greatly on the strength of the field (if Woods or other top-tier guys show up), which in turn helps set the purse. So market forces, in theory, should work to put the best purses in the best events.

The tour is touting the FedExCup as a rewriting of history, and therein lies the big problem. Golf has a rich history. Majors are the biggest measuring stick, but the money list plays a key role, too.

The FedExCup feels too much like a money grab, starting with the paid-for title. The tour could have called the series something with historical significance and staying power, say the Gene Sarazen Trophy or Byron Nelson Cup. At least it would then tap into the game's past.

Continuity and simplicity count in golf. Do we want to come to a point when some kid is saying, "C'mon Grandpa, if Nicklaus was so good, how come he never won the FedExCup?"