2020 PGA Tour

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
25,864
306, row 14
Changing par doesn’t make it any easier or harder. Par is just a short handed way of keeping score in stroke play. A 70 is still a 70 whether it’s -2, E or +2.

Also, take out DJ and this week no different than any normal week on tour. Since the restart the average winning score is -19.
 
The greens have been too soft and receptive, and with the wind not a serious factor - and the ball still flying so far - the scores will always be very low. There are basically five ways for courses to play tougher and scores to go higher:

1) Difficult weather conditions (i.e., wind)
2) Firm and fast turf conditions
3) US Open-type rough and course setup
4) Roll back the ball and driver technology to make existing courses play longer
5) Lengthen courses even further (e.g., 700-yard par 5s and 550-yard par 4s) to make them play as proportionately long as they used to

You can't legislate for 1). You can help facilitate 2) and especially 3), if the weather cooperates and the will to do that exists (neither of which is always the case), but you have to know what you're doing. Nobody seems willing to force 4) into existence, presumably for the same reason that nobody wanted to stop McGwire and Sosa from hitting so many homers. And 5) isn't terribly practical either, even if some courses increasingly seem to be heading in that direction. (A 6th option is to choose courses which are more difficult to begin with - e.g., with more severe hazards and contours - or to remodel existing courses to make them more difficult in ways other than lengthening them, but a lot of this is largely out of the PGA Tour's control for various reasons.)
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,378
Arvada, Co
Sometimes? He's the winningest golfer since 2010. You could argue he's been the best golfer of the decade.
I think the only 2 arguments against him would be lack of majors and that his bads are really bad. Otherwise, who else is even in the discussion? Speith had an incredible run. Brooks too. Rory, I guess? But none of them have been as good as long. This week was Tiger-esque. This was a full field that he just destroyed. And who the fuck hits 18/18 GIR?
 

TFP

Tweedydee
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
18,597
Rory’s got more wins this decade (if you count Euro Tour). If you don’t, he only 2 behind and has the majors/fedex cups/players of the year awards over DJ. He’s been at it all decade and has won everywhere in all situations. I’d say he’s the golfer of the decade pretty handily.

2nd place comes down to how much you value majors over regular wins, but I’d put DJ 2nd since he’s been playing the whole decade. An argument definitely could be made he’s #1 though.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,703
Southwestern CT
4) Roll back the ball and driver technology to make existing courses play longer

...

Nobody seems willing to force 4) into existence, presumably for the same reason that nobody wanted to stop McGwire and Sosa from hitting so many homers.
I think that’s an overly cynical (and inapt) comparison.

McGwire and Sosa were cheating. And people were hesitant to call them on it (or even discuss whether it was happening) because they feared for the damage to the game.

Golfers today are not cheating. And rolling back the equipment (because it’s not just the ball) has implications far beyond the professional tour, in the sense that all golfers have access to the same courses and equipment. So there are direct commercial implications for taking action that aren’t comparable to the situation in baseball.

I do believe the USGA/R&A can and should roll back the equipment to deal with issues related to distance. (Hell, F1 changes their rules every year or two in response to technical innovation.) My guess is that the reason they have not is that these two organizations are run by elderly men who can’t even comprehend the changes in the game because they don’t experience it.

Golf has an institutional problem that will only be solved when/if the governing bodies see fit to change their leadership.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
25,864
306, row 14
I'm in the camp that DJ is a bit of an underachiever as far as majors go. Feels like someone with his ability should have won more than 1 (and he certainly has time left to get there). He's won 5 WGC's and 5 Playoff events so he can bring it against better fields, but for one reason or another he can't get over the major hump. I said it during the PGA Championship, but I think a second major changes his legacy quite a bit.

I'd put Rory over DJ. PGA Tour wise 18 wins and 4 majors to DJ's 22 and 1, and Rory is 5 years younger and has the Euro tour wins as well. He doesn't have the longevity yet, but I think JT belongs in this group. 5 seasons on tour, 13 wins and a major.

Edit: NLU made the point on their podcast this morning that through the same amount of starts, DJ has 22 wins to 20 Mickelson had and Mickelson at this point was still searching for his first major.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
I think that’s an overly cynical (and inapt) comparison.

McGwire and Sosa were cheating. And people were hesitant to call them on it (or even discuss whether it was happening) because they feared for the damage to the game.

Golfers today are not cheating. And rolling back the equipment (because it’s not just the ball) has implications far beyond the professional tour, in the sense that all golfers have access to the same courses and equipment. So there are direct commercial implications for taking action that aren’t comparable to the situation in baseball.

I do believe the USGA/R&A can and should roll back the equipment to deal with issues related to distance. (Hell, F1 changes their rules every year or two in response to technical innovation.) My guess is that the reason they have not is that these two organizations are run by elderly men who can’t even comprehend the changes in the game because they don’t experience it.

Golf has an institutional problem that will only be solved when/if the governing bodies see fit to change their leadership.
I don't understand your bolded paragraph. I mean I get that the golfers aren't cheating by using the best equipment. But the last two sentences...I don't get.

You make the pros play with limited technology. Anyone else can play with whatever else they want. Just like in baseball. They should do the same thing in tennis with how the tech lets these guys absolutely mash the ball. You play in your club championship, fine, use whatever Callaway has that will help you be longer. You're on the PGA Tour? Sorry...you can't use that. Wood bats for the pros, limited tech for the guys on tour.

The reason is because there's only so much land available. These guys are destroying courses and the more they have to change the courses to accommodate them, the more the courses become unrecognizable from what they were. I'm not stodgy, and I can live with change, but eventually these places run out of earth.

I don't get what impact this would have on guys like you and me. Brooks can hit drives 360-375 with current equipment. I'm a fairly long hitter as I can reach 310 on occasion, but I don't have remotely the best equipment. But I can't do what the pros do, obviously. So you dial their tech back so the longest pro hitters are hitting 325 instead of 375. The courses can remain basically what they are. How does that impact me at all?
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,703
Southwestern CT
I'm not sure what you are confused about, since nothing in my post is bolded.

I might not choose to deal with it the way you are suggesting, but sure, I don't disagree.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
I'm not sure what you are confused about, since nothing in my post is bolded.

I might not choose to deal with it the way you are suggesting, but sure, I don't disagree.
Oh, that's my bad. I wanted to bold this (but obviously forgot to): "Golfers today are not cheating. And rolling back the equipment (because it’s not just the ball) has implications far beyond the professional tour, in the sense that all golfers have access to the same courses and equipment. So there are direct commercial implications for taking action that aren’t comparable to the situation in baseball."

I just don't know what the implications are, and I'd love it if you would expand on that a little. What commercial implications are there by limiting PGA players' technology, while allowing everyone else in the world to use top-of-the-line tech?
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
28,703
Southwestern CT
Oh, that's my bad. I wanted to bold this (but obviously forgot to): "Golfers today are not cheating. And rolling back the equipment (because it’s not just the ball) has implications far beyond the professional tour, in the sense that all golfers have access to the same courses and equipment. So there are direct commercial implications for taking action that aren’t comparable to the situation in baseball."

I just don't know what the implications are, and I'd love it if you would expand on that a little. What commercial implications are there by limiting PGA players' technology, while allowing everyone else in the world to use top-of-the-line tech?
The implications are that you can't just change the balls - you have to change all of the equipment if you want to roll back distance. And I don't believe the equipment manufacturers want to create an entirely separate line of equipment for pros when they are already struggling to maintain any sense of profitability in a shrinking market. (Of course, as I'm typing this, I'm reversing my own opinion and coming back to CP's original point, which is a simple one - make the pros play with restricted flight balls and keep everything else the same.)

So, after doing a 180 in a single paragraph, let me say this. If this is a pro-only issue, it's something that PGA Tour can do by mandating restricted flight balls. If it's a "golf" issue, the USGA and the R&A need to discover the will to roll things back. And the former is much more likely than the latter.

Edit: so that's a disjointed way of agreeing with you and CP. (Still don't think the McGwire/Sosa analogy holds, but that's a minor issue.)
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
Yeah makes sense. I agree. Just change the balls for the PGA Tour so that the courses can still work without revamping them all. Let everyone else use whatever vibranium balls they make in Wakanda they want.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
11,530
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
Rory’s got more wins this decade (if you count Euro Tour). If you don’t, he only 2 behind and has the majors/fedex cups/players of the year awards over DJ. He’s been at it all decade and has won everywhere in all situations. I’d say he’s the golfer of the decade pretty handily.

2nd place comes down to how much you value majors over regular wins, but I’d put DJ 2nd since he’s been playing the whole decade. An argument definitely could be made he’s #1 though.
Bingo
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
11,530
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
I'm in the camp that DJ is a bit of an underachiever as far as majors go. Feels like someone with his ability should have won more than 1 (and he certainly has time left to get there). He's won 5 WGC's and 5 Playoff events so he can bring it against better fields, but for one reason or another he can't get over the major hump. I said it during the PGA Championship, but I think a second major changes his legacy quite a bit.

I'd put Rory over DJ. PGA Tour wise 18 wins and 4 majors to DJ's 22 and 1, and Rory is 5 years younger and has the Euro tour wins as well. He doesn't have the longevity yet, but I think JT belongs in this group. 5 seasons on tour, 13 wins and a major.

Edit: NLU made the point on their podcast this morning that through the same amount of starts, DJ has 22 wins to 20 Mickelson had and Mickelson at this point was still searching for his first major.
He's definitely not an under achiever. If you look at his career in historical perspective, he's in the top 20 golfers of all-time. He's basically having Phil's career. Phil didn't win his first major until he was 34, then went on to win 4 more.

I could see DJ winning 2-3 more and he'll win at least 10 more times in the next decade. I'd be shocked if he didn't finish his career with close to 40 wins and multiple majors.
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
11,530
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
The implications are that you can't just change the balls - you have to change all of the equipment if you want to roll back distance. And I don't believe the equipment manufacturers want to create an entirely separate line of equipment for pros when they are already struggling to maintain any sense of profitability in a shrinking market. (Of course, as I'm typing this, I'm reversing my own opinion and coming back to CP's original point, which is a simple one - make the pros play with restricted flight balls and keep everything else the same.)

So, after doing a 180 in a single paragraph, let me say this. If this is a pro-only issue, it's something that PGA Tour can do by mandating restricted flight balls. If it's a "golf" issue, the USGA and the R&A need to discover the will to roll things back. And the former is much more likely than the latter.

Edit: so that's a disjointed way of agreeing with you and CP. (Still don't think the McGwire/Sosa analogy holds, but that's a minor issue.)
Actually, studies show that the ball is responsible for the vast majority of distance gains. There's no need to roll back equipment, that stuff is already regulated. The ball is the only thing that is allowed to be advanced without limitations.
 
(Still don't think the McGwire/Sosa analogy holds, but that's a minor issue.)
I meant that analogy from the PGA Tour/MLB perspective, not the McGwire/Sosa perspective - MLB was happy with the product, and lots of homers being hit, and I think the PGA Tour is probably happy with the product, with lots of massive drives being hit and the pros showing that "These guys are good" is more than a marketing slogan. (Did MLB know McGwire/Sosa were cheating at the time and turn a blind eye? It's so long ago, I've rather forgotten, but I wasn't under the impression that they did - or at least, that they didn't want to know.)

My understanding with golf ball technology is that the advances in technology really only benefit players who can achieve the massive swing speeds that the longest hitters can achieve. If you rolled the ball back to where 300 yards was a big hit for the average professional - as it used to be - the average player wouldn't lose much if any distance. Which is why I keep banging on about that being the easiest and best fix to the situation.
 

Lupe Whalewatch

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,768
Worlds End
This Big Cedar Lodge place looks incredible. I was checking out the site earlier today, looks like it would be an incredible destination. Haven't seen much of the golf course(s), but really anything that Coore Crenshaw touches is gold.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
25,864
306, row 14
Phil shoots a -10 61 to start his Champions Tour career.

In PGA Tour news, the CJ Cup which is usually played in Asia is being moved to Shadow Creek in Vegas for this season. Shadow Creek is where the first Tiger/Phil match was played.
 
I've been slowly listening to the latest No Laying Up podcast, and I'm intrigued by their discussion around what they would do to change the FedEx Cup Playoffs. The issues they've raised are hardly surprising - there are no real stakes except money; too many players are involved; and apart from last year's change to the Tour Championship, starting the players on different scores based upon their final points total (which they and I like), there's nothing particularly exciting about the format.

So...what would *you* do to change the FedEx Cup Playoffs? Or are you happy with how they work? The NLU guys suggested the idea of getting match play golf involved in the playoffs, and I'm certainly in favor of anything that brings more match play golf to the fore. (Medal-matchplay would be awesome, too.)
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
Uh...eliminate it altogether? :)

I really don't actually get it. What's the purpose of it except to win more money? And if that's the purpose, why would the players complain that there are no real stakes except money?

There's zero chance it will - or should - be more prestigious than any of the majors.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
It's a giant cash transfer from advertisers to the players. That's about it, to be honest.
So if that's what it's about and everyone knows it...why would there be any complaints about it being about money?

I mean, what kind of prestige could they attach to it? It's not like the golf season has a "regular season" and "playoffs" to determine the year's "champion golfer".
 

TFP

Tweedydee
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
18,597
why would there be any complaints about it being about money
I think the complaints are from fans mostly. I don't give a shit about Rory winning another 10 million dollars (I don't think he cares either) or the player in 28th place tacking on a couple hundred grand to their 2.5 million dollar season.

You're asking all the same questions everyone else is, which is basically "what's the point and why should I care?". The answer is "to get the cash from Fedex to the players, and you shouldn't."
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
I think the complaints are from fans mostly. I don't give a shit about Rory winning another 10 million dollars (I don't think he cares either) or the player in 28th place tacking on a couple hundred grand to their 2.5 million dollar season.

You're asking all the same questions everyone else is, which is basically "what's the point and why should I care?". The answer is "to get the cash from Fedex to the players, and you shouldn't."
LOL, which is exactly why I said in response to Conigliaro's question of what would I do to change the FedEx Cup playoffs: "Uh, eliminate it altogether?" :)
 

Vegas Sox Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,364
The Dirty Desert
I've been slowly listening to the latest No Laying Up podcast, and I'm intrigued by their discussion around what they would do to change the FedEx Cup Playoffs. The issues they've raised are hardly surprising - there are no real stakes except money; too many players are involved; and apart from last year's change to the Tour Championship, starting the players on different scores based upon their final points total (which they and I like), there's nothing particularly exciting about the format.

So...what would *you* do to change the FedEx Cup Playoffs? Or are you happy with how they work? The NLU guys suggested the idea of getting match play golf involved in the playoffs, and I'm certainly in favor of anything that brings more match play golf to the fore. (Medal-matchplay would be awesome, too.)
Match play would obviously be fun. Maybe a hybrid where the first week is a standard stroke play tournament used to pare the field down to 96. Then the next week could be round robin head to head matchplay. The top 32 are guaranteed a spot in the final and would play for seeding. The other 64 could play in 4 player pods with the top 2 taking the final 32 spots. Then the last week is a straight head to head match play event for $10m or whatever the prize is now.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
They should end the year with all kinds of cool team events, and have sponsors put up huge dollars to entice the players. A scramble format, for example, where names are picked out of a hat or whatever after the participants are decided upon (say 48 golfers, four teams of four). That would be crazy fun.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
25,864
306, row 14
There's no real way to make the playoffs more prestigious. That sort of thing just happens organically.

I've said it before, but I'm in favor of match play for the final. For the TC, play play 3 or 4 rounds of stroke play to get down to a top 4. They can even use the weighted start that they're doing now. At the end of stroke play, 1 and 2 play a match for the trophy. Winner gets the $15 million, loser gets the $5 million second place bonus. Put it in prime time, bill it as the $10 million match. 3 and 4 play a match for those places as a time filler for the broadcast. Match play presents hurdles though. Networks don't love it, lots of down time to fill. They also get scared that the big names will be gone and they'd be stuck with a final 4 of Harris English, Lanto Griffin, Sebastian Munoz and like Abe Ancer as the final, to pull 4 players inside the current top 30. No offense to those guys, but that'd be a nightmare scenario for the Tour. I think doing the weighted start would mitigate some of this risk. The cream usually rises to the top.
 
I'd be perfectly happy with eliminating the FedEx Cup myself, btw. But the NLU guys were pointing out that the PGA Tour doesn't really have any "big" events of its own to trumpet other than the Players, and as long as there are players to keep happy - and the Premier Golf League to worry about - there are going to be cash handouts of some sort. So either you just hand out the cash at the end of the season, or you do that in some sort of competitive format.

Outside-the-box thinking? Have the whole playoffs be conducted at match play - or at medal-match play, if you want to ensure that each match goes the full 18 holes - but award FedEx Cup points per match win and tie. Everyone plays four matches in the first event, with a chance to add more points to their pre-playoffs total each day before the cutoff to the Top 72 after the first event...and each day, the Tour would get to rig the field and guarantee several marquee matches at the end of the day for television purposes. Same in the second event, to get down to the Top 32, and then at the Tour Championship you cut down the field each day until the top 8 (or 12, etc.) play one round of stroke play in four groups, with their starting scores based on the total number of points they've earned. So you still get a final day which works for TV, but you get the joy of match play all the way through from week to week.
 

Vegas Sox Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,364
The Dirty Desert
They should end the year with all kinds of cool team events, and have sponsors put up huge dollars to entice the players. A scramble format, for example, where names are picked out of a hat or whatever after the participants are decided upon (say 48 golfers, four teams of four). That would be crazy fun.
Aside from the math, this could be fun. I looked a matching up by rank in snake fashion just to see what the teams would look like. Who's not dumping all their money on team one?
Team​
Player Rank​
Player Name​
Player Rank​
Player Name​
Player Rank​
Player Name​
Player Rank​
Player Name​
1​
1​
Dustin Johnson​
24​
Viktor Hovland​
25​
Cameron Champ​
48​
Harry Higgs​
2​
2​
Justin Thomas​
23​
Kevin Kisner​
26​
Cameron Smith​
47​
Alex Noren​
3​
3​
Webb Simpson​
22​
Ryan Palmer​
27​
Adam Long​
46​
Brian Harman​
4​
4​
Daniel Berger​
21​
Kevin Na​
28​
Kevin Streelman​
45​
Brendan Steele​
5​
5​
Collin Morikawa​
20​
Marc Leishman​
29​
Tony Finau​
44​
Richy Werenski​
6​
6​
Harris English​
19​
Abraham Ancer​
30​
Billy Horschel​
43​
Tom Hoge​
7​
7​
Bryson DeChambeau​
18​
Hideki Matsuyama​
31​
Joaquin Niemann​
42​
Danny Lee​
8​
8​
Sungjae Im​
17​
Tyrrell Hatton​
32​
Tyler Duncan​
41​
Joel Dahmen​
9​
9​
Jon Rahm​
16​
Sebastian Munoz​
33​
Matthew Wolff​
40​
Nick Taylor​
10​
10​
Patrick Reed​
15​
Lanto Griffin​
34​
Mark Hubbard​
39​
Gary Woodland​
11​
11​
Xander Schauffele​
14​
Scottie Scheffler​
35​
Byeong Hun An​
38​
Adam Scott​
12​
12​
Rory McIlroy​
13​
Brendon Todd​
36​
Mackenzie Hughes​
37​
Patrick Cantlay​
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,378
Arvada, Co
Aside from the math, this could be fun. I looked a matching up by rank in snake fashion just to see what the teams would look like. Who's not dumping all their money on team one?
I'd love it if the 1-8 or 1-16 ranked players got to do a draft and be captains. Pick three others, plus 2 alternates and play it like a Ryder Cup from there. That would keep the players interested in getting into the top 8 for the draft as well as eligible to be drafted and I'd think you'd end up with a really fun final run of tourneys, in just about any format, where you eliminate entire 4, then 2 then 1 team a week. Would the players be upset to only get $2.5M instead of $10M? Maybe, but then again, you've got a much better shot at the 2.5 than you do the $10 so that may entice them. I think you'd have teams both come together and have internal drama. I think, if done right, it could become like the NCAA basketball brackets with lots of betting and upsets and drama and a ton to talk about all week in between events.
 
Last edited:
I'd love it if the 1-8 or 1-16 ranked players got to do a draft and be captains. Pick three others, plus 2 alternates and play it like a Ryder Cup from there. That would keep the players interested in getting into the top 8 for the draft as well as eligible to be drafted and I'd think you'd end up with a really fun final run of tourneys, in just about any format, where you eliminate entire 4, then 2 then 1 team a week. Would the players be upset to only get $2.5M instead of $10M? Maybe, but then again, you've got a much better shot at the 2.5 than you do the $10 so that may entice them. I think you'd have teams both come together and have internal drama. I think, if done right, it could become like the NCAA basketball brackets with lots of betting and upsets and drama and a ton to talk about all week in between events.
I like it...but how about this: take the top 96 qualifiers in the FedEx Cup points race and divide them into eight 12-player teams, but not split them up into evenly matched teams. Instead, you'd have the top 12 as one super-team, then the next 12, and the next 12, and so on down. Your reward for finishing in the top 12 is that in theory you get to play with better teammates. Week 1 at the Northern Trust consists of four Ryder Cup-style matches played consecutively, with everyone playing in every match - fourballs on Thursday and Saturday, foursomes on Friday, and singles on Sunday. A total of 30 points to play for: first to 15-and-a-half wins each match and advances your team to the BMW the next week. Then you have the semifinals at the BMW in exactly the same format, and the finals at the Tour Championship; the latter could either be the same format as the other two weeks, or you could have a normal Ryder Cup-style set of matches on Thursday/Friday/Saturday and then a one-round stroke play shootout among the 12 winners on Sunday to determine the overall champion. What's not to like?
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,378
Arvada, Co
I like everything except the superteam concept because it all but guarantees those 12 go on to the championship. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The 1 seed in other sports gets knocked out all the time and I feel like that would never happen here.
 
I like everything except the superteam concept because it all but guarantees those 12 go on to the championship. I'm not sure how I feel about that. The 1 seed in other sports gets knocked out all the time and I feel like that would never happen here.
Huh - that's funny, because I was actually more worried that the opposite would be true, and that the Top 12 would be knocked out by the Bottom 12 too often for the comfort of the TV bosses. This would have been the Bottom 12 lineup this year (places 85 to 96): Ian Poulter, Matt Jones, Cameron Tringale, Rickie Fowler, Tommy Fleetwood, Jason Kokrak, Cameron Davis, Emiliano Grillo, Matthew NeSmith, Scott Harrington, Ryan Armour and Ryan Moore, with Brooks Koepka at #97 and maybe making first reserve if someone else pulled out. There are a few no-names there, but also a surprising amount of Ryder Cup experience, and who knows which of the Top 12 or Bottom 12 will be in peak form in any given week.

Here's the Second 12 this year (places 13 to 24), by the way: Abraham Ancer, Mark Leishman, Dustin Johnson, Sebastian Munoz, Kevin Na, Hideki Matsuyama, Tyrrell Hatton, Cameron Champ, Adam Long, Kevin Streelman, Tony Finau, Scottie Scheffler. How many times out of 100 would that team defeat the Top 12 in a Ryder Cup-style match? It's definitely greater than zero, that's for sure.

(By the way, one of the best parts about this format is that it would give everyone on Team USA - and relatively few of the European players - real, live team match play experience in the weeks right before the Ryder Cup and President's Cup every year.)
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,378
Arvada, Co
Huh - that's funny, because I was actually more worried that the opposite would be true, and that the Top 12 would be knocked out by the Bottom 12 too often for the comfort of the TV bosses. This would have been the Bottom 12 lineup this year (places 85 to 96): Ian Poulter, Matt Jones, Cameron Tringale, Rickie Fowler, Tommy Fleetwood, Jason Kokrak, Cameron Davis, Emiliano Grillo, Matthew NeSmith, Scott Harrington, Ryan Armour and Ryan Moore, with Brooks Koepka at #97 and maybe making first reserve if someone else pulled out. There are a few no-names there, but also a surprising amount of Ryder Cup experience, and who knows which of the Top 12 or Bottom 12 will be in peak form in any given week.

Here's the Second 12 this year (places 13 to 24), by the way: Abraham Ancer, Mark Leishman, Dustin Johnson, Sebastian Munoz, Kevin Na, Hideki Matsuyama, Tyrrell Hatton, Cameron Champ, Adam Long, Kevin Streelman, Tony Finau, Scottie Scheffler. How many times out of 100 would that team defeat the Top 12 in a Ryder Cup-style match? It's definitely greater than zero, that's for sure.

(By the way, one of the best parts about this format is that it would give everyone on Team USA - and relatively few of the European players - real, live team match play experience in the weeks right before the Ryder Cup and President's Cup every year.)
I think I still like smaller teams. Maybe more of them, but it gives more opportunity for betting, team camaraderie/dissonance, on-course drama, and keeps the pot high for the winners. You'd also have elimination matches on Thurs/Friday that would drive viewership up for the early events. This would lead to the opposite of my earlier concern though. You'd end up with a bunch of middling teams and no great ones. There's a good compromise in there somewhere that would make the FedEx Cup playoffs a lot of fun to watch and participate in.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,451
Unless Phil has a bad day, he's going to crush the Champions Tour on a regular basis. He's still a high-level PGA Tour pro after all (#54 in the world).
 
How many players are going to pull out of the BMW in solidarity with Jacob Blake and the other teams and athletes that boycotted sporting events yesterday? I'd have to set the over/under at 0.5 and would probably take the under...but man, Tiger could score many points in the game of life by pulling out and making a statement. (Tiger is paired today and tomorrow with Bubba, along with Carlos Ortiz; bonus points if Tiger says he doesn't think it would be appropriate for him to play at the present moment with the guy who bought the General Lee.)
 
Tiger isn't the only black man in the field, though. And you don't necessarily have to be black to be willing to take a stand. Still, if I had to bet on any sporting organization trying to make as small of a political statement as it possibly can, the PGA Tour would be very high on my list if not at the very top of it.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
25,864
306, row 14
Yeah, I mean the Tour Players have probably been the least active player group when it comes to Black Lives Matter. The NHL has done a poor job, but I’d put the Tour behind them.

We’ll get a bunch of cliche responses on how they support the NBA players, end racism, we need to do more, but that’ll be it and they’ll go on playing.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
10,640
The Paris of the 80s
Yeah, I mean the Tour Players have probably been the least active player group when it comes to Black Lives Matter. The NHL has done a poor job, but I’d put the Tour behind them.

We’ll get a bunch of cliche responses on how they support the NBA players, end racism, we need to do more, but that’ll be it and they’ll go on playing.
The PGA tour players are probably as a collective the most right-leaning group of professional athletes. I'm sure not all of them but big names are on the record supporting and buddying up with Trump.