Questioning Finchem

Ed Sherman on his Chicago Tribune golf blog:

...to hear people talk, rotating the tournament to other Midwest cities also was part of the price. No way. The Evans Scholars would make just as much money if the tournament stayed at Cog Hill.

We spent the entire week in the press room trying to figure out why PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem made this decision. There has to be something we're missing, perhaps some grand marketing scheme that is way over our feeble brains.

I don't think so. There can't be a reasonable explanation why the PGA Tour would leave the nation's third largest market to go to much smaller towns in the Midwest.

Even worse, do you realize in 2008 the Tour won't be in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.? When I asked Jim Furyk about that situation last week, he tried to be diplomatic, but you could see he was troubled by the Tour's lack of presence in the major markets.

Perhaps, the Tour wants to go small-time.  That has to be it, because its thinking certainly is small time.

They Understand The FedEx Cup In Chicago (Well, not really)

In a Q&A with Mike Spellman dubbed, "Let's wait, see about BMW Championship," Western Golf Association's Don Johnson demonstrates little idea of the FedEx Cup is going to work, and little enthusiasm for the scheduling change. Welcome to the club Don!

Q. When you first heard the idea of this playoff system, what were your thoughts?

A. I was confused.

Q. How long did it take to get unconfused?

A. Well, I’m not sure that I am. The point system and everything … I think anybody in the golf business who’s forthright about it is going to tell you we have to wait and see how this thing is going to work. The PGA Tour thinks it’s going to be wonderful, and I hope they’re right.

Q. It’s kind of a roll of the dice, isn’t it?

A. Yeah. And they may have to tweak it a little bit after the first year when they see how it actually works in fact as opposed to in theory. It’s certainly going to be a great thing for us being the final tournament before the Tour Championship.

Q. Why is the move from the Fourth of July to Labor Day a good thing?

A. The jury is still out on that, to be honest about it. I don’t know what happens to the interest in golf in Chicago after Labor Day. I’m hoping this event will be so spectacular that they’ll turn out, but we have to wait and see. It’s a work in progress.

Q. Your main worry about the September date?

A. You’ve got your Labor Day drop-off in golf, and then you’ve got Big Ten football, Notre Dame football; you’ve got baseball heading toward the playoffs … but we won’t have Taste of Chicago. There will be some competition we don’t have now. We’ll have to wait and see.

Q. Do the smaller crowds this year give you cause for concern next year?

A. Yes. The answer to that is yes. I worry that this week with the field we’ve had and the weather, that we have less people here than we had last year. (On Saturday) we had 7,000 less. That’s a lot. I don’t get it.


Michaux: "Finchem is a corporate drone"

In introducing this web site's week in review, I wondered why Tim Finchem has received little criticism for so many questionable initiatives, most notably the recently announced FedEx Cup.

Well, the Augusta Chronicle's Scott Michaux not only criticizes Finchem, but undoubtedly will have some Vice Presidents running around tomorrow working to make sure no one ever utters the words "FedEx Cup Evaluation System."

It is difficult to swallow, much less stomach.

What I'm talking about is PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem's undigestible contrivance coming in 2007 dubbed - depending on your threshold for corporate jargon - the FedEx Cup or Finchem's Folly.

A couple of weeks ago, Finchem unveiled the hardly anticipated FedEx Cup Evaluation system, which heretofore will be referred to by its acronym, FECES.

Whoa Nellie!

Without boring you in excruciating Finchemesque fashion with any of the details you already don't care about, it is just another list attempting to quantify the relative values of professional golfers in a cluttered landscape that already includes an official world ranking, money winnings, orders of merit, various international team standings, etc.

The only thing that makes the FECES curiously different is the PGA Tour's transparent attempt to mathematically equate its Players Championship with the universally acclaimed four major championships.

Uh Scott, it's now THE PLAYERS. Please, get your facts straight!

Finchem's goal with this whole FECES thing is to create a "playoff-like" finish to his laudably truncated PGA Tour season. Through the first 36 events of the season, the roughly 240 players who start the year with some semblance of official status will be whittled all the way down to 144 lucky few who qualify for a four-week, no-tee-times-barred, battle royale culminating at the Tour Championship at East Lake. For getting hot at just the right time, Finchem will reward $10 million to the man who, in essence, turns out to be the glorified player of the month.

When the FECES hits the fans, will anyone care other than the individual who'll get to fortify his already lucrative retirement portfolio?

No.
Finchem believes he created some kind of excitement that will compare to NASCAR's season-ending chase for its championship or the NFL's compelling buildup to the Super Bowl. Instead he's done nothing but give birth to another flawed BCS concept that ultimately won't resolve anything. He's tried to rationale his baby with another postseason analogy about a 105-win Yankees team having to start over in October, but those Yankees wouldn't have to start over against the last-place Royals.

And he's just warming up.

If this were the only thing that Finchem had overdone in his tenure as commissioner of the PGA Tour, it would be almost excusable. But seeing as he's callously dismantled or neutered some golfing traditions that have been around for more than a century in the process, shackled the tour to the ultra-fringe Golf Channel for an astonishing 15 years and stepped on the toes of every other worldwide golfing entity with his avarice, Finchem's Folly loses any benefit of the doubt.

Finchem is a corporate drone who believes everything is better based upon money. If the Players pays more money than the Masters Tournament, it must be better. If The Golf Channel is willing to pay you more money over the course of 15 years than ESPN would have for the next four, it must be better.

That's why Finchem believes he's doing a good job, because the players he (with one whopper of an assist by Tiger Woods) made rich and spoiled gave him a $27 million contract extension.

More money, however, hasn't made the PGA Tour better. It's made it worse. Extra zeroes only add to the numbing. If you really want to see the best players on the PGA Tour going head-to-head more often, start paying them what they were making back in the '80s and early '90s - when making a million dollars was a season's work for the hardest workers who performed the best instead of a week's salary for a tournament winner or the median annual income for finishing in the top 150.

Just how much of Finchem's decision-making is based upon money? Consider that the only way the nearly 70-year-old event in Greensboro, N.C., was spared the cutting block was because it ponied up $500,000 to agent Mark Steinberg - just to be granted an audience with Finchem in order to make its case.
Ah, there's a story that no one really has explored enough.
That was not a benefit granted to, say, the 102-year-old Canadian Open, which was rendered all but obsolete with an untenable date between the British Open and PGA. Or the Western Open, which will be stripped of its venerable title and relegated to semi-annual visits to the Chicago area. Or the tournament outside Washington D.C., which was shut out of the regular season because FedEx attracted favoritism to its Memphis, Tenn., event. Or the Disney Classic and 84-year-old Texas Open, which were all but dismissed without any more dialogue than a curt "thanks for coming."

Not that the overly fattened PGA Tour season couldn't use a little trimming, but Finchem handled the whole process badly.
This next statement is precisely why Finchem can't be relied upon to deal with equipment.
Finchem constantly displays an arrogant disregard for everything in golf outside of his own tunnel vision. Who cares if the new tour schedule will gut the European Tour's prime events during the spring and late summer? Who cares if its big announcements distract the attention from the LPGA Tour's most important event? Who cares if none of the so-called World Golf Championship events are played in front of audiences outside the United States?

Finchem has unilaterally constructed the PGA Tour to fit his vision. Thank goodness he has no control over any of the major championships, meaning the most important historical results of the year will never be sullied by an inadequate TPC venue or distasteful title sponsorship.

At least that knowledge can settle the uneasiness in the stomachs of the constituents who really matter - the golf fans.

The Last Western

Ed Sherman lists all of the things disappearing with the demise of the Western. In all of the talk of FedEx Cup nonsense, I forgot that the "Open" aspect will disappear, meaning no more qualifying and no more spots for the Western Am winner.

It will be the last time it can be considered an open tournament. The stories about qualifiers always have been among the neat things about the Western.

It will be the last time Chicago can call itself the permanent home of the Western. The tournament has been here since 1962.

And last but not least, this week will be the last time anyone calls the tournament "the Western." That's been its name since 1899.

This week will mean farewell to the Western Open as we know it. After 107 years, one of the game's greatest traditions will be gone.

More Bad FedEx Cup Reviews

fedexcuplogo.jpgBob Verdi analyzes the FedEx Cup announcement in this week's Golf World, and like everyone else, he can only find one positive: the increase in donations to the Evans Scholarship fund.

Even worse news for the Tour though is that in the same issue, Tim Rosaforte uses his notes column to say nothing nice about the concept (not posted online yet). 

This not only confirms that the weekly infomercial known as PGA Tour Sunday is dead, but also indicates just how disastrously awful the FedEx Cup setup really is. After all, if the PGA Tour's biggest cheerleader is issuing a lousy review...

Dolch On FedEx Cup

fedexcuplogo.jpgCraig Dolch writing in the Palm Beach Post:

The FedEx Cup is clearly still a work in process. Finchem admitted that many of the final details have not been worked out. It's not even a certainty the $35 million will be hard cash or deferred money. It's likely the system will continue to be tweaked the next few years.

Some already have questioned why the top 144 players in points will advance to the playoffs. After all, traditionally golf has rewarded just the top 125 players on the money list with their playing privileges for the next year. But 144? That's almost like all 30 NBA teams qualifying for the post-season — plus several top college hoops teams.

And what if Woods or Vijay Singh matched their recent nine-win seasons? They could dominate the PGA Tour all season — and watch someone else take home the biggest paycheck.

Some players are willing to overlook some of the details and take a wait-and-see approach.

"I think it's something we clearly needed to do," said Joe Ogilvie, a member of the Tour's Advisory Board. "We have some holes in our schedule, weeks that traditionally don't get a strong field. Hopefully with a yearlong point structure I think some of those holes will be filled."

But will they? Whether the FedEx Cup becomes a success depends upon the same thing: Will the top players decide to play in more tournaments? Woods never has played in more than 21 PGA Tour events in a year, and he says he doesn't expect that number to change.

I also wondered about this take from the Tour's Henry Hughes:

"I think the most challenging thing was finding a reluctance to change," said Henry Hughes, the Tour's Chief of Operations. "You could easily argue that our Tour has prospered, our television ratings have significantly increased over the years. But all sports are taking a little bit of a leveling out now, so we thought it was important that we take a look at our product."

Significant increased over the years?

You know, back in the days when a NASCAR rainout would not outdraw live final round coverage.

 

Campbell on FedEx Cup Announcement

That's Steve of the Houston Chronicle writing about last week's announcement, making this excellent point:

The tour announced its plan in considerable detail last week. If details escaped your notice, it's because the tour showed an astounding tone-deafness to the world around it.

Finchem laid out the points system and how the playoffs will work last Wednesday — the day before the scheduled start of the U.S. Women's Open.

Was it a display of hubris, a clumsy attempt to steal the thunder of the marquee event in women's golf? Was it obliviousness? Or was it a calculated decision to lay out a plan in a setting where it wouldn't get the sort of scrutiny Phil Mickelson gets when he picks his driver with a one-stroke lead at the 72nd hole of the U.S. Open?

Whatever the motives, what could have been a huge splash barely caused a ripple.

Make no mistake: A clumsily timed unveiling doesn't doom the FedEx Cup to folly status. At the same time, it doesn't give the impression the tour quite knows what it's doing.

And this is fun.

"The conversation," Finchem said, "goes something like, 'Let me understand this. If I win six times between Mercedes and Greensboro, and I've got $10 million in prize money, and I've an 8,000 lead in points, you're telling me I'm now going to start over again, basically, with just a little edge on everybody else?'

"And the answer I give is yes. And then in a couple of cases, I've had a follow-up question, 'Do you think that's fair?' And my response is, 'If the New York Yankees win 115 games and win the American League East, they start over.'

"And every player with whom I've had that conversation's response to that is, 'I get it, I get it, it's great; let's tee it up.' "

That's right, Tiger and Phil and all of the other guys who play less than 20 times are going, "Yeah! I get, I get. This means I don't have to play more events in 2007! Whew! Had me worried there for a while Timbo!" 

Van Sickle: It's a Cash Grab

Another bad review is in. Not surprisingly, SI's Gary Van Sickle isn't a fan of the new FedEx Cup "playoffs."

No doubt you've still got permanent goose bumps from last week's exciting disclosure about the PGA Tour's new would-be playoff system, the FedEx Cup, that culminates with a four-tournament showdown and a $10 million bonus to the winner.

And that's just the lead. 

This is the chance for Tiger Woods, who has won more than $58 million in PGA Tour winnings and was listed No. 5 on Forbes's annual rankings of celebrity earnings with an estimated annual income of $90 million, or Phil Mickelson, who has won more than $25 million on the course and at least that much off the course in endorsement deals, to scoop up another $10 million that they really, really need. It's a pure money grab in a sport in which money means little to the top players, who already have more than they can possibly spend. But if Tag Ridings and Tim Petrovic end up duking it out for the $10 million, it'll mean something to them.

The beauty of the idea, he wrote sarcastically, is that scoring a $10 million bonus is sure to improve a player's incentive to play more the following season and not be tempted to stay home more and scuba dive off his yacht or spend time with his family and, say, be a real person.

Van Sickle then goes on to lay out many previously undisclosed bonus points you won't want to miss.

MacDuff's Post Hartford FedEx Cup Standings

fedexcuplogo.jpgEven as the Tour follows 2006 with its newly announced point structure, running clock (181 days to go!) and silly 144 cut-off number to qualify for the "playoffs," we can still imagine what a points system handing out points equally would look like thanks to MacDuff. More importantly, we can picture how this would play out if the cut off was at 70 or even 100 players. Well, okay, it would still be boring, but at least the season might have some meaning.

1    Mickelson    22459        14
2    Singh    20134.37        15
3    Furyk    19587.5        13
4    Gf. Ogilvy    18487.5        12
5    Pettersson    16658.33        15
6    Toms    16196.87        11
7    Weir    16021.87        13
8    Van Pelt    15940        17
9    Glover    15879.16        12
10    C.Campbell    15587.5        13
11    Pernice    15525        12
12    Cink    15421.33        13
13    Donald    15189.37        10
14    B. Quigley    15075        12
15    Appleby    14987.5        12
16    Oberholser    14637.5        13
17    Pampling    14622.5        13
18    Immelman    14612.5        11
19    A.Scott    14575        10
20    Bohn    14238.33        14
21    Z.Johnson    14212.5        12
22    Funk    14025        15
23    Olazabal    13862.5        10
24    Sabbatini    13754.16        12
25    Gay    13400        13
26    Mayfair    13291.66        14
27    Verplank    13175        11
28    Goosen    12937.5        10
29    Vn Taylor    12525        11
30    Senden    12475        11
31    Harrington    12450        10
32    Purdy    12375        12
33    T.Clark    12285        12
34    Choi    12212.5        12
35    Jerry Kelly    11687.5        10
36    Imada    11667.5        13
37    JJ Henry    11662.5        10
38    Crane    11585        12
39    Watney    11510.71        12
40    Villegas    11475        12
41    Love III    11412.5        11
42    Herron    11222.5        11
43    Els    11140        11
44    D.Wilson    11112.5        12
45    Lehman    11075        11
46    Warren    11050        11
47    Hoffman    10987.5        12
48    Ames    10862.5        8
49    J.Ogilvie    10830.71        11
50    Leonard    10820.83        12
51    Parnevik    10767.5        12
52    Sluman    10762.5        14
53    T.Woods    10659.37        6
54    Flesch    10655.71        15
55    Chopra    10567        12
56    S. Maruyama    10550        11
57    Allenby    10350        9
58    RS Johnson    10305        10
59    N.Green    10265        12
60    Bryant    10257        10
61    Wetterich    10175        8
62    Austin    10150        14
63    Poulter    10062.5        10
64    Curtis    9762.5        12
65    Stricker    9725        7
66    Branshaw    9662.5        10
67    D. Howell    9587.5        8
68    F.Jacobson    9587.5        9
69    Palmer    9466.66        11
70    Lonard    9273.21        11
71    Howell III    9187.5        14
72    Garcia    9112.5        8
73    Waldorf    9087.5        11
74    Rose    9041.66        11
75    JB Holmes    8945.83        9
76    Jobe    8905        10
77    Estes    8837.5        9
78    Maggert    8812.5        9
79    Bertsch    8793.75        12
80    Slocum    8737.5        11
81    Hart    8680        9
82    G. Owen    8662.5        9
83    Barlow    8612.5        11
84    Azinger    8562.5        11
85    Rollins    8537.5        9
86    Andrade    8482.5        10
87    Couples    8437.5        10
88    Baird    8242.5        8
89    Pavin    8200        8
90    Br.Davis    8192.5        10
91    Mahan    8187.5        12
92    Gove    8175        8
93    Beem    8168.75        10
94    Micheel    8162.5        9
95    Franco    8112.5        9
96    Sutherland    8050        10
97    DiMarco    7959.37        9
98    Gronberg    7937.5        9
99    Kenny Perry    7925        10
100    Sean O'Hair    7912        10
101    Olin Browne    7812.5        13
102    J.Smith    7775        9
103    Sindelar    7787.5        12
104    Cook    7700        8
105    Lowery    7700        10
106    Kaye    7650        10
107    Geiberger    7393.75        10
108    Calcavecchia    7367.5        13
109    Fischer    7325        10
110    Triplett    7175        8
111    Faxon    7125        10
112    O'Hern    7100        5
113    Langer    7079.16        9
114    Lickliter II    7050        9
115    Bjornstad    7005        9
116    Baddeley    6962.5        8
117    JL Lewis    6937.5        11
118    J.Byrd    6862.5        5
119    Bub Watson    6850        7
120    Goggin    6675.25        6
121    Barron    6606.25        9
122    Armour III    6425        8
123    M.Wilson    6415        7
124    Pat Perez    6262.5        7
125    Dickerson    6175        9
126    Cabrera    6162.5        6
127    B. Haas    6050        8
128    Allen    6050        9
129    Durant    6031.25        12
130    Gamez    5937.5        9
131    Overton    5862.5        10
132    Leaney    5712.5        7
133    Atwal    5650        6
134    Gore    5525        6
135    David Duval    5525        7
136    Ws Short Jr    5462.5        11
137    Frazar    5375        8
138    D.Clarke    5275        5
139    Matteson    5225        9
140    Westwood    5187.5        5
141    Petrovic    5187.5        8
142    S.Jones    4980        9
143    Kendall    4923.21        6
144    K. Cox    4887.5        5

144=Quest For The Card Demise?

fedexcuplogo.jpgOn the comments thread following Commissioner Finchem's teleconference last week, reader Chuck wrote:

...allowing 144 players in the playoff is an admission that there will not be a 'fall finish' or a 'quest for the card', as was originally planned. Guess they can't get any sponsors...

Though they do have a few California events lined up, is Chuck right?

Are the 144 player fields in the "playoffs" a sign that the post-playoff events have little future?

Or are the 144 player fields genuinely a result of the Tour's desire to make it possible for anyone to win "the Cup?"

Either way, I just can't figure out what the purpose of the season points race is when 144 players make these playoffs, with the meaning of the season points diluted?

Thoughts? 

Booz Allen Stories

Obviously I'm still catching up, but there are a few things worth noting in the SI and Golf World game stories covering the Booz Allen's demise. Though neither story questions what would actually require $25 million to redo Avenel (copper irrigation piping?), the handling of Booz's Ralph Shrader was laid out in detail by Gary Van Sickle.

While being wooed by the Tour, Shrader was shown what he calls "exciting" plans for an imminent $25 million renovation of Avenel. The tournament would have to be moved for a year during construction, and favors were called in so that in 2005 the Booz Allen could be played at nearby Congressional Country Club, which has hosted two U.S. Opens. Last year's Classic, played the week before the Open and won by García, was a huge success, but in the meantime not a teaspoon of dirt was turned at Avenel. Finchem blamed delays in getting the needed permits due to Avenel's environmentally sensitive wetland areas, an inexcusable planning lapse if true.

Shrader was equally frustrated in his quest for a preferred date. Shrader wanted the week before the U.S. Open every year, if possible. "One thing we learned in 2004 was that the week after the Open doesn't work here," he says. "Washington is one of those towns where, once the kids are out of school, everybody goes somewhere else and this place shuts down. The Tour said, 'Hey, get in line. A lot of people want to play that [pre-Open] week.'"

But six months before the '05 Classic, Shrader says he got a letter from Finchem. According to Shrader, "[Finchem] said, 'We haven't finalized the schedule, but I'm confident in assuring you that you can have your tournament before the Open three out of four years. Two of those years would be the week before the Open, the third year would probably be another date sometime before the Open, but the fourth year would have to be the week after. We are well aware of your concerns, and we are going forward with our plans for the course.'"

Shrader says he had several conversations with the Tour in succeeding weeks and met with Tour execs during the Presidents Cup in September. Another session was scheduled for two weeks later but was canceled by the Tour. Shrader says he received a subsequent letter from the Tour saying, "Give us another 30 days." Says Shrader, "The next conversation I had was on a Friday morning in January when [Finchem] called two hours before the FedEx Cup and the 2007 schedule was announced. He said, 'We've decided to move your tournament to the fall.' I was surprised, obviously. It was totally different than anything I'd been presented."

And Jim Moriarty writes in Golf World:

In a telephone interview, commissioner Tim Finchem said the tour never contemplated making any changes to Avenel until 2006, yet Shrader secured Congressional as the venue for the highly successful 2005 event held the week before the U.S. Open at Pinehurst No. 2. While both sides acknowledge that permit problems have delayed work on Avenel, Funk, for one, wondered, "When we're spending however much money we're spending down at TPC [at] Sawgrass, doing a huge renovation there, do we have the funds to do a huge renovation here as well?"

Enter the FedEx Cup. Lo and behold, when FedEx agreed to ante up $40 million to be the title sponsor of the tour's new year-ending points race, the tournament FedEx used to sponsor in Memphis just happened to get the date the week before the U.S. Open coveted by Booz Allen. With the Players Championship moving to May, "It's just one of those situations where we had too much water to put in the glass," said Finchem. Good for Memphis, not so good for D.C.

FedEx Farce?

fedexcuplogo.jpgJohn Hawkins points out the many flaws and overall silliness of the Tour's recently announced FedEx vision. Namely, that the system will not genuinely reward those who play often and consistently because the playoffs take 144 players and attempt to give them all a shot at winning "the Cup."

It also remains somewhat fascinating (as far as FedEx Cup discussions go) why there is no cut of any kind over the course of these faux playoffs.

But back to the topic of Hawkins' post. As you know, reader MacDuff has been tracking 2006 using a points system that distributes points equally from event to event. The Tour unveiled it's points system that adds extra points for The Players Championship THE PLAYERS, WGC's and majors.

So here's what the PGA Tour's Top 25 looks like (with MacDuff's rankings in parentheses).

1 (1)      Phil Mickelson         17,483.0 
2 (4)     Geoff Ogilvy             15,797.5    
3 (3)      Jim Furyk                14,898.0    
4 (2)       Vijay Singh             13,663.6    
5 (14)    Stuart Appleby         12,132.3
6  (48)    Tiger Woods            11,362.4
7  (19)    Rory Sabbatini         11,214.3
8 (5)        David Toms            11,192.7
9 (10)    Chad Campbell         11,014.3
10 (17)    Adam Scott             10,705.6
11 (12)     Luke Donald           9,489.8
12 (16)    Rod Pampling         8,831.7    
13 (54)    Brett Wetterich         8,805.9
14 (15)    Arron Oberholser     8,610.0
15 (23)    Trevor Immelman     8,604.3
16 (9)    Carl Pettersson          8,445.0
17(18) Jose Maria Olazabal     8,339.1
18 (24)    Zach Johnson         8,126.315
19 (45)   Stephen Ames         7,912.3    
20 (25)    Retief Goosen         7,744.7
21 (11)    Tom Pernice, Jr.     7,400.2
22 (8)    Lucas Glover            6,719.1    
23 (39)    Tim Herron             6,581.2    
24 (31)    Tim Clark                6,395.2
25 (73)    Jeff Maggert            6,353.3

Note the leaps made by Woods and Ames thanks to the added points for the Players and majors.

And even as the system does offer obvious reward for those playing regularly and doing it well, I still wonder what the point of the "race" is if 144 players get into the "playoffs" and once there, the season points have little meaning?

NASCAR doesn't do it that way, and yet it was used as the model? 

Elling On FedEx Points

From today's Orlando Sentinel:
In an interesting twist, though a player might have won a half-dozen tournaments early in the year, the point totals will be reset before the four championship series events. Those atop the regular-season points list will be seeded higher and assigned a new total based on his standing, but all 144 players who qualify have a mathematical chance of winning the $10 million bonus.

"If the New York Yankees win 115 games and win the American League East, they have to start all over," Finchem said. "It's a very volatile system, where a lot of players go into it with an opportunity to win."

After the first three championship series tournaments, the top 30 players in playoff points advance to the Tour Championship at East Lake Golf Club in Atlanta.

Whether fans will embrace the changes remains open to question. The LPGA adopted a points component this year as a means of qualifying for the season-ending ADT Championship in West Palm Beach -- which also will feature a huge payout -- and nobody has said much about it.

The "Playoffs" Teleconference

Tim Finchem and a bunch of other suits convened in New York to plug the Fed Ex Cup. And as is usually the case, the Tour shows little imagination in creating their "playoffs." Dan Hicks emceed.

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   Thank you, Dan.   Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to an announcement that we hope embarks us on what we hope will be a new era in golf.

This morning in Washington, D.C., we had an annual breakfast, our fifth annual breakfast with 16 or 17 members of Congress to talk about the progress of the First Tee Program. 
I wonder if anyone asked about the demise of the Booz Allen?
As I was coming up here today focusing on this announcement, it occurred to me that here we are again announcing a new initiative in New York, and one that I think with great enthusiasm we will be able to look back on a few years from now and recognize the same kind of progress in what the FedEx Cup is trying to do with what we've seen in First Tee.   The difference is, of course, that today we're not starting from scratch the way we were with First Tee.   We started with a tremendously successful platform that communicates the game of golf.

And if you nodded in understanding at that last sentence, you need help.

When we concluded the elements of what we wanted to do in basic form, we thought that we needed a sponsor company and a partner that had two major qualifications.   First of all, we needed a company with a brand that could integrate easily across the entire PGA TOUR platform, because each week we did not want to take away from the importance of our title sponsors.

Because Lord knows, the fans tune in looking for brand platform integration.

So let's hear from the suckers ponying up $35 million a year for these exciting playoffs.

MIKE GLENN:   Thank you, Commissioner.   It's a pleasure for us to be here today, especially given our long-standing relationship with the PGA TOUR.   It's been wonderful being the title sponsor of the FedEx St. Jude Classic for so many years, and I have to tell you it's a bit bittersweet to give that up, but clearly we are moving to a new level and we are very excited about that.

It would be an understatement to say that this is a significant day for sport of golf and the PGA TOUR, and I can tell you that I speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of employees and contractors of FedEx to say that we are very happy to extend our relationship with the PGA TOUR and to be the sponsor of the FedEx Cup.

Sports marketing has been a very important part of the way that we've built our brand and supports our brand for many, many years, and we truly believe that the FedEx Cup will be a very unique and special addition to our portfolio.   The Cup is very consistent with our brand values and reliability, excellence, precision and leadership and we're looking forward to 2007 when we begin the FedEx Cup.

And we're looking forward to hearing you and the Commissioner mentioning reliability 450,000 times over the life of the contract.

Here's where it gets just plain sad.

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   Let me turn to focus on the second part, which is our version of the playoffs.   As we looked at it, we had a number of questions to be answered.   How can we structure playoff that is created big events?   We wanted each week to stand on its own and be a huge event in the market it's played and for all of our fan base of 110, 112 million Americans to really focus on it.   When I say "Americans," I should go beyond, because so many of our players today are international; it's really a world fan base.

Good salvage job there Commish.

But that challenge and the additional questions of creating a series that every player felt the need, the want and the enthusiasm to play in each and every week to create a series of weeks that is unheard of where all of the players would play head-to-head in four straight weeks created a number of questions.   I want to try to answer those questions, but before I do, let me introduce a little piece of video.   NBC was kind enough to ask Jimmy Roberts to take a few minutes and try to put the notion of playoffs for golf in perspective.

          (Video played).

(Commissioner gives two claps, The Clapper turns lights back on)

Oh sorry, it was that or poking fun at Jimmy Roberts.

But let me show you for a second how the playoffs set up and how they work.   First of all, the players play again through the regular season and they get to a seeding point.   So when they are seeded, the points they have earned to date go away, and they now are awarded a certain number of points that they will carry into the playoffs, and they will earn points each of the four playoff weeks.   The screen you see is the reset point distribution.

So if Stuart, who is in fifth or sixth place right now this year, and we were doing the Cup this year were to progress and end up in first place, he would have 100,000 points.   He'd have a 1,000-point lead over the No. 2 player, and you can see the distribution right on down the list.   The philosophy here is that Stuart should be awarded some benefit for the play that he has had all year long.   He's won tournaments, he's worked hard, he's played a well and he's got himself into that No. 1 seed position.   But it is not an award that precludes him from significant competition.   Therefore, the intervals between players are fairly slim.   And it creates on one hand more or less a home-field advantage, if you will; in some sports you can argue whether there is real a home-field advantage, versus a very volatile system where a lot of players go into the playoffs with an opportunity to win.
If you have any idea what the home-field advantage thing is about, please let me know, because I have no idea what he's talking about.
When you consider that each of our four events is going to have a prize money each week of $7 million, it means that if Stuart is in that first position or in the fifth position at the end of the seeding process, the regular season, he's looking at the next four weeks being worth $63 million in total payout.   And it is that amount of money, coupled with everything else going into the Cup, which we think sets it apart and makes it very, very special.

Yes, to the players. But for the fans?

Here's the Barclay's dude, Bob Diamond, who puts Finchem to shame with some of this MBAspeak.

Let me give you a sense, just a couple of things about why this is important to an organization like Barclays.   You know, first and foremost, it's who do we think we are and how do we think of ourselves.   And you heard Jimmy Roberts talk on the video just a few minutes ago about golf being a game of tradition, it's really one of the world's oldest, most traditional games.   Well, in Barclays, we first took to posit in the City of London in 1689.   We have been in the banking business over 300 years, over 100 years here in the United States.

When we think about ourselves, we think about tradition, we think about strength and we think about excellence.   But we also think about the importance of being around the globe of our global footprinting business.   Another thing that's important to us is our U.S. build.  

(Finchem scribbles "footprinting" on yellow tablet, circles it twice.)

Time for questions and where the bad news arrives. It seems the playoffs aren't really playoffs.

Q.   Most playoffs that I know don't include every member of a league, but in yours, everybody plays in the first three tournaments.   Have you thought of reducing the field after all the points were accumulated leading up to the first playoff tournament?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   We have, and we thought about it a great deal.   We've concluded that with the first playoff event, the Barclays Classic, we assume that every player in the field will have a mathematical chance to win.   We could reduce it the next two weeks, but we don't feel the need to do.

So now, we may change our mind and probably will change our mind on some things as we go forward as we analyze it each year, and right now, we're of the view that the players are really focused all season long on getting into the playoffs and if they played hard enough to get there, they should have the opportunity to participate.
Yes, but you see in real playoffs, eventually we send people home.
Also, we recognize that winning is what is most important in the playoffs, and it's harder to win a tournament when you have more competition; I think virtually any PGA TOUR player will tell you that.   So at this juncture for those reasons, we are going to stay the course, and we'll see as we evaluate it in the out year.

So I don't think it's unusual that we should have a system that's different from every other sport in this respect.   The key question is:   Does it work for us and does it work with the culture of our sport.

Culture, nice, but it's no footprinting.    

Q.   I'd just like a clarification, as I understand it, you won't be eliminating any players until you get to the TOUR Championship; is that correct?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   There will be players, Jerry, who fall below a line of mathematically that are able to win the Cup.   Each week that line will descend.   But the field sizes, if you make it to the playoffs, you can play all three of the first three events in 2007, that's correct.

What that's going to create, obviously, is a player who no longer has a mathematical chance to win might play lights-out for two weeks and move well up into the points list from a distribution standpoint.   Now, that doesn't bother us, and it's another something for people watching to pay attention to.

Or not. Wouldn't this work better if they eliminated players once they had no mathmatical chance to win the Fed Ex Cup?

Q.   Commissioner, the number going into Barclays, is that 144, how many players?   And the 2007 BMW will begin the third day following Labor Day observed; will that be the position of the BMW each year?

COMMISSIONER TIM FINCHEM:   That is correct.   There will be 144 players off of the FedEx Cup point list eligible to play at Barclays, and the same 144 players eligible to play at the Deutsche Bank Championship and the BMW Championship.

Yes that's right, players who will be losing their full status get into these playoffs.

If, and let me just further clarify; if a player is ill, he would not be replaced.   If a player cannot play for whatever reason, he would not be replaced.   There are no sponsor exemptions.   There is no open qualifying.   There is no alternate list.   You must make the 144 finishing at Greensboro to be in a position to play one of those three events.

Wow, rigorous standards to get into these playoffs.

What a farce.

Final count from the press conference: 3 platforms, 13 brand(s), 2 brandings and 3 cultures. Oh and 1 footprinting