What's More Offensive And Vile: BCS Or OWGR?

No, Tim Finchem didn't vote Tiger to No. 21 in the Official World Golf Ranking the way Nick Saban moved Oklahoma State into the fourth slot of his final BCS ballot to ensure a non-conference winner plays for the all-SEC national title game.

And I won't even lament the Chevron World Challenge counting toward the World Ranking at this point (you can search the archives for my kvetching, assuming your Tuesday is that devoid of meaningful activity).

But the "OWGR" simply cannot move up a player 31 spots for winning an event with a 17-man field and expect credibility, or in an ideal world, to remain in is current form. Yet the world ranking has become hideously powerful and vital in determining who plays where, who stays in the chummy top 50 club and in 2016, who plays the Olympic games. And the OWGR is by IMG.

Too many evils to ponder, so I'll turn it over to Huggan and Elling. Just part of this week's Pond Scrum bickering over the world ranking:

Elling: Except now they are squealing because Tiger jumped too far, too fast. Again, this isn't even an official event. Unofficial money. Doesn't count. The cash enough is enough to get players to show. The points party is unnecessary. In a backward way, while it might legitimize the tournament -- it certainly does in Woods' eyes -- it diminishes the value of the OWGR. The golf Twitterazzi, including tour players like Steve Elkington and Arron Oberholser, were shooting holes in the OWGR almost as soon at the tournament was over.

Huggan: I do agree that it is nonsense for events like Sun City and Chevron to have any ranking points. Any field less than 50 should be ineligible.

Elling: Anything that pays unofficial money too. Oh, and Tim Finchem just sat bolt upright at your last sentence. The vaunted Tour Championship has 30 players.

Huggan: Yes, official events only, please.

Elling: Stay with me here. ... In a perverse way, Woods is the breathing embodiment of why the decision to award mega-points to a short-field event is all wrong. My view is this: There are dozens of players out there capable of winning on tour in a given week and the number has grown by a legion over the past couple of years. Woods was the lowest ranked guy in his own field at No. 52 when he won, which underscores the thesis -- the more players, the harder it is to win. In this era, given the depth, it's harder to win against so-so full fields than so-called elite short fields. I mean, Zach Johnson had not played in six weeks and almost won.