Interesting. But team sports are regional with a local fan base. Not sure how’d your do that in golf and generate interest. Would you have a draft so all the best players aren’t on the same team. etc..
Not sure many would watch if you had blowouts every week by the same team. Dynasties are popular in team sports. Not sure it would work in golf.
LIV has a team format. If they get a TV deal and get exposure then we’ll see if the team concept is palatable to those that watch.
Sneakylong guaranteed money format
Perhaps production bonuses would work best, for every player, not just 'the top' so many.
Certain players could be in their last tournament of the season, be 15 behind after 54, and still be under more pressure than if they were leading by 1, with 3 to go. Missing that bonus could be 3 times what 1st place is paying that week. And he needs to move up 6 positions to get it. Carrots on sticks, so to speak. No 'gimmes', work hard for it. And work every week, if needed.
And get rid of that FedEx thing. Bad set up.
I see Fowler playing in the 3M Open. I thought he made the jump to the Dark Side?
The FedEx Cup playoffs were copied from NASCAR. It was supposed to add some excitement to the end of the season. Golf unlike other sports didn’t have a champion at the end of the season.
So it added something in addition to the 4 Majors.
Accumulating points for playing well during the season and having playoffs seemed like a good idea. And it was. It took a few years to get it right, but it does what it was intended to do.
The LPGA and Champions Tour each have their version and I think it does add some interest.
Charles Barkley is next. Him and Feherty could be fun!
Par4QC And get rid of that FedEx thing. Bad set up.
It might be the worst "playoff" system in all of sports.
Absolute garbage and meaningless for fans. It settles nothing as far as who is the best.
It does make somebody richer after it's all done, but it's not me for watching it.
Copying NASCAR? Somebody thought this was a good idea? Must be an American thing. LOL
Spuzz It settles nothing as far as who is the best.
In order for there to be a 'best', they would all have to play the same tournaments, and/or an equal amount of tournaments throughout the season. Then they would never need any 'playoffs'.
The way it is now(always has been), it is the 'best' player....that weekend/that course, in a restricted field. = meaningless garbage.
That's a lot of money that could be spread out during the season, to help certain venues pump their purses to attract better players.
What other individual sport has a 'playoff' for best player???
What about a match play situation? Last player standing is the best.
Subsonic Last player standing is the best.
In that tournament only, sorry.
Needs to be a season long thing, not 4 days, after some are all beat up/injured.
And the last player 'standing', in my scenario, would be #1 in the world. Couldn't be any other way. He's the best all season long. When all things are equal(only).
jmo
Fedex was never about actually trying to determine who was the season ending "champion". It was contrived because the tour was having difficulty getting sponsors to sign up for events held in the late summer and fall (post Majors) as the top tier talent had already made their millions and were not signing up to play those tournaments. Simple solution = throw $%&# load of money at them. Trace of irony in retrospect.
Subsonic What about a match play situation? Last player standing is the best.
Golf isn't like other individual sports (tennis, for example) where the better player will win almost all of the time - even the very best players will lose an 18-hole match to an average tour player once every three or four times. There's not enough talent differential between the top players, and there's a lot of natural variation in scoring in golf (the putts that burn the edge versus going in, the approach shot that catches the right or wrong side of a mound...)
(By contrast, there are seasons where the top tennis players have won well over 90% of their matches - Connors had a 93-4 year, Federer 92-5, and Graf had a 3-year stretch where she won over 200 matches to 7 losses. It's a lot easier to determine who is the best player when they're playing that many matches, of course - how often do you get a true head-to-head matchplay situation in professional golf?)
Stu1961 Fedex was never about actually trying to determine who was the season ending "champion". It was contrived because the tour was having difficulty getting sponsors to sign up for events held in the late summer and fall (post Majors) as the top tier talent had already made their millions and were not signing up to play those tournaments. Simple solution = throw $%&# load of money at them. Trace of irony in retrospect.
This pretty much sums up the Fedex Cup, with $15 mil on the line it makes showing up more often and
playing well a HUGE incentive.
I have no problem with the format, it's basically a process of elimination, play well enough to qualify for the next round
you move on and advance.
Same thing happens in just about every other sport, team and individual.
More interest is generated after the last Major is played, instead of the usual "Who Gives A Crap Open" etc. IMO
As far as 'Best Player' goes, does it mean when someone wins The British Open and is called
"Champion Golfer of the Year", is it him?
. No literally. 
