A.G., thanks for that reply.
Let me say up front we are discussing the Ryder Cup and not other sports / events. Some of what I have to say applies beyond the Ryder Cup, but I am writing specifically about the Ryder Cup. It's not basketball.
Yes, I believe there are a handful of *decisions* that potentially matter to the outcome. A "handful" as in: not many -- team selection, pairings, and order of play. That's probably it. "Potentially" as in: even some / most of those presumably significant decisions might not matter. Nobody seems to have done any real analysis of these decisions. For example, has anyone produced any analysis to show whether anything other than random pairings make a difference? There is a tremendous amount of "because it's always done this way" when it comes to the RC. Lots of "feelings" and voodoo -- crap people use to layer narratives over a random collection of observations.
The power to make some but not all of those decisions are vested in a role called "captain." The most important decision made by a captain probably is made before the competition begins: captain's picks for the team. If all other decisions of potential impact were taken from the captain and performed by, say, a random selection engine (a la coin flips), my contention is the outcome probably would not change. But because the powers that be apparently have not done any real research and analysis on the issue, who can say? Who can say. Helluva way to run a railroad in this day and age. Assuming of course the powers that be care about the outcome. They might not, actually. They're cashing some pretty big checks so why change anything other than the window dressing (3 vs 4 vs 2 captain's picks).
And that's my point about the irrelevance of captains: in the absence of real information, who can say whether a coin flip would do as good if not a better job? Given the experience in other areas where a rigorous, data-driven analytical approach is brought to bear on decisions, most probably the quality of captains is the equivalent to that of flipping coins. Oh sure, sometimes a captain's decision making lines up with the talents and qualities of the team he captains, but that's a random thing.
I suppose the wildcard is if players quit on a coach, ie decide not to play their best. I would hope the quality of professionals at the top of their games is such they don't quit, which we can all agree would be deeply unprofessional and, given this event in particular, downright unpatriotic. That said, given what I'm reading it seems possible a number of American professionals may have tanked. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that happened, but nevertheless...