Lessons from the Barbasol Championship Playoff

[David_Tepper]

'It's that there's nothing to watch between shots because there are only 2 or 3 golfers on the course. When players are walking to their tee shots or up to the green, or being carted to the next playoff hole, TV can either cut to commercial or babble for three minutes."

Matt -

You have highlighted exactly why the TV networks are reluctant to televise more matchplay tournaments, except for team events where there are multiple matches taking place almost all the time. When the final match of the tournament on Sunday rolls around it is the only match on the course, except for possibly a consolation match between the 2 players who lost in the semis. It makes for a lot of dead air time. My guess is a lot of viewers switch to another channel when that happens and too many of them don't switch back.

DT 

[Matt_Cohn]

Out of curiosity, what holes did they play? I've played Champion Trace and watched a bit of the final round but didn't stick around long enough to see the finish...


I do like the idea of shortening holes to encourage more aggressive play.

18, 18, 9, 9, 18, 18

[Bill Seitz]

I think the hole discussion gets it wrong.  It's the stakes.  I'm not sure how to get the formula right, and say what you will about the pity point in hockey, but at least you see teams try to win.  Start splitting the 1st and 2nd (and 3rd, etc) place money and FedEx Cup points such that there's not as big of a detriment for losing. If the winner currently gets 500 FC points, and second place gets 300, split them 425-375, and do the same with the money.  Each guy gets a one year exemption instead of a two year exemption to the winner.  These aren't perfect solutions, so that's not really what should be debated, but the idea is to reduce the incentive to play not to lose.   
[size=78%] [/size]

[Jim Hoak]

Bill, I think you are on to something with your thoughts that the problem is the stakes in a playoff.  Making the difference between first and second so enormous causes playoffs to be so tedious and so cautious.  But to tinker with this result goes against the thought that we need to make winning so important so as to stop players from just playing for middling results and being content without winning.  I don’t know how to balance these competing interests.

[Matt_Cohn]

Bill, I think you are on to something with your thoughts that the problem is the stakes in a playoff.  Making the difference between first and second so enormous causes playoffs to be so tedious and so cautious.  But to tinker with this result goes against the thought that we need to make winning so important so as to stop players from just playing for middling results and being content without winning.  I don’t know how to balance these competing interests.

This is interesting. I wonder what would happen if you split the logistical stuff—FedEx Cup points, exemptions, money, etc.—and the playoff just determined the name on the trophy.

[JMEvensky]

Bill, I think you are on to something with your thoughts that the problem is the stakes in a playoff.  Making the difference between first and second so enormous causes playoffs to be so tedious and so cautious.  But to tinker with this result goes against the thought that we need to make winning so important so as to stop players from just playing for middling results and being content without winning.  I don’t know how to balance these competing interests.

This is interesting. I wonder what would happen if you split the logistical stuff—FedEx Cup points, exemptions, money, etc.—and the playoff just determined the name on the trophy.

Wasn't that the way it was done back in the day? Not PGAT sanctioned but agreed upon by the players to split the money?