Finchem: BCS Is "Blessed"
I've never actually seen someone label college football's BCS "blessed" for all of the controversy it generates. (You know, the relentless bashing, the congressional hearings, the President saying it needs to go, etc...). Only Tim Finchem could like the BCS, but it tells you how doomed the FedEx Cup is when its architect envies the most reviled and integrity-challenged championship structure in all of sport.
First, a few other comments from today's gathering worth noting...
I think that as we look at this part of the FedExCup season, the Playoffs, we're certainly pleased with -- we'll see how it plays out this week, but we're certainly pleased with the way it's come along during the course of the year. I think gradually fans have gotten their arms around this sort of three-tiered system where we have a base amount of points to be earned during the regular season portion and then increased number during the first three Playoff events, and then resetting for a more open competition among the players who have played well enough during the first two stages to get here to Atlanta.
Oh yes, the fans have really gotten their arms around it alright. They just happent to be in straitjackets trying to figure it out. So technically their arms would be around something.
Q. A couple completely unrelated questions. Since you made the ruling on the grooves in D.C. a few weeks ago, some of the manufacturers have had some prototype clubs shot down by the USGA, so I was wondering whether there was any reason to rethink the January 1st start date?
And the second part is I'm wondering whether the Wal-Mart news on the senior circuit has any effect on the sponsorship at Disney at all.
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: On Disney? Yeah, it could. Right now we're working on filling that bit of a hole, and we're optimistic that that will be done.
As far as grooves go, no, we don't anticipate any reason to postpone at this point in time.
At this time...
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I'll give you a candid answer to that. I don't want to be flippant, but I think it depends on the fan's level of interest in detail. Some people say, well, wouldn't it be easier if you just took the Money List. Well, yeah, but then if you ask somebody, well, should a major championship count more than another event, you'd say yes. Well, the major championships don't have the highest purses. So then you say, well, let's double the money or something.
So there isn't any perfect way. It really depends on -- if you're only interested in, say, who has the most points, who's going to move from that position as you get in the Playoffs, given that there are more points available, and this seems to me it's pretty simple this week. That fan is probably saved. If you want to delve into the details and say why did a major championship get this many points and the player get this many points versus any other week, because we make the arbitrary view that it's worth more.
We just have to keep explaining it, I think, and gradually people will want to spend more time, go on line and study it and evaluate the different point configurations in tournaments, three different sections of the season.
See what I mean about straitjackets? Because anyone who goes online to "spend more time" studying the FedEx Cup points series should be strapped into one ASAP.
Asked about how a season long race has any credibility with all of the points resets, here's where the dreaded BCS came up:
All you're doing from day one until today is positioning yourself to have the best possible chance against 29 other guys who had to work that hard to get there. That's what we find exciting about the system. That's what we want; we want fans talking about the system. We want fans talking about the competition, and we want them watching it on television. That's what we're after.
We're not after a system that answers all these kind of questions. That's not what we're about. You could argue that until the cows come home, and I think that's great; I think you should. I think the BCS is blessed to have the kind of controversy they have. Everybody talks about it. I hope we get talked about as much and people are strong-willed on both sides and very vocal about it and write blogs about it, talk about it, go on TV shows, and argue about it. It's great. That's what we want.
The arguments haven't been over points as much as they've been about whether the third system in three years is any better than the previous version. Not exactly the kind of controversy that'll sell tickets.
This was an interesting clarification:
Q. I just want to be sure I understand you. When you first broached the subject of sponsorships, you said it was possible to lose a couple of events. Now, you could lose a couple of sponsors without losing a couple of events.
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Yeah, it's two different things. I think it's possible we could lose a couple of events. It's probable that we're going to lose some sponsors. They're two different things, really. You lose a title sponsor to an event and you can't replace -- you can't keep that particular tournament going -- well, Buick Open going to the Greenbrier is a good example. In losing the Buick Open sponsorship, we also lost a tournament, and we replaced it with a new tournament. There may be some more of that ahead, I don't know, but it most likely will be some more sponsorship loss.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 05:14 PM
Reader Comments (10)
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/notebook?page=notebook/bb-090923
An interesting take. I'd prefer lonesome cleanliness myself, but I suppose that ship sailed for the PGA Tour some time ago.
aaah, you and Bruce "The Boss"--makes sense!!...and Matt Kemp! Hope it was a happy one!
Fo Shiz,
I agree and do understand his point. Debate and controversy are good, he's just very selective about it (we will not release any information about fines!) and probably not picking the best model here in the BCS. Something like the wild card in baseball is a much better debate because at the end of the playoffs, it's still about simple head-to-head competition.
Forgive me if you've heard this before regarding PLAYOFFS structure: Start with first 120 guys in points list. Week One has top point earner and all odd-numbered players in list. The top ten from this week qualify for East Lake. Week Two has second-placed point earner and all even-numbered players in list; the top ten from this week advance to East Lake. Thus 20 golfers wedge it out for the final tournament (at East Lake, sponsored by etc.)
PLAYOFFS would be four rounds of stroke play.
How about having the first two PLAYOFFS the same week (as above) - different cities, each with 60 players. Top ten from each qualify for East Lake the next week. Thus you have a two-week PLAYOFFS schedule. Leaner and meaner, more exciting...
BIG PLUS with this system is that points don't matter once PLAYOFFS begin.