"Mention of Woods and Mickelson will no doubt prompt the PGA Tour's marketing gurus to point that the involvement of the game's two most compelling figures rendered all objections inconsequential."

I'm surprised at the short-sightedness of so many otherwise intelligent writers who see Phil and Tiger in a photo together and declare the FedEx Cup format a resounding success. Sure, it's grown tiresome to debate points permutations, but how about a little big picture and consideration for the long-term potential of the FedEx Cup. You know, to actually make early fall golf compelling are good reasons to keep exposing its flaws. Or, say, when Tiger and Phil aren't batting it around any longer.

Thankfully, Lawrence Donegan isn't close to sold on the latest version:

Mention of Woods and Mickelson will no doubt prompt the PGA Tour's marketing gurus to point that the involvement of the game's two most compelling figures rendered all objections inconsequential. In the bad old days, before the FedEx Cup, the Californian twosome were seldom seen after the PGA Championship in August. Now they were playing golf in September, and for four successive events.

This is a fair point. But it shouldn't be allowed to pass without someone asking why did Woods and Mickelson play all four "play-off" events this year? Not for the $10m (according to this report Tiger's PGA Tour pension will one day be valued at $1bn) and not for the prestige (Tiger and Phil like to win on any Sunday but they like to win most of all on major championship Sundays). No, the reason they played all four "play-off" events is that Finchem asked them earlier in the year to give extra support to the PGA Tour's efforts to keep its sponsors happy.