Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
Probably an insurance policy to add to the content for TV coverage, like you mentioned. The main match might be a blowout and end early, while the consolation match might be more interesting. The main match might have players in them that fans don't care about. If Tiger had lost yesterday, we'd be seeing a lot of it.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
It's also a difference of $100,000 and 525 FedEx points. I guess if you didn't care about either, you could just concede the consolation match and go home.
But, give me the consolation match -- do you really want to see commercials every time they cut to the 3rd place match? It's also not like these guys don't like to play, I always like to play the 3rd place match in any tournament I lost in the semis in.
Is it really necessary? Probably not, but it also isn't like it is really hurting anything or taking anything away from the championship match.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by straightshooter
Probably an insurance policy to add to the content for TV coverage, like you mentioned. The main match might be a blowout and end early, while the consolation match might be more interesting. The main match might have players in them that fans don't care about. If Tiger had lost yesterday, we'd be seeing a lot of it.
By the way, wasn't the finals match a blow out? They just need to cut down the final match to 18 instead of 36. You don't need that many holes to show you dominate. Cink didn't even come close to making it a match in the first place. The consolation match was way more intresting than the final too!!!!!
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
Of course they need the consolation match - it determines 3rd place.....and there's money and FedEx points at stake as well. I do agree that the final should be 18 holes rather than 36 though.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
I've always wondered about the length of the match as well. Trying to watch it yesterday, I was bored even though Tiger is ridiculously good. Partly because it was a blowout, but also because I knew the length of the match. 36 holes, 6 hours-or-so of golf. Come on. Even if it was close, I would be less interested. It's like the baseball/basketball season - shorten it and everyone will start caring from moment one. There's more to lose with each hole.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
I think that I have found a perfectly entertaining solution.
Nobody goes home until Sunday evening. The full field plays all rounds until all golfers are sorted from 1st place down to 64th place.
Example: In a field of just 8 golfers, it would work like this:
The winners of the first match will end up in one group, that will make up places 1-4. The losers of the first match will end up in another group, that will make up places 5-8.
The winners of the first match that won their second match will fight for place 1-2. The winners of the first match that lost their second match will fight for place 3-4. The losers of the first match that won their second match will fight for place 5-6. The losers of the first match that lost their second match will fight for place 7-8.
At the end of this eight-player tournament everyone will have their unique place in the tournament results:
1 WWW 2 WWL 3 WLW 4 WLL 5 LWW 6 LWL 7 LLW 8 LLL
Why does this make the tournament more interesting to watch? Because while the undefeated twosome tees off to decide the tournament winner, the worst two performers of the week will be in a hard-fought battle to come in 63rd, i.e not last. You bet that that will be a good, hard-fought match! Especially because 64th place gets no prize money. Besides that entertainment, there should be at least a few other matches on the course that might be worth watching, for whatever reason.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
However they do it, I think that there should be more matchplay in the TOUR. It is a very interesting different game than stroke play. It deserves more exposure on events that really matter (not just fighting for pride like the various Cups). I am usually not tempted to watch much golf on TV that is not a major, but I do like to watch matchplay. But, then again, I think that there should be a wide variety of different formats on the tour. I'd love to see a true scramble, or best ball, or any of the really different formats. I'd really love to see a worst-ball 2-man team tournament, or even make it just 1 person and have them play each ball twice. I'd love to see an "antique" club tournament. However, I think that these are just idle wishes, because they aren't going to happen any time soon.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
The worst-ball tournament would be interesting: In the interest of fair-play it would probably be wise that the opposing team decides what is the worst ball, which gives the game an extra dimension.
Re: Is there really a need for a consolation match ?
It's fun because match play cuts the field in half each round. This lets there be more action on the course late in the tournament and gives viewers plenty to watch. With something like the World Match Play, I'd welcome a few more "consolation matches."