Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 3497726, member: 1969"]
My take on the current scoring system is the same as when it was announced a few years back.

#1.  The old system for the FEC that existed until 2018 was insanity and it needed to be changed.    It was impossible to follow and having Steve Sand add 2630 or take away 210, or whatever craziness the formula did was just tough on a viewer and it needed to change.

#2.   I long ago (10 years ago about !!) proposed that they use adjusted scores during the tourney to award the FEC.    There would be two competitions going on --- but in this case the second score would not be a number like 2500 points, but also be vs par.   So a player could be -10 in the tourney, and -15 in the FEC race.   It would be each to determine the impact of each shot on both races.

#3.   The new system in 2019 decided there was only one competition - the FEC using adjusted scores.   Obviously they did this to emphasize the FEC element -- because if they kept raw and adjusted scores, people would focus less on FEC.   But to me that can lead to blowouts -- it's always good to have a few things that are both very meaningful to engage the viewer.

#4.   [B]My biggest complaint.   [/B]I always wanted adjusted scores vs PAR to determine the FEC.   But the adjustment is just way to big.   To have half the field starting 8 to 10 shots behind the leader makes no sense.

It should go something closer to
-5 for Leader
-4 for Second
-3 for third to fifth
-2 for sixth to tenth
-1 for 11th to 20th
0 for 20th to 30th.

It's still a fairly significant advantage for the top 5 in the field.    But nothing like this week.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?