The WGC-Cadillac Match Play has undergone some major changes in format this year. Will the new look make for a more compelling tournament?
Additionally, there's a youth movement in women's golf. Is it good for the game or should there be a more clear age restriction?
Our scribes ponder these issues and more in the latest edition of Four-Ball.
1. New WGC-Cadillac Match Play pool-play format: Love it or hate it?
SportsCenter anchor Matt Barrie: Love it. For starters, I'm a big fan of using the latest Official Golf World Rankings. The round-robin matches make things fun and competitive immediately, and give the fans an extra day to watch the golf and see all of the players. It adds a fun wrinkle to it all. We're used to brackets by this time of year, so anything you can do to change it up keeps it from getting stale. Although, the two golfers that make it to the final will have played a ton of golf. Only the fittest survive. I applaud the PGA Tour for trying something new.
SportsCenter anchor Jonathan Coachman: I actually love the new format, but I don't know if the players will love it. To see Jordan Spieth or Rory McIlroy play seven matches is fantastic. But that's a lot to ask. Before it was only six matches to win and two on Sunday. Now there will be two on Saturday. As a fan, I can't wait to see the fight through the pool round. Hopefully we'll get some sudden-death playoffs as we to move onto single-elimination play. But for $1.5 million to the winner and a guaranteed payday, I don't feel to bad for them.
ESPN.com senior golf analyst Michael Collins: Hate it! Part of the allure of Match Play is the chance for a one and done. I can't wait to see how many guys drop out next year because they realize they're playing seven competitive rounds of golf in five days. They wouldn't change March Madness if Duke or Kentucky got knocked out in the first round a few years in a row.
ESPN.com senior golf writer Bob Harig: Not sure I love it, but I like it better than the previous format which sent too many players home too early. The first day of the old Match Play was always great but it seemed to lag after that. Although this is not "true" match play, it allows spectators and television viewers the opportunity to see every player in the field for the first three days. That's a good thing. No one-and-done easy paycheck. There are likely to be less flukes as a first-day loss isn't necessarily crippling. And there could be some compelling Friday action -- even playoffs -- to get the to final 16.
ESPN.com senior golf writer Jason Sobel: More love than hate, but really, I'm somewhere in the middle. I always enjoyed the one-and-done aspect of the previous format -- and loved the fact that, just like the NCAA hoops tourneys, it was bracketable. (Hey, if "bracketologist" is a word, that can be, too.)
But I also understand business, and having a handful of top stars done by lunchtime on Wednesday wasn't helping. It was the inverted pyramid of golf tournaments, the only one in the world that grew less exciting as the week continued. The new round-robin format ensures every player of at least three days of competition. You can't really bracket it, but the positives still outweigh the negatives.
2. How many more wins will Lydia Ko need to gain the attention that players like Annika Sorenstam, Lorena Ochoa and Yani Tseng once garnered?
Barrie: Not many. She just turned 18 this week, and is already ranked No. 1 in the world and sits a top of the LPGA Tour money list. Granted, she's only won twice this year. But sports loves to crown the "next phenom." Ko is certainly that. The attention will only grow, and the endorsements will follow. The LPGA needs another superstar, and Ko is more than on her way. Sorenstam and Ochoa used to dominate women's golf. Once Ko gets completely comfortable with the fame, fortune, and expectations, she'll do the same.
Coachman: I can't for the life of me figure out why Ko isn't already a huge deal. This girl is amazing. She has become dominant in he sweetest possible way. Even playing the role of villain on Sunday (Morgan Pressel hadn't won in nearly seven years), she still was able to shut it all out and birdie 18 and then win in a playoff. I think once she wins a major or two she will become a front page story because then we won't be able to ignore her.
Collins: She's got a total of seven LPGA Tour wins so far and if she wins again before the U.S. Women's Open, it'll be time she get's the "dominating" tag put on her. It seems like every time she's near the top of the leaderboard, she either wins or finishes second. Her peers are not scared of her yet, but they need to start being nervous.
Harig: She should be getting it now and it is hard to believe it is less, although Sorenstam and Tseng quickly won major championships. Still, they weren't doing so at 17 and 18 years of age, weren't even winning at that point.
Sobel: That's on us -- the media, the public, everybody. It's certainly not Ko's fault that she isn't garnering the mainstream attention she deserves. And it's through no fault of the LPGA, which promotes the heck out of her whenever possible. She shouldn't have to pose topless on a magazine cover, Lexi Thompson-style, to make everyone notice.
If anything, Ko is a victim of previous dominance. We've seen players like Sorenstam and Ochoa crush fields in the not-too-distant past; we've seen other teenagers win professional titles. And so, we're collectively immune to the importance of what is taking place right now. It's time for all of us to start understanding how remarkable she really is.
3. With 17-year-old Brooke Henderson in contention at the Swinging Skirts, should the LPGA change its age requirement policy?
Barrie: Not all 17-year old golfers are made the same. And it's a huge risk to make a sweeping change to appease one or two golfers that might be ready, at the risk of others who aren't. Henderson played very well last week nearly making it into the playoff. One good outing doesn't mean it's time for a change. Michelle Wie burst onto the scene, and turned pro at 16. I wonder what her career would've been like had she not been a household name before doing anything on tour to deserve it. Keep it 18. Let the best players take the time they need to learn what is required to be a professional.
Coachman: I hate the fact that Henderson had such a great week and now she has to play Monday to qualify for the next tournament. It's not right. Ko has shown that if you are good enough, you're good enough. Henderson proved on Sunday that her game belonged. It's time to revisit age requirements and qualification.
Collins: When your No. 1 player just turned 18 and the "veterans" are under 30, it might be time to reassess exactly what your rules to join are. I was, and continue to be, opposed to young girls (under 15) wanting to play on tour. Even though I loved seeing Lucy Li last year at the U.S. Women's Open at 11, I don't want it to happen again. Seventeen, on the other hand, is not too young and that should be the new minimum.
Harig: No, it's fine as it is, making it less likely that a teenager who is not ready will turn pro. The LPGA commissioner can always grant a waiver, and that's fine as each case is studied individually. But to allow players to turn pro too early has numerous negative effects, including parents who see dollar signs when their daughters are not ready to pursue them.
Sobel: Look, I'm going to get some blowback for this opinion, but I despise the minimum age requirement rule. I despise it for the NFL, despise it for the NBA and, yes, despise it for the LPGA. It just reeks of executives trying to "protect" a young player's "best interests" while really just looking out for their own.
It's a PR move. If a player is good enough, I don't care if they're 9 or 99, let 'em play -- and advise them on the best way to become successful. Work with these players rather than against them. If a young player -- or more likely, a young player's parents -- decides she isn't ready for the big time, that's their prerogative. But the LPGA shouldn't be making this decision for them.
4. Justin Rose's Zurich Classic win is his sixth straight season with at least one victory, which begs the question: Who's the most consistent player right now on the PGA Tour?
Barrie: Spieth. Done and done. Yes, his triumph at the Masters has a lot to do with it. But look at Spieth's numbers this year, and it's not close. In 11 events, he has seven top-10s. Two of them were wins, two of them were good for second place. While Rose will win a major this year, Spieth is a leaderboard threat every time he puts the peg in the ground.
Coachman: Consistent to me means boring. And I hate to say it, because Rose doesn't move the needle for me. He just doesn't. But that's not the question. I think right now Spieth is the hottest and most consistent. Going back to December, he just doesn't finish out of the top 15. I believe this consistency will carry on just like Tiger Woods did in his prime. Curtis Strange says nothing can go wrong with his swing. Or his game. We will see.
Collins: I'll take Dustin Johnson, thank you very much. He's made more than $27 million and won every year since 2008. Nine wins, six runner-ups, 48 top-10s and 72 top-25s in 165 starts. Say whatever you want about his time off away from golf, when he plays, he's an ATM machine!
Harig: There could be so many definitions for this. Is it top-10s? Wins? Cuts made? Rose has just gone T2 at the Masters and a victory at the Zurich Classic but he had missed three of five cuts prior to that. And yet, he has eight top-5 finishes in his last 21 worldwide starts, including three wins. That's pretty strong. But for overall consistency, it's hard to overlook Jim Fuyrk. His victory at the RBC Heritage was his first in more than four years but look at his body of work over the past year: he's missed just a single cut and posted 11 top-10s going back to the 2014 Masters.
Sobel: Allow me to peel back the curtain a little here: I suggested this Four-Ball question to our editor this week -- and as soon as I did, I was kicking myself, because I have absolutely no idea what the right answer is. Conventional wisdom says it's a guy like Matt Kuchar or Furyk, but can you really be the most consistent without winning more consistently?
Maybe it's Jimmy Walker, though he has plenty of weeks where he fails to contend. I'm not sure I'm ready to give this honor to Spieth, because a consistent month-and-a-half can turn inconsistent in a hurry. Perhaps it's Johnson, the only player to have more consecutive seasons with a win than Rose -- but he's hardly a model of consistency. I really don't know. All I know is that I consistently hate that I suggested this question.