Every time there's a nontraditional tournament on the PGA Tour schedule, the ensuing questions become increasingly predictable.
During the WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play Championship: "Should there be more match-play events every year?"
During the Stableford-scored Barracuda Championship: "Should there be more Stableford events every year?"
And now, in the wake of the Zurich Classic, the PGA Tour's first team event in 36 years, the resulting debate is utterly inevitable.
"Should there be more team events every year?"
Personally, I don't get it. I don't understand the rationale behind arguing that if an unconventional idea is effective enough, it should become a conventional one.
The entire success around the two-man team configuration of the New Orleans-based event was rooted in the fact that it's different from the week-in, week-out drudgery of the usual individual stroke-play format. If there existed a few more team tournaments on the annual calendar, it would strip this one of its uniqueness rather than render them all more interesting.
Consider this: Both the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour Champions include five major championships every year -- and in each instance, just having one more than the traditional number feels like oversaturation.
Still, the idea will be floated for more team tourneys. If one is good, it'll state, then two would be great and three would be even greater.
Which is like saying, "Hey, I had pizza last night for dinner, and it was really good, so based on that logic, I'm going to continue eating pizza for dinner every night this week!"
Don't get me wrong: I really enjoyed the team concept of the Zurich. I liked watching the world's best professional golfers strategize their way around the golf course like two buddies playing the local club's member-guest. In fact, I liked it so much that I wouldn't want to see it copied for fear of watering down the creation.
Variety is the spice of life -- and the PGA Tour could use as much spicing up as it can get these days.
Rather than trying to copy and paste an already-successful idea, the powers that be should be investigating other unique ways of contesting their events. Instead of simply producing the next team tournament -- or the next match-play or Stableford event -- officials should find the next new idea that will bring similar singularity to a tourney that needs it.
Earlier this year, the inaugural ISPS Handa World Super 6 was held in Perth, Australia, featuring 54 holes of stroke play followed by a rapid-fire day of six-hole matches to determine a champion. This week on the European Tour, an event called GolfSixes will combine the frenetic pace of that event with the team concept of the Zurich, offering 16 two-man teams competing in six-hole matches, eventually concluding with a winning duo Sunday afternoon.
Are any of these concepts the correct answer as to how to spice up the inevitable rut of weekly stroke-play tournaments? No, but the beauty lies within that examination: There is no correct answer.
Executives for the game's various elite tours shouldn't be looking to replicate seemingly unique ideas. They should be attempting to build new ones, to figure out different concepts and strategies that will appeal to casual fans more than the conventional events.
The revamped first edition of the Zurich Classic ended Monday in a four-hole playoff, with young up-and-comer Cameron Smith posting a birdie to claim his first career PGA Tour title, alongside teammate Jonas Blixt. It was fun, it was different, it was nontraditional -- all reasons it shouldn't be emulated anytime soon.
The more golf evolves at the top level, the more it will remain relevant moving forward. New ideas are an integral part of that evolution, one that needs to continue.