If the US wants to take the Ryder Cup seriously they need to approach this like a baseball front office (Andy said something similar on the Pod). You need a GM/President of Golf Ops who eat/sleeps/breathes this all the time. "Reporting" to them is setup team, data team and captain. And the captains main job is manage the players/lockeroom and communication. Not to be a great golfer who just so happens to also get at all this other stuff right. Truly what are the chances of that? And a key part of this organization is having people that can synthesize the analytics, parse out what is important for the players to know (and not to know) and get them to buy in and believe it puts them in the best position to succeed. Years ago the Padres hired Dave Cameron, editor of Fangraphs, to work for them. Not because he was some data scientist savant. But because he knew how to translate complex data topics into what matters and communicate that to the masses. They wanted that skill but to translate it to their players and coaches. Communication of the data is just as important as getting the data "right".

It sounds like Scouts works directly with the team to some extent. I found it surprising that the PGA of America doesn't have an internal data team/role for someone that understands golf and the data to work with Scouts to pull the right insights. I'm sure we'll never see it, but it'd be interesting to see what data and analytics they provide and the conclusions they drew.

You hit the nail on the head with the couple of paragraphs about trust. The European team trusts and knows that they are going to be put in a position to succeed and all they need to do is to focus on performing. I think it's very clear that the US team does not feel the same way and that they need to do more than simply play golf. If caddies are making on the fly suggestions about who should tee off on which hole, it shows a complete breakdown of that trust. And rightfully so, if the US team is going to be honest about it. Golf is a high variance sport - not unlike baseball. The players have to play and win the match or game. But captains/managers and data boys need to be putting the math in their player's favor as much as possible. The moment the players start thinking about the math and data while they're supposed to be playing is the moment they become incapable of playing at their highest level.

Man it's good to be reading your work again, KVV. Appreciate the entire FEGC team calling out everyone with a hand in this debacle.

To point 3, I agree. From a financial point of view, this event was a win for the Ryder Cup and team U.S.A. So why does it really matter if we win or not? To point 2, I think what Wagner said about the President's Cup was spot on. I think U.S.A players get fatigued by doing this type of event every year, while team Europe only has to focus on this event. I'm not going to repeat everything he said, but what you stated ties into that broader picture.

This pod was great! A couple of thoughts: 1. The governance problem. If the US Ryder Cup team were a business, the PGA of America would be a misaligned board of directors. The captain is essentially the CEO, but without clarity and support from the board, sustained success is nearly impossible. Europe, by contrast, feels 180 degrees different in this regard. 2. Europe is multiple cycles ahead. It's painfully evident that Europe is at least one to two Ryder Cup planning cycles ahead of the US. Europe has built a rock-solid foundation to build upon, while the US is effectively hitting the reset button every two years. If trust and process matter—and they clearly do—it's nearly impossible to build that in just two years. The next US captain needs at minimum two years to properly prepare and plan. Realistically, the US should consider naming a captain for the next two Ryder Cups to allow them to truly build something sustainable. My recommendation would be to host 3-4 minicamps for players who could realistically make the team, using these to identify the right-fit players and build team chemistry early. Captains should have a clear profile of what they need and use events beyond just PGA Tour wins and majors to evaluate fit. If you want genuine buy-in and commitment, lay down a gauntlet early and see who rises to the occasion. 3. The incentive question. Does it actually matter to the PGA of America if the US is properly prepped and competing at maximum potential? I suppose they don't want the team to look completely unprepared, but the financial incentives of this event seem completely divorced from whether the US wins or loses. That misalignment may explain a lot.

I wonder if NBC will hire a form US Ryder captain and current consultant to sit in the booth at Adare Manor to openly root for the US team. Trying to recall a sporting event where one of the main commentators was so compromised. OK, Tom Brady. Nevertheless.

I would like to see Matt Kuchar be the next captain for the US, why not?

Great article! The US really needs someone in that age 45-55 range to come into the role and serve consecutive terms to get some consistency and real reforms in place. It obviously should be someone respected by the players, but it doesn't need to be someone that's "in the club." Tiger is the first choice because he's not competitive and he's a maniac and would put attention to detail into it. But, he has so many other obligations that him doing it once is doubtful and consecutively is certainly a no-go. But, I really think there's value and an advantage in the right guy doing it 2x in a row. I'd look at someone like Justin Leonard or David Duvall.

My favorite golfer from the first days of swinging a club. He could have had it all following the '21 PGA. Now a leper to the game and to some a national embarassment. Fall from grace in the biggest of ways.