Welcome back to SI Golf’s Fact or Fiction, where we’re still processing the week at Bethpage.
Once again, we’re here to debate a series of statements for writers and editors to declare as “Fact” or “Fiction” along with a brief explanation. Responses may also (occasionally) be “Neutral” since there’s a lot of gray area in golf.
Do you agree or disagree? Let us know on the SI Golf X account.
Bob Harig: FACT. Tiger deserves the appointment if he wants it, and if the U.S. can’t get behind one of the greatest players ever, there are more problems. Perhaps Woods will get some buy-in to the selection process (for example, why give points in 2026 when the Ryder Cup won’t be played until 2027?). Maybe he brings Bradley on as an assistant. The big question is: who if not Tiger?
Sign Up Now. SI Golf Newsletters. Sports Illustrated’s Free Golf Newsletters. dark
John Pluym: FICTION. Does it even matter who the U.S. captain is anymore? Yes, Tiger Woods would be a good pick. But let’s remember: His Ryder Cup record is 13-21-3 in 37 matches. Not exactly a stellar mark. I think there’s a bigger issue at play here: The selection process is broken. The U.S. continues to pick its best players, but are they choosing the right ones? I know the players don’t like Patrick Reed, but he’s one of those right players I’m talking about. He knows how to win in the Ryder Cup. It shouldn’t be about a player’s world ranking. We’ve seen way too much of that in the past two Ryder Cups.
Jeff Ritter: FACT. The PGA of America should call Woods, possibly as soon as Monday. But if Woods declines, who’s Plan B? Who would even want the job? The Bethpage beatdown revealed many cracks within the U.S. Ryder Cup operation, and it includes the lack of a succession plan for the captaincy.
John Schwarb: FICTION. Like Jeff said, there are many cracks in the U.S. Ryder Cup system—but is Tiger Woods the grinder to fix them? We still don’t really know if he cares about this competition at all! And remember, a road assignment is the toughest of assignments and this European team is in an absolute groove. I’d rather see the PGA of America go back to its task force era (as much as I hate to type that) and start to formulate a plan that ensures the U.S. does not get embarrassed again at home in 2029 at Hazeltine. Expecting an immediate turnaround in Ireland seems farfetched right now.
Bob Harig: FICTION. Rory had a great year. Winning the Irish Open, of course, was a great cap on his three U.S. victories, including the Masters. An away Ryder Cup also is fantastic. My guess is he’s not trading any of it. But six Tour wins including two majors for Scottie? No chance.
Jeff Ritter: FICTION. McIlroy had a dream season that included capping the career Slam, an Irish Open and a road Ryder Cup win—two of those were big on his career bucket list. Scheffler’s is significant given it was a two-major haul and possibly the best season we’ve seen since Tiger in his prime. I bet if you asked each player whose season they’d rather have, they’d both say “mine.”
Rory McIlroy ended 2025 with arguably the game’s two biggest prizes: a green jacket and the Ryder Cup. / Paul Childs-Reuters via Imagn Images
John Pluym: FICTION. McIlroy had a great year, but after he won the Masters to complete the career Grand Slam, he seemed to mail it in. Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods didn’t bask in their glory after finishing their career slams. They continued to dominate. Rory didn’t dominate after the Masters, although he was outstanding at the Ryder Cup. Meanwhile, Scottie Scheffler had one of the most consistent seasons I’ve seen since Tiger’s glory days. He won two majors and six tournaments overall. Scheffler is your player of the year, hands down.
John Schwarb: FICTION. McIlroy gets the last laugh for 2025 in a week that Scheffler may like to forget, but a two-major year will always be tops in golf. And Scheffler did it while establishing a level of domination—and quiet intimidation—not seen since Tiger Woods.
Bob Harig: FICTION. I struggle with the course setup logic. Are the Americans that much better on a hard, fast golf course with narrow fairways, high rough and firm greens? I think it certainly would have helped some players—Scottie Scheffler, Xander Schauffele for example—but the European team all plays in such conditions. And remember Rome? Paris? Those courses were set up difficult and the Americans didn’t exactly prosper.
Jeff Ritter: FICTION. Europe just had the better team this time around. I don’t see how firm, fast greens would’ve flipped the script and made them worse putters than the U.S.
The Americans couldn’t keep pace on a birdie-friendly setup at Bethpage Black. / Dennis Schneidler-Imagn Images
John Pluym: FICTION. I don’t think it would have mattered in this Ryder Cup. The Friday and Saturday formats seem to fit the Euros much better than the Americans. They’re just much better at foursomes and four-ball. And I still believe the selection process is flawed. The U.S. team shouldn’t be picking the best players. Rather, it should be focused on selecting the right ones. And if Keegan Bradley plays, I think they have a better shot to compete and win.
John Schwarb: FACT. The first two days couldn’t have gone any worse, right? A punishing Black would not have yielded as many birdies and maybe the U.S. grinds out another point here and there to make a Sunday comeback more feasible. But the statement here is “better chance at winning” not “would have won.” The Euros were impenetrable.
Bob Harig: FACT. But not because anything tawdry occurred here. Bradley’s shock over the issue was misplaced. It’s part of the captain’s agreement, clearly stated. It’s hard to imagine the Europeans playing any games here. It’s a tough situation but if someone can’t go it should be a forfeit. It’s terribly unfair to the guy who is forced to sit because of it. And it does lead to potential chicanery—which was the accusation both times it occurred before in 1991 and 1993.
Jeff Ritter: FICTION. The rule is antiquated, but I still sort of like the envelope as-is. Here’s the rule they should change: a 14–14 tie shouldn’t result in a team retaining the Cup. It should mean that each team sends off one player for a head-to-head sudden-death playoff to decide the Cup.
Keegan Bradley said Sunday night that one of the Ryder Cup’s more unusual rules should be changed. / Brendan Mcdermid-Reuters via Imagn Images
John Pluym: FACT. What a stupid rule. And if you’re a captain, why would you agree to it? If you have a player who can’t compete because of an illness or injury, you should forfeit the point. What a joke.
John Schwarb: FACT. Just too peculiar to have the score change on Sunday morning before play began, and as it turned out that half-point handed to the Europeans was significant as they then only needed two full points to clinch. Sorry to say but this event isn’t exactly “gentlemanly” anymore and any “captain’s agreements” might as well be scrapped.
