http://espn.go.com/golf/masters13/story/_/id/9171606/2013-masters-adam-scott-beats-angel-cabrera-wins-green-jacket
Everybody was watching as Adam Scott knocked down a 12 foot birdie put on the 10th hole in a playoff to win the Masters. Scott became the first Australian to win one of the most prestigious tournaments in golf marking the end to an eventful weekend. 14 year-old Tianlang Guan of China became the youngest player to ever make the cut at the Masters' (nearly missing it after a one-stroke penalty for slow play on Saturday) and Tiger Woods took a two-stroke penalty after a controversial drop. Above all this rose two players who would compete for the championship: a couple of tournament veterans named Angel Cabrera (seeking his third major championship) and Adam Scott (who has finished in the top 20 at the Masters' every time since 2010, including a second place finish in 2011). In the end though, Scott just outplayed Cabrera, becoming the first Australian to win the Masters'.
In light of this playoff, though, many have been wondering if a one hole, sudden death approach to tiebreakers is the best way to determine a champion. Many tournaments, such as the Open Championship and the PGA Championship, use a format in which a few holes are selected to be played and whoever has the better score at the end wins. Other tournaments such as the U.S. Open have another 18-hole round of golf played the next day to decide the champ. I personally see the current Masters' playoff system as flawed because all it is is seeing who has the worse hole first. It doesn't really give you a great idea of who the better player of the tournament is. I like the Multi-hole aggregate format because it can be played on the same day as the final round (won't lose spectators who leave that day, people won't be at work instead of watching so views will stay high) and also will help decide a winner much more accurately by allowing players to come back after a bad hole or have to maintain their consistency after a good one.
