Q. What was the logistical problem with not coming back tomorrow? And it sounds as if you're going to advocate rewriting the rules to cover this kind of situation.
JACK NICKLAUS: We've changed them every year, anyway.
Q. If you rewrite the rules to include a tie as a legitimate result, would you then suggest that the previous holder of the Cup continue to hold the Cup or do what you did today?
JACK NICKLAUS: I don't think that's Gary's or my decision, frankly. I think that we can make a recommendation but we are not the powers to be on that. We were just captains of each team.
Yes, I'm sure we'll probably be asked and we will give our opinion. But I don't think that we are the ones that should make that decision. The decision is a lot bigger than the two of us.
Q. And your recommendations, what would that be along those lines?
GARY PLAYER: Change is the price of survival. (Laughter).
NICK PRICE: I'll drink to that. (Toasting).
JACK NICKLAUS: Whatever you say, I agree with that. (Laughter.)
Q. What about coming back tomorrow?
JACK NICKLAUS: Coming back tomorrow, we felt wanted an option at this point. It made no sense what ever so to bring two players back for tomorrow.
TIGER WOODS: Especially since we have -- we didn't have anymore uniforms. We're out. (Laughter.)
JACK NICKLAUS: We were out of clothes. Out of golf balls.
GARY PLAYER: As Nick said, it's a charter ear flight back is at two o'clock this morning, the charter flight back to the States.
DAVIS LOVE III: I know our whole team riding back was: "We've got to do something about a playoff, not because we don't want to come back tomorrow." If it meant, and we said this on the green, if it meant that we kept the Cup, we were coming back tomorrow to finish. But when it came out -- and it was even suggested on that green, I don't know where that story started that all 12 of us come back and play; we would have done that as well.
But this is the best solution, this time, because of the two men we had sitting here, because of the way the matches were played, and because we're halfway around the world from most -- where almost both teams live.
Now we need to go back and rethink. What if it ties the next time? This is a great question. But I think the reason the rule is put in in the first place, and I was there when this whole thing came up while I was on the board, is to differentiate it from the Ryder Cup so that there would be an ending. Well, we need to make it different; it is different of because of the players that play in it. We have two years to stew about it until the next captain's agreement. As Gary said, it could not be a better ending for this tournament in South Africa, I don't think.
JACK NICKLAUS: If the rule would change to the defending champion retained the Cup, and we tied, we wouldn't be talking about it because we'd have been gone an hour and a half two, hours ago.
I don't think anybody would have argued with the -- in other words, if it had been a tie and there was not a playoff, and the U.S. retained the Cup because there wasn't a playoff, then everybody would still have walked away from here saying a tie was the right thing because it really didn't make a whole lot of difference who retains the Cup. It's who won the matches and how they were played. But because there was a playoff and because there was a decision of who is going to hold the Cup; if we didn't play it, then I can understand why, why the decision we made to split the Cup was far more sensible. Does that make sense to you?
Q. It made sense to Tim Finchem.
JACK NICKLAUS: Tim Finchem thought it was perfect. He said: "I think it's perfect if both captains agree. So be it."
Q. So who made the decision or who muted the idea that the U.S. should retain the Cup in the event it was a draw?
JACK NICKLAUS: That was what the rule was.
ERNIE ELS: No, no --
Q. On live television it seemed to enact a different type of seen, whereby an agreement had been made that you shared the Cup and then Gary Player was speaking on the cell phone?
DAVIS LOVE: We made that agreement on the green that we would share it. And then Tim said, if you tie, the rules say that the defending champion keeps the Cup, and that's when we said no that won't work.
JACK NICKLAUS: U.S. team violated that rule. Yeah, we should probably be disqualified for violating the rule. (Laughter.) Sorry, guys.
Q. When you look back at it, the quality of the teams, the playoff, the way that ended, do you think this is what the Presidents Cup needed to get whatever credibility it might have been lacking? And do you think this could be looked back years from now as a turning point, much the same way as Kiawah was, without the animosity?
DAVIS LOVE III: I think it did that because of where we had the event, because of, again, Jack and Gary and because of the spirit that they were played in. I think it showed that it is different than the Ryder Cup.
The Ryder Cup has gotten a little over the top. We've seen that in the last few years. And this tournament, we've stressed, from presidents to captains on the stage and dignitaries on the stage, they all got up and said: We want these matches to be played fairly. That's the way it ended and that shows the world that we are going to play these matches for fun for the love of the game and we are not going to beat each other's brains out over it.
GARY PLAYER: Why would you say that what the Presidents Cup was lacking? For a start, we've got a team here, there's a hell of a lot better than the Ryder Cup. If you just look at the world record, look at it on paper, not what I'm saying, black and white on paper, and our guys have a hell of a lot better records. I don't see how you could say it was lacking. Melbourne was a great championship. I think the Presidents Cup has been fantastic. (Applause).
JAMES CRAMER: Congratulations on a great week and we look forward to seeing everybody in 2005 at Robert Trent Jones.
End of FastScripts.