You want to know the problem with the U.S. team and not winning the Ryder Cup? I’ll tell you.

The problem is Tiger Woods.

Let’s be honest with each other. You know it, I know it and they know it.

So, what can we do about it?

First of all, let’s be very clear about this premise. When I say that Tiger Woods is the "problem," I’m not in any way saying we’d be better off without him.

I don’t mean it’s because he doesn’t "care" about winning. I don’t mean that you can’t find a good partner for him. And I sure as hell don’t mean that Tiger is to blame for being "the problem."

It’s more basic than that.

The "problem" with Tiger Woods is that his incredible success in this solitary sport has made him nearly incompatible with a team event like the Ryder Cup. In other words, he’s too big for the event.

And again, I’m not saying he’s "too big" for it because of ego. It’s just that Tiger Woods stands astride the entire sport right now like a colossus. He moves the needle in every regard.

Whether its TV ratings, attendance at events, club manufacturing, apparel, PGA Tour policy or golf course construction and design, there is always going to be a "Tiger factor" involved somehow.

How, then, could he be just "one of the boys" at an event like the Ryder Cup?

He can’t. It’s impossible.

There’s a reason that Tiger’s record in the Ryder Cup is 10-13-2. The event is totally out of his comfort zone. Tiger will always say "Hey, in an 18-hole match, anything can happen."

But "anything" doesn’t seem to happen to guys like Monty or Sergio.

Colin Montgomerie is now 20-9-7 in the Ryder Cup, 6-0-2 in singles.

Sergio Garcia is 14-4-2 in his four Cups so far. Even more staggering, he’s just 1-3 in singles, leaving him a blistering 13-1-2 in "partnered" formats.

So let’s call Tiger Woods what he is: an average Ryder Cup player. Average. I know, it sounds absurd to call Tiger Woods "average" at anything but perhaps dancing. But the record doesn’t lie.

So as a team, how should we use Tiger Woods to maximum effect? Obviously, just rolling him out there for all five sessions and all formats has produced nothing but gnashed teeth.

So, let’s stop doing that. I want the next Captain (likely Paul Azinger or Corey Pavin) to get that "controversy" over with years before the event. Like maybe at their introductory press conference. No really, I’m not kidding.

I want Azinger to say, "I would think Tiger will play three or maybe four times for us. But, not all five. I want Tiger Woods to help lead us to victory, and do not want to put him in a position to fail. He concentrates so hard on every shot with such a burning intensity, that five rounds in three days is insane. Plus, other players can tend to press too hard when they are with him, so it’s best we don’t overwhelm the rest of the team with the burden of having to play with him and all the gallery distractions. Furthermore, every guy on the other team wants to go home with a Tiger Woods scalp for their trophy case, so he’s getting everybody’s best shot all the time. We’re not here to give the other team a chance for a trophy. We are here to win."

You can imagine the uproar this would cause. Newspapers, magazines, and of course EPSN would make a huge deal about it. It would rattle around the media "echo chamber" for months, I suppose.

But all those statements would be true. Or, at least within the bounds of legitimate argument. And best of all, the Captain will have gone on record forcefully about the issue, a full two years prior to the event! By the time the matches come around, you’ll have to be REMINDED that Tiger won’t play in all of them.

Now if this approach (or something like it) was to backfire, and Tiger Woods got mad and refused to play, so be it. The PGA of America could simply say: "Hey, we’re cool with it. Tiger is welcome back anytime he’d like."

Finally, I think it’s high time that we did away with "automatic qualifying" for the Ryder Cup. It is flawed in several ways. For starters, there’s no adjustment made for guys who play more events in a year than others. Also, many Tour players say that making the Ryder Cup is so important to them, that once they are on the team, it’s easy to lose focus on actually winning it.

More importantly, it was evident that Captain Lehman was either somewhat embarrassed by his newbies or lacked any faith in them. How else can you explain Brett Wetterich getting one look on Friday, and then being iced until singles? Or Vaughn Taylor sitting out until late Saturday afternoon?

For better or worse, these guys made the team on the criteria your side thought would identify the best players for the job. Either you were wrong as captain, or the system needs to go, which would be just fine by me. Let’s go with 12 Captain’s picks. That way, a lot of really positive things happen right away.

First of all, it eliminates both OBLIGATION and ENTITLEMENT. When you have a points system that chooses players, it can work against you in two ways. For Woods, the Ryder Cup has always been an "obligation" of sorts. How could he NOT play, was the thinking? Then for Mickelson, his getting to play all five rounds like a hacker last weekend at the K Club were born of a sense of "entitlement." As in, "Why should I have to sit out a session? Look at my qualifying rank..."

With an all-Captain’s picks Ryder Cup team, there is no obligation or entitlement. If you don’t want to play, that’s OK, there’s plenty of other guys out there. We’ll live. It can hardly get any more lopsided than it is now, so go do what you’ve got to do. We’re not going to hold a grudge.

And the flip side is that everybody who accepts a captain’s pick needs to know, that if they accept such a coveted spot, there is absolutely zero entitlement other than being there for the national anthem and singles on Sunday.

Now, we’re talking!

You can actually assemble a team comprised of a much better mix of workhorses players and specialists. This is the kind of team John Daly might even be useful on. He’d keep everybody loose and wouldn’t mind playing one round of better-ball and then singles.

Bring a designated straight hitter (Funk) as a specialist for alternate-shot and perhaps a boomer like J.B. Holmes or Bubba Watson for better-ball. With those guys, it’s either birdie or "X" but who cares if you have a par-machine next to him like, say, Brett Quigley?

I know that all of this sounds like a radical overreaction to the problem. But when it’s been a five-of-six stretch for them, with back-to-back wipeouts, what exactly do we have to lose?