Neal, I didn't want to "out" you as the source of our discussion about those facts you picked up at GCSAA convo. But that is what I was referring to in a thread I started a week or so ago asking Dan Lucas if he knew anything about the 19 acres FW at the PGA at WS.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=12699;start=msg215685#msg215685As you can see by his answer, Dan didn't actually consult per se, just gets together with fellow fescue keepers...
But, you gotta love the answer about their "hope" that the PGA lets the WS super "burn them out" a bit so that you see a puff of dust when the ball hits the LZ.
You'd have to wonder what they plan for presentation of the rough in that case of 19 acres of FW with dry firm conditions where bounding off FW would be a highly frequent occurance.
I think Wild Horse is about 45-50 acres of FW too, and that is considering that there is usually somewhere of around 75-150 yards of rough varied between tees and begining of maintained FWs.
Courses designed to offer the benefits of greater width ratio to second shot variety-strategy obviously need more irrigation costs up front to meet American expectations where the FW is well defined by greeness to intermediate rough and into primary rough. But, it seems that overseas Aussie and GB&I golfers get past that need for definition nicely. If you have the garden spot LZs irrigated with single or double row irrigation and don't mind a little raggedness in definition where FW continue wider but brown out as they recede into the rough areas, then you might not have the added irrigation and spray-fert costs, and learn to love the uncertainty of those areas of mowed FW beyond the irrigation radius. Width should be an option for architects without all the serious $$$$ addition for maintenance if only golfer's perceptions-expectations would change regarding FW definition-greeness.