News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
The ratings game....
« on: March 05, 2005, 11:07:45 PM »
Does anyone on this site give a rats ass if their course is rated in the top one hundred, or even the top two hundred?

I play on a couple of courses that I think are heaven on earth, do they make it into the top one hundred, doubtful at best. Do I care? No.

Do the members at NGLA and Pine Valley get upset when they are demoted from their illustrious perches, I doubt it.

Is the ratings game as vacuous as trying to enumerate the the merits of a Monet or Vermeer?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2005, 11:41:18 PM »
Bob,

We're going to disagree on this one.

Yes, I care.

Why, because eternal vigilance is the price of greatness.

And, members of clubs are prone to follow fads, as well as altering and disfiguring their golf courses.  But, when third parties, nationally recognized third parties, tell them how spectacular their golf course is, the suggestions to change it are muted, if not eliminated.

So, I do care because I've seen too many wonderful golf courses undergo the surgeon's scalpel at the insistence of the membership.

And, if you could listen in at meetings, be they casual, committee or board meetings, and hear the wild and dumb ideas that some members have with regard to altering the golf course, you'd support the indirect sentinel and watch dog services provided by the ratings.

I've also noticed suggestions of "short cuts" or budget cuts with regard to maintaining golf courses.  Again, the ratings serve as a sentinel, a third party source that discourages bone head ideas.

With respect to NGLA, Pine Valley and Augusta, I'm not sure how member suggestions to alter and/or maintain the golf course are received and viewed.  I would suspect that keeping one's membership takes priority. ;D

Something tells me that those clubs aren't run by committees, wouldn't you agree ?

But, that's just my opinion.

JakaB

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2005, 11:55:29 PM »
Bob,

If no one cared I seriously doubt if millions of dollars in comps would be wasted on the rater corps every year that could be better spent on the members and staff....It is my estimation that a minimum of $3,000,000 per year is spent entertaining raters in an attempt to influence something that someone must clearly care about..

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2005, 12:18:51 AM »
For the limited amount of people that visit this web site the ratings are not significant.  Sure we might agree or disagree about rating positions but generally every course rated has been discussed on the web site.

For the thousands of people who are considering purchasing a home in Florida, Arizona or elsewhere it could be very important.  For the developers, it can mean millons in extra revenue.  

The Wall Street Journal on Friday had an interesting article discussing older clubs making renovations in order to keep up with newer clubs.  Bottom line, the rating game means millions...

Mike_Sweeney

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2005, 04:41:13 AM »


Do the members at NGLA and Pine Valley get upset when they are demoted from their illustrious perches, I doubt it.


Bob,

These two obviously have full memberships with many waiting in the wings. However, I have been asked by one owner of a new equity club here to get some of my "Golf Digest friends" to see his course. Pebble and Pinehurst have empty memberships every morning when they cut the greens, so they need to fill up their tee time sheets. The Merion membership is very aware of their Top 10 standing, and I will even go so far to say that if Tom Paul somehow got Fernandina Municipal listed on some Top 10,000 list, they too would hang a plaque in the lobby of the clubhouse !

TEPaul

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2005, 05:02:34 AM »
Do the members at NGLA and Pine Valley get upset when they are demoted from their illustrious perches, I doubt it."

Bob:

I know a lot of people at PVGC and the year they went to #2 I'd say they were certainly aware of it but didn't exactly lose any sleep over it.

I have a feeling they were pretty confident that wouldn't last too long. (The management of Pebble the year they became #1 came to PVGC and were overheard in the parking lot to say their course sure wasn't as good as this one). ;)

I believe the next year PV was back at #1 (I guess it is---since I haven't even looked---don't follow those things).

A_Clay_Man

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2005, 07:50:06 AM »
Bob,

If no one cared I seriously doubt if millions of dollars in comps would be wasted on the rater corps every year that could be better spent on the members and staff....It is my estimation that a minimum of $3,000,000 per year is spent entertaining raters in an attempt to influence something that someone must clearly care about..

J.b.- That's an interesting take! But, I have to ask.... This money you say is spent, is actually not spent. Is it?

It reminds me of the pro with the cart consession who whines after weaks of rain about how much money he's losing.
Is he losing money or just not making as much?

This money, that you suggest could be better spent, does not exisit. And, since there is no additional cost, to having a few extra souls traverse the canvas, where's the harm?

Peter Galea

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2005, 09:11:28 AM »
And, since there is no additional cost, to having a few extra souls traverse the canvas, where's the harm?

Huh? So there is no additional cost for an accountant to do a couple of tax returns gratis, or free rounds of bowling, or comp movie tickets, or free tire rotations. I can't remember the last time I got a couple free shares of Apple stock from Charles Schwab.
Sorry Adam,  a product is a product, a round of golf has value, and with that value there is an associated cost.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 09:12:44 AM by Pete Galea »
"chief sherpa"

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2005, 09:14:23 AM »
My opinion is that most members of clubs that are ranked highly do care. It is a point of pride and validation that they chose the right club.  Most members of clubs not ranked, pretend not to care. It reminds me of when I was in school and could not dance. I cared, but I pretended that I didn't want to dance anyway.
"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

Mark Brown

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2005, 09:34:39 AM »
Oh yea, Striving for rankings drivers developers, architects, supers and staff to do their best work including conditioning, the food in the clubhouse and a sense of pride among members. It almost assures that everything will be done well long-term. It also drives property and membership values in golf communities.

It's fun to be recognizned among golf's elite. Nobody loses sleep over it.

Most important, is that the club has a goal to keep striving for and whether they make the list or not. It also promotes the game of golf and makes golfers more aware of design and other good courses in the country. Golf builds character and attracts people with good values and a good work ethic and these kind of people care about where they play.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2005, 01:15:23 PM »
Bob Huntley,

I am sure there are many members at the top courses who don't give a hoot about GW's rankings.  However, I would wager that a good majority do.

One thing I've noticed about moneyed people is that they typically enjoy their position of status.  Some display it overtly by way of Rolex and Bentley, while others are more into understated elegance with their unlabeled $200 golf shirts and even more costly tailored pants.  They belong to the best clubs and recognition of that by others, at least in their peer groups and above, is very important.

BTW, Fort Worth might be the only place I've ever been to where this might be the exception to the rule.  One can be sitting next to a cowboy at the Paris Cafe and not know that this guy who drove up in an older model pick-up truck with mud on his boots has nine figure net-worth.  But even in Fort Worth,  Colonial members get their dander up when Vaquero edges out its course at the top of the Texas list.

Barney,

What is it that gnaws at you about raters and comp rounds?  Do you feel that your brother's work has been slighted?  Do you seriously believe that there is a conflict of interest, i.e. that courses which comp raters get a higher rating?

Or is it that you don't believe that people should get something just because they are a part of a "special" group?  If that's the case, are you having some dissonance about your fortunate state of affairs?  You know, but for the grace of God or just some lucky sperm you could be ......me?  

You are way too smart and knowledgeable about business matters to be continually harping on this subject.  So fess up.  What is going on?  Maybe I have just grossly overestimated you all this time.

BTW, many of the top courses on the GW list do not comp raters.  A good number of them won't even make arrangements for raters to play even at the full unaccompanied guest fee.

Pete,

You too should know better.  Unless you are operating at capacity, having a few raters come by each year has little or no direct bottom line consequences.  You know very well that once a tee time has gone unused, it has no residual value (whatever impact on maintenance there is on a variable basis, it is infinitisimal).

I guess that you could make the argument that if the comp round was not offered that the rater would be willing to pay the green fee.  That may be true if yours is a very special course and convenient to a large population of raters.

In a perverse way, archies such as Barney's brother would be hurt most by an industry-wide no comp policy.  A number of us go far out of our way to seek out the lesser known courses which may have some merit.  These are typically done by Brauer, Foster, Axeland and Proctor, Hanse, Engh, DeVries, Kavanaugh, and not Nicklaus, Fazio or Jones.  And, frankly, such courses like Wild Horse and Rustic Canyon may get an unintended push up the list because many raters do recognize the obstacles that were overcomed with only meager budgets.

So, Pete, what are your out-of-pocket costs when a Golf Digest rater comes to Pajaro Valley on an off day?  If the guy walks, eats lunch, and maybe picks up a course guide you might add $5-$10 to your bottom line.  If he buys a hat or shirt, add another $10 to $20.

You are right, nobody likes to give their product away for free.  I am reminded of a milk cooperative which dumped a few truck tanks full of milk because they were protesting lower prices.  I am not sure who benefited, but perhaps they felt better for their actions.  Unless you are Pebble Beach or Augusta National, what is it that you're losing?  Of course, it is your product and you are free to do with it what you will.





Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2005, 02:04:50 PM »
.

And, members of clubs are prone to follow fads, as well as altering and disfiguring their golf courses.  But, when third parties, nationally recognized third parties, tell them how spectacular their golf course is, the suggestions to change it are muted, if not eliminated.

So, I do care because I've seen too many wonderful golf courses undergo the surgeon's scalpel at the insistence of the membership.


Patrick,

Ah, but you must admit that their have been some wonderful courses that have been altered, with the goal of getting an elevated rating.  


Bob

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2005, 02:04:54 PM »
along the same vein (and probably its own topic) but would members care more about their club being ranked or being designed by RTJ Jr., Fazio, C&C ... ?
"... and I liked the guy ..."

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2005, 02:46:10 PM »
Lou - I'm afraid your logic is terribly flawed.

First, you're whole argument is premised on raters showing up only on "off-days," which I think you must concede is not always or even often the case.

Second, you're argument fails to recognize that operating at capacity is detrimentally affected by the free rounds of raters. If an unused tee time has no residual value then it shouldn't affect the bottom line whether the vacancy is taken advantage of at no cost by either the rater or the player who otherwise would have paid. The net result, of course, is declining demand.

Whether you care to recognize it, or not, raters are shunting the costs of their playing onto the public (non-raters) players who pay increased full freight as a result. You may write it off as insignificant, but I imagine that's more of a rationalization than a true belief, in view of your professed libertarian leanings.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 03:47:50 PM by SPDB »

A_Clay_Man

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2005, 03:25:23 PM »
Pete, Even viewing each tee slot as product, the costs to the business for that slot must be minimal enough for the sheer fact that comps exist.

Now, if your free accountant can write off the loses that result from not filling each and every tee slot, on each and every day, you might have a way to lower the tax liability ??And free up some much needed cash, to pay the super more. ;)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2005, 04:31:32 PM »
Sean,

Just as you are about most political things, you are out to lunch in your response to my comments as well.

First of all, the pricing of a round of golf is most often not related to the cost of providing that round.  The price of the green fee is established in the market based primarily on supply and demand factors.

If you believe that a low-cost structure necessarily leads to low green fees, you have little understanding of economics.  Just look at Bandon Dunes.

Conversely, think about all the CCFADs that can't get $100 for 40,000 rounds annually needed just to make debt service.  It would come as great relief to these course owners if they could plan for their desired revenues and price their rounds accordingly.

Me getting a round comped has nothing to do with the price you are going to pay.  I guess that one could argue that if the raters like a course and this affects demand for that course, that green fees may go up as a result.  Perhaps this is what course owners hope for in comping raters.

I guess that for a variety of reasons, including your notion of justice, you as a consumer of golf would not like others receiving comp rounds.  Fortunately for the raters, PGA pros, superintendents, architects, and many vendors, some owners do not feel that way.  BTW, do you have any idea what the percentage of non-revunue rounds is to the total at a typical course?  I'll bet you that it is less than 20% of excess capacity.

I can't speak for all other raters, but I have never cost a course a revenue round or kept a member from playing his club.  I don't play at peak or premium times at any course where capacity is tight.  And I would wager that only a very miniscule minority of GW raters force themselves on the courses they wish to play.

As to my alledged rationalization and professed libertarianism, I again am perplexed by your lack of understanding about psychology and political philosophy.  I don't have a problem with comps at all- whether they are for golf raters, gamblers for luxury suites, advertisers and clients for sports tickets, etc.  I am not excusing or painting a good face on a regrettable situation.  I am trying to explain why it is done and what impact it has.

As a libertarian, I have a strong belief in property rights and personal choice.  If an owner wishes to comp me where does my acceptance conflict with any libertarian principle?  As long as the extension of the offer is not predicated on receiving a higher than deserved rating, I see absolutely nothing untoward or inconsistent with my political and moral values by accepting it.  Those who know me well also know that my ethics or opinions are neither situational nor for sale.  I have never submitted a rating for a course that was affected in any way by whether the green fee was comped.   Among GW raters, I don't think that I am unusual at all in this regard.

But what would life be for a bunch of folks if they didn't have the boogie man and countless conspiracies to occupy their minds?  Is it really the white or rich man that keeps the black or poor man down?  Wretched corporations and special interests!  Damned life's lottery!

Now back to watching Tiger and Phil.  BTW, do you suppose that these guys have had a few rounds comped?  I guess that I should be pissed that somehow I subsized their lifestyle.  Just think, if things were fair and I got a better cosmic draw, it might be me in the lead at 24 under instead of Woods.  Rats!


   
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 04:37:32 PM by Lou_Duran »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2005, 04:58:41 PM »
Adam,

It's been a long time since I've been in the Controller's shop, but I am faily sure that you can't book an expense for a comp or maketing round without booking the revenue (i.e. the market value of that round whether cash was received for it or not).

The bottom line is that it has no impact on cash flow or taxes, whether these are booked or not.  So, while I agree with you whole heartedly that in many cases superintendents deserve much better, to do so you have to find a way to get $$$$ rolling in.

I would argue that a course which welcomes raters probably cares more about its self image and might work harder to provide a better product to its customer.  Getting a better ratings as a result of improvements could result in more rounds sold and more money for the supt.

To the extent that some raters would not pay to play many of the lesser courses, I can't see how offering a few comps hurts the operators in any way.   I would like to know the estimated incremental costs of say, two or three non-peak tee times per day.

I will also suggest that raters as a group treat the course much better than the golfing population at large.  How often have you fixed numerous ball marks, raked traps, and picked up trash left by others?  And how often have you shared your insights developed over years of extensive travel to the managers and superintendents?

Unrecovered costs or passed on costs?  Please!!!  As you said, if comps weren't "fair", equitable, or beneficial to the operators, they simply wouldn't do it.

It is now tied at -24.  If I was a leftie, tall, good looking, well-bred, and nurtured, I could be Phil.  I am sure that somebody else is at fault for this as well.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2005, 07:06:15 PM »
I agree Bob.  

Not at all sure that rankings help preserve golf courses.  Unless that's unique to the US.  Rankings have zero clout in Europe, and the courses appear to be less tampered with.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Mike_Sweeney

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2005, 07:35:10 PM »
I agree Bob.  

Not at all sure that rankings help preserve golf courses.  Unless that's unique to the US.  Rankings have zero clout in Europe, and the courses appear to be less tampered with.

Paul,

Zero is a small number. Is Enniscrone considered part of Europe?  ;)

http://www.enniscronegolf.com/newsarticle.asp?id=782&s=2

Oh and they got the ranking after Donald Steele tampered with it!

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2005, 08:21:06 PM »
The big picture is that clubs and publications derive significant revenue from placement on various lists.  

Leaving the publications out of this.....Clubs and courses who achieve a high ranking are places that course baggers want to play.  These travelers find their way on to a course,pay a green fee, and then drop their hard earned cash inthe pro shops buying shirts, hats and in my case the brass ball marks.  

I a very candid conversation I had with one listed course pro, he made it clear that this revenue was important in his ability to supply services the members and earn a living for himself.  

On top of that the egos of the members are stroked.  An interesting study would find how many of these listed clubs are struggling financially, or in member census during the turn down of the golf economy.  I would guess very few are short of members or of paying players.  

Gentleman and ladies......the rankings are very important to certain clubs....don't kid yourselves.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 08:21:28 PM by W.H. Cosgrove »

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2005, 08:25:58 PM »
 8)

I would say I'm glad the Woodlands CC has two courses ranked in the DMN's top 50 of TX..  brought me a smile.. it also makes me want to play better, so that when I "play out,"  I can present some game derived from playing some of the best courses around.

On the raters front.. I'm more upset when a state or local tourney is being played on one of our courses and I can't use the range than when a rater pops out of nowhere to play a round..  
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

JakaB

Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2005, 09:40:51 PM »
Cary and Lou,

I am sorry I have offended either of you and I make this pledge....I will never again comment on the comping of Golfweek raters that falls within the scope of the Golfweek Raters Handbook.  I'm sorry if this means no more free golf as a rater at Shadow Creek or Pebble Beach and in order to play at any top 50 modern or classic course you will need to be the guest of member....but please take solice in the fact that I have an open invite to any rater or any person for that matter that reads this site at any club that I may be a member....I can promise you I am more sick of this rater talk than you as I have given up on the promotion of super affordable golf....when Lou says that comps help courses that charge $15 to $25 dollars a round I puke up all hope..
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 09:44:11 PM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2005, 10:04:15 PM »
I just began to read this post and saw where Barney was catching it.
I was not aware that raters were to ask for comps.  I was of the understanding that Magazines such as Golfweek etc did not expect to be comped.
Personally the courses I have been associated with comped Class A pros, Supts and others that made their living in the golf business and called ahead of time.  
I have talked with very knowledgable raters and some that have no clue.  I think that there are some that mess it up for all.  I even see some of the clueless whose main qualification for becoming a rater was working for a company where they traveled frequently.
I despise the rating business but consider it a necessary evil and have a great deal of respect for some of the people involved such as Brad, where they have paid their dues.  Therefore at the club where I am involved now we will comp a rater but only if he requested to pay and has the proper attitude.  I see too many slap dicks come thru with no clue.
Part of my reason for posting this is to see if I hear any fallout thru the grapevine Re: my projects and raters.  If so, then ....well....I guess rating can be influenced.  
Mike
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The ratings game....
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2005, 10:23:27 PM »
 

Gentleman and ladies......the rankings are very important to certain clubs....don't kid yourselves.


W.H. - This is not necessarily, or cannot by definition be true. If I comp a rater at my course and he (and others for whom I have comped rounds) dislike my course so much (or simply not enough) that it appears on no list, how have I been helped?

I've lost revenue on the rounds I've comped, and as a result, if we accept your conclusion that the ratings game is very important, I've arguably lost even more revenue by virtue of the fact that I am not on the list.

Lou - will get back to you on your point, but suffice it to say for the moment that it certainly is an interesting take that turns basic economics on its head.  Deadweight loss?  

You may believe I am out to lunch, but I assure you I am paying full freight.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2005, 10:24:41 PM by SPDB »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back