[Steve Sayre]

Just keeps getting more disappointing.
This Pete Dye quote from the Links magazine interview is of course spot on:
"God bless the United States Golf Association. They have escalated the cost of maintenance, they have slowed down play, and they have completely lost control of the equipment. Outside of that, they have done a pretty good job."

and now this silly affiliation with ESPN for golf instruction.  Why the USGA is in the business of selecting/endorsing a brand of golf instruction is the first good question as IMO they ought to be "vendor neutral" or better yet stay away; secondly, who really thinks ESPN is a "best in class" provider of instruction so what is the real and hidden agenda for USGA?

What a rudderless ship and in fact a growing liability to those who really love golf. After years of support, I'm "out".

[JESII]

Steve,

I am not clued in...what exactly is this endorsement/relationship?

[Steve Sayre]

February 1, 2008

Far Hills, N.J. – The United States Golf Association is pleased to announce a new partnership with the ESPN Golf Schools, presented by American Express, that will offer special rates and benefits to USGA Members.

Here is the link:   http://www.usga.org/news/2008/January/2008_05.html

Remember, its for the "good of the game", not our balance sheet.

[John Kavanaugh]

Some lessons would do wonders to speed up play.  Where is the problem?

[JESII]

I am completely mystified as to the downside of all of this...please help...

[Garland Bayley]

Some lessons would do wonders to speed up play.  Where is the problem?

And this from the guy who always says support your local pro.

[JESII]

Garland,

I can guarantee you that the guy that spends $375 for one of these ESPN schools is more likely to also spend $50 once a month with the local pro than a player that just doesn't invest in lessons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just keeps getting more disappointing.
This Pete Dye quote from the Links magazine interview is of course spot on:
"God bless the United States Golf Association. They have escalated the cost of maintenance, they have slowed down play, and they have completely lost control of the equipment. Outside of that, they have done a pretty good job."

Steve,

I'd disagree with Pete on the first two issues.
I don't think the USGA is the primary culprit on either of those two issues.

I'd agree with Pete on the third issue.[/color]

and now this silly affiliation with ESPN for golf instruction.
Why the USGA is in the business of selecting/endorsing a brand of golf instruction is the first good question as IMO they ought to be "vendor neutral" or better yet stay away; secondly, who really thinks ESPN is a "best in class" provider of instruction so what is the real and hidden agenda for USGA?


You're not alone in your objection to the USGA going "commercial"  Some feel that in order to protect and preserve the game the USGA needs to remain absolutely independent.[/color]

What a rudderless ship and in fact a growing liability to those who really love golf. After years of support, I'm "out".


Rather than opt out, why don't you write to the Executive Committee, Board and Executive Director and Senior Executives and voice your concerns.

If you remain silent, no constructive criticism will be presented to the USGA, thus reinforcing their decisions.[/color]

[Mike Benham]

If the USGA is chartered with growing the game, why not partner with the largest sports website to attract new players to the game or to encourage existing golfers to become better?

Seems like a simple marketing concept to me ...

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I can guarantee you that the guy that spends $375 for one of these ESPN schools is more likely to also spend $50 once a month with the local pro than a player that just doesn't invest in lessons.

But would he average $75 per month with the local pro if he was not seduced by the USGA to go to the school?

[Michael Powers]

It is obvious that the USGA has shamelessly sold it's endorsement to ESPN Golf Schools in what I view as a warped partnership wherby the USGA receives money for what is an obvious endorsement of the instructional product that ESPN is selling.  

I am not familiar with ESPN's traveling school, although it seems that they have formed this a la Pelz (only at least Pelz uses their own instructors).  I took a look at the instructors listed and there were only 2, which indicates to me that ESPN will either hire out local pros or use the pros at the facility where the school takes place.  

According to the USGA's website, their organization exists to:
1.  preserve and protect golf's traditions.
2.  test equipment.
3.  deal with turfgrass and envoronmental research.
4.  maintain handicap and course rating systems.
5.  preserve memorabilia for their museum and library.
6.  conduct 3 open championships and 10 amatuer championships.

I didn't see anything about whoring the USGA's name in a commercial endeavor to sell golf instruction.  Should we expect the USGA to lock up aparrel and equipment endorsements as well?  

[JohnH]

Tell me how an affiliation with ESPN is a bad marketing/monetary move?  This involves golf schools, which happens to be affiliated with ESPN.  Big deal.

[Kalen Braley]

Couldn't they endorse one of those power drinks like Red Bull or something?  Where is the downside there?  

[Michael Powers]

John H, Mike, John,
The point is that a not-for-profit governing body which holds tremendous influence in the game should not be "partners" with any company involved directly in golf in any way because of the tremendous conflict of interest.

[Steve Lapper]

Another point worth noting is that the USGA chose a major media corporation to partner with.

Disney, the majority owner of the ESPN (Hearst Co. holds a 20% minority stake), may now claim direct affiliation with the USGA and can now advertise a product that will invariably compete with many other well-qualified educational entities. Does the agreement allow Disney to advertise this affiliation? Was a Dave Pelz or Leadbetter Academy or a Nike-endorsed school allowed to compete for this kind of affiliation? Should the USGA deviate from "vendor/product neutral?" Does this not provide some sort of prima facie evidence of specific commercialization and affiliation, thus removing the organization from pure independence and its stated mission? What will happen when their majors contract with NBC comes up for renewal? If the process remains shrouded in secrecy (as it has in the past), will we know that that all the networks had a level bidding field?

There are just too many damning and unanswered questions about such an affiliation to leave this to the "better judgement of the bluebloods." It fails my smell test and reminds me that the dilution of golf's trusteeship is a fait d'compli and  headed down a slippery slope. Once again, how can a supposedly neutral and independent non-profit organization ask us, the citizen golfer, to donate our $$ to it's mission and the judgment of of it's practically inbred Executive Committee?

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

[PThomas]

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

a great question Steve...I've been wondering for years what they do with all their money

[Steve Sayre]

It is obvious from my original post that I agree strongly with the sentiments of Michael Powers and Steve Lapper.

To those who think this affiliation is benign, I would suggest that the USGA is well underway down a very slippery slope, relying on endorsement deals for cash. Lexus and American Express are already signed-on (the official car and the official card). How ridiculous, and an unseemly strategy at best for a non-profit whose mission is founded on integrity and the good of the game.  Should Ping be in a tie-up with the USGA? Should Wadsworth Golf Construction? Should Ecco? Should Klein or Dodson be the "official scribes"?  Ah, maybe Jones or Hanse have the opportunity to be the "official course restorers" for the championship venues.  

From the USGA press release last March: "ESPN, which has televised USGA championships since 1982, will remain the exclusive cable partner of the U.S. Open, U.S. Women’s Open and U.S. Senior Open. The terms of the agreement also give ESPN extensive global multimedia rights, including increased exposure through ESPN International and new media offerings."

and on Feb 1 2008 we have: "ESPN Golf Schools Presented by American Express provides the finest available golf instruction at premier golf courses and facilities nationwide"

Do you think ESPN/American Express provide the finest available golf instruction nationwide?  Don't you think the TV deal and this golf schools thing are connected?  And the vendor neutrality issue is real: why should Pelz, Leadbetter, Harmon, McLean, Puterbaugh, Pinehurst, Pine Needles, Grand Cypress, et. al  be put at a competitive disadvantage because the guardian of golf shills for this outfit?

Patrick says "write 'em" and I guess I will ---- of course, the blazers don't really want the feedback, and there is certainly no "Contact Us" pick on their web site.  Anyway, the new executive team is in place (led by Pete Bevacqua in the newly created post of "chief business officer"), so its all about the Benjamins going forward.

So maybe I need a chill pill, but the purpose of this organization is not to make money and pile up cash on the balance sheet.  But, today, its a primary focus.  Meanwhile, the 8,000 yard courses will be built, succesors to J.B. Holmes will make obsolete another set of historic golf courses , tournament rounds (that set the tone for pace of play generally) will be at 5.5 or 6 hours without penalty, "traditional" Open sites will be shut out because they can't maximize profits without the real estate to dot the landscape with corporate tents.

Do you know how rich this organization is?  Why? Money is not the problem, lack of leadership is.

[JohnV]

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

a great question Steve...I've been wondering for years what they do with all their money

From the USGA Website

The USGA is committed to providing opportunities for personal development through golf and its values. To this end, the USGA launched an aggressive grant making program in 1997 to help organizations develop introductory golf programs and alternative golf facilities for youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, minority youth, girls and individuals with disabilities. Through June 2007 the USGA has dedicated more than $58 million to positively impact hundreds of thousands of children and people with disabilities. Having provided more than $21 million to The First Tee and its Chapters, the USGA is the largest single supporter of The First Tee Network. The USGA is committed to this significant annual grants initiative through at least the end of this decade.

The USGA also instituted the Fellowship in Leadership and Service in 1997. This two-year program provides professional development opportunities for recent college graduates and instills in them a passion for volunteerism and philanthropy. The paramount experience of USGA Fellows comes through working as grants program staff members.

See http://www.usga.org/aboutus/foundation/foundation.html for more details.

[wsmorrison]

Fait accompli is the correct term, not fait d'compli.

[Steve Lapper]

John:

  Using the USGA's Financial Statement, it is clear that the their Grant Program, while admirable and certainly a start, is certainly under-whelming when measured as a distributed percentage v. gross revenues. 2005 recorded this ratio at 5.6% and 2006 was actually worse, coming in at 4.7%. If measured as purely a charitable ratio, that might be somewhat acceptable, but as part of any mission-defined mandate it is rather pathetic. It must also be noted that only a percentage of all the USGA grants goes to efforts to expand the game or make it more available and accessible. Does anyone really feel that the above ratios are acceptable to achieve any meaningful goals in these areas?

   I have a hard time understanding how an organization with a history of secretive and unaccountable governance can ask the general public to support it's decisions and allocation processes. A through analysis of the 2005 and 2006 statements reveals considerable financial inefficiencies. I'm sure under Pete Bevacqua's stewardship, that will change, but it does suggest poor senior management and extensive Executive Committee condoned waste (can anyone say NetJets??).

Wayne:

   I'm terribly sorry to have offended your self-appointed position of spellchecker. Surely it's necessary to make a post correcting me. I shutter to imagine what better use I might have of my time than to perfect my Internet spelling skills.

[tlavin]

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

a great question Steve...I've been wondering for years what they do with all their money

Well, why don't you two do some research if you're so interested?  Uninformed bashing is tough to tolerate.  If you do look into it in any depth, you'll find that the USGA does plenty of good with their money.  I'm sure that some could find fault and find some other attractive areas that could benefit from the association's money, but they do good work.

And if everybody wants to bitch about endorsement deals that save them money, then you're just arguing that it ought to be harder for them to use their money for benevolent purposes.

[Steve Lapper]

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

a great question Steve...I've been wondering for years what they do with all their money

Well, why don't you two do some research if you're so interested?  Uninformed bashing is tough to tolerate.  If you do look into it in any depth, you'll find that the USGA does plenty of good with their money.  I'm sure that some could find fault and find some other attractive areas that could benefit from the association's money, but they do good work.

And if everybody wants to bitch about endorsement deals that save them money, then you're just arguing that it ought to be harder for them to use their money for benevolent purposes.

Terry:

   I have done a decent amount of research and do believe that the USGA does plenty of good. My gripe, and has been documented here over that past few years, is that the organization is grossly misgoverned and unaccountable to the majority of its members. The questioning of inefficient charities and other not-for-profit institutions like the USGA serves a very strong cleansing purpose. The disinfectant of sunlight is usually the very best medicine to eliminate waste, mismanagement and personal agenda.

  As for endorsements, I thought the AMEX deal made sense and I'd probably support most deals outside of the immediate industry, however, starting to make deals within the sport's use-defined parameters only destroys credibility and heads down the slippery slope of conflict-of-interests. Why can't they focus on deals like an official car, an official soft-drink, an official accountant or law-firm or official airline? None of these conflict the game, do they?

[tlavin]

As an aside, when will they finally take some of the proceeds of these $$ schemes and apply them to truly expanding the game and making it available and accessible to the youth of this nation? Just wondering?

a great question Steve...I've been wondering for years what they do with all their money

Well, why don't you two do some research if you're so interested?  Uninformed bashing is tough to tolerate.  If you do look into it in any depth, you'll find that the USGA does plenty of good with their money.  I'm sure that some could find fault and find some other attractive areas that could benefit from the association's money, but they do good work.

And if everybody wants to bitch about endorsement deals that save them money, then you're just arguing that it ought to be harder for them to use their money for benevolent purposes.

Terry:

   I have done a decent amount of research and do believe that the USGA does plenty of good. My gripe, and has been documented here over that past few years, is that the organization is grossly misgoverned and unaccountable to the majority of its members. The questioning of inefficient charities and other not-for-profit institutions like the USGA serves a very strong cleansing purpose. The disinfectant of sunlight is usually the very best medicine to eliminate waste, mismanagement and personal agenda.

  As for endorsements, I thought the AMEX deal made sense and I'd probably support most deals outside of the immediate industry, however, starting to make deals within the sport's use-defined parameters only destroys credibility and heads down the slippery slope of conflict-of-interests. Why can't they focus on deals like an official car, an official soft-drink, an official accountant or law-firm or official airline? None of these conflict the game, do they?

Steve,

Thanks for your reasoned, rational and provocative post.  I am sure that you are the kind of person who could make a difference at the USGA.  I've never been particularly motivated to get involved in the association, to tell you the truth, I've just grown tired of some knee-jerk USGA bashing here.  I'm sure the USGA would love to have your input on some member committees.

[Steve Sayre]

Terry: I hope you're not accusing me of "knee-jerk bashing".  There is nothing knee jerk about it. Secondly, endorsement deals don't "save" the USGA money.  They yield large sums that presumably go into the operating budget and, yes, support the philanthropy, modest as it is.  My issue is, they don't NEED that money.  They have close to $300 Million, according to some reports, on the balance sheet and earn more with every Open. Endorsement deals, particularly those that involve golf suppliers of one kind or another, are wrongheaded.

And the runaway equipment ---- no problem for you?

[Garland Bayley]

I recon their next deal will be with Fortune Brands now that Wally has lost the ball fight to Callaway.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()