Interesting responses so far.
For Anthony Gray: There is no question that all the courses at Casa de Campo were going to be built by Pete Dye. And yet, that resort is not as successful as it should be, considering they've got one (and maybe two) of the best courses in the world. I think that's because a lot of people shy away from the name Pete Dye ... so maybe that's a point FOR conventional wisdom.
For Jim Sullivan: Same argument above for Desert Mountain, where there are so many Nicklaus courses that none has taken precedence over the others and (to outsiders) it's all perceived as "more of the same", even though Jack has taken great pains to try and make them different. I'm not saying the conventional wisdom doesn't have merit if you are going to build 4 or 5 courses. As for Old Macdonald, you bet your life Mr. Keiser is playing up that name, and not mine so much. He might not have hired us if that wasn't part of the deal.
For Kirk Gill: Do you really think we're going to go back there and build a stinker? Why the hell would we take the job, and ruin our reputation at the place where we made it? I am under more pressure to perform at Old Macdonald than at Sebonack ... and I'm fine with that.
For Mike Hendren: Make no mistake, the setting and the land have a lot to do with the success of Bandon Dunes and all of its courses. But if that's all there was to it, I'm glad Mr. Keiser doesn't know, because no way would he be overpaying us to be back there again.
For Mike Benham: (e) All of the above. But really, our process is no different for Old Macdonald than it was for Pacific Dunes. I've done the routing, Jim has run the job, our team (with some old faces and some new ones) has shaped the course with my input (and Jim's), and we've had outside input from Mr. Keiser and several other sources [they're just more formalized into a committee now]. The only real differences are the Macdonald theme and the fact that the designer label is being marketed much differently, because my name is old news in Bandon.