Yes, I rather disagree completely. Thus I asked for reasons WHY you think it so.
But aha! I see you have given such. I had not seen that before.
So these are your reasons, which I shall address one by one.
Simple, the rankings would be done by a bright man who takes GCA seriously.
I thought the assumption was that Pat RAN the list, not compiled it himself. If the former, well he still has to deal with 900 raters, not all of whom meet your standard. How would Pat fix this? Please understand also that those who do run the list now are indeed bright and indeed do take GCA quite seriously. If it is a list compiled himself, well that would be interesting for sure, but I am not convinced it would be any better or worse than what GD does now.
He isn't a rater looking for hand-outs or the "benefits" associated with the job.
same question as above. Note those who run the list are not looking for handouts. Some of the raters do, certainly. It's a nice perk.
And Ballyneal would be on the F'ing list.
Pat has not played there. He'd make sure to manipulate the list to ensure inclusion of a course he hasn't played? Or if it's his list he'd include a rating based on the takes of others?
Note again, Pat is my friend. He's a great guy. I just do think that in your zeal to criticize GD, you have gone off the deep end here logically.
With all due respect,
Tom Huckaby