PS. I grew up in Bala Cynwyd, so I can say that.
I would hope you
can say Bala Cynwyd then.
Re squash I never got past hard or soft. So I stick with yellow.
Re cross subsidy argument, that actually might support my point as it helps them feel better about the commercialism, and anything that justifies commercialism of the USO enables them to feel that much less urgency about the ball problem.
Anyway, let's tackle the college football cross subsidy: from what I have read, the great majority of football programs actually lose money, including many I was surprised to hear.
So the cross subsidy is largely a myth, unless you consider that other sports may in fact be subsidizing football. Often this is hidden by athletic depts using creative accounting, and so we the public are led to believe football does the rest of us a favor.
Similarly, before we accept the cross subsidy USO argument, do we know the financial impact of reduced commercialism? How much of the money would come out of the purse? How much cheaper would a decommercialized USO be to run? And what if they just shifted the commercialization over to everything else - the other tournaments, the agron stuff, etc?
I know that IRW any approach to decommercialization would have to sort out the subsidy issue, but in terms of this thought experiment the presence of a subsidy seems to reinforce the contention that commercialism protects the USGA from the painful decision of fixing the ball problem.
Mark