2017 US Open to Erin Hills

[Terry Lavin]

If only thing US Open cared about was money, Chambers Bay and Erin Hills are not the courses that they would pick. There are plenty of more moneyed clubs both public and private that would offer up more money for USGA. Hell, if money was everything, Trump would have hosted 3 or 4 by now.

USGA is trying to encourage a certain style of golf courses. Chambers Bay and Erin Hills fit that profile. No need to bring more sinister reasons.

Absolutely clueless.

[JR Potts]

Yep.

Richard, you're right - Erin Hills, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, Pebble and Chamber's Bay are now seemingly regular USGA Open venues because the USGA likes the styling of the courses.  Yep, that's why.

You're right - Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc. are just not the appropriate styles for the USGA anymore.

I can tell you one big difference between the top list and bottom list....and it's not course styling.....it starts with a "p" and ends with an "e" - another hint....it starts with an "m" and ends with an "s".

[Phil McDade]

You're right - Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc. are just not the appropriate styles for the USGA anymore.

Ryan:

This seems at odds with your earlier post that describes what's really going on here with US Open selections -- that the Open has essentially become a giant hassle for member courses. I mean, the USGA can't really force this tournament down the throats of a private club that doesn't want it -- or need it, for that matter -- can it? I'm not sure "style" (if I'm reading your intepretation of that correctly) has much to do with it anymore.

[Paul Richards]

Regarding Chicagoland: I may be in the minority here but I thought Olympia Fields did a fine job of identifying the best player that particular week. They backed off on the rough a bit and caught some weather which led to ideal scoring conditions. Even so, I think only four players broke par. Also, it was fun for me to see a new host site that I was completely unfamiliar with. From what I saw on TV it looked like a great course.

Wyatt, you are correct. OFCC did identify the best player that week.  The scores were low the first few rounds because the USGA messed up by overwatering and trimming the rough too low.  There is no good reason OFCC shouldn't have another shot from the USGA. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
I can tell you one big difference between the top list and bottom list....and it's not course styling.....it starts with a "p" and ends with an "e" - another hint....it starts with an "m" and ends with an "s".

I think this only gets at a grain of the truth. Sure the USGA wants more public courses. However, I think the bigger factor is that the USGA wants to hold a circus, and the privates are getting tired of that. Therefore, TCC rejection, WF less accomodating, etc.

[JR Potts]

You're right - Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc. are just not the appropriate styles for the USGA anymore.

Ryan:

This seems at odds with your earlier post that describes what's really going on here with US Open selections -- that the Open has essentially become a giant hassle for member courses. I mean, the USGA can't really force this tournament down the throats of a private club that doesn't want it -- or need it, for that matter -- can it? I'm not sure "style" (if I'm reading your intepretation of that correctly) has much to do with it anymore.

That was sarcasm.

[Richard Choi]

That was sarcasm.

So, in your world, sarcasm is stating something (ultra-private courses don't want to hold US Open because of the hassle) than stating completely different (USGA doesn't want to hold US Open at said ultra-private courses).

I don't think sarcasm means what you think it is...

(see? THAT's sarcasm!)

[JR Potts]

No Richard - again, I know we're not supposed to read a meaning of any kind into your posts, but YOU said that the USGA is going another direction with their Open selection because of the styles of courses...and nothing more sinister.

I merely pointed out (using sarcasm that wasn't picked up on) that your comment is preposterous as there is no way the USGA is selecting Torrey Pines, Chambers Bay, Erin Hills and Bethpage over Shinnecock, Winged Foot and Oakmont because of STYLES.

[Richard Choi]

I see you are not even bothering to read your own or anyone else's post.

No one is saying they are picking CB or EH over Shinny or WF. What I, and others (INCLUDING YOU!!!) are saying is that those clubs are saying "thanks, but no thanks". What I, and others (NOT YOU!) are saying is that instead of going to second tier classics or more well known moderns, the USGA is conscientiously choosing these relatively unknown courses with desired architecture characteristics.

If you still cannot understand the above paragraph or you would like a better definition of sarcasm, just PM me.

[JR Potts]

And to add to my comment - I suspect that what course is hosting their championships is far down on the PGA and USGA's list.  You know what they care about mostly?  TV Revenue.....Ad Revenue.....ratings.

The money the PGA and USGA makes from merchandise sales, tickets, on course stuff is almost meaningless compared to the TV revenue.  TV revenue drives most everything.

Why do you think the Open has been held on the West Coast during prime-time!  TV my friends...

[JR Potts]

I see you are not even bothering to read your own or anyone else's post.

No one is saying they are picking CB or EH over Shinny or WF. What I, and others (INCLUDING YOU!!!) are saying is that those clubs are saying "thanks, but no thanks". What I, and others (NOT YOU!) are saying is that instead of going to second tier classics or more well known moderns, the USGA is conscientiously choosing these relatively unknown courses with desired architecture characteristics.

If you still cannot understand the above paragraph or you would like a better definition of sarcasm, just PM me.

I think you need to write more cogently or with some sense of clarity or purpose as I don't think anyone understands what you are writing.  Want me to link your comments?  You try to make sense of them.  The last comment finally clearly elucidated your thoughts.

And you're wrong on the latter issue - unknown courses with desired architecture means very very little. 

They care about TV - they care about space - and they care about hospitality - and again, they care about their TV revenue.  Private clubs want a piece of the pie....they don't want to share.

[Richard Choi]

Yes, and the fact that West Coast has a significant chunk of US population (yes, we exist!) and the sun doesn't set till 11PM EST (or later) around here has nothing to do with it. Sure.

Is everything black and white in your world?

[Richard Choi]

I think you need to write more cogently as I don't think anyone understands what you are writing.  Want me to link your comments?  You try to make sense of them.

Then, why is that many others are repeating my position while you are flying off the handle?

[JR Potts]

I'm done engaging in this circle-jerk.  Richard, get involved in a tournament, get involved in the process and get involved in looking at the finances and then call me to discuss.

This is like trying to discuss this topic with my 5 year old....she has no frame of reference to speak of....only visions of candy corn, unicorns and rainbows.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Why do you think the Open has been held on the West Coast during prime-time!  TV my friends...

Ummmmmmmmmm, Ryan, in case you didn't notice there is a three hour difference between the coasts. The USGA hasn't changed the local ending time of their championship.

[JR Potts]

Sorry Garland - in artful drafting from the blackberry.  I realize that the west coast is on a different time zone...that's said, they still push starting times back to accommodate prime-time tv viewing for the midwest and east.  That can't be disputed.

[Richard Choi]

That can't be disputed.

As Jon Stewart once said to Fox News; oh Ryan, are you ever right?

Here is the starting sheet for 2009 US Open at Bethpage, which if my memory serves me correctly, is located on the east coast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/18/us-open-tee-off-times

My, my, what do you know, they started at 7AM, JUST LIKE THIS YEAR!!!

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Garland - in artful drafting from the blackberry.  I realize that the west coast is on a different time zone...that's said, they still push starting times back to accommodate prime-time tv viewing for the midwest and east.  That can't be disputed.

My recollection is that in recent years that have scheduled the finish time to be 7 local time, no matter where the tournament is. However, as always memory is not a perfect instrument.

[Tim_Cronin]

Here's why the USGA or PGA of America picks specific courses for their big money tournaments; their criteria, my batting order:

1. How much money they can make.
2. The infrastructure at or near the course, including parking, easy access, shuttle service.
3. The golf course.

At least where the USGA is concerned, add bonus points for a West Coast setting so tournament coverage can slide into East Coast prime time.

I'd love to see arguments to the contrary, though I'm at work and may not be able to respond promptly.

[JR Potts]

Sorry Garland - in artful drafting from the blackberry.  I realize that the west coast is on a different time zone...that's said, they still push starting times back to accommodate prime-time tv viewing for the midwest and east.  That can't be disputed.

My recollection is that in recent years that have scheduled the finish time to be 7 local time, no matter where the tournament is. However, as always memory is not a perfect instrument.

I believe, given my little bit of reserach, that you may be correct about that.

I apologize for being wrong on this point.

That said, I stand by my underlying comment and premise.  If you don't think that USGA sees huge dollar signs (monumental - course selection changing dollar signs) in Midwest and East Coast prime time starts - especially on father's day - you're on crack.

[Mike Wagner]

Ryan,

First of all, what's wrong with dollars?  Secondly, I guarantee it's not the FIRST thing the USGA thinks about when selecting an Open.  Sure it's something, but, really, wouldn't the Open make $$ WHEREVER it was at?  Think about it, there are so many different ways to generate revenue than there were 20 years ago. 

Point here is things change.  Erin Hills was built for an Open and it fits the "modern" game.  So does Chambers Bay.  They also do it in a way that isn't tricked out - quite frankly, they're both modern courses with a look and feel of the old school.  This is good for golf. 

When you see Chambers at the Am this year and EH next year, you're not going to have to wonder why they were chosen.  Might it just be possible that they're better than some of these older courses?  Hmmmm...time will tell..

[JR Potts]

And nothing is wrong with the dollars - but some bury their heads in the sand about it importance.

And I knew I gave up my argument too soon.  I was right afterall.

http://www.thegolfchannel.com/tour-insider/open-televised-prime-time-36115/


All that said, sorry for reviving this thread from the grave.  It's just that Shackelford's article this am about the USGA moving back tee times into Prime Time got me to thinking...

[Phil McDade]

Ryan:

This is dog-bites-man news. I'm shocked, honestly, to hear that the USGA and NBC have a common interest in money.

[Richard Choi]

Ryan, you are still wrong, I am afraid.

They are not doing this just for the west coast, they are doing this for all US Opens. They want the finish to be close to the sunset as possible. Which is why there were same tee times for last year at Bethpage. And are you REALLY surprised the USGA and NBC want the best ratings possible? What is your point? What would earlier tee times benefit?

Still not sure what that has anything to do with Erin Hills getting the US Open. If they REALLY wanted the money, they can schedule US Opens in Hawaii.

[Jim Sweeney]

Ryan: The USGA's lust for money is a bucket of pretense so full of rusty holes that all semblnce of validity has leaked out.

The US Open accounts for 80 per cent of the association's annual income. That has been the case for 100 years, and will be into the future. As you said, most of that money comes from the TV contract, which includes televising the Senior and Women's Opens, the Amateur and Women's Amateur, the Walker and Curtis Cups, and a "wild card" event every year. So while NBC tears down their equipment at Pebble, they're setting up at Oakmont, then on to Sahalee, etc. Shame on them for trying to maximize their ad revenue!

Meanwhile, The USGA conducting seven other national championships, financing the First Tee and hundreds of other golf development programs, funding turfgrass and environmental studies that improve your golf course, archiving and displaying the world's greatest collection of golf artifacts and books, testing, researching, and regulating equipment, etc, etc., etc. Oh, and paying salaries and benefits and providing a place to work for about 250 people, many of whom travel extensively. None of which provides positive cash flow. Shame on them for wanting to maximize the revenues on their only marketable venture. Just saying.