Wow, Jud, you really don't understand Barney or this issue at all, do you? You had to be either kidding or disingenuous with that remark...Barney is the last guy in the workd who would think that way.
Mr. Schmidt,
Are you implying that you understand Barney? If so, you may first wish to inform him, and then, a good many of us on this site who may have met the man yet have no clue would benefit from your knowledge.
The argument that raters deprive the industry of needed revenues is certainly of contemporary populist times, but does it make sense? I am assuming that Mr. Kavanaugh knows simple arithmetic- hopefully things aren't so screwed up in IL and IN that he at least has to estimate jobs and submit proposals to his government friends in order to get all that public money flowing into his coffers (I know, he cares for all his optimally diverse crews, paying excellent, above-market wages and benefits BEFORE he takes a penny for himself).
The math goes something like this. There are some 4,000 private courses and perhaps a universe of 3,000 raters (probably quite a few less relevant to this topic since a number of raters are industry insiders with far superior access). So, if all the raters are motivated by free golf and eschew joining a private club, that is depriving the average club of .75 memberships, say $2-3k initiation, and maybe a bit more annually. I know that there are mix and location issues involved, but this probably overstates the loss because significant number of raters remain members of private clubs. Any organization sweating that little money can't be considered a going concern.
Given that few courses are operated anywhere near close to capacity and costs are mostly fixed at the incremental levels we are talking about here, comp rounds even at public facilities are mostly inconsequential. The math: 12,000 courses, 3000 raters, 20 rounds per rater avg. = 60,000 rounds or 5 per course. Assume that only 20% are on the candidate list, 60,000 rounds/2,400 courses = 25 comp rounds per course. Again, even if those free rounds precluded paying customers from playing, the amount of money ($1-2.5K) is inconsequential.
So, what is really bugging JakaB? I have some training in psychology, but no idea, just guesses. Might it be that he enjoys the attention? Perhaps he gets a jolt from pulling someone's chain? Boredom?
BTW, David, I paid for a subscription to GW for over 20 years since the early '80s and through part of the time I was on their panel. I considered it to be a good, timely source of information on competition and golf courses which was not then readily available from other sources. It became less useful for me as the internet fleshed out and I lost interest in tournament golf. While I still follow the rankings with interest, I would not pay for a subscription again. Tough industry it is in- plenty of glossy, well-written regional and local publications available for free at all golf course bathrooms and lobbies- but I hope GW finds a way to remain relevant (and, therefore, viable).