JKinney,
The ideal location for a back tee on # 18 is directly behind the current one, right next to the left side stone foundation for the entrance.
Across the road alters the angle of attack into the fairway, almost like the new tee on # 18 at PV.
Retaining the angle of attack, and the intended interfacing with the features (bunkers, slope) preserves CBM's vision for play of the hole.
It will be interesting to see if the natural barriers inherent in the design thwart length.
Holes like # 3, 5, 9, 11, 17 might, but, at match play, I can see long hitters ignoring what we might fear.
ie, some have now driven over the road on # 11 and others have now driven # 17 green.
Will some drive over the pit on # 9 ?
Will the "Bottle" bunkers become irrelevant ?
At that time of year, the course should be firm and fast, but, the air might be thinner.
I sure don't want to see goofy golf.
When I think of competitive conditions and hole locations, sometimes, the course is perfect for the Singles, but, again, Mother Nature is going to have to co-operate.
I'd like to see the new tee on # 3 remain.
I began advocating for a back tee on that hole once hi-tech relegated the enormous diagonal cross bunker to eye candy.
There was a time when you had to decide where to challenge that bunker.
Today, you have to decide how not to end up in the tall rough at the end of the fairway on the hill.
The bunker is a vestigial organ/feature.
And, that's what will happen to the large, deep left side fairway bunker on # 18 if they don't move the tee directly back 50 yards.
One only has to see the benefit of the fairly recent back tee on # 14 to appreciate that you have to counter hi-tech with added distance to remain relevant in the competitive world. Ditto # 8 and many others.
It's a sad reality.