Are golf's non-profit "emporors" fiddling while Rome burns?

[Mike_Young]

Pellucid as a very good question with their latest question..read below

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pellucid/perspective_201310/#/2

[Tom_Doak]

Since few are likely to read the link, my synopsis:  the governing bodies (especially the USGA) should invest some of their money back into the game of golf.

I think that's a great idea.  But, honestly, I have no idea where they would spend their money for any over-arching purpose.

Anyone got any ideas where spending $50 million would benefit the game of golf, long-term?

[Anders Rytter]

Research on Ecological maintenance

[Paul Gray]

Since few are likely to read the link, my synopsis:  the governing bodies (especially the USGA) should invest some of their money back into the game of golf.

I think that's a great idea.  But, honestly, I have no idea where they would spend their money for any over-arching purpose.

Anyone got any ideas where spending $50 million would benefit the game of golf, long-term?

Is the intent to be genuinely charitable or simply to recycle the same money within the same social groups?

If it's the former, urban golf. I'm a genuine believer in the ability of sport, particular this game of golf, to instil behaviour patterns and character which are hugely beneficial to society as a whole. If kids in inner city areas at least had the chance to play a simulated version of the game the move to public courses would not be so very far. That would genuinely combine the ethos of charity with growing the game.   

[Wade Whitehead]

It's expensive to play golf but it's really, really expensive to learn how to play golf.

Golf courses don't make the game.  People who play golf make the game.

Teaching kids to play, then providing fun opportunities for them to do so, seems to be a next step to me.

WW

[Mike_Young]

I'm still not sure that forcing growth on the game is the right way to go and especially when so much of the last 30 years growth in courses was not from golf but for RE.  I'm also not sure that the USGA sincerely cares about public golf except for a few competition venues.  The USGA has it's place.  It was founded by private clubs and did not take public clubs for a long time.  (I still see no real representation of for profit clubs on their board)  It's time that the local public "for profit" clubs were on the same footing as the munis they compete against.  MONEY needs to be spent lobbying to fix this aspect of the business. (Ohio did something)  

 The other place that stands out to me is the FIRST TEE program.  There are too many unused tee times and practice space at our local "for profit" clubs and disbursing "monetary credits" to these operations would be much more practical than building First Tee facilities.  The participants would become accustomed to a golf course much quicker,  the courses could use it and  It could still remain a "feel good" program for corporate America; the USGA could figure a way to allocate $$$$ toward such and it would also help existing facilities.  But I'm not sure the efforts to grow the game where it just will not work are ever going to benefit the game.  (That's why the Jamaican bobsled team didn't work).  

I also think money needs to be spent to figure how to "eradicate" many of the golf courses that will not work.  And lastly, I'm so tired of all the organizations talking growth when they should be preaching self-sustainable fiscal operations.  So ,so many of our courses were built to be subsidized by RE and that day is over.  

And one other thought:  The NCAA is not good...once it gets the football playoffs it's revenues will go thru the roof.  I see that with the USGA and the only barrier left is the PGA.

[jeffwarne]

There are a LOT of medium end golf courses with excess capacity who are struggling to make ends meet.
The USGA could use some of its 250 million to provide revenue to selected venues who open their doors to new golfers/minorities/high school kids/whatever/local businesses/leagues.

Let's say I own a course that's $100,000 in the red annually and I'm thinking of selling and the USGA approaches me and says they'll give me $100,000 yearly for 3 years to conduct x amount of clinics, tee times, and range use to truly growing the game.
I'd say if I do a good job, I'd be well on my way to profitabilty by developing new paying players, without simply canibalizing the local market.

$250 million can do a lot if put in the right hands.
Before we tackle the inner city, let's get the obvious candidates for golf sustainability playing the game

[Mike Sweeney]

If it's the former, urban golf. I'm a genuine believer in the ability of sport, particular this game of golf, to instil behaviour patterns and character which are hugely beneficial to society as a whole. If kids in inner city areas at least had the chance to play a simulated version of the game the move to public courses would not be so very far. That would genuinely combine the ethos of charity with growing the game.   

Taking Paul's thought one step further, golf has a logistics problem:

* golf's growth comes from minorities and urban dwellers and nobody can afford to build new courses in urban areas. White suburban kids (me) can figure out how to play.

* kids drive much less these days and it is getting worse - http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/why-young-americans-are-driving-so-much-less-their-parents/1712/

The average annual number of vehicle miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) in the U.S. decreased by 23 percent between 2001 and 2009, falling from 10,300 miles per capita to just 7,900 miles per capita in 2009.

The share of 14 to 34-year-olds without a driver’s license increased by 5 percentage points, rising from 21 percent in 2000 to 26 percent in 2010, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

You can offer all the free golf times you want to kids in Harlem at National Golf Links, but they can't get there.

Reality is the greatest golfer in the world, Tiger Woods, had the benefit of playing golf on a then government subsidized course. Ignoring the Tiger politics, his urban model for golf seems the right direction:

http://web.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/aboutTWF/whatWeDo

[Jim Colton]

Himalayas style putting greens in town centers and public parks. Start with Central Park.

[Mike Sweeney]

Himalayas style putting greens in town centers and public parks. Start with Central Park.

Jim,

I just can't help myself as it is a Sunday morning with maybe a bucket of ball at best in my future. What would you tear up in Central Park, and replace with the Himalayas green in its place?

 

[Joe Hancock]

There are a LOT of medium end golf courses with excess capacity who are struggling to make ends meet.
The USGA could use some of its 250 million to provide revenue to selected venues who open their doors to new golfers/minorities/high school kids/whatever/local businesses/leagues.

Let's say I own a course that's $100,000 in the red annually and I'm thinking of selling and the USGA approaches me and says they'll give me $100,000 yearly for 3 years to conduct x amount of clinics, tee times, and range use to truly growing the game.
I'd say if I do a good job, I'd be well on my way to profitabilty by developing new paying players, without simply canibalizing the local market.

$250 million can do a lot if put in the right hands.
Before we tackle the inner city, let's get the obvious candidates for golf sustainability playing the game

That sounds a lot like a gov't subsidy that would be wide open to fraudulent motives.

Let the strong survive, I say. If a course is losing $100k/ year, and it's a private enterprise, maybe they don't need to be there. Why should golf be any different than any other business in this regard?

Joe

[Ian Andrew]

Anyone got any ideas where spending $50 million would benefit the game of golf, long-term?

Tom,

If I had a budget to work with:

More Turf Research - major focus on lowering inputs
Environmental Monitoring Programs - like the Bethpage (Green Course) studies - to reinforce the fact that inputs are necessary and not detrimental to the environment
Reduce the costs for agronomic visits (and increase the staff to make them more available to all courses)
Education Programs in each city with staff, guest speakers - they exists, but make this much more active
Public Golf Course Consultations pro bono when they can prove the deserve the help

A sustainability initiative from distance control to economics through to environmental initiatives to make golf greener

That's how I would allocate my money if you gave me the program.
Obviously I would need to monitor each program to see what is working and concentrate the money where its helping the most.

[jeffwarne]

There are a LOT of medium end golf courses with excess capacity who are struggling to make ends meet.
The USGA could use some of its 250 million to provide revenue to selected venues who open their doors to new golfers/minorities/high school kids/whatever/local businesses/leagues.

Let's say I own a course that's $100,000 in the red annually and I'm thinking of selling and the USGA approaches me and says they'll give me $100,000 yearly for 3 years to conduct x amount of clinics, tee times, and range use to truly growing the game.
I'd say if I do a good job, I'd be well on my way to profitabilty by developing new paying players, without simply canibalizing the local market.

$250 million can do a lot if put in the right hands.
Before we tackle the inner city, let's get the obvious candidates for golf sustainability playing the game

That sounds a lot like a gov't subsidy that would be wide open to fraudulent motives.

Let the strong survive, I say. If a course is losing $100k/ year, and it's a private enterprise, maybe they don't need to be there. Why should golf be any different than any other business in this regard?

Joe

Fair point.
Certainly one way to deal with excess capacity.
Of course if you don't believe other businesses are subsided (like your mortgage or more closely muni golf), you're in la la land.
But in economic principle I agree, particularly if there were no USGA initiative and war chest to grow the game.

It could certainly be argued by some that keeping the course around provides some benefits to thoser around it and those who use it other than profit/loss for its owner.

I thought the question was how to use the USGA's war chest to GROW the game.
I meant as an alternative to building MORE facilities such as the First Tee, which in my opinion is a misallocation of funds that creates more capacity and brings the game to many who simply will never have the geographical access or cultural change to realistically play it for the rest of their lives.

[Mike_Young]

Mike Sweeney,
I agree on not being able to afford golf in urban areas but I'm not sure the urban and minority golfers are the growth.  It would be nice if they were but I'm not sure they are.  Growth is a weird thing.  Half or more of the farmers I know in Ga have peanut subsidies so they will not saturate the market with peanuts...car manufacturers know they can only sell so many of a particular priced car and search for another price point in the market when they hit it.  They dont try to create more customers that can afford their product.  They introduce another product.  I like the idea of town square putting greens etc...
But somewhere we continue to get bad information.  we are told by several sources that we have approximately 16,000 golf courses in the US and we play 480 million rounds.  That comes to 30,000 rounds per course.  If that's true we don't need to growth for golf to function.  UNLESS we can offer a product that can profit at at fee that will attract more people.  I just don't see it.  
BTW...I got to know more about the FB photo....did you have a career change?

[Joe Hancock]

There are a LOT of medium end golf courses with excess capacity who are struggling to make ends meet.
The USGA could use some of its 250 million to provide revenue to selected venues who open their doors to new golfers/minorities/high school kids/whatever/local businesses/leagues.

Let's say I own a course that's $100,000 in the red annually and I'm thinking of selling and the USGA approaches me and says they'll give me $100,000 yearly for 3 years to conduct x amount of clinics, tee times, and range use to truly growing the game.
I'd say if I do a good job, I'd be well on my way to profitabilty by developing new paying players, without simply canibalizing the local market.

$250 million can do a lot if put in the right hands.
Before we tackle the inner city, let's get the obvious candidates for golf sustainability playing the game

That sounds a lot like a gov't subsidy that would be wide open to fraudulent motives.

Let the strong survive, I say. If a course is losing $100k/ year, and it's a private enterprise, maybe they don't need to be there. Why should golf be any different than any other business in this regard?

Joe

Fair point.
Certainly one way to deal with excess capacity.
Of course if you don't believe other businesses are subsided (like your mortgage or more closely muni golf), you're in la la land.
But in economic principle I agree, particularly if there were no USGA initiative and war chest to grow the game.

It could certainly be argued by some that keeping the course around provides some benefits to thoser around it and those who use it other than profit/loss for its owner.

I thought the question was how to use the USGA's war chest to GROW the game.
I meant as an alternative to building MORE facilities such as the First Tee, which in my opinion is a misallocation of funds that creates more capacity and brings the game to many who simply will never have the geographical access or cultural change to realistically play it for the rest of their lives.

Jeff,

If I was unaware of other subsidies, I likely would not have made the point that I did.

But to the point....warchest money for the growth of the game. I suppose I don't have a better answer than yours, mostly because I am not sure if, in my own true mind's eye, I can get past the idea of the whole purpose being anything more than self-serving for the golf industry. More participants, more business, more money. As an example, how did the USGA end up with so much money?

There's been a lot written, here and elsewhere, about the excesses of golf from a construction and maintenance perspective. Until the leading entities of golf start understanding that part of the problem and how it affects the number of people who have the opportunity to enjoy this great game, I'm afraid we are just chasing our tails.

I honestly believe it simply boils down to this; the haves aren't real concerned with the have-nots. The upper echelon will do whatever they want because they can afford to, no matter the trickle down effects on the rest of the industry. And, really, isn't that just human nature?

Joe

[Mike Sweeney]

.car manufacturers know they can only sell so many of a particular priced car and search for another price point in the market when they hit it.  They dont try to create more customers that can afford their product.  They introduce another product.  I like the idea of town square putting greens etc...

I look at things differently.

1. If you look at The Gates Foundation, 99% of their are funds are spent in developing nations. We have partners that build Media Labs in high schools in Afghanistan. 100% Microsoft software as they cannot afford Apple. The Gates Foundation primes the pump for future generations of MS users. Look at Coke's growth in the last 20 years, all of it from new markets, mainly developing nations.

2. Same with cars, the Ford Foundations first overseas office was in India, and today this is Ford Motors holdings in India: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_India_Private_Limited

3. Problem is a golf course is a local market. Thus the logistics/travel issues that I mention above. IMO, to grow the game, they would need to make a small version (indoor video or Tiger Woods Centers) in urban centers to grow the number of players, and then those players play BIG golf at longer distances.

PS: Same picture, just went from black and white to color.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

If possible, I'd like to see investments to create additional projects like Common Ground.

[Bradley Anderson]

Building golf courses in inner city neighborhoods

- where the buildings need to be torn down anyways
- as First Tee sites
- allow turf schools, graduate students and plant breeders to use the sites as experimental fields for experimentation on low maintenance grasses and methods

[Pat Burke]

obviously finding a way to lower costs.

Research in to water related issues.
Turf needing less water/mowing
Inexpensive water purification/desalinization

I my opinion, the organizations have spent so much time
on growing the game, (in their mind, growing revenues),
they forgot about the experience of the game.

[Mike Nuzzo]

If I owned a golf course there would be a button that said first timers click here.
Richard Mandell's affordable golf symposium last year shared a story of what it was like for a first timer.
This was my essay in Texas Golfer http://nuzzogolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2013/03/golf-course-20.html

Why doesn't the USGA have a button on their site for first timers?
Some could say get ready golf was their way to introduce players.
I just tried the get golf ready website:
It directed me to a local club where I could spend $140 to get introduced to golf???
It did not say what I get for that $140 or what I needed to do to prepare.

The USGA sure does spend a lot of time trying to change other peoples behaviors and not their own - while we're young & play it forward.
How well does that work for the rest of the world???

If I were the USGA I'd buy a lot of solo riders for needy courses and put together a working basic introduction to golf program - partly by subsidising some needy public courses.

Cheers

[Jon Wiggett]

Plenty of short 9 hole courses that are cheap and easy to play. Get local schools and youth clubs involved with playing them along with PGA instruction.

Jon

[RJ_Daley]

Hey Nunzio, another common sense, keep it simple, be resourceful sort of essay.  

Your attention to how to cater to first timers got me thinking of other measures that could be subsidized by the so-called USGA 'warchest' for relatively peanuts sort of costs.  

On course aids and instructional signage (i.e. where to direct cart and walking traffic around and on and off greens, time reminders on pace of play, and even a few rope lines where needed for directional control of course traffic.  I took that issue up at my home municipal course when players were either getting lazy and careless or newbies didn't have a clue how to approach and park their carts near greens.  As we all know, just poor habits cart parking can slow the game with players backtracking or driving unnecessarily close, causing damage to softer over watered surrounds, etc.  

But, for newbies, even more support in the way of informational services.  Here is where distance aid devices for the beginner are essential technology, it seems to me.  Besides GPS on carts, have some spare hand held ones to offer a newbie with club rental or just return after rounds, cheap ones, course specific, or just at least hand them a good hole by hole distance booklet.  Make it complimentary for first timers and encourage them to bring it back for use on return trips.  Offer a good downloadable instruction video (Youtube or other) maybe 5 minutes of explaining the course and what to do and expect.  They could watch one before they hit the first tee while they are waiting to tee off.

The club rental should be subsidized for newbies, with decent beginner forgiving equipment, light weight and good grips.  Maybe offer a package of subsidized green fees and free club rentals for first x number of times playing the course, with a punch card sort of system.  

I think many public muni or privately operated courses open to public have men's and ladie's clubs.  Often time, there are older members, who love to walk for the exercise.  Sometimes we old folk get an injury or pull something or can't actually play for various reasons, but would still like to walk for exercise.  Offer regulars or members of these clubs or leagues who can't play, a free round or some other incentive to walk with a newbie to give them small suggestions, read putts, or just usher them how to navigate the course.  Old folks like to talk, and opportunities to mentor a newbie who is serious about learning the game, would be a mutually beneficial thing for particularly retired folk and the newbies.  

There are really no limits on creative, cost effective and participatory ways we could all grow the game, particularly with some small subsidies or incentives of the big alphabet non-profit organizations, that claim they want to grow the game.

[Dan Herrmann]

I used to throw a few bucks to the USGA every year for their "member" program, but stopped.  I quit because I think the USGA has changed from being a non-profit to a not-for-profit.  They're being run like a business and seem to be hoarding money to defend themselves against equipment-related lawsuits.

Plus, their current management style SEEMS to be more "Office Space" than the old USGA (cut benefits, cut staff, more work per remaining employee).

Why not just become a for-profit and be done with it?  At least the façade would end.

[Joe Hancock]

obviously finding a way to lower costs.

Research in to water related issues.
Turf needing less water/mowing
Inexpensive water purification/desalinization

I my opinion, the organizations have spent so much time
on growing the game, (in their mind, growing revenues),
they forgot about the experience of the game.

Pat,

I agree with what you're saying. The reality is we already have the technology, skills and information on how to maintain w/ less of everything. The problem is that no one really wants to. The universities sure don't want anyone to, nor does any high profile golf course. As soon as we see some big time venues go a decade w/ doing the right thing(as far as costs are concerned), then we might see others fall in step. But, it's all about money(including salaries), so I don't think anything big will change for decades to come, if ever.

Joe

Joe

[Jim Hoak]

I agree with Pat.  Water is the biggest issue facing the game of golf today.  More research on the issue would do the most good.