Andrew - you're probably right about that, and could probably come up with many more examples. Garland dropped in the canard about an "analogous" course (whatever *that* means -- as you can fit a course of either length in 300 acres), but even before he did I edited my post to add/reference 6,000 acres, since that seems to be a common occurance these days. At any rate, Garland and I share this one quality, i.e. that in such matters we don't know what we are talking about, and are only guessing.
Jim - yes, but there is a difference between saying that most of us don't *need* 7200 yard courses and saying that building them qualifies as one of the 7 deadly sins. (If that were the case, some of our most beloved modern day architects could be described as Satan's minions or as demons incarnate.) But besides that: I'm a selfish person, and all I really care about is that as my son and I grow older there will *still be* golf courses around (within some kind of driving distance from my home), and that I'll be able to afford to play them. I *don't care* if they are 6500 or 7500 yards long (though as you know better than me, many in a younger generation probably will care.) Now, sure, all I need is 6500 yards -- but that ain't gonna happen just by my wishing it; so all I'm suggesting is that if this tide is ever going to turn, *someone* needs to truly step up to the plate with *concrete* cost analysis powerful enough to make it stick, and more convincing than the whines of aging golfers who, frankly, come across simply as *envious* of anyone younger than them who can play a game with which they are no longer familiar.