Are we growing the game?

[Don_Mahaffey]

It seems to me that an increase in the number of people who play golf would be a good thing for the golf industry, especially the golf course architecture segment. With more $$$ flowing in and more folks playing golf, the demand for new courses goes up, no? The problem is the number of players has not been increasing in recent years and some studies even show the numbers are in decline. The most common reasons cited for quitting the game are, it's too hard, it costs too much, and it takes too long to play.

So, I wonder if most are in agreement with me that growth in participation is good for the game? If your a golf course architect and you agree that growth is good, what can you do to help? Are you addressing the reasons people are leaving the game? Do you leave that up to the owners, investors, stakeholders who develop properties?
I know of a little course in central AZ that would never be mentioned in the same breath with courses discussed here based on it's architectural merits. But, if we had rankings for good golf course investments it would be ranked somewhere by someone. It paid for itself in the first four years of operation and has averaged a 30% return on investment. It's the most basic, simple, less then 6,000 yd course you would ever see. But, it attracts a ton of golfers at a good bargain for those who play. Why aren't we building more courses like this?
Does building a low end golf course offer any attraction to those who have made their name building high-end courses?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Don, This is 90% of my faith in the game, that somehow, somewhere the developers will note that building on a lower scale of development is what is going to usher in players.

I touched on this notthat long ago, and even the GREAT Tom Doak himself said he would love to build one of these. The even better thing is that they can be built on the flattest of properties, and still, enough movement can be produced at an affordable price to make the course still a kick to play.

I have a course I play quite often that I absolutely love called Los Amigos. It's flat as a board, yet, theguy who designed it created some of the most intesting features that have evolved in almost the most uncanny fashion. The course has taken a wild Donald Ross-feel to it, and I'm not saying its anything like a DR course, it sure makes me yearn for one.

And you know what? It can be a tough little sucker too! I don't think I have ever played a round there where I haven't had a double boogie on the front and back nines, usually killing any chance for me to break 80! It's got some really cool little greens, and bunkers a few bunkers that look like I paid Jeff Bradley to rebuild.

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

If memory serves me correctly, you brought this issue up before on this board. I also think you cited numbers from the PGA, NGF, GCSAA....

You're right, of course. The point of bringing new golfers in and growing the game helps everyone. We won't grow new golfers on $100/ play type courses.

Around Grand Rapids, MI, we have had at least 4 courses announce their closing in the past year. Some are closed already, some are in the process....all for housing development. The good news is that creates more customers for me. The bad news is these were all courses that people learn to play golf on. The growth of the game will suffer in the long run....

Another thing I see in the recreation business is the competition for recreation dollars. Now we have all sports at a minor league level in our city, we have short track auto racing, biking trails, etc. Shoot, for the $150 bucks the family of four spends to golf once, they can have a monthly boat payment. We have our work cut out for us.

Affordable golf is neccesary. It's also fairly tough to acheive with the cost of things, including land, nowadays.

Keep your fees down, and your chin up, my friend!

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

I'm begining to change my mind on this subject.  I thought if they would only see the light and start developing golf courses at affordable prices for the average Joe to play, so he can take the game up and learn the enjoyment in it.  And, I hoped the equipment makers would see the light and realise that the technology wars was only adding to the cost of new longer and remodelled courses to fit their new equipment and balls, which was only shooting themselves in the foot in the end.  All this is the obvious stuff that we have been talking about on this site for ever.  But, none of that is probably going to happen.  I now begining to think that if the powers that be in golf course development, and equipment manufacturing did all they could, we would maybe see a temporary spike up in participation, and then leveling off to what ever thenatural saturation point is for the % of folks that would and would not play golf under any circumstance, even if it were free.  Still, a big percentage would try it and quit.  I think they could increase the market from 26million folks that play the game to maybe 35-40 by doing the right things in marketing and opening it up to more affordabilty.  But, that would still leave the vast majority of them as those "occasional" players that only go out once or a couple times a year.  Let's face it, the world doesn't think the same way as we who sit here typing away about obscure GCA issues.  Those who play passionately, are barely keeping up to the market forces and cost demanded to play good courses.  Many of those "good" or costly courses are in financial trouble now.  If numbers of golfers increased, there would primarily be new players at the entry level who play occasionally and aren't going to lay out the kind of ping to play the good stuff at even current prices.  The game will only grow to the natural level of how many people would like it as a matter of % of the population.  And, that I am begining to think is more finite than we want to believe, because we think we are somehow more informed, enlightened, or wise to the game we think ought to be for everyone.  But, it is not...  

I'm beginning to think that some of these golf courses that are in trouble need to draw an off-season crowd or a night crowd into their bar-grille rooms to drink and eat, and not even come for the golf.  Maybe that is it, put a night disco, or a sports bar in every struggling golf course clubhouse. Put lights out there for night driving ranges, and convert practice greens to some sort of bocce lawn or promote putting for bets or prizes (but don't get caught) or apply for a casino license, if you can in your State  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

For me after 20 years in the golf business this is a no brainer.  Unfortunately these "power executives" in golf don't see or don't want to go there.  I am referring to the 20/20 crowd.  PGA, Tour and manufacturers.
1. Too hard to play.  That is correct and why it will always be a game attracting a small segment.  But the problem now is attracting that segment.  In Southern California, you pay $70, ride in a cart, lose 7 balls, and shoot 98.  I wonder why these folks are looking elsewhere for recreation.
I am amazed that the "power executives" don't stress building shorter, easier, more fun, walkable and less expensive courses.  Don't tell me golf courses cost too much to build.  They can be built more cheaply than they are currently costing.
2.  Costs too much.  For some reason, everybody has to play the most expensive equipment.  Sometimes I will play a Monday outing with guys who play 5 times a year.  They are awful, but they have $2,000 worth of clubs in their bag.  If courses were easier to play, spent less on maintenance, then green fees would come down.  There is an elitist attitude that you have to have the Bobby Jones shirt and latest Callaway driver.  Aren't the best players always playing with equipment 4 years old, but comfortable for them?
3.  Takes too long to play.  Yes, yes and yes.  As I get older I enjoy playing alone more and more because of this.  Two reasons for this, carts and television.  We don't need to line up 2 foot putts, and we don't need to know the exact yardage to the rear of the green for every shot.  I still fall back to my youth when playing, give me the 150 yard marker and I can calculate the rest.  It is more fun that way.
Play is down everywhere in the country, more so in California.  The game will bottom out in about 12 more months and then you will see some serious closing of courses.  Am I alone in this thinking?  Not among those who have been in the business for more than 20 years.  Unfortunately there are few of those and none on the great 20/20 committee.
If I sound crazy so be it, but I have seen this coming for about 5 years.  You have too.
Maybe we should start our own publicity campaign marching around the country preaching facts.  I heard Bob Dedman Jr., did a little of that at the last 20/20 gathering.
Maybe the solution is the Doaks', Keisers', Dyes' and Baksts' do it.  Maybe people will listen to them.
Sorry to go so long.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Keep on going Lynn.

Robert Dedman Jr.--Now there is a voice of authority! He's not even a golfer! But this is the problem with 20/20. It's nothing more then a B.S. conference which allows some of the high-rolling execs to get away to a nice resort, play some golf and talk about the future of it as if they really cared.

It also allows them to get a pulse on who's hot and who's not, so they can figure out which courses they can buy for cents on the dollar. Soon you'll see a lot of these guys razing them for development of more lucrative housing and mini-malls.

What 20/20 needs to be is people who care about the Game. one representitive from each branch, and then locked in a room until they come up with something for the greater good. If I ever got invited to 20/20, I would walk in there ala Al Pacino screaming, "I want to take a flame thrower to this place!" scare the Hell out of them and then get down to business. I'll would then rescend my spot on the dais, let Tom Paul take over ala Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where none of them will get any sleep until the Game is put back as we see fit.

The funny thing is that most of you will think I'm joking about this.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Don,

You have probably started the most important thread on here.  I have small kids playing all the sports they can get access to, yet until high school there is no golf program, and there is no golf program in the gym classes they take. I would love to see someone teaching golf basics as a part of gym class in the elementary and middle school levels.  But, who am i to complain, I guess i should do something about that.  Presently, I am building a course that will include a set of tees measuring 2800 yards.  This means a mom or dad can take the kid out and let them play from about 150 yards out from the green on average.  This seems like a good distance.  When I take my kids out I just guess that distance and then let them tee up in the fairway, and within a couple of shots they are at the green.  the management company wanted to eliminate the tees to help lower the construction budget but I put that down quickly, even telling the golf commmittee I would pay for them, I mean how short sighted is that, and this company probably participates in the 20/20 conferences.  But, i think we need to get kids thinking golf early, especially through the schools, like in gym classes, and who knows with the shorter tees maybe a junior golf program after school can begin on this course.  I think the best golfers are the ones that started early and had some structured teaching on the game.  I learned just from being on the course at age 8, but in high school on bad days during the winter our golf coach made us read the rule book and take tests.  I think Tommy N. brings up a good point, you can have a lot of fun with a course that is built on a modest budget, as an architect you will not gain a wide acceptance or recognition but that is of little importance because most of the guys who are trying so hard to be recognized and try so hard by over designing their courses will be footnotes in 40 years so it is a meaningless race to the top.  I have had quite a few routings recently that have barely broken the 6000 yard mark, and there is concern for the market.  I think the course can be an absolute joy at that range, and I preach that to my clients.  

Don, I have helped coach baseball, basketball, and now football and i see the tremendous effort being made by the coaches, parents, and officers to promote and run these leagues.  None of this exists at a golfing level, but I think it can catch on with quite a few kids.  My nephews are big time baseball players, but they have taken up golf and can not get enough of it, and they have a lot of friends playing, these are 14 and 15 year old kids that find golf to be exciting!  So, I guess you see my point is getting the games to the kids, not just the disadvantaged kids but all kids, and the common demoninator is school, poor kids and rich kids alike all go to school and there are no golf activities in the gym classes, or after school programs.  I think parents would welcome it.  I see a bunch pumped up former jocks out there helping in football.  We have several excollege players and one guy that has a championship ring from the USFL Philadelphia team, big tough guys, and they all play golf, they love it, and I think they would apprecaite a program devouted to golf because they know that it is the one sport they can do for life, and I bet they would want their kids to learn it much earlier than they did. the big question though is at some point, what course would allow them on?  That could be difficult.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe,
My course has done well this first year. We charge $12 on weekdays and $15 on weekends, $10 more if you want a cart (80% ride). We've done well and I wonder why the golf doesn't have more courses like mine. We're actually making money with much less investment then most golf properties require. I'm at a loss trying to figure why there aren't more courses like mine around the country. I know the real estate industry drive much golf development and who wants to buy a house next to some dumbed down boring course? But, I can't understand why, if we care about making money, we don't build more low end golf that kids and blue collar folks can afford.

Tommy,
If we leave it up to the associations I doubt much will get accomplished. Any change needs to come from the business side of things, IMO. The various associations have too many agendas revolving around protecting their member's interest to change the direction of golf development, again IMO.

RJ,
Interesting points. If you’re correct, why should we build more golf courses, unless we're taking a free market, survival of the fittest, approach? The problem is not many courses go out of business; they just lower their fees and let their courses deteriorate. Maybe affordable golf is on the way, we just need to be patient.

Kelly,
We have three high schools playing at my course. There a little bit of a pain in the rear because they want to come out and play right after school and sometimes the paying customers are in the way. But, they have to play somewhere if the schools are going to compete and we feel it's our responsibility to make sure they have somewhere to play. I really don't know if individual architects can do much to change how the golf business goes as what the clients wants is what he gets. Maybe it's just making sure that when a lower end property is built it done for as little as possible and in a way where it can be maintained for a reasonable amount of money.

[A_Clay_Man]

don- my thoughts first were about the demographics and how land costs, where the people are, is too steep to justify an expenditure on what has once again become an almost eliteist game. friars head is a pefect example of what the nearer term future holds for the majority of GcA work beciase it proves that if you build "it" those with the dough will come.(and i have no idea what their membership numbers are)

As for the populi, perhaps the smaller executive type par 3 courses will solve some of the problems like time and costs during this period of negative or stagnent growth.

But, I believe the answer to your question can't be exact because of the nature of the game and the people who it seems to infect. Which leads to question about the designs built over the last 40 years and if they had NOT followed the path they did, maybe the game would've inspired more people to stay with the game, rather than the fickle consumer those designs seems to have attracted?

If that is true, then all future projects need to incoporate values rooted deep in the game without the focus or immediate need for return on investment.

[TEPaul]

I sat for a good portion of a day and listened carefully to the philosophy on this subject of an interesting man that what the golf industry needs far more of are golf courses that one might even call primer courses---courses for the beginner, the duffer, the much less than skilled player to begin to learn how to hone their golf skills without getting completely overwhelmed and perhaps depressed on the types of high demand courses we see so many of today. That man was none other than Frank Thomas!

And Coore & Crenshaw's James Duncan has an idea, a dream perhaps, of picking up sort of humdrum little nothing courses and putting some subtle but apparently manageable enough architecture for all into them to begin to inspire the learning golfer and the golfer of lesser skill and lesser wealth to begin to appreciate the importance of golf architecture and all for a very affordable price.

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly,

I was quite surprised to learn that my son's seventh-grade gym class is doing golf this week.  More schools would probably do so, if we would all donate our used clubs so they had enough for the entire class.

I would love to see more people try to develop "beginner" facilities for golf, but the economics certainly work against it.  Low-cost facilities must be (by default) those which are not good enough to charge more, or charge more they will!  Thus it is the twice-bankrupt CCFAD's, or the mom-and-pop farmer courses, which should cater to the beginning golfer.

Building a new facility generally costs too much to charge $10 green fees, but if the land is already paid off, it's not unreasonable to charge $10 to keep the course maintained.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
There are a myriad of ideas that have come out of the 20/20 conferences and the PGA of America has several programs whose direction is to grow the game. Additionally, knowledgeable operators have been experimenting with a wide range of incentives to increase their numbers, as I bet you have too.

My "too" cents:

Too Hard To Play- I disagree with those that espouse this sentiment, the basics are not that hard to learn. The main reason golf looks hard is by comparison with the top. There is a recreational aspect to the game that should be emphasized over the competitive, which comes later in a golfer's career.
I remember TEPaul talking about a C&C course where there was no par? Great idea.

Too Long To Play- Not necessarily. Offering 3,6, or 9 hole rounds at specific times is only one way to attract business.
The 9 or 18 hole round as the norm should not be forced upon the entry level or time constrained player. Ideas like this might create a few new players who enjoy the shortened experience and it follows that some of them may evolve into more committed players.
Too Expensive- Again, I don't go along with this idea.
From the equipment side: there is product available for players in all price ranges. The elitist attitude that Lynn spoke of is real but it can be easily overcome, especially with the cost-concious new player who is the focus when trying to enlarge the pool of players.
From the cost to play side: I realize that we all want to get out on the "best" courses but is that so important to the new or beginning player? The grand total of courses in this country that charge $35 or less is 9,488, over half the supply. It breaks down thus: There are 733 courses that charge no more than $10 to play, 1,336 that charge no more than $15, 3,042 that charge no more than $20, 2,348 that charge no more than $25 and 1,529 that charge no more than $35 to play.
This info is from a simple search, no other parameter used but cost. I'm sure there are some duds included but I am just as sure that there are some gems.

 

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I can't give you more than anecdotal evidence, but I think you are underestimating how difficult playing golf really is. Here I'm not talking about competitive golf. Rather, I have casual golf in mind. How many people really have the ability to break 90 on a decent - not great or even very good - golf course?

From what I have observed in the past several years, a very high percentage can't meet such a standard. Moreover, I'm convinced there is a correlation between playing at even this modest level and whether or not the person played golf as a young person. In short, most people taking up the game as adults have a very tough time, so tough that many give up the game in frustration.

A couple other points where again all I can offer is anecdotal evidence:

Cost - A couple years ago I ran into a man from Texas visiting relatives in Cleveland. We played nine holes together down at a local muni. He mentioned that he loved playing, but that it might be more and more difficult for him to afford playing. So, I asked him why. He then told me there were rumors the local course where he plays was going to raise green fees from $27 to $34.

How typical is this guy? Don't know. Maybe more typical than we think.

Time - I believe it is a barrier for many people, in particular those with family responsibilities. Numerous times I've heard guys say they can't get out becuase of the wife and kids. Forget 18 holes. These guys are lucky to play nine.

Otherwise, thanks for sharing the statistics. Here in the Midwest we actually do have quite a bit of affordable golf with loads of Mom and Pops built circa 1950s/1960s. I even have two beginners courses (9 holes, 1900 yards; 9 holes, 2600 yards) within ten minutes of where I live.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom,

I agree, we all have plenty of clubs sitting around.  Also, I have toyed with the idea of starting a litle golf architecture library at the school, maybe more at the middle and high school level, books by you, Daly, Shackleford, Klein, Bahto, would do well to be in the school library.  I expect to do that for the course I mentioned above, so hopefully I can get your books which some have mentioned have been difficult to attain.

Tim and Jim,

It is not a difficult game to learn if they start young.  Looking to the long term future of the game I think better golfers come from those that started young, better in the sense of committed players with proper etiqutte.  I think converting existing facilities, lower end ones, into courses that have architectural interest and can serve a wider public is an excellent idea.  It sure is a lot easier to buy an exisiting course as compared to buying raw land and trying to permit the construction of a new one.  A good combination would be a contractor and architect to go together on a low end course and do some touch up work, and open the doors.  Hell, if we can teach two 9 year olds to be pulling guards, or run a reverse, we can teach 'em golf!

Don,

3 teams?  Wow, that is a big committment on your part.  Are you the only game in town?  We usually got to the course about 1:30P and by then all the regulars were off, but that was at a private course.  You should be commended for shouldering such a heavy burden.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
I said the basics are not hard to learn and that is my impression. I've given lessons to many adult beginners and can specifically recall two instances where I failed to uncover their abilities. The majority have a broad range of potential and if you help them identify their objectives early on they will find it easier to set realistic goals which makes for satisfied and committed players.  
I agree with the earlier is better premise but I was more directed toward adults coming to the game for the first time.
You brought up score and that's what I was driving at, I don't think score should be emphasized at all with these players. I don't even think they should begin by playing 9 or more holes, a 3 hole-or-so loop will suffice.

The gentleman you spoke about is unfortunate to live in an area that doesn't have one of the 7,958 courses that fall within his $27 ceiling. There are still 5,611 courses that charge $20 or less to play. Where's the line of affordability? I am suggesting that much affordable golf exists, look at Don's course in Texas as an example, and by searching around he may still be able to satisfy his golf needs.

If the guys you mentioned have a hard time getting away for nine holes they'll have a hard time getting away to do any other recreational pursuit. If they enjoy the game they will find a way to get some holes in, even if it's a 3 hole loop. I know a man who talked his boss into letting him come/leave two hours later on Mondays so he could get in a real early nine. Another's wife rides horses and they trade time, i.e. you ride a few hours a week while I do something with the kiddies, I golf a few, etc..    

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Halejujah someone is finally discussing the real world of golf in today's world.  A recent post had a link to an article in the Scottish Herald which spelled out issues in Scottish golf.  I am a member of a struggling mid range club.  Everywhere I turn the industry seems to be in trouble.  

My suggested solution at my home club is to open social memberships at $49.95 per month and then allow members to pay green fees on a restricted number of rounds.  Included in this is access to swim and tennis programs and the junior golf program.    

The point is that as the golfing public ages and the expense is out of reach of young families, the stream of golfers is broken.  A way has to be found to bring families into the game to ensure the health of the game.  

Less expensive, less difficult courses.  
Less expensive equipment.
Golf professionals who cater to this new group.  
A crusade by the USGA and the PGA to make this happen.
A lobby to environmental groups to help them understand that A golf course is not the WORST thing that can happen.  
Existing players opening their arms to novices.

There are you marching orders go fix it!  

[RT]

Nice little presentation courtesy of Jim Moore-USGA Greens Section


http://www.usga.org/green/coned/case/Cottonwood-Creek-Jr/index.html#

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Don, I agree with what you said. I do believe we need to grow the game and it does not appear to be doing so. This is nothwithstanding a  percentage of the population that is nearing retirement statistically. I think it is too hard, too expensive and too long to play. A few ideas include a 9 hole focus and reduced rates to go with it. Start acting like nine holes is playing a round of golf. The golf industry confusses the hell out of me as to what to buy on every level and it all is expensive. We need easier to understand products which are a lot cheaper for the growing market. The hard part is tough to over come. But creating cheaper and user friendly teaching centers which are fun to hang around might be a thought.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I have even thought of a 4 hole executive course or series of  two or three of them tied to the amin complex to allow guys to play for an hour.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the following:

Golf is NOT a difficult game to learn or play
Affordable golf IS widely available
Playing equipment CAN be acquired at a low cost
Playing golf does NOT take much time

Finally, golf IS a wonderful game to play!

Now, perhaps the above statements are true, but other forms of recreation are even more appealing from an ease of entry, cost of play, time required and/or pleasure of playing point of view. In any case, if things like Lynn Shackelford suggested are NOT factors limiting the growth of the game, then what is?

From an analytical point of view, don't you make an explanation for why the game isn't growing difficult to make if you rule out the difficulty/cost, time required to play factors, etc.?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Lest we forget, during the years 1980 through 1997 the number of golfers has grown from 15 mil. to 25 mil.(NGF).
The number of courses has grown from a little over 13k to somewhere over 17k.
I am not saying that the factors mentioned don't contribute to the slow pace of growth, just that they are not the only place to look for the reasons behind the stagnation. The traditional market, i.e. adult males, that is looked to for growth may be maxing out.  
The largest untapped group of potential players are women. Their participation rates are way lower than for men, something like only 17% of the golfing public. Juniors are down also. Attracting these two segments alone would steadily increase the number of golfers for many years to come.

I still am firm in the belief that anyone, given proper instruction, can learn to play reasonable, fun golf at their ability level without its being too hard for them to do.  

I point to the nearly 8,000 courses in existence today, frumpy or otherwise, that charge less than $25 to play as proof that inexpensive golf can be had. By the way, there are over 80 Donald Ross courses that charge less than $50 to play so some exposure to good architecture can be had without breaking the bank. At Hotchkiss (Seth Raynor/ Charles Banks/ George Bahto) we charge $12/20 for 9/18. It ain't Yale but it has some good stuff.
   
As to clubs, I can point you to many excellent equipment manufacturers that have top quality product for 1/3 of the price of the big boys.  

Time is regional as it is harder in certain areas to play fast. I would surmise that it is possible in most areas of the country to get up before dawn(we've all done that, haven't we?) make your way to a fairly inexpensive course where the first time of the day can be had and buzz around 18 holes in under 3 hours. You might have to take a cart but hey, that's better than no golf.
Maybe 3 holes a night, 3 times a week suits you better.    
Basically, if you want to play you'll find the time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jim, In the same breath, I would like to know how many golfers the game has lost since the beginning of 2001. Does the NGF have that on their website?

Don, My comments earlier were more based off of getting influential people and staying away from associations--but you bring up the point ofwhat is wrong with 20/20--too many loooking out for their end's interests.

I still like my flame thrower idea.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tommy,
They show increased participation, something like 400k players. There has been a change in distribution of rounds between occasional, core and avid golfers but the rounds per player hasn't decreased much, about 1/2 a point.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

Thanks. I'll accept the idea that golf may have enjoyed a strong period of growth 1980-1997 and that it has stagnated for the past 5-6 years.

Your suggestion that the industry may not be able to look at adult males for growth and must turn to women/juniors is interesting.

Remember that analysts have argued the golf industry has built too many golf courses that are too difficult and costly to play. This would seem in keeping with your suggestion that growth must come from women and juniors.

I wonder if it suggests the need for 7,000 yard courses is behind us. Do we need to start thinking about more 5,800-6,200 yard courses? Also, I wonder if growth must come from women, then is the CCFAD thing with its $100 green fee now past its time as well?

[Joe Hancock]

Don, and others,

Several of you folks have been graious enough to visit and play my course. It doesn't get any more beginner friendly, blue collar, kid learning than what we have here.

What worries me about growing the game is the ability to survive. I believe we are at the high point of what we can charge in fees. $32 is the most one would pay to play with cart. Often, it's in the $20-$25 dollar range. We have a hard time filling our course, even at these rates. The competition for recreation dollars from other interests, not just golf, is what is driving the market.

So, as insurance, labor and other costs of operation increase, profit margin continues to decrease. How long does anyone with half an entrepeneurial (?) mind justify dwindling return on investment? I believe it was the NGF that observed that the family owned courses stick around due to love of the game and pride......not financial reward. Money is the biggest part of the problem, in my opinion. It is no longer as profitable to own a course at the entry level...so say adios to many of the golf-growing tracks in the next few years.

Joe