the USGA strikes again, this time with Lexus

[Kevin_Reilly]

What is always forgotten in discussions like this that the ONLY championship, and what are they up to now 14 or so, that they don't LOSE MONEY on is the OPEN. Every single other championship loses money and some quite a bit.

Overall, the USGA recognized a $31.5 million profit on its championships in 2005, and about the same amount in 2004.  Like many university sports departments that rely on football to subsidize all the other sports, the USGA has a cash cow in the Open and uses the substantial profit from it to subsidize the other events.  That's not surprising to me.

Bethpage turned them down because the revenues lost to the state by shutting down the park for a couple of weeks and both courses for several more would create a massive financial problem for the NY State Park System. Yet the USGA can't budget money to reimburse the park for the revenue loss.

I wouldn't want the USGA reimbursing the Pebble Beach Company for lost revenue at the resort, or reimbursing a private club for lost guest fees in the months leading up to the tournament.  These Open hosts (like Bethpage) get a rent check for the use of the course, and it is up to the course to decide if the rent check covers the cost of this lost revenue.  I guess the NY State Park System decided that it didn't.

Corporate sponsorship will help bring USGA Championships to many great courses, both old and new that otherwise would not be doable.

What courses aren't doable today for the Amateur or Open?  

[JohnV]

Kevin,

Bethpage wouldn't get a rent check for the Amateur.  It is sad that they are so short sighted to not see that the publicity would be worth more than a week's lost revenue, especially after they should have seen the benefits from the US Open.

Glenn,

If the USGA ever does a hotel deal, it would have to be with Marriott since that is where all their staff always tries to stay.

I don't know if you've been to a USGA amateur event, but for the officials, players and frequently the caddies, almost every meal is covered during the week.  There is usually a free bar at the main dinners (although I'm sure there isn't one at the Junior.)

Some of that is covered by the club, but much of it is paid for by the USGA.

They also usually try to get a good deal on hotel rooms since they are bringing in such a large group.  For example, the players only paid $125 a night at the Homestead in 2000 for the US Mid-Am which is a lot cheaper than the going rate.  The rules officials had to pay $180, which is why I stayed in a little b-and-b down the road.

[Chris Cupit]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to Walter Driver at my state golf association's annual meeting and in the Q&A he discussed the new partnership.

I know many (including myself) have lamented over decisions of the USGA at times but as a (very small) financial supporter of the USGA and someone who serves on their US Mid-Am Committee I want to mention a few items from yesterday.

1.  The US Open was NEVER a sponsor free championship.  In fact, back in the 1950's Spaulding was a sponsor and on the score cards given to the players the spaulding logo was featured very prominently.  Can you imagine a sponsor agreement with a golf manufacturer today??!!
2.  On the pairing sheets in the 1990s two other sponsors were identified with their logos--Unisys who provided free scoring and in return got top billing on 50,000 pairing sheets handed out during the week and Pepsi who also got their logo in a prime location!  At the very bottom in the fine print was a mention of the USGA.  Now, the USGA has decided to change the arrangement--I still think we are a long way from the "Lexus US Open".
3.  As far as the Lexus deal the USGA hosts 13 championships and will need to make arrangements for its players, caddies, volunteers and staff for 15,000 rental car arrangements.  Would you rather they continue negotiating with Hertz or Avis for the best deal they can or would an arrangement where 15,000 of these reservations are instead taken care of through this Lexus deal in return for some type of sponsorship recognition?  Also, according to Mr. Driver, domestic car companies were contacted first and they had no interest.
4.  Yes the US Open makes a ton of cash--it needs to to support all the other championships it runs.  Last year's US Women's Open lost $2.1 million dollars BEFORE they paid a nickel in prize money.  Should we not continue to raise money and tell the other 12 championships--tough, the market doesn't support it, so get used to a lot less?

Certainly, I wish the USGA had done more about the distance issue earlier (doing anything now is too late and I now think impossible) and I don't think it was a good move in purchasing a fractional share of an executive jet--that sends the wrong message for sure, BUT let's at least give the US Open 1 year or let's at least try and understand as best as we can the entire thought process before we damn the organization for making a mistake.

[Chris Cupit]

Here's some of what was said re: distance
(first though) I should clarify something I just posted--when I said the US Open was NEVER sponsor free I should have said that as early as the 1950s the USGA accepted sponsorships in return for advertising.

Mr. Driver seemed top "blame" the distance explosion on three things:
1.  The Ball--Mr. Driver claimes that around 1998 everything changed when companies were able to combine one piece distance with cover technology that allowed better players to work and spin the ball.  Prior to 1998, pros could have played pinnacles but they were willing to trade off distance for control.  This represented about an 18 yard gain when the Pro V1 essentially replaced the Tour Balata--the last wound ball.

I am a little fuzzy here but I think what he said was that the tolerances allowed when pinnacles and other hard balls "passed" was +/- 6% since reduced to +/-2%.  To go back and use todays threshold on the older hard balls as part of the overall distance standard would be to make 67% of all balls on the market today illegal.  Further, if the solid core/soft cover ball were made illegal and players were forced to return to wound balls, guess who is the only company with the current capability to manufacture a wound ball--titleist!!!  Also, guess who still owns all the patents on wound balls!  Would you want to give Titleist this monopoly?  How long till the lawsuits started flying.

Also, the players on the PGA tour are almost unanimous in their opposition to this.  Most guys on tour are under 30 and have NEVER played with a wound ball.  They would scream that they would be at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis older players.  Remember, the tour (and everyone else) voluntarily complies with the Rules of Golf.  They could literally make up their own competition rules if they wanted--then you'd have "tri-furcation"--luddites like me playing permismon and wopund balls (maybe 1% of golfers), tour pros playing all the rules except equipment rules (1% of golfers) and the other 98% would continue playing whatever they can buy and pretty much cheating--winter rules, mulligans, etc...
The tour is a UNION and those young guys make too good a living with the current equipment to consider any equipment rollback that MIGHT harm their ability to rake in millions every year.  
2.  The clubs--in an attempt to maximize the sweet spot by increasing club head size and also intoducing new materials like titanium, manufacturers essentially backed into an increased coefficient of restitution (COR) or "sprig like effect".  Back in the late 90's the USGA was behind the curve and could do nothing other than cath-up.  They have vowed to produce testing facilities which are second to none and believe they will lead the industry in terms of research and understanding what is going on re: the physics of hitting a golf ball.  (More reason to have a war chest--to always stay ahead rather than trying to catch up.)  Also, to turn back the clock on clubs that have already been issued letters from the USGA/R & A that acknowledge their conformity would be to declare more than 6 million clubs non-confroming.  How happy would golfers be who purchased those drivers given that they were legal when purchased?  Clubs have accounted for about 8-10 additional yards since 1998  
3.  The players are  (sorry Geoff S.) bigger, stronger, more athletic and just better at generating incredible club head speed than ever before.  It is club head speed that essentially determines how far the balls can go.  Mr. Driver disputed the notion that better players disproportionately benefit for technology.  He claimed that distance is a function of clubhead speed (all other things being equal--solidness of contact, mass of the club) and if you take away 10% of the distance from a pro, you will take away 10% of the average players distance too.  No magic ball exists that leaves an average guys 225 yard drive alone and throttles back Tiger to 280.

Regarding balls and club regulation, I am very sad to say that the "horse has left the barn" and there's no way things will ever go back.  Best we can hope for is that now with the finest testing facilities in the world, the USGA can stay ahead of the manufacturers and keep the status quo going forward.

Sorry I don't have better news

BTW  I found Mr. Driver an excellent and engaging speaker and he certainly seemed like he knew what the hell he was talking about--I'm glad I got to hear the "other side" straight from the horses mouth!