64 course bracket of US public courses - its tournament time!

[Jay Flemma]

There's no money being exchanged at all Tom...just bracketing the courses and then having them play out the brackets in public votes...just GCA for the private and international sidee (Yes, sean...you are right, we should do international.)

I can only run one of these myself, but I can lend a hand here and there if needed on the other two.

I'll put together a top 50 public list compiled form the three magazines and from whoever on GCA send me their top 50 list.  Then I'll assign points to each course listed and rank the top 50, who will get automatic bids.  Then the "committee" will pick the last 14 slots, we'll fill in the brackets and go!

Dick, can you and Tom handle the private side?  Gathering lists of the mags and from GCAers and doing the same thing? Coming up with a bracket?

Sean, can you or a friend handle the international bracket?  Can someone else handle the international bracket with sean?

[Jay Flemma]

What we're going sean is listing the top 64 courses...then just like our NCAA basketball tourney, we'll put them in "brackets" and "playoff" the courses in match play form.

Can you get your buddies to put together a top 50 list of the best courses internationally, then agree on 14 at large entries, then I'll bracket them for you and we can play it off.

[Dan Herrmann]

There's no wagering at Bushwood, sir  

[Jay Flemma]

Uh, Danny wouldn't want ton participate in anything that's illeeeeeeeegal...

[John Kavanaugh]

Since Rochelle Ranch recently made the 50 best affordable by GM and 50 toughest by GD it has to be a lock for this exercise.

I also nominate Vista Verde for obvious reasons.

And finally the host of the 2008 Pub Links... Murphy Creek.

More to come later.

[RJ_Daley]

Sorry Jay, I'm not deep enough in my travels and experiences, particularly with the private side to participate as such.  

And, I don't want to take away from your method.  If I understand your intentions, you want everyone to do a match play of the courses and if so, I'm not up for that.

My intention was to have a commission to appoint scores/judges that have actually played both of the courses that are matched up.  Only a 3 or 5 judge panel.  Then with the winner moving on, probably a new panel of different judges for the next match.  They will have to do a hole by hole comparison and score it like fight night.  

To have the whole body of GCA posters in on the scoring invites chaos and spurious opinions, IMHO.  I want to see people that have first hand knowledge judging.  If you open it to everyone, you can't say for sure if they ever even laid eyes on their favorite course, yet vote/score a course.  I want narrative.

Also, I wanted to start small with only one bracket of well known courses like I listed, in a division of like courses.  That being the costal, dunes, linkslike public courses.  As one can see from the list I started, I didn't come up with a full domestic 16.  Perhaps Barnbougle and Kingsbarns, etc., should be added.  But, I think it should be piloted small to see if it works.  I don't want to get into international brackets and such just yet.  

So, I'll sit on the sidelines for this method you are up for Jay, and hope it works out well for you and yields interesting and different results than the current rankings have yielded over and over.

[Garland Bayley]

I don't really understand where you are going with this, but if it was international in scope, I'd like to wager on Barnbougle Dunes at around US $60.

Tom,

It has to be a course that someone has played!  

[Michael Dugger]

Jay,

Perhaps the 14 "wildcard" selections can instead be something more structured, like the small conferences in hoops.

A "best value" pick could occupy one of those slots...

[Jay Flemma]

I agree with the best value picks getting nominated for at large bids michael.  Also, Dick, for the private side, just because you haven't played alot of them doesn't mean you cant a) run the private bracket how you like; and b) can't be a "judge" for a "fight" between courses you know.

I have data from GD, GM and GW, but haven't added up all the points to see who the top 50 combined are.  I still want to factor in GCA votes, which will get equal billing with the mags, although I weighted GM's list incrementally higher because a) I think GM's standard is better than GD's...hell even the ASCGA can't agree on a definition of "shot values" and thinks that its wrong that factor gets double points and b) GW splits their list to classic and modren and has alot more private courses than public.  When I say incrementally, I mean just that...a fraction.  No matter what happens, well still only have ourselves a starting point for a bracket.

as many of you that can, send me your top 50 public list and I'll compile a composite GCA top 50 public list.  Number 1 gets 50 points, number 2 gets 49, etc...than I'll factor that with the pther three lists and set up the brackets.

[Michael Dugger]

as many of you that can, send me your top 50 public list and I'll compile a composite GCA top 50 public list.  Number 1 gets 50 points, number 2 gets 49, etc...than I'll factor that with the pther three lists and set up the brackets.

but Jay, how many of us have played 50 WORTHY candidates???

Is having actually played the course still a requisite?

[Jay Flemma]

Enough people are go0ing to vote so that we'll get a reasonable cross section.  Remember also it will get averaged with the three magazines, then the "competition" starts after that.

If you haven't been to fifty, just do twenty or thirty.