No, I don't want you to rank them! If that's what you want to do, start your own darned thread!   If this one gets hijacked, that would be the Greatest Tragedy in Golf!  

The Yale thread inspires me to ask (and I have a hunch, but not an opinion; I'm looking for opinions from those of you better situated to have informed ones):

From the standpoint of golf-course architecture (its creation, maintenance, and preservation), is it a good idea for a university to own a golf course? In other words: In the long run, can a university be the ideal owner/operator of a golf course? In still other words: Are there any university golf course that just keep getting better and better?
 

Tim--Remember that it was Stanford that wanted to take the 18th fairway for married-student housing, even though they had a lot of other land available.  I would not call them good stewards.
I think that the interesting thing to ask is the connection between a university golf course and the quality of the golf team.  OSU built a very good course to support its team.
But are there other ways to do it.  Univ. of Texas is getting a golf course built for them as a part of a housing project.  The team can use the course, but the University will not control the course.  Payne Stewart was on his way to Dallas when he died to work on a similar project for SMU--two eighteens, with one available for the team--and houses around them.

JimH:

If Dan Kelly meant to raise doubt as to whether universities can be trusted as stewards of golf courses, I think he raised a legitimate question. Obviously, universities have many other priorities. So, relying on the university for adequate budget or other forms of commitment (e.g., not eliminating holes), may not be realistic. That's why I like the idea of targeted gifts with strings attached.

In the right situation, it would make sense. But universities have so many other areas to concentrate on, how many opportunities would present themselves.

Oklahoma State did it right. But I think it depends on whether the university can keep up the maintenance on the course, and keep committed to the course. Unfortunately, quite a few of the public universities whose courses are open to the public are not maintained as well as some of the private courses at public schools or private university courses. In addition, many
have uninspiring layouts.

The Stanford situation has been addressed but there are other instances of university layouts being altered (Va. Tech) or abandoned in the name of progress.

Jerry Rawls donated $8 million to Texas Tech because he thought a university golf course is a great thing -- a place for students and faculty and visitors to mingle, and an attraction for people to attend that particular university.

By donating the entire cost of the course construction, the university is responsible only for breaking even on operations.  I would hope they can manage that!

I no expert on Stanford, but I'll tell you what I know.

It is a very good Thomas/Bell and/or Bell/Thomas course that has had some lofty "rankings" in the past.  I give it 1*-2** (depending on my mood).

Stanford is owned by the University, but also operates as a private club, which co-exists with students, faculty members, etc. who can play the course, at ridiculously low rates (I paid $1.50/round in the mid-late 60's).

The 1990's controversy involved (I think) actually bulldozing holes 1-7 (all that to the East of Junipero Serra) for other University purposes (faculty housing, etc.).  Stanford has ample land up in the foothills adjacent to the 17th-18th holes to add on a new 7 holes as was planned (of course, that land is a bit environmentally sensistive, so who knows what might happen to that scheme!).  It took a concerted PR campaign from "Friends of Stanford Golf" invoking the help of alumni such as Grant Spaeth, Sandy Tatum, Tom Watson, Ken Bakst and Tiger Woods, to scupper that potential desecration.

Holes 1-7 include 2 of the very best holes on the course (and in Northern California) 2 and 6.  In fact, the Stanford I played when I was a student had one of the best front nines in all of golf.  As I have posted before, holes 4,5 and 8 were changed in the late 60's-early 70's by RTJ, the latter for who knows why (basically changing a nice simple Thomas green on a short "par" 3 for a buried elephant one).  The 4-5 alterations were done in anticipation of the expansion of an adjoining road and resulted in:

--the substitution of an awkward short 4 whcih involves hitting a 1-3 iron short of a barranca and then pitching onto another RTJ sort of green for Thomas/Bell's fine medium length "par" 4 requiring driver into a valley and then a semi-blind shot up the hill to a great two tiered green.
--moving the tee on the next hole (#5, for those of you who are numerically challenged...) down on the flat.  The old 5 tee was 50 feet up and 50 yards back, next to the old green.  It required a long and straight shot to carry the ridge which was 220-230 yards away.  Now you can hit 1-3 iron over the ridge.  Not what Thomas/Bell meant, not what they meant at all......

Getting back to Dan's original question, I see no reason why any University shouldn't have a golf course (just as they have tennis courts, bowling alleys, softball fields, weight rooms, swimming pools, etc.  The problem with many schools is the lack of available land (or, in the case of Stanford, the fact that the land on which the golf course sits is the best land that the University owns for accomodating future expansion of other needs (as mentioned above).  If you have the land, and the net cost to the University is in line with alternative uses, why not?

But.....this is idealistic, and the use of 100+ acres for a rich person's sport may be continually difficult to defend within many of the groves of academe. I personally will be surprised if Stanford Golf Course survives in present form for more than another 20-30 years.  Sad, but true.

PS to Tim Weiman--I am not yet bi-polar enough to be considered a (sic) alumni.  All diagnostic tools available to modern psychiatry (and all extant Latin grammars) still classify me as an alumnus.......(insert smiley face here).

The priority of housing/academic facilities is almost always going to take priority over the golf courses at a University. I know from living in South Bend, IN that Notre Dame had those same trouble in the past 10 years or so. The original 18 hole course had the back nine bulldozed to add housing and other academic facilities. Plain and simple, the way universities in this country continue to grow, the schools will always be in need of more land. Its unfortunate that it has to be the golf course or some other type of recreation that bears the brunt of this. The only plus side at ND is that they built a MUCH better, brand new course 2 years ago, thanks to alumni donations. Hopefully the university can prove to be better managers of the new course and find other places to build other than on the golf course. We will see

Isn't Dye's deal w/ Purdue to develop a working student lab for agronomy while also having a very enjoyable course for students, faculty & alumni a great example of how this should work? With that in mind I find it hard to beleive that Cornell (especially w/ all the available land in the area) can't put something like this together.

One other thought, should these course be open to the public? I know this varies dramitcally. Colgate is 100% access. Stanford I beleive is 0%, while Yale is open, however w/ a very hefty fee.

Mike,

Thanks for that. I did not know. It only makes sense. I will try and get down to Ithaca this summer to see the course.

There are also University Clubs at LSU (Jim Lipe design) and University of South Carolina.

Several ACC schools have very good facilities:  UNC-Chapel Hill Finley (Tom Fazio), Duke (RTJ/Rees Jones), UVA Birdwood, and Clemson's Warren Course.  

There are proposed courses for NCSU Centennial Campus (Palmer) and Wake Forest University too.

The group has already mentioned a number of fine University courses but I will say that Karsten Creek -- the home for the OSU Cowboys in Stillwater is the best of both worlds -- first rate layout and shape. The TF design is sometimes lost in the sauce because much of the hype goes to layouts such as Southern Hills and Oak Tree GC. However, KC demonstrated plenty of grit with its recent hosting of the NCAA Division I Championship

Karsten Creek is well done architecturally and anyone getting the opportuntiy to play it should not hesitate for a manosecond.

VERY well said Lou. I agree wholeheartedly.

Someone on another thread observed that the system of fees and access to these university courses are still keyed off of local market and custom expectations.  Also, there seems to be a distinction of fees and access based on the age of the courses spoken about above.  It seems to me that the trend of the older courses built 40+ years ago is that they are more affordable and accessible, yet have lengthening restoration issues as they are generally landlocked.  I believe U of Florida has undertaken a remodelling of a generally tight landlocked course (Smyers I think).  Then there are the modern university courses like Rawls at TT or Brauer's design of Colbert Hills at UK, or even University Ridges at UW.  They have apparently been built off campus with plenty of room and the long technologically enhanced game in mind.  But, the costs to build modern such courses, whether Alumni focused private fundraising or some other combination seem to trend towards no great breaks for students and are run more like CCFADs.  I don't know too  much about the pricing structures other than there seems to be the obvious differentiation in policies based on cost/construction realities of old VS new.  But, I believe that a good course for a university is a seriously attractive ammenity for students and the administrations to entertain and promote the institution.  

15 million for a natatorium VS ahlf that for a darn good golf course seems like a no-brainer to me, Tim...