During their visit the USGA recommended a single expert ...

Maybe it will lead to better things from the USGA ... one architect, one irrigation consultant, one drainage consultant, one ball manufacturer ...

Tommy Naccarato,

You're correct, I am going to disagree, but, with a caveat.

Most clubs don't have the luxury of knowing who to contact for a multitude of unique or unusual problems.

They rely on people in the business, with vast experience in these areas, to refer them.

I would ask Bob this question.  
When he goes to his doctor and the doctor recommends a specialist, does he ask for two additional names ?
Or is he content to rely on his doctors expertise and prior history and experiences in dealing with sub-specialists ?

Most clubs and/or organizations usually look to get three bids for a job.  However, depending upon circumstances, only one may be available in a given area, or during a particular time frame.

Rather then jump to conclusions, and bash the USGA, shouldn't we know more about the facts regarding this particular incident ?

Wouldn't that be a more prudent course of action ?

I would ask Bob this question.  
When he goes to his doctor and the doctor recommends a specialist, does he ask for two additional names?

Pat

My thoughts are the following.  In reference to your above question I think he shouldn't have to ask for two additional names, they should be offered.  If he was a wise person he should ask, however, if not offered.  

I think your analogy falls apart a little bit because you switched USGA with doctor.  One is a large group that is suppose to promote something, the other is an individual who likely makes no such claims.  

What is the point of the USGA?  

If you asked, "when one goes to the AMA and the AMA recommends a specialist, does he ask for another name?" then you'd have a viable analogy.  

I look at it this way.  Your doctor analogy is equivalent to the club seeking advice from ONE golf course architect, not the USGA.  Without getting into what said golf course architect stands for, isn't THE USGA.....SHOULDN'T the USGA..... be held to a higher standard?  It seems like a conflict of interest to me, although I do agree with getting all the relevant facts before jumping to conclusions.
What say you?

MDugger,

The consulted physician is no different then the consulting USGA agronomist.  Their patients may be different, but their responsibilities similar, diagnosis, care and treatment.

BCrosby's club didn't consult with the entire USGA organization, they consulted with a specialist within that organization, the agronomist, who detected a problem and recommended a sub-specialist to deal with it.

Not unlike a patient who goes to a medical group, sees a general practitioner who recommends a sub-specialist when the problem area is identified.

Bob and MDugger,

I would ask you, by what criteria would you evaluate a neuro-surgeon should your internist recommend one to you ?

Do you have the expertise, based on your training, education and prior experience, to determine which one will be best for you ?

My protocol is to accept my physician's recommendation, and then seek second and third opinions on my own.

Isn't that, likewise, the club's responsibility, or must the USGA do everything for them ?

Mike Benham,

I would agree with you.

I agree that more facts are needed , but I think there is quite a difference between an organization recommending someone & an individual. I'd use the analogy of calling the AMA for a reference or recommendation for medical information - they probably wouldn't recommend anyone, but could provide some sort of list if requested. I'd hope the same things for the the GCSAA or ASGCA or whatever umbrella organization was approached. I know one thing - if I were an architect & found out the USGA was recommending individuals, I'd be sure to give them a call.

Of course, my first call would be to Patrick, because he surely knows all the right questions to ask!!

Mike Benham, the GCSAA has no such consulting service available. They are rightly agnostic on all of these issues, make no agronomic consulting visits, and limit themselves to being a professional organization working on behalf of their members.

As for the USGA Green Section Turf Advisory Service, they are a good group of people but often overworked and occasionally prone to boiler-plate reporting. They try hard, and they certainly have their convictions about reliable products and techniques. But I find it inexcusable and appalling that the case as presented arose. Thus, I have to disagree with Pat Mucci. If the incident as reported is correct, then this is simply really lousy consulting and a disservice to the club. No consultant worth his or her fee should ever tell a client that one and only one person can provide a service. The ideal is to provide a range of alternatives, lay out the options, and if then asked, make a recommendation and explain why.

I doubt in this case whether this is a conflict of interest on the USGA Green Section's part, just sloppy work and not looking after the best interests of the club.

Pat, the analogy with a doctor is completely misguided. The club in this case is paying thr USGA Green Section Turf Advisory Service. The field consultant,a  staff agronomist, is a salaried employee paid by the USGA Green Sectiion and makes no more or less money for his consultation. So the checque is made out to and is cashed by the USGA Green Section. That's a far cry from hiring an individual doctor or specialist. In this and every case that Bob Crosby is referring to, the $2,000 check is made out to the same organization that has hundreds of thousands of dues paying members and purports to represent the entire game of golf in the U.S.

Bob,
I think all know you speak of Athens CC.
I will try and brief the situation knowing that USGA will hear of it.
First, the cover sheets of all USGA Advisory reports say that they are not biased and will not recommend.
The report to Athens CC states that this particular person is the "premier in his field" and then goes on to state the "name clubs" where he is working.  The person is excellent but he designs and manufactures certain drainage items as well which he request that Architects specify.
The club wishes to have no master plan because the membership might think there will be an assessment yet the USGA tells them they need a drainage master plan...
And I find it amusing that while they can have no master plan for the course they can agree to hire a consultant to master plan the old maintenance building and new chemical storage.
But other things in this particular report are also of concern.  The agronomist also suggest not disturbing the putting surface of a green to be reseeded because we might bother these "famous Ross surfaces"  The 17 green was built in 1962 by a green chairman. They don't know the difference.
Understand that the USGA wishes for these agronomist to sell 250 visits per year or more.  THIS IS A BUSINESS....They know that the USGA name can influence a green committee much more than a "Bob Crosby or Mike Young Advisory service"
I have seen many of these reports and know that they will lean toward who hires them.  They wish repeat business.
Example:  If a supt. hires them and they wish a new fairway mower...then odds are the report will recommend a new fairway mower.  If a green chairman hires them and they wish a new supt.  ...then probably will recommend a change.
It is easy to read the Athens report and see that the supt hired them.  NOW LET ME BE CLEAR....We have a very good supt. that has been at the club for close to 40 years.  That in itself is a major accomplishment during this day and time.  However, what happens in many cases and what has happened at Athens CC is that he has been in the position of saving so many dollars for the members over the years that it is difficult for him to not have to do all in house.  Therefore the membership is not used to spending any money and they don't see that the club has problems on the course.  And these USGA reports are CYA reports for committees and Management.  ALSO LET ME BE CLEAR...Our club manager is one of the best.... and while we may disagree on some issues, we do agree to disagree....Now a few weeks ago he enlightened me as to why nothing would be done to the course for a few years.  "Of our last 50 members to join in the past year only 14 had played golf."
  Think about it..I can't blame him for not considering the course a major issue.  And then when the USGA gives these type of reports...it just helps convince.  
There are many clubs in the same position.
WE have a Ross course with 1000 members.  Probably 400 golfers and for all intent we are run as a social club.  The entire board usually evolves out of a local social club.  They have no golf knowledge and basically rely on the advise on management.  And management understands the politics.
The green committee is just a figurehead.
For me or you to tell them the USGA report is a joke would be a joke.  Hell, if someone from there reads this and sends to USGA staff they will use their position to slam me.  
THE USGA REPORT STATES NOTHING THAT THE CLUB DID NOT ALREADY KNOW.  It is just insurance. And that might be good for a lay committee.
Our major problem is one thing. ... A 59,000 sq ft clubhouse.
It takes all the effort and money.  As the GM tells me.  " Only a few of you ever complain of the course"  so why should it be a priority??  And you know what??  He is correct....even though I don't like it.
I don't agree with or like how the USGA handles itself.  The other golf organizations have to endorse it, PGA, GCSAA, NGCOA etc....they need it...Some one mentions using the GCSAA instead...man if that was to start taking the place of USGA Green Section Advisory...you would hear some noise.
For the average committee member or club member...they buy the logoed shirt....even if the same is cheaper without.  THE USGA is a great logo, which is an easy sale>any of us that try to change that will take some heat>

Brad Klein,

It's no different then going to a doctor in a medical group, per the example I cited.

You don't write your check out to the individual doctor, you write it out to the "Hartford Internal Medicine Associates PC"
or whatever the name of the group is, despite seeing one of their practitioners, who independent of the group, usually makes the recommendation.

Not enough information was supplied by Bob, and the fact that the green superintendent wasn't in attendence seems strange at the very least.  Who amongst that green committee could understand the technical terms that the USGA agronomist might use ??  

Who could relate to the recommendations that the USGA agronomist might make.  The real estate broker, accountant, advertising exec and dentist who make up the committee in attendance.

Something seems out of sorts with the situation presented.

Why have the USGA agronomist come and visit your golf course if your resident agronomist isn't going to be there to interface with him ??

Many of the USGA agronomists know the lay of the land in their neck of the woods, who is qualified, and who is available.

Until more is known about the particular situation, I'll have to reserve judgement.

Mike Young,

With some fine tuning and a few exceptions, I'd have to agree with much of your post.

It sounds to me as if your club is going through what I've observed at many clubs, and it's a disturbing trend.

As golf has gotten more popular in the last 10-20 years the demographic at many clubs has changed.
Instead of the membership ranks being filled with another generation from the existing membership, more and more clubs took in members with no previous connection to the club or golf.  The golf course which previously attracted members, and was the focal point of the club is now viewed as but one of several facilities as the club has turned more social.

It's difficult to find knowledgeable members, willing to devote their time, to preserve and improve the golf course and its condition.

Instead, some clubs try to be all things to all people by improving the pool, tennis facility, ballroom, kitchen, paddle courts, as the dollars available for the golf course, and the position of the golf course on the financial and social totem pole diminishes.

As members are less knowledgeable, but more vocal and convinced that they know what they are doing, the USGA report can be a very helpful "third party influence" to keep the wolves at bay, or educate the membership with respect to what needs to be done, without running afoul of personalities or politics.

I'd rather discuss more of this off-line, and I certainly don't think bashing the USGA agronomists furthers the cause of those interested in preserving and protecting their golf courses

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mike Benham, the GCSAA has no such consulting service available. They are rightly agnostic on all of these issues, make no agronomic consulting visits, and limit themselves to being a professional organization working on behalf of their members.

I was not implying that they GCSAA be a consultant (poor choice of words on my part) but a resource for the super and the club.  Supers talk to each other, the local chapters have meetings, etc.  and the national office has various levels of research and info.  

I'm just amused that there is no mention of the superintendent being involved with this project ...  

Mike Benham,
Supt was and is very involved.
Good guy and knowledgable supt.
Been there 40 years.
Stays out of controversy.
I don't know where you read that he was left out.
Mike

The USGA should not be in the business of "pimping." It can only cause one to wonder if the USGA (or their representative) is receiving a fee or kickback for the recommendation. The USGA, like any professional consultant, should be above reproach in these situations. Exclusively selling the virtues of one vendor invites speculation and creates doubt about their true intentions. The fact that this discussion is taking place proves the point.