John...I said nothing about green fees....though the more expensive the less likely the average Joe will play the course....
Craig, you said it right there. And then Tom Doak makes the point later. If you build courses where the model is for a high green fee you run the risk of not getting enough play. At a lower price point you may have a viable business model but then aren't as able to build a course that makes a list like this.
Brad points out it DOES happen. In Casper, Wyoming of all places.
I don't see these lists as silly, but I'm a guy that keeps each GOLF Magazine issue with their Top 100 in the world going all the way back to when Muirfield was on the cover in the early 1980s.
There is a market for lists like this. People like me enjoy seeing them. Conversely there are also people that don't give two shakes. My dad, for example, didn't see golf as anything he would spend more than 20 bucks (today's equivalent of about 40) to enjoy. Fot those in that camp, they are free to ignore the publication.
Just to single out a guy, I'm guessing Cary sees this list and starts planning a trip for next year. He's not alone.
Craig, it seems like someone pissed in your corn flakes today. Are you ready to assume Crusty's place as our resident curmudgeon?
For one moment put yourself in the shoes of a developer. If someone like Jeff Brauer or Keith Foster or Kelly Moran were recognized on lists like this and you found you could hire them for less than Nicklaus or Fazio or Jones and still get a top quality product you'd probably consider that option.
If lists like this were silly it seems that nobody would be able to discern who was doing a good or bad job. It doesn't go down just 10 places. I'd even argue that it highlights the efforts of those in the design profession.