USGA Museum not to move to NYC

[John Foley]

Was it me or was anyone else extremely underwhelmed by the museaum at Golf House? Yes they had some nice equipment donations. A few time lines of different champions (way out of date). From an architectural side it was almost non-existent. I was hoping to see so much more, but left feeling very underwhelemed.

I didn't push to see anything , maybee I should have. I am a card carrying member.

Redeanma's right I think very few would go to the USGA museum in NYC just due to the cometition for your time & eye along w/ the hassle factor.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
I will take your response as a yes, that you do not care for the USGA.

Do you know when the USGA took on the "role" of testing Balls and Equipment? When did their "procedure" become outdated? What part of their "procedure" became outdated?

Have you visited Far Hills? What do you like about the USGA?

[Steve Lapper]

This thread has become focused on the USGA's role in guarding the game. Granted, 10 or more pages could go on and still just have scratched the surface on the merits of the USGA's stewardship of the game itself.

However, and more importantly, the USGA has the penultimate postion as the primary organization that solicits for $$ from the golfing public and has defacto become the repository for the game's historic and otherwise artifacts. Both of those roles need some serious examination as they remain immune from oversight and audit and regularly reveal only what they deem necessary. Clearly they are wasting the public's money by making poor and not-thoughtout forays into expensive real estate. I live in Far Hills, have viewed the Golf House numerous times and share the opinion of others just how shallow the collection is when it comes to architecture.

The USGA administrators are failing us miserably by ignoring that glimmering facet of the game and its accompaning legacies. Like their USOC brethen (but unlike them as they have no I'ntl body to answer to) the USGA they propose to hold themselves to higher values, yet they pick and choose everything according to personal taste (the museum in NYC, the open venues, the collection deaccessions, the equipment testing, etc...). They should be held accountable to their constituency in some form. Any ideas? $$ make accountability necessary.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,
I don't care for what the USGA has BECOME. I suppose it became apparent to me when they discontinued the rare book reprint program that things were headed in a new direction. The book program wasn't a big thing, just a nice, classy thing the USGA did "for the good of the game." Since then, Golf Journal has been dropped, the grant program emphasizes feel good/looks good stuff, often over the practical (Tufts Archives did not qualify?). The entire operation seems to revolve around the bottom line and protecting the nest egg. That's unusual for a non-profit organization. We were told this was to intimidate the lawsuit minded manufacturers, but apparently it's looking like that was not the case.

It would be different if this hunt for dollars, which has included putting corporate tents in play at the US Open, were openly done to fund the improvement of the library, to defend the integrity of the sport, to fund things like the Tufts Archives or other programs that actually do something for golf (or to justify the funding of Golf Journal). And most of all, to take a stand on equipment, but we now know this has not been the case.

As for the technology issue, I'd love to go back and forth, but please be patient. I know you would endorse a rollback, which I presume means you think the testing has failed (or the testing worked great, but we still need a rollback?).  I'm currently going back and compiling Frank Thomas and David Fay's various remarks over the last decade, which have included comments that the testing was fine despite dramatic shifts in driving distances, and the testing was fine and physics would soon put an end to whatever was perceived to be happening.  When I put my research together, I'll be happy to share it.  Of course, if you could share more about the "optimization" ball test that was mysteriously scrapped in favor of the new test that is due anyday now , I think many people would love to hear about about it. A visit to the USGA's technology page is not very enlightening in this or any regard.

In no way does anyone other than maybe Wally Uhlien want to see the USGA's place in the sport undermined or eliminated.  But credibility has been lost in the pursuit for some imaginary "fudiciary responsibility," and done so by an internal force that only people on the inside probably fully understand. The organization is on the road to irrelevancy and the Tea Room disaster may be the thing that opens a few more eyes and perhaps allows them to right the ship.
Geoff
PS - yes, I've been to Far Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Shackelford,

Do you feel that the structure of the USGA is fully or paritally responsible for its inability to control technology ?

In other words, can an organization that shifts its leadership every 2-4 years through New presidents and Executive Committee members compete against efficiently structured oraganizations with a continuity of both will and purpose ?

Is it the structure and not the people ?

[ChipOat]

Geoff:

I'm unpleasantly surprised that the USGA has included the word "legal" in their self-description.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick:

You raise a very interesting question there, and I don't doubt that at some level the relatively constant turnover probably does factor in.  But.....

There's an old story (perhaps apocryphal) to the effect that upon getting caught breaking some NCAA rule while coaching at UNLV, Jerry Tarkanian claimed that the violation had been accidental inasmuch as the rulebook was massively long and compicated-- to which Bob Knight supposedly replied "Yes, but you don't need to master the rulebook to know it's wrong to buy a kid a car."  

Point being, when guys are routinely driving it into the 370-yard crosswalks, it seems to me that it should be plainly obvious to everyone -- regardless of organizational structure -- that they've got a huge problem on their hands.

That said, however, perhaps they could improve things by finding a stronger Executive Director-- that being a relatively more permanent position.

DW

[A_Clay_Man]

How about speculating on what will be of the "rush your Tee shot room"?

I'd say, if first reports are bogus? and second reports are also often inaccurate? I'd say the third report will have the directors moving to dreay ol' manhattan. I know if I was stuck with a $16M property, I'd at least have a few parties and maybe just stay stuck.

[Jim Sweeney]

About ten years ago the USGA investigated relocating the museum to Monterrey, CA. There was a seven acre ocean front parcel available close to the wharf and the aquarium at a bargain price. The total $$ for the project (land and building)would have been 17-20 million, and the USGA passed. But in debating purchasing the property, one committee member made the point that even if the museum were never built, at least the USGA would own 7 acres of ocean front property on the Monterrey peninsula! The Tea room was also purchased in a distress sale at a favorable price. The report I read quoted a real estate person saying that the USGA would recoup at minimum its investment and its expenses.

The top management guru of the last 75 years, Peter Drucker, has a special interest in non profit organizations. In fact, in California there is a foundation for the study of non profit organizations which is named after him.

Please read, those who question the USGA's "profit motive..."

Mr. Drucker believes that the first priority of a non profit organization in to....ta da....make a profit, and by doing so, ensure its survival for the future and the continuation of its mission. That is what is meant by "fiduciary responsibility." In the case of the USGA and its foundation, that would require a lot of money, more than they currently have.

If anyone feels that spending millions of dollars to introduce people (especially minorities and the underpriviledged) to the game, or make it more accessible to those with disabilities, perhaps living in a veterans home or rehab hospital, or supporting turgrass and maintenance research that winds up benefitting your lawn or highway medians or the environment as well as golf facilities, or allows brownfields to be converted into recreation areas and improves air and water quality or encourages wildlife, if you really feel these are nothing more than "feel good" programs, you really need to revisit your feelings about more than just the USGA. Rather than complain here, go talk to the people who organize and run the programs the USGA supports. I have. Your eyes ( and maybe your mind) will be opened.

BTW, has anyone else seen the size of TW's or Ricky Barne's arms? The phenominal conditioning of most of the up and coming players on the tour? The 40-60 yards of bounce and roll these guys get on every drive when wet whether isn't an issue? Equipment is a factor. So is skill. So is mental and swing training. So is agronomy. If that all adds up to twenty yards in twenty years, so be it. If equipment improvements were frozen in 1903, there would be no need for golf courses today. If they are frozen today, the game will not survive the next 100 years. There will never be a limit (except as applied by nature) on player improvement. COR, ODS, maybe even club length- the lines are drawn, or are being drawn. Nicklaus, Watson, Player, Palmer, Hogan, Trevino- all less than 6 feet .Today over 6 foot is common. Imagine the day (maybe not far away) when a 6'5"player consistently  delivers an accurate blow to the ball with a 150 mph clubhead speed- will people still cry about equipment?

Also BTW, if Mr. Woods's not so veiled assertions about the use of non conforming drivers on tour are true, even for a few top players, there will be two effects: 1) all this moaning about equipment will be for and 2) a blow to the integrity of the tour and the game from which it may never recover.














 

[JohnV]

jess, well said.

Patrick and Daniel,

Reed Mackenzie is in his 8th year as an officer with the USGA and his 12th year on the Executive Committee.

Fred Ridley is in his 10th year as a member of the EC, his 4th as vice president and has also had 2 years a treasurer

Walter Driver is in his second year as VP after 2 years as treasurer and 5th on the Committee as well as being general counsel for 2 years before that.

Eric Gleacher is in his second year as secretary, 7th on the Committee plus 10 years as a director of the USGA Foundation.

Paul Carouso is in his 7th year on the Commitee and first as treasurer.

I think they all have plenty of experience with the USGA to be in the roles that they are in.  Plus, all past presidents still give advice to the Executive Committee.

Yes, the focus of the organization can change as different people take over, but the people who are there understand the history and generally try for consistency.

[Daniel_Wexler]

jesplusone:

Perhaps you could explain your assertion that if equipment is frozen today "the game will not survive the next 100 years."

From my perspective, precisely the opposite is true.  By not implementing the rollback advocated by Nicklaus, Crenshaw, Norman, Faldo, Els, etc., the self-proclaimed "legal guardians" create (at least) the following four problems:

1) The cost of building, maintaining and paying the property taxes on courses skyrockets as increasingly more land is required, making an already expensive game that much moreso.

2) Players must shell out silly amounts of money in attempts at keepng their own equipment competitive with their partners.  Callway and Titleist may like this, but it surely won't help to "grow the game."

3) Numerous classic courses are rendered obsolete for major tournament play or, even worse, are being forced to make ridiculous alterations to remain under consideration.

4) Virtually all Golden Age designs lose much of their appeal for simple, recreational golf as hitting wedges into green complexes built to receive 5 irons diminishes immensely from golf’s strategic challenge.

Personally, I think Henry Longhurst said it best when he wrote that "if the makers of cricket balls suddenly produced one which a schoolboy could hit over the Lord's pavilion, the authorities would not increase the size of Lord's, but inform the ball-maker what he could do with his new ball."

Obviously you feel differently but I'm curious as to why, specifically, you think the game "will not survive the next 100 years" in the event of a rollback...

DW

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Patrick,
I think there are many fine arguments on both sides of the "term limits" debate in this case. By all accounts, the Executive Committee situation has never been more problematic. Now, is that because the Executive Director is hungry to show off his CEO skills by trying too hard to steer them along his (at times bizarre) line of thinking. Or are some members of the ExCom so clueless they can't possibly contribute anything to these significant issues?  Or are they all just in a tough position with no easy way out no matter how experienced they are? Or all of the above? I'd vote for all of the above.

jesplusone,
The game will not survive in 100 years if equipment is limited at this point we're at today? Perhaps you could explain this concept? I can understand your argument regarding 1903 to some extent. But if this is an argument on behalf of consumerism (that golf thrives because of the sheer joy of consuming the latest equipment offerings), I think you are going to have a tough sell.

But lets say that is true. Has anyone bothered to consider that all of these thousands of inner-city kids reaping the benefits of these wondeful USGA grants will not be able to keep up with this neverending race to buy the latest and greatest club? Wouldn't it be better if they never learned the sport, than if they took it up, but ultimately quit because they or their parents couldn't afford to keep them on pace with wealthier golfers who could buy the latest distance boost? Does golf really need more equipment advances at this point to help it thrive? Wouldn't access to compelling, affordable architecture be a more significant contribution?

You make a fair point about turfgrass research and other elements of the organization. I don't disagree, I just wish the pursuit of profit was done in the name of protecting the museum collection, furthering turfgrass research, keeping a 56-year old magazine going, testing equipment to prevent an arms race, and other areas that are within the USGA's reach. Social engineering is not their specialty.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jesplusone,

You're probably too young to remember Frank Stranahan and George Baer, but if it's muscles and size your looking for in golfers, their pictures are in the dictionary under those words.

Club head speeds of 150 mph could only be attained thru the advent of light weight shafts and oversized heads on the end of longer shafts.  Titanium's strength to weight ratio helps as well.

Take your power hitters and give them some of my old drivers in my garage, my PowerBilts, my MacGregor's from the 60's, with the small heads, D-3 swing weight, stiff and X stiff shafts, together with some old Blue Max Maxfli's and let's see them carrry those balls 300 plus yards, straight down the middle of the fairway, time after time.

You'll see, that after a few balls sail out of bounds, those golfers may have to throttle back in order to remain in play.
Mis-hits with a driver used to cause severe penalties, not shots 290 yards in the left center of the fairway.

John V,

Most, if not all of the people you mentioned come from other careers, other disciplines.  Some came to the USGA as novices, never having spent any time on Techno related committees.  Some in fact, went from no prior experience, straight to the Executive Committee.

I think that you would acknowledge that a learning curve, or a paying your dues time frame had to occur before they become knowledgeable, seasoned executives, totally familiar with all aspects of USGA affairs, and the techno dilema.

Technology does not move slowly.

Volunteer organizations almost always do

Few, especially those not versed in science, were capable of understanding what was happening at the moment with technology, let alone what was on the drawing board and about to happen, and its impact on the game.

You may also recall the reaction from all parties when Buzz Taylor took an aggresive stance on equipment.

I have a theory about the USGA and volunteer or charitable organizatons that I'd be willing to share with you.

The bottom line, from my point of view, is that the manufacturers were driven by the expanding golf market, and almost every golfers love of distance, and that they focused their R&D and Marketing efforts on capitalizing on same through rapid advances in technology.  As the USGA focused on one issue, the technology had already leaped to the next level, and that this happened in rapid succession, overwhelming the antiquated testing methods and prevailing views.

But, these are just my opinions.

[TEPaul]

And as extraordinary as it may sound to most, I agree almost 100% (well let's just say 98%) with all that Pat Mucci said in post #38. Unfortunately, if anyone thinks these are Pat's original thoughts though--they aren't. It's almost word for word what I explained to him in a rather long telephone conversation. Sadly, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise all I can really give him credit for are those old powerbilts and such in his garage and the fact that he did recognize that Stranahan and Baer were quite strong.  

Matter of fact Stranahan's right hand could be so active he'd occasionally hit golf balls (even on the course) with his right thumb resting on the sharp end of a tee as the ball end of the tee rested on the top of the grip!

[JohnV]

Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, neither you, Geoff or any of the other people who are saying that the technology has gone too far either have an engineering background and/or have access to the USGA's data on this issue.  Yet it hasn't stopped you from saying that things have gone too far and that the USGA is bad for not doing something.  At least the people who are in charge of the USGA have a group of scientists/engineers who are working for them and giving them advice.  Perhaps they shouldn't ignore it, but who am I or you to say.

I know that the the CEO of the company I was a founder of had know idea how to make a multi-processing computer or create a version of the Unix Operating system that could run on it, but he still built an $800 million dollar company by letting his engineers do the work and then selling them.

People like Reed Mackenzie have been involved with golf and administration of golf for over 20 years and have a lot of knowledge.

The problem with Buzz Taylor's comments were that he made them without talking to anyone about them.  He managed to alienate the industry by just dropping a bombshell on them.  Tact was not one of Buzz's finer points.

Looking at the statistics of the US Open, the players only hit 53.4% of the fairways for the week so even if they were hitting it 300 yards, they weren't hitting it straight down the middle.

There is no doubt that equipment has improved of over the years and that what is out there today is the better than your old persimmons and Maxfli balatas.  But, has the USGA done anything about it?  Yes.  There has been and always will be an ODS.  Most balls didn't come anywhere near it, but now they all do.  Do we have a COR limit? Yes.  Do we have a club head size limit and shaft length limit?  Soon.  So, given all this where can further gains come from?  The shaft might be the only thing that isn't restricted.  If someone could come up with something that was better than graphite we could see more gains.

All that being said, I'm not opposed to some kind of rollback, but I also think the USGA has been tracking this and has measured drives on all holes (not just 2) at every US Open since at least 1998.  They are not asleep at the switch.  Given some of the comments in Golfweek last month (and their actions the last two years on the clubhead/shaft), they are concerned and want to make sure things don't go further.

Tom, if Stranahan did that thing with the tee on the course today, it would a violation of Rule 14.

[Robert_Walker]

The USGA's testing methods are good. The limits on distance are set too high, and allow for too much margin for error.

If anyone can tell us how the USGA's testing methods are flawed, I would like to read them here.

[Steve Lang]

 

great Debate!  

Thomas Kuhn would be smiling.. the paradigm shift has already begun in shaft designs (how about that $350 Fujikura Speeder Shaft???) while everyone is arguing about balls and club heads and shaft lengths for the USGA's attention..  It's the science/technology of measurements in fitting that can give Jaka_B 20 more yards..

Arnie and Jack were definitely strong but it was their overall skills which really made it happen.. versus the very mixed results of the neo-sluggers thrashing it around today.. if the stars align, everything is great, if not they struggle to overcome their all-around skill deficiencies and the requisite mentality for getting it in the hole.  

The influence of inbreeding at the highest levels of the USGA does ensure continuity, I just hope that when the bleeding starts its not fatal.

   have a nice day

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

I entered Notre Dame as an Engineering and Science major, and spent years in that pursuit before seeing the light.

For yeers ago, I culdn't spell enjineer, and now I are one.

In your straight down the middle example, you reference USOPEN fairways, falling victim to the same defensive posture, narrowing the hitting zone to 18 yards.
Let's talk about normal, everyday fairways, absent the pressures of the USOPEN.  You and I know that if a PGA Tour player wants to let out a little shaft, that they can step on it.

I never, I repeat, never said that the USGA was bad.

I said that the techno issue got away from, or rushed past them.  I attribute much of this to the effect of the Ping Lawsuit.

John, you have to admit, for a time, many were saying that there was no distance problem, when it was soaring over their heads.

TEPaul,

You'll find that you'll agree with me more and more, even perhaps, beyond 98 %.

And, telling these nice people that those were your ideas sounds a little like that New York Times reporter's work  

[JakaB]

Does the USGA monitor spin rate as it relates to ball speed and launch angle....If they don't they are missing something very important in the physics of ball flight.

btw...every day I sleep and progress in my life further from my optimum form as dialed in by the computer I am losing distance...like so many diets I have tried I now swing harder and harder to the point my quick fix will soon find me shorter than ever...if you think a new driver is expensive I wonder what a swing coach and computerized swing monitor would cost.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

John, Robert,

As for the testing, I know that the USGA has been trying to change the ball testing for at least FIVE years, with one test scrapped ("optimization" announced in 1998), and little hope they will have a new one ready in September. After all, if a new ball comes out between now and then that fails the new test, don't they have to adjust the test again?!?!?

If the testing is sound and not flawed Robert, why not stick with Iron Byron and his persimmon driver? Why are they trying to change the testing procedure at their behest?

John, you are right, I have no scientific background. I'm looking at this from the point of view of architecture, common sense, the good of the sport, and how the quality and interest of golf has been harmed. Scientists don't look at those elements, they're subjective. That's appropriate, because this is where the Executive Committee and Executive Director should come in, by offering a common sense view based on their knowledge of history, tradition, architecture and the principles behind the rules.  I don't sense they have been able to offer that kind of perspective because I don't sense there is enough interest in the history, tradition, architecture and principles behind the rules to see how far things have strayed.

It's probably best they aren't aware that in the history of the sport, never has a governing body acted as timidly or inconsistently or as bottom-line driven as the current regime has.
Geoff

[Paul_Turner]

I thought this was quite an interesting chart, from Frank Thomas's website:

[JohnV]

Patrick,  congratulations on studying engineering, even if was at Notre Dame.  Since you studied engineering, I'm sure that you can understand why I'm sceptical of anectodal evidence that is often thrown around here.  There are so many variables involved in how far the golf balls go that there is no way to say that just the ball or just the club or just the ball and club are the primary reason.

I have to admit that I was playing devil's advocate in some of my post.  I know that some of the PGA Tour staff definitely feel that how straight the ball goes is the bigger difference than how far it goes.  They have commented to a good friend of mine about how they rarely get balls outside the ropes anymore.  When you know you can't miss it left or right, you are defintely going to swing harder.

Now, if someone just says, "I don't care what is causing it, I want it to go shorter", I have a problem.  If it can be proven that the primary reason for this is technology then I agree that it should be scaled back.  If it is due to players who swing better, are more physically fit and have used launch monitors to determine which is the perfect club and ball for them, I don't have as much of a problem the new distance.

Geoff,  Among other reasons for switching from the persimon driver is that they break and they aren't making many anymore.  But, I'm sure the real reason was that they do want to be more realistic in their test.  They are really just moving the baseline since all balls that are legal now will be legal then so it doesn't make a difference if they change.

I agree that I would rather not see the old great courses having to be lengthened and remodeled just so they can get a championship.  Perhaps that problem lies with the clubs that want those ego massaging events.

I've had the opportunity to meet many of the people on the Executive Committee, the I&B Committee and the Rules of Golf Committee and I can assure you that they all care very much about the game, its traditions and the principles behind the rules.  Like many people who are in charge of something as special as golf, they are reticent to just jump in and make changes quickly.  Frequently the quick fix can be worse than the problem.

This thread started out by knocking the USGA for rushing into buying the Tea Room without doing their due dilligence and then transitioned into them moving too slowly in equipment changes.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Paul,
This is a fascinating concept that John touched on and many of the golf magazines have pointed out in dismissing people like Nicklaus on the ball/technologyissue. Scores. If the scores aren't lower, then how can we say anything is wrong? As long as scores remain statistically consistent, all will be well.

Unfortunately, the argument is not about scores, it's about the quality of golf and the role architecture can play in making the game interesting and fun. We have gone from courses with very few non-architectural add-ons in the form of rough/fairway contours in the 20s, to courses that gradually added stuff on that they are now covered with rigged features to combat distance and keep scores in check. At what point do we stop adding length, trees, rigged fairway contours and rough so the USGA doesn't have to step up to the plate? When there are no more fairways?

It's a bit like our situation here in California. Thanks to our federal government, the state is $38 billion in debt, largely from keeping various social programs afloat, when the real issue as to why we have these expensive programs and a lack of tax revenue to pay for them (the unregulated border) is ignored. At what point do we do something? The feds aren't going to close the borders. So not until the various programs that lure people over the border go broke do we have to correct the problem. Is that the best way to remedy the issue? Of course not because many will suffer in the process of waiting.

But apparently golf has to wait until there are no fairways, there is no fun left to be fostered by architecture, rounds take 6 hours and cost more, and worst of all, there are fewer golfers around? Doesn't make sense to me.
Geoff

[David Kelly]

P_Turner,
From the chart you posted even someone who didn't know anything about The Master's golf tournament could conclude that every time the winning score reached historical lows something was done to cause the scores to rise - bent greens, "Tigerproofing", etc...

[Daniel_Wexler]

Patrick and Geoff are 100% correct.  It absolutely boggles my mind how, during and after the Open, people seemed to be so accepting the notion that since the scoring wasn't ridiculous (though in many ways it was) the equipment clearly must not be hurting the game.  Are they simply oblivious to how much HARDER Open layouts are being set up so as to cover for the USGA's abrogation of regulatory authority?  

When I was a kid, fairways were narrowed into the 30-yard range for the Open.  Today, as Patrick points out, they're more like 18.  The rough is generally thicker today (with the occasional unplanned exception), green speeds are off the charts (not so big at many Tour venues but huge on most of the older, steeply contoured layouts employed for the Open) and that's before we even consider 499-yard par fours and the odd 250-yard forced carry just to reach a fairway.

I don't necessarily disagree with the USGA's "par as the standard of excellence" (my quotations) standard for the national championship, but it gets a little embarrassing when such extreme measures are employed simply to cover for their own lack of "legal guardianship" (quotations theirs).

JohnV:

My common sense proves to me that "the primary reason for this is technology."  Yes, many players are in better shape, and there's no question that improved agronomy is also something of a factor.  But I continue to use Hogan as a standard; I doubt if anyone is going to suggest that his technique has been substantially improved upon, yet players of similar physical stature are hitting it light years past where he drove it.  Hogan hit a 1 iron (some say a 2?) into the 72nd green at Merion when the hole was playing 448 yards.  Forgetting about Tiger, Els, etc., what would the average 5'9" professional hit into that hole today?  An 8?  A 9?  To suggest that so huge a difference is not primarily driven by technology is laughable.

Also, the argument of greater player size only carries so much weight.  Ex-football star George Bayer, after all, stood 6'5" and at least 250 lbs back in 1950s and 60s and was universally hailed as easily the longest hitter in golf-- and he wasn't driving it anywhere near where much smaller men are routinely putting it today.

I harken back to my earlier Bob Knight semi-quote: "You don't need to master the rulebook to know that it's wrong to buy a kid a car."

If people don't believe that players driving it into the 370-yard crosswalks represents a technology-induced problem, I've seriously got to wonder what game they're watching.

DW