I"m sorry, not to pick on Jim Nugent, but all this rating and numerology as he has explained it, is why I have such a gut reaction against rating. It is as if we must have this perfect logical order of what value and where each course fits in... By his analysis that 9 means it is in the top 6-15 and and 8 in the top 40 etc., then I think there must be 25 courses in the top 5 and 100 courses in the top 40, etc. There is just so much hair splitting and I think that the score misleads many folks into thinking a truly great course isn't all that because it is only a 7 or 8.
All I know is Chambers Bay is an exciting course having walked - not played it yet. I hope that the pressure is on by the locals to keep that price where it is, and for a long time. Thus, after a number of years, as costs are recovered, then the price will be cheaper, in relative terms due to inflation.
34Krounds at an average of $100 seems to me to be very doable. I'd like to see the course recognised early as a top candidate for a major (which I have sero doubt it would handle beautifully) and get some grant money right up front from the USGA or PGA, to retire construction-development costs. That should be done by the golf organizations as a tribute to the municipal spirit that had gone forward to get behind this project in the first place. They have created something very special, and should be rewarded at least in the same way they did for Torrey Pines being granted upgrade money, and Bethpage being granted upgrade money. In this case, not so much up-grade as re-inforcement of the great leap Tacoma made that has bettered golf in that area with such a great new venue.
Maybe that would encourage even more muni's to go forward with something of great recreational use to their communities, besides stadia.