Matt:
Shinnecock has told the USGA it isn't interested right now (especially for the lower fee the USGA is proposing). We both agree it is one of the most attractive sites, but the club's powers-that-be are still reeling from their last debacle and are hardly eager to subject themselves to similar displacement without a greater reward.
The 1997 PGA at WF was a better success than you might think. The TV viewership increased 19% over previous years (largest jump ever)and served to finally bring the PGA into the nationwide media spotlight of similar proportions with the other majors. Interestingly, not until the final Sunday of 2000 at Valhalla and the last two days of 2004 at Whistling Straights did the TV #'s rival again. While grounds tickets sales might have lagged, traditionally they always have and they really aren't the most important economic engine for the PGA model.. The recent PGA at Baltusrol was no different as tickets were for sale just up to event time. August is inferior to June for on-site visitations (competitive with people's travel & vacation plans).
I agree that Baltusrol and Trump can't be upset with this news, yet as for Sebonack or Liberty National, I'd be shocked if either get ANY kind of serious consideration. Between their relative youth, super-high membership fees, lack of both site infrastructure area and on-course viewing spacing, neither of these candidates make enough sense for the blue blazers. I really like Sebonack and it's certainly tough enough, but it would take very long odds to overcome the multiple shortcomings of this venue. Liberty would love it, but would the USGA like to defend the views from anything other than the three holes that highlight the Statue of Liberty and Manhattan skyline, the big, ugly condos, and the bordering waste areas?
Trump was rumored (in GW a few weeks back) to be negotiating with the USGA for an Open and their Bedminster site is a near perfect fit from multiple perspectives (RR, auto parking, space, viewing lanes, and almost every other infrastructure need)....who knows?
I agree Oakmont may well become a more active venue in the future. but that said, the USGA wants very much to put the Open closer to the New York/Boston/Philadelphia Corridor. The Northeast is still the nation's largest confluence of $$ and great golf and that remains an important economic, demographic and prestige point for the folks from Far Hills.
Sam:
The USGA goes where the people and $$ are. They also count on on-course attendance proceeds and ancillary revenues from merchandise sales to make their # goals. If they regularly held this in SoCal, they'd risk failure on many of those counts. Golf fans have traditionally seemed too busy enjoying the beach and would likely shy away from the traffic nightmares that a site like Riveria suggests. LACC isn't interested. This year's experiment at Torrey Pines will surely help shape the USGA's opinion of SoCal, but it will have to be a huge success to earn a return selection.
The Open may well belong in an ideal world to the the entire country, but for the blue-bloods in Far Hills, the Open's revenues are the lifeblood of their organization and they won't stray too far from the existing formula for fear of tampering with success.
What is most interesting here, and should be discussed further, is the
fact that the USGA is offering LESS $$ to the host club than in the past. That is a key strategy that may, or may not, backfire on them. Hosting a Open is a complex issue for any private club and I'm not sure the USGA's new negotiating tactic won't flat-out alienate most of the candidates. It may also just tee-up the ball for the likes of the Donald and other very wealthy owners to step in as they are far more interested in the prestige than the profits. All very interesting to me.