News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2001, 08:00:39 PM »
Big ups to John V!  :o

That would definitely help anyone visiting Oregon.  If I asked about Klamath Falls, one might say "It's great!" and another could say "What a disappointment!" even though they both have it in their 3rd decile.  The first guy came from a muni and the latter took the time to travel all the way there in place of another round at Bandon or Pacific Dunes.

Rich:

Considering it takes 4:30 to 5:00 to play most of the courses I play, I'd call anything under 4:00 pretty quick.  I also haven't seen a 6000 yard course other than Mount Dora in the nine years I've lived here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2001, 06:35:41 AM »
Rich:

This was one hell of a year for me, we've discussed that seemingly ad nauseam.  So oh yeah, this year, I'd say it's about 25% playing "starred" courses - pretty incredible for me.  Just do remember that you guys only hear about these rounds - I still do play a LOT of golf, on courses other than these.  I've set my life up this way - obviously Clorox doesn't require too much of me and that's intentional on my part!  And I too don't "seek out" mediocre courses - these just tend to be what's available to me, where I can get a tee time, where my tournament group is going, where my friends want to go, etc.
However, over my 20 year playing life here in NorCal, the 30:1 ratio fits most definitely.  That's what I meant.  Playing great courses like these has always indeed been a very rare thing for me.

Thus I do still see the value in these deciles.  I'd have to say that I'm very fortunate also - many, many folks I know NEVER get to play "starred" courses EVER.  So a decile list is more for them.  John V also has this right - if one can't or won't go to the starred courses here, wouldn't one want to know the differences among what else is available?

By the way, in my ranking, which remember includes every course I've ever played in NCGA, public and private, Pajaro Valley is indeed 5th decile - good guess!  That doesn't sound like much also until you see the company around it... Rancho Canada gets 5th also - both courses... so I'm no help there in your decision where to play!  But wouldn't you want to know about Bayonet (First, in with some very heady company) v. Blackhorse (Third - same location)???  In the Silicon Valley area, if you are just looking for a place to play (and I assume you would want to do this, given your professed love for the game), wouldn't you want to know that Sunnyvale Muni falls way down to Ninth before you give that a try, whereas Santa Teresa is indeed quite interesting and makes it up to Sixth, also in some good company?

I do see the value in this, yes indeed.  Again, we're not talking a discussion of great architecture here, we're talking about choosing a place to play, or recommending such to an out-of-towner not willing or able to get to the starred courses (which to me require no recommendation anyway - they're known quantities!)....

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2001, 07:00:12 AM »
OK, just to put this all straight, and in case anyone cares, here's the full list I compiled.  I didn't rank at all within the deciles, they're just listed as I cut them from the overall alphabetical list I did, after some shuffling, or as I thought of them.  I fully expect others to argue some of my placements - how could we possibly agree on all of this - but I'd be surprised if my assessments are WAY off from anyone... In any case, judge for yourselves if this has any value.  And finally, I've never played Pasadera or The Preserve or Cordevalle or perhaps several others discussed here in GCA... so their omission is just due to this, not me making any statement!  It's also quite possible I've omitted courses I HAVE played... this was pretty tough to do wtih 100% precision.


NCGA Golf Courses I’ve Played
Decile List
180 total – 18 per decile

First
Cypress Point Club
Pebble Beach GL
Spyglass Hill GC
Olympic Club – Lakeside
San Francisco GC
Spanish Bay
Monterey Peninsula CC – Dunes
Pasatiempo GC
Poppy Hills GC
Stanford University GC
Bayonet (Fort Ord)
Burlingame CC
California GC
Half Moon Bay – Ocean
Lake Merced GCC
Meadow Club
Orinda CC
Stevinson Ranch GC
-------------------------

Second
Twelve Bridges GC
Sonoma National GC
Olympic Club – Ocean
Diablo CC
Claremont CC
Sequoyah CC
Monterey Peninsula CC – Shore
San Juan Oaks GC
Mira Vista GCC
Shadow Lakes GC
Menlo CC
Sea Ranch GC
Castlewood CC (Hill course)
Presidio GC
Saddle Creek GC
Green Hills CC
Quail Lodge
The Course at Wente Vineyards
--------------------------
 

Third
Peninsula GCC
Sharon Heights CC
Brookside GC (Stockton)
Bodega Harbour
Cinnabar Hills (27 holes)
Almaden CC
Chardonnay GC (Club Shakespeare)
Diablo Grande – Ranch
Incline Village – Champ.
Fountaingrove
Hiddenbrooke GC
Marin CC
Delaveaga GC
Adobe Creek GC
Blackhawk CC – Lakeside
Blackhawk CC – Falls
Blackhorse (Fort Ord)
Fall River Valley GC
----------------------------------

Fourth
Del Monte GC
Chardonnay GC (Vineyards)
Carmel Valley Ranch GC
Coyote Creek GC (Tournament course)
Half Moon Bay – Old
Poppy Ridge GC.(27 holes)
Crow Canyon CC
Haggin Oaks – MacKenzie
Edgewood Tahoe
Eagle Ridge GC
Monarch Bay GC – Tony Lema
Greenhorn Creek GC
Los Altos GCC
Moraga CC
San Geronimo GC
Mountain Springs GC
Ancil Hoffman
Aptos Seascape
-------------------------------
 
Fifth
Discovery Bay CC
Pacific Grove GC
Pajaro Valley GC
San Jose CC
Oakhurst GC
Northstar at Tahoe GC
Palo Alto Hills GCC
Rancho Canada GC – West
Rancho Canada GC – East
Poplar Creek GC
La Contenta GC
The Bridges at Gale Ranch
Laguna Seca GC
Crystal Springs GC
Silver Creek Valley CC
Silverado CC – North
Silverado CC – South
Stonetree GC
--------------------------------

Sixth
Northwood GC (9 holes)
Windsor GC
Rancho Solano GC
Pine Mountain Lake CC
Gleneagles International (9 holes)
Canyon Lakes GC (San Ramon)
Indian Valley GC
Plumas Lake GC
Rooster Run GC
Incline Village – Exec.
Peach Tree GCC
Peacock Gap GCC
Brentwood GC (27 holes)
Santa Teresa GC
Rio Vista GC
Shoreline GL
Beau Pre GC
Moffet Field GC
------------------------------------------
 
Seventh
Mountain Shadows GC – North
Mountain Shadows GC – South
Spring Hills GC
Boundary Oak GC
Coyote Creek GC (Valley course)
Tilden Park GC
The Villages GCC
Spring Valley GC
Summitpointe GC
Bartley Cavanaugh GC
Blue Rock Springs – West
Blue Rock Springs – East
Las Positas GC
Lincoln Park GC
Franklin Canyon
Lake Chabot GC
Lake Tahoe GC
Manteca Park GC
--------------------------------------

Eighth
La Rinconada CC
Diablo Creek GC
Skywest GC
Forebay GC
Tahoe Donner GC
Palo Alto GC
Tracy GCC
Saratoga CC (9 holes)
Ridgemark GC – Gabilan
Ridgemark GC – Diablo
Salinas Fairways GC
San Ramon Royal Vista GC
Santa Clara Golf & Tennis
Haggin Oaks – Arcade Creek
Sunol Valley GC – Palm
Sunol Valley GC – Cypress
Alameda Chuck Corica – Clark Course
Olympic Club – Cliffs (9 holes - par 3)
-------------------------------------------------------
 
Ninth
Forest Lake GC
Alameda Chuck Corica – Fry Course
Sunnyvale GC
San Jose Muni GC
Sharp Park GC
Bethel Island
Harding Park
King City GC
Oakmont GC – West
Willow Park GC
Deep Cliff (executive)
El Dorado Hills GC (exec)
Old Brockway GC (9 holes)
Gilroy GC (9 holes)
McInnis Park GC (exec)
Mill Valley GC (9 holes – exec)
Forest Meadows GC (exec)
Boulder Creek GC - exec
----------------------------------------

Tenth
Monarch Bay GC – Marina (exec)
Cypress GC (Colma – 9 holes)
Tahoe Paradise GC - exec
Las Positas GC – exec
Blackberry Farm (par 3)
Emerald Hills GC (par3)
Oakmont GC – East (exec)
Phoenix Lake GCC (9 holes)
Pleasant Hills GC
Pleasant Hills GC – par 3
Ponderosa GC (9 holes)
Pruneridge GC (9 holes – exec)
Rancho del Pueblo (9 holes – exec)
Santa Teresa GC – short course (par 3)
Sunken Gardens GC (9 holes – par 3)
Tahoe City GC (9 holes)
Twain Harte GCC (9 holes – exec)
Lake Chabot par 3 course

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2001, 08:57:41 AM »
:o

That man deserves a medal!

As you said, it is hard to argue with your results.  That leads me to conclude that we all probably agree on what decile courses fall into even though some would say a second deciler is GREAT while another would say it's a LETDOWN.

Context is everything.  Doak-type scales are great for the highend, but this method works for the rest for me.

There shouldn't be much difference between some 4th and some 7th decile members since both are about average.

Haven't played San Juan Oaks?   I don't think I saw it.

I was interested to see where controversial Carmel Valley Ranch showed up.  I've seen pretty photos but heard that it is AWFUL, which implies really bad but is really just bad in relation to other upscale clubs in the Monterrey area.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2001, 09:08:10 AM »
JC - San Juan Oaks is there, Second decile.  Damn good course, I think.  Hard to argue it should be lower, and it doesn't fit with those above it.

And you're very astute - you hit on one that was quite difficult for me to place - Carmel Valley Ranch.  See, I agreed with a great Zimbabwean who once called it an "abortion"... and yes, many do call it AWFUL and worse... but most of those assessments are for the course that existed before Pete Dye came back and re-did it.  After that, well.... it makes Fourth Decile, which is pretty damn good.  In context, the renovated course belongs there... though it does pain me to place it above Pajaro Valley and Pacific Grove.  This was indeed one of the tougher choices.  But yes, even if you call it awful today, it is such just relative to the greatness around it.  Not having seen The Preserve or even Pasadera, I'd have to guess that would be the case for those too...

And yes, these evaluations do indeed turn on one's history and "normal" play.  A Shinnecock member who plays little elsewhere might not be too impressed with Bayonet, whereas I sure as heck call it great and put it in First decile with some other truly great courses.... Said member might find plenty of "crap" in my second decile... But at least it does give comparison and relativity!

TH

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2001, 09:41:28 AM »
Doesn't Tom Doak give a lot of courses a 0-5 on the Doak Scale?  Zero, because it sucks relative to what it could have been and money spent.  Five, because it does have some redeeming features.

According to that logic, Pelican Hill may be both a ZERO and a 5.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_D._Bernhardt

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2001, 10:04:00 AM »
The reason I asked about conditioning or consistancy of conditioning is a course like Hidden Creek in Gulf Breeze, florida. It is the best Ron Garl course I have ever played. Yet, the last owner has let the maintenance go so low that it is not even an enjoyable experience to play now. The greeens are so slow, the design and playability is lost. This is a good course that would rate as a 1 on design, but I could not reccomend it to anyone until the maintenace budget is increased.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2001, 10:07:52 AM »
Tom:

Amazing!  ;D Great job!  ;D

It makes me want to do one for Illinois, since I've played
150 or so of the courses here. ;)

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2001, 10:11:04 AM »
Thanks, Paul.  I'm not typically one for list-making - before I did this I had no idea how many courses I had played in the area.  It surprised the heck out of me.

It is a worthwhile exercise, in any case.  Kinda makes me want to get to the ones I haven't played even more....

So when are we gonna see that Illinois list?   ;)

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_D._Bernhardt

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2001, 10:12:05 AM »
I also agree that a one time issue like a drought is not worthy of note for in general terms the course is kept in good condition or at least playable. But is there an * or something if management has made conditioning an issue. I also agree $ charged has little to do with the ranking.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2001, 10:33:24 AM »
Tom:

I hope to be able to sit down and make up my Illinois
list sometime this weekend, so stay tuned! 8)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2001, 11:04:54 AM »
I haven't even read this thread in its entirety.  However, I just looked at page views for this (309) and most other threads compared to the "Golf Digest 2001 Winners" which has about 2250 views.

GD knows its readers want to read about winners!  The system isn't perfect, the results aren't perfect, but it does sell magazines, and apparently, generates interest here, too.

Proof enough for me that their system works as intended.

I look forward to the "winners" on Paul Richard's Illinois list, since I am familiar with that area.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2001, 11:11:52 AM »
Jeff:

Interesting point, but invalid.  That GD 2001 list has been around for a month, this one for two days.  

I won't argue that people do like "winners".  But there is a place of all of this, wouldn't you say?

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2001, 11:25:38 AM »
Tom,

I posted quickly after being struck by the sheer number of views for the GD 2001 thread.  Scientifically Valid?  Well, probably not for another month when we can make an apples to apples comparison.  Other threads have been up a month and no other thread comes close in page views.  The USGA specs thread seems the distant second place finisher.

There is a place for fanatics to debate and refine any ranking system.  I have said a few times that I think someone will come up with a new ranking by averaging the three existing rankings into a combined one, like the BCS.

I have always liked the GD best new and top 100 because they generate discussion about architecture more than anything else.  Ditto for this site.  I gave up long ago even contemplating what makes a good rating system, and really don't care about it, since there will never be a final answer, just more debate.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2001, 11:45:07 AM »
Jeff:  this makes sense to me.  Believe it or not, I am wholly uninterested in ranking systems in the context of which is "best" - I just like to hear about and discuss golf courses!  Sounds simple, is simple, I am simple.

But again, that thread has interest for a lot of reasons, and to me the number of views does not indicate any endorsement of GD's particular system of ranking.  Heck, I know I looked at it cuz I wanted the preview of what would later be in GD!  

One final thing:  if a compilation is to be done, PLEASE let's come up with something better than a system that has Nebraska (routed by Colorado, not even making it's conference championship game) playing for a "national championship"!

Cheers & Happy New Year!

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2001, 11:57:00 AM »
Hucks:

Somebody has to play Miami and you can't make a stronger case for anyone than Nebraska, who was beat by Colorado ALMOST as bad as Colorado was pummeled by Texas.  Please don't make a plea for any Pac-10 team.  That conference's bowl performance this season is hardly impressive.

Jeff:

Since you don't have any courses on GD's Top 100 (more a factor of the projects you've worked on than your talents), wouldn't it be nice to hear Cowboy is 2nd or 3rd decile - or even FIRST! - for the area than have it mentioned as a below-average course?

Most of the projects Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus work on never make the Top 100, or even the Top 200 at Golfweek.  The "hit rate" is far lower for lesser-named architects.

When you do get the time to read other posts on this thread you may see that it works for you.  If it doesn't, don't worry!

P.S.  Cloquet is probably a 4th deciler.

John B.:  You can use conditioning however you want.  I only started the thread to show others that context is important when discussing courses that don't get a ranking.  They're not all awful.  If you take the time to measure Hidden Creek vs. others in the area it is much more meaningful than comparing to Victoria National, Shinnecock, or Riviera.  (I leave conditions out because the Supe's ability to grow grass doesn't change the work done by the Ron Garl's of the world... unless, of course, the bad conditions are the result of improper design considering the area.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John Foley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2001, 12:22:19 PM »
Great concept. I'd recomend to ran if we can move the lists from John V, John C and Huckster to a seperate listing on the side, it could become a home for some great work. The work you three put in has to be commended. thank god for the "down" time between xmas & new years. :)

I would be amazed to see Tommy's list for SoCal & Mike C's list for the Philly area. A few more I'd love to see; Redanman for Coloroado, John McMillan for No. Mich and Ed Baker for Boston/NE. How about it guys?

John Conley - a quick question. Why is Black Bear on the bottom? yes, i agree they moved a TON of dirt and it looks incredibly contrieved at times, but I had a ball there and enjoyed it tremendously.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Integrity in the moment of choice

THuckaby2

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2001, 12:49:47 PM »
JC - If you can look me in the eye and tell me Nebraska deserves to be in that game more than it's conference champion who kicked it's ass all over Boulder, then you either WENT to Nebraska or have been rendered temporarily insane.  Even the early-season UT loss by CU holds no import - the Buffs avenged that mistake.

I have no Pac10 allegiance, nor any to CU - my school doesn't even have football any more.  But yes, Oregon also deserves it more than Nebraska.

In any case, it's an insult to all our intelligences that they can't just do an 8-team playoff.  There is NO valid argument against such.  But money talks, and sadly, the BCS contract runs for 5 more years.

And JF, the exercise was fun!  Those are some damn good lists I'd like to see also... re SoCal, I know enough about that having lived there the first 18 years of my life that I would take particular interest in tTommy's cut there!

TH

ps - speaking of Ran changing things, er, em... I sent in my $73 check several weeks ago... I want my name in lights!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2001, 12:58:11 PM »
John F.:

I have stated repeatedly that I don't factor in conditioning very much, yet perhaps Black Bear is a victim of an inevitable bias.

To get there, I'd have to drive almost one hour.  When it opened, the marketing praised it as one of the best and most difficult courses in Florida.  To date, almost no one has moved out there and I don't know anyone around here who will play it.

It would have to be in PERFECT condition for the undulations to make sense.  I've told people that I see some Augusta-like qualities in it.

Just think... if you had a great time on one of our 10th decilers, how much fun could you have going up a couple pegs to the 6th!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BillV

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2001, 01:12:36 PM »
john_f

I was going to compile my list for Colorado when I have a list in front of me to not miss any courses.  Give me a couple of days.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2001, 01:12:47 PM »
Huckster:

Great job!

I have Mommy out buying Clorox by the pallet to make sure you keep participating. I hope to God Clorox forensics never empounds your hard drive ;D

"Two thousand hours on GCA.com Mr. Huckaby! How do you explain this?"

"Dedication sir,pure dedication!"

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2001, 01:47:09 PM »

Quote
JC - If you can look me in the eye and tell me Nebraska deserves to be in that game more than it's conference champion who kicked it's ass all over Boulder, then you either WENT to Nebraska or have been rendered temporarily insane.  Even the early-season UT loss by CU holds no import - the Buffs avenged that mistake.

I have no Pac10 allegiance, nor any to CU - my school doesn't even have football any more.  But yes, Oregon also deserves it more than Nebraska.

In any case, it's an insult to all our intelligences that they can't just do an 8-team playoff.  There is NO valid argument against such.  But money talks, and sadly, the BCS contract runs for 5 more years.


Tom:

The wonderful thing about being a Minnesota graduate who doesn't really care much about football is that I'm unbiased and can laugh at all the idiots in the football-crazy south.

I have had VERY STRONG opinions on the validity of the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and Bowl Championship Series because I think logically and crave order.  Kind of explains the deciles, don't it!  

The system that is in place today is the result of numerous machinations to remedy an imperfect way to crown the national champion for Division 1-A football.  While still imperfect, you cannot argue that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER SYSTEM IN PLACE TO CROWN THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL CHAMPION.

Your plea for an 8-team championship isn't necessarily more fair than the system in place today.  If a star player for the top seeded team is injured in the first game and they subsequently lose - is that fair?  It happened to the Indiana Hoosiers when they went 17-1 in the Big 10 and saw Alan Henderson get hurt.  I have no doubt that they were the best college basketball team that year.

The funniest thing is that whenever I ask a playoff advocate how they'd select the 8 teams, the criteria they want are IDENTICAL to the criteria that shook out Miami (Big East Champion), LSU (SEC Champion), Colorado (Big 12 Champion), Oregon (Pac 10 Champion), Illinois (Big Ten Champion), Maryland (ACC Champion), Florida and Nebraska (At-Large selections) this year.  Won-Lost, Strength of Schedule, whether or not you won the conference championship, and human judgement (the polls, which are much more whimsical than the computers, the other half of the BCS formula).

In your playoff this year, Florida is playing while Tennessee is watching at home.  Is that fair?  Absolutely not.  Is it unfair?  I didn't say that it is, but you can work this stuff into oblivion and it'll only make you dizzy.

EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD about the BCS criteria brings in some factor that previously was not considered important enough to be included.  Last year the Miami fans wanted "head-to-head" so they'd get the nod over Florida State, but only as long as you didn't carry it one step further and select Washington to play Oklahoma!  Is there more shame in losing to #3 than to a lesser team (Oregon State)?  More on that later.

This year it is now important to win your conference, if you listen to people who'd rather see Oregon or Colorado.  Oregon has no more claim to the Rose Bowl bid than Maryland or Illinois if you want to compare them.  "Conference champion of one of the Big 6 conferences with only one loss for the season."  Colorado did avenge a loss to Texas, but how do you explain Fresno State?

Fresno lost to Hawaii and Boise State.  Both of them play in the WAC, which was won by Louisiana Tech.  Louisiana Tech lost non-conference tilts to Big 12 teams.  So where does that put Colorado?

Last year the Seminoles lost a rivalry game on the road to the team that went into the bowls as the #3 team.  This year the 'Huskers lost a rivalry game on the road to the team that went into the bowls as the #3 team.  Those sound like the most forgivable losses out there either year.

Huskers play the Ducks tomorrow on a neutral field and they're favored by at least 13.  Maybe more now that the Pac-10 teams can't even beat the Utahs and Georgia Techs of the world.  (That's an unforgivable loss this year.  Oregon lets Stanford come from way back in the 4th Q and it ends up costing them a Rose bid.  That's just the way it works.)

People who aren't happy with the BCS are really directing their disenchantment with this year's lot of conference winners in the wrong direction.  It isn't the BCS's fault that Texas, Tennessee, Florida, and Nebraska all lost games late in the year.

I go to bed every night thanking the powers that be for creating a system that would have presented ALL OF THE PREVIOUS TRAVESTIES of the last 41 years.

1960- Minnesota is crowned national champions prior to the bowl games and proceeds to lose in the Rose.  This happened again a few years later.
early 1970s- On probation, the Oklahoma Sooners are voted national champions.
1991- Would've been nice to see the speed of Miami vs. the power of Washington.  We don't.  They both finish undefeated and share the crown.
1980- Clemson and 1984- BYU are national champions despite playing very weak schedules.
1996- Undefeated Arizona State loses to Ohio State in the Rose and undefeated Florida State loses to Florida.  Voters are left to choose which 1 loss team to vote for.  They choose Florida, even though they had earlier lost to the same Seminoles.

I could go on and on if I had my notes, but they are at home.  Simply put, the BCS system is the best system we've ever had.  To be fair in 2001, Miami should be exempted from the bowls and crowned national champs.  They are clearly the most deserving team.  Beating top 15 teams by 59 and 58 points on consecutive weeks and finishing undefeated kind of cement that.  But it isn't about fairness, so they better play someone in a bowl.  Nobody has an iron-clad claim on #2, but I am okay with a team that best fits the criteria EVERYONE DECIDED WERE IMPORTANT BEFORE ANY GAMES WERE PLAYED THIS SEASON.  (Go deeper:  The Dunkel and NYT systems were dropped for this year.  Include them and Colorado - not Nebraska and certainly not Oregon - plays Miami in the Rose.  Some voters in the polls actually rigged their votes to ding Nebraska down in an attempt to keep them out - that's definitely foul play.)  However it was close, which is why some people want to talk about this.

Whenever you want to bash the BCS, knock it for the most absurd clause on earth... they pick Notre Dame any time they don't suck over more deserving teams like Michael Bishop's Kansas State for one of the two At-Large slots.  That's a crock.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2001, 01:48:09 PM »
Well, here it goes... :o

For the wonderful golfing state known as ILLINOIS: ;)

first 10%      
BEVERLY CC      
BUTLER NATIONAL      
CHICAGO GC      
COG HILL #4      
EAGLE RIDGE  - THE GENERAL      
KEMPER LAKES      
MEDINAH #3      
NORTH SHORE CC      
OLD ELM       
OLYMPIA FIELDS - NORTH      
RICH HARVEST FARMS      
SHOREACRES      
SKOKIE      
TPC AT DEERE RUN      
       
second 10%      
BOB O'LINK      
ELGIN CC      
FLOSSMOOR CC      
GLEN VIEW CLUB      
GLEN CLUB      
HERITAGE BLUFFS      
KNOLLWOOD CLUB      
MEDINAH #1      
OLYMPIA FIELDS - SOUTH      
ONWENTSIA      
SUNSET RIDGE      
STONEWALL ORCHARD      
WEAVER RIDGE      
WYNSTONE       
       
third 10%      
BRIARWOOD CC      
BUTTERFIELD CC      
CANTIGNY GC      
CONWAY FARMS GC      
EXMOOR CC      
HARBORSIDE - PORT      
HARBORSIDE - STARBOARD      
HILLCREST CC      
LAKE SHORE       
ORCHARD VALLEY      
PINE MEADOW      
STONEWOLF      
WATER'S EDGE      
WHISPER CREEK      
      
fourth 10%      
AURORA CC      
BARRINGTON HILLS      
EAGLE RIDGE - NORTH       
EAGLE RIDGE - SOUTH      
EVANSTON GC      
MERIT CLUB      
MIDLOTHIAN CC      
MISTWOOD GC      
NORTHMOOR CC      
RAVISLOE CC      
ST CHARLES CC      
THUNDERHAWK       
TWIN ORCHARD - RED      
WEDGEWOOD GC      
      
fifth 10%      
BILTMORE CC      
BRYN MAWR CC      
CALUMET CC      
CHAMPAIGN CC      
FOREST PRESERVE NATIONAL(GEORGE DUNNE)      
GLENWOODIE CC      
JOLIET CC      
KLEIN CREEK       
MARENGO RIDGE CC      
PRAIRIE LANDING CC      
PRESTWICK CC      
RIDGEMOOR CC      
SILVER LAKE GC (NORTH)      
SILVER LAKE GC (SOUTH)      
       
sixth 10%      
BALMORAL WOODS      
BLACKBERRY OAKS      
CHALET HILLS CC      
CINDER RIDGE CC      
EDGEWOOD VALLEY CC      
FOX BEND GC      
HIGHLAND PARK CC      
INDIAN HILL CLUB      
IDLEWILD CC      
ODYSSEY GOLF COURSE      
RUFFLED FEATHERS GC      
STEEPLE CHASE GC      
ST ANDREWS CC      
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - ORANGE      
      
seventh 10%      
BON VIVANT      
BROKEN ARROW      
DEERFIELD PARK DISTRICT      
EVERGREEN CC      
GLENEAGLES - RED      
GLENEAGLES -WHITE      
LAKE OF THE  WOODS GC      
LINCOLN OAKS GC      
MIDLANE CC      
OAK BROOK GC      
OLD OAK CC      
OLD ORCHARD CC      
RUTH LAKE CC      
SYDNEY R MAROVITZ (WAVELAND) GC      
TIMBER TRAILS CC      
VILLAGE LINKS OF GLEN ELLYN      

eighth 10%      
COG HILL #3      
COG HILL #1      
DEER CREEK GC      
GOLF CLUB OF ILLINOIS      
MARQUETTE PARK GC      
PALOS COUNTRY CLUB      
PALOS HILLS MUNICIPAL COURSE      
PETER JANS      
PLUM TREE NATIONAL GC      
RIDGE CC      
SEVEN BRIDGES GC      
TAMARACK      
THE SANCTUARY      
WILMETTE GC      

ninth 10%      
BIG RUN GC      
BLACKHAWK GC      
CARILLON GC      
DEERFIELD PARK DIST.      
HICKORY HILLS CC      
OAK BROOK HILLS      
OAK HILLS CC      
SUNSET VALLEY GC      
THE STATION GOLF LINKS OF GLENVIEW      
TWIN LAKES GC      
TUCKAWAY GC      
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS - BLUE      
WHITE PINES GC      

last 10%
ARBORETUM GC
CARRIAGE GREENS
CARY CC
GREEN GARDEN CC
ILLINOIS CENTER
INWOOD GC
KANKAKEE ELKS GC
MID-IRON CLUB
MISSION HILLS CC
VILLAGE GREENS
WESTGATE CC
WOODBINE GC
WOODRUFF GC
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2001, 02:10:08 PM »
What an adventure.  I think that this is all the courses I have played in Michigan, ranked in 11's.

First 11
Bay Harbor GC: Links/Quarry
Detroit GC - North
Franklin Hills
Indianwood CC - Old
Meadowbrook CC
Oakland Hills - South
Point O'Woods
Shanty Creek Resort - Legend
Thoroughbred GC
Treetops North - Smith
University of Michigan GC

Second 11
Barton Hills CC
Birmingham CC
Bloomfield Hills CC
Boyne Highlands - Heather
Indianwood CC - New
Oakland Univ - Sharf Course
Orchards GC
Plum Hollow CC
Radrick Farms
The Majestic
Treetops North - Fazio

Third 11
Boyne Highlands  -  Hills Course
Detroit GC - South
Grosse Ile G&CC
High Pointe GC
Shepherds Hollow
Tam O'Shanter
The Medalist
TPC at Michigan
Walnut Hills
Wilderness Valley GC - Black Forest
Wyndgate CC

Fourth 11
Black Forest Wilderness Valley
Boyne Highlands - Donald Ross Memorial
Forest Lake
Fox Hills (Golden Fox)
Grand Traverse Resort - Bear
Hawk Hollow
Jackson Country Club
Polo Fields
St. Ives
Warwick Hills
Western GC

Fifth 11
Battle Creek GC
Bay Pointe Country Club
Egypt Valley
Knollwood C.C.
Lochmoor
Prestwick Village
Tanglewood
Twin Beach
Wabeek
Washtenaw C.C
West Shore

Sixth 11
Katke Cousins
Leslie Park
Oakpointe
Pheasant Run
Travis Pointe
Twin Lakes
Walnut Creek
Timber Ridge
Rattle Run
Stonebridge
Sugarbush

Seventh 11
Ann Arbor Golf Club
Dunmaglas GC
Kensington Metroparks
Lakelands
Links of Novi
Marion Oaks
Michawaye Hills
Monroe G&CC
Paint Creek
Pine Trace
Pohlcat

Eight 11
Bay Valley Country Club
Boyne Highlands - Moor
Captains Club
Edgewood
Gull Lake C.C.
Hilltop
Links at Pinewood
Links at Whitmore Lake
Mystic Creek
Salem Hills
Crooked Tree

Ninth 11
Brae Burn
Burning Tree Country Club
Cattails
Gull Lake View
Hidden Valley - Classic
Hidden Valley - Lake
Hidden Valley - Loon
Rackham
Shanty Creek Schuss
Shenandoah
Tyrone Hills

Tenth 11
Copper Creek
El Dorado
Evergreen Hills
Fellows Creek
Fox Creek
Fox Hills
Glen Oaks
Heathers Club
Hickory Sticks
Huron Hills
Whispering Willows

Dregs
Beechwoods
Bogie Lake
Chandler Park
Rogell

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Using DECILES for course ranking
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2001, 03:55:31 PM »
John,

Greatful Dead lyrics and a dissertation on the BCS?  Kind of sorry I brought it up!  Again, sorry for my role in topic creep to all, but as a former Illini, I think its a shame that they are champs and don't go to the Rose Bowl!

I, naturally, love to have my course mentioned in the press, especially in a favorable light.  Your comment loses sight of the fact that if a course is not in the top 200 (the top 1%) doesn't mean its portrayed in a negative light!  It does emphasize how we all tend to percieve things - winners or losers.  Black or white, with no shades of grey.

Discussion allows us to blur the edges, include detail, sub categories, etc. (ie, quirk) The GD list (I guess you can read THAT two ways) generates more discussion, because it is more definitive, with something at no. 1, 2, etc.  The decile ranking system, which approximates the "value" or rank of various courses, not declare it definitively, leaves less room for heated debate, but somehow not as satisfying!

As an example, I could find no real fault with Paul Richards Illinois rankings, based on the courses I know.  I think courses kind of find their place over time, and most would agree generally where they rank.  But when you really get specific, the debate, and the fun start!  We just have to remember the point of the debate is to have fun.  At the end of the day, playing the no. 3 course versus even a number 300 won't be signifigantly different quality of golf experience - either way, you should feel lucky to have the chance!

I guess I prefer to see someone's specific opinions of the rankings.  Perhaps its because they go out on a limb (hey, just like golf architects) and stand up to the criticism.  Better to have played and lost than not play at all.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back