I have never been shy about criticizing the GCSAA, USGA, PGA and every turf school with the exception of Penn State. I've not been slow to lay blame on young shiny shoed supers. Truth be known I've been a jerk to the industry in general. I was wrong.
JK, this still left me wondering what you are saying about all the other turf research stations throughout the country, who have trained and continue to train and update supers with in-service and seminars? Hopefully you recognize that pretty much any serious turf student who aspires to be a professional, and actually studies the science, knows more and learns more about turf by end of 1rst or 2nd year in, than most all of us lay folk. One can read the magazines, and such, and make an effort to learn, but let's face it, a serious student is taught fundamentals of turf and soil science that we do not normally use as a basis for making criticisms. As you know, turf research stations are in varying parts of the country, and some focus more on warm season than cool season turf, particularly their research plots are located in their particular climate.
I just think that criticism is OK when it is accompanied by a willingness to express one's idea or point but then ready to sit back and listen to the professional, whether that pro was trained at Texas A&M,Nebraska, Wisconsin Turf OJ Noer, Michigan State, Georgia or Penn State, and all the other dozen speicalty turf programs.
Science trumps laydom folk science, talk radio, and member 19th hole discussions. Sure, the University schools seem to develop a certain affinity to some of the industry funding sources and may overemphasis their products to keep the research funds going. But, science always responds to the current new thing, and they will even benefit from studies of this heat, and stresses. We do move the ball forward, and we should support all those that seek to do so through education, at all schools, IMHO.