Sorry Mark. Nebraska did the same to Wisconsin so I can feel your pain. At least we will have a shot at redemption in the Big Ten Playoff game provided UN wins your division whatever its called. A legendary lack of leadership in that naming decision.
I really enjoy playing Spring Valley because of how well the course tests all aspects of your game. For a par 70 of 6,350 yards there are 5 par 4's over 400 yards and a par 3's that run the gamut at 215, 185, 165, 155 and 135 all with excellent greens.
I've studied the original L/M drawing of the course (actually an irrigation map now hanging in the clubhouse) that shows sand in all the original bunkers. I tend to agree the course doesn't need sand especially around the greens where the absence of sand increases options around the classic, raised Langford Moreau greens. I do think sand in the fairway bunkers would add a degree of penalty that would be beneficial.
The only significant changes from the original course as built by Langford and Moreau are:
#1 was originally a short 460 yard par 5 with the tee back another 20-25 yards. I think today it probably plays better today as a long par 4.
#2 was originally a 400 yard par 4 played from the location of the current women's tee. I've played it from there which eliminates the long walk back to the new tee. While not a bad par 5 and I think its a better hole as a par 4 which has a challenging 2nd shot to a small green.
#4 the pond in front of the green was added probably for drainage. The pond pretty much mandates a blind lay-up with a mid-iron; there would be many more choices without the pond influencing the 2nd shot. Regardless a great green location and a really good par 5.
#9 new tee added to lengthen hole.
#14 trees added to right take away option to play far to the right. A short driveable par 4 at 285 originally featured a huge green of 14,00 square feet. This is a green that would benefit from sand in the bunkers and a very narrow opening in front. I enjoy this hole when playing a match beacause I always feel a 4 is a bogey. I wish I had access to the original drawing of 14 to illustrate the original shape and strtegy of the hole. Maybe I will dig it out later if anyone is interested.
#16 the pond was added to the left. The pond is very awkward and necessitates a lay-up or a play up the right side over or to the right of the mounds.
I believe the green in the distance behind 7 was intended soley as a practice green. On #8 a tee that is no longer used was added in an attempt to make the hole more challenging. Played from the original tee #8 at 345 yards is by far the easiest and least interesting hole on the course. I suspect they don't use it for safety reasons but the added distance bringing the hill back into play and would greatly enhance the hole.
I think the one thing the current owners could do at minimal cost to greatly improve the course would be to recapture the shrunken greens. You can see what I mean in my photo of #18. They do a really good job of maintaing the proper speed especially in the Fall and this would add a number of really great pin locations. There are many greens, notably #1, #2, #3, #8, #9,#10, #11, #14, #15 and #18 that would benefit greatly from taking the greens back to their original sizes. Originally 14 green was a 14,000 sq feet which means they would have to take it out about 15 yards on all sides which would add some hairy undulations and interesting pin locations on very short par 4.
Another simple fix to one of the weaker holes would be to add a new tee back in the woods on #13 which could add 30-40 yards to the 390 yard hole and where bunker on the left would be in play and with the hill back in the landing zone the surface of the green would be blind from less than about 165 yards.
And don't get me started on the trees. Just look at the photo of 18 and think about what that will look like in 20 years when those baby trees up the left side grow up.