Without rancor or critique...objectively speaking:
If the decision to eschew a particular course from championship play is made for (what used to be) tertiary reasons such as media or corporate participation or other exploitative inclusions, then this moment in time is when the tail actually wags the dog, the master serves the servant, and the event is not to determine the best exhibitors of Golf skills - but how fiscally profitable the stagers can make the exhibition.
To be clear:
1. an eschewing of venue for competitive reasons (too low scoring, bad turf, poor climate for turf in that season) is its own matter and is altogether different set of values to be examined, critiqued and/or praised.
2. an eschewing of venue for practical reasons (inadequate parking, local lodging, inability to serve spectator flow or gallery infrastructure, basic concessions, poor range facilities) is its own matter and is altogether different set of values to be examined, critiqued and/or praised.
This, if the primary understanding of the growing thread is accurate (feasibility for maximum corporate hosting and/or tertiary media coverage is the issue) is something else again.
If healthy corporate underwriting is a necessary adjunct of the modern championship (and I think there is nothing wrong with that in principle) the PGA is then making a value judgment in their negotiations with such underwriters...
If "fulsomeness of corporate underwriting access," their 'comfort' or premium viewing or congregation/hosting points is indeed at issue, then the PGA (and any body that would follow them) has de-valued not only the competition and its commercial value but their own sovereignty to determine the best venues and championship standards a priori and it is no longer a negotiation or a limited partnership with these underwriters.
Will McGladrey or Exxon or IBM or Callaway NOT participate in the event if there are the necessary reductions in their oases made to have the tournament where the PGA determined it wanted it? How much less participation? To what negative effect? If their logos are splashed on grandstands, on TV every 15 minutes over four days, on tournament programs, on internet tie-ins, or ancillary products and displays...they can STILL bargain an entire change of venue because there isn't a dedicated corporate hosting area feasible inside the plan?
I hope its not the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were and this is just the naked and transparent culmination of an era that has valued profits and product placement over virtues of the game competition. Like I said about the Super Bowl and related topics to the conduct of the Phoenix Open, who wins or loses or plays the best is no longer important, its more important that the game goes on and enriches the pockets and/or experience of fewer and fewer. Jam em' in, take every bit of coin they bring, let em go wild and have everything they ask for.
cheers
vk