This seems to me like another episode of City Slickers III. If you don't have an upscale clubhouse operation, you don't make it. RC, WH, and BC all suffer from spartan "amenities" in the public list. On the 100 greatest list, most of the metropolis/resort centered raters couldn't even find Nebraska, let alone navigate their way to Mullen.
But really, why do we obsess on lists of numerical rankings in the first place? Why not put out a non-numerical grouping of general consensus meritorious golf courses, and then have a system of consensus comments about each individual courses strengths. Anotherwords, identify the course by saying things like - naturally routed and constructed, exellent balance of hole challenges and shot making demands, very walkable, consistently fast and firm conditions, exciting and clever greens structure. Or, eager and fawning staff, pristine grounds, beautiful landscaping, fine food and drink, perfectly manicured framing bunkers with sparkling sand, great hole containment, best fleet of carts, high profile executive clientel...blah, blah, blah :-/
Any golf enthusiast wanting insight as to where to try and play or why courses are great is far better served if Golf Club Atlas continues to expand its' list of courses and descriptions with attached discussion of the merits of the reviews. What the hell can you learn from a numerically ranked list other than some sort of a sense of personal validation of your own tastes?