Why The Game of Golf Is In Danger of Extinction and What Needs to Be Done to Bring It Back

In the summer flooded with news of Tiger Woods’ injury-induced demise and the torrid run by Rory McIllroy into his place on the top of the golf world, it seems the biggest golf story concerns the state of the game itself. Reading between the lines as to the news coverage of studies showing participation in decline and reactionary business decisions cutting back on investment in the game by industry leaders such as Dick’s Sporting Goods, it seems the game of golf is in a precarious situation. “Millennials” are not picking up the game at the same pace as their generational predecessors and the result is starting to pop up in the form of regular course closures and retail pull backs.

                  But while the leaders of the golf industry have plenty of reason to worry, they also have an opportunity to pull the game back from the precipice simply by bringing it back to its roots. Over the last thirty years, a period of time in which the game of golf underwent its own “bubble” of overbuilding and excessive pricing, golf had put itself in a position not too dissimilar from that faced by the American housing market some six or seven years ago. The growth was driven not by long-term increases in the game’s popularity but rather by speculators looking to build, market, and sell new projects in enough time to capitalize on the short-term popularity of a new product without having to take on the responsibility of maintaining a high quality facility in a profitable manner over the long-term.  Once the novelty wears off these courses are left with green fees that are simply unsustainable in their own markets and the result is, quite inevitably, financial woes of an often-fatal degree.

                  Overbuilding is certainly a part of the problem and that is likely the cause of most, if not all, of the contraction in golf courses nationwide. Courses that are well built, well maintained, somewhat-reasonably priced, and, most importantly, well located, are doing fine. These courses, public and private, have plenty of members, put together full tee sheets, and can still turn a nice profit. The biggest problem is that there are many courses missing one or more of those key ingredients and it is those courses that will not survive, forced to fold as the industry undergoes a natural consolidation to the norm.

                  Having said that, there are major problems with the game itself that go far beyond overbuilding. At its core, the attraction to golf is in the opportunity to exercise, explore, socialize, and compete all in one single activity. Unfortunately, the round in which all of those benefit are realized is becoming more difficult to come by every day.  Too often a round of golf is a five hour combination of occasional movement of endless waiting, with little in the way of adventure as you wind your way through either an open field or a path of fairway cut through row after row of single-family home. Golf was transformed into a tool for the marketing of real estate and in that effort, it was generally successful. Unfortunately, the cost has now come due in the form of uninteresting courses that take too long to play and involve adventure only in the form of endless and eminently frustrating searches for lost balls.

                  The design and maintenance of golf courses is the first and perhaps the most crucial problem with the game today. Fortunately, it is also easily fixed with a return to the roots of the game. Golf courses only recently came to carry this expectation of perfect greenness, an expectation fueled in no small part by the dramatic increase in television coverage of professional events, particularly the Masters. The perfect green colors of Augusta in the spring have captivated the golfing public and have unfortunately given rise to an expectation that the same level of perfection should be the norm in terms of maintenance everywhere, whether that everywhere is an exclusive private club or a city-owned muni. While I know many will disagree with my personal preference for the brown-colored surfaces emblematic of the game’s roots, even those who yearn for lush greens and watered fairways have to accept that those addictions are costly and those costs are simply unsustainable in today’s economic climate. I know even many who would prefer Augusta-like conditions would rather spend $25 for a round with browned-out edges than the $65-plus they currently fork over to play that same track without the irrelevant imperfections.

                  Cost is not the only negative ramification of the modern obsession with “perfect” maintenance. Overwatering makes the game harder, more frustrating, and far less interesting. Watered fairways yield far less roll and thus they take away the excitement of seeing a perfect drive bounce down the fairway for an extra 20-30 yards, leaving a short approach and a chance for birdie. For some reason, the modern course expects us to enjoy hitting drives that stop on a dime and force long iron (hybrid, because we wouldn’t want to just keep the rough shorter) approaches that will simply never result in the thrill of birdie.

                  Overwatering does create adventure, but only if you consider the search for a lost ball just a few yards off the fairway to be the type of adventure golf was designed to provide. Somewhere along the way, the game of humps and bumps became the game of long rough, deep bunkers, and man-made lakes. In a word, the 17^th at Sawgrass is a novelty while the 17^th at St. Andrews is a golf hole. Everyone wants to play the Island Green once but it is interesting and strategy-laden holes like the Road Hole that keep players coming back time and time again. Unfortunately, too many courses today are designed and maintained with the intent of following in the footsteps of the Stadium Course and not in the tried and true trails laid down by the Home of Golf. No wonder courses have a tough time attracting customers when a round at many of these monstrosities leaves the player broke from lost balls and high greens fees, not to mention frustrated by the experience of spending more time searching for a shot than is spent traveling to, planning, and playing that very same shot.

                  If the game is to become more popular, it needs more courses in the style of the Scottish and Irish greats. I say that with great hesitation because there is nothing more marketable in the American game than a “links” or “Scottish” style track, even if that “links” is located no less than 2000 miles from the nearest seashore. The greatness of a true “links-style” golf course is not in the knee-high “fescue” grass too often found as the primary characteristic of courses in the US but rather in the emphasis on strategic variety and an interesting ground game, neither of which comes into play at all but the more authentic of faux-links tracks in the United States. Strategy and openness, along with firm conditions and browned-out edges, make the game more interesting for the expert and yet more forgiving for the novice at the same time. More courses that accomplish both of those tasks, as do the greats overseas, will result in more people picking up and staying with the game of golf for years to come.

                  Beyond the courses themselves, the popular formatting of golf is ill fitted to growth of the game. Although stroke play is yet another television-fueled movement of the 20^th Century, it has become pervasive throughout all levels of the sport. Unfortunately, medal play takes longer, provides far less satisfaction, and involves a tremendous amount of additional frustration in comparison to match play and related team and individual formats. Even after the best of medal rounds there is always a tinge of regret in a shot missed or a opportunity wasted, to the point that many a golfer can never walk away truly satisfied. While this is a major reason when many of us become addicted to the game, it is also a major turnoff to those who never quite catch the bug. Match play, on the other hand, provides the fun of friendly competition without the annoyance of a single hole deciding a four-hour battle or the frustration of what is ultimately in the medal play world an endless and impossible search for non-existent perfection. Match play makes the lost ball just another obstacle to overcome, the missed shot an opportunity to rebound, and the playing partner a friendly opportunity with whom interesting competition can be easily had. Not to mention the fact that very few matches last the five-plus hours it often takes to finish a round of golf in this medal play-obsessed world.

                  But even the change of format and a return to the traditionally rough maintenance of golf courses will not save the game unless something is done to speed things up. Just as baseball faces an erosion of its fan base as games stretch on beyond the three hour mark, so too does golf face the threat of massive exodus if it continues to accept a 4:30 round as the norm, a 5:00 round as a common occurrence, and the 4:00 round as a mark to strive for. Expecting 4:30 results in the 5 hour-plus rounds and the goal of a 4-hour round will inevitably result in a backlog of rounds lasting much longer. With a cart (which is another phenomenon at the heart of the problem), there is no reason for rounds to stretch beyond the 3-hour mark, with walking becoming the only reason to stick around for a full 3:30. Not only does improved pace of play enhance the ability of would-be golfers to carve out time in their schedule to play the game, but it also provides those golfers with a more enjoyable experience and allows courses to fill tee sheets more densely and ultimately pump out more revenue on busier days.

                  Speeding up play starts with course rangers who actually do their jobs. Too often golf courses are saddled with a cadre of retirees who do nothing but drive around in carts so they can collect free golf, a modest paycheck, and free logo shirts. They have no interest in making sure the course is operating smoothly and balk at any request to actually help provide customers with a quality golfing experience. At the risk of sounding like I advocate age discrimination, these guys need to go if the game is going to appeal to those who are responsible for its future. Rather than confining high school kids working at these courses to positions in the range picker and restaurant, send them out as rangers and empower them with the ability to force groups off the course or out of the way. Provide those who still play the game and will play the game with the opportunity to police it and you will see pace and enjoyment spike. Keep courses operating with a bunch of old men who have zero ambition and no eye for the future and the game’s slow and steady decline will only accelerate.

                  Golf is a great game for so many reasons I would need an entirely separate forum just to begin. But too often today it is played at facilities that have strayed away from the characteristics that make the game as great as it is. At these facilities, golf is a game that discourages newcomers by intimidation, expense, frustrating, or, most often, all of the above. As long as that trend continues, golf will slowly retreat back into its cocoon of being a game for “old white men” and as those old men inevitably die out so too will the great game. As a young person who caught the bug at an early age, I know how much golf has to offer. I just wish there were more places in this country where those who haven’t have the fortune to experience golf at its finest have that opportunity.

                 

NCAA On Life Support After Landmark Ruling

Just a few months after the National Labor Relations Board administrator’s shocking decision in favor of Northwestern football players seeking recognition as employees, yet another bombshell legal decision hit the world of college athletics Friday afternoon when Judge Claudia Wilken released her 99-page decision in O’Bannon v NCAA. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and finding the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation being paid to student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, Wilken found the NCAA’s current model of “amateur” athletics to constitute a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and thus placing the future of that model in serious doubt.

Although Wilken somewhat inexplicably ruled that the NCAA may still cap compensation while student-athletes remain enrolled at the full cost of attendance and may even cap post-graduate compensation at $5,000 per year of participation, the finding of an antitrust violation is real precedent that could have far reaching implications beyond the issue of compensation for the use of student athlete names, images, and likenesses.

When the NCAA decided nearly a year ago to fight on after both Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company, co-defendants in the antitrust suit brought by a class of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, it was effectively gambling the future of its entire organizational model on the outcome of the case. With Wilken’s unequivocal finding that the NCAA is a cartel operating in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, it appears that gamble has been lost.

For now.

There is no doubt the NCAA will appeal Judge Wilken’s decision and her entry of a permanent injunction which effectively eliminates the capping of scholarships at “full grant-in-aid” where that cap falls short of the full cost of attendance. The Ninth Circuit, which has in the past shown sympathy for the NCAA model in contravention of its usual disdain for institutional blight, will have the next say on the matter and how they decide will, at least in terms of legal precedent, be of far great importance than what Judge Wilken provided last week.

The history of antitrust cases involving collegiate and professional sports does not bode terribly well for the plaintiffs. Although the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in American Needle marks a departure from the trend, the normal response at the appellate level is to find in favor of the status quo. District court judges like to make a statement and those at the appellate level love nothing more than to shoot that statement down as fast as possible.

But the real value of this case lies not in the remedy ordered, a smogasborg of pro-plaintiff and pro-NCAA conclusions Judge Wilken slid into the end of her opinion, but rather in the holding of the case: the NCAA is a cartel operating without adequate justification to render its price-fixing scheme immune from Sherman Act violations. With regard to that issue, Judge Wilken unequivocally sided with the O’Bannon plaintiffs and has now left the NCAA in a position where it will need to make major changes to avoid finding itself facing similar antitrust suits on more fronts than it could possibly handle.

Because they are usually fact-dependent, remedies, which are often a function of the requests made by plaintiffs who may be reluctant to ask for too much, do not provide tremendous value in terms of setting precedent.

On the other hand, the holding of this case does set valuable precedent that goes beyond the narrow scope of the fact pattern at hand. No longer will the NCAA be able to hide behind its claims of upholding a tradition of amateurism or of protecting the opportunities available to student-athletes in every sport to participate at the highest level. Judge Wilken has clearly rejected those claims and should her ruling be upheld on appeal, that would set just about as damaging a precedent as the NCAA could possibly face, perhaps damaging enough to force the NCAA to become a mere shell of itself.

The bottom line is that the O’Bannon plaintiffs have finally broken through the glass door and have set the stage for massive changes in the landscape of intercollegiate athletics, particularly at the high-major level. Although the remedies Judge Wilken ordered may lack a solid logical basis and may not cure all of the issues facing student athletes as this moment in term, her ruling that the NCAA operates in violation of the Sherman Act by preventing schools from compensating student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses is real precedent that the NCAA will now have to find a way to work around as it faces the inevitable flood of litigation that follows a landmark ruling like this one.

Both because this ruling will inevitably be appealed and because its scope is narrowed by the facts at issue, this is merely the beginning. But between this bombshell ruling and the traction CAPA is having in its petition on behalf of Northwestern football players, it is clear that we are entering a major period of change in the world of intercollegiate athletics, one that the NCAA and its compatriots will have to enter with an open mind in order to survive.