Robert Vasilak, in a recent opinion column on this site, said that “it’s apparent that the idea of building “a course a day” was a ticking time bomb. The NGF’s research, the foundation of the construction program, simply didn’t pan out.”
He said that the National Golf Foundation is now, in effect, calling for the closure of a golf course a day, which he says is equally misguided as it would hurt play among affordable golf courses. He writes …
“The NGF says that the nation’s most at-risk facilities — the ones most likely to close — are older nine-hole courses, par-3 and executive-length 18-hole tracks, and courses that offer cheap greens fees.
“It just so happens that these are the places that typically give birth to and nurture new golfers. If we lose 2,000 of these “affordable” golf courses, where will we be five, 10, or 20 years from now, when our industry is disproportionately stocked with private tracks and $75- to $100-a-round daily-fee layouts? Where will beginners learn to play? Where will the nation’s First Tee programs establish themselves?
“And what about seniors and blue-collar golfers? Where will they play when affordable courses disappear?
“How does the NGF propose to grow the game without a critical mass of low-cost, low-pressure venues? Why does it presume that the rounds currently being played on low-priced courses will simply transfer to more expensive tracks?
“Personally, I don’t think it’s going to happen. I fear that the number of U.S. golfers will simply continue to shrink, due to the high cost of entry. Which means that things will just keep getting worse.”
So, do you agree with Vasilak?