I cab think if two possible solutions to the disparity between earlier and later tee times on Saturday, but I'm sure tv and sponsors would fight against both of them.

1) Assign tee times randomly on Saturday, too. Then maybe the tournament leader hours out with Finau in the morning, or maybe not, but if they used a random number generator, nobody could say it favored the players who played worse in the first two rounds.

2) send the players out in the reverse order of what they are currently doing. Make it a reward for good play the first two days that you get to go out early on Saturday. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Again, likely to be fought because they want the excitement to occur in the evening, not at 11 a.m.

    rsvman ) send the players out in the reverse order of what they are currently doing. Make it a reward for good play the first two days that you get to go out early on Saturday. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    I like this

    • ode replied to this.

        rsvman Again, likely to be fought because they want the excitement to occur in the evening, not at 11 a.m.

        TV and sponsor money is involved heavily on the weekends, so that one probably won't fly, but it's a great idea.

          Spuzz rsvman ) send the players out in the reverse order of what they are currently doing. Make it a reward for good play the first two days that you get to go out early on Saturday. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

          I like this

          That'll really jump start the ratings🙄

              ode
              I don't care about ratings!
              LOL
              It has a Nascar feel to it. Qualify higher up and lead the pack. Stay out of trouble.
              Maybe take it a step further and let the final pairing on Sunday decide if they want to go first or last.
              Submit their decision separately and secretly (unknown to each other)
              Might stop these late day slugs from playing for Pars because "that's all he needed to do to win/make the cut" which is boring as fock.

                  I liked James Hahn's quote - "The USGA doesn't know how to run a professional tournament because they don't run professional tournaments". 😉

                    Spuzz Might stop these late day slugs from playing for Pars because "that's all he needed to do to win/make the cut" which is boring as fock.

                    you misspelled fuck.......................

                      sdandrea1

                      Hahn's quote is correct. You have amateurs trying to run a professional tournament.

                      Heard Michael Breed say maybe the USGA should build their own course. That way they can set it up the way they want with greens having sub air systems etc.. Fox pays them $100 million so they have the money. Not a crazy Idea IMO.

                          Sneakylong Heard Michael Breed say maybe the USGA should build their own course. That way they can set it up the way they want with greens having sub air systems etc.. Fox pays them $100 million so they have the money. Not a crazy Idea IMO

                          Windmills? Tunnels? 😉

                            Sneakylong

                            I don't think it would help.

                            Sub-air systems are designed to keep the grass growing on the greens with ideal soil temperature and moisture. The USGA would turn that shit off in a heartbeat and shave them down to the dirt almost.

                            It would be like giving a 14-yr-old who's never before gotten behind the wheel of a car the keys to a Lamborghini.

                            They've simply lost the plot over the years. The further these guys on tour hit the ball, the more extreme they get. And all because they're willing to do all they can to get the winning score north of par.

                            What happened last year at Erin Hills had everything to do with what played out this year at Shinnecock. It was a gross overcorrection, and it's all because, above all else, they desperately want to preserve the longstanding reputation that their tournament is the most difficult challenge in all of golf, even if their setup goes to extremes and humiliates the players.

                            Do you honestly think sub-air systems would prevent them from drying out the greens and having them near-death on Sunday?

                            How would the USGA set up Augusta National in the Masters if it were their tournament? They'd undoubtedly have that place burnt out and brown. They'd probably look into getting sub-air for the fairways so they could turn up the temps and dry the fairways out to firm and fast. +10 would be a winning score there if they were in charge.

                            They've lost their way. Instead of regulating equipment and keeping the standard the same for their tournament, they've decided to go to extreme setups to combat the distance issue.

                            Never mind the fact that narrowing fairways and growing the rough would effectively do the same thing.

                            But since there are a bunch of imbeciles running things there, you get the circus show that the US Open has become.


                              Some of it has to be the players and their ability to hit shots in various conditions. I would bet a Travino in his prime would have figured it out.

                                Tinker

                                With all due respect to Trevino, he didn't average 320 off the tee nor did his competitors. They weren't hitting into greens that were double-cut and rolled and hadn't had hardly any water in 24 hours, from beyond 200 yards.

                                In fact - the greens were so slow back then that many players had to put more emphasis on "hitting" their putts versus "stroking" them.

                                It's a different game today. But it shouldn't be that different.

                                  I think Breed's sub air systems comment was in regards that they could then control the moisture in the greens better. They wouldn't need to kill the greens to the extent to get the speed up. They could just dry them out as much as they need to regardless of how much rain they got.

                                  I'd rather see them have their own course than ruin the reputations of these iconic courses which they seem to do too often.

                                  I guess my point is that the USGA really doesn't need to firm up their Open layouts to the point where they're essentially killing grass. It would be much easier and simpler to narrow the fairways, increase the rough, and allow the rough to grow around the greens.... you know - like the way they used to set up US Open tournaments way back when.

                                  If I player (like Dustin Johnson, for instance) can gouge a wedge out of 6 inch rough and still somehow have it find the green - he's still most likely not physically capable to exert the needed control to have the ball land anywhere near the hole location without a great deal of luck. And even then he still has to show some putting prowess to score.

                                  The USGA needs to get back to a time when they didn't have to trick up golf courses by firming the conditions and killing the greens to make it challenging. Put a premium on driving accuracy. And if a guy like Zach Johnson hits driver and finds the fairway - then he's rewarded for being able to control his golf ball. Most likely Zach's best drive is still 10 yards behind Dustin's 3wood, but it's forcing players to make a decision off the tee.

                                  Control is the keyword here. Narrower fairways, deeper/thicker rough around the greens.... perhaps not mowing the fairways down low enough to where the players aren't getting 30+ yards of rollout. The challenge is still there. The balance needed to be struck regarding accuracy and distance is still prevalent. The greens don't have to be bare and stimped at 14 to challenge these guys, IF they get the rest of the setup right. The longer hitters are still maintaining an advantage, provided they find the short grass.

                                  I remember a time when a missed fairway was so penal that it basically cost the players in a US Open at least a stroke, maybe even more.

                                  It doesn't cost the USGA more money to let the grass grow. They don't need sub-air systems. They can still host most of their tournaments on some of the more classic layouts.

                                  Where they run into controversy is when they change the classic layout to combat the longer hitters by firming up the fairways and greens. These courses weren't designed, these greens weren't designed, for that type of deviation from the way the original architects designed these courses to be played.

                                  That's why Olympic Club, Oakmont, Shinnecock Hills, etc have led to controversial setups over the years.

                                  Make the targets smaller. Grow the rough and narrow the fairways, allow the rough to grow around the edges of the greens.

                                  The goal should be to reward accuracy just as much as distance. Miss a fairway - then pay the penalty with not being able to control the golf ball. Miss the green - pay the penalty with not being able to control the golf ball.

                                  It really doesn't need to be that complicated. And if a player shoots 9-under and wins - then so be it. He's earned it.

                                  They've lessened the requirement of a world-class player to judge the lie of his golf ball when his tee shot goes astray. That's the crux of the problem.