looks like USGA going to find juniors

[heavy_hitter]

53 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

In golf they are market rate.  Top instructors make as much or more than the top college golf coaches.  There absolutely is a market that requires the salaries to be that high to attract top talent. It’s why many former top college coaches still move into the recruiting/advising world over coaching, because they can make even more money there.  If anything the market has proven that to keep the top coaches coaching they’ve had to increase salaries. 
 

 

Just my opinion, the Teaching Professional Market is over priced.  No instructor should be charging over $100 to a junior.  A junior Rate should be somewhere between $50 and $75.  Possibly even less.

[kekoa]

17 minutes ago, heavy_hitter said:

Just my opinion, the Teaching Professional Market is over priced.  No instructor should be charging over $100 to a junior.  A junior Rate should be somewhere between $50 and $75.  Possibly even less.

  If a coach is booked solid charging $400/hr to adults and has pros in their stable it is hard for them to leave that type of money on the table.  Our coach gives juniors a 50% discount, which is still expensive but reasonable given the market. 

[iteachgolf]

2 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

Just my opinion, the Teaching Professional Market is over priced.  No instructor should be charging over $100 to a junior.  A junior Rate should be somewhere between $50 and $75.  Possibly even less.

How does that make sense from a financial perspective? You want juniors to pay under $50 for top level instruction.  I love teaching juniors but there no incentive for teachers to do that.  You want a teacher to have the latest technology, pay the course rent, insurance, continuing education, etc but want them to make less than minimum wage after expenses? 

[wegobomber31]

I really like the grassroots idea of private clubs allowing promising local juniors to play and practice at the club at a steep, steep discount, represent the club in 'friendlies' against other clubs and get quality competition without shelling out hundreds of dollars to play in tournaments.  To me, that is growing the game.  And if and when the player strikes it big, that is a huge source of pride for the club.

[tiger1873]

4 hours ago, iteachgolf said:

How does that make sense from a financial perspective? You want juniors to pay under $50 for top level instruction.  I love teaching juniors but there no incentive for teachers to do that.  You want a teacher to have the latest technology, pay the course rent, insurance, continuing education, etc but want them to make less than minimum wage after expenses? 

 

You have to cover your costs no doubt about that.  Coaches however do need to know how to make it cost effective for juniors.

 

A lot coaches teach adults and they charge them enough to pay their bills.

 

I know our coach charges very little and cost is never an issue with him.  He knows juniors can’t afford him but likes working with them.

 

The very high prices that some coaches charge juniors is because they don’t have enough adults paying them.  Hard to see how anyone will pay a teacher 10k -20k a year and be happy if their kid isn’t carding red numbers every time and winning a lot.

I have no idea what your charging juniors but   A lot coaches lose money teaching junior but have no problem doing that. The see it as advertising and goodwill.

 

May not make sense for your business but a lot instructors do this. As a parent ask around if things seem too expensive.

 

Edited February 26 by tiger1873

[tiger1873]

4 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I really like the grassroots idea of private clubs allowing promising local juniors to play and practice at the club at a steep, steep discount, represent the club in 'friendlies' against other clubs and get quality competition without shelling out hundreds of dollars to play in tournaments.  To me, that is growing the game.  And if and when the player strikes it big, that is a huge source of pride for the club.

while this sounds good I have never seen this work.

 

This is a lot work for a club pro to put on and members don’t want to let people just play their course and not pay.

 

The way a junior can access a course is to find a Muni and have a reasonable junior rate.

 

I think palm beach county charges $50 a year for all their junior courses to play.    Osprey Point in Boca Raton has almost more juniors then adults playing in the afternoon.

 

Muni and public courses are where the best play is for juniors as most public courses in Florida offer junior rates. 
 

I would like to think country clubs grow the game but a lot them  are overpriced and not very financially secure to do much to help juniors.

[golfortennis]

14 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I really like the grassroots idea of private clubs allowing promising local juniors to play and practice at the club at a steep, steep discount, represent the club in 'friendlies' against other clubs and get quality competition without shelling out hundreds of dollars to play in tournaments.  To me, that is growing the game.  And if and when the player strikes it big, that is a huge source of pride for the club.

 

My club has done this for years.  Not on a grand scale, but there is typically a junior or two whose family normally wouldn't be able to afford the dues, etc. who is playing on a form of discount, sometimes even no cost if I have heard right.  I don't know what kind of vetting process we do, because you don't want brats, but it must work because so far all of these juniors have been very good players, but more importantly, never been a problem behaviorally or otherwise.  They do not play in any of those competitions, but they have a place to play and practice. 

[Golfingdawg19]

16 hours ago, iteachgolf said:

How does that make sense from a financial perspective? You want juniors to pay under $50 for top level instruction.  I love teaching juniors but there no incentive for teachers to do that.  You want a teacher to have the latest technology, pay the course rent, insurance, continuing education, etc but want them to make less than minimum wage after expenses? 

Dan what I’m finding in our area, is to get high quality junior instruction you have to pay close to $200 an hour. You can go to the local golf pro for $50-$75 an hour and they are fine for beginners. For the more advanced kids there isn’t anyone around $100 who teaches full time, has the access to trackman and other instructional tools. Obviously people are paying it otherwise they couldn’t charge that amount but I know there are junior parents out there that can’t afford $200 an hour for instruction. Now if the USGA wanted to select certain instructions and subsidize things that might be something to look at. Now that instructor is getting his normal rate but the junior who couldn’t afford $200 an hour can afford $75-$100. 

[Esox]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:53 AM, wegobomber31 said:

Thankfully in golf at the end of the day score is what matters. 

 

 

Apparently not.  From the USGA itself

"Talent Identification

Create a process and pipeline to identify the country’s most promising juniors by developing a data-driven procedure that goes beyond scoring averages to recognize, track and measure talent."

 

In other words, they will select whomever they want to fit their social engineering goals. Not on my dime. Like the NRA, I will no longer give them my money to aid them........

[iteachgolf]

39 minutes ago, Golfingdawg19 said:

Dan what I’m finding in our area, is to get high quality junior instruction you have to pay close to $200 an hour. You can go to the local golf pro for $50-$75 an hour and they are fine for beginners. For the more advanced kids there isn’t anyone around $100 who teaches full time, has the access to trackman and other instructional tools. Obviously people are paying it otherwise they couldn’t charge that amount but I know there are junior parents out there that can’t afford $200 an hour for instruction. Now if the USGA wanted to select certain instructions and subsidize things that might be something to look at. Now that instructor is getting his normal rate but the junior who couldn’t afford $200 an hour can afford $75-$100. 

My junior rate was $100 from 2008-2021.  It went up (for some families I left it $100) but it’s definitely under $200.  I’m all for subsidies if it’s done effectively.  I fear it’s going to be more like a coach develops a player, they get really good and the USGA swoops in at the 11th hour and takes the credit and pushes them towards a “National” coach.  Seen it plenty in other sports and in golf in other countries 

[golfortennis]

6 minutes ago, Esox said:

Apparently not.  From the USGA itself

"Talent Identification

Create a process and pipeline to identify the country’s most promising juniors by developing a data-driven procedure that goes beyond scoring averages to recognize, track and measure talent."

 

In other words, they will select whomever they want to fit their social engineering goals. Not on my dime. Like the NRA, I will no longer give them my money to aid them........

 

Ding, ding, ding.  Once again, the question that needs to be answered is, who benefits from this type of program?

[tiger1873]

1 hour ago, iteachgolf said:

My junior rate was $100 from 2008-2021.  It went up (for some families I left it $100) but it’s definitely under $200.  I’m all for subsidies if it’s done effectively.  I fear it’s going to be more like a coach develops a player, they get really good and the USGA swoops in at the 11th hour and takes the credit and pushes them towards a “National” coach.  Seen it plenty in other sports and in golf in other countries 

Yes this is exactly what will happen they will tell the kid they need to go IMG or some academy. 
 

As for cost As a parent I care more about total cost over time then the per hour rate.

 

I have found the lower priced teachers you end up needing 3 times the hours for lessons. So for a kid just picking up a club you might need 300 hours for the same result as better coach can get in 50 hours.

 

I think the first 10 hours is where the most improvement with a coach.

 

Dan my question to you is how many hours does a kid need to get the most out you until you go into maintain   mode.  
 

I sort of feel 100 hours is probably about average which at $150 an hour is $15k which is a lot money for a lot people.
 

I think this where most coaches fail is they don’t convey value and a path when it comes to cost.

 

[wegobomber31]

7 hours ago, Esox said:

Apparently not.  From the USGA itself

"Talent Identification

Create a process and pipeline to identify the country’s most promising juniors by developing a data-driven procedure that goes beyond scoring averages to recognize, track and measure talent."

 

In other words, they will select whomever they want to fit their social engineering goals. Not on my dime. Like the NRA, I will no longer give them my money to aid them........

I meant ultimately in the long run it doesn’t really matter if you get picked for this team or not. The golf ball doesn’t care. I think it’s a good move by the USGA and will change the golf trajectory for many young people but you can forge your own path to success in this game without their help. 
 

they said the grants will be needs based but the national teams will be the best of the best. 

[iteachgolf]

21 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

Yes this is exactly what will happen they will tell the kid they need to go IMG or some academy. 
 

As for cost As a parent I care more about total cost over time then the per hour rate.

 

I have found the lower priced teachers you end up needing 3 times the hours for lessons. So for a kid just picking up a club you might need 300 hours for the same result as better coach can get in 50 hours.

 

I think the first 10 hours is where the most improvement with a coach.

 

Dan my question to you is how many hours does a kid need to get the most out you until you go into maintain   mode.  
 

I sort of feel 100 hours is probably about average which at $150 an hour is $15k which is a lot money for a lot people.
 

I think this where most coaches fail is they don’t convey value and a path when it comes to cost.

 

It depends a lot on the kid.  And also when we started working together.  Kaitlyn has taken a lesson once a month since we started years ago.   Generally I recommend 1 or 2 lessons a month. 
 

It’s why I like the format I use for after school program.  Includes 30+ hours of supervised practice/competitive group sessions and 2 one hour lessons each month.  Allows kids to make sure they are practicing the right things while spacing out the lessons so you aren’t going over the same thing multiple times.  It’d take 2.5 years of participation to get the above mentioned cost. 

[tiger1873]

56 minutes ago, iteachgolf said:

It depends a lot on the kid.  And also when we started working together.  Kaitlyn has taken a lesson once a month since we started years ago.   Generally I recommend 1 or 2 lessons a month. 
 

It’s why I like the format I use for after school program.  Includes 30+ hours of supervised practice/competitive group sessions and 2 one hour lessons each month.  Allows kids to make sure they are practicing the right things while spacing out the lessons so you aren’t going over the same thing multiple times.  It’d take 2.5 years of participation to get the above mentioned cost. 

 

I have found group lesson to be a waste of time.  There great to gauge interest but it's pretty hard to find enough kids serious about golf that are going to go group lesson. You tend to get end up with being taught the lowest level in the group.

 

The biggest issue I think most parents have is we want results for money spent.  We all know you can't promise anything but at the same time it makes sense to say after X hours you should get certain results.

 

If you spend 3-4K on a instructor and they can't play a suggested tournament where they can play well enough that they are not embarrassed by their score then either golf isn't for the kid or the instructor is not teaching.   

 

There are some really bad instructors out there.  My daughters first instructor was not very good yet there were parents that claimed he was the best. Fast forward 6-7 years and  those kids who never left still have a hard time breaking 85.  What is worse is they easily spent 20k for this guy over the years.  For a junior that is insane amount of money for a kid who can't break 85. This is the nightmare every parent is worried about.

 

If more instructors had a roadmap and made more investment in what the kid scores the cost of instruction would not be an issue.   If your kid is having struggles there is no reason a repeat customer doesn't get a few free hours thrown at them.

Edited February 27 by tiger1873

[golfortennis]

3 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

I meant ultimately in the long run it doesn’t really matter if you get picked for this team or not. The golf ball doesn’t care. I think it’s a good move by the USGA and will change the golf trajectory for many young people but you can forge your own path to success in this game without their help. 
 

they said the grants will be needs based but the national teams will be the best of the best. 

 

You're kidding yourself if you think "best of the best" will be the sole determinant.  There will be an increase in shoulder surgeries performed in Pinehurst(or Far Hills but I thought they were moving) due to all the patting of one's self on the back by USGA people for all the "social change" they have brought into the game.  "based on needs"....the individual or the USGA needing to check boxes?  

 

Players can forge their own path now.  The USGA isn't doing anything but getting themselves on the docket for credit to be handed out when a player is successful.  The problem is, it's rare that a player in any sport makes it to the top due to the coaching or other programs they were part of.  They make it because they were going to make it, because they are just that damn talented.  Just like schools don't "produce" golfers, basketball players or other professional athletes, this program won't either.  

 

 

[heavy_hitter]

On 2/25/2023 at 3:38 PM, iteachgolf said:

  I love teaching juniors but there no incentive for teachers to do that.  You want a teacher to have the latest technology, pay the course rent, insurance, continuing education, etc but want them to make less than minimum wage after expenses? 

 

Growing the Game?  At $50.00 an hour that is a yearly income of $129,600.00 based on a 54 hour work week.  Simple math.  You aren't booking 54 hours of lessons a week every week and I know that.  If you book just half of that is 27 hours.  If half adult at $150.00 and half at $50 for a junior the income still comes out to $129,600.00 a year which is cost averaging.  Plenty as a private business owner that you are it's only employee to cover all your overhead and make a comfortable living.  The average salary in the US is $53,000 a year.  I am all for Teaching Golf Pro's to make as much as they can.  My opinion is Charging over $100 an hour to a junior is steep.  As I have said, "Growing the Game" is only about making more money.  I have met very few in the industry that are actually "Growing the Game".  A good start would be by teaching professionals to charge juniors less.  I will add this, shame on a course that would charge a teaching professional a fee off of a junior depending on the agreement to teach at the facility.

 

To be clear, I pay $300 a month whether my kid sees his coach once or 6 times..  This isn't swing instruction, it is to be a coach and 99% of the time is spent on the course.  During season it may be once or twice a month.  As the snowbirds leave, they will get together an play a lot several times a week.

 

 

Edited February 27 by heavy_hitter

[golfortennis]

27 minutes ago, tiger1873 said:

If more instructors had a roadmap and made more investment in what the kid scores the cost of instruction would not be an issue.   If your kid is having struggles there is no reason a repeat customer doesn't get a few free hours thrown at them.

 

While on one level, I might agree with this, there are several reasons why not.  1)If the instructor is booked up, why is he going to give up the revenue.  2)If he is actually any good, the chances are very likely he has undercharged for the time he has put in.  

 

But most importantly, if it's not working, why do you want your kid going back to an instructor that isn't working for him?

[heavy_hitter]

29 minutes ago, tiger1873 said:

 

I have found group lesson to be a waste of time.  There great to gauge interest but it's pretty hard to find enough kids serious about golf that are going to go group lesson. You tend to get end up with being taught the lowest level in the group.

 

The biggest issue I think most parents have is we want results for money spent.  We all know you can't promise anything but at the same time it makes sense to say after X hours you should get certain results.

 

If you spend 3-4K on a instructor and they can't play a suggested tournament where they can play well enough that they are not embarrassed by their score then either golf isn't for the kid or the instructor is not teaching.   

 

There are some really bad instructors out there.  My daughters first instructor was not very good yet there were parents that claimed he was the best. Fast forward 6-7 years and  those kids who never left still have a hard time breaking 85.  What is worse is they easily spent 20k for this guy over the years.  For a junior that is insane amount of money for a kid who can't break 85. This is the nightmare every parent is worried about.

 

If more instructors had a roadmap and made more investment in what the kid scores the cost of instruction would not be an issue.   If your kid is having struggles there is no reason a repeat customer doesn't get a few free hours thrown at them.

What iTeach is describing is best case scenario to learn for a junior.  I would be all in with what he is describing.

[heavy_hitter]

17 hours ago, wegobomber31 said:

 

they said the grants will be needs based but the national teams will be the best of the best. 

 

To me this is the biggest issue.  Why needs?  Why not to the most qualified players?  I have never hired someone in our business based on needs.  I hire based on talent and skills.  

[golfinbrad]

2 minutes ago, heavy_hitter said:

 

To me this is the biggest issue.  Why needs?  Why not to the most qualified players?  I have never hired someone in our business based on needs.  I hire based on talent and skills.  

USGA has deep pockets.  I would like to see more grants for local course/pros to provide more junior or beginners programs.  Even better would be some to help High School golf programs that are in smaller school districts or have lesser financial support.  Providing kids with a positive outlet is more important than producing elite players. 

[heavy_hitter]

1 minute ago, golfinbrad said:

USGA has deep pockets.  I would like to see more grants for local course/pros to provide more junior or beginners programs.  Even better would be some to help High School golf programs that are in smaller school districts or have lesser financial support.  Providing kids with a positive outlet is more important than producing elite players. 

100% agree.  

[golfortennis]

5 minutes ago, golfinbrad said:

USGA has deep pockets.  I would like to see more grants for local course/pros to provide more junior or beginners programs.  Even better would be some to help High School golf programs that are in smaller school districts or have lesser financial support.  Providing kids with a positive outlet is more important than producing elite players. 

 

Clearly you are naive, foolish, and possibly a bit dumb.  The more important thing is what allows the suits at the USGA to shout from the rooftops about the good they did.  The second most important thing is how easily can this be done.  The easiest way this can be done is take the best players you can find, have them spend a day in your "program,"  then take all the credit for something you had nothing to do with(they were talented before you ever got near them), and then put your PR people on overtime to run a psyop to convince the public at large that you are the reason they have done so well.

 

"Providing kids with a positive outlet...."  Bah.  Muggles.  

[tiger1873]

32 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

While on one level, I might agree with this, there are several reasons why not.  1)If the instructor is booked up, why is he going to give up the revenue.  2)If he is actually any good, the chances are very likely he has undercharged for the time he has put in.  

 

But most importantly, if it's not working, why do you want your kid going back to an instructor that isn't working for him?

 

My whole issue is it isn't working a lot instructors have no accountability.  If I pay 10 lessons @ $150 an hour that is 1500.   If things are not working I would think it is in the instructors best interest to spend a free hour trying to figure out if something wasn't understood.   

 

Really no different then other business and it comes down to making sure you customers get what they paid for.

[tiger1873]

42 minutes ago, golfinbrad said:

USGA has deep pockets.  I would like to see more grants for local course/pros to provide more junior or beginners programs.  Even better would be some to help High School golf programs that are in smaller school districts or have lesser financial support.  Providing kids with a positive outlet is more important than producing elite players. 

 

I haven't seen how much money they are actually spending by 2027  I think that is key to this program. But from the looks of things most of us will be paying just like we do now.

 

The last line is what I really don't like they are providing exemption for AJGA events for some reason.

 

 

The foundation of the USDNP is a "sustainable grant program" that works in conjunction with the USGA's allied golf associations to identify worthy recipients. The program intends to fund 50 juniors this year, with the aim of funding more than 1,000 by 2027. (The funding will be based on financial need and won't be equal among players; the USGA expects the first players to be identified for grants before the U.S. Open in June.) Along with tournament entry fees, the program will establish three national teams—a junior national team, an amateur national team, and a young professional team—and channel funds into fields as varied as instruction, equipment, statistics and sports psychology. In addition, they have already reached deals with organizations like the AJGA to provide tournament exemptions for players.

 

 

The Future of the AJGA is going to look like this (notice  news release for partnership  with Hurricane)

 

https://cjga.com

 

Edited February 27 by tiger1873

[golfortennis]

38 minutes ago, tiger1873 said:

 

My whole issue is it isn't working a lot instructors have no accountability.  If I pay 10 lessons @ $150 an hour that is 1500.   If things are not working I would think it is in the instructors best interest to spend a free hour trying to figure out if something wasn't understood.   

 

Really no different then other business and it comes down to making sure you customers get what they paid for.

 

The accountability is the fact that if you don't like the instructor, you find a new one.  The problem is people don't know (and I fully admit I didn't until I actually worked with one) the difference between a good instructor and a bad instructor.  People who shoot 98 on average go see a bad instructor who gives them a band aid, and now they are averaging 95, and telling their friends how great this guy is. But the golfer has the potential to threaten breaking 80, but that instructor can't get them there, and the golfer doesn't know either fact.

 

 

[JKgolfer]

On 2/24/2023 at 1:05 PM, tiger1873 said:

 

The reason why you don't see girls out there is a lot dads don't make it fun and they go extra lengths to make them play and enter them in events they do not belong.   No one wants to play events where girls throw fits yet it's common out there.

 

The only problem with girls events is they get small fields because they play on same day as boys.  They need bigger events that more girls can play.

 

For instance why are AJGA Open fields only 22 girls and over 150 apply to get in.  Why not make them their own event and let in 80 girls or more.  It would make it a lot harder to win but also would give a lot more chances to play.

 

Girls need more big events with huge fields to make them better.   small fields means you can slack off if your in the lead and that is not how Pro events are won.

This is quite true.   I can't believe AJGA events are only 22 girls.  There are about that number of good US Kids players already trying to get into regionals at 9-11 YO and can't unless they are 10+ priority.

 

They should expand the fields,  I would be fine with a cut - what tournaments run like that other than USGA?

[tiger1873]

8 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

The accountability is the fact that if you don't like the instructor, you find a new one.  The problem is people don't know (and I fully admit I didn't until I actually worked with one) the difference between a good instructor and a bad instructor.  People who shoot 98 on average go see a bad instructor who gives them a band aid, and now they are averaging 95, and telling their friends how great this guy is. But the golfer has the potential to threaten breaking 80, but that instructor can't get them there, and the golfer doesn't know either fact.

 

 

 

That is the problem with most instructors what you do is fire them.   most of the times you just stop seeing them. a lot instructors are just about billing how many hours they can. They not really into growing the game.

 

We run the gamut from very bad instructors to the one the best out there by almost anyones measure.  The one I have for my older daughter we have now is very accountable and charges believe it not the least we ever paid much less then what was quoted here.   When we see him we actually have a team. He only see a few kids he wants to see.

 

I have a younger daughter and finding a coach has been a nightmare for her. We pay 2-3 times as much and quite frankly it's overpriced.   While we get instruction I feel it's more about getting a check.    I been spoiled with my older daughter but younger one has work to do before we can see the other coach.

 

[tiger1873]

11 minutes ago, JKgolfer said:

This is quite true.   I can't believe AJGA events are only 22 girls.  There are about that number of good US Kids players already trying to get into regionals at 9-11 YO and can't unless they are 10+ priority.

 

They should expand the fields,  I would be fine with a cut - what tournaments run like that other than USGA?

 

 

All they need to do is separate out the boys from the girls in open events.  Maybe keep a few combined events for families with a boy and girl. But separating the boys and girls Would make a lot more sense  first it would give more spots to the boys per event. The only downside is the girls would most likely get less events overall but I think it would work out in the end. 

[heavy_hitter]

50 minutes ago, tiger1873 said:

(The funding will be based on financial need and won't be equal among players; the USGA expects the first players to be identified for grants before the U.S. Open in June.) Along with tournament entry fees, the program will establish three national teams—a junior national team, an amateur national team, and a young professional team—and channel funds into fields as varied as instruction, equipment, statistics and sports psychology. In addition, they have already reached deals with organizations like the AJGA to provide tournament exemptions for players.

 

 

 

 

https://cjga.com

 

This is already being done by AJGA Ace Grant, USGA state alliances, and equipment through various sources and First Tee.  Like I have said, middle class being screwed for social engineering.