looks like USGA going to find juniors

[heavy_hitter]

15 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

OK we won't go down the rabbit hole of education.  

 

I don't want to see the private tours go away either, but don't we also need to step back and think about this:  don't we want kids playing just for fun?  Golf is something you can play with your family, your friends, whatever, even if you aren't playing tournaments, unlike many sports.  Whether it's in tournaments or not, those kids playing is where growing the game would come from, IMHO.  Tournaments is a small portion I would think.

 

Well, there was a reason there was a thread about Grumpy Ole CC members and juniors that got shut down.  On the other tours broadcast this weekend "Members should stop worrying about when a junior should play and welcome them at any time."  Not everyone is meant for tournament golf.

[golfortennis]

9 minutes ago, heavy_hitter said:

 

Well, there was a reason there was a thread about Grumpy Ole CC members and juniors that got shut down.  On the other tours broadcast this weekend "Members should stop worrying about when a junior should play and welcome them at any time."  Not everyone is meant for tournament golf.

 

But I believe your whole contention was that participation would dwindle because it would shine a bright light on how not as good many of these kids are and so they would quit entering tournaments, which read as your definition of "participation."  Not going to revive that other part, and I do think the USGA is getting into this for all the wrong reasons, but is using some trendy verbage to cover their true intentions, but if kids are still playing in the same numbers, or greater, just not entering tournaments, participation isn't down.  No?  Did I misread your intended point? 

[leezer99]

This program is going to be great for junior golf and provide a ton of opportunity on top of what is already out there.  Of course there will be speed bumps and rocky roads ahead but nothing great has had a smooth path to fruition. Be part of the solution and not the problem.

[golfortennis]

11 hours ago, Bizzle80 said:

I can't speak to Junior sporting levels dropping, golf or otherwise, but I would suggest that sports aren't just for kids to get into D1 programs. Sports at any junior level is really more about team building, socialization and confidence building than anything else. Its a small fraction of kids that will move on at each level up, but if kids are only playing sports because we think they need to get scholarships - thats on us as parents, not them as kids.

 

 

100% agree here. Even with my kid playing golf, I constantly remind myself that the ultimate goal is for her to play with me as she grows up...anything beyond that is up to her.

 

Regardless, USGA is getting involved and I appreciate everyone's opinions, whether I agree or not. Personally I cant wait to see what they do...I think Mike Whan is a smart guy, who really looks to make positive changes, so hopefully he doesn't F this up too badly.

 

A couple of things here.  The USGA should be focusing on the first paragraph.  If their intentions were as pure as people try to make them out to be, *that* would be their focus.  Not "national teams."  Again, given how good the people from the US are at golf,  what problem are they fixing?

 

The big problem isn't necessarily Mike Whan.  There is an institutional mentality in all these not for taxes athletic organizations where a)the need to spend a certain amount of money to maintain the tax designation leads to among other things, outrageous salaries paid, b)said salaries lead said people to believe they really are that much smarter, and c) their belief in b) leads them to believe they can reinvent the wheel, especially when the wheel is pretty darn close to optimally designed.  It will ultimately be on Whan, but he will F it up by letting one of the underlings run this.

 

I'm sure there were some real nice powerpoint presentations put together, with some "socially advanced" stats supporting all this, but ultimately it will become something far different from what was publicly declared it would be.  This is an organization that "succeeds" in spite of itself.  They have a huge gift: the US Open.  It brings in more money than anyone can shake a stick at, and it keeps coming.  They are a monopoly that can fail and nothing short of a mega-liability can ever bring it down.  There is no "market" they need to compete in, so they just assume whatever they do is right("nothing's killed us yet!").  Throw a little money around at some influential third parties, and you expand your sphere of influence, if not of control.

 

The USGA is coming into this as though they are the solution to a problem, but like some other entities, they really are the problem, and this is why so many don't feel this will turn out well. 

 

[tiger1873]

1 minute ago, leezer99 said:

This program is going to be great for junior golf and provide a ton of opportunity on top of what is already out there.  Of course there will be speed bumps and rocky roads ahead but nothing great has had a smooth path to fruition. Be part of the solution and not the problem.

 

Are you ok with changes that going hurt kids 2026 and older.   The writing is on the wall that the USGA is looking to change Junior golf by 2027 in a big way and they basically told us there serious with partnerships with AJGA, Local PGA sections and State level associations.

 

I have a 2025 so it going to be impossible to be part of the solution other then get out the way.  It's not end of the world for older kids but I personally would like to know more of everyone is planing because it will determine tournaments I enter my daughter into.

 

There is no reason my older kid to play AJGA if Opens and  invitationals are going be stacked with 2027 and younger kids in  two years.

 

If you don't believe what I am saying and others just look at the AJGA schedule and applications.  It's horrible and most of the early events are for 12-14 year old kids. The worst part is there really isn't a need because those tournaments have tons of space and they can't even fill qualifiers for them.

 

It's easier for my younger kid who is a 2029 to play ajga who has no business playing them then my older daughter. That says a lot.

 

I am happy my younger one gets more chances to play but I also think it's kind. a waste until she improves more.

 

 

 

 

[Bizzle80]

2 hours ago, golfortennis said:

I do think the USGA is getting into this for all the wrong reasons, but is using some trendy verbage to cover their true intentions,

 

What do you suppose the USGA's nefarious purpose secretly is here?

[golfortennis]

16 minutes ago, Bizzle80 said:

 

What do you suppose the USGA's nefarious purpose secretly is here?

 

Bring more things under their control. 

 

Expand the bureaucracy.

 

Expand the items they can shout about doing "great things" about.

 

The only thing I won't say is they are looking to make money on this.  They will pay too many very inflated salaries for that too happen, and as stated before, they need to spend money.  But don't underestimate the vanity and ego behind this.  Once again, I ask :  what problem are they solving? 

[machine_cat]

2 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

Are you ok with changes that going hurt kids 2026 and older.   The writing is on the wall that the USGA is looking to change Junior golf by 2027 in a big way and they basically told us there serious with partnerships with AJGA, Local PGA sections and State level associations.

 

I have a 2025 so it going to be impossible to be part of the solution other then get out the way.  It's not end of the world for older kids but I personally would like to know more of everyone is planing because it will determine tournaments I enter my daughter into.

 

There is no reason my older kid to play AJGA if Opens and  invitationals are going be stacked with 2027 and younger kids in  two years.

 

If you don't believe what I am saying and others just look at the AJGA schedule and applications.  It's horrible and most of the early events are for 12-14 year old kids. The worst part is there really isn't a need because those tournaments have tons of space and they can't even fill qualifiers for them.

 

It's easier for my younger kid who is a 2029 to play ajga who has no business playing them then my older daughter. That says a lot.

 

I am happy my younger one gets more chances to play but I also think it's kind. a waste until she improves more.

 

 

 

 

In March,  3 out of 8 AJGA events are for 12-15 y/o kids. In April, 3 out of 11 AJGA events are for 12-15 y/o kids. Correct me if I am wrong. What do you mean "most of early events" are for 12-14?

And if 2027 and younger kids stack AJGA open and invitational events, does it mean they beat older kids under the same rule?

Edited March 1, 2023 by machine_cat

[tiger1873]

1 hour ago, machine_cat said:

In March,  3 out of 8 AJGA events are for 12-15 y/o kids. In April, 3 out of 11 AJGA events are for 12-15 y/o kids. Correct me if I am wrong. What do you mean "most of early events" are for 12-14?

And if 2027 and younger kids stack AJGA open and invitational events, does it mean they beat older kids under the same rule?

 

12-14 old kids  can play both opens and junior all stars.  The preview events are not something anyone who has played AJGA event can consider. It meant for people who do not play.

 

If you are not exempt you basically have not gotten into any open events this year that was in the US.   A few these like Sergio did not have a qualifier.   Hence most of us are looking for a shot to play something.

 

Since there changed the Junior All star anyone who is 15 and above basically can't play those anymore so all we have is opens to play.

 

There was 1 qualifier in Texas late march  which is the KJ Joi in San Antonio.

 

Fair enough until you reliaze that they preference 2023 and 2024 (who shouldn't need qualifiers) and kids who have not played AJGA which is also based on how far you live from the tournament.  So basically no chance to get in if you played a few events and are 2025 or 2026 not living in Texas.

 

So April doesn't look much better because innisbrook is just as bad as the earlier tournaments and you need to be exempt.

 

So basically I am looking at may at the earliest to play a qualifier and hope to do well for some extra stars so my kid can 80 or so to get in. However  may is bad from a school perspective to travel so it really means June.

 

Meanwhile the 12-14 group has been accumulating tons of stars playing AJGA all stars because those events are not much in demand.

 

It is what it is but basically the way they have it scheduled means those with a 2025 and 2026  don't have exemption and 50 stars  are going to have to hope for a good late July early august in 1 or 2 tournaments to not start this race again.

 

You would think if you had 50 stars you be good enough win and be exempt. however the reality is this helps younger kids who are winning against there younger peers play ajga events at the expense of older kids. (remember older kids stars expire as they get older so those same kids who do not win will be just like the older kids in a few years so this will be new norm if you haven't won when they are 15)

 

Lots of good players out there that are 16-18 with 20 or more stars are basically  not going to get a chance to play more AJGA tournaments and win one because there not playing enough.

 

People may not agrees with me but that is how I see it has turned out.  It make you question why bother because I could play amateur events with better college players instead of chasing stars to play with  a tour that they basically want to middle schools kids to play.

Edited March 1, 2023 by tiger1873

[Petethreeput]

22 hours ago, heavy_hitter said:

I don't disagree with you.  The HS sport model is antiquated, but will not change.  Many think that HS athletics help keep kids off the street for a few years and helps give the kid a chance with proper role models.  The longer you can keep them with supervision, the better it is for the kid.

 

If I answered your question completely we would be getting way off topic.  Education is no longer about making good grades, but public educators giving grades just to make sure they pass.  Part of the money from the State comes from graduation rates.  Teachers fail the kids then school districts lose money.  Everything is tied together.  Kids playing sports tend to do better in the classroom which is a win win for the schools.  More supervision for them is a good thing in educators eyes.

Interestingly, this is what I did my M. Ed on.

 

To date, and mine was never published, but they support your supposition athletes do better than none, but it isn't causal.  Here is why:  Generally an athlete would be more competitive in nature and be more driven by peers to try and outperform others.  There is also the external pressure of keeping up grades to participate, which other kids don't have.  Then there is the last of your points, which is, a teach might be more apt to bump up a grade to an athlete for a variety of reasons including, he plays X and is a good kid, or we need to win, the coach called, etc.  And lastly, the primary factor in academic success isn't grades, or SAT score, or anything else but a familial SES level.  In many instances, the kids who continue onto to play high school sports had the financial wherewithal to play competitively AND they don't have to work during the schoolyear to assist the family finances.

 

Now, what i did (much to my professors dismay) was called a friend of mine who was legal for the district.  The names were removed, but she asked the district to pull all the kids who played one sport only.  Winter wasn't considered since the semester changed in the middle of the season.  I compared GPAs for students in season and out of season, separated by sport, and separated by gender.

 

All sports (except football) had higher GPA's in season than out, which is not the general line for those who want to do away with HS athletics.  Again, there is no causal relationship because I wasn't permitted to interview kids, but it is interesting that when confronted with more time their GPA dropped.

 

Total aside, but is HS sports a bad thing?  Who knows?  

Edited March 1, 2023 by Petethreeput

[Hawkeye77]

6 hours ago, tiger1873 said:

 

I wouldn't call it the worst thing in the world. But a national program for junior golf will make the landscape very different.

 

Basically from what I understand from seeing other countries is tends to make Junior Golf tournaments less important.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but Today I see junior golf basically for all kids under 18.   The kids 16-18 play the biggest and best tournaments of their junior career.

 

If there is a national program the Age of junior golf effectively stops at 15 and by 12-13 you have a mad dash to   get your kid noticed. By the time the kids get 16-18   most of the junior tournaments will be basically glorified country club tournaments. There will be a few big tournament but there will be a few chosen to play them.

 

How I see this is people with younger kids who had early success will love a change where they basically get rewarded early.   However those of us with older kids have seen first hand how a 12-13 year golfer change and the ones you though would be winning at 16 are not even close.

 

Junior Golf goes though a lot changes at one time there big tournaments like Optimist you had to attend that now  is one a lot people avoid.  

 

I think we all know Junior Golf is basically in transition after Covid. I think it will be a year or two before anyone can really say what direction thing take.

 

I'm pleasantly surprised by the tone and "thought out" nature of your response, not that you need my affirmation.  I'm still reading up, and interested, but totally outside looking in at this stage of my life.  I care about the game and I care about participation, so this concept has my attention and will be interested in the thoughts of folks actually dealing with juniors who may be affected and genuinely so.

 

Generalities about what school districts do and how grades lead to state funding (not true as a general rule across the US) and drawing lines in the sand or making value judgments about what pros should charge or their standard of living or what course do or don't do or should do, I'm not finding helpful in sorting out the root of the issues, but I'm sure some of those issues relate to individual experiences, and not saying they aren't valid, but seems to detract a bit from the discussion, just IMO.  

[golfortennis]

58 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

Total aside, but is HS sports a bad thing?  Who knows?  

 

It's a bad thing when so much of the budget goes to them.  HH said that it's usually facility upkeep, but what he doesn't realize is that HS athletic facilities in the US are absolute Taj Mahals in comparison to the rest of the world.  I can't think of many universities here in Canada that have facilities as good as the average high school in the US. 

 

It gets even worse when you get to the college level, because now you have all of this that less than 2 % of the student body at many schools can't even access, even though they are paying for a lot of it.  At least high schools don't have that part of it, but how many other things that frankly are more in line with what a school should be doing, can't happen because the budget is eaten up by athletics related things?

 

And don't get me started on the whole "since this guy can get to the QB" or "this guy can score 30 a night", he has to go through the calculus charade because "you have to play in college before you go pro."  

[Petethreeput]

42 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

It's a bad thing when so much of the budget goes to them.  HH said that it's usually facility upkeep, but what he doesn't realize is that HS athletic facilities in the US are absolute Taj Mahals in comparison to the rest of the world.  I can't think of many universities here in Canada that have facilities as good as the average high school in the US. 

 

It gets even worse when you get to the college level, because now you have all of this that less than 2 % of the student body at many schools can't even access, even though they are paying for a lot of it.  At least high schools don't have that part of it, but how many other things that frankly are more in line with what a school should be doing, can't happen because the budget is eaten up by athletics related things?

 

And don't get me started on the whole "since this guy can get to the QB" or "this guy can score 30 a night", he has to go through the calculus charade because "you have to play in college before you go pro."  

I realize my point tended to be a non-sequitor, but I do believe high school athletics has a place in all of this.  And not just academically.  The first thought is, and I agree with @heavy_hitter, the USGA picking winners and losers will be a detriment to a larger number of children growing to excel in the game.

 

I also think HS sports has a place for those who are not all in on a sport but enjoy competing and the cameraderie, but this number will be diminished by the USGA picking certain kids to the detriment of other kids.  And my prior glib mention of Tony Finau plays in here.  For the kids who keep playing low cost high school sports because they cannot afford the more expensive AGFA or the USGA tournaments will still have a place to play and could become the next phenom.  But, and this is where it gets a little dicey, golf is an expensive sport, so while HS golf may be less expensive, it is still a pay to play (at least in my area) so even then some kids are getting left behind.

 

Ultimately, the USGA will chart its own path, but certainly in many of the other sports in which the national body has attempted to take control the results have been less than stellar.

[Bizzle80]

4 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Bring more things under their control. 

 

Expand the bureaucracy.

 

Expand the items they can shout about doing "great things" about.

 

The only thing I won't say is they are looking to make money on this.  They will pay too many very inflated salaries for that too happen, and as stated before, they need to spend money.  But don't underestimate the vanity and ego behind this.  Once again, I ask :  what problem are they solving? 

 

Again, I question the argument you are trying to make. I don't really believe anywhere in the released interviews and press about the USGA's goals, does it mention or even suggest they want to 'control' junior golf.

 

Building a National Team and creating grants for golfers/athletes is not the same as 'controlling' junior golf. For whatever issues AJGA or lower level junior golf might have, the USGA is not remotely suggesting they are going to try and replace those organizations...merely create grants for certain juniors to help support their already existing plans - or make available options that might not have been possible.

 

Even if they want to champion and shout out the "great things" they are doing, generally thats in the interest of raising more money for them to funnel back into golf. 

 

And if you want to talk about problem solving...there is a problem. We should have a National Team pipeline. Other sports and other countries do and no reason for US golf not to have. The other problem is potentially identifying athletes that maybe don't have the resources to play a lot of regional/national events...and creating grants for them to maybe access.

 

We all are in this little bubble of well educated (when it comes to junior golf options) parents. Not every parent knows about the options in junior golf. I have met several families that have talented and athletic kids at the early stages of golf playing with adult equipment, no clue about junior golf tours/events, coaching etc. - and these are usually parents that PLAY a ton of golf. Maybe the USGA expands the press and information about junior programs and gets a few more kids the right start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RobS]

1 hour ago, golfortennis said:

 

It's a bad thing when so much of the budget goes to them.  HH said that it's usually facility upkeep, but what he doesn't realize is that HS athletic facilities in the US are absolute Taj Mahals in comparison to the rest of the world.  I can't think of many universities here in Canada that have facilities as good as the average high school in the US. 

 

It gets even worse when you get to the college level, because now you have all of this that less than 2 % of the student body at many schools can't even access, even though they are paying for a lot of it.  At least high schools don't have that part of it, but how many other things that frankly are more in line with what a school should be doing, can't happen because the budget is eaten up by athletics related things?

 

And don't get me started on the whole "since this guy can get to the QB" or "this guy can score 30 a night", he has to go through the calculus charade because "you have to play in college before you go pro."  

I can't speak for the entire country but high schools in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast spend around 3% of their budgets on athletics.  Shortfalls on covering expenses are backstopped by 'boosters' (parents, local businesses, etc).  For many school districts, fields and gyms are revenue producers as they are rented for use outside of the regular high school athletics usage.

 

Colleges are a different story and much harder to get a clear pictures beyond the big programs.  If you have a top 25 football program, your entire athletic program is self sustaining and in most cases profitable.  Beyond that it's all over the board with most schools not publicly disclosing the cost of athletics.  The NCAA does disclose that across 1,100+ member institutions, a third of the expenses are covered by the institution on average with the balance coming from revenue and student fees that are athletic department specific.

[tiger1873]

34 minutes ago, Bizzle80 said:

 

Again, I question the argument you are trying to make. I don't really believe anywhere in the released interviews and press about the USGA's goals, does it mention or even suggest they want to 'control' junior golf.

 

Building a National Team and creating grants for golfers/athletes is not the same as 'controlling' junior golf. For whatever issues AJGA or lower level junior golf might have, the USGA is not remotely suggesting they are going to try and replace those organizations...merely create grants for certain juniors to help support their already existing plans - or make available options that might not have been possible.

 

Even if they want to champion and shout out the "great things" they are doing, generally thats in the interest of raising more money for them to funnel back into golf. 

 

And if you want to talk about problem solving...there is a problem. We should have a National Team pipeline. Other sports and other countries do and no reason for US golf not to have. The other problem is potentially identifying athletes that maybe don't have the resources to play a lot of regional/national events...and creating grants for them to maybe access.

 

We all are in this little bubble of well educated (when it comes to junior golf options) parents. Not every parent knows about the options in junior golf. I have met several families that have talented and athletic kids at the early stages of golf playing with adult equipment, no clue about junior golf tours/events, coaching etc. - and these are usually parents that PLAY a ton of golf. Maybe the USGA expands the press and information about junior programs and gets a few more kids the right start.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to go back and read the press releases from the USGA.

 

The funding part is not going effect most people here unless you are poor and can’t afford tournaments.

 

The real issue is they are planning on changing how junior golf is structured in the us.

 

I don’t know what you think about the USGA but they do have a big say in how golf operates and have a lot influence.

 

Those who have younger kids  2027 and older when everything said and done you play what makes sense.  
 

Those with older kids have to be ready for changes. Which is I assume if your not one of the 50 kids chosen this year forger about getting into certain big junior tournaments the coach feels important.

 

 

 

 

[kekoa]

On 2/27/2023 at 6:41 AM, heavy_hitter said:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

That is a good thing you have going.  I could only wish the coaches here have a similar program to that, but truth be told it would never happen.  The top jr. coaches in my parts all charge $200 or more per an hour and are booked solid for months out, which includes time away at PGA tournaments etc.   I'm sure the PGA guys have some set amount paid per month with no minimum or maximum, but the number is probably $2-3,000 with maybe a built in stipend to cover travel and hotel, etc.   This is just speculation as most instructors don't divulge this type of information, which is fully understandable.   

[DArnie]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:59 AM, golfortennis said:

 

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

 "Daly-Donofrio is optimistic that it will work toward creating a more diverse landscape in professional golf, both by directly funding players of less typical backgrounds and by whatever influence those players bring to bear if they reach the highest levels of the sport."

Seems like you might have to meet certain requirements. Sounds like a corporate social program.

[Oddis]

“Expanding the game” has become code for “selecting candidates based on criteria that have nothing to do with ability.”

[leezer99]

9 hours ago, kekoa said:

That is a good thing you have going.  I could only wish the coaches here have a similar program to that, but truth be told it would never happen.  The top jr. coaches in my parts all charge $200 or more per an hour and are booked solid for months out, which includes time away at PGA tournaments etc.   I'm sure the PGA guys have some set amount paid per month with no minimum or maximum, but the number is probably $2-3,000 with maybe a built in stipend to cover travel and hotel, etc.   This is just speculation as most instructors don't divulge this type of information, which is fully understandable.   

 

Plus upwards of 8% of tournament winnings.

[heavy_hitter]

9 hours ago, DArnie said:

 "Daly-Donofrio is optimistic that it will work toward creating a more diverse landscape in professional golf, both by directly funding players of less typical backgrounds and by whatever influence those players bring to bear if they reach the highest levels of the sport."

Seems like you might have to meet certain requirements. Sounds like a corporate social program.

Tiger doesn't even move the needle in junior golf in that segment/demographic of the population.  If it did, there would be more African American's playing golf at the HS, Collegiate, and Professional levels.  Sadly, there is not.  Throwing more money at it isn't the solution.

[Mike_C]

This is a huge waste of resources.  It may just be my opinion, but the USGA should in no way be funding to develop elite players.  Funding to help  get kids on the local muni? Yes. Teach basics and etiquette? Yes. Help small and  rural schools and inner city schools develop golf programs? Yes.  Etc.

 

The USGA holds championships to identify the elite players, not to develop them.

 

$200 for an hour of coaching for one player?  That's probably 20 9 hole rounds for some young kids, maybe a whole summer of 9 hole rounds for one kid, get him hooked on the game and get a golfer for life, I don't care if he or she ever breaks par, or even 80 for 18 holes, but get them to love the game.  That is "growing the game", what they are proposing is stuff to make the USGA feel good about itself, and probably line the pockets of their buddies.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Mike_C
Spelling

[RmoorePE]

Been a great thread so far.

 

I agree with most posters above. Growing the game would be a helluva lot more impactful if the USGA pushed more money into schools. As posted  many high schools are still pay to play for the golf team, that is an easy target that would be far more impactful to growing the game in my mind. Outfit HS teams with extra sets of decent equipment, and pay for the kids in poor urban and rural settings to play/travel to practice. 

 

It would also make finding the diamond in the rough net much wider.

 

The current outline is just feel good corporate mumbo jumbo, where the likely outcome is the same with or without it.

 

 

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, RmoorePE said:

Been a great thread so far.

 

I agree with most posters above. Growing the game would be a helluva lot more impactful if the USGA pushed more money into schools. As posted  many high schools are still pay to play for the golf team, that is an easy target that would be far more impactful to growing the game in my mind. Outfit HS teams with extra sets of decent equipment, and pay for the kids in poor urban and rural settings to play/travel to practice. 

 

It would also make finding the diamond in the rough net much wider.

 

The current outline is just feel good corporate mumbo jumbo, where the likely outcome is the same with or without it.

 

 

 

I disagree with this.  I understand your motivation/intent, but it needs to be done younger.  By the time you reach high school, you need to be able to play in order to be on the team.  You aren't picking up beginners.  And if you are giving equipment to kids who can play, guess who those kids are?  Those who have the money to get their kids playing.

 

Should have nothing to do with schools, IMHO.  In no small part because there will be a layer of bureaucracy woven into it to "properly administer" whatever comes in, but mainly because it needs to target kids younger than high school to get out there, which is not something grammar schools are or should be in the business of doing.  On top of all the other reasons I've mentioned about not tying sports to schools. 

 

 

[Movingday]

On 2/27/2023 at 10:24 AM, heavy_hitter said:

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.

Yeah it would be nice for someone to decide to “grow the game” in the middle class! 

[leezer99]

2 hours ago, Movingday said:

Yeah it would be nice for someone to decide to “grow the game” in the middle class! 

 

Just like they grow the game in motocross, polo or sailing?

[Movingday]

40 minutes ago, leezer99 said:

 

Just like they grow the game in motocross, polo or sailing?

No idea. Just like the sound of it lol

[Medson]

https://www.amateurgolf.com/golf-tournament-news/29772/Amateur-Golf-Podcast--USGA-Player-Development-Program-with-Heather-Daly-Donofrio

 

A 45-minute interview. Not much more insights, but USGA does seem to go after this (ambiguous & ambitious) problem methodically. 

[BIG STU]

On 3/1/2023 at 11:27 AM, Bizzle80 said:

 

What do you suppose the USGA's nefarious purpose secretly is here?

As always to grow their pocketbook

[Medson]

Zambri Named Coach of U.S. National Development Program

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/09/zambri-named-coach-of-u-s--national-development-program.html